Did Darwin Kill God?

[TOOTS]

did darwin kill god no

 

[Bigga]

Your edit of Bigga's post just shows to everyone that you do not understand evolution and that, well, you're uneducated on the basics of history and science.. if Bigga making one almighty cock up of comparing the Bronze Age to an Ice Age, two terms that both end in "Age" yet are not connected in any way shape or form, warrants a "good point, well made" description from you, then all I can do is laugh.

As for your reply... well, no doubt you misunderstand the "Selfish Gene" to mean selfish little conscious critters. Last time I looked(about 6 month's ago) the "selfish gene" was discovered, "conclusively", by scientists working on the "Honey Bee Genome Project". Also, Dawkins' Selfish Gene has been far from "rubbish" in the eyes of scientists

As for the Blind Watchmaker, a classic, I'd love to see your source for your claim that Dawkin refutes it. Of course, you will ignore this request.

Funny that you being up Fry, a man who, according to your scripture, is an "abomination"

I can speak for myself, thanks. I wasn't comparing ANY Ages. That's just you yet again jumping to conclusions.

I alluded to, earlier in the thread, a question... Why is it that modern day Apes show no signs of evolutionary change and someone answered 'cos that change has been bred out'(I paraphrase, of course, but that's what it boiled down to!). Nonsense.

If I investigate further, the offerings on this thread, that evolution takes millennia, that's fair enough, but I asked where are the in-between stages now? I was fobbed of with the above answer.

The same answer cannot answer two different questions...

 

[ElanJo]

Your edit of Bigga's post just shows to everyone that you do not understand evolution and that, well, you're uneducated on the basics of history and science.. if Bigga making one almighty cock up of comparing the Bronze Age to an Ice Age, two terms that both end in "Age" yet are not connected in any way shape or form, warrants a "good point, well made" description from you, then all I can do is laugh.

As for your reply... well, no doubt you misunderstand the "Selfish Gene" to mean selfish little conscious critters. Last time I looked(about 6 month's ago) the "selfish gene" was discovered, "conclusively", by scientists working on the "Honey Bee Genome Project". Also, Dawkins' Selfish Gene has been far from "rubbish" in the eyes of scientists

As for the Blind Watchmaker, a classic, I'd love to see your source for your claim that Dawkin refutes it. Of course, you will ignore this request.

Funny that you being up Fry, a man who, according to your scripture, is an "abomination"

I can speak for myself, thanks. I wasn't comparing ANY Ages. That's just you yet again jumping to conclusions.

I alluded to, earlier in the thread, a question... Why is it that modern day Apes show no signs of evolutionary change and someone answered 'cos that change has been bred out'(I paraphrase, of course, but that's what it boiled down to!). Nonsense.

If I investigate further, the offerings on this thread, that evolution takes millennia, that's fair enough, but I asked where are the in-between stages now? I was fobbed of with the above answer.

The same answer cannot answer two different questions...

You obviously were comparing an Ice Age with the Bronze age. An Ice Age (which happens to increase the chance of preservation/fossilization ,fyi) being a natural event will have impacts on fossils, so whilst your conclusion may be inverted in this respect, atleast it was on the same ballpark. How the Bronze Age (a technological age) could, in your view, impact on fossilization(or, more specifically a "missing link") I have no idea.
Not to mention I was the only one to mention the words "Ice Age" in the entire thread, and when I did it was in reply to you.

Anyway, what do you mean by wanting to see "in-between stages" today? Are you wondering why you don't see Half man-Half Ape's walking around ? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[der-bomber]

 

[Bigga]

Your edit of Bigga's post just shows to everyone that you do not understand evolution and that, well, you're uneducated on the basics of history and science.. if Bigga making one almighty cock up of comparing the Bronze Age to an Ice Age, two terms that both end in "Age" yet are not connected in any way shape or form, warrants a "good point, well made" description from you, then all I can do is laugh.

As for your reply... well, no doubt you misunderstand the "Selfish Gene" to mean selfish little conscious critters. Last time I looked(about 6 month's ago) the "selfish gene" was discovered, "conclusively", by scientists working on the "Honey Bee Genome Project". Also, Dawkins' Selfish Gene has been far from "rubbish" in the eyes of scientists

As for the Blind Watchmaker, a classic, I'd love to see your source for your claim that Dawkin refutes it. Of course, you will ignore this request.

Funny that you being up Fry, a man who, according to your scripture, is an "abomination"

I can speak for myself, thanks. I wasn't comparing ANY Ages. That's just you yet again jumping to conclusions.

I alluded to, earlier in the thread, a question... Why is it that modern day Apes show no signs of evolutionary change and someone answered 'cos that change has been bred out'(I paraphrase, of course, but that's what it boiled down to!). Nonsense.

If I investigate further, the offerings on this thread, that evolution takes millennia, that's fair enough, but I asked where are the in-between stages now? I was fobbed of with the above answer.

The same answer cannot answer two different questions...

You obviously were comparing an Ice Age with the Bronze age. An Ice Age (which happens to increase the chance of preservation/fossilization ,fyi) being a natural event will have impacts on fossils, so whilst your conclusion may be inverted in this respect, atleast it was on the same ballpark. How the Bronze Age (a technological age) could, in your view, impact on fossilization(or, more specifically a "missing link") I have no idea.
Not to mention I was the only one to mention the words "Ice Age" in the entire thread, and when I did it was in reply to you.

Anyway, what do you mean by wanting to see "in-between stages" today? Are you wondering why you don't see Half man-Half Ape's walking around ? I'm not sure what you mean.

I'll concede I had a lot of randomness going on in my head that prompted the Bronze Age reference. But, gladly, some serious questions are borne out of those events.

I note you've conveniently completely ignored the reference to Francis Collins, noted Scientist, eh...?

 

[The Kurious Oranj]

Your edit of Bigga's post just shows to everyone that you do not understand evolution and that, well, you're uneducated on the basics of history and science.. if Bigga making one almighty cock up of comparing the Bronze Age to an Ice Age, two terms that both end in "Age" yet are not connected in any way shape or form, warrants a "good point, well made" description from you, then all I can do is laugh.

As for your reply... well, no doubt you misunderstand the "Selfish Gene" to mean selfish little conscious critters. Last time I looked(about 6 month's ago) the "selfish gene" was discovered, "conclusively", by scientists working on the "Honey Bee Genome Project". Also, Dawkins' Selfish Gene has been far from "rubbish" in the eyes of scientists

As for the Blind Watchmaker, a classic, I'd love to see your source for your claim that Dawkin refutes it. Of course, you will ignore this request.

Funny that you being up Fry, a man who, according to your scripture, is an "abomination"

I can speak for myself, thanks. I wasn't comparing ANY Ages. That's just you yet again jumping to conclusions.

I alluded to, earlier in the thread, a question... Why is it that modern day Apes show no signs of evolutionary change and someone answered 'cos that change has been bred out'(I paraphrase, of course, but that's what it boiled down to!). Nonsense.

If I investigate further, the offerings on this thread, that evolution takes millennia, that's fair enough, but I asked where are the in-between stages now? I was fobbed of with the above answer.

The same answer cannot answer two different questions...

Oh Bigga, Bigga, the man with the expanding mind. You really don't understand evolution at all do you? I thought we had already dealt with your rather silly question 'where are the in-between stages?' I'll try again. Now concentrate. There aren't any. There, that wasn't too difficult was it?

I asked you earlier to go and have a look at 'The Blind Watchmaker' (or indeed any book on evolution) where you would find a detailed explanation. I realised you might have difficulty with the reading thing so posted a link to a very simple clip which also explains everything. Here it is again for your convenience <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc</a> .

I really think you need to get your thoughts straightened out. You seem to be agreeing with and defending the annoying (that voice!) Conor Cunningham, but then continue to argue against the very thing he has no problems with - Evolution. Perhaps if you could be a little clearer about what you actually DO believe in and the reasons why then discussion with you might be a little easier.

As for Francis Collins, well yes he is a very brilliant scientist but that doesn't mean there is a God just because he has faith. I probably have the advantage over you here because I have actually read his book 'The Language Of God'. First of all he completely agrees with the scientific views of both Darwin and Richard Dawkins. No problem at all.

So why does Collins believe in a 'God'. Well, because of this (I quote the book) ... "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains…the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."

So. There we are then. A frozen waterfall eh? Must be a God then. So, yes, I do consider him a bit of a looney. I wonder if he rounded a corner and saw the devastation caused by the earthquake in Italy last night and the suffering of the poor souls (an Act Of God I think it's called) whether he would then surrender to the majesty of Jesus Christ?

 

[ElanJo]

Your edit of Bigga's post just shows to everyone that you do not understand evolution and that, well, you're uneducated on the basics of history and science.. if Bigga making one almighty cock up of comparing the Bronze Age to an Ice Age, two terms that both end in "Age" yet are not connected in any way shape or form, warrants a "good point, well made" description from you, then all I can do is laugh.

As for your reply... well, no doubt you misunderstand the "Selfish Gene" to mean selfish little conscious critters. Last time I looked(about 6 month's ago) the "selfish gene" was discovered, "conclusively", by scientists working on the "Honey Bee Genome Project". Also, Dawkins' Selfish Gene has been far from "rubbish" in the eyes of scientists

As for the Blind Watchmaker, a classic, I'd love to see your source for your claim that Dawkin refutes it. Of course, you will ignore this request.

Funny that you being up Fry, a man who, according to your scripture, is an "abomination"

I can speak for myself, thanks. I wasn't comparing ANY Ages. That's just you yet again jumping to conclusions.

I alluded to, earlier in the thread, a question... Why is it that modern day Apes show no signs of evolutionary change and someone answered 'cos that change has been bred out'(I paraphrase, of course, but that's what it boiled down to!). Nonsense.

If I investigate further, the offerings on this thread, that evolution takes millennia, that's fair enough, but I asked where are the in-between stages now? I was fobbed of with the above answer.

The same answer cannot answer two different questions...

You obviously were comparing an Ice Age with the Bronze age. An Ice Age (which happens to increase the chance of preservation/fossilization ,fyi) being a natural event will have impacts on fossils, so whilst your conclusion may be inverted in this respect, atleast it was on the same ballpark. How the Bronze Age (a technological age) could, in your view, impact on fossilization(or, more specifically a "missing link") I have no idea.
Not to mention I was the only one to mention the words "Ice Age" in the entire thread, and when I did it was in reply to you.

Anyway, what do you mean by wanting to see "in-between stages" today? Are you wondering why you don't see Half man-Half Ape's walking around ? I'm not sure what you mean.

I'll concede I had a lot of randomness going on in my head that prompted the Bronze Age reference. But, gladly, some serious questions are borne out of those events.

I note you've conveniently completely ignored the reference to Francis Collins, noted Scientist, eh...?

Just because he is a scientist doesn't mean he is immune to Christianity. I don't see the relevance really. Appeals to authority, particularly with regards to a God, aren't legitimate arguments for anything, in my opinion.

I would like you to answer my question btw. Im not trying to trick you, I'd like to give you a decent answer, or atleast point you in the direction of one... but 1st I need to know exactly what the question is.

 

[Bigga]

Just because he is a scientist doesn't mean he is immune to Christianity. I don't see the relevance really. Appeals to authority, particularly with regards to a God, aren't legitimate arguments for anything, in my opinion.

I would like you to answer my question btw. Im not trying to trick you, I'd like to give you a decent answer, or atleast point you in the direction of one... but 1st I need to know exactly what the question is.

Yes, I read a stat that 40% of scientists were religious! Crazy fookers, eh?

Actually, before I answer your question, do me a favour and post some photos of fossilised Man for me. You know, that can be found in those rocks like T.K.O. posted. After all, I'm pretty sure there's something around...

 

[ElanJo]

Just because he is a scientist doesn't mean he is immune to Christianity. I don't see the relevance really. Appeals to authority, particularly with regards to a God, aren't legitimate arguments for anything, in my opinion.

I would like you to answer my question btw. Im not trying to trick you, I'd like to give you a decent answer, or atleast point you in the direction of one... but 1st I need to know exactly what the question is.

Yes, I read a stat that 40% of scientists were religious! Crazy fookers, eh?

Actually, before I answer your question, do me a favour and post some photos of fossilised Man for me. You know, that can be found in those rocks like T.K.O. posted. After all, I'm pretty sure there's something around...

Not seen any rocks posted by TKO, but here's some pics

12 year old male homo-erectus

Many more here
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hu ... on_fossils</a>

 

[johnny crossan]

PMSL!! Maybe I should stop speaking in layman's terms in other to get through to the Scientists on this forum!! But I won't, because I want everyone to see what I'm saying...

'good point , well made' - but long - Bigga

IF after this painstakingly simplified point, you don't 'understand', well I give up!! I'll accept that you will have copped out on a feasible explanation to my post.

Now you're just making yourself look silly. Have you actually READ any books on evolution? No I thought not. I recommend the 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Prof Richard Dawkins. Come back when you've read that and then you might be able to talk a bit more sense. Alternatively, if your mental capacity isn't up to understanding a book, here's a simple video that explains things for you <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fricharddawkins%2Enet%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D46%26t%3D76896&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfW ... r_embedded</a>

Well, well, Kurious Oranj, you do seem like an unpleasant and particularly stupid fellow.

Not only are you recommending the the totally discredited Blind Watchmaker (disowned some years ago even by the laughable Dawkins) but you can't even recognise a sincere & sensible question, as that put by Bigga, or a straightforward analysis, such as that offered on 'Did Darwin Kill God?'.

On the limited ground he marked out for himself in the programme, Conor Cunningham was entirely successful in making his case that the biblical account of the creation myth has been generally understood as allegorical - apart from a few Anglicans in the latter half of the 19th century + a strain of fundamentalist American Christians 30 years later for primarily the same political reasons.

There is no conflict between science and religion, to suggest there is involves a systematic misuse of language. Dawkins achieved a little publicity for his category mistakes some years ago in 'The Selfish Gene' but no practising scientist has ever taken this rubbish seriously, especially the atheists, for example those as interviewed in the TV programme.

Are you keeping up with this or, as Stephen Fry might put it, shall we open the big cupboard, take out a cane & give you a sound thrashing (metaphorically of course).

Oh dear. The Christian resorts to personal abuse. Well fancy that! Where to start with your post? Frankly there really isn't much point in bothering as you are clearly just a big fat WUM. However, I suppose I should make some effort to respond to your silliness.

So let's get this straight; you believe in the theory of evolution (at least I think you do, you aren't the most succinct of writers) but you think that 'The Blind Watchmaker' is discredited and even disowned by Dawkins and that 'The Selfish Gene' is rubbish that no scientist takes seriously? The only possible response to that is WTF!! I know, I know it's a wind up intit? But April 1 was last week you fool. If it's not just a silly wind-up and you seriously believe what you're writing then please provide some evidence or just continue to look a complete tit.

Darwin, and indeed Dawkins, do not say the theory of evolution "shows there is NO God". What he says is - there is now a perfectly natural explanation for the emergence of man, and indeed all other life on earth and there is thus no longer any need to make the mistaken postulation of god as creator of man ... because that's simply wrong!

And further, "God" is any case not an explanation of man's creation, or the creation of other life, or indeed the creation of anything at all. The God claim really is just another way of theists saying they don't know how anything was created/formed ... to say these things were the result of divine miracle from God, is really just saying "I don't have an explanation for any of these things, so I will say it's a miracle!" .... that's only an explanation if you say HOW god did it .... but no theist has ever answered that question (except by postulating even more miracles!).

Am I keeping up? Er, I think you've been lapped a few times, Sir. I suggest a pit stop so you spend a little time researching what you're talking about.

I rather think that the excellent Mr Fry would rather give you a sound thrashing ...

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHcBF-g7-c&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHcBF-g ... r_embedded</a>

'Religion - Shit it.' - Stephen Fry

OK, I've had a very large tea, must try hard to become a big fat WUM.

So, I see a little modest criticism from me about your unpleasant tone towards Bigga and rather foolish adherence to Prof Dawkins' atheology has immediately provoked an expletive-ridden attack on my character, beliefs, motives and intelligence. Let's move on.

Dawkins really should have stuck to bats. In extending his model of unguided evolution, via various suppressed premises, to a universe without design, he simply fails to address the question why the universe could not have been created by a personal God. Just asserting that materialism is true and therefore God cannot exist is merely begging the question.

The irony is that Dawkins disables his own mechanism for establishing the truth of his position. How does he imagine that adaptive behaviour can guarantee true belief? On his naturalist view our neurological structures (beliefs) become very unreliable. His position is irrational and always remember, God is pleased when the outpourings of militant atheism are rational.

I'm guessing that, given your savage polemical skills, you are in some kind of HE/FE job. If that is so, would it presume too much to ask what your professional interests are? Have you perhaps considered private tuition? ElanJo in particular would benefit greatly from proximity to someone with your grammatical expertise.

The Stephen Fry clips were very good by the way, thanks for the links - most enjoyable.