Richard Dawkins answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College

[columbusdude82]

Yes, how would we ever experience love, triumph, learning, etc without tailbones, appendices, junk DNA, the HIV epidemic, asteroids, comets, plate tectonics, and tsunamis, and Hurricane Katrina...

[OzmO]

Yes, how would we ever experience love, triumph, learning, etc without tailbones, appendices, junk DNA, the HIV epidemic, asteroids, comets, plate tectonics, and tsunamis, and Hurricane Katrina...

Go back to what i said earlier................. .......You think if "god" created the universe it should be close to perfect.  The speaks more of an someone angry at traditional religion and the stupid dogma they push on you.   And it's unrealistic to think that way.

I am an ex-catholic also who's grand-mother made everyone in the family say the rosary every night of her life.

The universe and our world's struggles due to these imperfections are part of what God created to give us the up and downs of life, it's what makes life worth living.  I do not see god as the one describe by most religions.   

[columbusdude82]

You think if "god" created the universe it should be close to perfect.

No I do not. You are interpreting things your own way. I AM saying that IF the universe is intelligently designed, then it should DISPLAY EVIDENCE of being intelligently designed.

The universe does not display evidence of being intelligently designed.

Therefore, the evidence strongly suggests that the universe was NOT intelligently designed. QED.

That is what I am saying. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[OzmO]

No I do not. You are interpreting things your own way. I AM saying that IF the universe is intelligently designed, then it should DISPLAY EVIDENCE of being intelligently designed.

The universe does not display evidence of being intelligently designed.

Therefore, the evidence strongly suggests that the universe was NOT intelligently designed. QED.

That is what I am saying. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Ok,  i get what you are saying even though when you cite examples it seems you are saying it should be close to perfect.

Now to the universe being intelligently designed:

-  We are far from understanding our world and it is from this lack of understanding that we are basing the universe isn't intelligently designed
-  Some things we have little understanding that exists in the universe:   Dark matter, gravity, going faster then the speed of light
-  If you were to create life on the scale of the universe that sustains it's self, reproduces and changes you'd create what we have here.  Much like creating a biosphere in some college class.

Evidence of intelligent design:

-  Why don't galaxies fly apart?  computer models show they should.  What holds them together?  dark matter.
-  Why do we have so many built in bodily defenses from infection, over heating, fatigue  etc.  ?
-  Why do we have the capacity for love and compassion?
-  Why is our world so habitable when a few thousand miles closer or farther from the sun would change it all?
-  Why does a tree grow from a seed?  is it just a chemical reaction?
-  Is DNA a random accident?
-  Did all these elements just randomly join together to make it possible for us to debate overf the internet?


i could go on and on......god exists, chances are not even close to the traditional sense religion likes to identify him as but something made all this happen or caused this to happen the way it did and it wasn't by chance.

[columbusdude82]

Your "evidence" of intelligent design is not evidence at all. Since I am tired of saying the same things over and over to you and you insist on being immune to reason, I will pick only one:

Why do we have so many built in bodily defenses from infection, over heating, fatigue  etc.  ?

WELLL DUUUUHHHHH... How can you not see the natural selection in this one? Evolution selected for those genes that would provide for bodily defenses from infection, etc, since those people without these genes died out, and their genes died out with them.

Everything has a perfectly reasonable explanation. We do not need to resort to magic and superstition. If you insist on saying that some god exists, then suit yourself.

[OzmO]

Your "evidence" of intelligent design is not evidence at all. Since I am tired of saying the same things over and over to you and you insist on being immune to reason, I will pick only one:WELLL DUUUUHHHHH... How can you not see the natural selection in this one? Evolution selected for those genes that would provide for bodily defenses from infection, etc, since those people without these genes died out, and their genes died out with them.

Everything has a perfectly reasonable explanation. We do not need to resort to magic and superstition. If you insist on saying that some god exists, then suit yourself.

C-62  i really don't give a shit.  Like most athiests you lack the ability to see past black and white.   A really good example is when you keep saying the same thing over and over and can't see that I agree with you.

Maybe i should simplify:

God  or no-God cannot be proven.

I assert that evolution might be in part how Humans were created by God.

I assert that our imperfections and those of the universe are part of system created by God to make living what it is, including perhaps, to challenge people who need total proof.  There will never be proof.  It's matter of faith.

I do not believe in magic or superstition even though you imply i do.

remember, evolution is still a THEORY and until it's billed as fact it's only a opinion.  (is this the part where you assume i believe in fairy tails?)

[NeoSeminole]

remember, evolution is still a THEORY and until it's billed as fact it's only a opinion.

evolution is both a fact and theory. There is no doubt that changes in species occur over time. The mechanism responsible for this natural phenomena is explained by the theory of evolution.

[OzmO]

evolution is both a fact and theory. There is no doubt that changes in species occur over time. The mechanism responsible for this natural phenomena is explained by the theory of evolution.

ok.......  but why is it still called theory?  Why is not a 100% fact?

[columbusdude82]

C-62  i really don't give a shit.  Like most athiests you lack the ability to see past black and white.

Epic generalization.
 

A really good example is when you keep saying the same thing over and over and can't see that I agree with you.

No you don't.

Maybe i should simplify:

OK

God  or no-God cannot be proven.

Only in the strictest mathematical sense of "proof." Just because some hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved, doesn't mean that it is equally likely to be true or false. EVIDENCE, as I have described to you above, strongly REJECTS the "god as intelligent creator" hypothesis in favor of the "no intelligent creator" hypothesis.
 

I assert that evolution might be in part how Humans were created by God.

And I demonstrated that such a god would be the most incompetent, inept tinkering inventor with a massive pile of useless junk who still can't get things right after 4 billion years of trial and error.

I assert that our imperfections and those of the universe are part of system created by God to make living what it is, including perhaps, to challenge people who need total proof.  There will never be proof.  It's matter of faith.

So you have faith that God made all this and never gave any proof so that they will have faith. You need to have faith to assume that God exists in order to have faith. This is entirely stuff you have made up.

Yours is circular reasoning that is not backed up by any evidence, especially when the God assumption is entirely unnecessary. Remember, simpler explanations are always the best, especially when the alternative is your tortured, contorted logic.

I do not believe in magic or superstition even though you imply i do.

You believe in God. Does he have supernatural powers? Can he perform miracles? resurrections? virgin births? If you answer yes to any of these, and have no evidence for it, then you are superstitious by definition.

remember, evolution is still a THEORY and until it's billed as fact it's only a opinion.  (is this the part where you assume i believe in fairy tails?)

It is established fact. Gravity is also a theory, and it is also established fact. Same with Euclidean geometry and thermodynamics and Newtonian physics. Evolution is as real as gravity, and it won't go away if folks like you or loco deny it, just as you won't be able to fly even if you say "Gravity is just a theory."

[NeoSeminole]

ok.......  but why is it still called theory?  Why is not a 100% fact?

wow, just wow. You made yourself look very ignorant.

[OzmO]

wow, just wow. You made yourself look very ignorant.

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ries.

   1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
   2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
   3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
   4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
   5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
   6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.




If it's proven, i would think they wouldn't call it a theory,  but you are the scientists so maybe you can tell me.

[columbusdude82]

Theory of evolution/Microeconomic Theory/Theory of Thermodynamics:
in all of these, the word "theory" is used in the sense of 1 and 2.

Statistical Theory/Probability Theory:
"theory" in the sense of 3.

[OzmO]

ok, why can't they just say evolution is a fact?

[columbusdude82]

It is a fact. The word "theory" is used in the sense of describing the academic structure of a certain body of ideas.

Have you heard of "monetary theory"? It's the thing that central banks like the Federal Reserve deal with. Surely you don't think "Monetary theory is just a theory, it isn't a proven fact, where is the money? I don't see any money. It's just a theory..."

[NeoSeminole]

If it's proven, i would think they wouldn't call it a theory,  but you are the scientists so maybe you can tell me.

in science, a theory can never be proven - it can only be disproved. Hope this helps.

[loco]

Thanks for posting those vids, loco. I have seen them before.

You are welcome!

If you are genuinely interested in the "why is there something rather than nothing" question, Victor Stenger elaborates on it in his book "God: the Failed Hypothesis." (I know the title is not appealing to you, but he makes some good arguments, with lots of nice references, and on this point in particular he writes from a physicist's perspective.)

Thanks!  I'll check it out.

As for Liberty U., may I ask if that's where you got your degree from?

You may ask, and the answer is no.  I got my degree from a secular university.

[loco]

When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."  Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29.

Dawkins believes that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." Richard Dawkins, 2006. The God Delusion. p. 50.

 

[loco]

damn, columbusdude82 is laying a whoop ass on the believers in here.

Hardly

[loco]

You might as well argue that he was a good scientist, and that he always had bad breath, therefore bad breath and being a good scientist are somehow related.

No.  Bad analogy.  We all agree that R. A. Fisher was a devout Christian.  We all agree that he was also a brilliant scientist who contributed to the advancement of science.  We all agree that bad breath is bad.  But most of the world will disagree with you that belief in God is a bad thing.  And I never said that his good science and his faith were related.  You came to that conclusion yourself.

About R.A. Fisher, yes he was brilliant. Yes he was religious. Why is his good science an argument for his religious beliefs being true?

His religious beliefs are true, not because of his good science.  They are true because R.A. Fisher is English, so he is right by default.
 

He's English. He's right by default.

 

Nah, seriously.  The fact that R. A. Fisher was a devout Christian and a brilliant scientist does in no way prove Christianity is true.  I never said that.  You came to that conclusion yourself.

However, let me tell you what this proves.  It proves that you can be both, a modern, brilliant scientist and a devout Christian at the same time.  It proves that you can write articles for church magazines while "founding modern statistics and population genetics."  In other words, it proves that a man is wrong when he says that "religion poisons everything", or that "religion is the root of all evil", or that people who believe in God are in a state of infancy, or when he says that belief in God retards the advancement of science.  It proves that you are wrong when you say that faith demands the suspension of reason.  Faith in God did not poison R. A. Fisher's mind.  It did not poison his work.  It did not prevent him from advancing science.  His faith may actually have motivated his interest in science, as a famous scientiest once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

Look at the scientific breakthroughs that we owe devout Christians who were also brilliant scientists such as Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Sir Isaac Newton, etc.

Of "good scientists who are sincerely religious", Dawkins names Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne, and Francis Collins" Richard Dawkins, 2006. The God Delusion. p. 99.

[ieffinhatecardio]

It's hard for me to accept that nothing was created out of nothing.  That in it's self should prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch

What are you thoughts on the Big Bang Theory? Have you read or seen much on it?

[nzhardgain]

Curious to see whether those who claim to come from piltdown man/ monkeys/primordial sludge etc can actually provide evidence of fossils of these so called "hominids" that we all descended from .

Artistic drawings of these monkey men doesnt count.

[columbusdude82]

When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."  Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29.

Dawkins believes that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." Richard Dawkins, 2006. The God Delusion. p. 50.

 

Yes, evolution has been observed happening around us, during our lifetimes. For example, have you heard that some HIV strains that are resistant to meds have evolved?

Curious to see whether those who claim to come from piltdown man/ monkeys/primordial sludge etc can actually provide evidence of fossils of these so called "hominids" that we all descended from .

Artistic drawings of these monkey men doesnt count.

The evidence is overwhelming. Google exists, use it Then you can go to a library... you know, one of those places with lots of books in them!

[loco]

When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."  Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29.

Yes, evolution has been observed happening around us, during our lifetimes. For example, have you heard that some HIV strains that are resistant to meds have evolved?

I'm waiting for Dawkins to post his reply to your post.     

[Colossus_500]

Hardly

I didn't think so either.  lol

[NeoSeminole]

Curious to see whether those who claim to come from piltdown man/ monkeys/primordial sludge etc can actually provide evidence of fossils of these so called "hominids" that we all descended from .

Artistic drawings of these monkey men doesnt count.

(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My