Quote from: quadzI think he discounts solid evidence of godSuch as?life itselfQuote from: dahangEverything except the spark of the bacterium-like life 4 billion years ago is explained through our modern understanding of the theory of evolution, which is an extremely economical, elegant, simple theory where apparently no supernatural intervention is required.The theory of evolution doesn't explain how and why the molecules, necessary for life to form, exist. And there is no solid theory based on fact, that remotely explains how the molecules needed for life are around, in the form life needs, or how they exist at all.
I think he discounts solid evidence of godSuch as?life itself
Everything except the spark of the bacterium-like life 4 billion years ago is explained through our modern understanding of the theory of evolution, which is an extremely economical, elegant, simple theory where apparently no supernatural intervention is required.
the purpose of the universe is an important question to ask imo, although Dawnin's completely ignores it, perhaps because science cannot test such a quesion.
If survival of the fittest is absolutely true, why are there plenty of other primates existing today?
Quote from: [EoM]Focalor on May 12, 2008, 09:13:35 PMIf survival of the fittest is absolutely true, why are there plenty of other primates existing today?
Quote from: DaHanG on May 13, 2008, 09:27:36 AMQuote from: [EoM]Focalor on May 12, 2008, 09:13:35 PMIf survival of the fittest is absolutely true, why are there plenty of other primates existing today? What I was suggesting was not that if evolution were true that other primates would not exist.
Your own opinions notwithstanding, evolution is still only a THEORY, not fact. Until it is unconditionally proven to be fact, it is not wise to consider it so. That would cloud judgment and perception regarding further research. Being so narrow minded is not the position to take when on a quest for the truth.
Like some wiseman called George W. Bush said: "The jury's still out on evolution."PS. Creationism and intelligent design are bullshit.
Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing", but reveals that he began doubting the existence of God when he was about nine years old. He later reconverted because he was persuaded by the argument from design, an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design or direction—or some combination of these—in nature. However, he began to feel that the customs of the Church of England were absurd, and had more to do with dictating morals than with God. Later, when he better understood the process of evolution, his religious position again changed, because he felt that natural selection could account for the complexity of life in purely material terms, rendering a supernatural designer unnecessary
Default theory: a complex molecule emerged from a simple, natural history of events.Alternative theory a: a more complex entity accounts for the molecule.Alternative theory b: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.Alternative theory c: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.
we don't have to assume god is true, because people believe in god, but life sure seems to persuade some people that god exists - even Richard Dawkin.
Quote from: dahangDefault theory: a complex molecule emerged from a simple, natural history of events.Alternative theory a: a more complex entity accounts for the molecule.Alternative theory b: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.Alternative theory c: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.that is really an interesting theory, but it does not resolve purpose, design, or order .
the simple explanation and natural history of events could involve[sic] a god. saying it's just a simple beginning at this point, explains things about the same way god explains things.
it seems you are inventing a billion universes
or from a "bang" cars and life assemble themselves
with no explanation as to why this supreme ball of energy/matter exists, and realizes itself in such a lucky manner. through good reason we can see we know little about the complete picture of the universe (which is a big part of life, at least under your belief).
theoretically we can simulate life with an adaptive computer virus, how important is understanding what happens before the virus replicates and advances, is an important part of life's explanation. how realistic is this simulation? we don't have a strong case in any direction, which is why we don't know the truth.
god does not get a free pass, we just need more information before your theory can have the strength you think it does.