Do you know Dr. Dawkins?

[Eclogite]

I find it amusing (and not a little scary, actually) that people of respectable but middlin' intelligence are so sure that high intelligence, brilliance, genius, has this effect of "blinding one to reality".

 

It is not brilliance that blinds, but unexamined dogma.

:naughty: I do hope I'm not one of those respectable, middlin' intelligence people who are amusing you. (I'm certainly not respectable, and am certifiably of high intelligence.:eek: )

 

If you read between the lines of my statment (trust me, its in there) you will find I am trying to give Dawkins an out for his pretentiousness and frankly unscientific take on certain matters.

 

I agree with your last statment completely (re the examination of dogma) and this is where I feel Dawkins falls down so often. I am just disappointed when I see one so talented become so seriously derailed in matters of detail. But, as noted, his Ancestor's Tale inclines me to forgive him.

Is it important? As noted, when a prime spokesman for Evolution falls into the trap of adherence to dogma, especially when it is dogma they have created, then it affords creationists unwelcome ammunition.

 

And as an aside, in matters of evolution, for me Gould is God, or at least Gold.:eek2:

[Pyrotex]

Pyro,...OPEN YOUR MIND.:naughty:

This is equivalent to: "engage in play-pretend and delude yourself!" Ahhhh, been there, done that, got the teeshirt with "Saved" across the front. I have no intention of doing it again.

I was reading A Brief History of Time ...: "...for then we would know the mind of God."

Many religious people lose the ability to distinguish metaphor and imagery from literalist statements. Sad.

...his choice of words clearly state "belief", not knowledge.

They were intended as metaphor, as he himself has attested.

...the God of the Christian texts is a predominantly unknowable and transcendental one.

Only if you don't read the Old Testament. If you DO read, he is quite knowable from his purported actions. Not a very "nice" deity. Part of my decision to abandon faith in my life was because I decided the Christian God wasn't worth all that worship and praise and adoration. Perhaps I will become a Mithraist. Now, THERE's a GOD!

[Pyrotex]

:) I do hope I'm not one of those respectable, middlin' intelligence people who are amusing you....you will find I am trying to give Dawkins an out for his pretentiousness and frankly unscientific take on certain matters...

Well, let's say I wasn't specifically talking about you. :computerkick:

 

You have the advantage of having read The Ancestors Tales. I have the book on my bookshelf but haven't read it. [sigh] However, I did read The Selfish Gene about 15 years ago. It is also on my shelf. I found it to be a tough read, but I actually worked through the mathematics he presented to supported his cases, and the math works!

 

He may be pretentious, but if the math backs his theories, then I fail to see how he is merely blowing dogmatic smoke rings.

[catholiboy]

 

My problem with Dawkins is that his intellect is so brilliant it sometimes blinds him to reality. It is dangerous when a major spokesperson for a scientific approach to the world is themselves enmeshed in a para-religious stance on science.

 

 

Actually, I'm inclined to disagree. He's really a bit of an idiot.

 

Have you read the God Delusion?

[catholiboy]

Only if you don't read the Old Testament. If you DO read, he is quite knowable from his purported actions. Not a very "nice" deity. Part of my decision to abandon faith in my life was because I decided the Christian God wasn't worth all that worship and praise and adoration. Perhaps I will become a Mithraist. Now, THERE's a GOD!

 

And I don't/ Aren't we all happy?

 

Have you heard of a guy who was called something like Marcian; he poistulated that the God of the Old Testament was an evil antithesis to the Christian God. Heretical (apparently) but intriguing.

 

Also, about the whole Hawking thing, he has suddenly dropped a few notches in my book. Unless, once more, you are lying, as you did with that Scripture of yours.

[Pyrotex]

...Also, about the whole Hawking thing, he has suddenly dropped a few notches in my book. Unless, once more, you are lying, as you did with that Scripture of yours.

Whoa! Rough language, CB.

Now, it has indeed happened that I have made mistakes on more than one occassion. But I am 60 years old, well educated and have probably read more serious non-fiction than 90% of US citizens.

 

I don't need to lie.

 

So please do me the favor of specifying which scripture I lied about? I would appreciate that.

[Michaelangelica]

THE SCIENCE SHOW - The Science Show versus God

Saturday December 23, 12.10pm & Monday December 25, 7.10pm

One of the year's best selling titles has been Richard Dawkins' remarkable

book, The God Delusion.

Dawkins, Professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford says he hopes that reading his book will make believers doubt their faith.

He explains why he is so convinced, through the weight of scientific evidence, that atheism is the more valid viewpoint.

Two winners of the Templeton Prize, given for building bridges between spiritual

values and science, Professors John Barrow of Cambridge and Paul Davies of

Arizona University give alternative views.

LISTEN HERE:

Science Show

also

this may be of interest for those that care

OCKHAM'S RAZOR - A Science of Spirituality

Sunday December 24, 8.45am

Dr Gillian Ross from northern New South Wales is an anthropologist with

interests in relaxation and meditation. Today she tells us about the new

science of spirituality. She says that exploring the inner realm is

literally like going into a different world.

Ockham's Razor

[Southtown]

The first three of the four links have been removed. I'm watching the fourth, 'The Naked Truth', which doesn't appear to have anything to do with Dawkins or science. I think it's funny that Jenkins begins by contemplating the passover wine without mentioning Judaism.

 

Anybody have any kickass links to Dawkins, to supplement my own querry of course? Michaelangelica's links are good ones. You guys are right, the dude is arrogant. I'm still ferreting through the first to find his points...

[Buffy]

Apropos to Dr. Dawkins, a facinating interview with Ronald Numbers just showed up on Salon, that presents an alternate view of Creationism that disagrees with Dr. Dawkins and presents the middle ground of the compatibility of Evolution and Religion that is unfortunately in the minority.

 

Numbers is the author of a just updated book called "The Creationists" that is considered the definitive work on the topic, and he's got the respect of people on both sides of the divide. I'm clicking over to Amazon now....

 

Highly evolved,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Steve Paulson (Buffy's link)

This widespread refusal to accept evolution can drive scientists into a fury. I've heard biologists call anti-evolutionists "idiots," "lunatics".... and worse. But the question remains: how do we explain the stubborn resistance to Darwinism?

Because investigating evo usually involves paid subscriptions to the articles.

[Buffy]

Because investigating evo usually involves paid subscriptions to the articles.

Normally, Salon will just make you sit through an ad or two if you're not a subscriber. If you "trust" me, I'll find some more good "brief quotes" and post them here....

 

A bit of this, a bit of that,

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

the compatibility of Evolution and Religion that is unfortunately in the minority.

Evolution has always been compatible with religion, as is all science. Just not compatible with rabid, set-in-concrete, fundamentalism.

 

I don't know if you are right about this view being in the minority. I remember hearing a radio programme on the many high ranking scientists who are Christians. Generally they had thought out their position/religion a lot more than fundamentalists.

I would not be surprised to find a much higher proportion of scientists with religious/spiritual beliefs than those who are atheists.

[Southtown]

Normally, Salon will just make you sit through an ad or two if you're not a subscriber.

Sorry, Buffy. I am an idiot. I have viewed the ad and will now read the rest of the article. :)

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Bill Jenkins (Abstruce's 4th link)

But the ancients were right, those that predate even Judaism and Christianity. There is something about having a proper relationship with forces greater than you. Today, we'd say there is something right about having a proper relationship with the Creator of this universe, our Creator. Many belief that there is a [unint.] piece of that Creator that is a part of us; that we need these learning experiences to become more godly; that our nature, character, and personality is naturally the same nature, character, and personality as the one who created us. Now the [loaded] question is: does that come in myths? Does that come to you through traditions? ritual? [unint.]? Or does it come through doing? Really wanting to be that way? Not doing it out of fear, not doing it because someone told you that if you do certain things that you would be very godly? That you will be actually fulfilling this great need which is a part of all of us, and that is to have a right relationship with that force greater than us, the Creator God?

Oh gawd... Is this not preaching? I can't stand one-way conversations. And where's the argument? First three links didn't work, by the way.

 

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins (Michaelangelica's 1st link)

God ordered Abraham to make a burnt offering of his longed-for son. Abraham built an altar, put firewood upon him and trussed Isaac up on top of the wood His murdering knife was already in his hand, when an angel, dramatically intervened with the news of a last-minute change of plan. God was only joking, after all, tempting Abraham and testing his faith. A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma.

Dawkin's doesn't comment on the prophecy. They were on Mt. Moriah, where Jesus was crucified. And when Isaac asked where the sacrificial lamb was, Abraham said that God would provide his own lamb. That's like a no-brainer, and it was written like 1200 years before God offers his own son in the place of punishing all mankind for our atrocities such as those mentioned by Dawkins.

 

If Dawkin's simply breezes through the Hebrew scriptures without commenting on the views of believers, then he is either ignorant of them or he has no retort.

 

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins (Michaelangelica's 1st link)

In Judges Chapter 11 the military leader Jephtha made a bargain with God, that if God would guarantee Japheth's victory over the Ammonites, Jephtha would, without fail, sacrifice as a burnt offering, 'whatsoever cometh forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return.'

 

Jephtha did indeed defeat the Ammonites with a very great slaughter, as is par for the course in the Book of Judges, and he returned home, victorious. Not surprisingly, his daughter, his only child, came out of the house to greet him with timbrels and dancers.

This was not at the request of God, and therefore does not hold any moral messages for believers, either twisted or otherwise. I think it was included so that people would think twice before making pompous oaths.

 

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins (Michaelangelica's 1st link)

There's none like good old Joshuae at the battle of Jericho. Good old Joshua 'didn't rest until they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ***, with the edge of the sword'. Joshua 6:21.

Again this was not at the request of God. Read for yourselves. That's just how cultures grew and thrived back then; survival of the fittest. There's the prophetic message, Joshua representing Jesus (whose name in Hebrew is Joshua) bringing Israel and the ark out of the desert. Encircling Jericho, blowing horns, and shouting brings dows the walls because in these last days believers are supposed to let God dispense justice. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

 

Moreover, the existence of Israel allowed the Messiah to be born and also prophesied the time and manner that the related events would occur. This turn of events makes known to the entire world to "Love thy neighbor" and makes possible the salvation of all mankind (even Jericho). As for whether they deserved it or not, I guess God will have to justify that himself.

 

Originally Posted by Steve Paulson (Buffy's link)

This widespread refusal to accept evolution can drive scientists into a fury. I've heard biologists call anti-evolutionists "idiots," "lunatics".... and worse. But the question remains: how do we explain the stubborn resistance to Darwinism?

For one, dialogs that aren't full of evidence aren't very effective.

 

Originally Posted by Steve Paulson (Buffy's link)

I can remember as a college student -- I majored in math and physics -- there was a visiting professor from the University of Chicago lecturing on carbon-14 dating, and he was talking about scores of thousands of years. And my friends and I just looked at each other, wincing and smiling, saying he just didn't know the truth.

Carbon dating means jack. If the world were actually created from nothing 6000 years ago, then the C-14 would begin building in our atmosphere at that point. An organism that dies in the first few years then would have barely a trace of C-14. According to the assumption that C-14 has had enough time to decay radioactively, that organism would appear to be 70,000 years old.

"

It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere.

" -- William D. Stansfield,

Science of Evolution

(New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 83.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/carbon14.jpg

 

Originally Posted by Steve Paulson (Buffy's link)

I was also exposed to critiques of young earth creationism. The thing that stands out in my memory as being decisive was hearing a lecture about the fossil forest of Yellowstone, given by a creationist who'd just been out there to visit. He found that for the 30 successive layers you needed -- assuming the most rapid rates of decomposition of lava into soil and the most rapid rates of growth for the trees that came back in that area -- at least 20,000 to 30,000 years. The only alternative the creationists had to offer was that during the year of Noah's flood, these whole stands of forest trees came floating in, one on top of another, until you had about 30 stacked up.

Brings back memories of my favorite hypothread. =)

 

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/3513-how-old-earth-9.html?#post77634

[cwes99_03]

Evolution has always been compatible with religion, as is all science.

 

Ummmm, no.

 

In Judges Chapter 11 the military leader Jephtha made a bargain with God, that if God would guarantee Japheth's victory over the Ammonites, Jephtha would, without fail, sacrifice as a burnt offering, 'whatsoever cometh forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return.'

 

30 Then Jeph´thah made a vow to Jehovah and said: “If you without fail give the sons of Am´mon into my hand, 31 it must also occur that the one coming out, who comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Am´mon, must also become Jehovah’s, and I must offer that one up as a burnt offering.”

 

Jephthah was not promising to sacrifice his daughter in fire. Instead a burnt offering was something that could not be taken back or used in any other way once offered to God.

That is why she wept over her virginity. She became a servant to God at the temple and never had relations with a man (which was the punishment that Jephthah abhored as she was his only child and he would not have any descendents.)

 

As far as Joshua, I only have to cite what happened in the case of King Saul. He lost favor in God's eyes because he refused to slaughter the sheep and others which he had been commanded by God to do. Instead he thought he could offer a single sacrifice instead and appease God. Didn't work, God turned his back on Saul and named David king in his place.

 

1 Sam. 15:3 "Now go, and you must strike down Am´a·lek and devote him to destruction with all that he has, and you must not have compassion upon him, and you must put them to death, man as well as woman, child as well as suckling, bull as well as sheep, camel as well as ***.’”

 

You may be correct that Dawkins does not fully understand the Bible or bother to take into account explanations against his own beliefs. But don't lose site that there is also the possibility that you may not fully understand all the beliefs of others as well.

[maikeru]

Carbon dating means jack. If the world were actually created from nothing 6000 years ago, then the C-14 would begin building in our atmosphere at that point. An organism that dies in the first few years then would have barely a trace of C-14. According to the assumption that C-14 has had enough time to decay radioactively, that organism would appear to be 70,000 years old.

"

It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere.

" -- William D. Stansfield,

Science of Evolution

(New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 83.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/carbon14.jpg

 

I believe that the graphic you linked to is simplistic and ultimately false and misleading. I have a few points of contention.

 

First, forests are not the only contributors and moderators of the carbon cycle. The graphic explicitly mentions that "pre-flood forests" diluted the amount of C-14, presumably by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing carbon in their biomass and preventing larger amounts of carbon from being altered to C-14 in the upper atmosphere. But, CO2 and other forms of carbon are also absorbed and released from other sources, including the ocean, lakes, volcanoes, soil, and other photosynthetic organisms (phytoplankton, cyanobacteria, etc.). Any decrease in CO2 would encourage other sources such as the ocean, which acts as a CO2 sink (through ocean acidification, for instance), to also release CO2 dissolved in solution to try to achieve chemical equilibrium. Now, this is not to say that "real" chemical equilibrium will be achieved, but the system will try to achieve it. And this might be why carbon over the ages appears relatively constant in its concentration and cycling. Climate changes, changes in solar activity and radiation or volcanic activity, etc. all affect the carbon cycle and reservoirs. This is why it is necessary to calibrate and compare dates to achieve greater precision and reliability.

 

Second, the forests (and animals), if covered by primordial waters would suffer retarded decomposition by cutting off the supply of oxygen for aerobic decomposition. Without aerobic decomposition, there would be little CO2 produced quickly as organic molecules are broken down, as happens in aerated soils with microbes. One might expect anaerobic decomposition then, right? Anaerobic decomposition can produce CO2, but more often it tends to be methane, which is commonly an end product of anaerobic decomposition. Methanogens require oxygen-free environments in which to produce methane. They would be at first plentiful (at the bottom of the world-ocean I presume, where it would be terribly cold and slow decomposition and slow release of any carbon into the atmosphere) for a short while during the flood and then scarce after the flood waters retreated, as they are exposed and die. But this might not happen either, if the forests were covered with muds and other sediments. Instead, they would be on the path for preservation and perhaps fossilization. Therefore, I believe there would be little C-12 released over the short period of the flood or available for ionization by solar rays to become C-14 and thus magically increase the C-14/C-12 ratio.

 

The graphic assumes that we have failed both chemistry 101 and common sense 101.

 

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The method

Howstuffworks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"

 

Creation science is anything but science, and so I would recommend that you examine their "evidence" with extreme scrutiny and skepticism.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Southtown View Post

"Carbon dating means jack. If the world were actually created from nothing 6000 years ago, then the C-14 would begin building in our atmosphere at that point. An organism that dies in the first few years then would have barely a trace of C-14. According to the assumption that C-14 has had enough time to decay radioactively, that organism would appear to be 70,000 years old.

 

"It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere." -- William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 83."

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...s/carbon14.jpg

 

Creation science you say! Here are several accepted science links.

Howstuffworks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"

The method

Carbon-14 Dating