Richard Dawkins - Too much Sherry

[Angilion]

Evolutionists can't account for where matter/energy came from, so what's the difference?

1) There's no such thing as an evolutionist. It's a word made up by the malicious for the ignorant. You may as well talk about a lightist or a gravitist.

2) Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with matter/energy, so why on earth would a theory explaining how evolution works explain anything about matter/energy?

If you want to say that "energy has always existed", then how is that different from saying "God has always existed".

Energy is not being portrayed as a sentient superwizard that rules the universe and requires obedience. It's an important difference.

In any case, the question of if the universe ever came into existence and how it did so if it did so is completely irrelevant to evolution.

Are there any theories that account for energy spontaneously coming into existence from nothingness?

There are hypotheses that do so. I'm not sure if there are theories that do so.

 

[sityeuropa]

There might be a higher power of sorts when your talking multiple universes . But it's certainly something we know nothing about.

For sure you can forget the Bible, Quran and all.

It is so ignorant to think our little Earth dot was the divine place for the explanation of the universe. And exactly 3.8 billion years into Earths history just by luck humans were currently around to receive the message.

Stop brainwashing kids. If I hadn't research myself I too would still be believing the crap they taught in schools. In the 90's we had vicars coming into our primary school learning us about the Bible on a projector. I look back at this and think it was wrong to do.

 

[Angilion]

I don't agree with you there. We have evolved to be spectacularly good at certain things. I've caught myself many times saying or thinking "it's likely that was so well designed" when I've looked at something like a venus fly trap, or the thumb.

I'm not surprised for a second that people believe in intelligent design. Both intelligent design and evolution have the same end goal, for everything to be optimised for its environment. It's not until you look at it in depth that you realise that we weren't always like we are now.

The stupid component is that people think we came from Adam and Eve and that the earth isn't that old.

I think you're mistaken because you're making an inaccurate assumption that's very easily made - that evolution has the goal of optimising everything for its environment. Evolution doesn't have (and can't ever have) any goal of any kind. It also doesn't result in optimised lifeforms, but that's a less important point. The important difference is that evolution has no goal at all and can't possibly have one.

I'm not surprised that some people believe in intelligent design. Not because there's evidence for it or even because it's plausible (it isn't) but because they've been conditioned to do so and don't understand biology well enough for it to be obvious enough that intelligent design is just creationism with a thin pretence of a disguise. That coupled with the very common human habit of not thinking and not being willing to admit not knowing something.

 

[cadmunkey]

I think he's a bit of a dick because his passion doesn't seem to be in the truth, but rather that people are wrong. I'll concede, I haven't read his God books but that's the view I get every time I see a clip of him. Incidently I think the Darwin fish sticker on cars is a bit of a dick move too. In essence:

"Hurr look at these guys how wrong they are let's ridicule and mock them because that's a great way of getting them to see our point of view."

Again, he's a total boss of a scientist but I think he'd come across better if he was more tolerant about things that, in actuality, have little consequence.

Criticism of organised religion itself though isn't difficult, nor particularly objectionable to me!

Nitefly won this thread back on page 1...