Richard Dawkins- discuss

[Mesterh]

Read the God delusion and was not impressed in his way of thinking whatsoever(btw I dont believe in God either)

 

Reading 'The greatest show on Earth' atm so will comment more after I finish that.

 

Although also reading a book on Antimatter and another on Quantum Theory so may take some time.

[BenR]

I would side with Dawkins over any religious fanatic anyday! He is a legend.

 

What does a scientist studying atomic energy have to do with evolutionary biology. (Edit: And how much has he been paid by the templeton foundation to say that?)

 

As far as I'm concerned evolution is fact but people are well within their rights to think what like.

 

Should be an interesting debate/arguement haha

 

matt, I have also studied a lot of these matters. I have A levels in Biology and Geography and I am studying Geography for my degree. I have however come to the conclusion that the evidence suggests an evolutionary process is occuring. I have not said that 'God' does not exist but merely that evolution does. It also depends on what you define 'God' to be. I look at the trees and animal and life in general and see a 'pattern' and I appreciate these things. I just choose not to believe that some supreme super human thing created it all. I would also agree with Andy Collins, In so much as I have heard about creation too and have made a decision not to believe it. I AM HOWEVER HAPPY FOR ANYONE TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY LIKE. The thread is richard dawkins- discuss and that is what i am doing.

[Matt Butler]

Read the God delusion and was not impressed in his way of thinking whatsoever(btw I dont believe in God either)

 

Reading 'The greatest show on Earth' atm so will comment more after I finish that.

 

Although also reading a book on Antimatter and another on Quantum Theory so may take some time.

 

Sounds heavy mate, maybe throw the Bible in for something a bit lighter:thumbup1:

[Matt Butler]

matt, I have also studied a lot of these matters. I have A levels in Biology and Geography and I am studying Geography for my degree. I have however come to the conclusion that the evidence suggests an evolutionary process is occuring. I have not said that 'God' does not exist but merely that evolution does. It also depends on what you define 'God' to be. I look at the trees and animal and life in general and see a 'pattern' and I appreciate these things. I just choose not to believe that some supreme super human thing created it all. I would also agree with Andy Collins, In so much as I have heard about creation too and have made a decision not to believe it. I AM HOWEVER HAPPY FOR ANYONE TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY LIKE. The thread is richard dawkins- discuss and that is what i am doing.

 

i respect your position

 

However, as a geologist i would value your opinion on the quote below

 

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History

[BenR]

Cheers Matt, I do enjoy a good discussion. Firstly I am not a geologist, I am a Geographer and therefore do not study fossils in quite as much depth as I would if I were a Geologist.

 

As for your quote, I do not doubt that it is correct. The odds of a missing link between one extinct species and one current being preserved in fossil form is unlikely. But that does not mean to say it did not exist. Conditions for fossilisation are very specific and therefore not every creature that has existed on this earth has been preserved in fossil form.

 

However, If you take the case of man/ape, I think you can clearly see that we are related. You only have to look at the extent to which our DNA are almost identical. Also the skeletal structure, self awareness and social skills.

 

I think the main thing is that you have to consider all the angles and then make your decision as an individual. I know where I stand.

But why am I trying to make a case for evolution. Surely it is up to the creationists to tell us why 'God' is real and what your interpretation of 'God' is. That atomic scientist you were talking about may see 'God' as electrons and neutrons etc. But you say God is to big to capture and prove in a scientific experiment.

 

It's an interesting subject that is for sure.

[common lime]

There are many creation theory's not just the one in the Torah, my personal favourite is the ancient Egypt creation story.

 

It has to be remember it was Darwin and not Dawkins that published the theory of evolution. I remember reading the Self Gene at college and it made me want to study biology, it is a great book. I do think that without understanding the basics of evolution theory it does make difficult to understand all biological organisms.

 

How many times have you heard this said about a died or dying tree 'but it flowered really well last year the best in years are you sure it is dying'? This can easily be explained by knowing just a little about evolution theory.

 

On creation theory if all biological organisms were designed by a supreme being then why did they need to practise by creating such organism as Rhynia? You would of throught that this supreme being would of got their design specification right the first time and there was no need to practise with the creation of any now redundant fossilised organisms?

 

Just goes to show not even supreme beings are prefect and that they need to practise.

[Rich Rule]

...

 

Just goes to show not even supreme beings are prefect and that they need to practise.

 

IMO It goes to show that the Giant spaghetti monster in the sky is just as real as God.

 

In terms of evidence, there is absolutely none to prove either!

[Matt Butler]

I believe that God is real because I have a relationship with him through His son Jesus. However, this is very hard to understand if you do not believe it in the first place.

 

You ask for proof for creation by God, it is all around us. When I look at Creation it shows me that there must be a grand designer. This is of course a basic argument and if u seek more in depth apologetics such as the fine tuning argument then I recomend that you read John Lennox book (Gods Undertaker-has science buried God)

 

Furthermore i would like to ask your opinion on the fossil below.

 

Obviously, This fossil could not have been formed according to the current view of fossil formation as there is no chance that it could have "naturally died, sunk to the sea bead, rotted, and then slowly been fossilized-and had its prey in its mouth all along"

 

I believe this fossil was formed when both fish were suddenly buried in a sediment grave of enormous dimensions, then they were cemented into that grave by immense pressure of rising sea water.

 

To me this fossil is evidence of the Genesis flood.

 

 

i believe that this fossil is proof for the Genesis flood and therefore the validity of the Bible.

[Amelanchier]

Er. This thread has the potential to take us into all kinds of wacky places but IMO the OP intended it to be about Mr Dawkins rather than a platform to argue the validity of the Christian God based on a smattering of creationism.

[Amelanchier]

"...There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History

 

I guess thats your arguement holding a smoking gun whilst hopping around bleeding with shattered metatarsals...