The God Delusion

[paulus 26]

 

 

God is just a set of rules with which to live your life by. Evolution cannot explain Homo Erectus. In truth there is no real reason for Homo Sapiens to be on this planet. Unlike any other animal on this planet they do not have a niché that they fit into in any natural way.

 

TC

No other animal has such a detrimental effect on everything else on this planet

That does my nut in, certain groups of people would have us living back in the Stone Age, and for what? Irrespective of what we do this planet is going to be swallowed up by an expanding sun one day and will be gone no matter how many 4x4's are on the roads, etc.. There used to be a real feeling that we should expand and move off the planet, now they'd saying we wouldn't do that because it will 'spoil' anywhere we might go to. Take Mars for example. Who exactly would we spoil it for if we moved there and started colonising it? It does my head in when people start piping up about how much better the world would be without us. If not for us what is capable of truly appreciating the world and the universe around us? What is capable of learning and growing as a species at the same level? To halt progress in the futile attempt of making sure things stay the same would be a crime against evolution, for it was nature that made us capable of what we are, and made us capable of so much more.. Things will never stay the same no matter how much we try to keep it that way. Not sure if there is a religious counterpart, but the second law or thermodynamics proves that somewhere, I'm sure!

 

bananas have a lot to answer for mate

[Born Hunter 17,831]

@ Malt

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

Listen John Wayne, if you're gonna stick a title up called The God Delusion what would you expect from people who disagree? It's an open forum, you started the thread, you don't own it. . Let me explain the book your reading, it's by an author called Richard Dawkins, he's a hardened, aggressive, evangelical atheist and evolutionist. . His book the God Delussion is all about trying to disprove the notion that God exists. This thread is about the book and you say it's not about whether God exists or not. . OK.

I don't know what browbeat means, but I'm merely replying to posts aimed at me, which I'm entitled to do. . And that goes for you too johnny boy.

 

Born Hunter, you asked what the difference was in micro and macro evolution, my reply was only to cover that question. You can refer to the video for Baw for why macro evolution cannot work. . Have a look, he's a scientist who's expertise is in the field of cells. You need to realise the difference in what science is and what some scientists believe. I'll remind you what science means and this from the Oxford dictionary:

 

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

 

So judging evolution according to that definition it is not scientific, because we cannot observe or test it. .

 

Paid, the best you could say is "I don't believe you" I said that you could check my claims out yourself, but you ignored it and ridiculed me anyway, that is the peak of ignorance pal.

 

Tiercel, that post isn't worth much mate. . No one has even attempted to answer me.

 

I'm tired now, if you're sick of reading my posts, don't reply to them or better still, you can browse over them! And that granted I'll finish with this. . If you believe everything you read and see in the media, or are persuaded by the masses and popular opinion, without doing your own study and research. . . Who's really the sheep ?

 

All the best.

TFM

[Hot Meat 3,109]

One thing for sure. Right or wrong you debated that welll mate. I have also read the book and I wouldn't use it under a table leg now. It is easier to try and belittle or insult folks when you have nothing else to say. That's life haha I'm sure one day we will all find out one way or another if there is a god until then make your own minds up...

[paulus 26]

One thing for sure. Right or wrong you debated that welll mate. I have also read the book and I wouldn't use it under a table leg now. It is easier to try and belittle or insult folks when you have nothing else to say. That's life haha I'm sure one day we will all find out one way or another if there is a god until then make your own minds up...

I bet he`s half banana aswell Joking aside, Mans evolution seems to have gathered pace of late. It wasn't that many generations ago we thought the world was flat and burnt witches at the stake. In just a few generations from that point we were visiting the moon.

[walshie 2,804]

Listen John Wayne, if you're gonna stick a title up called The God Delusion what would you expect from people who disagree? It's an open forum, you started the thread, you don't own it. . Let me explain the book your reading, it's by an author called Richard Dawkins, he's a hardened, aggressive, evangelical atheist and evolutionist. . His book the God Delussion is all about trying to disprove the notion that God exists. This thread is about the book and you say it's not about whether God exists or not. . OK.

I don't know what browbeat means, but I'm merely replying to posts aimed at me, which I'm entitled to do. . And that goes for you too johnny boy.

 

Born Hunter, you asked what the difference was in micro and macro evolution, my reply was only to cover that question. You can refer to the video for Baw for why macro evolution cannot work. . Have a look, he's a scientist who's expertise is in the field of cells. You need to realise the difference in what science is and what some scientists believe. I'll remind you what science means and this from the Oxford dictionary:

 

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

 

So judging evolution according to that definition it is not scientific, because we cannot observe or test it. .

 

Paid, the best you could say is "I don't believe you" I said that you could check my claims out yourself, but you ignored it and ridiculed me anyway, that is the peak of ignorance pal.

 

Tiercel, that post isn't worth much mate. . No one has even attempted to answer me.

 

I'm tired now, if you're sick of reading my posts, don't reply to them or better still, you can browse over them! And that granted I'll finish with this. . If you believe everything you read and see in the media, or are persuaded by the masses and popular opinion, without doing your own study and research. . . Who's really the sheep ?

 

All the best.

TFM

 

O.K TFM, You win. You had the last word.

 

After all is said and done...I DON'T CARE. Either way will not make one iota of difference to my life.

 

Cheers,

[Tiercel 6,986]

TFM.

 

As stated you do debate well, perhaps a little too well? You denounce the author of the book as "a hardened, aggressive, evangelical atheist and evolutionist". Then persue your cause with equal zealotry.

 

Evolution at this moment in time is just a theory, and like all theories has yet to be proved. I have no axe to grind, being an agnostic it gives me an open mind that will listen to both sides and evaluate for myself. Up untill your last post, you have had sound if not somewhat Ironic reasoning. The reason perhaps, that some have taken to lightly ridiculing you, may well be your postulation which is akin to the evangelicalism of the author you seek to denounce.

 

TC

[Born Hunter 17,831]

TFM.

 

As stated you do debate well, perhaps a little too well? You denounce the author of the book as "a hardened, aggressive, evangelical atheist and evolutionist". Then persue your cause with equal zealotry.

 

Evolution at this moment in time is just a theory, and like all theories has yet to be proved. I have no axe to grind, being an agnostic it gives me an open mind that will listen to both sides and evaluate for myself. Up untill your last post, you have had sound if not somewhat Ironic reasoning. The reason perhaps, that some have taken to lightly ridiculing you, may well be your postulation which is akin to the evangelicalism of the author you seek to denounce.

 

TC

 

With respect, all science is theory. At any time something could be observed which completely fecks up any part of science.

[Paid 935]

Ok TFM, you say there is no proof of evolution, but what about dna, dna proves that we all share a common ancestor, that we are all related, all life on earth is related.

There is the banana thing (paulus seems obsessed with the banana ) we share base dna with all life, and a common ancestor, who was not called adam.

 

The true truth will be brought about as we learn more and more about DNA

 

The fossil record also shows that the further back in time we go, the oldest rocks we look at, contain the most basic life forms, and that over time these life forms evolve into more complex life forms, hence younger rocks contain more complex life all the way up to now.

 

Then there are common traits in embryos, embryos from the group Chordata which include us, monkeys, dogs, fish, snakes ect all share the same basic form as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

 

To me, these are proofs.

 

Now you claim scientist support your thoughts, and I am sure some do, but I would say they are in a minority and that the majority of scientists support evolution as there is a lot more evidence to support evolution, than there is to support the bible.

[Tiercel 6,986]

 

TFM.

 

As stated you do debate well, perhaps a little too well? You denounce the author of the book as "a hardened, aggressive, evangelical atheist and evolutionist". Then persue your cause with equal zealotry.

 

Evolution at this moment in time is just a theory, and like all theories has yet to be proved. I have no axe to grind, being an agnostic it gives me an open mind that will listen to both sides and evaluate for myself. Up untill your last post, you have had sound if not somewhat Ironic reasoning. The reason perhaps, that some have taken to lightly ridiculing you, may well be your postulation which is akin to the evangelicalism of the author you seek to denounce.

 

TC

 

With respect, all science is theory. At any time something could be observed which completely fecks up any part of science.

 

I agree 100%, so how can someone quote a scientific hypothesis and use it to prove the existence or non existence of a supreme being?

 

TC

[paulus 26]

 

 

TFM.

 

As stated you do debate well, perhaps a little too well? You denounce the author of the book as "a hardened, aggressive, evangelical atheist and evolutionist". Then persue your cause with equal zealotry.

 

Evolution at this moment in time is just a theory, and like all theories has yet to be proved. I have no axe to grind, being an agnostic it gives me an open mind that will listen to both sides and evaluate for myself. Up untill your last post, you have had sound if not somewhat Ironic reasoning. The reason perhaps, that some have taken to lightly ridiculing you, may well be your postulation which is akin to the evangelicalism of the author you seek to denounce.

 

TC

 

With respect, all science is theory. At any time something could be observed which completely fecks up any part of science.

 

I agree 100%, so how can someone quote a scientific hypothesis and use it to prove the existence or non existence of a supreme being?

 

TC

 

God knows

[Born Hunter 17,831]

Born Hunter, you asked what the difference was in micro and macro evolution, my reply was only to cover that question. You can refer to the video for Baw for why macro evolution cannot work. . Have a look, he's a scientist who's expertise is in the field of cells. You need to realise the difference in what science is and what some scientists believe. I'll remind you what science means and this from the Oxford dictionary:

 

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

 

So judging evolution according to that definition it is not scientific, because we cannot observe or test it. .

 

All the best.

TFM

 

How patronising you are, Science is entirely what people believe! Science is educated and logical beliefs based on observations. Just because a theory is difficult to test rigorously doesn't make it any less scientific. Gravity is accepted as fact by every sane person, yet I have no way of proving how it works, none. I can't observe any force carrying partical for gravity or any other mechanism to explain the force. So what....... gravity doesn't exist?

 

You've conveiniently interpreted that definition in your own way. By your definition the majority of Astrophysics and Cosmology is also unscientific? Oh, but of course it is, it dissagrees with that book of fairytales?

[Born Hunter 17,831]

 

 

TFM.

 

As stated you do debate well, perhaps a little too well? You denounce the author of the book as "a hardened, aggressive, evangelical atheist and evolutionist". Then persue your cause with equal zealotry.

 

Evolution at this moment in time is just a theory, and like all theories has yet to be proved. I have no axe to grind, being an agnostic it gives me an open mind that will listen to both sides and evaluate for myself. Up untill your last post, you have had sound if not somewhat Ironic reasoning. The reason perhaps, that some have taken to lightly ridiculing you, may well be your postulation which is akin to the evangelicalism of the author you seek to denounce.

 

TC

 

With respect, all science is theory. At any time something could be observed which completely fecks up any part of science.

 

I agree 100%, so how can someone quote a scientific hypothesis and use it to prove the existence or non existence of a supreme being?

 

TC

 

 

You can't! Basing an argument for or against God on Science and logic is pointless! Completely pointless.

[scothunter 12,609]

Heard every possible argument for and against,and it never changes lol no one can say for sure god does not exist.However common sense should tell you its f*****g highly unlikely!

[Tiercel 6,986]

 

 

 

TFM.

 

As stated you do debate well, perhaps a little too well? You denounce the author of the book as "a hardened, aggressive, evangelical atheist and evolutionist". Then persue your cause with equal zealotry.

 

Evolution at this moment in time is just a theory, and like all theories has yet to be proved. I have no axe to grind, being an agnostic it gives me an open mind that will listen to both sides and evaluate for myself. Up untill your last post, you have had sound if not somewhat Ironic reasoning. The reason perhaps, that some have taken to lightly ridiculing you, may well be your postulation which is akin to the evangelicalism of the author you seek to denounce.

 

TC

 

With respect, all science is theory. At any time something could be observed which completely fecks up any part of science.

 

I agree 100%, so how can someone quote a scientific hypothesis and use it to prove the existence or non existence of a supreme being?

 

TC

 

 

You can't! Basing an argument for or against God on Science and logic is pointless! Completely pointless.

 

Exactly. You cannot deride someones faith, but when someone tries to quantify that faith with science, it does seem as if blind faith is not enough for them?

 

TC

Edited May 16, 2013 by tiercel