Book: The God Delusion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pookie wrote:
jarvis wrote:
If you think that evolution happened by CHANCE, you haven’t read very much about evolution.

Mutations happen by chance.

Evolution occurs by natural selection of the most advantageous mutations through an increased rate of reproduction. Natural selection is not a random process.

[/quote]

I have no dog in this fight, i just hate the new wave of evoloutionists now being as dogmatic as the religionists.

For the evoloution folks i have one question. How?

How does a fish develop this highly complex mechanisim called gills? How do gills turn into lungs? how do fins turn into feathers. How do fish eyes, change into bird eyes and develop the skills needed to survive?

Natural selection? you mean the adjustment happen gradually with masses of failures til the inevitable success. then that success is “selected” and it wins out? is that it?

Now who’s talking fairy tales?

42

[quote]John S. wrote:
To your last bit. God is the same God in Jewish faith and christanity. the only difference is I believe Jesus is Gods son as they do not. So no i would be arguing the same way.[/quote]

Wasn’t the God from the Old Testament viewed by Christians as spiteful, intolerant and callous? Whereas the God of the New Testament was worked in to come off as loving, compassionate, understanding, empathetic, and with the introduction of Jesus someone that man could relate to it seemed like a bit of a revolution. The revolution into making Christianity more appealing? Some argue and say that both are the two faces of one, the same God. Is the God of the Old Testament Different From the God of the New? - Come Reason Ministries

On a higher point if God and belief were divine and expected of all people ,why the division? Why the believe or be lost mentality, what if your faith is “wrong”? But I am also speaking away from the big 3 religions and asking about the other religions such as Buddhism, which seems to stem from disenchantment of ancient Indian Philosophy and many other smaller sects. There is not a specific belief in the afterlife in Buddhism as we cannot foresee it so there is really no relevance in worrying about such.

43

[quote]John S. wrote:
Ok and your 3 wholes are…

  1. the missing link. what creater was there to bind us from the premitive human to now.

  2. The fact that evolving insists of a complete change in the animals make up. which i mean is that Evolution states horses started off as these things that were knee high at best and looked different. now there like 7 feet tall. Now if we came from monkeys simple evolution states there should be no more monkeys.

3.Evolution is to produce tougher animals into the world to survive. but if you look at it Monkeys/apes are the physicaly better species.[/quote]

These wholes [sic] are highly fallacious:

  1. The term missing link is a misnomer, we constantly find new links that add to our understanding of evolution, we couldn’t possibly know how many of these there are. The fact that we don’t hold in our hands, evidence for every minute progression from single celled organisms to homo-sapiens isn’t proof that evolution is flawed. Rather, the fact that each one we find fits convincingly with the theory of evolution, is seen as evidence that the theory is correct.

Incidentally, the last colloquial ‘missing link’ that was found was Australopithecus afarensis. It has also been nick named ‘Lucy’.

  1. Humans can ‘start off’ as having an average height of 5’6 to 5’10 but can mutate to be around 4 foot tall in adult -hood, humans of over 7 feet have also existed.

  2. Chimps are better TREE DWELLING machines for the propagation of DNA so in highly arboreal areas, they outnumber human beings. There is no such thing as an INHERENTLY better genetic material or organism which carries the material.

I think that this also addresses the final sub-point you make under point 2.

44

All I am going to say here is that anyone trying to pick holes in evolution really needs to study the science and learn what it actually is.

Picking holes in 3rd hand, mostly inaccurate information is just a waste of time. Many posts here are completely misinformed.

I wouldn’t expect everyone to be evolutionary biologists, but those that wish to make the claim evolution cannot be real, or claim “the missing link” proves such and such… you need to read more science articles and journals because you just aren’t understanding the science you are trying to debunk.

Fortunately, the bulk of the science is available for free, all over the place - books, science journals, web sites, etc… The information is mostly very accessible.

No scientists debate whether evolution is real or not. It is a theory which is accepted on par with gravity. All available evidence supports it.

What that has to do with the existing of a creator is up to you to decide.

45

[quote]emdawgz1 wrote:
pookie wrote:
jarvis wrote:
If you think that evolution happened by CHANCE, you haven’t read very much about evolution.

Mutations happen by chance.

Evolution occurs by natural selection of the most advantageous mutations through an increased rate of reproduction. Natural selection is not a random process.

I have no dog in this fight, i just hate the new wave of evoloutionists now being as dogmatic as the religionists.

For the evoloution folks i have one question. How?

How does a fish develop this highly complex mechanisim called gills? How do gills turn into lungs? how do fins turn into feathers. How do fish eyes, change into bird eyes and develop the skills needed to survive?

Natural selection? you mean the adjustment happen gradually with masses of failures til the inevitable success. then that success is “selected” and it wins out? is that it?

Now who’s talking fairy tales?

[/quote]

Fish eyes don’t change into bird eyes. Some fish began to live closer and closer inland as plants developed on land, eventually leading to land based animals. Eventually some animals began climbing the larger plants. Some, maybe those with a little extra skin between their limbs, found that they could jump between tree and tree, due to gliding. Maybe, through time, these eventually led to creatures whose primary method of travel was to jump from tree to tree. Eventually, this creatures might have been able to flap a little bit to create some lift. ALl of these things gave the animal with it a survivalist superiority.

Here’s a way Dawkins would put it:
Think of a mountain. The is very very very tall, and on one side we see a straight cliff wall, going all the way up to the top of the mountain. Allowing that its not totally IMPOSSIBLE, the probability of someone making a leap straight up a rock face to the top of the mountain is inconceivably small. But on the other side of the mountain, there is a path, that slowly and gradually winds around the mountain side, finally reaching the apex. It is far more likely that, even at a remarkably slow walking pace, you will eventually reach the top of the mountain.

So whats more improbable? A god that made everything happen with a magic wand or what have you, or a gradual, rational system for how things got here? Not a perfect analogy, since evolution is not a path in any sense of the word, species may fail, go extinct, stagnate, whathaveyou, and humans are by no means some kind of superior animal in anything but our intelligence. But for some reason, an environment existed where intelligence was a survival aid.

46

Im voting for Satan in the next election.

God had his chance.

47

Where did the matter come from that supposedly evolved?

48

[quote]Kuz wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
Could this be the thread that finally settles this debate???

Hmm, maybe not.

DB

LMAO Best post yet.

I have never understood why people bother to debate something like this. You really cannot debate “faith”. Either you believe or you don’t. As long as you are not seeking to impose all of your beliefs and values on someone else, live and let live.

Of course, I can already see someone saying that teaching evolution forces beliefs. Me? I believe in God and evolution. Craziness![/quote]

Yup, I’m with this guy. BTW, did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic?

He couldn’t decide if he believed in Dog.

49

To those Christians here who believe that religion and evolution can be compatible, my hat’s off to you. My question for those who are against teaching evolution or who want to find all the “holes” in it, why do you find evolution so incompatible with religion?

Not once did Darwin ever deny the existence of a Supreme Being. I studied evolution in high school and in no way did the teacher try to say that there was no Supreme Being, nor did I get that message.

Granted there are evolutionists like Richard Dawkins who believe that religion and science are incompatible, and Dawkins himself has criticized scientists who consider themselves as areligious, but most scientists seem to understand that science can only explain some things, and after that it’s a matter of faith and philosophy.

And why stop at targetting evolution? Neuroscientists, neuropsychologists, and psychologists are studying what causes humans to have consciousness, what motivates our behaviors, and why some people are “good” and others are “bad.” Why not put a stop to this as well? After all, consciousness is the soul, and people are bad because of the work of Satan. Simple.

Here’s one last thought. I subscribe to Discover magazine and some of the cutting edge stuff that’s going on in science just flat out amazes me.

The more I read about science and the universe, the more I’m inclined to think that there probably is a Supreme Being or Force (if you’re a Star Wars fan) that started it all. When I read about some of these religious groups and what they stand for, the more I think that organized religion is a crock.

50

[quote]jarvis wrote:
John S. wrote:
Ok and your 3 wholes are…

  1. the missing link. what creater was there to bind us from the premitive human to now.

  2. The fact that evolving insists of a complete change in the animals make up. which i mean is that Evolution states horses started off as these things that were knee high at best and looked different. now there like 7 feet tall. Now if we came from monkeys simple evolution states there should be no more monkeys.

3.Evolution is to produce tougher animals into the world to survive. but if you look at it Monkeys/apes are the physicaly better species.

These wholes [sic] are highly fallacious:

  1. The term missing link is a misnomer, we constantly find new links that add to our understanding of evolution, we couldn’t possibly know how many of these there are. The fact that we don’t hold in our hands, evidence for every minute progression from single celled organisms to homo-sapiens isn’t proof that evolution is flawed. Rather, the fact that each one we find fits convincingly with the theory of evolution, is seen as evidence that the theory is correct.

Incidentally, the last colloquial ‘missing link’ that was found was Australopithecus afarensis. It has also been nick named ‘Lucy’.

  1. Humans can ‘start off’ as having an average height of 5’6 to 5’10 but can mutate to be around 4 foot tall in adult -hood, humans of over 7 feet have also existed.

  2. Chimps are better TREE DWELLING machines for the propagation of DNA so in highly arboreal areas, they outnumber human beings. There is no such thing as an INHERENTLY better genetic material or organism which carries the material.

I think that this also addresses the final sub-point you make under point 2.[/quote]

Just to elaborate on some of the points

  1. Not much to add. The fossil record has holes, of course it does. Not everything fossilizes, and we’re fortunate that we have ANY of the fossil record. Thanks to some natural geological processes, skilled paleontologists, and some cavemen who missteped and became frozen, we actually have a record. Oh, and guess what? Everything ever uncovered corroborates PERFECTLY with the theory of evolution. How do I mean? We do not see animals of one era in the same layers as animals that could have only existed in other layers, for example, no dinosaurs and humans. Also, sudden changes in a species physical structure into another species has never been seen. Wait? Did I just say speciation doesn’t happen? No, I said it doesn’t happen suddenly without any environmental imperative.

  2. Expanding on this, if there was some environmental reason why being 7 feet tall would allow a human to reproduce more, humans would start growing to be 7 feet tall more often. Shoot, the average height of a human has been rising all through human history, and much of this has to do with the ability to better feed large individuals. Think about it, if your entire way of life depends on picking berries, hunting and scavenging for meat, and not getting eaten by larger predators, being small is helpful! Being big and tall in African grassland would have SUCKED for primitive humans.

Fast forward, now we have lots of food and no natural predators. No reason for the larger humans to die off because of being unable to support their diets or because they can’t run and hide from lions. More tall humans survive. This slight mutation has led to taller and taller humans for thousands of years.

Horses are a bad example to use, since humans have raised and BRED them for centuries if not millennia. Where do you think the different breeds come from?

And why do you think you need a new influenza shot every year? Any strain that isn’t killed by the vaccine survives to produce more offspring that are immune. Thats adaptation right there. Centuries from now, and I’m talking centuries, the descendants of influenza would be VERY different from the strains we have now. Do I know what it will look like? No. But evolution theory lets us predict the most likely to survive strains.

3)Flat out wrong. Evolution doesn’t produce tougher animals, or smarter animals, or any kind of animal. Evolution doesn’t care what the animal is like. Its just like a drunk college student, its all about sex.

If there was a species of pink fairy that would die from light blows, then it is very likely that they would go extinct, yes. But there might be ways for the little pink fairy to float away and escape danger in a way that no predator could hit them. So despite being weak, they would still be able to procreate and make more pink fairies.

Large brains can be a huge problem for an animal. Since they’re larger, they require more volume of the skull, which means less room for protection of the brain matter. Also, brains use a LOT of energy, which has to be made up by eating more food. Our brain happens to be intelligent enough to pay for itself in terms of calories, by letting us outsmart other species and each other. But we’re not better than a hermaphroditic flat worm. Hell, we have the same common ancestors. The flat worms are great, in their environment. Can they drive a car? No. But can you penis fence as a survival prerogative? I’m going to doubt it.

-Gendou

51

[quote]deputydawg wrote:
As far as the existence or non-existence of God I only have one question for the atheists. Do you really believe that everything came from nothing? [/quote]

That’s a pretty good question. The problem is that saying that everything comes from God does not really answer the question, since one must then ask “did God come from nothing?”

Believers usually answer that with various philosophical side-steps, such as “God is the uncaused Cause” or “God is outside of time, hence he doesn’t need a beginning.”

I think you could apply the same reasonings to the universe itself. What we call “the universe” might simply be one of many such universes in a much larger reality. That larger reality could be “ever existing” and host a multitude of varying universes.

That also explains the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe for life. If there exists a multitude of varying universes, each with different physical laws and constants, it’s inevitable that some of them will have the right settings for life to appear and evolve.

So atheists generally do not believe “everything came from nothing” but rather that there is a natural, non-divine explanation for the existence of the universe as we know it.

52

Whether or not there is a God, we’re all going to eventually find out. Or if there’s nothing after this life, we don’t.

So does it really matter?

53

[quote]pookie wrote:
deputydawg wrote:
As far as the existence or non-existence of God I only have one question for the atheists. Do you really believe that everything came from nothing?

That’s a pretty good question. The problem is that saying that everything comes from God does not really answer the question, since one must then ask “did God come from nothing?”

Believers usually answer that with various philosophical side-steps, such as “God is the uncaused Cause” or “God is outside of time, hence he doesn’t need a beginning.”

I think you could apply the same reasonings to the universe itself. What we call “the universe” might simply be one of many such universes in a much larger reality. That larger reality could be “ever existing” and host a multitude of varying universes.

That also explains the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe for life. If there exists a multitude of varying universes, each with different physical laws and constants, it’s inevitable that some of them will have the right settings for life to appear and evolve.

So atheists generally do not believe “everything came from nothing” but rather that there is a natural, non-divine explanation for the existence of the universe as we know it.
[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying in reguards to a large amount, or even infinite amount of universes, but the same argument applies. If there are as many universes as you’re saying then what caused them? Also, saying that there are infinite universes requires a great leap of faith in order to believe it because it hasn’t been proven. Which I know some people like to say that science proves everything, but to say something such as string theory or multiple universes exist without knowing so is an act of faith. I do believe in evolution myself, however I’m saying that some people will believe one faith over the other just to prove it wrong.

Also, mentioning the fine tuning of the universe, I’m curious as to what you think the odds are in order to create a livable habitat. Myself I believe, as do many atheist scientist, that the odds are outside of the billion billion, trillion trillion, and many other conceivable numbers.

54

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
T-Nick wrote:
Great new book im reading called “The God Delusion”. I encourage you all to check it out.

You, my friend, are just BEGGING for trouble.[/quote]

Ha! Since when am I not? Been raising hell since I knew how to.

But Im very pleased to see the discussion this threads brought about.

55

If you mean “Men” with single digit BF%'s, my friend, we’ve been getting all the ass since day one :wink:

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
T-Nick wrote:
Great new book im reading called “The God Delusion”. I encourage you all to check it out.

Does the book address the belief (delusion) that 95% of women like skinny boys? If so, then I’m so on that book![/quote]

56

[quote]mj_gk wrote:
I understand what you’re saying in reguards to a large amount, or even infinite amount of universes, but the same argument applies. If there are as many universes as you’re saying then what caused them?[/quote]

While each universe would have an initial cause, the “container” itself might not.

I’m not hoping to convince you, I’m simply saying that believing in a “natural” cause instead of a divine one can be defended using similar arguments. I happen to believe that it’s simpler and also feel that it fits better with the world I can observe, but I understand how others might reach a different conclusion.

I’ve never heard someone who understands science correctly say that “science proves everything.” There are myriads of unanswered questions; and maybe some unanswerable ones too. Especially with anything pertaining to the “outside” of our universe.

I simply happen to think it requires less “faith” to think our universe might have a natural cause, than it does to imagine an infinitely powerful, eternal entity who somehow felt the compulsion to create all of this for our lone benefit.

Note that there are myriads of in-between positions; from the staunch dogmatism of fundamentalists of all faiths, to the “the universe is God” view of Spinoza and Einstein.

Any number, from 1 to however high you want to go is pure speculation.

We do not know if ours is the only universe; we do not know if what we call “constants” are actually “fine-tuned” or simply the inevitable result of the base physical laws that govern the universe. The question is often phrased as “Did God have a choice?” meaning is this universe the only possible way a universe can be? Or can there be other, wildly different universes?

Until most, or at least some, of these questions can be answered, giving odds on our universe being as it is, is a rather pointless exercise.

You can look at the Drake equation and conclude that life must be abundant in the universe, then read about the Rare Earth Hypothesis and conclude that life might be unique to this planet. Drawing conclusions from “samples of one”, while intellectually and philosophically interesting on many levels, gives you conclusions that have no weight.

57

dawkins vs francis collins, covers much of what is being discussed on this message board.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

maybe its just me but dawkins comes across a zealot.

58

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
dawkins vs francis collins, covers much of what is being discussed on this message board.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

maybe its just me but dawkins comes across a zealot.[/quote]

The time article is initially what led me to the book.

I do find it very, very interesting that a significant percentage of the worlds most brightest minds, past and present, from all walks of science, have been athiests.

59

[quote]John S. wrote:
Now what i mean about time bieng irrelavent is that We as Human biengs can not begin to understand a begining because if you go back to the white light something must have been there before(if you beleive there is a begining).

Now about evolution and the bible. If you look at genesis you will find how the world begin. The actuall translation shouldnt have been day but infact ages. If you look how the world was formed in the bible you can see it happens just how evolution says stuff would.(remember this was written before darwin).
What im stating here is its Quite possable evolution happend with Gods will.[/quote]

another edit to myself.

You can change an opinion but not a belief.

60

[quote]The “horrible truth” was known by only a very few persons; they
were indeed ugly little creatures, shaped like praying mantises
and were more advanced than us by perhaps a billion years.

There were several more saucer crashes in the late 1940’s: one in
Roswell, Mew Mexico; one in Aztec, New Mexico; and one near
Laredo, Texas, about 30 miles inside the Mexican border.

[/quote]

That’s alot of crashes for a billion year advance on our current tech level no? Prehaps it’s hard to pilot a spaceship with mantis hands? No autopilot either? :wink:

Not ruling out Aliens, just what I read of this story sounds…wrong.