09 Jan 06
Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. Whether you agree with him or not, you really should watch this: Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYou can for sure be able to predict his take on evolution,
Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. Whether you agree with him or not, you really should watch this: Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
being labeled 'Darwins Rotweiler'🙂
We need more like him. I am tickled pink here in Pennsylvania
those idiots lost the 'intelligent' design lawsuite.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by StarrmanI read The blind watchmaker as i wanted to find out more about Evolution. I found it interesting but the one problem that remains with this theory is the same problem that has always existed. How the hell did it all start? He hazards some guesses but i left the book feeling more unsure about the completeness of this theory than when i started reading it. I believe Evolution to be self evident, but like he states himself, there must have been a point when life sprang into existence, this is the point that troubles me with Darwinism...
Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. Whether you agree with him or not, you really should watch this: Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
10 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombNo evolutionist will claim its a complete theory. However just like
I read The blind watchmaker as i wanted to find out more about Evolution. I found it interesting but the one problem that remains with this theory is the same problem that has always existed. How the hell did it all start? He hazards some guesses but i left the book feeling more unsure about the completeness of this theory than when i started reading it ...[text shortened]... en a point when life sprang into existence, this is the point that troubles me with Darwinism...
the standard model of physic which predicts almost all of the
atomic interactions perfectly with a few exceptions, everyone knows
those few exceptions show the standard model to be incomplete and
its now, at least in that field, mostly up to the experimentalists to
drum up evidence based on new data that may lead into new
theoretical territory.
With evolution, you are not alone in that department, every
evolutionist is in the same boat and will freely admit it,
at least those with an open mind, which as a group, is a lot more
open minded than their ID buddies.
The study of where and how life got started is a subject in itself and
evolution simply takes off where the fossil record starts showing
unequivical evidence. Sir Fred Hoyle theorized that life started in
interstellar space and simply rained down on earth fully formed.
Maybe the chemicals to jump start life rained down on an earth which
had conditions which would enable further combinations. For instance,
a time before there were membranes, to a time when lifeless membranes formed(just my extemporaneous theorizing here)
by organic chemistry, say some interaction with clay, water, sunlight,
and organic chemicals rained down from space, making what we might
call small bits of plastic (membranes) which set up the conditions
for the membranes to curl up and set the stage for more complex
reactions as a direct result of having a sack hold reactants,
maybe leading to early methane processing bacteria.
Thats just my own theorizing, sythesizing some of the other theories
out there. But all that is pre-evolutionalry theory, a science of its own.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by sjegPersonally? Or just "know Dawkins" in the sense of having read some of his work and watched/listened to/read some of his interviews?
Can we conclude from this that you don't actually know Dawkins?
If you know anything about Richard Dawkins, then you will know that Starr's description fits him very well.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by catfoodtimHere's a telephone poll conducted by CBS.
The half of it I got to watch was very interesting (for someone who doesn't know his work and wouldn't have paid much attention to the debate on science vs. faith)
It had a very interesting starting point - that it was time 'rational people' stood up and challenged organised religion and faith. Is that really true that 46% of Americans would believe c ...[text shortened]... ut gale force winds took out the TV signal in Kildare. Either that or Catholic saboteurs...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
If you combine the Humans evolved, God guided the processand Humans evolved, God did not guide the process, you get 40%. Contrast that to 55% for God created humans in present form.
47% reported in a 1991 Gallop poll affirmed that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
I couldn't get a link to Gallop poll at their site (they want you to order the report), but here is a link to some of the info from it.
http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/gallup.htm
I like to look at the breakdown between college graduate and no high school diploma. I saw a better site that showed a high correlation between lack of education and special creationism belief. I'll have to dig around for it.
To get a feel for just how zany a lot of Americans are consider this Pew Research Center poll entitled "Americans Look to the 21st Century."
44% Jesus will probably return during their lifetimes
22% Jesus will definitely return before 2050
44% Jesus will probably not return during their lifetime
A Princeton poll around the same time (found that 47% of adult Americans believe that the Antichrist is on earth now and 45% believe Jesus will return in their lifetime. Interestly 15% of them believed that Jesus would return as early as the year 2000.
10 Jan 06
1 edit
If you have bought him a pint and discussed who should win the Sun's page 3 idol competition with him, then you certainly know him well.
As a scientist, I am told his work is quite reputable. But he might do better sticking to what he's good at, and leaving other things alone. He doesn't do himself any favours, banging that old drum.
Sure, even my most anti-religious friends recognise his strong bias, and they'd be even more vocal (and even a tad more monotonous) than all you chaps put together.
😛
