No, of course I don't know there isn't an invisible component. If I closed my mind to the remote possibility I wouldn't have a scientific viewpoint, I would have a faith-based viewpoint. But the premise of your argument is "life can't come from non-life", "consciousness can't come from non-consciousness". But these aren't rules. These are your own personal opinions dressed up as rules with absolutely no basis for qualification. Where's your evidence that life can't come from non-life or consciousness from non-consciousness?? The observable fact that a human being can go from a tadpole-shaped piece of tissue to a walking, talking being within a few years is evidence enough that it can. It seems your best argument is a statement that "there might be something somewhere that's called the 'spark of life' and although it's not measurable/observable and it doesn't follow any known chemical/physical laws, it gives irrefutable evidence that I'm right". I've given examples of the evidence nature shows that life from non-life is possible and although we can't manufacture life from base parts with our current technology (despite being able to assemble life from component parts, a la cloning), nature does this every single day. No, you've understood me wrong. You said you haven't personally seen life coming from non-life, therefore it isn't possible. I said of course you haven't because it's a slow process which takes a lot longer than your own 33 years. If you use the same argument all the time, you'll be laughing at the fact I believe in WW2. I'm not making an off-hand statement to explain myself - the chemical/geological/physical record gives evidence that there's been a slow progression from simple organisms to more complex, and as I said there's a branch of science devoted to explaining/exploring how life comes from non-life. As I said before, there's nothing special about life - all it is is the ability of a collection of particles to self-replicate. Yep, that's where science and religion meet - the core event is by its nature unexplainable. I was just giving a summary of many religions to state my case that the existance of a moral, conscious, omniscient, omnipresent, human god is infinitely less probable than the big bang theory. You're the one who brought up probability and I'm just saying it's like the pot calling the snowflake black. Occam's razor my friend. Science rests on a huge amount of collected, measurable data and physical records that can be proven by anyone, anywhere in the world (e.g. where geological records from china match those in peru...), whereas religion rests on: The idea of all-powerful god/gods, with no physical proof, no evidence and no physical effect The writing of townspeople thousands of years ago, who had no formal education and less opportunity to access world knowledge as an uneducated, homeless, bankrupt minority woman with no internet access. And writing which has been reinterpreted, rewritten and translated for political advantage by warring parties for thousands of years. The idea of a "soul", which doesn't fit any measurable, quantifiable evidence The idea of a "spark of life", which doesn't fit any measureable, quantifiable evidence The idea of "heaven", which doesn't fit any measurable, quantifiable evidence The idea of a moral universe, which doesn't match any behaviour of the world/ecology/universe around us The idea that humans are in some way special, which is clearly wrong given our highly disadvantaged status in the animal kingdom (apart from culture). The idea that one particular faith in some way is "correct" while the others are "wrong", despite there being absolutely no difference between their method of information gathering. Meanwhile, the world continues to behave exactly how the scientists expect it to, while extremely difficult events keep happening, from a theological viewpoint, to disrupt the religious argument (like the world not being flat, the earth going round the sun, tsunamis killing hundreds of thousands, and zeus/thor/jesus not flying down from the sky in a flaming chariot)
You have an odd science, one unknown to me. My conclusions are based upon my own observations of the world around me, and the observations of other people of the world around them. AikiMac's observation: All known life comes from life. AikiMac's thesis: Only life begets life. Life does not come about except through the input of something already alive. Test: Search the world, and no counter-examples are found. All known life came from some prior life. AikiMac's conclusion: Thesis is true. But Ric exclaims, "That's bad science! And it's false! Non-life sprouts life constantly. For example, consider the human fetus. You are both wrong and unscientific!" AikiMac scratches his head. Huh? The parents are alive. Your data supports my thesis and contradicts your thesis blatantly. Ric exclaims, "False! A virus was made from scratch." No, it wasn't. It was made with input from living cells. Your data again supports my thesis and contradicts your thesis. And Ric exclaims, "You have bad science! The evidence is on my side. The data denies your conclusion at every turn, every day. Look at the human fetus -- life from non-life!" And AikiMac goes " " The parents are alive. Once again your data supports my thesis and contradicts yours in a blatant way. My thesis is scientifically sound according to all the science I ever learned. All data supports it. Your thesis is a fairy tale devoid of any known supporting data. If "science" declares it true over my thesis, then we learned different sciences. And so the several conclusions still stand unblemished: something is eternal, self-existing, and alive. We can debate certain other points but we can't quibble over these points because facts and reason won't let us. Lot's of people experienced WW2. We both do well to believe in WW2 on the basis of their consistent testimonies. In contrast, no person experienced a million-year process. We can only speculate as to what might happen over the course of a million years. I "cough" because the humongous magnitude of "hundreds of millions of years" conveniently covers up all the details and all the flaws of whatever theory we're talking about. It's very easy to say, "Oh, you know, everyone knows that if you wait seven-hundred-million years, that something will happen. Therefore, the theory is true. You just have to wait seven-hundred-million years." Smoke and mirrors, anyone? This is hand-waving at it's best. It's a conjecture with odds so low that grandma's honesty demands that we call it zero. In stark contrast, I speak of what is known and seen by all people every day: life comes from life. I question the adjective "human," but the existence of a "god" of some sort is actually required by the pristine truth that there is no other cause of the Big Bang. Yes, like life coming always from life. Easter. (Psst: That's insulting to eyewitnesses. How much education must she have before she can speak of what she witnesses? I say none, thank you.) This has already been discussed and disarmed on MAP. Except for all known instances of life.
AikiMac's observation: Buses can only ever be driven by people with blue bus company uniforms. AikiMac's thesis: Only people who work for the bus company are allowed to drive the bus. The bus can't be driven without a driver. Test: Search the world, and no counter-examples are found. All known buses are being driven by people with blue bus company uniforms. AikiMac's conclusion: Thesis is true. ummmmmmmm... Next, you're going to "prove" that it's physically impossible for midgets to ride in rollercoasters and that it's impossible to die while on the moon, because "everyone who has ever been there has lived" The problem is, you haven't defined what you mean when you speak about "life". What do you actually mean when you talk about life? Describe it... are you just talking about self-replicating organisms? The problem is that in nature there is no clear distinction between "living" and "non-living" organisms, and there's no evidence of something called a "spark of life". http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm Note, the link gives a summary of some of the current research and yes, the actual process whereby RNA was created is still unclear (although, as I said before, there are convincing arguments that chemical patterns in a self-enclosed system can display life-like traits (e.g. information storage/access and something approaching self-replication). What a roundabout way for an intelligent creator to work... to create self-replicating RNA, building up after hundreds of milliions of years to algae, then fish, amphibians, then starting on his master plan of dinosaurs, smashing a comet into them, starting the ecosystem all over again and deciding primates is the way to go in a blink of an evolutionary eye. mmm, doesn't make us feel too special does it. The problem with faith-based arguments is that they assume the other side is giving evidence based on faith and assumption. On the contrary, a case from a scientific pov is based on research and experimental evidence that can be proven again and again. That's why a religious argument can justify a belief that the world is flat and that the sun is actually a flaming chariot, while the scientific case goes beyond pure assumption and looks at the evidence. And no person has ever experienced Halley's comet appearing three times. How do you know it's coming back around? From evidence collected using mathematics and physics, using the scientific method. You keep on saying it but it's getting a hollow ring to it. What do you mean by "life", in both cases? and how come the existence of humans must've come from a conscious deity when all it takes is "life"? Maybe there is a god but he's got as much consciousness as an amoeba? fits your argument. I do hope you're kidding. It has just as much validity as people who claim to see Elvis. I don't mean to insult eyewitnesses, but any first year beat cop can tell you about the reliability of eyewitness evidence. Go to an Anthony Robbins seminar, read the Communist Manifesto, watch the Life of Brian then go and see a stage magic show.... write it down as a kitch moral fable, add the good bits from as many other religions as you can find, stir, throw away a bunch of chapters, wait a couple of thousand years and give to a couple of greedy despots as a political tool for a few hundred years, change the emphasis of the book so people can justify stuff like slavery, subjugation of women, burning witches and invading heathen countries, then try to tell me the written story is reliable eyewitness evidence. I stand by my statement. Think about it - these people had to wait over a thousand years before they were advanced enough to accept the fact that the sun went around the earth. The average 12yo with a first world highschool education and broadband has access to more collected wisdom than anyone in history. What did the writers have to go on? A few hundred years of greek mathematics and philosophy and a few feel-good seminars given by a team leader called JC. I'm not denying the historical validity of the bible and the fact that jesus lived. Yes, they were speaking from their experiences about real places, but do you really think they were qualified to write about miraculous events? Not to mention the fact that JC didn't write anything down, much of the rest of the book is in metaphor anyway (esp. most of JC's speeches), and it was written, then kept for thousands of years as a tool of political control over the masses. Oh, and it had to borrow heavily from other religions in order to convert people over. What more validity does one book have than any of the other thousands of written and oral religious traditions? We can get an egg from one donor, maternal and paternal dna from other doners, implant it into a different host mother, and a baby will grow. Where is this spark of life? I assume you're talking about a specific pattern of base pairs on DNA that allows for life to exist. Do a google search - there's a lot of good evidence that dna developed from self-replicating RNA. As for the jump from complex chemical reactions to RNA prototypes, it is definitely possible while we may not know the actual process, yet. Hey, in a few hundred years we'll find out the actual process (like we did for evolution, dna and the solar system) then science will decide to focus on something else it hasn't yet found out about, and you can tell us that god's hiding there instead.
Amigo Ric, allegations of a closed mind or of ignorance or whatever you think ailed the dead witnesses and me, can go both ways. And familiarity can breed commonality. Here you sound like the very people you criticize. Your message is clear: “Don’t confuse me with facts. My teacher told me it’s this way so it’s this way.” I enjoy these types of talks, but we’ve reached a fatal problem: you’re not addressing the merits. Worse, you’re accusing me of doing that which you are doing. That type of discussion is not fun to me. I have spoken of facts witnessed by all people all over the globe. You retort with strawmen arguments and no facts that contradict my position. For example, I have never been a member of the Flat Earth Society nor have I ever said that the Earth is flat, and, moreover, the shape of the Earth is not relevant to whether non-life can beget life. We needn’t talk about the shape of the Earth nor the degree of silliness that Flat Earth members present. Equally, I have never, ever, endorsed Greek or Roman mythology, but neither is the movement of the sun relevant to whether non-life can beget life. We needn’t talk about it. Your midget example is a mistake because roller coasters have well-advertised height restrictions. Your bus driver example is pointless, does not track the form of my argument, and does not address the merits of my argument. It’s another fruitless tangent. Etc. What can I conclude except that your strawmen are decoys for your lack of evidentiary support and desire to stick to the merits of my argument? So, you just keep believing the what “might” be proven true in “a few hundred years” but what is literally wishful fiction today (any instance of life arising without the input of prior life), and I’ll keep believing what all people of all educational levels actually experience everyday everywhere on this planet (life comes from life), and we’ll leave it at that. If and when you want to address the merits of the arguments with evidence in support of life arising from non-life, I’ll be the first in line to talk with you again. I would like that. It’s fun for me. But until then, I respectfully decline your invitation to stray off track. I don’t know the outer boundary line of life but neither does anyone else and neither does it even matter to this talk. Some life I can identify: mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles are alive. Rocks are not alive. I’m sure we agree on those examples. Being that nothing that might be alive has been born without input from something else that is alive (a point that you have disputed exclusively with paper theories, and not with any physical evidence at all), the exact boundary is irrelevant today. If and when someone finds an instance of life arising from non-life, then I’d be happy to discuss with you a boundary line. Until then, I wish you well, and I’ll happily chat with you on another thread. This one, I think, has run it’s course for you and me.
Probably agree to disagree then. I've stated my case - that certain things (e.g. some viruses, parasitic organisms, etc) cross the boundary between life and non-life - It is possible to create life from non-living parts - in fact it's the most common thing in the world (birth) - There is a clearly defined evolutionary chain from animals, down to single-celled creatures, there's a lot of development in the scientific field beyond that and the common theory is that RNA was the origin of life (which evolved later into DNA within a cell, using parasitic organisms like mitochondria). - That there is a lot of development in the theories of how RNA prototypes evolved naturally out of the innate, order generating properties of chemical reactions in an enclosed ecosystem. Unfortunately, you don't seem prepared to address these facts. If you do a simple Google search you will find proof to back up my claims and the fact that I'm not talking from speculation - it is a current scientific field and the info is backed up by computer modelling, experimentation and fossil records (where possible, of course, because amoeba don't leave a fossil record). I asked where you define the "spark of life" - that's a natural question. It seems to be neither a thing that flies in and inhabits a being (a la a soul, something that has no regard for the laws of physics/conservation of energy), nor something that is transferred in whole from one being to another (because cloning has proven you can create an animal from different parts of other animals. My guess (since you never defined it) was that you were talking about some specific pattern of DNA that allows for life, so I've concentrated on that. Not that DNA is necessarily essential to life, but it's the replication system that every living thing in the world uses so it's a fair bet that if there's anything that we have in common between us, a cactus and a bacteria, it'll be there. Your claim of "show me an example of where life has come from non-life or I won't believe you" is false. If that was the basis of your argument all the time, you'd never believe in any process that takes longer than you live (or want to pay attention). The fact that you have complete faith in a sheltered, subjective oral tradition finally written by ignorant (by modern standards) ancient people, yet are so adamant about ignoring the gathered research and physical evidence of scientific systems that have been around for centuries... it surprises me. From a logical point of view there's no argument. Just because scientists, at their current level of knowledge, can't fill in the last piece of the jigsaw of the creation of life doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that science has figured out every process (virtually) except the very last one. I'm surprised at your logic. Life has never been intelligently designed from a bacteria to us (apart from promising beginnings in the last couple of years in the scientific field), so I'm surprised you justify the presence of life as evidence for intelligent design. If anything, if your argument (hypothetically) is right, it's just as logical to assume that god is a strand of RNA or a bacteria. The idea of omnipotence/consciousness has no place at all in your argument. This is an important point so I hope you understand my reasoning. The fact that "RNA/DNA is complex" also has no grounds for claim of an intelligent designer, no more than the fact that amino acids and chemical reactions (all non-living, natural processes, of course) are complex. Take a look at the research on the internet. I'm not talking about amateur websites - look at scientific publications and information on the latest research by universities/corporations. My last point was not trying to be antagonistic, I was meaning that if science has discovered the evolutionary chain and filled in the gaps in physics/chemistry/biology so much that only the last step of complex chemical reactions to RNA is not experimentally proven (but definitely theoretically likely - again look at the research yourself), it seems odd that the one and only spark of divine intervention just happens to be hiding at that particular place as well. My last comment was that even once (and I'm sure they will) scientists are able to create self-replicating life from chemical reactions, using experiment or computer modelling, the faith-based crowd will still not accept that as evidence of the non-existance of a creator - they'll just shift their last spark of hope somewhere else. This, I think, is unfortunate.
Hello, I did address these facts -- they form a theory. A theory, for crying out loud. Right here you even said it. It's a theory. "A lot of development," you said. "Common theory," you said, twice. "Common theory." I speak of what is actually seen, and you speak of what is still a theory, and you think that you are better than me? I'll thank you to not make fun of me if and when I believe in something unproven, as I've not made fun of you for believing in something unproven. Cheers. I'm cool with you.
I don't want to make fun of you. I respect your views, especially the fact that you seem to have spent a lot more time thinking about it than a lot of people who blindly accept what they're told (religious or non). Any world picture involves some degree of faith because we simply aren't capable, individually, of understanding everything. You have faith in some religious leaders, who are backed up by scripture and tradition, while I have faith in scientists, who are backed up by experimental evidence and assumptions (yes ) they've expanded from proven theories. I'd like to think that if scientists turned around tomorrow and said "we were wrong, the evidence now proves evolution is bunk and we were pieced together like lego from other species", I would have enough faith to accept their expert opinion (after all, they know the details), but I may have as much trouble changing my view as a religious person who is told they should now believe in the "New New Testament". The best we can all do is suspend judgement, and really listen to other people's opinions before deciding, then not be worried about accepting that you (or I) may be wrong. Check out a book called "The Life of Pi" - it's an amazing book, all about faith. It really made me think. It's a bit weird but trust me, it all comes together in the end of the book. And if we're still around after we become worm food you can say "I told you so"!
Someone else mentioned that pi book to me. I'll try to remember it next time I'm in the library. Thanks.
wow Wow...lol my brain has been fried from this convo though I think I comprehended most of it lol. Thanks a lot for sharing your views Aikimac, they've taught me a great deal about my own faith.
Update: I mentioned to someone that I'm reading "The Blind Watchmaker" again, and he asked if I'd read about Antony Flew. No, I hadn't, so I looked up the good Mr. Flew. He was formerly the world's leading proponent of atheistic philosophy. Now he's a deist. He believes in a God of the sort that Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson believed in. Why, you ask? Because DNA is kicking atheists' butts. "The Blind Watchmaker" was published 18 years ago. We're no closer today to proving it true, then we were 18 years ago, says Flew. I didn't say this, Flew said this. The more that we learn about DNA, the less evidence we have in favor of atheism and the more evidence we have in favor of a Creator God. I didn't say this, Flew said this. He converted to a belief in a Creator God because the scientific evidence forced him to. The scientific evidence does not support atheism, says Flew. It supports the theory that a God of some sort exists and created us. DNA is proof that God exists, says Flew. Now my point is not that, "My team is better than your team." My point is to stop and ponder the facts. Maybe, just maybe, Flew has a point. Maybe, just maybe, the scientific evidence is not so slanted against God. Maybe, just maybe, DNA is the proof of God. It's something to think about. Did Flew change his mind because he's a senile old man, or did he change his mind because he's an honest observer of the facts? That's a point to ponder. He's given us something to think about. For example, what is the evidence that Flew is talking about? What did he see in all the science reports that led him to change his position? That's an interesting question. Flew is leaning toward theism. The difference between deism and theism is that a deist does not believe that God reveals himself to people in a personal way, but a theist does. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are exmaples of theistic religions. Why is Flew leaning toward theism, you ask? Sit down: Because Genesis chapter 1 might actually be the best explanation for the origin of Earth and all life. And if that is so, then, it follows necessarily that God told the ancient Jews about creation, and that is personal revelation, and that means that theism is the right answer. Wow. That's a huge claim to make. We have a lot to think about. Maybe Flew is wrong, but then again, maybe Flew is right. Maybe he actually knows something about scientific evidence. Or, maybe he's just a senile old man. Whatever the answer, he's given us something to think about. Meanwhile, "The Blind Watchmaker" has more leaps of faith and more assumptions of faith than anything I've ever written on MAP, and that's for sure.
I appreciate the fact that you read some Dawkins (yes, it's an old book but it's a good introduction to the topic). I've never heard of Flew but I'll check it out. I disagree that "DNA is kicking atheists butts" - in fact I'd argue the opposite, that it gives additional proof that nature works perfectly well evolving from the base materials, without a "helping hand". DNA is the key to life for every living thing on the planet, but I still don't see how it could justify a creator. If humans are so special, how come nature started with algae for hundreds of millions of years, then fish, amphibians, then dinosaurs, before a freak cosmic accident smashed a comet into the earth to allow some little furry mammal time to develop into thousands of species, one of which was capable of breeding to plague proportions on a global scale? What in the universe points to humans being special? Maybe we're not, maybe the god you speak of just thinks of humans as another step in the evolutionary chain (the equivalent of a rodent or jellyfish) until evolution catches up to the real "chosen race" that will develop from domestic cows and take over the world in 300 million years. Following your logic, that argument is just as valid as the assumption that humans are special. I spose the question of life will be addressed a lot more in the next 20 years or so... the research is getting to the stage of creating life from the building blocks, and who knows, maybe we'll find evidence of life on Europa or on another planet (Mars was a bit of a letdown). I still don't understand how one book can be thought to be more valid than all the other books/oral legends, or how humans can claim to be more "chosen" than any other species. Oh well. It's too early in the day for me to kick this off again.
I've looked into the info myself and I need to correct your assumptions. For the latest info on Flew: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 "The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force." ......... Antony Flew has retracted one of his recent assertions. In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes: I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.
See the link to Philosophia Christi in that article. He plainly says that he believes in a creator God, and that he's considering Christianity but that to date he does not believe in a personal God who gives revelation, and that he's intrigued by the possibility that Genesis 1 might actually be the best explanation. On a google search I found news articles from NBC news and the like reporting his change to deism. Example from NBC: "At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England." The article was dated Dec 9, 2004. If NBC said it was a telephone interview with Flew, it was a telephone interview with Flew. I'm not going to say that NBC lied. It's too bad that we can't ask Flew directly ourselves.
I think we can all appreciate the upbrining of each individual affects what and why hey believe in something, as we can appreciate how different climates led to the creation of different religions. But what's important is also that we see full grown adults changing the ways they believe, from Shinto samurai converting to Christianity and modern-day members of what could be very religious families becoming complete atheists. This means that even though people were brought up to believe something they have the free will to change their thoughts. Well, all I can say about my own religious beliefs is that faith is really all I need. When it comes down too it, most scientific and secular things are merely theories and speculations. The Big Bang made us, but how did the Big Bang happen? There had (or so I believe) to be a begining, a real Genesis, and though God or the Divine or just random Atoms created the first beings, most of it is all theory and hard to prove since we weren't actually there. (It's like Schleiman's belief in the city he found was Troy and none other, and while there is evidence it is an ancient city and seems possible to be Troy no real proof is there because no dead bodies can raise up and say, "Yup, this was Troy alright!") So really, fact based data analysis and "proving" religion is hard if not impossible and can only be explained by Faith.
Dawkins can't mock faith -- he has it himself Okay, I’ll bite. This ilk of statements can be heard most anywhere. If this popular rhetoric was our sole guide to truth one would conclude that Darwinism is as solid and secure as algebra. But Darwinism isn’t solid or secure. “Wrong!” you say? “What manner of madness has overcome your good senses!” you ask? I ask you, are you sure? Have you stepped back and reconsidered the scene with fresh eyes? Have you played the other side? Or are you, maybe, a fountain of religious ignorance and you don’t even know it? I have played the other side. I stepped into the atheist mind, I walked the atheist walk, I became him, I was him. I’ve been there and done that. I know both sides. Apparently not many people have copied my life. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1 Actually I reviewed the book back in 1991 or thereabouts, but in the interest of intellectual honesty I read it cover-to-cover last month. And I thought about it, and let it sink in, and I thought of that verse from the Bible. This whole book, cover to cover, is nothing but a religious argument firmly reliant on an appeal of faith. Yep, just as I remembered it. Consider chapter 3, where Dawkins really begins his argument. He spends all of chap 3 describing a computer program he wrote to simulate evolution. His program creates an “animal” (he calls it a biomorph) with nine “genes,” alters one gene, and creates a new animal (or biomorph). For purposes of this computer program the new animal is the offspring of the prior animal. Dawkins ran the program for hundreds of successive generations and discussed some of the resulting descendants in this chapter. At many points throughout the book he compares this computer program and the results it produces to natural selection and evolution in nature. I’m a former computer programmer myself, so I understood and appreciated what he was doing. It was quite fascinating. But it was also undeniably the product of intelligent design. Dawkins admits that he designed, created, and edited the computer program. He therefore literally used evolution-by-intelligent-design to explain and, in his mind, prove evolution-without-intelligent-design. That leap of logic is both fascinating and disturbing. Read Hebrews 11:1 again. That’s all that chap 3 is. I read the hardback version published by Penguin Books in 1986. In chapter 4 (page 81) Dawkins talks about the development of eyes. He agrees with my post #48 in this thread: imperfect vision is better than no vision. But Dawkins never addresses the hard part of how an eye would develop. How would natural selection + random changes result in receptors + connection to the brain + appropriate brain cells ? He doesn’t say. It’s a point of faith to him! At many points throughout the book he specifically asserts that all parts of the eye could, would, and did evolve through incremental steps under the process of natural selection. But a brain that can read visual input is of no use to a animal without visual receptors and a connection from those receptors to the brain, so, we have no reason on the basis of his presentation of Darwinism to assert that such a brain would dominate the population and be passed onto successive generations unless the other two parts were simultaneously present. Read Hebrews 11:1 again. That’s this chapter. In chap 4 (pages 89-90) he postulates how wings evolved: animals fell from heights. Paraphrased in my own words: “Those with extra skin flaps survived falls from height X. Over time they grew more skin flaps, and survived falls from greater heights. Repeat. Eventually they had wings and survived great falls by flying.” This is a nice tidy idea, but by Dawkins’ own terms it’s entirely speculation and theory. Read Hebrews 11:1 again. That’s all he’s doing. A few pages later in chap 4 (page 94) he discards an idea because the odds of it happening are, quote, “vanishingly improbable.” But in chapter 6 (page 146) he confidently asserts that the chance of 1 occurrence in 100 x 1 billion x 1 billion is, quote, “a relatively small amount of luck.” In fact it’s sufficiently small to be a certainty, he says. Way back on page 3 of the book he said that he used American numbers. An American billion is 1,000,000,000, or, translated, 1 followed by 9 zeros. Doing the multiplication, he’s asserting that 1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 followed by 20 zeros) is certainty. With those odds, it happened, he says, period. Well, I guess he and I define “vanishingly improbable” differently because to me, 1 divided by anything with 20 zeros is so vanishingly small as to be vanishingly improbable no matter how many generations go by. To say otherwise is to make a naked statement of faith. Read Hebrews 11:1 again. A few pages later (pages 150 and 153) he backtracks a bit by making (quote) a “guess” and a “speculation” as to how the first replicators appeared on Earth. (Replicators are things that replicate themselves. It’s an essential ingredient of life.) Read Hebrews 11:1 again. He’s guessing. That’s faith. In chap 6 (page 163) he asserts that something that happens at most once in a billion years (1,000,000,000 years) is a sure thing. It most definitely happened, he says. Well, again, to me that is vanishingly improbable no matter how long you wait, no matter how many generations go by. And it’s a naked statement of faith. Read Hebrews 11:1 again. In chap 7 (pages 186-87) he compares the “arms race” of predators and prey in nature, against the arms race of nations. The arms race of nations is set by intelligent design: people are consciously planning it and doing it. If we’re going to compare what we all know is an intelligent design to events witnessed in nature, why must we discredit the suggestion that those events in nature are the result of intelligent design? I see no logic behind his bias. Read Hebrews 11:1 again. At no point in the book does he offer an explanation for the origin of predator and prey. He takes their existence for granted, and proffers a natural-selection explanation for successive improvements in running speed, teeth, etc. Well, come now, that’s a leap of faith. Hebrews 11:1 again. That’s all he has. That’s all he’s doing. At no point in the book does he offer an explanation for the development of a full body from a single cell or even a cluster of cells. He mentions more than once that as a fetus develops into a fully developed animal (human or otherwise) that genes sequentially turn on and off. But why is this so? His only answer is, paraphrased, “natural selection made it so.” That’s a blatant leap of faith. Come on, that’s pure and unadulterated religious faith! In chap 8 (page 204) he uses the words “probably” and “if Fisher and Lande are right” as pivotal supports, not insignificant gracings, for the thesis of his book. Read Hebrews 11:1 again. The entire ninth chapter of the book is a discussion of certain theories that support the thesis of this book. Said equivalently, the entire ninth chapter of the book is unproven speculation of what Dawkins believes and asserts to be true but can’t prove is true. But hey, that’s what we say about religious doctrine, right? Right? Read Hebrews 11:1 again. In chap 10 (page 268) he says, quote, “For reasons that I haven’t the space to go into, the existence of sexual reproduction poses a big theoretical puzzle for Darwinians.” (Dawkins’ book defines, defends, and promotes Darwinism.) This admission is exceedingly interesting. Dawkins outright asserts as true that which poses a big puzzle for him and his belief system. Hebrews 11:1, anybody? Blind faith, anybody? A couple pages later (page 270) he says that the fact that all genes of all creatures speak the same “language,” as it were, is, quote, “near-conclusive proof that all organisms are descended from a single common ancestor.” Fair enough, but, equally, can we not also say that it is near-conclusive proof that all organisms were created by the same intelligent creator? Come on now, that’s fair! Three pages later (pages 273) he says that he is allowed to discount certain events, quote, “on grounds of sheer improbability.” I wish he applied this rule all the time. Hebrews 11:1 comes to mind again. In chap 11, Dawkins shows a bit of arrogance and a lack of comprehension. “Modern theologians of any sophistication,” he writes on page 316, “have given up believing in instantaneous creation.” Really? Really? Are you calling Billy Graham “unsophisticated” ? And John MacArthur? And R.C. Sproul? I beg your pardon, sir, but R.C. Sproul’s writings and teachings are extremely sophisticated. On the same page he criticizes the idea of creation-by-God because it, quote, “assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely organized complexity. The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity.” (emphasis by Dawkins) He’s wrong. Creation does not assume organized complexity. It explains how organized complexity got here. Dawkins then rejects creation theory for postulating an organized, intelligent deity. That’s blatantly hypocritical. Come now, it’s no more absurd to postulate the existence of matter, which Dawkins does, than it is to postulate the existence of a specified deity. Neither postulation is a harder problem to get around. I detailed this walk at least twice on MAP. On the next page (page 317) he writes: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale. Whatever is the explanation for life, therefore, it cannot be chance. The true explanation for the existence of life must embody the very antithesis of chance. The antithesis of chance is nonrandom survival, properly understood.” I agree with Dawkins: it cannot be chance. I disagree, of course, with his final conclusion. On the same page and continuing to the next (page 317-18) he writes: “And provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be able to derive anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical improbabilities.” Postulate, he said. That’s Dawkins’ word. It’s a quote. And it’s an admission of a theory, a total theory, and a total leap of faith. Read Hebrews 11:1 again. I ask, why can I not equally postulate that thoughts come only always from minds, and conclude logically from that postulation that a mind is behind all life? That is no less and no more a radical statement than Dawkins’ statement of faith. It’s actually more scientific and less religious than Dawkins’ theory of life because (1) no one at any point in time has witnessed thoughts arising from non-thoughts, but (2) everyone everywhere at all points in time have witnessed thoughts arising from thoughts. . Read Hebrews 11:1 again. Dawkins has nothing on me. My point is that Darwinism as espoused in this book in particular, and elsewhere generally, is based upon at least as much faith as the Christian’s belief in creation by God. Dawkins actually comes forth and showcases his reliance on faith in this book. He's doing what theists do. He as nothing on the theists.
FOR THE LOVE OF WHATEVER INVISABLE MAN U WORSHIP, LET IT GO!!!!!!! you claim to have lived both sides of the argument, which is good, that seems fair and intelligent, but in doing so, wouldn't you have seen the fundamental flaws in religion?
o.o Okay, so I feel a little outmatched here. Quotations from the Bible, a dude named Dawkin's and actual quotations that reminds me I have an English essay to write. And I may be young (won't say how) but I think I'm pretty happy. I have friends who are atheists and who aren't. I mean, of course sometimes in conversation it comes up but minus some crazy Southern Baptists (just an example, no harm intended, they just seem to be those who stick out right now) we all seem to get together well. But that's not really what my point was going to be (another sign of my under-abilities here) I am (can I post this? Oh, whatever I rarely post so I might as well) Catholic. Sure, I know Bible stories, but mainly from my lil' Children's book. Yet, I also enjoy Taoist writings (loved the "Tao of Pooh") and am stuck somewhere in the I-Ching, and oh, Buddhism, Hinduism are fun, Talmud.... doesn't really apply here. Anyhoo, what I'm trying to say is, religion is here because some (myself included) enjoy faith in something to help us keep going. But overall religion is more than that. Most religions (generally speaking, even Taoism which has me really confused at the moment seems to be like this) say "Be good and good things happen" and the only difference is what culture considers what good. Sure, some include worshiping this and that at this and that times but 's all good. Atheists are the same way. Sure, they don't believe in afterlife or anything like that (well, the ones I know, anyways) but they believe in being nice to others. I forgot where I was supposed to go after this... well, mrr.... I hope (but doubt) this adds something to the debate. Oh, and to aiki, nzric and the others I really apologize for this random entry, poor structure and incoherentness, but I'm not terribly bright. And most important I apologize a LOT for not reading many of the posts from page(s) 1-5/6 because, well, it's intimidating, and I still had lots of Star Wars and Pooh to read ^_^;;;
