Customer Discussions > The God Delusion forum

Scientific Evolution Denial


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2011 10:40:58 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 22, 2011 2:47:52 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2011 10:50:02 PM PDT
Johns says:
Theological Mind,
Evolutionary theory is well supported by The Divine Government.

Southwood Smith claimed that "all reasonable beings, however inferior the condition in which they commence their existence, are destined to rise higher and higher in endless progression, and to contribute to their own advancement."

Darwin: "[W]hilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Posted on Jul 21, 2011 10:58:45 PM PDT
Johns says:
RWF, Theological ["Scientific"} Mind, Wolfpup, Rip, etc.

Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor's Tale reckons that our quadruped ancestor evolved into a biped in a similar way to that in which senior boys strutted around school to demonstrate their superiority to junior boys in the boarding school he attended. That's his anecdote to support his notion that our alleged quadruped ancestor evolved into a biped.

Same book, Dawkins reckons that the wolves evolved into domestic dogs through acting as, wait for it, WARM SLEEP COMFORTERS to man. Now, how about that?!

Without any shadow of a doubt, evolutionary theory should be classified as, if not a religion, then as "imaginative fiction".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2011 11:15:41 PM PDT
Johns says:
Paul,
Darwinian evolutionary theory is derived from Unitarian Christianity. Unitarians are agnostic in that they do not believe the biblical account of creation and consider that it is unknowable. A denial of Christ's divinity separates them from other Christians.

Evolutionary theory as conceived by Alfred Russel Wallace differs in that he was irreligious. Therefore, he conceived that evolution did not necessarily progress onwards and upwards as Darwin did.

Evolutionary theorists become muddled over the issue of causation. For further reading I strongly recommend Evolution, Old & New - Or, the Theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, - as compared with that of Charles Darwin

I am in the process of reading Butler's Life and Habit, which is very good so far. See also Mivart's Lessons from Nature and On the Genesis of Species.

The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations series)
Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist
Huxley: From Devil's Disciple To Evolution's High Priest (Helix Books)
also contain interesting information.

For how Lamarckian evolution, not Darwinian evolution explains micro-evolution (evolution within a species),see The Hidden Power.

Also, see the More Letters of Charles Darwin (readable online) for the disagreements between Wallace and Darwin, concerning the role of sexual selection and of how the sterility of hybrids deals a fatal blow to the concept of evolution by natural selection.

Happy reading!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 2:43:19 AM PDT
Johns says:
More books on evolution:

The Heretic in Darwin's Court: The Life of Alfred Russel Wallace
Darwin Among The Machines: The Evolution Of Global Intelligence (Helix Books) (good for the dispute between Samuel Butler and Darwin)
Unconcious Memory
Everything You Know Is Wrong, Book 1: Human Origins
Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory
Evolutionary Writings: Including the Autobiographies (Oxford World's Classics)

The Darwin Life and Letters and Huxley Life and Letters are also worth a look.

From Darwin's Life and Letters vol 2, here is what the great Adam Sedgwick, Darwin's former tutor, had to say about Origin of Species:

I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of
it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore;
other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false
and grievously mischievous. You have DESERTED--after a start in that tram-
road of all solid physical truth--the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was
to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon
assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express
them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction? As to
your grand principle--NATURAL SELECTION--what is it but a secondary
consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts! Development is a better
word, because more close to the cause of the fact? For you do not deny
causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God; and I can
prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws
which we can study and comprehend. Acting by law, and under what is called
final causes, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of
"natural selection" as if it were done curiously by the selecting agent.
'Tis but a consequence of the presupposed development, and the subsequent
battle for life. This view of nature you have stated admirably, though
admitted by all naturalists and denied by no one of common sense. We all
admit development as a fact of history: but how came it about? Here, in
language, and still more in logic, we are point-blank at issue. There is a
moral or metaphysical part of nature as well a physical. A man who denies
this is deep in the mire of folly. 'Tis the crown and glory of organic
science that it DOES through FINAL CAUSE, link material and moral; and yet
DOES NOT allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, and our
classification of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or the
other. You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning,
you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it
possible (which, thank God, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind,
would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into
a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its
written records tell us of its history. Take the case of the bee-cells.
If your development produced the successive modification of the bee and its
cells (which no mortal can prove), final cause would stand good as the
directing cause under which the successive generations acted and gradually
improved. Passages in your book, like that to which I have alluded (and
there are others almost as bad), greatly shocked my moral taste. I think,
in speculating on organic descent, you OVER-state the evidence of geology; and that you UNDER-state it while you are talking of the broken links of
your natural pedigree: but my paper is nearly done, and I must go to my
lecture-room. Lastly, then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter--not
as a summary, for in that light it appears good--but I dislike it from the
tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation
(in a tone I condemned in the author of the 'Vestiges') and prophesy of
things not yet in the womb of time, nor (if we are to trust the accumulated
experience of human sense and the inferences of its logic) ever likely to
be found anywhere but in the fertile womb of man's imagination. And now to
say a word about a son of a monkey and an old friend of yours: I am
better, far better, than I was last year. I have been lecturing three days
a week (formerly I gave six a week) without much fatigue, but I find by the
loss of activity and memory, and of all productive powers, that my bodily
frame is sinking slowly towards the earth. But I have visions of the
future. They are as much a part of myself as my stomach and my heart, and
these visions are to have their antitype in solid fruition of what is best
and greatest. But on one condition only--that I humbly accept God's
revelation of Himself both in his works and in His word, and do my best to
act in conformity with that knowledge which He only can give me, and He
only can sustain me in doing. If you and I do all this we shall meet in
heaven.

I have written in a hurry, and in a spirit of brotherly love, therefore
forgive any sentence you happen to dislike; and believe me, spite of any
disagreement in some points of the deepest moral interest, your true-
hearted old friend,

A. SEDGWICK.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 7:18:38 AM PDT
Amar says:
Rip sez: "Sorry, I don't have the time to talk to pompous know it all snots."

Wise.

It might be of interest to know that Bore had admitted some years ago(I can dig it up if necessary) to a rough existence similar to Bain's, if not in detail. That may help to explain their similar born-again fanatical mind-set and what may be underlying that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:15:40 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Let's analyze a Bore post...shall we? (I note Amazon deleted my post for daring to question gods, while of course Bore and friends carry on.)

<<<P. Boire says:
Hey poopsy.>>>

Insult 1.

<<<While you may have memory problems>>>

Insult 2.

<<<don't call other people liars. It's cheap and ugly.>>>

Insult 3. (Note, if people lie, calling them a liar is fair game.)

<<<Can't you read?>>>

Insult 4.

<<<I am agreeing whole heartedly with the good professor that the idea of God he presents is absurd and ridiculous, a product of vast ignorance, superstition and indifference!>>>

Insult 5. (Note Bore doesn't actually explain what type of god he believes in, as I think was requested.)

<<<Where is the harm or insult in that poopsy?>>>

Insult 6.

<<<The idea is manifestly deranged!>>>

Insult 7.

<<<Shouldn't you get past grade nine before you make judgments about intellectual abilities?>>>

Insult 8.

<<<And indeed kid,>>>

Insult 9.

Note that his post doesn't actually answer anything at all that was asked of him, yet manages to contain at least 9 insults.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:17:09 AM PDT
Amar,

Many people think they experience God directly in their lives, which reminds me of a joke.

Two lunatics sat together in an asylum. One said, "God spoke to me!" The other answered, "I did not!"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:17:32 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Yet more insults while refusing to answer my direct questions.

Let's try again.

<<<Still want to tell me that 'time' is physical? >>>

If you think it's not a physical property, what, on Earth, do you think it is, and what's your evidence for this?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:18:52 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<P. Boire says:
And for wolfpup, consciousness is not a property of acids.>>>

Did someone claim it was?

<<<Electrons aren't 'about' anything.>>>

Did someone say they were?

<<<Propositions don't weigh anything, and the unconditionned cause which underlies the hierarchically ordered conditionned causes of experience cannot be physical. Obviously.>>>

You must actually explain what you mean.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:20:02 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<Johns says:
No-one can provide a sensible answer as to why our alleged quadruped ancestor evolved into a biped.>>>

Really? Again, this is high school biology. You haven't heard of trees?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:21:15 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<Johns says:
The common ancestor theory of evolution is a joke. >>>

And why is it a "joke"? You must actually prove this-which would make you one of the most famous people in history-not simply assert it, nor assert it with confused "evidence".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:21:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2011 8:25:56 AM PDT
WolfPup,

For years now, Paul has been arguing against positions none of us here hold, but he will never admit it. He has claimed he knows more about atheism than any atheist, yet could never admit we might know more about some aspects of religion than he does. His knowledge makes him authoritative on topics of religion, physics, cosmology, psychology, philosophy and heaven knows what else. This does indeed place him in the category of know-it-alls.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:22:28 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<P. Boire says:
Rip

You really can't read. I have already presented evidence on these points.>>>

Ah yes. And here we have the Bore insult followed by the Bore claim to have already presented evidence. Mysteriously I have only ever seen Bore insult and claim to have presented evidence, never actually any evidence.

For someone with so much evidence, he sure has a strong desire to keep it secret.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:25:32 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<P. Boire says:
I am a theist and like most Christians, I am not aware of any difficulties with the idea of evolution generally vis a vis Christian theology. >>>

So you're a Christian, yet claim to be unaware of the Bible? Do we need to instruct you in your religion?

I'll confess, until recently I was also a Christian, and set aside problems with this, as with many other issues. Actually I don't know that it's a particularly strong case against Christianity, since I (and many other Christians) simply believed Yahweh had used evolution to create us, and didn't have too much of a problem with that...not compared with other issues.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:27:14 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
I have no idea what ANY of these theists are trying to accomplish. They just keep saying the same ridiculous things over and over and over again, completely immune to evidence. I imagine they're all desperate to cling to a faith they know is unreasonable, much as the loudest anti-gay people tend to be gay.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:30:44 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<P. Boire says:
You have no excuse for claiming religion is based upon 'blind faith">>>

Of course it is. There is no evidence for the existence of gods. Now of course you will CLAIM you've presented such evidence, but if true, you spend far more time insulting people and claiming you've presented evidence than actually presenting evidence. You've also not published it in Nature or Science or the like. You've also not accepted your million dollars, for some reason.

<<<Wolfpup also prefers to call me a liar>>>

That would be because of your constant claims to have presented evidence...somewhere...and years of posts of such claims, without actually ever presenting this evidence anywhere...including in the thread explicitly about presenting evidence for gods.

Is it possible you have evidence, and really have presented it somewhere, and want to otherwise keep it a secret? Yes, I suppose. Is this likely? No, of course not. If I had evidence, I'd share it with the world. Indeed, I'd still be a Christian.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:36:17 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
I involuntarily chuckled at that, much as I disapprove of such humor :-D

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:54:47 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 22, 2011 2:47:52 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:55:04 AM PDT
Amar says:
Jay,

Yeah, I have heard that joke(I may have mentioned it before here). A psychiatrist is interviewing his patient(s):

Psychiatrist: "What makes you think that you are God?"
Patient 1: "Because God told me..."
Patient 2(locked up in a cage): "Hey, I didn't"!

Well, this kind of delusional thinking is due to brain pathology.

The only way for even (seemingly)normal people to 'know' God is by experiencing God. In fact, God by experience is one of William Craig's five arguments for the existence of God. He doesn't say God exists by claiming to see or by any direct evidence. He can't because none exists.

On the other hand, the case of Born-again believers could be a little tricky: It might happen in a moment of extreme stress and a sense of hopelessness and self-loathing. The brain might be conjuring that up out of a need for self-preservation. Akin to the NDE/OBE experiences in the brain due to hypoxic or other stress situations.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 8:58:41 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 22, 2011 2:47:52 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 9:01:33 AM PDT
Amar says:
Wolfpup asks: "And why is it a "joke"? "

You don't ask someone whose eyes are closed: "Why is it dark?". The question is redundant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 9:06:34 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<P. Boire says:
Evolutionary science studies the orderedness of our cosmos>>>

No it doesn't.

<<<I reject materialist views as radically incoherent on virtually all levels of consideration>>>

Because you don't understand them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 9:06:36 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 22, 2011 2:47:52 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 9:13:48 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<P. Boire says:
Aw Wolfpup. Be an honest little agnostic>>>

I'm honest, but most certainly not an agnostic.

<<<and read the argument I had with Rip. Was he honest in his criticisms? Did he have any idea what he was talking about...even as history.. let alone argument?>>>

As near as I can see it was the same as always.

<<<Is the multiworld 'scenario' more consistent with the data?>>>

What does this have to do with anything? Multiple universes or not, you've got to have evidence of gods to convince people rationally that there are gods.

<<<Do you have free will?>>>

So far as I'm aware, technically no. Practically though, yes.

<<<If you are only physical then you are never free of the control of the laws of physics.>>>

This is correct.

<<<This means that you are not free to consider and decide anything ever; even about agnosticism.>>>

This is incorrect. While so far as we know it's entirely the result of physical processes within my brain, practically speaking this is "free will" enough on a day to day bases. I'm most certainly free to consider and decide things all I want, even if perhaps a powerful enough computer with full access to the data could model what I was going to decide.

If you want to claim there's something outside the influence of our reality making decisions for your body, you must actually demonstrate this to be the case. I, nor you, have any reason to believe this to be true without evidence.

<<<I have given a number of arguments for the existence of God.>>>

Regardless, I've yet to see you give evidence for the existence of any gods.

<<<Do you really believe that there are several zillion uninverse with quadrazillion little wolfpuppies runnging around manifesting every theortetical possibility.>>>

I don't know, and neither do you. I don't see how the question is related to evidence for gods, nor the question of whether you've actually ever presented evidence for gods.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  The God Delusion forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  1510
Initial post:  Jul 7, 2011
Latest post:  Jan 12, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins
The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins by Richard Dawkins (Paperback - May 1, 2007)
4.0 out of 5 stars   (2,800)