ok, axe, cute story. the "billions and billions" dude knows for sure now what happens after we die. i'll freely admit that one can not know the nature of the creator as an absolute. however, the creation seems to dictate the need of a creator. i don't see how the dragon story negates this point. best, surfer
Exactly.... thats why I just group them all together and simply call them "non-believers", all 93% of them Another few decades and it will be 99.9%.....heh.. peace axeman
".....the "billions and billions" dude knows for sure now what happens after we die. " Actually this is a loaded statement since it assumes that it's even possible for him to know such a thing. We have no reason to believe this is even a possibility. "however, the creation seems to dictate the need of a creator. i don't see how the dragon story answers this point." The dragon story does not address this, and wasn't meant to. The rest of this thread HAS addressed this, and I think that shoeshines notions of intelligent design has been handily dismissed. Read the blind watchmaker for an excellent explanation. peace axeman
after reading this http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 that book sorta lost its luster. best, surfer
Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion. Now is this how things really work in the scientific world. String Theory --As of the nova show last week unproven Big Bang-- now idea what happened during the original microseconds or what happened before evolution-- discussed this on other threads. I thought dgabriel explained the state of evolution quite well when asked for the proof with the following. The mechanism of heredity is well understood. Reproduction, genetic combination, molecular genetics have a wealth of data supporting a directive cellular code that is hereditary by its nature. The possibility and probability for change in this code is well established. Science has witnessed genetic change over generations in simple organism, has documented this change, known as mutations. Directly observing this type of change in more complex organisms is prohibitive if not impossible due to the time required for generational cycles. So the way I read it as far as science goes we have no proof of evolution, we will never have it because the generational cycles are too long, but since we have an understanding of heredity, and mutations we are willing to make the great leap of faith to evolution. Now is that what should be considered sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of God. If it is the case would already be half way done. (I just wanted to point out how disingenuous Carl Sagan and his argument is.)
Big surprise that this hard core christian would attack such a book. http://www.dwillard.org/articles/chrislist.asp He also lectures and publishes in religion: Renovation of the Heart was published in April 2002, The Divine Conspiracy was released in 1998 and selected Christianity Today's "Book of the Year" for 1999. The Spirit of the Disciplines appeared in 1988, and Hearing God (1999) first appeared as In Search of Guidance in 1984 (2nd edition 1993). He has served on the boards of the C.S. Lewis Foundation Like duh. Why not read the book for yourseld and judge it instead listening to someone like this who is completely biased against the subject matter from the start? Richard Dawkins is also more qualified in this area of expertise than the christian reviewer. Things that make you go hmmmm.... http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml peace axeman
I just wanted to point out how disingenuous Carl Sagan and his argument is. You failed. Just where did you accomplish this??? peace axeman
no question dawkin is HIGHLY qualified. williard even admits this. he is a excellent scientist, however his bias is overwhelmingly evident in the "blind watch maker" best, surfer
And how do you know this? Did you read it, or are you taking a theistic philosophers word for it who enjoys attacking books like this? I completely disagree with this statement, and I have read the whole book several times. If you wish to call his scientific way of thinking a bias, then so bet it. peace axeman