Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Simurgh]

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.




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]

I think, at this point some of us can agree that there is just nothing that will make people who feel the need to hide behind superstitions and platitudes to look around them and take note of the incongruities, absurdities, contradictions, and outright fantasies they believe in.

Solid scientific theories are misunderstood because some people do not understand what a scientific theory actually is, namely the explanation of the natural world and the known universes based on an accumulation of facts/evidence that have been repeatedly confiremed via empirical research and experimentation. Just because these people believe in myths they assume that a scientific theory is nothing but an equivalent of their mythology.

No argument, counterargument or assertion will sway them from their position of unreasonable insistence that the unobservable, untouchable, and eventually unidentifiable exists outside their heads and the stories they created to make their fantasies more palatable and imbue them with some semblance of “life”.

Their faith is an integral part of them and they cannot conceive of a world that is not ordered according to their superstitions. They need the assurances provided by their religious traditions because they are incapable of finding value in themselves and outside of the narrow confines of their religious beliefs, dogma, doctrine, and theological interpretations provided by their hierarchical structures.

Yes, they refuse to understand, because then their blinders would have to be taken off and their lives would be empty and scary. They have too much invested to think for themselves and so they don’t. Instead they condemn those who do because they think blind faith is useless dross and bask in the reflected glory of imaginary beings they invent to assuage their feelings of futility.

Let them have their illusions, I am better off without them and it is a waste of time arguing with people who suffer from delusions of grandeur just because they possess the ability to ignore facts and instead believe the stories invented thousands of years ago have some truth-value other than the occasional historical data and/or flicker of common sense disguised as religious mandate.

Our cells will thrive regardless and maybe one day we evolve, with the help of the occasional random mutations, beyond the need to explain the fact that people need delusions to feel safe in a world they do not want to understand..

 

[1robin]

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.

I said macro evolution and abiogenesis have no observable examples. You could ignore me anytime you wish. It does not require inventing positions I never claimed. Even the Bible said micro-evolution was true thousands of years before Darwin ever thought about it. So bury your head in the sand and excuse it my constructing straw men if you wish. Typical.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, my “e” must have gotten stuck but it’s just the same old same old…
You state this over and over again and yet there is not one instant when you can actually quote one of those unsound arguments.

It is the same old because what was true is still true. Until your side can produce any reason to abandon the claims then there is no need to do so. Are you down to only suggesting claims are false because of the frequency of use? In that case gravity should not exist either. Oh yes I can and have.

Just what exactly does he say that is unsound?

The one that is the most obviously wrong is insistence that if God is the first cause then what created God. This is philosophy 101 stuff and shows just how incompetent he can be outside his field.
1. God is posited as the uncaused first cause and questions about what caused the uncaused first cause are not just invalid they are stupid.
2. An eternal regression of causes would make it impossible to gain what you are attempting to explain.
3. To know that an explanation is the best explanation does not require that explanation to be explained. If it did an eternal regression would be need and since that is impossible no answer could be had for anything ever.
4. To suggest that the only known concept that identically lines up in every way with what the cause of the universe must be is instead not the cause without a scrap of evidence is biased and desperate. I do not expect to nor anyone to say that God is the proven cause but to deny that possibility based on preference is irrational and unscientific.

You also mention over and over again that he should not open his mouth concerning religion since he is not a theologian.

NO I did not. I said his input on the subject in a professional setting results in a net negative on it's resolution and I wish he would not do it. I never ever said he did not have the right to say anything. It is really remarkable how far you will go to mischaracterize something I have stated clearly over and over. In the service I protected his freedom but as a Christian I would prefer he didn't screw theology up as he does.

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.

Quote me single statement I have ever said that says, implies, or even suggests this. I will discuss this no further until you can, or until you stop mischaracterizing my claims in any way you wish. It is intellectually dishonest and renders the conversation meaningless.

 

[1robin]

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.

Oh no another predetermined Christians are too stupid to know how brilliant evolutionists are, person. We have no spoke about evolution to a fraction of the extent necessary to make the determination you have here. You have absolutely no idea what I know about evolution and so your insinuation anyway is intellectually dishonest. I have a math degree and studied probability quite a lot, and know very well the probability factor that can be assigned to gravity and the one that can be assigned to macroevolution or abiogenesis ore polar opposites. Claims they are equal enough to allow comparison is absurd and says much more about your understanding than mine. Gravity has no known exception, life coming from non-life has no know example. To compare them is not only bizarre it is utterly ridiculous.

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.

I did not get it from a random book. I got it from college physics. The official criteria in the field is 1 x 10^50 is considered zero.
Emile Borel, one of the world’s experts on mathematical probability, formulated a basic law of probability. This law states that the occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeros is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.
http://www.apologeti...ts/outspace.pdf
And Karl Crawford went even further than that when he gave this “basic law of probability” a proper name:
Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 1050 have a zero probability of ever happening...This is Borel’s Law in action, which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel.
http://groups.google...959e739f100f825
That difference, as I have been explaining, is the difference between life and death.

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.)

Thinking something may have happened is no proof against the Bible. I realize that in science once you get a certain number of letters attached to your name you inherent omniscience or are thought to. However saying I think and believe are faith based assumptions in this case based on less evidence that the Bible requires. Why are we the only ones with enough integrity to call faith, faith. We can't agree about what exactly happened at Pickets charge in 1860 with Battle reports, tons of evidence, and inexhaustible scrutiny and witness testimony yet you insist you have what happened billions of years ago all figured out. Where is your Nobel and picture on the cover of time. 1 in 10^50 is just the beginning. When peptides and nucleotides are thrown in plus left and right hand proteins the numbers go from impossible to absurd. Not to mention whatever this miracle might be it would have to arrive on the scent with a perfectly function reproductive system. Add to that chemical evolution and a thousand other equally improbable preceding events and we have a ridiculous proposition. One that even if true no one single person would know or has observed.

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.

Forecasting the future with exception of the Bible is the most effective means of destroying credibility. In fact abiogenesis, multiverses, and string theory are getting harder to consider even possible with new discoveries. Just last night I heard a respected quantum physicist say it is looking like the universe was purposefully created. I would never use guesses as evidence. I just wanted to point out there are just as many guesses on my side as yours.What we actually know fine tuning, non eternal universe, cause and effect, rationality of the universe, etc infinite suggests God strongly and nothing we KNOW doesn't do so.

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.

Most of the more meaningful truths of life cannot be scientifically proven. I did not offer it as proof so suggesting it isn't is a waste of time.

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 one of the most common flaws made on your side and it is illogical and silly. You are restricting what a supernatural being can do based on what little we know about natural law. It needs no further comment.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

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.

And it still can't comprehend Newton nor can we comprehend God completely.

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).

You are over complicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous in a failed effort to counter the fact that if God exists we do not have the capability of understanding him beyond revelation nor of binding him within the vanishingly small percentage of natural law we understand.

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.

Joke was right. There is nothing meaningful in those statements. I have been drunk as can be, in love as can be, and as high as can be, and none of them is anything similar to being in God's presence. Just one example in the former three there is always an agent. In the latter there is no agent with the exception of God. I would suggest you stop trying to dismiss something you have no experience with.

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 don’t 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 mean like Francis Collins and Allen Sandage who both being at the top of their professions are believers among thousands. THERE IS NO PROVEN SCIENCE THAT OVERTURNS ANY BIBLICAL CLAIM. All the science claimed to is faith based guesses.

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 don’t 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).

You refer to my statement below as incoherent after this monstrosity. I have no idea what you said and therefore no response.

This is incoherent.

Seems perfectly clear to me. I have no idea how to clarify it further.

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.

Do not accuse me of ignorance of evolution and then make statements this absurd. It is the very definition of spontaneous:
1. Performed or occurring without premeditation or external stimulus: "spontaneous applause".
2. Having a natural, and uninhibited manner.
Google

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.

Who is us? What group of beings spent billions of years doing anything? That is the most hypocritical statement I have seen in a long while.

 

[1robin]

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?

After that last post I am unsure if even you know what you are doing here. Dawkins drew pictures because that is the only place on earth where that process has ever been seen.You drew letters because to sketch out a fraction of how complex evolutionary mechanisms are is not possible for you.Drawing a few letters and then saying, there is evolution would be like me drawing a cross and saying there is Christianity. I would never do something so silly and recommend the same.

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.

Is that why I have 190 sem hours in technical scientific classes? And have watched every debate on the subject I can find and have most transcripts? I have even watched debates between evolutionists only.

My brother who is in 4th grade could tell me exactly what I typed in and what Dawkins drew in detail.

Does not make either of them adequate, explanatory or true. Reducing the most powerful force in nature to a few letters or millions of years of evolution to a cartoon is pathetic and inadequate. We do not even understand much of the process and what we do is infinitely more complex than that it allows for cartoons.

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.

To point out the fact that the part of science said to overturn the Bible only exists as inadequate simplistic drawings and cartoons of things so complex they are almost un graspable, fantasy, wishful thinking, and with no observable example.

I honestly thought we were here to learn from each other.
But no matter how much I try to teach how evolution works, you don’t care because you would rather know nothing and believe in god, than make a fully educated guess.

I am not here to learn from anyone primarily. I am primarily here to defend what I believe is true from that which is at best educated guess and at worst a diabolical lie. Learning is secondary and incidental. I can't imagine why anyone would want to talk someone out of something they believe. Even if false faith has a possative affect on people. I do not believe in unicorns but do not go to a forum and tell people they do not exist. I simply live as if unicorns do not exist. How much time do you debat Zeuss, Isis, Osira, Zoraaster, Baal. I have always thought it odd that many atheists believe in no Gods yet hate the same one in particular. I already know much about how evolution is claimed to work. Enough to know it works primarily in a scientists mind and has no proof. I am rubbed raw with fantastic theories acclaimed as proof. I have admittedly become impatient with the nonsense. That impatience will no doubt be taken as ignorance by you because that is what is desired. I am not ignorant, as I said I have a math degree, studied physics, chemistry, and biology. I work in an F-15 avionics lab with equipment that oscillates rubidium atoms and measures the speed of light and I resent arrogance. I can quote brilliant top their scientists by the dozens that say to claim we have what we have today by natural process alone is lunacy. I can quote lawyers that specialize in testimony and evidence who were the greatest in history claiming the Gospels meet every standard of modern justice and the historical method. World class coroners to confirm the details about the crucifixion, great philosophers who do everything but prove God exists. etc...... I am not desperate for a case, in fact both the Phd in engineering and pilot with a masters in Chemistry just in my lab alone both think macroevolution is garbage. I think all the desperation and hubris is on your side even if it is camouflaged by claiming to know enough to teach. I see no evidence of that.

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

You will either abandon claims of fear or ignorance on my part and debate with honor or I will terminate the discussion. No characteristic is as hard to see for the one displaying it nor easy to see for the one observing it than arrogance. I do not remember you being this rude and so wrong in your personal claims about me in the past. I do not mind being called ignorant because it is sarcastic, I mind it because it is untrue and therefore a result or arrogance.

 

[McBell]

I said macro evolution and abiogenesis have no observable examples. You could ignore me anytime you wish. It does not require inventing positions I never claimed. Even the Bible said micro-evolution was true thousands of years before Darwin ever thought about it. So bury your head in the sand and excuse it my constructing straw men if you wish. Typical.

So you put creation in the same boat as abiogenesis and evolution right?
I mean, creation has no observable examples either.

 

[1robin]

So you put creation in the same boat as abiogenesis and evolution right?
I mean, creation has no observable examples either.

As this is a substance based post and not mere rhetorical one I will respond. Yes neither one of them have proof. Let me clarify. Both claim micro evolution or change within a species/kind is a fact and that is what can be proven. Abiogenesis is necessary for evolution to even begin and has no known exception. It is however perfectly consistent with creation. In short both are reasonable and intellectually permissable but neither are proven facts. However one is claimed to be, creation honestly admits it is faith based conclusion but supportable with facts. You would also have to know what theory of creation I have adopted and it is not a 6000 year old traditional view. In summary all the facts I know of are consistent with the Bible, many but not all are also consistent with evolution but evolution has some boundries that I have never been shown a way that it can cross and there has never been an observation of it doing so. I do not believe that life was created primarily because of the Bible. I believe it because it is the MOST logical and supportable of two possible theories. If you will respond with commensst that contribute I will do so as well but I am out of time at present and will have to continue later. Both are probability based but I assign a higher probability to evolution and God than evolution alone.

 

[Simurgh]

It is the same old because what was true is still true. Until your side can produce any reason to abandon the claims then there is no need to do so. Are you down to only suggesting claims are false because of the frequency of use? In that case gravity should not exist either. Oh yes I can and have.

And again, you have not provided ONE example of one of Dawkins’ so-called unsound arguments; instead you serve up the same old platitudes. In short, you cannot substantiate any of your accusations. That’s the same old, same old crap....

The one that is the most obviously wrong is insistence that if God is the first cause then what created God. This is philosophy 101 stuff and shows just how incompetent he can be outside his field.

1. God is posited as the uncaused first cause and questions about what caused the uncaused first cause are not just invalid they are stupid.
2. An eternal regression of causes would make it impossible to gain what you are attempting to explain.
3. To know that an explanation is the best explanation does not require that explanation to be explained. If it did an eternal regression would be need and since that is impossible no answer could be had for anything ever.
4. To suggest that the only known concept that identically lines up in every way with what the cause of the universe must be is instead not the cause without a scrap of evidence is biased and desperate. I do not expect to nor anyone to say that God is the proven cause but to deny that possibility based on preference is irrational and unscientific.

This is just ridiculous. Are you expecting anyone to take that crap seriously? If some god is the first cause then there better be an explanation as to what caused that first cause. Religious sophistry is just that, teleological tautologies to the max without any meaning or any rational explanation.

Your attempts at justifying your belief system in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is just sad. And to accuse Dawkins and/or other atheists of being biased and desperate? Really, and here I thought that your attempts at inventing reasons why your religion ought to have merit are just that. Desperate attempts of someone who has nothing but blind faith to guide him to convince the world of the validity of his fantasies.

NO I did not. I said his input on the subject in a professional setting results in a net negative on it's resolution and I wish he would not do it. I never ever said he did not have the right to say anything. It is really remarkable how far you will go to mischaracterize something I have stated clearly over and over. In the service I protected his freedom but as a Christian I would prefer he didn't screw theology up as he does.

Quote me single statement I have ever said that says, implies, or even suggests this. I will discuss this no further until you can, or until you stop mischaracterizing my claims in any way you wish. It is intellectually dishonest and renders the conversation meaningless.

So I paraphrased you. It’s still the same thing. You, as an evangelical type insist on telling scientists how and what to think so that your belief system is neither questioned not invalidated. But what credentials do you have for that? You apparently have no clue about evolution and things scientific in general; else why sprout this nonsense.


Yet you deny someone like Dawkins the right to answer question within the scope of his field when it challenges your belief system THAT is intellectual dishonesty and THAT makes your arguments meaningless. You think that this kind of hypocrisy is acceptable because you argue from a position of faith—where apparently anything goes.


I would say that you have yet to provide any substantiation for anything you claim—other than the fact that you don’t like Dawkins and wish he’d shut up.

 

[Warren Clark]

Drawing a few letters and then saying, there is evolution would be like me drawing a cross and saying there is Christianity. I would never do something so silly and recommend the same.[/FONT][/COLOR]

We aren't debating whether a guy carried a cross up a hill and died on it and then resurrected.
By the way, a picture wouldn't explain how he rez'd. :sarcastic

The picture of the letters I typed in explains what happens in evolution...
That is all it is there to do... what else did you want?

Is that why I have 190 sem hours in technical scientific classes? And have watched every debate on the subject I can find and have most transcripts? I have even watched debates between evolutionists only.

there is something very simple you are not grasping...
you are trying too hard or something, i don't know.

I used to be the same way, where I would tell people that evolution doesnt work because of reason a.) and then I would study what people would hand me as a counter argument... I would study and find my error... either a.) i would say hey you are right my bad... or explain further because something else that wasn't right...

What I never did, was say someones argument wasn't acceptable because it was just a drawing... That is utter bull.
A drawing has as much merit as a computer animation.

If I drew a picture of cells and showed you how cancer worked, would you argue with that?

We do not even understand much of the process and what we do is infinitely more complex than that it allows for cartoons.

We are extremely complex creatures with cells doing very complex things.
Are we not able to break them down into simple diagrams to explain how they work?

To point out the fact that the part of science said to overturn the Bible only exists as inadequate simplistic drawings and cartoons of things so complex they are almost un graspable, fantasy, wishful thinking, and with no observable example.

You are making stuff up now.
Science never "said" anything.
However, any rational scientist with a full understanding of what they are studying logically deduces that the Bible cannot be regarded as a source for truth.

I am not here to learn from anyone primarily. I am primarily here to defend what I believe is true from that which is at best educated guess and at worst a diabolical lie.
Learning is secondary and incidental
I can't imagine why anyone would want to talk someone out of something they believe.
Even if false faith has a possative affect on people. I do not believe in unicorns but do not go to a forum and tell people they do not exist. I simply live as if unicorns do not exist.

It would be worse to believe in a lie than to believe in nothing.

I don't care that anyone believes in God.
It is wishful thinking... It has no place in an educational environment.
Neither does Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Krishna, Osiris, Isis, or Ra.
Neither do the Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic god belong in educational environment.
I would not allow children to be that taught unicorns, fairies, dragons, or sprites exist either.
I am not attacking your Christian beliefs.
I am acknowledging the fact that superstition is being twisted with science where it does not belong.
It is Dawkin's entire reason for writing The God Delusion and The Magic of Reality (a children's book).

I already know much about how evolution is claimed to work. Enough to know it works primarily in a scientists mind and has no proof.

Well it obvious that it wouldn't matter if the proof took a dump on your lap, you still would no care to believe.

I gave countless irrefutable facts for evidence.
You seem to believe that bacteria doesn't evolve... ?
I don't know how you think new bacteria just suddenly appears out of no where.

I am rubbed raw with fantastic theories acclaimed as proof.

I have admittedly become impatient with the nonsense.

Well, I too have become impatient...

I hope, with all seriousness, that you don't think my thinking you ignorant should be translated into dumb or slow...
Just a smart person over looking something very simple.

Its one of those "if it were a snake it would of bit me" type of things. =P

All I can say is good luck.

 

[Warren Clark]

Oh no another predetermined Christians are too stupid to know how brilliant evolutionists are, person.

No. I made the statement based on our conversation. Not your religious title.

I did not get it from a random book. I got it from college physics. The official criteria in the field is 1 x 10^50 is considered zero.
Emile Borel, one of the world’s experts on mathematical probability, formulated a basic law of probability. This law states that the occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeros is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.

This argument is countered numerous times by relatively modern mathematicians.

John Allen Paulos is one of them...
he even wrote a book on innumeracy...


I have never even seen an apologetics letter taken so seriously by anyone other than the people it is marketed towards... the people who already believe what is being sold.

http://www.apologeti...ts/outspace.pdf
And Karl Crawford went even further than that when he gave this “basic law of probability” a proper name:
Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 1050 have a zero probability of ever happening...This is Borel’s Law in action, which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel.
http://groups.google...959e739f100f825

 

[1robin]

And again, you have not provided ONE example of one of Dawkins’ so-called unsound arguments; instead you serve up the same old platitudes. In short, you cannot substantiate any of your accusations. That’s the same old, same old crap....

Wow, you are really torn up. I provided two unsound ridiculous arguments he uses. One for evolution and one against God. If you can't recognize the stupidity in them or the fact that they are indeed even claims then posting more won't help. There is no need for new crap until one of you geniuses can overcome the old crap.

This is just ridiculous. Are you expecting anyone to take that crap seriously? If some god is the first cause then there better be an explanation as to what caused that first cause. Religious sophistry is just that, teleological tautologies to the max without any meaning or any rational explanation.

That is almost a quote from a philosopher with far more degrees, experience, and respect in the field than you have. Plus it is just simple plain common sense. I think you are either over your head or so emotionally committed to hating what you do not understand you have lost your ability to reason. If you can't acknowledge a fact as obvious as the sun is hot what point is a discussion with you?

Your attempts at justifying your belief system in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is just sad. And to accuse Dawkins and/or other atheists of being biased and desperate? Really, and here I thought that your attempts at inventing reasons why your religion ought to have merit are just that. Desperate attempts of someone who has nothing but blind faith to guide him to convince the world of the validity of his fantasies.

There is no science that is in the face of my faith. Science confirms my faith. Dawkins arguments are stupid whether there is a God or not. Infinite regressions of explaining explanations are just plain dumb and arguments that nonsensical have only a net negative on the clarity of any issue. Would you get off the emotional rant and say something of substance or punt? I do not have time for diatribes. People like you keep insisting there is a mountain of science that proves the Bible wrong yet can't produce a single example outside faith based fantasy and instead wind up yelling through the keyboard. As a matter of fact it is too early for this nonsense I am out. Let me know if you have any actual evidence for anything at some point. Pointing out Dawkins obvious incompetance in religous topics has been responded to as if an atheist version of God was insulted. He is not omniscient and while competant in the lab isn't in religion.

I did not realise who I was adressing. Any person who posts stuff like:

Let them have their illusions, I am better off without them and it is a waste of time arguing with people who suffer from delusions of grandeur just because they possess the ability to ignore facts and instead believe the stories invented thousands of years ago have some truth-value other than the occasional historical data and/or flicker of common sense disguised as religious mandate.

Should take his own advice and quit wasting both our times arguing from emotion. It is too early for this level of arrogance.

 

[McBell]

oh the irony...

 

[1robin]

We aren't debating whether a guy carried a cross up a hill and died on it and then resurrected.

By the way, a picture wouldn't explain how he rez'd.

The point was and is that salvation and evolution are extremely complex if they exist and require more than a drawing to encapsulate.

The picture of the letters I typed in explains what happens in evolution...
That is all it is there to do... what else did you want?

If I drew a picture of the 4 cycles of a reciprocating engine could you build one and would that prove one exists. Drawing a picture of how something works does not prove a whale became a cow or vice versa. Since evolution never has a chance without life coming from non-life or chemical evolution well beyond the equilibrium state why don't you first draw your way around them and then we can move on.

there is something very simple you are not grasping...
you are trying too hard or something, i don't know.

I already know how evolution works at least on the scale of your drawing. That does nothing to explain the instant appearance of all major body types in the Cambrian. It does not get around abiogenesis. It does not defeat 2LOT. It does not explain how simple biological machines can convert energy into complexity without the complexity needed to do that having appeared at the time. It does not explain how random events produced life with a probability of 1 x 10^80 times .50 for considering nucleotide vs peptide probability times 1 X 10^120 for getting all left handed proteins. That adds up to never and that is the extreme tip of the ice burg. I have been studying cosmology lately and not evolution so I did not want to get into a detailed discussion, plus it is about as boring as possible.
Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html

I used to be the same way, where I would tell people that evolution doesn’t work because of reason a.) and then I would study what people would hand me as a counter argument... I would study and find my error... either a.) i would say hey you are right my bad... or explain further because something else that wasn't right...

I already believe evolution exists and the Bible supports that as well. What the Bible nor reality show is it produced what we have on its own. Get around abiogenesis with proof and then we can move on.

What I never did, was say someone’s argument wasn't acceptable because it was just a drawing... That is utter bull.
A drawing has as much merit as a computer animation.

No that is absolute fact. No drawing ever made something that did not exist come into existence. I can draw pictures of big foot, aliens, fairies, civilizations at the center of the earth and it will not make them true. It is even worse than that his stupid drawing assumed intent and negated error which is far more probable.

If I drew a picture of cells and showed you how cancer worked, would you argue with that?

I would not say cancer did not exist because cancer has been proven to exist however the fact you drew a picture means nothing either way. If I drew a picture of a tower 4 miles high down to the last bolt and light bulb would you believe it exists. I can't believe it is necessary to point out existence is independent of a drawing.

We are extremely complex creatures with cells doing very complex things.
Are we not able to break them down into simple diagrams to explain how they work?

Drawing something from an example is one thing. Drawing something never ever seen by him and yelling proof is quite another. I just cannot understand why you think drawing something is proof of anything. Natural law cannot produce anything. A portrait never made a person appear.

You are making stuff up now.
Science never "said" anything.
However, any rational scientist with a full understanding of what they are studying logically deduces that the Bible cannot be regarded as a source for truth.

No you are. I did not say science said anything. I said the part of science that is said to be an argument against the Bible is all theoretical and not one observable example exists. You did what you falsely accused me of.God loves Irony. There have been countless of the very top scientists in history that have been believers (many of them fathers of fields of science) and many have said the Bible is scientifically accurate. In fact it is a primary if not the primary archeology resource for many groups. If you can't show its mistakes simply claiming they exist does not help. Nor do pictures make eyes evolve.

It would be worse to believe in a lie than to believe in nothing.

Not necessarily but I would not use that as an excuse to perpetuate faith. As it is reality implies God so strongly and the experiences of billions make God a very likely truth.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I don't care that anyone believes in God.
It is wishful thinking... It has no place in an educational environment.
Neither does Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Krishna, Osiris, Isis, or Ra.
Neither do the Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic god belong in educational environment.
I would not allow children to be that taught unicorns, fairies, dragons, or sprites exist either.
I am not attacking your Christian beliefs.
I am acknowledging the fact that superstition is being twisted with science where it does not belong.
It is Dawkin's entire reason for writing The God Delusion and The Magic of Reality (a children's book).

I expect and am told to expect resistance to faith and even hostile and violent resistance however it still seems funny that atheists 90% of the time only attack the Bible and it's God. Seems inconsistent and an indication of the Bible's truth to me. I did not understand Dawkins book comment. Dawkins works for money the same as all of us. He is no noble knight on a crusade against false beliefs, and even if he was he is not good at it. Dawkins is the only atheist I have ever felt sorry for in a debate.

Well it obvious that it wouldn't matter if the proof took a dump on your lap, you still would no care to believe.

I gave countless irrefutable facts for evidence.
You seem to believe that bacteria doesn't evolve... ?
I don't know how you think new bacteria just suddenly appears out of no where.

Hold the phone I read what I wrote and it was misleading and so is your response. I gave an example where evolution is credited to organisms (insects and bacteria) that is not true. I never said they do not evolve at all. In fact I have said the opposite many times. It was only an example of false evidence not a conclusion. BTW bacteria have never appeared out of nowhere. They always arise from previous life. Abiogenesis has no known exception.

Well, I too have become impatient...

I hope, with all seriousness, that you don't think my thinking you ignorant should be translated into dumb or slow...
Just a smart person over looking something very simple.
Its one of those "if it were a snake it would of bit me" type of things. =P
All I can say is good luck.

You are probably the victim of my tolerance level being overcome. I actually love good counter arguments but I can't stand derision and arrogance and statements like these:
Yes, they refuse to understand, because then their blinders would have to be taken off and their lives would be empty and scary. They have too much invested to think for themselves and so they don’t. Instead they condemn those who do because they think blind faith is useless dross and bask in the reflected glory of imaginary beings they invent to assuage their feelings of futility.
accumulate and finally exhaust my patience. That was not your statement but I was getting you and the other person confused because of similarity in claims. I can't abide arrogance especially since I am educated enough to recognize the lack of justification for it within posts. BTW I used to be an atheist and hated God even if he did exist, I used every argument you folks do and more (I though Christians simplistic and naive) and now I see that time frame as the most shameful of my entire life.


Please keep this in mind: I and the Bible claim evolution exists, however it did not create life and does not account for reality as we have it alone. I do not think you understand this. I keep hearing over and over again about science dissproving the Bible yet no claim is ever presented that does such. Every single claim fits into one of these categories:

1. A true claim that has no bearing on the Bible one way or the other. (micro evolution)
2. A claim that might challenge the Bible but is a theory based in faith.
3. A claim that challenges a single interpretation and is then claim to dissprove all interpretations.

I have yet to see a single reproducable, observable, or provable in any way fact that shows the Bible false. Even if Dawkins was a billion years old and made those sketches from memory they do not challenge the Bible. Dogs getting bigger or smaller do not either. All the observable facts are consistent with the Bible. If the Bible is man made why do you not have a million pictures of counter proof? Why are there thousands of prophecies accurate to the last detail. Why is faith 2000 years later (in the age of science) still growing? Why do the most intelligent among us still believe? Why is there so much noise on your side and so little proof? Do you insist the theory of multiverses no more factual than fairies not be taught to children? I am exhausted and my keyboard is getting hot. I am taking a break.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I expect and am told to expect resistance to faith and even hostile and violent resistance however it still seems funny that atheists 90% of the time only attack the Bible and it's God. Seems inconsistent and an indication of the Bible's truth to me.'

Did you even read what you just quoted? They specifically said that it wasn't just the Bible that shouldn't be included in education, but all religious texts. They did the exact opposite of the thing you're accusing them of doing. Also, it stands to reason that, since you are a Christian, the majority of debates you will get into with atheists will be about your beliefs in particular. This doesn't even slightly indicate that the Bible is any more true than any other book, and to assert that it does makes absolutely no rational sense whatsoever.

I have yet to see a single reproducable, observable, or provable in any way fact that shows the Bible false.

So, there's evidence of a global flood? That humans came from two people? That bats are birds?

All the observable facts are consistent with the Bible.

Only if you ignore all the parts that aren't consistent with the facts. Can you present a single extra-Biblical account of Jesus or any of the supposed miracles of the new testament? If you cannot, then the facts are not consistent with the Bible.

Why are there thousands of prophecies accurate to the last detail.

Total garbage. Every "Biblical prophecy" I have ever been shown to has been based on imaginative reading of extremely vague, generalized assumptions. To date, no accurate prophecies made in the Bible have ever been fulfilled.

Why is faith 2000 years later (in the age of science) still growing?

Why does that matter? Atheism is also growing, so does that mean we're right and you're wrong?

Why do the most intelligent among us still believe?

Baseless assumption. Please present one study which demonstrates that more intelligent people are religious.

Why is there so much noise on your side and so little proof?

Because you ignore all of it.

 

[1robin]

Did you even read what you just quoted? They specifically said that it wasn't just the Bible that shouldn't be included in education, but all religious texts. They did the exact opposite of the thing you're accusing them of doing. Also, it stands to reason that, since you are a Christian, the majority of debates you will get into with atheists will be about your beliefs in particular. This doesn't even slightly indicate that the Bible is any more true than any other book, and to assert that it does makes absolutely no rational sense whatsoever.

I had already mentioned this earlier. If you will review, the context was in my experience in the debate arena. I think I know of a way to prove this:

There were twice as many hits for Atheist Christian debate versus either Muslim or Hindu. I have seen every debate I can find from an Atheist and search for them regularly. I know they debate Christians more than any other religion by far. That was the context I made the statement in.

So, there's evidence of a global flood? That humans came from two people? That bats are birds?

First you will have to show that the flood story was meant to be literal. Church tradition is definately not what I defend. I can use secular sources for Eve:
Aug. 17, 2010 — The most robust statistical examination to date of our species' genetic links to "mitochondrial Eve" -- the maternal ancestor of all living humans -- confirms that she lived about 200,000 years ago. The Rice University study was based on a side-by-side comparison of 10 human genetic models that each aim to determine when Eve lived using a very different set of assumptions about the way humans migrated, expanded and spread across Earth.
'Mitochondrial Eve': Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago
Are you suggesting there were more than one or two first humans? Did hundreds sprout from pods at the same time?.

Again is the Adam and Eve symbolic or literal. I do not debate the Pentetauch much because there is no way to be sure and no historical records to corroberate anything.

The bats thing is silly and I and many others have explained it before and it is available on many sites. In fact why don't you review or question the scientists and researchers here:
Inquiries and Comments
They specialise in the first five books, I do not. It is one heck of a site.

Only if you ignore all the parts that aren't consistent with the facts. Can you present a single extra-Biblical account of Jesus or any of the supposed miracles of the new testament? If you cannot, then the facts are not consistent with the Bible.

First of all why is 4 independant testimonies not enough. Jewish law only required two. In fact there are 40 or so extra biblical I authors that mention Jesus, a few that are contemporary with him. There is even one that mentions the darkness. I am in a hurry so please only request sources if you could not find them. I reject your rational by the way. Four is plenty even if that was all we had. The most prominent lawyers in history confim this.

Total garbage. Every "Biblical prophecy" I have ever been shown to has been based on imaginative reading of extremely vague, generalized assumptions. To date, no accurate prophecies made in the Bible have ever been fulfilled.

Now that is just wrong as at is possible to be. One of the most challenged is Tyre's destruction. As I have defended it recently we may examine it if you wish.

Why does that matter? Atheism is also growing, so does that mean we're right and you're wrong?

There seems to be some strange idea that science is aquiring information as of late that renders the Bible less reliable. That is not indicated by the growth of the religion nor the scientific experience of it's adherents.

Baseless assumption. Please present one study which demonstrates that more intelligent people are religious.

Present one statement I made that indicated that the more intelligent we are the more likely we are to believe. I said the most intelligent among us are believers, I did not say that non believers were less intelligent. Let me rephrase to dispense with this side bar. If science was proof against God then why are a great many of the greatest scientists Christians? It is counter intuitive. My statement was admittedly unintentionally ambiguous.

Because you ignore all of it.

Another example. Not a claim but a rational for no claim. Why don't you let the Tyre prophecy decide this? I can give you a transcript of the debate we will have in advance if you wish. Forgive typeOs I am in a hurry.

 

[Simurgh]

Wow, you are really torn up. I provided two unsound ridiculous arguments he uses. One for evolution and one against God. If you can't recognize the stupidity in them or the fact that they are indeed even claims then posting more won't help. There is no need for new crap until one of you geniuses can overcome the old crap.

Ah, that’s what that was supposed to be. Emphasis on SUPPOSED.

That is almost a quote from a philosopher with far more degrees, experience, and respect in the field than you have. Plus it is just simple plain common sense. I think you are either over your head or so emotionally committed to hating what you do not understand you have lost your ability to reason. If you can't acknowledge a fact as obvious as the sun is hot what point is a discussion with you?

Well, as you do not know how many post-grad degrees I have, nor in which fields, we let that one go. And no, this pseudo-debate does not require emotional involvement, and hate? That’s not a feeling that your assertions evoke either. As for common sense, demonstrate some and we can talk about it. Since I am not ruled by blind faith, and have absolutely no reason to get dogmatic and/or put blinders on, the way you seem to operate, I can say that I am fully capable of reasoning, that I also understand the science behind evolutionary theory, and most of all, comprehend what the terms “scientific theory” actually mean. From your diatribes, I can assume that you are not really cognizant of the basics of either. Oh, yeah, the sun is hot, and hot is a relative term here as well.

There is no science that is in the face of my faith. Science confirms my faith. Dawkins arguments are stupid whether there is a God or not. Infinite regressions of explaining explanations are just plain dumb and arguments that nonsensical have only a net negative on the clarity of any issue. Would you get off the emotional rant and say something of substance or punt? I do not have time for diatribes. People like you keep insisting there is a mountain of science that proves the Bible wrong yet can't produce a single example outside faith based fantasy and instead wind up yelling through the keyboard. As a matter of fact it is too early for this nonsense I am out. Let me know if you have any actual evidence for anything at some point. Pointing out Dawkins obvious incompetance in religous topics has been responded to as if an atheist version of God was insulted. He is not omniscient and while competant in the lab isn't in religion.

If your faith is confirmed by science, then why are you arguing against it? If science proves your text to be right, then what is your problem? I have no idea where science proves the Jonah and the whale story, or where it brings up evidence that Jesus turned water into wine and how that was exactly done, how did science prove the burning bush thing; and so on and so forth. In short, provide some examples, that would be really interesting.

I did not realise who I was adressing. Any person who posts stuff like:

Let them have their illusions, I am better off without them and it is a waste of time arguing with people who suffer from delusions of grandeur just because they possess the ability to ignore facts and instead believe the stories invented thousands of years ago have some truth-value other than the occasional historical data and/or flicker of common sense disguised as religious mandate.
Should take his own advice and quit wasting both our times arguing from emotion. It is too early for this level of arrogance.

Yep, and I still say that.

 

[Warren Clark]

Hold the phone I read what I wrote and it was misleading and so is your response. I gave an example where evolution is credited to organisms (insects and bacteria) that is not true. I never said they do not evolve at all. In fact I have said the opposite many times. It was only an example of false evidence not a conclusion. BTW bacteria have never appeared out of nowhere. They always arise from previous life. Abiogenesis has no known exception.

I wasn't speaking of abiogenesis. Anybody with a basic understanding of science would know that.
I am done explaining it...

I already gave a clear and not to mention illustrated explanation that a 4th grader could comprehend...
You refused to acknowledge it as relevant. That is on your own ignorance.


Yes we know, all atheists say this and it is so condescending... blah blah blah.
Rather than whine because we don't accept your arguments, maybe you should try and figure out why, and I do not mean go read another apologetics article to reaffirm your beliefs.

You have to want to be wrong to find the truth...
Most people do not want to be wrong.
It is where many people fall short. Even some scientists are defeated by their own arrogance.
Darwin challenged his faith. The entire world he knew was shattered.
Our greatest discoveries come with the territory of admitting we were once wrong.
God, creation, and the bible are old stories that originate from ancient pagan fables. They are only myths and legends.

While you feel sorry for Dawkins, all atheists including feel sorry for those who are not skeptical of everything.

 

[1robin]

Ah, that’s what that was supposed to be. Emphasis on SUPPOSED.

I do not know what this means.

Well, as you do not know how many post-grad degrees I have, nor in which fields, we let that one go

You are right and I usually avoid those statements however it is a pretty safe assumption. You may indicate the opposite if you disagree.

And no, this pseudo-debate does not require emotional involvement, and hate? That’s not a feeling that your assertions evoke either. As for common sense, demonstrate some and we can talk about it. Since I am not ruled by blind faith, and have absolutely no reason to get dogmatic and/or put blinders on, the way you seem to operate, I can say that I am fully capable of reasoning, that I also understand the science behind evolutionary theory, and most of all, comprehend what the terms “scientific theory” actually mean. From your diatribes, I can assume that you are not really cognizant of the basics of either. Oh, yeah, the sun is hot, and hot is a relative term here as well.

I did not mention hate. I said tore up. If I remember our conversation correctly, I gave two arguments Dawkins uses that are juvenile, unsophisticated, and are never used by competent philosophers and anyone serious and knowledgeable. I can answer them in 30 seconds and I have written no books on the subject. The fact that you seemed to object to the arguments incompetence leaves little but an emotional reason to do so. They have no academic defense. If I am wrong it was still the mostly likely conclusion.

If your faith is confirmed by science, then why are you arguing against it?

I have never to my knowledge ever contradicted a scientific fact to defend the Bible. Pointing out Dawkins ineptitude in theology certainly does not require it. Most scientific claims against the Bible are faith based fantasy and exist nowhere.

If science proves your text to be right, then what is your problem?

If you will review my statements about Dawkins you will know why that is an invalid question.

I have no idea where science proves the Jonah and the whale story, or where it brings up evidence that Jesus turned water into wine and how that was exactly done, how did science prove the burning bush thing; and so on and so forth. In short, provide some examples, that would be really interesting.

This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about. It is impossible to evaluate a supernatural claim by natural law. Especially when we only know a small portion of the total amount of natural law. This indicates the inability to even understand the argument. It is like using a ruler to weigh something or using Newtonian physics to track a boson. That is the kind of ineptitude I have complained against. Science is not the arbiter of all truth. In fact most of the most meaningful issues of life are not even meaningfully open to science. In fact science is not scientifically provable.

Yep, and I still say that.

That proves my point.