I am glad to hear akabula

Evolution is very good at explain how life works, it can get us from the first single cell organisms

to where we are now, we have found nothing to contradict this theory, it holds...so far.

It cannot explain how life started...as yet, and neither can it answer the question WHY....the motive for life.

Evolutionists say it just is, but is that really enough for our human brains.


Human beings are born problem solvers because of our complex communication skills...which in themselves are quite amazing

no other animal has it to our level.

We will do anything to solve a problem including making up a solution....it is not far from that to religion, magic,

and even aliens from outer space.

Without realising it we are all religious...we pray for good weather on our holiday, some of us pray the dog we have just backed wins

we have done all the study we can...we still need luck. In our earlier history we needed rain, sun, etc...we tried to placate

the weather, we invented a solution. We all need to believe in something whether we admit it or not.

Human beings are problem creators. Not worthy of being custodians of this wonderful planet.

Whales can communicate with other whales that are thousands of miles away and they don`t have mobile phones.

polybot 16 Feb 16 00:30 Joined: 20 Oct 03 | Topic/replies: 5,413 | Blogger: polybot's blog
A fine mind who articulated what many of us were thinking but were unable to express as lucidly as he

a celebrity pop book writer at the simplistic and low level of bill nye 'the science guy' or neil degrasse tyson, this explains his appeal to the simple masses,

it's outrageous that the "simple masses" are being manipulated in this way. Thank goodness the brighter ones still believe in the truth of a book written by bronze age nomads, manipulated by selection and in translation by people with a vested interest in maintaining their position of power.

ebulGery,

I think Gregor Mendel was a Roman Catholic.

The biblical message of Jesus is a good template for society in general but organised religion does far more harm than good.
Regarding where we get our morals from? inherited in the main from our parents and/or instinct is my guess.

It has certainly helped but I still think we have something within that tells us good from bad.

aasbff  • February 16, 2016 3:39 PM GMT
ebulGery,
I think Gregor Mendel was a Roman Catholic.

erm?..I suppose as an Augustinian friar he must have been

But he joined St Thomas Abbey which did push education very much at the time. He joined for that education.

He was also allowed to work on Evolutionary theory which in a way is contradicting God

Darwin thought he had killed God when he published his On the Origin of Species, etc.....he need not of worried


But a problem remained with Darwin, he had showed species mutate, but how were the mutations held, surely they would disappear again

like a drop of red pain in a bucket of white paint.

Mendel showed mutations are always held in what is now called our genetic structure by a system of dominant and recessive genes.

He showed the theoretical basis of DNA..he pointed the way...all we had to do was find it, which we did.


Darwin and Mendel are considered the twin fathers of Evolutionary Biology

Richard Dawkins has added clever Evolutionary ideas, I cannot judge the worth of them, time will tell.

Can't ignore the Christian charities, they were some of the first, but they are relatively few these days and there are many, many more non-religious charities.

I think it was more a fact that the Church used to be a big player in peoples lives in previous centuries.

Maybe people are getting it wrong and Dawkins is more religious than 99% of those who think they are.
That statistic may be wrong also.

i respect his bravery at times and agree with him on islam and some other opinions, but a great mind he is not, and certainly no great scientist.

Unsurprising since Islam is,in your view, not the true religion but yours is. I see plenty of opinion in your posts polybot but little logic.
Carry on doing god's work, you will find your reward in heaven while the rest of us roast in hell with Professor Dawkins. I know whose company I would prefer.

nsurprising since Islam is,in your view, not the true religion but yours is

so even after clearly having it pointed out, you mindlessly repeat the exact same logical fallacy
heres your second problem with this, dawkins himself also holds the same view (recently at least) that islam is the material problem, therefore holding to your logical fallacy, what should you also conclude from this?
third problem is you fail to provide specifics in your statement, which makes it problematic to answer, with specifics, the second problem. please fill in your blanks.

I see plenty of opinion in your posts polybot but little logic

you seem confused either in that the two are not mutually exclusive, or you write with redundancy or tautology. even making those allowances though, your attempted point is still wrong
both posts are factual and logical,to take the earlier example for simplicity's sake:
"a logical fallacy to prove my point" would be easily disproven here if either you could use data, facts or references, or you weren't completely wrong.
but note that you don't even attempt to disprove this, or even dispute the logic or facts, you simply continue to blunder down the well worn sheep track carved out by your simplistic dawkinsian false dichotomy.

Carry on doing god's work, you will find your reward in heaven while the rest of us roast in hell with Professor Dawkins. I know whose company I would prefer.

ending with the obligatory infantile and purile attempt at humour (knowing any attempt at actual argument would fail, the space where the argument should be needs to be displaced with a tedious jumble of childish ramblings
and for good measure triple down on the exact same fallacy, as if repeating it often enough will make it real)

briefly,
line 1. he's not a great scientist, but it's the qualifier most of his followers use
line 2. dawkins is clearly no newton, newton's spiritual values or beliefs in no way makes his science bad, and by the same token dawkins' lack of spiritual beliefs does not make him either logical or a good scientist, this appears to be something that confuses dawkinsians greatly.
line 3. dawkins may not have what you define to be "a flawed mind" but this does not provide an immunity from being dangerous
line 4. not sure what imaginary world you are harking back to, g the time of newton was significantly more religious, while today the non practice of religion and atheism is at its peak.
line 5. he's a pleasant old white man from a country whose religious culture destroyed the world and is now being lost, or at least that's the story i'm told, i dunno who to believe.

polybot briefly,

l.he may or may not be a great scientist, as I said that is not the point.
2.Dawkins is clear no Newton, agreed and again not the point as Newton may have been the most intelligent man who ever lived there is no disgrace in this.
3.you may not accept that some minds are "flawed" I suggest you look at the world and what people, including "religious" people are capable of
4.the time I am harking back to is England in the 19c, a time when people tried to understand the world around them through science and great curiosity.rather than superstition. This happens in different times and places through history...but only briefly.
5.I like pleasant people, that is always a good starting point.

lfc1971, all your points seem to confirm my original point, that he is a mediocre pop scientist, pop being: popular, pleasant, fashionable, crowd pleasing.
not sure harking back to the 19th century helps your case as it was peak british protestant colonialism, and while some would argue that protestantism and british colonisation are the two leading indicators for eventual societal prosperity, dawkins clearly doesn't.

Many theists can't stand Dawkins. I get that. It probably sticks in their throat that the God Delusion outsold the bible after it was published

Polybot it is Dawkins appeal to common sense and clear thinking based on observation that gains a large following.
I don`t suppose he is a great scientist, he would not think of himself as being one, but the problem is we live in a world in which there are no longer (any?) great scientists.
Britain no longer invents anything or has any new scientific or artistic ideas.
People are drawn to Dawkin because of his way of looking at the world,
especially when they see increasing chaos in the world and want to retreat from the irrational madness of man.

as for britain, historically it always had a low proportion of scientists or artists and their consequent ideas, the ratio today is probably higher than ever.
britains problems stem from elsewhere, you could argue one being old white cosseted academics irrationally blaming all the problems of the world on british culture, thus insuring it's destruction, then complaining about it?

you should have read the warning.

also, you're suggesting the most capitalist religious western culture in the world produced the greatest art in the world at the exact same time that glorious socialist atheism was flourishing in europe?
hand in your dawkins card son, you need to see a psychiatrist

but why did so many not think to ask it before and since.

before most people had a heuristic approach, hence using feet to walk upright and not attempting to leap buildings in a single bound, after, as newton had already expressed it, it seemed futile to express it again.