Your Views on Dawkins?

[KichigaiNeko]

I did not try to bypass any of Dawkin's credentials. I claimed that he is a brilliant scientist, however, a poor philosopher.

Why all the ad hominems man? Just trying to have a conversation.

You are a disingenuous cunt,

dolt.

Also, I don't deny that evolution could have happened. I just disagree in that it is unguided evolution in that it is naturalistic. I am fine with guided evolution.

Did try to warn you.
Your sentence structure can be miss read and not everyone is fluent in english on this board mate.

What you seem to be after is true DEBATE for which you will be happy to know we have a section on this site.
Follow the ----->

And read.

What you also do not appreciate is that there are a few scientists on this site ...not famous but hard-working all the same.

No one likes to have years of dedication and study diminished by anyone let alone a newcomer. Hmm?

[Aractus]

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God. The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?

The problem with his argument is that he approaches it as mutually exclusive. No scientific process necessitates negating the existence of God. We don't see the law of Gravity and say "the law of Gravity holds us onto the Earth and not God". We can still have gravity given to us by physics, in the same way we can have evolution also given to us by physics (by complex chemical processes governed by "laws" or rules that we do not fully understand). "Unguided" evolution does take place, that is observable, but it doesn't necessitate that we don't have a God.

[KichigaiNeko]

[Cato]

The problem with his argument is that he approaches it as mutually exclusive. No scientific process necessitates negating the existence of God. We don't see the law of Gravity and say "the law of Gravity holds us onto the Earth and not God". We can still have gravity given to us by physics, in the same way we can have evolution also given to us by physics (by complex chemical processes governed by "laws" or rules that we do not fully understand). "Unguided" evolution does take place, that is observable, but it doesn't necessitate that we don't have a God.

I don't recall a 'god' constant or variable term in Newton's or Einstein's equations for gravity. Exactly what is your god's purpose regarding gravity?

[Aractus]

Also, I don't deny that evolution could have happened. I just disagree in that it is unguided evolution in that it is naturalistic. I am fine with guided evolution.

Why do you come to a scientific conclusion that isn't based on science?

---

Did try to warn you.
Your sentence structure can be miss read and not everyone is fluent in english on this board mate.

Those would be the yanks, right?

[clemdog14]

Alright let's back up.

With him it seems to be very much "us and them", and I think it's a mistake for anyone - and Christians foremost - to have that attitude towards other people.

I agree that all of us should not have this mentality. I am just trying to provoke thought in the forum (not saying there isn't any thought here).

I did not mean to imply that Dawkins is inconsistent with all of his views. I was just saying that on a philosophical standpoint, some of Dawkins' assertions are lacking. Philosophical, not scientific. I am not claiming that all of Dawkins views are inconsistent scientifically at all.

Mr. Philosophy major

is a little belittling and feels like an ad hominem argument.

Furthermore, Dawkins said that God was more improbable than "as a hurricane ripping through a junkyard" not that evolution is more improbable.

On a separate note, my whole argument was based not on whether it is an either or statement (either there is the existence of God or there is unguided evolution). Rather, the whole argument was whether Dawkins could ascertain one over the other based on their low probabilities. Not scientifically, philosophically.

You're really wideling it down to the point where you are portraying Dawkins as providing a hypothesis with no rational theory or evidence and making a simple choice between that or god.

Pretty much. But can one truly know that one dwells over the other with complete certainty? Even though the unguided evolution appears to more probable even though it is just as unlikely as the God scenario does not necessarily mean that it is full proof.

[Aractus]

I don't recall a 'god' constant or variable term in Newton's or Einstein's equations for gravity. Exactly what is your god's purpose regarding gravity?

My point is that we don't have the argument that God doesn't exist because we believe in gravity, so why do it with evolution?

[Cato]

My point is that we don't have the argument that God doesn't exist because we believe in gravity, so why do it with evolution?

Your point is DOA until you have a shred of evidence for your god. Gravity and evolution have no use for your premise, that's my point.

[KichigaiNeko]

My point is that we don't have the argument that God doesn't exist because we believe in gravity, so why do it with evolution?

Your point is DOA until you have a shred of evidence for your god. Gravity and evolution have no use for your premise, that's my point.

Haven't we been down this road before??

What will it take for religious nutjobs to understand basic science?

[Aractus]

The creation doesn't use the creator - don't be ridiculous. The laws of biology have little to no use of the laws of economics ya know, doesn't mean they aren't both real!

---

What will it take for religious nutjobs to understand basic science?

OH really ... I put it to you that I have a much better basic understanding of science than you do. HA! Your move!