RE: Richard Dawkins

RE: Richard Dawkins (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Arpig -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/28/2009 12:16:17 PM)
You know, I've honestly never heard of the guy before

DomKen -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/28/2009 3:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I'm a Deist, partly because although I do believe in evolution, my understanding of the thermodynamic concept of entropy is that the progression from unicelled organism to humankind could not occur unless provided with a push from an outside source. Then your understanding of thermodynamics is deeply wrong.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/28/2009 6:32:28 PM)
These forums are such a great place for learning. Any chance you could fill in a little detail for the readers Domken? I think I know why, but want to know why you (after feeling compeled to reply) do.

NorthernGent -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/29/2009 4:04:07 AM)
I'm not a fan of Dawkins at all. His latest 'crusade' is to convert muslims to evolution - which is religious in essence. Quite clearly he knows what he's talking about but his militancy leaves a lot to be desired.

DomKen -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/29/2009 11:45:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie These forums are such a great place for learning. Any chance you could fill in a little detail for the readers Domken? I think I know why, but want to know why you (after feeling compeled to reply) do. In simple terms thermodynamic entropy, the second law, says that a closed system should become more disordered over time. The problem with applying that sort of entropy to life is the Earth isn't a closed system. The Earth receives an enormous amount of energy from the Sun. Therefore on Earth order may increase but when applied to the entire solar system (or larger scale) entropy is still increasing. This fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamic entropy is a frequent claim of creationists, as a google seach on relevant terms will show.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/29/2009 12:00:17 PM)
That is what I thought. I think the proper way of making that argument is more about the creation of the Universe it self. IF it has always been in motion it would have run down by now(without new input) or if it wasn't in motion at some point it required an input to start. No one really knows how that works. Note: that doesn't neccessarily nor am I pretending it proves GOD.

DomKen -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/29/2009 5:13:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie That is what I thought. I think the proper way of making that argument is more about the creation of the Universe it self. IF it has always been in motion it would have run down by now(without new input) or if it wasn't in motion at some point it required an input to start. No one really knows how that works. Note: that doesn't neccessarily nor am I pretending it proves GOD. That's a more interesting issue. It involves Big Bang cosmology which is one of those things that sounds simple but has very subtle implications. In short the Universe was once very small and very hot and has since expanded. Where did the matter/energy come from? Science simply can't answer that question at this time. It was in a singularity and our laws of physics do not apply in a singularity and we simply don't know what rules would apply. Since then entropy should be working on the universe as a whole, assuming it actually is a closed system. However we don't see the rate of expansion of the universe decreasing, and some measurements say it is increasing, which either indicates we don't know as much as we thought about space/time or the universe isn't a closed system. And that outside source of energy could be a deity for all we know. However I think the chances of that being the correct answer to the issue is surpassingly small. We have seen many gaps in knowledge that the religious were too happy to shove their gods into until science came up with the actual explanation.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/29/2009 5:53:35 PM)
But I disagree that Science has come up with "actuall explanations" that preclude a Spiritual/Energy basis to the Universe.

DomKen -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/29/2009 5:57:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie But I disagree that Science has come up with "actuall explanations" that preclude a Spiritual/Energy basis to the Universe. You're welcome to disagree until the facts contradict your belief. I'm just telling you that based on past performance it is extremely unwise to attempt to use a god to explain an as yet unexplained physical phenomena.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Richard Dawkins (8/29/2009 6:20:30 PM)
No, you misunderstand. "God" explains all the phenomena ("explained" or not), and the underlying reasons. "God" is the reason there are particles and forces that obey laws. That keeps the "quanta" operating in line, since they could behave randomly. Or perhaps it just is, and that explains it. I don't know...IT's way more complicated than you or I can grasp. But I feel a presence and force, and events have caused me to think there is something of a spiritual nature to the universe. I do think we are operating in dimensions we are un aware of, and that things in them affect here and reverse. I don't discount the possibility that it is without thought or "will", like a crystal. It might be. Could Energy be alive? Could it have replicating patterns and storage of data? Will? Can the matter of this universe (us) have "will"? I think so, even though I think most religions anthrophormphise it too much. Some days I am agnostic and some days I believe. On both of them I am questioning. I am glad I have your permision to disagree.[;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125