Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by borntowatch
Yeah I can see you are a little to challenged here
Type in Edward Jenner, Christian who was the father of vaccinations. But of course that means nothing because he was from the olden days.
Evolution doesnt teach vaccinations, thats silly.
Your argument is infantile
Bye

Keep on naming more scientists from 100-300 years ago

Seriously, it's a FACT that a ton of the modern medicine and vaccinations rely on the theory of evolution. If you had bothered to click the link I posted, you'd realize this instead of making yourself look foolish

However, if you read Rupert Sheldrake, an man at least as qualified as good ole Dawkns, youll see that your assumptions about what exactly evolution is and how it behaves, may be flawed.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
If you were to find a computer when you have never seen a computer before would you say it was created or it evolved?

If your answer is 'x' then please watch this next video.

As you can see in the video that the this technology is so high tech that we claim it appeared from nothing. It is indeed a vast, super complex, super efficient technology and we are thousands of years away from re-creating it.


The system of the creator of this complex machinery to house our conscious energy is far too complex for the human mind to ever comprehend.

We are like an ant walking on top of a computer circuit board. This is how far we are from understanding where and what we are.

Aw, come on. This nonsensical argument has been debunked countless times on here already. You see a designed machine and know its designed, but how do you know that something like a tree was designed? Before you can argue that every design needs a designer, or every creation needs a creator, you need to prove that the tree or anything else naturally occurring on earth were designed or created. Only then can you call it creation, if not you are using circular logic and appealing to personal opinion. Unfortunately there's NEVER been a single known instance of anything in nature being created or designed, so why assume it? Your opinion on the complexity of nature is nothing more than an opinion. If god can be too complex to comprehend, why can't certain functions of the universe be as well?

reply to post by mandroids

...if you read Rupert Sheldrake, an man at least as qualified as good ole Dawkns...

WHAT?



Are you sure you're breathing the same mix of gases as the rest of us?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

What is the more likely scientific explanation for how life came from non life? Not ideas, a verifiable, repeatable, scientifically factual method.

This thread is not about spoonfeeding knowledge to the ignorant. However, it has already been pointed out that the second chapter of The Selfish Gene offers a couple of possible scenarios. If you require more help than that, try Google; the string 'rna world' should produce some useful results.

First get yourself educated, then you can come back and try disputing with those who actually know about evolution and abiogenesis. We are not here to put up with creationist fiddle-faddle.

You want science? Take the trouble to learn some science yourself.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
If you were to find a computer when you have never seen a computer before would you say it was created or it evolved?

If your answer is 'x' then please watch this next video.

As you can see in the video that the this technology is so high tech that we claim it appeared from nothing. It is indeed a vast, super complex, super efficient technology and we are thousands of years away from re-creating it.


The system of the creator of this complex machinery to house our conscious energy is far too complex for the human mind to ever comprehend.

We are like an ant walking on top of a computer circuit board. This is how far we are from understanding where and what we are.

Aw, come on. This nonsensical argument has been debunked countless times on here already. You see a designed machine and know its designed, but how do you know that something like a tree was designed? Before you can argue that every design needs a designer, or every creation needs a creator, you need to prove that the tree or anything else naturally occurring on earth were designed or created. Only then can you call it creation, if not you are using circular logic and appealing to personal opinion. Unfortunately there's NEVER been a single known instance of anything in nature being created or designed, so why assume it? Your opinion on the complexity of nature is nothing more than an opinion. If god can be too complex to comprehend, why can't certain functions of the universe be as well?

edit on 23-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Ok. Explain how energy turned into mass right after the big bang. Is the big bang creation or science? The big bang is creation (something from nothing) dreamed up by religious scientists. This is the only reason this theory is accepted widely. Science is used to steer us to a preconceived outcome. Why not choose an outcome that is more intriguing?

Are we better off saying the universe just is. Because all I see is science fiction like Jurassic Park is science fiction. A little evidence here, a little there, and then we put it all together in a SCI Fi thriller called the big bang. Jurassic Park seems more plausible because it does not involve something from nothing which is a leap of faith at best.

Life is created when a cell divides.

So who is the creator of life? Life is the creator of life through the process of evolution.

So DNA is life? DNA is the creator? And it doesn't stop here.

Who creates DNA? life... from where?

I think the answers will be found in the quantum world once we determine how energy turns into mass and discover the place where it all comes from. Follow the evidence and avoid the leaps. Stop inventing particles just to explain the unexplained.

Originally posted by consciousgod
Ok. Explain how energy turned into mass right after the big bang.

All matter is energy. It didn't just turn into matter (or mass, the measurement of matter lol). Regardless, how would it show creation?

Is the big bang creation or science? The big bang is creation (something from nothing) dreamed up by religious scientists. This is the only reason this theory is accepted widely. Science is used to steer us to a preconceived outcome. Why not choose an outcome that is more intriguing?

Wrong again. The big bang is the expansion of the universe. Scientists don't claim that something was ever created from nothing. This is what THEISTS believe about god creating everything.

Are we better off saying the universe just is. Because all I see is science fiction like Jurassic Park is science fiction. A little evidence here, a little there, and then we put it all together in a SCI Fi thriller called the big bang. Jurassic Park seems more plausible because it does not involve something from nothing which is a leap of faith at best.

So I take it, you're a scientist who has done extensive research on physics and the big bang? If not, then you have no right whatsoever to lie and say the big bang is just a guess. We know that the energy in the universe was at one point close together and that it has expanded since. We can measure distance and speed

www.talkorigins.org...

Life is created when a cell divides.

No, life is REPLICATED when a cell divides.

So who is the creator of life? Life is the creator of life through the process of evolution.

Nope. Evolution is not a creator of life. Evolution is how we explain the diversity, not creation.

So DNA is life? DNA is the creator? And it doesn't stop here.

No, and no.

Who creates DNA? life... from where?

Good question. Perhaps you can develop your own hypothesis and begin doing some experiments to back up your theory.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

As you can see in the video that the this technology is so high tech

No, it is not high tech. It is in fact, no tech. It is biology. The graphics are high tech and quite illuminating, but the process it is modeling is not technological.

Biology is technology and scientists are blurring those lines daily.

Exactly the point. Comprehending a hypothetical creator is hopeless. Seeking to understand the beauty of the universe on the other hand, is a fundamental consequence of being human. Being satisfied with the 'God did it' answer is actually anti-human when viewed in this way.

Who are you speaking for man? I think its your dim views and definition of a 'creator' that is stupid and unbelievable.


God is another way of saying the energy that guides the universe and beyond. It sets the laws and puts its in motion. Call it what you will, it exists no matter what delusion you fancy.

No 'we' do not claim it appeared from nothing. It appeared in tiny incremental steps

As with biology and technology as done by a creator or a system it does not matter. Evolution is the system of creation.

Biology/Nature is indeed a vast, super complex, super efficient technology and we are thousands of years away from re-creating it.

Why would 'we' want to "re-create" it? The point of studying these processes is not to re-creating them, it is to understand them. And to understand them is to hopefully gain insight into solving problems and treating diseases.

Having said that, 'we' may in fact be only a few decades away from re-creating it, thousands of years is certainly an overstatement. But, like I say, what would be the point of "re-creating" biology?

What a poorly thought out response. You first ask why we would want to re-create the technologies and systems found in nature and then say that we may be decades away from recreating it. You have a dim view of the complexities of biology and have you head so far up your ignorant but to see anything but ATHEIST VS GOD.

Nature is the most efficient system of technology that we could ever hope to achieve. To have the ability to now look at the blueprints of nature is truly amazing. One has to imagine what technology will be like in 1 million years.
Catch my drift?

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by consciousgod
Ok. Explain how energy turned into mass right after the big bang.

All matter is energy. It didn't just turn into matter (or mass, the measurement of matter lol). Regardless, how would it show creation?

Is the big bang creation or science? The big bang is creation (something from nothing) dreamed up by religious scientists. This is the only reason this theory is accepted widely. Science is used to steer us to a preconceived outcome. Why not choose an outcome that is more intriguing?

Wrong again. The big bang is the expansion of the universe. Scientists don't claim that something was ever created from nothing. This is what THEISTS believe about god creating everything.

Are we better off saying the universe just is. Because all I see is science fiction like Jurassic Park is science fiction. A little evidence here, a little there, and then we put it all together in a SCI Fi thriller called the big bang. Jurassic Park seems more plausible because it does not involve something from nothing which is a leap of faith at best.

So I take it, you're a scientist who has done extensive research on physics and the big bang? If not, then you have no right whatsoever to lie and say the big bang is just a guess. We know that the energy in the universe was at one point close together and that it has expanded since. We can measure distance and speed

www.talkorigins.org...

Life is created when a cell divides.

No, life is REPLICATED when a cell divides.

So who is the creator of life? Life is the creator of life through the process of evolution.

Nope. Evolution is not a creator of life. Evolution is how we explain the diversity, not creation.

So DNA is life? DNA is the creator? And it doesn't stop here.

No, and no.

Who creates DNA? life... from where?

Good question. Perhaps you can develop your own hypothesis and begin doing some experiments to back up your theory.

edit on 23-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

How do we convert pure energy into mass?

Yes the big bang is the expansion of the universe based on redshift. Could their be another cause for redshift? Yes, and there is. speed and direction.

Yes, you think you can measure distance and speed, but can you really? This is based on..........redshift. But we can't trust redshift. Redshift can give impossible results. Maybe not all are suspect, but enough to question every last calculation.

And Yes, the big bang theory does imply that everything in our universe originates from a single point, ie nothing, no space, no time, no matter. If you do not agree, then please tell me where all the matter in the universe was before the big bang.

I can say the big bang is a guess, an educated one, but it is still just a guess. There is evidence that is interpreted by humans to support the big bang. There was also evidence that was interpreted as the universe being 1/10th its recently reported size a few years ago. That changed in an instant. And so can the big bang theory if we admit that redshift distance calculations can be wrong.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I thought that was called research X. Study evolution all you want in your colleges aren't we talking grade schools and high scools here ? i'd study it myself if I thought I could take down the pharmaceutical companys with a cure for syphylis or diabetes or whatever. You wouldn't catch me believeing it tho. Sheesh ga I crack myself up.

Originally posted by consciousgod

Ok. Explain how energy turned into mass right after the big bang./

Religion answer = God did it, lets say no more about it...fingers in ears humming loudly.
Science answer = Lets create an experiment and see if we can copy the conditions at the begining. Lets see if theres something that could affect energy in such away that it converts to mass, we'll call that something the higgs bosun. We need to give the equipment a name..hmmmm, large hadron colider sounds sexy, lets go with that.

Enrgy = mass =energy =mass.etc.
Apply enough friction to energy and you get mass, or so the theory goes,and the supplier of that friction is the higgs field...something those clever chappies down at CERN may well be about to annouce that they have discovered. At which point scientist all over the world will attept to replicet, thus proving the veracity of the find.

Of the two answers supplied above, one of them leads to huge advancements in civilisation while the other has us wallowiing in ignorance and superstition akin to the dark ages.

i'll let you decide which is which.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Biology is technology.

Biology is not technology. If it were, there would be no such field as biotechnology.

Equating biology with technology assumes that living things were created by a living designer. It is a classic case of assuming what one is trying to prove; it is also an example of one false belief leading to another.

Evolution is the system of creation.

Evolution has nothing to do with creation. It is a process that causes change in already existing life-forms.

Again, equating evolution with creation assumes that living things are created by a process called evolution. Another case of assuming what one is trying to prove, another example of one false belief leading to another.

You have a dim view of the complexities of biology and have you head so far up your ignorant but to see anything but ATHEIST VS GOD.

You're pretty good at flinging insults about, aren't you? In fact, that's all you've really done in this thread. You haven't addressed the thread topic once, neither have you addressed the broader subject of the health of intelligent design as a political movement, which is the context of the thread. In fact, all you have done is blunder about firing GOD VS ATHEIST salvos at random, bleating Paleyan drivel as if it was some brilliant new idea none of us had ever heard before, and insulting people. Take the woodshed out of your own eye before you go pointing out the motes in others.

Catch my drift?

Yes. It's half-baked, unoriginal and boorishly put, but it isn't exactly intellectually demanding, is it?

Pretty avatar, though, I'll give you that.

People like Dawkins are what I like to call 'pseudorationalists'.

They portray themselves as a voice of reason, and as being skeptical, but really they are narrow minded and will refuse any non-materialist or unconventional explanation of anything.

Eventually all the energy in the universe will be used up.
Where did it come from initially?

By faith evolutionists believe energy spontaneously came about.
That belief without evidence is faith. Evolution can not be proven as a science, it is a religion based on faith, and shouldnt be taught in schools as science.
The Religion of evolution should be taught alongside of creationism as a religion

Originally posted by consciousgod
How do we convert pure energy into mass?

You need to explain that question because you asked the same exact thing in the last post. What are you referring to? I already explained that mass is measurement of matter and that energy = matter. What is converted and why?

Yes the big bang is the expansion of the universe based on redshift. Could their be another cause for redshift? Yes, and there is. speed and direction.

Yes, you think you can measure distance and speed, but can you really? This is based on..........redshift. But we can't trust redshift. Redshift can give impossible results. Maybe not all are suspect, but enough to question every last calculation.

You got some sources about this i can read?

And Yes, the big bang theory does imply that everything in our universe originates from a single point, ie nothing, no space, no time, no matter. If you do not agree, then please tell me where all the matter in the universe was before the big bang.

Where do you get "a single point, ie nothing". A single point is NOT NOTHING. It is something. It is believed to be an incredibly dense singularity, but again we can't tell absolutely for sure, but based on the laws of physics and mathematics involved, that's the only known way to explain it. Due to cosmic censorship we cannot determine what was there before the big bang, what caused it, or where everything came from. We can only measure the results of where everything expanded to.

I can say the big bang is a guess, an educated one, but it is still just a guess. There is evidence that is interpreted by humans to support the big bang. There was also evidence that was interpreted as the universe being 1/10th its recently reported size a few years ago. That changed in an instant. And so can the big bang theory if we admit that redshift distance calculations can be wrong.

Science evolves as new knowledge is applied and new things are discovered. Do you have evidence to suggest it is wrong? If so, please post it. I don't understand the creationist beef with the big bang theory. If a universal creator was advanced enough to start a universe would it NOT start in a big explosion of energy?

Originally posted by borntowatch
Eventually all the energy in the universe will be used up.
Where did it come from initially?

By faith evolutionists believe energy spontaneously came about.
That belief without evidence is faith. Evolution can not be proven as a science, it is a religion based on faith, and shouldnt be taught in schools as science.
The Religion of evolution should be taught alongside of creationism as a religion

Sorry I'm on a roll today, so I'm going to keep going. What does evolution have to do with where the energy in the universe came from? With that same logic I can ask you where did god come from. I already know your answer. "He was always there". So by that why couldn't the energy in the universe have always been there? Why do you not hold the same scrutiny for your own beliefs? I'll repeat again. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, CHEMISTRY OR ORIGIN OF LIFE. It CAN be proven as science, and has been in the 4 links I posted for you before, that somehow got ignored. But alas you have nothing to say about that. Comical I guess.

Funny/curious how materialists say ‘well, allow us the supernatural event of the big bang, then atheism and science can explain everything else’. Whacky dudes!

Is God a being distinct from the universe, or is He, according to the opinion of some, the result of all the forces and intelligences of the universe?

If the latter were the case, God would not be God, for He would be effect and not cause; He cannot be both cause and effect. God exists. You cannot doubt His existence, and that is one essential point. Do not seek to go beyond it; do not lose yourselves in a labyrinth which, for you, is without an issue.

Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing. Put aside systems.

You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable.
ok?


www.spiritwritings.com...

reply to post by Astyanax


Can someone list 1 accomplishment by Richard Dawkins besides his atheist activism?

Ahh silence.

Atheist's seem to be a very tyrannical and psychotic bunch. It is like they get a buzz off of manipulating theist kid's.

No matter, by decades end tolerance for atheism will most likely disappear.

Charges to arrest and detain atheist's:

Child abuse,
Disturbing the Public Peace,
Indecency,
Harassment,
Stalking,
(In Europe)
Hate Speech,
Crimes Against Humanity.

Atheism wanes and waxes in history. By this time next Century atheist's will be back in hiding. So the whole thing is rather mute.

reply to post by korathin

Can someone list 1 accomplishment by Richard Dawkins besides his atheist activism?

Try Wikipedia.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by borntowatch
Yeah I can see you are a little to challenged here
Type in Edward Jenner, Christian who was the father of vaccinations. But of course that means nothing because he was from the olden days.
Evolution doesnt teach vaccinations, thats silly.
Your argument is infantile
Bye

Keep on naming more scientists from 100-300 years ago

Seriously, it's a FACT that a ton of the modern medicine and vaccinations rely on the theory of evolution. If you had bothered to click the link I posted, you'd realize this instead of making yourself look foolish

Charlie Darwin is still worshipped by atheists and he is famous for nothing.
Absoloutely nothing, except getting a book published.
Yeah laugh, but Darwin was a nothing, evolution wasnt even an original idea of his. Just to drop names from years ago.

Evolution plays no part in modern medicines, thats delusional. Evidence? Hah, you wouldn't know what evidence was.
Talk talk talk.