The God Delusion

by Peppermint 103 Replies latest jw friends

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    I have not read Dawkins' books, so i will not comment on them. He did though do a TV series in the UK in which he soundly debunked religion - taking care to highlight the most extreme and wacky examples of it . I find the supreme arrogance of the man to be a 'turn off'. In the programme he spoke in a lordly manner about how science had "proved " him to be right, but never offered any evidence to support those statements.

    In the field of fallacious arguments don't they call that an "Appeal to common belief?", but it proves nothing.

    but I'll spell them out anyway. If you don't understand our theory, you're not in a position to debate it.

    Hmmm, that sounds a lot like when the better half throws up her hands in despair and tells me that I am too stupid to understand "The Truth" as she does - and that is why I am where I am today

    I don't believe her, either.

    But I do enjoy threads such as this. It is what this board is for and I have read a lot of stuff (well, I visited a few evolutionary websites) i am just not convinced by the overall concept..

  • skeptic2
    skeptic2

    Skeptic, I say all creation is "evidence" of an Intelligent creator, and yes we can call him God or Our Father. Randi is looking for something that only HE can imagene....I can't provide Randi with anything except the wonderful way in which we are made and ask if he still thinks we came from a one celled ameba or whatever.

    evidence: "the available body of facts or or information indicating whether a belief of proposition is true or valid".

    You don't have any evidence. You have an imagination. If you have evidence, not just "evidence" (whatever that is), go collect your million dollars.

    EDIT: I stand corrected, the million dollar challenge does not accept religious claims.

    The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information

    Where did the single cells come from?

    The sentence you quote is referring to the earliest steps in the development of male/female, not the earliest steps in the evolution of life on earth (in case you didn't know).

    But for more information on where the first cells came from, try here:

    http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html

    That's just the first result in google when I type in 'evolution first cell', but it should provide a primer on the subject area.

  • TopHat
    TopHat

    Every web site you have pointed out only speaks of evolution as a theory....no proof. Can science dupicate evolution?

  • skeptic2
    skeptic2

    TopHat - please....

    maybe my explanation earlier wasn't good enough

    I'll lay it out simply

    Long ago there was only one version of the word theory , it was a scientific word that meant a well-tested explanation of all known evidence.

    Over time the word crept into everyday language, and the meaning became distorted, in everyday language theory came to mean a proposed explanation (science calls this a hypothesis).

    In science, the meaning of the word theory has never changed, it still means a well-tested explanation of all known evidence.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    TopHat

    Of course, abandon, you believe what you WANT to believe...every word on evolution theory is gospel to you.

    I at least have studied the subject and can go over the strengths and weaknesses of the theory at length. You fail to even follow the example set by the Boreans; when a new teaching was presented to them they did thorough research. They didn't say "Oh, I don't understand it therefore I am right" as you do - they had a less arrogant attitude.

    I know evolution isn't gospel.

    The gospel is an unchanging set of evidence that does not prove the existence of god or even prove that Jesus is more than a story. There is no real evidence. At the end of the day you believe something because you were told it by someone who read it in the Bible or read it in the Bible yourself, yet can you prove the Bible?

    Do you even know (for example) that the Great Flood in the Bible has to be a myth as we know beyond reasonable doubt there was no global flood when the Bible says there was. The Great Pyramid in Egypt was built several hundred years BEFORE the supposed date of the Biblical Flood for example, and there are other examples of structures and even of TREES that were alive when the Bible insists the entire world was covered in water.

    Evolutionary theory on the other hand is informed by the fossil record and corrected when new discoveries are made, or theories that better explain the evidence are develeped.

    Unlike your belief in god which doesn't change even when the 'evidence' you use to base your beliefs on is shown NOT to be an inspired or accurate guide, if the evidence that I use to support my beliefs is shown to be incorrect or misunderstood, then I change what I believe in to fit in with this funny thing we call 'reality'.

    Oh, I would appreciate you not lying about what I think and would ask you to also have the common deceny to spell my name right. Or is lying and rudeness the new Christian thing?

    The very idea that our perfect human body evolved from primoral soup over billions of years is unconceivable to me.

    Oh good god; biological organisms are NOT perfect. For example, during human evolution the layout of the human body gradually changed to make modern speech possible; these changes included the windpipe slowly moving to a position in which speech as we know it was possible. However, this change in layout meant that humans became the only mammal that can choke on it's food by inhaling it into it's windpipe.

    If we had been designed the creator would have easily been able to ensure that humans could speak without making them suseptable to choking. So humans are not perfect (that is just ONE example), and their bodies show that we were not designed as they are the result of slow change.

    You might not be able to understand evolution. You haven't studied it, so why should you expect to understand evolution - or are you that arrogant you assume that if you don't understand it it isn't possible? Do you understand how the sun produces light? I figure not in any detail. Does this mean that the sun won't cast light because you don't understand how it works? Obviously not.

    At least we agree on Santa.

    So what is the difference between Santa and God? You have ignored it when previously it was pointed out that you and a Shaman have the same basis of beliefs and the same level of proof of your beliefs as each other. Yet both of you feel that your own opinbion is true.

    Rather than telling us from a totally uninformed perspective what the problems with evolution is, and falling over your own tongue by showing how little you know of the subject, why don't you actually do some reasearch into the inadequacies of your own belief structure?

    Or is ignorance blissful?

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    BluesBrother:

    I have not read Dawkins' books, so i will not comment on them.

    A very wise position. A pity more people don't follow your example. (The not commenting, not the not reading!)

    He did though do a TV series in the UK in which he soundly debunked religion - taking care to highlight the most extreme and wacky examples of it . I find the supreme arrogance of the man to be a 'turn off'.

    Dawkins often comes across as arrogant, largely because he is so passionate about his subject and becomes angry when it is misrepresented and exploited - almost always by those with a religious agenda. He also refuses to share in indulging fantasies in the name of tolerance, the way many of his colleagues do. Personally, I admire him for that.

    In the programme he spoke in a lordly manner about how science had "proved " him to be right, but never offered any evidence to support those statements.

    The programme wasn't meant to be a course on the evidences for evolution. If he was, for example, arguing with Holocaust deniers, he might say something similar. We wouldn't expect him to prove then and there that the Holocaust really happened. There is a mountain of evidence for it, and the contrary position is indefensible and absurd. The same is true of evolution.

    In the field of fallacious arguments don't they call that an "Appeal to common belief?", but it proves nothing.

    No, they don't. An "Appeal to common belief" would be simply arguing that because a belief is popular, it must be true. This is more commonly used by religious people. Dawkins himself has advanced some very unpopular opinions - but backs them up with evidence (even if it can't all be detailed in a two-hour TV special).

    but I'll spell them out anyway. If you don't understand our theory, you're not in a position to debate it.

    Hmmm, that sounds a lot like when the better half throws up her hands in despair and tells me that I am too stupid to understand "The Truth" as she does - and that is why I am where I am today

    I don't believe her, either.

    It's not at all the same. Had TopHat come out with something like "The sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian Period indicates that life began in abundance, which is too improbable for natural selection to explain" then I would not have been so dismissive. What she actually wrote was "The very idea that our perfect human body evolved from primoral [sic] soup over billions of years is unconceivable [sic] to me. SOOOO I have to believe we have an Intelligent creator." Perhaps I should have responded with: "The very idea of a big invisible man in the sky is inconceivable to me. Therefore, I must believe in evolution by means of natural selection." But of course, I have better arguments than that.

    But I do enjoy threads such as this. It is what this board is for and I have read a lot of stuff (well, I visited a few evolutionary websites) i am just not convinced by the overall concept.

    Well, evolution remains a fact whether you believe in it or not. I hope you will try to find out why the vast majority of the educated world agrees with me. Dawkins' books and the talkorigins website are a good start.

  • TopHat
    TopHat
    "The very idea of a big invisible man in the sky is inconceivable to me.

    Hey funky, a big invisible man in the sky is inconceivable to me too....LMAO

    On the other hand....I am not trying to force the belief of evolution on you and I am NOT angry if you don't believe in an Intelligent creator. You & Alan seem to be all upset because some of us do not bow down to your belief. I don't understand your angry attitute.

  • Peppermint
    Peppermint

    I think we should respect the beliefs of others no matter what. Life is a journey, our own experiences teach us things no one else knows. We have the absolute rights to our beliefs and the right to change them as time passes.

  • parakeet
    parakeet

    TopHat:***The very idea that our perfect human body evolved from primoral soup over billions of years is unconceivable to me.***

    Yes, the "POOF!...ADAM!" idea is much more believable.

  • TopHat
    TopHat
    Yes, the "POOF!...ADAM!" idea is much more believable.

    You don't quite understand.....I believe we have an Intelligent creator....Yes, the first Human had to be made whole, and not evolve in little peices over millions of years. Obviously we are all made from the same chemical make up. Dust from the good earth. So I can see how an evolutionist thinks we evolved out of a muddy hole. We are after all nothing more than clay. Clay

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit