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

[Deicide]

If all life on earth evolved from a very very very simple thing, it only begs the question "What created that very very very simple thing in the beginning?"

Matter cannot create itself.

You find it a whole lot easier to accept that nothing created everything out of nothing than it is for you to accept that something created everything out of nothing.

How about, we don't know but we are struggling to understand and find out. Some things however we DO know. We know that the Bible is a collection of disparate stories, many of which are fairy tales and almost all of which are untrue and we know that Yaweh was a local Caananite deity, monotheised/henotheised by ancient goatherders. We also know that Jesus is a myth and the Gospels are the purest fabrication. The things we don't know we can try to learn and the thing we do know, we can embrace or if they are false as is the case with Christianity, reject.

[loco]

How about, we don't know but we are struggling to understand and find out. Some things however we DO know. We know that the Bible is a collection of disparate stories, many of which are fairy tales and almost all of which are untrue and we know that Yaweh was a local Caananite deity, monotheised/henotheised by ancient goatherders. We also know that Jesus is a myth and the Gospels are the purest fabrication. The things we don't know we can try to learn and the thing we do know, we can embrace or if they are false as is the case with Christianity, reject.

Hi, Trapezkerl!   

It doesn't matter.  My point is that the "Who created God" argument is pointless because you can always argue "Who created the very simple thing that all living things evolved from"? 

God is eternal.  If an atheist wants to argue that nothing can be eternal, then they'll have to also argue with atheist scientists who reject the Big Bang theory and accept that the universe is eternal.

As for Jesus being a myth, you and the people you got this from are mistaken.  I will get to this on your other thread, as soon as I get a chance.

Thanks for posting!  I always thank God for skeptics.  They make us Christians think more, study more and learn even more about God.   

[Deicide]

Hi, Trapezkerl!   

It doesn't matter.  My point is that the "Who created God" argument is pointless because you can always argue "Who created the very simple thing that all living things evolved from"? 

God is eternal.  If an atheist wants to argue that nothing can be eternal, then they'll have to also argue with atheist scientists who reject the Big Bang theory and accept that the universe is eternal.

As for Jesus being a myth, you and the people you got this from are mistaken.  I will get to this on your other thread, as soon as I get a chance.

Thanks for posting!  I always thank God for skeptics.  They make us Christians think more, study more and learn even more about God.   

We don't know if the universe is eternal or not and until a time as we do know, we cannot make assumptions like you do that it IS and that your particular saviour deity concocted nigh two millenia ago is the author of it.

As for evidence that the alleged Jesus Nazareth existed I doubt you will find anything. The best apologists of Christianity fail and most arguments are arguments from authority. But bring it on, always nice to enlighten the benighted about the imaginary godman...

[loco]

We don't know if the universe is eternal or not and until a time as we do know, we cannot make assumptions like you do that it IS and that your particular saviour deity concocted nigh two millenia ago is the author of it.

As for evidence that the alleged Jesus Nazareth existed I doubt you will find anything. The best apologists of Christianity fail and most arguments are arguments from authority. But bring it on, always nice to enlighten the benighted about the imaginary godman...

I did not say that I believe that the universe is eternal.  I said that some people believe that nothing can be eternal, while scientists such as Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi believe that the universe has no beginning, while rejecting the Big Bang theory.  Likewise, I believe that God has no beginning. 

[Deicide]

I did not say that I believe that the universe is eternal.  I said that some people believe that nothing can be eternal, while scientists such as Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi believe that the universe has no beginning, while rejecting the Big Bang theory.  Likewise, I believe that God has no beginning. 

Which god do you believe in? Which of the thousands of deities mankind has conjured up?

[NeoSeminole]

If all life on earth evolved from a very very very simple thing, it only begs the question "What created that very very very simple thing in the beginning?"

wow, really? Someone give this man a Nobel Prize for his brilliant observation.

Matter cannot create itself.

actually, it can. Look up quantum fluctuations.

[loco]

wow, really? Someone give this man a Nobel Prize for his brilliant observation.

Yeah, so what's your point?  And what's with copying columbusdude with the Nobel Prize comments?

actually, it can. Look up quantum fluctuations.

Oh boy, Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing. Nothing more.  That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times.  Did you get that?  The temporary appearance?

So now, according to NeoSeminole, not only has macroevolution been observed while it is happening, but also conservation of energy can be violated?  Talk about Nobel Prize material.   

[NeoSeminole]

Yeah, so what's your point?  And what's with copying columbusdude with the Nobel Prize comments?

I was responding to you for pointing out the obvious. No one knows what 'caused' the universe.

Oh boy, Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing. Nothing more.  That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times.  Did you get that?  The temporary appearance?

ha ha ha ha, the idiot thinks he's in the position to educate others. I know what quantum fluctuations are, hence why I mentioned them in the first place.

So now, according to NeoSeminole, not only has macroevolution been observed while it is happening, but also conservation of energy can be violated?  Talk about Nobel Prize material.

not just according to me; according to science, macroevolution has been observed and conservation of energy can be temporarily violated.

[loco]

I was responding to you for pointing out the obvious. No one knows what 'caused' the universe.

ha ha ha ha, the idiot thinks he's in the position to educate others. I know what quantum fluctuations are, hence why I mentioned them in the first place.

not just according to me; according to science, macroevolution has been observed and conservation of energy can be temporarily violated.

 

Enough said.

[loco]

I was responding to you for pointing out the obvious. No one knows what 'caused' the universe.

ha ha ha ha, the idiot thinks he's in the position to educate others. I know what quantum fluctuations are, hence why I mentioned them in the first place.

not just according to me; according to science, macroevolution has been observed and conservation of energy can be temporarily violated.

When Dawkins said that evolution has never been observed while it is happening, you said that Dawkins was referring to macroevolutin, that macroevolution has never been observed while it is happening.  You then changed your story and now you are contradicting yourself end everybody else.

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.

It's obvious from the quote that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a large scale.

By reading the rest of the interview, it's obvious that he was referring to evolution on a much grander scale than, say, a bacteria mutating into a new species.

to distinguish between micro- and macroevolution. It's apparent that you either don't know the difference or are purposely being deceitful by quote mining.

Macroevolution has been observed.

[loco]

Matter cannot create itself.

actually, it can. Look up quantum fluctuations.

Energy creation from quantum fluctuations?

Q: When matter and antimatter annihilate their energy becomes a gamma ray photon (or other things). When quantum fluxuations produce matter and antimatter pairs which annihilate each other does energy escape as gamma rays? Doesn’t this create energy from nothing?

-Wayne
El Cerrito, CA, US
 
A: No, the law of conservation of energy is upheld.  A quantum fluctuation is a "potentiality" for something to happen under the influence of some external particle or force.  If nothing comes along to disturb it the particle/anti-particle pair simply come back together.  Nevertheless, the fluctuation phenomenon has real, measurable effects.  For example in Delbruck scattering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delbruck_scattering    an incoming photon is scattered from a nucleus by means of virtual electron-positron pairs. 

LeeH

The Ask the Van question-answer site is run by a dedicated group of volunteers based in the Department of Physics at the University of Illinois. All of our volunteers work extremely hard to make sure that every question we receive is answered as completely and correctly as possible. Each question we answer is reviewed by at least two volunteers before it is posted to the internet. However, just like anyone else, we will sometimes make mistakes, we will even sometimes be completely wrong.

http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/InternetResearch.php

http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7389

[NeoSeminole]

When Dawkins said that evolution has never been observed while it is happening, you said that Dawkins was referring to macroevolutin, that macroevolution has never been observed while it is happening.  You then changed your story and now you are contradicting yourself end everybody else.

where did I change my story? I said that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a large scale. I only used the term 'macroevolution' to differentiate between 'microevolution' even though no precise definition exist for either. For example, a bacteria mutating into a new species may be considered a form of both microevolution or macroevolution. Nowhere have I contradicted myself or science.

[NeoSeminole]

http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/InternetResearch.php

http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7389

and that disproves me how?

[columbusdude82]

loco, what are your definitions of macro and micro evolution any way? All you know how to do is to keep repeating the same thing over and over.

You are so hung up on discrediting modern science (because it discredits literal interpretations of scripture) that you have lost the honest desire to learn science. All you want to do is to drill holes in it.

You think that discrediting a scientific idea automatically lends support to the religious view. In fact, it only strengthens science by leading to new, better ideas.

Oh, and evolution is here to stay. So says every respectable biologist, including Stephen Jay Gould.

[Deicide]

The funny thing is, ask an IDer or a Creationist why chimps share 99% of our DNA and Gorillas 97%, all they can say is god made it that way.

Here is where we apply Occam's Razor: what makes more sense, that we share a virtually identical DNA structure because we descend from a common ancestor or....god just made it that way...Occam's Razor wins and ID (and creationism) is a load of crap...

I do support however UID (Unintelligent Design), just look at our plumbing, dumb ass engineer wouldn't even do that.

[nzhardgain]

The funny thing is, ask an IDer or a Creationist why chimps share 99% of our DNA and Gorillas 97%, all they can say is god made it that way.

Here is where we apply Occam's Razor: what makes more sense, that we share a virtually identical DNA structure because we descend from a common ancestor or....god just made it that way...Occam's Razor wins and ID (and creationism) is a load of crap...

I do support however UID (Unintelligent Design), just look at our plumbing, dumb ass engineer wouldn't even do that.

We have a common ancestor with the animals,you are right about that.I also see humanoid characteristics in many animals,whats your point?

You support the idea we came from nothing ,fine you came from nothing.Dust you are and dust you will return.

[Deicide]

We have a common ancestor with the animals,you are right about that.I also see humanoid characteristics in many animals,whats your point?

You support the idea we came from nothing ,fine you came from nothing.Dust you are and dust you will return.

What biblical literalists and religious folk in general need to learn is that wanting something to be true, wishing for it because it is comforting, does not have the slightest effect on its truth value. We are a short lived, primitive simian, mammalian species that will likely go extinct as all animals do; what is your issue and why can't you deal with that?

[nzhardgain]

Read the bible.seems like you got the time to.Come back when u are better educated on the subject.

[Deicide]

Read the bible.seems like you got the time to.Come back when u are better educated on the subject.

I have read the Bible; a pile of ancient myths and fairy tales, much of which is plagiarised from other ancient cultures. Studying even more reveals just how defective it is, riddled with errors and contradictions...don't even get me started.

Sorry, but bibical literalists are fucking retards, no doubt about that...come back when you realise that the stories in the Bible are just that, stories.

[nzhardgain]

I have read the Bible; a pile of ancient myths and fairy tales, much of which is plagiarised from other ancient cultures. Studying even more reveals just how defective it is, riddled with errors and contradictions...don't even get me started.

Sorry, but bibical literalists are fucking retards, no doubt about that...come back when you realise that the stories in the Bible are just that, stories.

Now u are backing yourself into a corner.keep digging .You havent read or studied the bible  have you?Not very "scientific" of you to claim all sorts of things about a particular subject without research.

[Nordic Superman]

We are a short lived, primitive simian, mammalian species that will likely go extinct as all animals do

Can you name me a more advanced organism than humans? To call humans primitive you MUST have a point of reference.

Primitive? In what sense? In the liberal eco warrior sense that humans are stupid and destroying the Earth?

[Dos Equis]

I have read the Bible; a pile of ancient myths and fairy tales, much of which is plagiarised from other ancient cultures. Studying even more reveals just how defective it is, riddled with errors and contradictions...don't even get me started.

Sorry, but bibical literalists are fucking retards, no doubt about that...come back when you realise that the stories in the Bible are just that, stories.

What about the people who teach at and graduate from places like Columbia, Harvard, and Yale?  You consider them "retards"?

http://www.ctsnet.edu/glance/special_partnerships/index.asp

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/

http://www.yale.edu/divinity/

[columbusdude82]

Do they teach that the Bible is a divinely revealed book that contains scientific truths?

[OzmO]

What about the people who teach at and graduate from places like Columbia, Harvard, and Yale?  You consider them "retards"?

http://www.ctsnet.edu/glance/special_partnerships/index.asp

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/

http://www.yale.edu/divinity/

Are those people literalists?   Or do they see the Bible stories as mostly metaphors and practice their faith much like typical Christians?

[loco]

What about the people who teach at and graduate from places like Columbia, Harvard, and Yale?  You consider them "retards"?

http://www.ctsnet.edu/glance/special_partnerships/index.asp

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/

http://www.yale.edu/divinity/

Though Harvard is mostly secular today, many people forget that it started off as a Christian College.

"Harvard College was established in 1636 by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was named for its first benefactor, John Harvard of Charlestown, a young minister who, upon his death in 1638, left his library and half his estate to the new institution. Harvard's first scholarship fund was created in 1643 with a gift from Ann Radcliffe, Lady Mowlson.

During its early years, the College offered a classic academic course based on the English university model but consistent with the prevailing Puritan philosophy of the first colonists. Although many of its early graduates became ministers in Puritan congregations throughout New England, the College was never formally affiliated with a specific religious denomination. An early brochure, published in 1643, justified the College's existence: "To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches."
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html