Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Riverwolf]

Well said and courageously admitted.
Many Universities have a “Faculty of Arts and Science“ and science sometimes follows art. We are all wired differently, but more that anything else that wiring should include a reasonable understanding of natural science. Natural sciences are those branches of science that seek to elucidate the rules that govern the natural world through scientific methods.

And I'm 100% behind that.

I believe in Gods, but I don't make any positive claims that they absolutely exist. I'm an agnostic theist, if you will. ^_^ I don't use that belief as a crutch against what science reports: if science reports something that runs in conflict with something I believe, I will err on the side of science.

Example: a yoga teacher taught that sleeping on the back in a specific position was the best to prevent pressure from being exerted on the heart. I did some looking into that, but I found nothing from scientific sources that supported that. So, I erred on that research rather than on what the yoga teacher taught.

 

[1robin]

What's bizarre is how little you know about Evolution...

Once again there is infinitely less information at your disposal than is needed to enable you to make this judgment, that has been provided by me here even if it was true. You have absolutely no way to know how much I know about evolution. The fact you claim to know anyway is intellectually dishonest and this tactic is apparently an epidemic on your side. I have not laid out what I believe about evolution in any detail so far. There is no value what so ever in your statement here and emoticons won’t make a case that you couldn’t on your own. Try again.

 

[1robin]

You sure are confused and confusing. Anyhow, your so-called arguments are not. What Harry Potter has to do with anything eludes me. It is a work of fiction and apparently another one of your many red herrings.

That is the first time I have ever mentioned Harry Potter. I however have had to field the exact same claim coming from your side over and over (in fact that is exactly why it occurred to me, I saw it twice yesterday). So whatever your complaints against the comparison are they would apply infinitely more so to your sides use and origination of it. In fact without going into why I used it here I will agree with you as I have used the exact same argument against the claim the dozens of times it has been used as a comparison with the Bible. Consider it withdrawn.

So, just to pick out some random points of your ramble, here are some responses.
Why should Dawkins have any effect on faith? He is not a preacher, he does not want to convert, he simply responds to statements regarding scientific inquiry. So why are you still beating this long dead horse to death? You do realize that he is a scientist and as such not obligated to lie about issues pertaining to science just to make religious people feel better. He is not a biblical scholar who is agenda driven to “prove” religious belief to be based in science.

You have made my case for me. I said I wish he would not attempt to impact something he is so unqualified to attempt. You seem to concur. The case breaker is the fact, he does so of his own accord anyway. The issues are the most profound in human history and for the same reasons you site he should not muddy the waters with his incompetence yet he does anyway. Even before I was a believer I had enough respect for the issues and a less than omniscient view of myself so that I never attempted to argue against another persons faith, especially as incompetantly as he does.

How can you judge what his audience thinks or feels like? Those who accept his statements as factual, do just that. He is not a cult figure for any atheist—we don’t have cults. He is only one voice among many, albeit a public one. So what? That does not make him a cult figure like you make him out to be.

I will illustrate this one final time. He has rightfully gained status as an authority figure in biology. That is just fine. The problem arises when that competence is assumed by ignorant people to apply outside of biology and where his claims never merit such faith. Have I ever used the word cult and his name together? If so I withdraw it and substitute what I have stated here. It is not complicated and is very common and irrefutable.

In your zeal to make it appear as if xtianity is not rife with mythology—all religions are—you make assertions that are simply overwrought and unsubstantiated.

Another claim to absolute knowledge without a fraction of the sufficient evidence needed. It is therefore your burden of proof so lets have it, please.

What difference does it make if the bible has been studied regarding its historical content and or its religious claims? It is a religious text with myths, hard to proof historical information, and plenty of agenda driven letters, prophecies, and such. It is just like any other religions’ scripture. None of this has anything to do with Dawkins, again

. I did not say studied. I said the most scrutinized book in human history. In every court room and historical study on Earth what can be verified is used to establish the reliability of what can't be. If you can't see the obvious logic in that it is because you do not want to and my providing the greatest legal scholars in history to affirm it will not help so I won't bother.

The title of the thread asks if Dawkins is a good scientist. Isn’t that up to his peers to assert or deny? Rather than you who’s primary goal is to make him into some kind of demon who haunts xtianity?

If you will review the thread you will see that I have not once said anything other than he is a competent scientist in biology. That being the case there is nothing further to debate and I cannot kill sufficient time and as this is a religious forum I instead point out the simple fact that he has had a net negative effect on it. It is only efforts to defend the indefensible that have drawn out that issue further.

It is you who insists that he has to provide proof that your god does not exist.

I have never once said, posted, implied, or thought that. Yet another claim to knowledge that you do not have. The burden of proof is on you again yet I will not ask for what does not exist.

He does not, you need to prove that one exists, and since you insist that we take it on faith and he says that it cannot be proven then I guess the onus is on you.

This makes no sense and what makes even less is that I expected it to.

You sound as if creationism is an accepted fact,

Once again I do not think I have used the word creationism a single time. You are batting a thousand on straw men creation.

that we all have to buy into it, and that Dawkins and all other atheists need to prove that your imaginary world is real.

Nor have I said either of these. This appears to be a compulsion of yours.

Here is a news flash: We don’t have to do this since we do not believe it. Creationism makes no sense, your argument regarding cause and regression is beside the point. Whatever argument for creationism you have is beside the point. We are talking about science, not blind faith; your logical fallacies notwithstanding.

As this conclusion is based on a dishonest premise there is no need to refute it.

You state: That is just plain dumb. In order to know that an explanation is the best explanation it is not necessary to explain it. This is philosophy 101 and anyone who is unaware of something this basic will have a negative effect on the debate

Are you serious? And you question Dawkin’s credentials as a scientist because you confuse him with an apologist?

Good night nurse. This is a basic fact of philosophy. I have watched every philosophic debate on religion I can find. I have most of their transcripts. I have read many of the great philosophic works of history. Not a single atheist, agnostic, or opposing scholar has ever questioned or disagreed with this simple fact of logic and deduction. This fact is well known to high school students. If a man either competent enough or arrogant enough to venture into a professional arena where souls are possibly at stake I would hope he would at least understand this basic concept. It is more diabolical to wander into a religious debate where souls are at stake than to practice medicine when only our body is one the line if someone is that incompetent and none of this has anything what so ever to do with apologetics, and I have never questioned his credentials in the lab. You seem to invent an argument you wish me to have made to enable an irrational counter argument that for some reason you also wish to make.

 

[Skeptisch]

I believe in Gods, but I don't make any positive claims that they absolutely exist.

And an atheist should not make absolute claims that they don’t exist. However he can point out that there is, so far, no scientific evidence for any God. But should such evidence appear at anytime science will apply its skeptical methods for confirmation or rejection.

 

[Riverwolf]

And an atheist should not make absolute claims that they don’t exist. However he can point out that there is, so far, no scientific evidence for any God. But should such evidence appear at anytime science will apply its skeptical methods for confirmation or rejection.

As it should, as I accept that there is no evidence.

I'm making a leap of faith. ^_^

 

[Skeptisch]

I'm making a leap of faith. ^_^

I am making a leap to beach and sun for a couple of weeks. Cheers. :run:

 

[1robin]

Stupidity not so much, ignorance definitely.
“The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. Of course, excellent organizations already exist for raising funds and deploying them in service of reason, science and enlightenment values. But the money that these organizations can raise is dwarfed by the huge resources of religious foundations such as the Templeton Foundation, not to mention the tithe-bloated, tax-exempt churches”.
-- Richard Dawkins
quoted from the press release, “The Cydonia Group Declares War On Religion” (December 15, 2006)
“It really comes down to parsimony, economy of explanation. It is possible that your car engine is driven by psychokinetic energy, but if it looks like a petrol engine, smells like a petrol engine and performs exactly as well as a petrol engine, the sensible working hypothesis is that it is a petrol engine. Telepathy and possession by the spirits of the dead are not ruled out as a matter of principle. There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in UFOs. One day it may be happen. But on grounds of probability it should be kept as an explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than routinely weak evidence before we should believe it. If you hear hooves clip-clopping down a London street, it could be a zebra or even a unicorn, but, before we assume that it's anything other than a horse, we should demand a certain minimal standard of evidence.”
-- Richard Dawkins
in "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder," The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, BBC1 Television (12 November 1996)

When very many of the most brilliant, well educated, and elite leading members of every field of academics in history have been believers, claims of ignorance or stupidity say much more about the one making them than their target. I have no problem and even enjoy the challenge of a competent argument against God or the Bible, yet claims of ignorance and/or stupidity concerning faith are just depressing and indicate further discussion with a person making the insinuation will be a waste of my time. If you were attempting to make Dawkin's view point more benevolent the articles titles betrayed you. "War on religion and delusion" are not an indication he is a dispassionate and unbiased scholar responsibly discussing the facts of the case. It indicates he has an agenda that he most of the time recognizes must be kept behind a facade of scholarly discourse but driven by a rabid arrogance so great that it betrays him and shows up in places like I have indicated and countless others. I dislike and disagree with Hitchens but at least Hitchens honestly indicated he hated God. I will concede that at least the very small body of the quotes you provided indicated he at least publically claimed ignorance more of a contributor than stupidity but that is little consolation given what has said in other places and the titles.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am making a leap to beach and sun for a couple of weeks. Cheers. :run:

Have fun. ^_^

 

[Ouroboros]

Once again there is infinitely less information at your disposal than is needed to enable you to make this judgment, that has been provided by me here even if it was true.

So wrong. Just so wrong.

You have absolutely no way to know how much I know about evolution.

Actually, you're claims and statements about Evolution is revealing what you don't know about it.

 

[1robin]

So wrong. Just so wrong.

And you so compatantly and suffeciently illustrated this by not giving a single example or reason. A simple flawed decleration has no explanitory power and therefore no worth that justifies its construction.

Actually, you're claims and statements about Evolution is revealing what you don't know about it.

Since I have made virtually none concerning it and you wish that to be the case to the extent that reason and facts are necessary casualties in the effort, I am not suprised at this eroneous conclusion. I am out of time. Have a good afternoon.

 

[Ouroboros]

And you so compatantly and suffeciently illustrated this by not giving a single example or reason. A simple flawed decleration has no explanitory power and therefore no worth that justifies its construction.


Since I have made virtually none concerning it and you wish that to be the case to the extent that reason and facts are necessary casualties in the effort, I am not suprised at this eroneous conclusion. I am out of time. Have a good afternoon.

So you persist in your claim that Evolution is "one that does not have a single observable example".

Well, you're on my ignore list now.

 

[Simurgh]

snip because we have argued that before and this is just more of the same redundant stuff

so here are the highlights, since it's always the sam old sam old.

Ok, fine you watch philosophy and such. And your point? You still argue the same thing; Dawkins is wrong because he is not a theologian and that is why he should not answere people with a religious agenda. My point is—and yes, I said that over and over again too, he is a scientist and speaks as such. If this affronts religious people who have a vested interest in maintaining their make-belief world, then they should not ask him about the existence of god. That’s all that there ever was to this almost debate.

You try to make this into some argument over legal opinions, and his “incompetence” in theology. Has he ever stated that he is one? Well, then I guess he does not worry about souls either. And, as far as it goes, he does understand the basics of xtianity. Again, he never claimed to be a theologian, why religious people want to debate him is beyond me, since they never win any ground.


And if you and others are so worried about souls, then maybe you ought to consider that if there are actually such things as souls, then they are at risk everywhere all the time anyhow and Dawkins certainly does nothing to further their demise any more than anything/anyone else does.

If faith is such a brittle, fragile thing that the opinions and statements of one man can shatter it, then that faith was not much to begin with. Those who cannot deal with reality ought not listen to him speak, or read his books.

You go out from the premise that gods are real, yet you cannot prove it other than to say that 200 years ago some legal scholars agreed that he ought to exist. Again, what of it? Why do I have to offer proof that god does not exist? What other prove do you need other than the fact that there is no god to be seen, heard, observed, or otherwise experienced. You insist there is one, it insist that there is not. Impasse. Dawkins cannot be blamed for that.

 

[Warren Clark]

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

What is your opinion? Please

What a loaded statement.

Lets look up what a scientist is...
then go to the university and see what Dawkins does for a living...
then compare the definition to the work of Dawkins.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

When very many of the most brilliant, well educated, and elite leading members of every field of academics in history have been believers, claims of ignorance or stupidity say much more about the one making them than their target.

This is not a logical argument. Many bright people believed the sun rotated the earth and the earth was flat. Your argument is that if someone believed it that was elite or well educated than believing as they did means they could not have been ignorant? Everyone can be ignorant of things they didn't know right? If we didn't prove the earth circles the sun than well educated elite people who believe the sun circled the earth were ignorant correct?

I have no problem and even enjoy the challenge of a competent argument against God or the Bible, yet claims of ignorance and/or stupidity concerning faith are just depressing and indicate further discussion with a person making the insinuation will be a waste of my time.

Which god? Which holy text? You are saying bible so I could assume Yhwh but even that religion which is historically very new has so many various interpretations that also in many cases disagree on almost everything that could be considered important. And even that new religion competes with older religions and no religions. Are you arguing those that believe in another god or bible are ignorant and/or stupid because they don't share your belief which was also held by many elite and educated people? What if their beliefs were also held by elite and educated people? Is this an impasse? How many religions are there and how much more important is your personal belief compared to another's conflicting personal belief?

 

[1robin]

so here are the highlights, since it's always the sam old sam old.

Who is Sam Old Sam?

Ok, fine you watch philosophy and such. And your point? You still argue the same thing; Dawkins is wrong because he is not a theologian and that is why he should not answer people with a religious agenda. My point is—and yes, I said that over and over again too, he is a scientist and speaks as such. If this affronts religious people who have a vested interest in maintaining their make-belief world, then they should not ask him about the existence of god. That’s all that there ever was to this almost debate

Dawkins is wrong because his arguments are very bad and unsound. His not being a theologian is incidental. Would you consider it valuable or profitable if a theologian who was a scientific idiot challenged science using theology? I hear resentment of that same exact thing from secular people constantly. If you are incompetent in a field your input will have a net negative effect on it, especially when competence in another field is transferred to this one where it does not belong. Nothing more is necessary to illustrate this.

You try to make this into some argument over legal opinions, and his “incompetence” in theology. Has he ever stated that he is one? Well, then I guess he does not worry about souls either. And, as far as it goes, he does understand the basics of xtianity. Again, he never claimed to be a theologian, why religious people want to debate him is beyond me, since they never win any ground.

I can agree or suspend my complaint when he is actually requested by a theologian. That is not on him. However he does plenty on his own initiative and for monetary gain that is censurable for me personally. He also seems to turn down debates with the more competant theologians and philosophers many times. I have not argued about legal opinion. I do not even think there is such a concept.

And if you and others are so worried about souls, then maybe you ought to consider that if there are actually such things as souls, then they are at risk everywhere all the time anyhow and Dawkins certainly does nothing to further their demise any more than anything/anyone else does.

I have no idea what that meant but there is no question that if Christianity is true Dawkins has acted against the welfare of souls in general.

If faith is such a brittle, fragile thing that the opinions and statements of one man can shatter it, then that faith was not much to begin with. Those who cannot deal with reality ought not listen to him speak, or read his books.

I have ever said or even implied that he has shattered anything. I have submitted that for a person on the outside looking in at faith that Dawkins only obscures the issue true or false? I can't keep saying the same thing only for it to be dismissed and substituted with anything thought to allow for a counter claim. If I was a non-believer I would not benefit from Dawkins efforts in theology either. He just takes a very complex subject and obscures it.

You go out from the premise that gods are real, yet you cannot prove it other than to say that 200 years ago some legal scholars agreed that he ought to exist. Again, what of it? Why do I have to offer proof that god does not exist? What other prove do you need other than the fact that there is no god to be seen, heard, observed, or otherwise experienced. You insist there is one, it insist that there is not. Impasse. Dawkins cannot be blamed for that.

Yes I make a very reasonable evidenced based deduction (which has led me to personal proof). The same judgment made by a large percentage of the most intelligent scholars in history (in evidence, science, testimony, history, etc...). However I do not fault say: Shabirr Alli, Michael Shermer, Dennet, or even Hitchens etc... because even though I disagree with them they ask the right questions and for the most part make reasonable contentions. Dawkins does not. That is why I wish he would get back in the lab where he can contribute. An example would be that when in a debate he was asked to prove how he knew the eye evolved. He literally drew a cartoon and said there, proof. The issue was worse off (even a biological one) for his input. There is something off putting about your dire need to defend a biologist’s ability to argue theology. I would not support Billy Grahams ability to argue string theory. There is something almost reverential suggested by what you are doing. This discussion is not really getting anywhere. The fact is the issue true or false is worse off for his involvment. If you wish to defend his ability to obscure the most important questions in history for some bizarre emotional reason I do not think I could dissuade you

 

[1robin]

This is not a logical argument. Many bright people believed the sun rotated the earth and the earth was flat. Your argument is that if someone believed it that was elite or well educated than believing as they did means they could not have been ignorant? Everyone can be ignorant of things they didn't know right? If we didn't prove the earth circles the sun than well educated elite people who believe the sun circled the earth were ignorant correct?

Back up the fallacy train here. Fallacies are extremely over used by anti-Bible folks. They are almost crutches for the lack of a counter claim many times. It is indeed a fallacy to say X is true because a number of authorities believe it. That is not what I claimed. I said the issue is reasonable (not dismissible) or intellectually permissible and illustrated that by showing the most brilliant among us have been believers. I resent any one implying that faith is the result of ignorance or stupidity and I see it all the time from very arrogant people. I do not resent it because it is sarcastic and arrogant; I resent it because it is wrong. I discuss the issues that are discussed by competent men on both sides at the highest level and claims that a point I made is dismissible says more about the person claiming such than my point. BTW even though authority is a fallacy expert testimony is used in science and court rooms every single day so it is not much of a fallacy.

Which god? Which holy text? You are saying bible so I could assume Yhwh but even that religion which is historically very new has so many various interpretations that also in many cases disagree on almost everything that could be considered important.

Faith in the Biblical God goes back to prehistory and nothing date wise after that is certain. In fact Biblical faith has no challenger for age except possibly Hinduism or perhaps ancestor worship. http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Relative%20Ages%20of%20World%20Religions%20Timeline.pdf I would prove this but it is not important and have no idea why you included it here. It is just as much a fallacy to equate truth with age as truth with authority. Your other point is that there are different interpretations of some Bible doctrine. I guess we are to then give up declare God a fantasy turn out the light and go to sleep. The Bible contains more than 750,000 words concerning the most complex and profound issues in human history. If you expect agreement on all issues you might as well expect the lowering of government spending from Obama.

And even that new religion competes with older religions and no religions.

New compared to what? and who cares? Christianity is an extension of Judaism and goes back further than writing.

Are you arguing those that believe in another god or bible are ignorant and/or stupid because they don't share your belief which was also held by many elite and educated people?

I have not mentioned other religions but NO. I am saying they are wrong. It is normally only arrogant unbelievers that throw around stupidity labels.

What if their beliefs were also held by elite and educated people? Is this an impasse? How many religions are there and how much more important is your personal belief compared to another's conflicting personal belief?

I have no idea what conversation you are responding to. I never said anything about another religion and certainly never said anyone who does not believe what I do was stupid. Get back on the same page with me if you wish to continue this.

 

[Simurgh]

Who is Sam Old Sam?

Sorry, my “e” must have gotten stuck but it’s just the same old same old…

Dawkins is wrong because his arguments are very bad and unsound. His not being a theologian is incidental. Would you consider it valuable or profitable if a theologian who was a scientific idiot challenged science using theology? I hear resentment of that same exact thing from secular people constantly. If you are incompetent in a field your input will have a net negative effect on it, especially when competence in another field is transferred to this one where it does not belong. Nothing more is necessary to illustrate this.

You state this over and over again and yet there is not one instant when you can actually quote one of those unsound arguments. Just what exactly does he say that is unsound? You also mention over and over again that he should not open his mouth concerning religion since he is not a theologian. Well, then I guess all of us who are not need to stay out of that rarefied field and keep our mouths closed until we get special dispensation from you. Or are you not a theologian either and therefore need to keep your mouth shut too? Then again, maybe your problem is that Dawkins bases his answers on scientific evidence instead of waxing on poetically about some mystical whatever. You might notice that there is an easy solution for your problem. Don’t read his books and do not watch programs that use him on their discussion panel.

I can agree or suspend my complaint when he is actually requested by a theologian. That is not on him. However he does plenty on his own initiative and for monetary gain that is censurable for me personally. He also seems to turn down debates with the more competant theologians and philosophers many times. I have not argued about legal opinion. I do not even think there is such a concept.

So he gets paid for his time on TV, and people buy his books. What about it? Is this in the same league as all those tvevangelists who defraud their followers and make millions from people who have blind faith and are naïve enough to believe those so-called men of god who steal their money so they finance their proclivities for prostitutes and fine living?

I have no idea what that meant but there is no question that if Christianity is true Dawkins has acted against the welfare of souls in general.

Are those imaginary souls his problem, or should the people who think they have souls not worry about them themselves? Why lay that on Dawkins? He does not believe in xtianity, hence souls are not his problem.

I have ever said or even implied that he has shattered anything. I have submitted that for a person on the outside looking in at faith that Dawkins only obscures the issue true or false? I can't keep saying the same thing only for it to be dismissed and substituted with anything thought to allow for a counter claim. If I was a non-believer I would not benefit from Dawkins efforts in theology either. He just takes a very complex subject and obscures it.

Yes, you keep saying that, but what does he obscure and for whom?

Yes I make a very reasonable evidenced based deduction (which has led me to personal proof). The same judgment made by a large percentage of the most intelligent scholars in history (in evidence, science, testimony, history, etc...). However I do not fault say: Shabirr Alli, Michael Shermer, Dennet, or even Hitchens etc... because even though I disagree with them they ask the right questions and for the most part make reasonable contentions. Dawkins does not. That is why I wish he would get back in the lab where he can contribute. An example would be that when in a debate he was asked to prove how he knew the eye evolved. He literally drew a cartoon and said there, proof. The issue was worse off (even a biological one) for his input. There is something off putting about your dire need to defend a biologist’s ability to argue theology. I would not support Billy Grahams ability to argue string theory. There is something almost reverential suggested by what you are doing. This discussion is not really getting anywhere. The fact is the issue true or false is worse off for his involvment. If you wish to defend his ability to obscure the most important questions in history for some bizarre emotional reason I do not think I could dissuade you

OK, and still no evidence other than what you belief and your statements concerning that your beliefs are evidence. So far, the only emotional anything comes from you who insists that Dawkins is obscuring something, which you never name. You want to persuade by stating that you have evidence, so what is it? Dennet, Hitchens, AaronRa, and others all make their points, but you fixate on Dawkins because he actually bothers stating the obvious, there is no proof and no amount of arguing can produce it. Then he backs his assertions up with science and now he is persona non grata. Not because he is another atheist who thinks religion may be quaint, but just another coping mechanism. No, it’s because he has the ability to make people think past the philosophical aspects and just look around to see for themselves. There is no god and no legal expert who died 200 years ago can prove otherwise.

 

[atanu]

I doubt he has been in any lab much and has done much science either. I know this will inflame many but IMO, his science is limited to hypothesizing. His popularity is another matter, totally unrelated to his being a so called scientist.

I am voicing my view and no one should be inflamed.

He is a Fellow of the Royal Society. That doesn't happen without doing science of the highest calibre.

I take back my comments, noting however that there have been non-scientific fellows as well. Thanks.

 

[Warren Clark]

That is one strange statement. How can you compare a concept which has a trillion examples of it's necessary existence available every single day with one that does not have a single observable example and which has extraordinary problems against it's existence. The probabilities are not even remotely comparable. That was truly a very bizarre claim.

It wouldn't be so bizarre if you understood evolution...
Which it is clear that you don't.
Which is why I am trying to help you understand... =)
so if you wouldn't mind, it would be nice if you could cooperate and not call things you don't understand "bizarre" or "impossible". Because I can assure you, that there are some things in science that compared to this would make your head go in circles.
That is why we learn the basics first.

Officially anything with a probability of approx. greater than 1 in 10^50 in physics is considered zero and ignored. Probability for life coming from non-life is approx. 1 in 10^80. However this is not even the half of it. It would have to appear on the scene with a completely intact way to reproduce the first time or we would have to start over. That is not even the whole story. To even get a universe that would allow the formation of any kind of life parameters had to be accurate to one part in quantities far greater than for life from non-life and there are many of them. Not to mention these are contingent properties which means they are multiplicative. We are very quickly in numbers so absurd as to be meaningless.

Maybe in your book you have numbers that can be translated into an entirely different number (in this case 1/10^50 into 0 [nothing]) but in science a miscalculation like that cannot be accepted.
0 is actually not even a number, it is the absence of all probability.
In science and math, the difference is everything.


That difference, as I have been explaining, is the difference between life and death.

What planet is considered has no bearing on the numbers. The numbers apply to every planet anywhere.


How do you know? Do you have the first organism? I do not mind speculation in the least but call it what it is. Your conclusions are more a matter of faith based on less evidence than the Bible requires.

You are again making rash assumptions with out using your cognitive thinking skills that you were taught in school.
(Cognitive thinking skills are the skills that tell you that a square peg cannot fit into a round hole.)

I know that life began without a nucleus because life must have began in its most simplistic form. Just like I know that what goes up must come down on earth. (The same cognitive thinking skills are used to conclude through reason.)

When you can reproduce what you claim in a lab then and only then will it have even a potentially meaningful effect. I can invent possibilities all day long. What merit do they have?

Depends what findings and factual evidence you have to support such possibilities. I assure you, they will come under just as much scrutiny as evolution has in the scientific community. When a possibility holds together through all attempts of testing it, it will gain merit, but the testing will never stop. Scientists are relentless.

I was saying that since a Christian has access to this experience then the foundation for his faith may appear to be a sum greater than the total parts you may have access to and therefore does not hinge on a talking donkey. However there is a far greater chance that a donkey will talk than life will come from non-life even though both are vanishingly small. Yet you believe one and reject the other. That indicates your choice is based outside of fact.

Okay,
1.) Your "Christian Experience" is completely untestable. I could just as easily call you insane because you think some entity can hear your prayers.
It doesn't hold up in science or court.
2.) For that reason alone, the whole donkey nonsense is getting old.
A donkey cannot talk, its brain does not hold the necessary capacity to store language like that of a human being. Even if it could pronounce a syllable it wouldn't be considered talking because it wouldn't comprehend the sound it was making. So the bible is just ridiculous to even try to make the claim.
No there isn't the slightest possibility without it having a deformed head... and in which case it would create the suggestion for an entirely different species of donkey.

This is getting into a separate subject. You may find things that you do not think make sense in the Bible. That has nothing at all to do with his reality. I have heard many scientists say the moon should not exist by astrophysics principles yet it does. Besides that consider this. The intelligence gap between a finite fallible human and God would be greater than the gap between a termite and Isaac Newton. Just as the termite could not fathom everything Newton laid out we can't grasp what God may be doing. The Bible goes to great lengths to point out God intentionally acts in ways different than ours, constantly. As for examine what knowing the future would mean I gave it up as pointless years ago. You might as well contemplate infinity; our minds do not have the ability to comprehend either. If you wish to discuss you strange problems with doctrine please go to the “the right religion” thread and I will answer them there.

Actually there is a great difference between [MAN & GOD] and [ISAAC & TERMITE]

The termite works as a program. It feeds, reproduces, and dies. There is no sign of sentience.
As for humans, we work in culturally developed societies and interact cognitively with everything we come in contact with.
We personify things into "actions of God" so that they mean something more than just "random chance".
Termites do not have the capability of personifying events or understanding their own existence aside from their routine need to survive as living organism (eating, pooping, and reproducing) .

That cultural difference you over looked makes all the difference just like the 1/10^50 and 0 (nothing).

About what? If you are referring to the Bible then once again you are claiming to know what you have no way to know. The same is true about my or anyone’s faith.

its a joke. but seriously.
What we call "spiritual" are our feelings.
No joke, when I get drunk, I think I can tell the future.
My friends get mad at me because I insist that they will die if they don't do as I say. Its pretty funny.
Point is, just because you think its spiritual, it doesn't mean "spiritual"means anything. I feel pretty spiritual when I am drunk.

I did not say I know God did it. I said that God is the most reasonable hypothesis that we have. It at least should be considered equally with all the fantasies that exist on less evidence.

When you put on a label such as Christian, Muslim/Islam, etc. You are basically saying "god did it".
When you argue with a very sturdy theory like evolution, and dont have anything else than the beautifully packaged mess "intelligent design" you are saying "god did it"... all because you lack understanding the work that scientists have worked hard scrutinizing over for the past millennium.

You have veered into personal opinion which is fine but has no explanatory power.

Actually, answer me this, if you cannot see it and every reason given can be scientifically explained otherwise, why do you believe it?
I hear "my son is alive by the hands of god". I say "it was medical science that saved your son."
I hear "if you dont know what created the universe then it must be god". I say "then it must be Zeus or Apollo... or better yet it was an alien... or maybe it was a magic easter bunny."

There is no reason what so ever. NONE. Except ignorance. Which is, again, lack of knowledge and understanding. NONE. The definition of 0 (Zero).

Therefore its claims that micro evolution existed were far more remarkable than our modern scientists were. Same with germ theory, etc...

This is incoherent.

What does Hubris have to do with it? There are two primary theories here, God and spontaneous life. They tried the later and it failed miserably, that leaves the former as the most likely or would if preference and bias were not the actual motivation.

For the love of all that is Holy to you, DO NOT CALL IT SPONTANEOUS.
This is where you get it ALL WRONG.
It was by far NOT spontaneous. It took us BILLIONS of years to even get from a star to the most simplistic form of life.
I can promise you, it is far from spontaneous.
Your failure to understand is not our failure but your own.

 

[Warren Clark]

There is nothing here that is a comprehensive equality with genetics. This is the equivalent to Dawkin's cartoon drawing as an answer for proof that the eye evolved. He drew pictures and you typed some letters and call that proof. How is it that that you can then even suggest my faith is not far far more evidenced based than this stuff. Those letters do not even begin to address the complexity in a DNA chain that has billions of bits of data.

So all you see if freaking letters and a drawing?
You think I am here just typing for my leisure and Dawkins likes just drawing eye balls for the hell of it?
Its for education. Something that you don't care about no matter how simple we could possibly explain it and break it down for you to explain.
My brother who is in 4th grade could tell me exactly what I typed in and what Dawkins drew in detail.
Not because he is smarter than you, but because when he was taught this, he wanted to learn.
You obviously do not want to learn.
I do not understand why you are here on these forums.

I honestly thought we were here to learn from each other.
But no matter how much I try to teach how evolution works, you dont care because you would rather know nothing and believe in god, than make a fully educated guess.

All because you are scared of being wrong, so you cling to faith.

Do you understand how evolution works? It is not intentional, it does not want anything, and does not know anything.

This is where you ignorance shines through.
As I have told you and tried to break it down and teach you, you refuse to even want to understand.

LIFE WANTS TO SUCCEED. IT IS PROGRAMMED INTO US. IT IS WHAT MAKES OUR CELLS REPRODUCE SO THAT WE MAY LIVE.

[youtube]BxFvxKa-mWo [/youtube]