Richard Dawkins- discuss

[Alinicoll]

Unless someone has had an experience of divinity they must be agnostic. This is the only reasonable view. Atheism, like extreme religious views are based on an emotional reaction.

 

Dawkins is an evangelistic and extreme atheist and is as bad as the extreme evangelists he insists on trying to convert. If you believe in God, great, if you don`t, great. Why do people insist on trying to convert each other?

 

just be happy.

[BenR]

 

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.

 

That is a very cool fossil mate. My take would be that if the bigger fish had not been eating the other fish perhaps the skeleton of the smaller fish was partially covered by the larger fish and the two were, as you say, compressed together in an time period of net sediment deposition. I would also suggest that the pressure of X depth by Y area of water needed to cover the two is massive anyway regardless of whether there was a flood at the time on not. I would also think that any evidence of a sea level change large enough to cover all land on Earth would be above sea level as the water would have risen to cover the land.

Supposing that you say that fossil was found above sea level anyway. Well in order to have got there that fossil and sediment was once underwater. To me that then says that plate tectonics exist. Which can perhaps explain such incidents in the religious books as floods. (Asian tsunami??) Lots of cultures have flood stories because floods can happen fairly regularly. Flooding could also be a result of changes in the level of ice stored at the poles.

[common lime]

There are many faiths in this world the following are just a few of them;

 

Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, and Druidism etc.

 

They all have a creation story or they borrow a story from each-other, they cannot all be correct methodology for the creation of the planets and organisms

[BenR]

Unless someone has had an experience of divinity they must be agnostic. This is the only reasonable view. Atheism, like extreme religious views are based on an emotional reaction.

 

Dawkins is an evangelistic and extreme atheist and is as bad as the extreme evangelists he insists on trying to convert. If you believe in God, great, if you don`t, great. Why do people insist on trying to convert each other?

 

just be happy.

 

That is a pretty fair view and I am sitting on the fence between an Agnostic and an Atheist anyway:thumbup1: Dawkins isn't a great guy but he deals with an interesting subject and believe me I'm not evangelistic converter either way:laugh1:

[John Barleycorn]

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.

[ATTACH]42789[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]42790[/ATTACH]

 

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.

 

So you have a relationship with him ?

Evidence ?

 

For me religion is something that was invented in an age of ignorance, when atoms, electricity etc were unknown.

I have nothing against Muslims, Jews, Christians etc, but they live in the past & deny basic facts.

 

& oh yes I do have a degree in Geology, but it is getting on for 40 years ago.

[ferdinand2000]

I'm not a fan of Dick the Dawk.

 

To do it in a nutshell, I guess I would point to 3 things:

 

1 - The number public apologies he has to issue after getting too enthusiastic in his rhetoric; they number in the dozens.

2 - He engages in witch-hunts, which do nothing to further public debate. I'd point to his part in hounding Rev Michael Reiss out of his role at the Royal Society for basically suggesting that creationism should be dealt with by educating people out of it rather than launching denunciations.

3 - That his approach to religion is to deliberately not study the subject, floccipaucinihilipilificate it, and then expect anyone to listen to what he has to say. That's not a very rational approach.

 

I don't think he's a particularly good scientist, either. His publication record relies quite heavily on reviews and compiling summaries of others' work. The public profile has come from pop-science books and being a good polemicist.

 

'Tis enough to drive anyone to faith .

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw]YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers[/ame]

 

F

[LancsMike]

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)

 

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.

 

Interesting links, thanks for sharing Matt.

 

The fundamental mechanics of this debate though are being skewed, you're arguing in this case a paradigm and the problem with it like any Religion is that it relies on flawed or rather circular logic to justify not only itself but other arguments outside of that - it doesn't allow for progressive, evolved thinking. That isn't to take the argument of Dawkins using his Evolutionary principles but mankinds thinking as a whole.

 

Religion was an implement used in the past to justify things outside of our comprehension, perfect example being when Corpses released gas in times of old they were convinced they were Vampires. Which illustrates perfectly the difference between Absolute logic and belief, their belief was true, they 110% believed that the deceased had become Vampires but in actual fact was it the case ? No, science has proven that to the contrary like many things.

 

Dawkins doesn't really strike me as being an evolved thinking as hes clinging onto his belief of Evolutionary theory just as much as the Creationist and both are banging their heads together to justify each others arguments - there isn't a debate or dialogue, its just rhetoric on both sides. The only way for Humanity as a whole to progress outside of problem's such as that is to initiate dialogue and open debate and from that, form new paradigms, experiments and the like. That isn't to say God does not exsist but it doesn't say he does exsist either.

 

The other issue is what you said in that the Fossil is justification or proof of the Genesis flood, there isn't a single piece of evidence to support that argument, you're using applied logic with your Christian belief to justify what you believe is true or in more simpler terms, its a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

Science hasn't buried God, Science has buried Religion and hopefully Humanity can follow suit because its a very dogmatic and inflammatory way to divide people and cause suffering as shown throughout the history of Humanity.

[Steve Bullman]

great post mike

[LancsMike]

Thanks Steve, just calling it as I viewed it - Hope to read some other replies on it all

[Alinicoll]

I'm not a fan of Dick the Dawk.

 

 

 

F

 

Oh dear! That`s going to be in my head for days now!