report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Religious Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #37  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:26 PM
TerryP TerryP is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 691
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
I would wager, without knowing where you obtained this piece of (probably quote mined) information, that he believes it's a possibility, which it is. More likely what he was referring to was that meteors can contain amino acids, the building blocks of life, so it's possible that life formed elsewhere in the universe before being deposited here by meteorites.
Meteors are rocks with burning balls of gas (comet tails.) When they come into the earth's atmosphere, they burn up or become smaller. How can an amino acid survive that?


Reply With Quote

  #38  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:31 PM
TerryP TerryP is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 691
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
I would wager, without knowing where you obtained this piece of (probably quote mined) information, that he believes it's a possibility, which it is. More likely what he was referring to was that meteors can contain amino acids, the building blocks of life, so it's possible that life formed elsewhere in the universe before being deposited here by meteorites.

Dawkins explained his views about the origin of life in the movie "Expelled."

Reply With Quote

  #39  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:37 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
Meteors are rocks with burning balls of gas (comet tails.) When they come into the earth's atmosphere, they burn up or become smaller. How can an amino acid survive that?
Because not all of the meteor burns up, there are still amino acids inside.

This has been observed in many, many metorites, where we not only find the same sorts of amino acids as we do on Earth but other ones that don't exist on Earth as well. We also find a mixture of right- and left-handed amino acids whereas almost all terrestrial amino acids are left-handed.



Reply With Quote

  #40  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:38 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
Dawkins explained his views about the origin of life in the movie "Expelled."
Ah, well, I'm sure they didn't quote mine at all...

Reply With Quote

  #41  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:46 PM
BorisZ's Avatar
BorisZ BorisZ is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,793
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
We do have the Hubble telescope and we are looking to see if there could be life on other planets. I understand that we have found planets that revolve around a star that are within their "life zones," but so far they are planets that are like Jupiter.
You can not really see surface of planets through Hubble. We can only estimate planet's element composition and state of its Sun. We also know that we see them billions years in the the past. So at current time they are probably in quite different state.

Reply With Quote

  #42  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:08 PM
TerryP TerryP is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 691
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
Ah, well, I'm sure they didn't quote mine at all...
I guess Ben Stein didn't think you were the right one for his documentary, at the time, and you probably didn't write a book like Dawkins'. Seriously, why don't you get in touch with him, maybe he'll do a sequel or something with you in it? Maybe, he'll pay you for your contributions. You seem to be the kind of person he would like to talk to. (No sarcasm intended)

Reply With Quote

  #43  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:12 PM
TerryP TerryP is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 691
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisZ View Post
You can not really see surface of planets through Hubble. We can only estimate planet's element composition and state of its Sun. We also know that we see them billions years in the the past. So at current time they are probably in quite different state.


Hey, Boris, you're pretty smart! I wish others were as smart as you. Thank you.

Reply With Quote

  #44  
Old 05-27-2009, 10:29 PM
lexx's Avatar
lexx lexx is online now
Most Valued Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,939
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

just a thought, has dawkins or anyone else figured out how the sliding BOULDERS of death valley make their IMPOSSIBLE MOVES!?
__________________
i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

Reply With Quote

  #45  
Old 05-27-2009, 10:33 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexx View Post
just a thought, has dawkins or anyone else figured out how the sliding BOULDERS of death valley make their IMPOSSIBLE MOVES!?
I found this online.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~docbob/boulder.htm

That's actually a pretty interesting phenomena.

Reply With Quote

  #46  
Old 05-27-2009, 11:07 PM
TerryP TerryP is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 691
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
I found this online.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~docbob/boulder.htm

That's actually a pretty interesting phenomena.

A world wide flood.

Reply With Quote

  #47  
Old 05-28-2009, 12:16 AM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
A world wide flood.
No, a local flood of a dry lake. See how you're making the same confusion the authors of the bible did? Just because a flood extends as far as you can see that doesn't make it global.



Reply With Quote

  #48  
Old 05-28-2009, 04:50 PM
lexx's Avatar
lexx lexx is online now
Most Valued Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,939
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by finnsia View Post
not true.
You see.
You can't argue with religion no matter how incorrect it is.
Since
FAITH
Is all they need.
A belief without evidence woul sufice.
do you do anything when you have a doubt!? what is doubt but lack of permission!? who or what controls permission!? what IS a doubt!? can 'faith' can be said to be doubtless permission!?
__________________
i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

Reply With Quote

  #49  
Old 05-31-2009, 07:50 PM
TerryP TerryP is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 691
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexx View Post
do you do anything when you have a doubt!? what is doubt but lack of permission!? who or what controls permission!? what IS a doubt!? can 'faith' can be said to be doubtless permission!?
Your quote from Dawkins is only partly correct. Christianity can not be disproved by science. Science only deals with relative truth and Christianity deals with absolute truth. Science teaches that we are scientifically coming closer to absolute truth, but it doesn't say that it can not be obtained.

Reply With Quote

  #50  
Old 05-31-2009, 08:04 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
Your quote from Dawkins is only partly correct. Christianity can not be disproved by science. Science only deals with relative truth and Christianity deals with absolute truth. Science teaches that we are scientifically coming closer to absolute truth, but it doesn't say that it can not be obtained.
What on Earth are you babbling about? "Relative truth". "Absolute truth". Define your terms, otherwise it's just nonsensical ravings. Science doesn't "teach" anything about truth, it's a process whereby we can come to understand the physical world.

Reply With Quote

  #51  
Old 06-01-2009, 07:37 AM
doojie's Avatar
doojie doojie is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,349
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
Christianity can not be disproved by science.
Actually it can, to the extent that "Christianity" is defined as a doctrine, ideology, dogma, or any system of rational thought created by humans.

That is challenged by Kurt Godel, who, while he was dealing only with formal statements in mathematics, the highest discipline by which we may determine truth, demonstrated that any rational, finite method by which a system tried to represent all truth would always fall short.

Not only would it fall short, but it would tend to speciate into an infinity of religions because the very method of reasoning used to prove it is always incomplete. That, too, is the result of Paul's statement in Romans 8:7. If the natural mind is enmity against god and cannot be subject to God, then there would exist no rational process of proof, formal or otherwise, by which the existence of God can be demonstrated.

Any attempt by any human, myself included, to prove the truth of God by human reasoning, would always be incomplete.

So, while science cannot disprove the existence of God, it easily dismisses religions that claim to represent God by using human reason.

Quote:
Science only deals with relative truth and Christianity deals with absolute truth.
Assuming that is true, we would still have no way of confirming that absolute truth. Jesus himself is recorded in John 14:17 as saying that the world cannot receive the spirit of truth(BIG "T"). Godel demonstrated the same thing in formal mathematical systems.

Let's take your statement a bit further. As Seth Lloyd writes in "Programming The Universe", "A computer can be thought of as a device that generates patterns. Any conceivable pattern that can be described in language can be generated by a computer.".

Douglas Hofstadter in "Godel, Escher, Bach" put it a bit differently. If it can be translated into language and passed from individual to individual, it can be programmed into a computer.

We must conclude from your statement that if Christianity deals with absolute truth and can communicate it from person to person, then it can be programmed into a computer. Further, if God can be so defined that "He" can be translated into language, then God, to every meaningful extent which humans can define, can be fully represented by a computer.

So, if Christianity can be taught by language, if it can be organized by any rational, finite method, it can be fully programmed into a computer so that the human as a distinct entity apart from a machine is unnecessary and non-existent. Your insistence on the truth of God as something which can be taught and understood defeats the argument you are trying to present. If all truth of God can be understood and organized by rational knowledge, there is no need of a soul or anything existing outside of our knowledge. God is what we designed "Him" to be, meaning that God can be reduced to the work of our own hands, which is a direct violation of the second commandment.

"God" cannot be reduced to a measurable equivalent of my knowledge or your knowledge, and that's exactly what Romans 8:7 tells us.

Scientifically, and biblically, Terry, you are wrong.

Quote:
Science teaches that we are scientifically coming closer to absolute truth, but it doesn't say that it can not be obtained.
Yes it does. Godel's theorem. Absolute truth might be attained, but getting it into a comprehensive, provable package, that will elude us.

Reply With Quote

  #52  
Old 06-01-2009, 02:42 PM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
Your quote from Dawkins is only partly correct. Christianity can not be disproved by science. Science only deals with relative truth and Christianity deals with absolute truth. Science teaches that we are scientifically coming closer to absolute truth, but it doesn't say that it can not be obtained.
Terry, Thanks!....I hadn't had a good laugh all day....and that was a real good one!
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #53  
Old 06-01-2009, 04:26 PM
TerryP TerryP is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 691
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
What on Earth are you babbling about? "Relative truth". "Absolute truth". Define your terms, otherwise it's just nonsensical ravings. Science doesn't "teach" anything about truth, it's a process whereby we can come to understand the physical world.

The more we study science, the more truths we find. Truths can be relative or absolute.

Relative truth depends on other truths from what we can draw conclusions. Relative truths may vary. If a man fell from the sky, his body falls at 32 feet per second per second. The other things (truths) that effect his fall would be his distance and wind resistance. For an evolutionist to determine the age of fossils, he has to rely on the rock strata where it was found and dating methods.

Absolute truths are the truths that can not be denied. absolutes always happen one certain way and don't rely on other truths. (Absolute zero is about -459 degrees F. This is the absolute point of zero heat.) To a Christian, to say that there is a God is an absolute truth.

Reply With Quote

  #54  
Old 06-01-2009, 04:46 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Richard Dawkins vs God(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
The more we study science, the more truths we find. Truths can be relative or absolute.

Relative truth depends on other truths from what we can draw conclusions. Relative truths may vary. If a man fell from the sky, his body falls at 32 feet per second per second. The other things (truths) that effect his fall would be his distance and wind resistance. For an evolutionist to determine the age of fossils, he has to rely on the rock strata where it was found and dating methods.

Absolute truths are the truths that can not be denied. absolutes always happen one certain way and don't rely on other truths. (Absolute zero is about -459 degrees F. This is the absolute point of zero heat.) To a Christian, to say that there is a God is an absolute truth.
That's so stupid I don't even know where to begin.

So the speed that someone falls to Earth is a relative truth, but F=GMm/r^2 (ie. Newtonian gravity) is an absolute truth.

Absolute zero - an unobserved, theoretical abstraction - is absolute truth because it contains the word "absolute" in it, but observable, testable evolution is relative truth.

I feel dumber just for reading your post....


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Richard Dawkins gets it right again... LogicallyYours Political Chat 143 09-22-2012 12:35 AM
Richard Dawkins' Ignorance BarackZero Science Scams 85 01-19-2010 08:44 AM
Richard Dawkins disrobes postmodernism kazza Science Scams 6 06-16-2009 09:20 AM
Richard Dawkins on BBC Ronald Political Chat 0 02-11-2007 02:54 PM
Richard Dawkins Q&A ianmatthews Political Chat 2 11-26-2006 04:09 AM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the Userís own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:00 PM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.