DID DARWIN KILL GOD?

[senojekips]

I find it odd that you would lump me, a believer, into your naive need to denounce everything you don't understand.

I find it outright laughable that you would consider yourself educated while denouncing things you do not understand.

Some of us find theology and theism equally as enjoyable as science and physics. But we're labeled the stupid ones.

Meh.

You make one very basic mistake,... I do understand.

What I don't understand is that people can have faith in a belief for which there is no proof and never has been. As for your remark about the internet as it might have been perceived 2000 years ago. You are talking about something which was yet to happen, not as we see christianity today when we look back at the past. Something that happened in the past is provable, something that is perhaps yet to happen is only guess work, there is no viable comparison.

Who's interpretation of god's word do you believe in,... the RC version, Mormon, Baptist, Adventist, Pentecostal, Westboro baptist, Muslim, Animist Jew, whatever?..... One thing you can be sure of, whichever one it is, the remainder will deny that your belief is the right one. So it's not only Atheists who disbelieve.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

No argument there, I believe Jesus was an awesome human being, and there are some proven facts in the Bible. Not so sure about the rising up to the heavens part, though. The flashy fantastical stuff will get people's attention, but the core message of compassion, mercy, and generally loving mankind is the important part.


I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that the extremely improbable (as an agnostic I won't say impossible ) stuff, like the parting of the sea and burning bush, actually happened, but the people couldn't explain it? If such feats were achieved by technological means (like the internet) that suggests to me extra terrestrial life influencing our development as a species, which I honestly find more believable than magical powers... And it would be nice to have an interstellar big bro watching out for us, but I believe that is very unlikely, and that the magical happenings in the Bible are fictional stories, or perhaps true stories with magic added for effect.

Well, you're close.

Was it LITERALLY a burning bush? Possibly. More likely, it was a manifestation of God's presence that could only be understood, and thus explained, as they understood the physics of the day: equating fire with power, a bush on an otherwise barren mountain a sign, and God's leading as a voice our ears couldn't hear.

So I have little doubt that the STORY of the burning bush is true. But I doubt that foliage on fire produced God's voice. There was simply no other way to explain the experience with the words they knew back then. It is part truth and part analogy. Like the ascension to heaven. Or Job's testing. Or mud on the eyes to heal blindness.

Jesus spoke in parables. Why would we believe that only HE spoke that way and the rest of the biblical recounts are accurate depictions of accurate events? I believe that that the bible, and especially the Epistles (the four books of Christ's life, John, Mark, Matthew and James), is written as Jesus would have written it: using stories to convey truths of actual happenings. One parable begets another parable.

Thus, it only makes sense that the ENTIRE bible is written as such.



But here's the way I see it, my friend.

If there is a God, and I fully believe that there is, then He does things we are incapable of exactly recounting. After all, how does one articulate a miracle? How does one discuss their personal faith? How can one express love in words? More deeply, how does one account for Agape love?

In this English language, we have one word for love, and that is "love." But it may mean different things: the love of skiing is different than the love for a friend that is different than the love of family that is different than the love of a wife that is different than the love of God.

The translation of the bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, faces these same barriers when put into modern language.

For instance, did you know that Satan is NEVER found in the bible? Nor is Lucifer. Not in the original texts. There are only three angels ever named, Gabriel and two others (sorry, I forget and I have to hurry to get to work). Who we now understand as Satan is named only in translation, as there is no English word for the Greek description of the great deceiver.

So was it REALLY a serpent in a tree? I don't know about you, but if a friggen snake started talking to me, I'd execute an about face and unass the AO so fast an F-18 couldn't catch me. Would Eve really stand there with a talking snake and take his advice to eat an apple?

Err...

But I do believe that the story is true, minus the details: that the first two people defied the laws of God, giving mankind a sinful nature. Whether it was a snake and an apple, a giraffe and a cantelope, or just a decision to give in to temptation we'll never know. I am no 6,000-year adventist.

My anaology to the Internet was similar to that of the Egyptians and Greeks believing in their gods. What they did not understand they recorded the best they knew how. I would be akin to you or me being enshrined as the spokesmen for astrophysics. We understand partial and spacial accounts of its reality, but we could never explain it just so. Astrophysicists would laugh at our childish descriptions, but it is the reality we know.

Mankind knows a reality that is FAR below God. So we explain it as best we can. That's why Jesus spoke to us in parables: there is no way that we could understand the entirety of the truth, as we just... don't... get... it.

Just as a nomadic could see the Internet of today and yet fail to articulate it for what it is. He might use a bright light to describe a monitor, prayer to describe the keyboard, and god to explain how you answered back through the email notification.

You make one very basic mistake,... I do understand.

What I don't understand is that people can have faith in a belief for which there is no proof and never has been. As for your remark about the internet as it might have been perceived 2000 years ago. You are talking about something which was yet to happen, not as we see christianity today when we look back at the past. Something that happened in the past is provable, something that is perhaps yet to happen is only guess work, there is no viable comparison.

Who's interpretation of god's word do you believe in,... the RC version, Mormon, Baptist, Adventist, Pentecostal, Westboro baptist, Muslim, Animist Jew, whatever?..... One thing you can be sure of, whichever one it is, the remainder will deny that your belief is the right one. So it's not only Atheists who disbelieve.

I believe that a man's walk with God is his PERSONAL walk with God: I am non-denominational in my faith, so I am not Catholic, Baptist, et al.

I believe that God uses the Holy Spirit to help guide us personally. That is, what is sin for you may not be sin for me. My perception of "God" may be equally as accurate as an Adventist's, though they are completely different in language and application.

If a Catholic derives that his or her walk with God includes confession to a priest, are they attached to a different god than I am because I do not use that particular means of conveyance? Or can it be stated that we are both seeking the true God the way He has influenced us to do so? If I do not knock on doors to spread the word, is the word any less spread if I speak at a bar?

I do not go to church. The lady I am betrothed to, a devout Catholic, will go to mass every Sunday. I connect with God in the desert, in solitude, watching the morning come alive hunting or fishing. She worships in a crowd, in man-built structures, where singing is the quantifying unity.

That's the beauty of faith, my friend: it is not a rigid and systematic conveyor of a single truth through a single avenue. Rather, it is what is in your heart.

If you open your heart and are willing to believe that God will deal with you personally, you will understand that God does indeed "talk" to you like a friend. No friend gives all his friends the same advice, as his friends will live different lives, different circumstances.

So it is not fair nor accurate to attempt to pin me down to a theological doctrine assigned to a specific set of religious values. I am religious about going to work on time and brushing my teeth. I am faithful in my belief of a higher power, to my understanding. My higher power may not -- is probably not -- that same as yours or anyone's.

As you see, I don't view Christianity as the past. In my life, it is a living, breathing entity. It is a huge part of who I am, of what drives my motivations and intentions. It is TODAY, not yesterday, and not 2,000 years ago. Their faith is not my faith, anymore than your lack of faith and my faith of today collides in negative contention. You know me, and you don't have to believe in God to know that God influences me - my speech and my actions and my beliefs. Yet we enjoy conversation.

When one attempts to triangulate a destination of faith in another, one loses the direction; it is not the end of the walk that makes it enjoyable, it is the walk itself.

My faith -- FAITH -- is in my heart. I can no more properly explain it than you could explain why you love your wife. It just is what it is. I do not need tactile or scientific proof to validate my faith, anymore than you would need some sensory perception outside of your heart to know that you love your wife. If she treats you well, the love grows. If she treats you like crap, the love diminishes a bit. In my life, my God has always expressed a love to me that I may not have always understood, but that was always clear in one way or another.

Like if your wife throws a fit and you fight about going out for a night with the guys. At the time, she is holding you back. But when it all gets discussed, you see that she needed you, she wanted you with her so much, she loved you so much, that she gave you a hard time about leaving her - even if just for a bit. It's explainable, but the "guys" will chastise you for not defying her.

So is my relationship with my God that you do not understand.

 

[senojekips]

So is my relationship with my God that you do not understand.

Is that not exactly what I said?

What I don't understand is that people can have faith in a belief for which there is no proof and never has been.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Is that not exactly what I said?

Yes.

You simply did not ask me to explain why I have that relationship. And I enjoy you as you are. I will not proselytize to you unless you ask me to answer for my faith. You deserve more than that. I will respect your right not to believe. If you ask, I will answer as honestly as I can. If you do not, I will enjoy the continuation of our friendship and leave the faith out of it. I only meant to share a bit of who I am with you, that our conversations would grow.

Off to work! We'll talk more this evening (TX time).

 

[Del Boy]

Almost without exception , these have been good arguments . I personally would align myself with AZ's understanding.

AZ, I am sorry that you have been unable to see the video. This exercise would be ineffective if others have had the same problem. I cannot expect you to crit the video if you can't see it.

AZ, I believe that this Darwin video, presented by a Darwinist/Christian is a new one, and it exposes the flaws of Dawkin's Theory of Memes, establishing that Dawkins is wrong, and that it is impossible that it can be claimed Christianity and the Theory of Evolution are incompatible. God as the Power. In man-kind's search, Evolution as the way, Religion as the why.

As no-one here has mentioned the the video, I assume that others have been unable to receive it. If this is so I offer my apologies, and I would suggest that you try to obtain access to it somehow. I am under the impression that it is the most up-to-date study. It points the the division as artificial, brought about by the conflict between the Ultra-Darwinists and the Creationists (a hijacking of the issue) and not down to Darwin himself.

Without the video, unfortunately you have missed out on our Darwin week celebrations, but you might have success with the video if you google Conor Cunningham. Worth the effort I'd say. I will cover it again to find anything I have missed, to pass on.

 

[MontyB]

Again, I disagree that they are competing theories. Something, be it God or chance, created life. It MUST have a beginning. Without a beginning, evolution cannot exist, as there would be nothing to evolve.

Why is it so unfeasible that a divine creator began life, adding to it an ability to adapt on its own? Is it so different than obscure art: the artist paints the picture, which evolves and digresses depending on the perception of the viewer?

It is not difficult for my mind to understand that life can be created with an internal sense of adaptation.

But that is just creationism and creationism is not a science, this is the reason that Intelligent Design came about in an effort to get around laws on teaching religion in schools. The simple reality remains that creationism and evolution are competing theories.

If the universe did not exist, then neither would life. If life did not exist, then neither would evolution. They are a symbiotic relationship, one relying on the other to function (though evolution is the greater recipient). They may be totally different systems, but in this context the one theory (evolution) is valid only if the other theory (the Big Bang) is true. Thus, we must examine both to hypothesize the other.

Evolution is a tiny subset of the process though you seem to be putting the cart before the horse here, you are more or less putting the bolt action rifle on a par with the history of weapons development throughout time when in reality it is just a small part of the history of weapons.

You make one very basic mistake,... I do understand.

What I don't understand is that people can have faith in a belief for which there is no proof and never has been. As for your remark about the internet as it might have been perceived 2000 years ago. You are talking about something which was yet to happen, not as we see christianity today when we look back at the past. Something that happened in the past is provable, something that is perhaps yet to happen is only guess work, there is no viable comparison.

Who's interpretation of god's word do you believe in,... the RC version, Mormon, Baptist, Adventist, Pentecostal, Westboro baptist, Muslim, Animist Jew, whatever?..... One thing you can be sure of, whichever one it is, the remainder will deny that your belief is the right one. So it's not only Atheists who disbelieve.

The problem here is that peoples faith in unprovable things is not solely the ground of religion, science relies on faith as much religion because no matter which theory you choose to follow (The Big Bang or Creationism) you have exactly the same faith in an unknown starting point (God or Two particles).

The difference for me in all this is that science is the only one of the two trying to determine the truth, religion stopped looking 2000 years ago and took up enforcement.

 

[Del Boy]

Here you are guys, the video in 6 parts on You Tube. It was broadcast by BBC last week:-

Did Darwin Kill God

 

[major liability]

That was a good explanation AZ. I understand, but I'm afraid I can never experience such faith for myself. Kind of ironic considering my Roman Catholic upbringing. Probably the most spiritual feelings I've had relate to vibes, good and bad, that emanate from places and people. The dichotomy of altruism and greed, the light and dark of human nature in relation to our sometimes savage environment. Not so much a singular being of immense power like the monotheists believe in, more like the will of the very universe itself as a living, if not sentient, entity. In a way, the laws of physics are my religion - change and said laws are the ONLY constants. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean we have to make up a story about it, I say we wait and study.

I realize that's a very confusing paragraph, I'm trying to wrap my head around it myself. But now I'm getting severely off-topic.

 

[MontyB]

Here you are guys, the video in 6 parts on You Tube. It was broadcast by BBC last week:-

Well I don't know about anyone else but I was somewhat disappointed in that documentary, at the very best I would describe it as liberal creationism and at the worst revisionist and misleading.

He clearly failed to understand scientific method and did little more than create strawman after strawman, the only one he managed to sink was religious literalism and in doing so he has managed to agree with Dawkins in that you can not prove or disprove the existence of god which is odd given the number of times he says he can not support Dawkins views.

 

[senojekips]

Yes.

You simply did not ask me to explain why I have that relationship. And I enjoy you as you are. I will not proselytize to you unless you ask me to answer for my faith. You deserve more than that. I will respect your right not to believe. If you ask, I will answer as honestly as I can. If you do not, I will enjoy the continuation of our friendship and leave the faith out of it. I only meant to share a bit of who I am with you, that our conversations would grow.

Off to work! We'll talk more this evening (TX time).

That is fair enough comment, but little to do with the subject of the debate. The reason i never asked about the relationship you have, is, I actually don't care what people "believe" or why they believe it when there is no logical or provable reason why they should believe it. One of my neighbours "believes" that his nephew is a good kid and the police pick on him because his parents are not wealthy. I believe that he is a little over protected brat who needs to be straightened out. Belief is just that and no more, a belief. What logical human beings need is not belief, but facts.

What is being debated here is "Did Darwin Kill God", my argument pretty much starts and ends with. "How can one kill something that that there is no proof ever existed".

The belief in god is no more than a form in self perpetuating mass hysteria where the believers have been brain washed into being too scared of the unknown to stop and look at the logic.

I am not a totally convinced creationist either, but given the choice of the two theories only creationism has some supporting evidence. I still don't think that Darwin got the whole story exactly right either, but generally his study based on the evolution of animal species is logical and probably correct and there is no denying that humans are only a species of animal, quite highly developed most certainly, but still just an animal. Why should Darwin's theories not apply to us as well?

 

[AZ_Infantry]

That is fair enough comment, but little to do with the subject of the debate. The reason i never asked about the relationship you have, is, I actually don't care what people "believe" or why they believe it when there is no logical or provable reason why they should believe it. One of my neighbours "believes" that his nephew is a good kid and the police pick on him because his parents are not wealthy. I believe that he is a little over protected brat who needs to be straightened out. Belief is just that and no more, a belief. What logical human beings need is not belief, but facts.

Love isn't about logic and proof, brother. And love is not about facts. Love is the very definition of belief: listening to your heart over your head.

What is being debated here is "Did Darwin Kill God", my argument pretty much starts and ends with. "How can one kill something that that there is no proof ever existed".

As much as I appreciate the rebuke, I am capable of following a simple conversation.

The belief in god is no more than a form in self perpetuating mass hysteria where the believers have been brain washed into being too scared of the unknown to stop and look at the logic.

Well, thank you for the insult. I must have been so "brainwashed" that I never took notice until you chose to put it into more childish terms for my underdeveloped brain to comprehend.

I am not a totally convinced creationist either, but given the choice of the two theories only creationism has some supporting evidence. I still don't think that Darwin got the whole story exactly right either, but generally his study based on the evolution of animal species is logical and probably correct and there is no denying that humans are only a species of animal, quite highly developed most certainly, but still just an animal.

Do you apply this same "logic" to fungi? If not, then how are we separated from it? Is it the ability to think (which you managed to dismiss)? To love (which you don't believe)? I'm just curious.

Why should Darwin's theories not apply to us as well?

I never said they didn't. In fact, I was adamant that they did. If you're too lazy to read the thread, you should refrain from commenting.

Get back with me when you've read and comprehend what I have taken the time to write thus far - while you're at it, get off your high horse. It is unbecoming to a man of your intelligence.

That was a good explanation AZ. I understand, but I'm afraid I can never experience such faith for myself. Kind of ironic considering my Roman Catholic upbringing. Probably the most spiritual feelings I've had relate to vibes, good and bad, that emanate from places and people. The dichotomy of altruism and greed, the light and dark of human nature in relation to our sometimes savage environment. Not so much a singular being of immense power like the monotheists believe in, more like the will of the very universe itself as a living, if not sentient, entity. In a way, the laws of physics are my religion - change and said laws are the ONLY constants. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean we have to make up a story about it, I say we wait and study.

I realize that's a very confusing paragraph, I'm trying to wrap my head around it myself. But now I'm getting severely off-topic.

I don't think you are - what is a discussion of principles grounded in faith if we cannot discuss faith itself?

I was once told, and I believe wholeheartedly, that the greatest enemy of faith is religion. Two wet rats in a sock are those concepts.

 

[senojekips]

Love isn't about logic and proof, brother. And love is not about facts. Love is the very definition of belief: listening to your heart over your head.

"Love" is hardly a good ideology to base one's life upon.

As much as I appreciate the rebuke, I am capable of following a simple conversation.
Well, thank you for the insult. I must have been so "brainwashed" that I never took notice until you chose to put it into more childish terms for my underdeveloped brain to comprehend.

That was neither said as, nor intended to be a rebuke or an insult, it is as near as I can get to the truth. Something I feel all of my friends are entitled to, even Internet friends. I don't rebuke persons whom I consider to be good people.

Do you apply this same "logic" to fungi? If not, then how are we separated from it? Is it the ability to think (which you managed to dismiss)? To love (which you don't believe)? I'm just curious.

Find me one passage of Darwin's Theory of Evolution that says we are related to Fungi or even anything like it. There is absolutely nothing to say we all came from the same one primitive organism. This type of diversion is typical of the type of rubbish that some religious fundamentalists would use to try and discredit Darwin's work, the truth being that it is nothing to do with anything said or even suggested in his work.

I never said they didn't. In fact, I was adamant that they did. If you're too lazy to read the thread, you should refrain from commenting.

Get back with me when you've read and comprehend what I have taken the time to write thus far - while you're at it, get off your high horse. It is unbecoming to a man of your intelligence.

I read what you said, all of it, and nowhere did I say that you said the above, it was a question from me to you.

After having read your last two paragraphs, I feel you are getting too "emotive" and reading things into my posts that are simply not there. whether this is a ploy to just make me go away, or a genuine mistake I'm not sure, but whatever, you are way off target. I feel that this is most unlike you, as we have always been able to retain our sense of humour in the past and it saddens me that you see it this way. I have no intention of hurting your feelings, just supplying the facts.

 

[aprilangel]

Just my own viewpoint, but thread topic's like this one always seem to make me think of some of the things my good old father would say. Y is a crooked letter which can't be made straight, live and let live, and the two certain things in life are death and taxes.

So for me, aside from paying my taxes, i'll just be dealing with the aging process as graciously as I can and as for death, well i'll just live and let live on that one! Simple as that!

Don't know though if i'll ever workout why Y can't be made straight, my dad's got me totally baffled on that one! cheers!

 

[Del Boy]

Thank you for responding MonyB - at least you and I can stay on topic here.

Well I don't know about anyone else but I was somewhat disappointed in that documentary,

The documentary does precisely what was specified on the opening Topic post and establishes clearly that it cannot be claimed that
Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity .

at the very best I would describe it as liberal creationism and at the worst revisionist and misleading

Please point out where any of these accusations fit.

He clearly failed to understand scientific method

Take another look at his cv and record then explain why such an expert and committed Darwinist fails ias you claim:-


"Conor Cunningham reveals that the orthodox understanding of Christianities God is the understanding that makes opposition between Darwin's theory of evolution and Christianity not only misplaced but IMPOSSIBLE.


Who is Conor Cunningham ? :-

.......despite holding the Chair in Political Theory, decided to also read for a Law degree. Following graduation, Conor moved to the University of Dundee to study for an M. Phil., in Philosophy under the supervision of the Jean-François Lyotard and Giles Deleuze scholar, James Williams. On completing his M. Phil. with distinction, Conor went to the University of Cambridge to read for the Diploma in Theology. Upon completion of this, he was awarded a British Academy Studentship to study for a Ph.D. Initially doing so under the supervision of John Milbank, but when he took up a Chair at the University of Virginia, Professor Graham Ward took over the mantle. After writing a book on nihilism (Genealogy of Nihilism), which is being translated into Spanish, Conor is now finishing a book entitled Evolution, to be published in a new series, by Eerdmans, called Interventions. This book offers a critique of Ultra-Darwinism, and ontological naturalism, whilst at the same providing a positive reading of Darwin’s theory of evolution. After the project on evolution, he is developing some previous work into a book on the philosopher Alain Badiou, which bears the polemical title: Badiou: A Very Critical Introduction. In addition to being series editor of Interventions, along with Peter Candler, he is also the editor of the series Veritas, published by SCM. Conor’s research interests include metaphysics, philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, and phenomenology. As well as lecturing in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, he is also assistant-director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham (www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk)."

__________________
.

'and did little more than create strawman after strawman,'.

Sorry - but what is a 'strawman' - I did not hear that mentioned. Please show them.

he has managed to agree with Dawkins in that you can not prove or disprove the existence of god.

Well of course. That is precisely the whole point of the exercise. That was Darwin's point of view. But as I understand it, Dawkins claims there is no God.

which is odd given the number of times he says he can not support Dawkins views.

Again, that is the whole point of the exercise - Darwinism does not represent Atheism. He tells us that Dawkins is an Ultra-Darwinist, and that the conflict between they and The Creationists has confused the issue regarding Evolution and Christianity. He could not have made his case on that more clear.

He is at all times clear and specific.

 

[MontyB]

Well of course. That is precisely the whole point of the exercise. That was Darwin's point of view. But as I understand it, Dawkins claims there is no God.

Lets be a little precise here Dawkin's does not claim there is no God, in his book "The God Delusion" he states "Why there almost certainly is no God", for the most part the claim is that the theory of evolution removes the need for for God not that there is no God.

Unfortunately I do not have a lot of time right now to get into a long discussion but I will reply piecemeal when I can.

Oh and a Strawman is:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

"Love" is hardly a good ideology to base one's life upon.

I agree that it is not healthy to live life in a state of emotion. Neither is it healthy to ignore the fact that emotions do play an enormous role in our lives and decisions. I make many decisions every day based on the fact that I love the Lord - just as you might make decisions because you love your wife. I'm sure that there are plenty of instances where you've done something just to please her, probably things you'd not otherwise do just for yourself. That is hardly basing your life on an ideology of love.

That was neither said as, nor intended to be a rebuke or an insult, it is as near as I can get to the truth. Something I feel all of my friends are entitled to, even Internet friends. I don't rebuke persons whom I consider to be good people.

So, your "truth" is that I, like all believers, am brainwashed? Sir, that is both a rebuke and an insult. What if I referred to all Atheists as heathens? Would you not then be lumped into my group?

It may be your truth, but it is far from THE truth. You are entitled to your perceptions, but you are vain to state that your perception is an encompassing truth.

The belief in god is no more than a form in self perpetuating mass hysteria where the believers have been brain washed into being too scared of the unknown to stop and look at the logic.

This is not truth, for I, like many of many of my constituents, have examined the logic and made an informed decision. That it isn't the same conclusion you derived doesn't mean I am brainwashed by the unknown or that I cannot see hysteria where and when it presents itself. My experiences in life have convinced me that a loving God does exist and does interact with us when invited to do so. It's not always immediately evident, but I can recount hundreds of examples where your logic simply fell way short of explaining things.

Find me one passage of Darwin's Theory of Evolution that says we are related to Fungi or even anything like it. There is absolutely nothing to say we all came from the same one primitive organism. This type of diversion is typical of the type of rubbish that some religious fundamentalists would use to try and discredit Darwin's work, the truth being that it is nothing to do with anything said or even suggested in his work.

Then you tell me: where does life come from?

Listen to your own argument.

Richard, life didn't evolve from one organism. It was always different and has just evolved over time. One day there was simply life like Apes, and man evolved from them.

Sounds an awful lot like creationism to me! One day there was no life, and then one day there was. So where did it come from?

Darwinism is the argument that ALL life stemmed from a single organism. No, he didn't outright state that. But if it didn't, then you automatically agree that life was created and your argument makes no sense. It is simply improper debate to tell me that my theory is wrong when you have no opposing theory. This is Dawkin's argument to a T. Darwin exposed evolution, and it makes perfect sense. But he fails to explain where life came from. He derives an answer without establishing an equation.

In fact, Darwin wasn't an Atheist at all. Read his material. He was an Agnostic - an individual that does not believe that God does NOT exist, only that mankind understands God all wrong and that none of us knows the God we claim to. They neither believe nor disbelieve.

After having read your last two paragraphs, I feel you are getting too "emotive" and reading things into my posts that are simply not there. whether this is a ploy to just make me go away, or a genuine mistake I'm not sure, but whatever, you are way off target. I feel that this is most unlike you, as we have always been able to retain our sense of humour in the past and it saddens me that you see it this way. I have no intention of hurting your feelings, just supplying the facts.

You asked me why Darwin's theories shouldn't apply to us. Throughout this thread I have stated that they DID. The only logical conclusion is that you didn't read my beliefs or that you dismissed them. Why else would you ask me a question I have answered several times over already?

I'm not being emotional and I don't want you to go away and I don't feel that I made a mistake. And my sense of humor is fully intact.

So, God and Darwin walk into a bar...

Sorry. irate2:

My argument is the same as Dawkin's: that Darwinism doesn't automatically dismiss creationism. There is room for both. Darwinism fails to explain the origin of life, and creationism fails to identify how life adapts.

If you put the two together, you have a working theory. It is the only one possible, as both theories lack explanations when they stand alone.

I apaologize if I gave you the impression that I wanted you to just go away. Be assured that I do not! I always enjoy our discourse.

 

[Del Boy]

Lets be a little precise here Dawkin's does not claim there is no God, in his book "The God Delusion" he states "Why there almost certainly is no God", for the most part the claim is that the theory of evolution removes the need for for God not that there is no God.

Unfortunately I do not have a lot of time right now to get into a long discussion but I will reply piecemeal when I can.

Oh and a Strawman is:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I was very precise Monty ,as is Conor Cunningham throughout his documentary. I said that as I understand it Dawkins claims there is no God. This stems from the times I have seen him in debate, and the fact that I understand that Atheism rejects the existence of God, a creator. Only today, quoted re. the Pope's recent speech, he is titled as 'the Atheist botanist'. Conor here clearly specifies that The God Delusion author implies belief in evolution requires Atheism. But certainly, 'Did Darwin Kill God 'explodes that theory that Evolution necessarily eliminates the necessity for God, or even that there exists any conflict between Evolution and the existence of God. I feel that it is very incorrect discussion proceedure to post a sweeping dismissal of Conor's documentary as you did, and then when asked directly to produce reasons, examples, etc., to support your crit , to fail to do so, by excusing yourself.

Do you not agree that it would be correct to withdraw your advertised dismissal until you can explain your case, as you say, piecemeal, at some time? I would appreciate it if you start from that point, rather than allowing what may be misleading and incorrect statements to stand on this forum unexpalined. Thank you.

And thank you for the explanation of "strawman"; regarding your use of it, such accusations should certainly be accompanied by supporting evidence or not used at all.

Please let us all see what you have. I wil be delighted to continue this exciting documentary with you at a time of your choosing, I have been looking forward to it for some time. It is a pleasure to do business with you.

I have to admit that I considered your reference to strawman to be a quote from The Wizard of Oz.


Here is a reminder of the Topic- new BBC documentary in six parts. (1 hour altogether.)

DidDarwinKillGod

 

[MontyB]

Do you not agree that it would be correct to withdraw your advertised dismissal until you can explain your case, as you say, piecemeal, at some time? I would appreciate it if you start from that point, rather than allowing what may be misleading and incorrect statements to stand on this forum unexpalined. Thank you.

No I wont withdraw my dismissal of the program because I consider the show to be the worst kind of "Science", it is bad science done well enough to confuse people into believing what he is saying is objective and accurate when it is neither.

This is why I said it was Straw Man after Straw Man and his characterisation of Dawkins was a fine example of this in that he modified Dawkin's views just enough to distort them and then went on to counter those views.

As I have said it is bad science (he is not alone in this many documentaries do it) disguised as legitimate work.

 

[senojekips]

I had this post all but ready to submit, when in my eagerness i forgot that there was a declared power outage programmed for our area and I lost my previous answers. I don't feel inclined to re answer everything so I will be very brief.

I agree that it is not healthy to live life in a state of emotion. Neither is it healthy to ignore the fact that emotions do play an enormous role in our lives and decisions. I make many decisions every day based on the fact that I love the Lord - just as you might make decisions because you love your wife. I'm sure that there are plenty of instances where you've done something just to please her, probably things you'd not otherwise do just for yourself. That is hardly basing your life on an ideology of love.

Loving god is a lot different to to loving one's wife. My wife is very real and she reciprocates that love. She does not kill men, women or small children with agonising illnesses, or any of the other crappy stuff that your god gets up to.

So, your "truth" is that I, like all believers, am brainwashed? Sir, that is both a rebuke and an insult. What if I referred to all Atheists as heathens? Would you not then be lumped into my group?
It may be your truth, but it is far from THE truth. You are entitled to your perceptions, but you are vain to state that your perception is an encompassing truth.

There is no , "Your truth", "my truth" there is only one truth and is is as clear cut as knowing the difference between right and wrong. Oh, and Atheists are heathens, i have never known one to deny it. It's a fact that cannot be denied merely to make us feel good. (Not that we feel badly about it anyway)

This is not truth, for I, like many of many of my constituents, have examined the logic and made an informed decision. That it isn't the same conclusion you derived doesn't mean I am brainwashed by the unknown or that I cannot see hysteria where and when it presents itself. My experiences in life have convinced me that a loving God does exist and does interact with us when invited to do so. It's not always immediately evident, but I can recount hundreds of examples where your logic simply fell way short of explaining things.

An informed decision is one made after an examination of the facts and physical evidence, seeing that a belief in god has neither of them, I feel your decision is somewhat poorly formed.

Then you tell me: where does life come from?

I don't know, and I have never claimed to know, that is one of the major differences between Atheists and believers, we stick to the facts. Atheists are practical people.

I apaologize if I gave you the impression that I wanted you to just go away. Be assured that I do not! I always enjoy our discourse.

Never feel that you need to apologise to me, friends do not have to do that.

I am not so small minded as to let the things that occur on the internet upset me or interfere with my life. :lol:

 

[Del Boy]

No I wont withdraw my dismissal of the program because I consider the show to be the worst kind of "Science", it is bad science done well enough to confuse people into believing what he is saying is objective and accurate when it is neither.

This is scurrilous nonsense! Why won't you try to substantiate your accusations against such a highly respected Darwinist and Philosopher, as you have already been asked! You have completely failed to refute any specific point or provide examples when challenged.

This is why I said it was Straw Man after Straw Man and his characterisation of Dawkins was a fine example of this in that he modified Dawkin's views just enough to distort them and then went on to counter those views.

Be specific. Show us precisely where this is done. You have failed to substantiate your unfounded claims. Examples please.

As I have said it is bad science (he is not alone in this many documentaries do it) disguised as legitimate work.

Rubbish. Show us where. You are completely out of your depth with this uninformed wild accusation. Show us how you substantiate this.

Stop spouting pompous, ridiculous and irrelevant slander and try to address the content of this fine piece of philosophical, religious and Darwinist work. Otherwise, your opinion is worthless on this subject.

Everyone should try to watch this video. It is an important contribution to Darwinism.