Amazon sent me this link today, for a book.......

[fuddam]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/006133529...64431_pe_ar_d3

pretty interesting reading

I copied some text from one of the reviewers:

Flew summarised the reasons for his change of mind in an exclusive 2007 interview with Benjamin Wiker:

'With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a `lucky chance.' If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over... I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data. Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe.'

[MadduckUK]

I also copied some text from one of the reviewers:

'A wonderful ghost-written coup for unscrupulous religious zealots exploiting an old man who knew just about nothing of what was in this book.'

[Bluecube]

The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a `lucky chance.' If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over... I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data. Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe.'

There is just so much wrong about everything written here that it's wronger than a wrong thing wrapped up in wrongness with a wrong bow on top. There is scientific basis backed up by evidence that life, the universe and everything can exist without a god (or gods for that matter). Where's the evidence for god? Huh? C'mon. I'm listening!

[Funkstar]

There is just so much wrong about everything written here that it's wronger than a wrong thing wrapped up in wrongness with a wrong bow on top.

Like this wrong?

[steve threlfall]

[Stringent]

There is just so much wrong about everything written here that it's wronger than a wrong thing wrapped up in wrongness with a wrong bow on top. There is scientific basis backed up by evidence that life, the universe and everything can exist without a god (or gods for that matter). Where's the evidence for god? Huh? C'mon. I'm listening!

Looked in the mirror recently?

[Bluecube]

I'm a the pinacle of evolution and natural selection bud. Some old guy with a white beard who sits on a cloud has nothing to do with it

[2Cold Scorpio]

I'm a the pinacle of evolution and natural selection bud. Some old guy with a white beard who sits on a cloud has nothing to do with it

You have no proof one way or another, therefor your analysis of your current being is invalid; it cannot be stated as fact.

A fish who swims underwater knows nothing about the people in boats above them...until one of those old fishermen hooks 'em. Just because you haven't seen or experienced something does not mean it does not exist. Existence is not determined nor limited by anyone's personal experience.

As far as the sciences go (and don't get me wrong, I'm a big student of them, particularly quantum and theoretical physics)...though most of history, what we thought turned out to be wrong. A thousand years ago, we *knew* the Earth was the center of the universe. Six hundred years ago, we *knew* the Earth was flat. Imagine what you will know tomorrow, or a hundred years from now: most of what you know now will likely be wrong.

[Scientist]

A fish who swims underwater knows nothing about the people in boats above them...until one of those old fishermen hooks 'em. Just because you haven't seen or experienced something does not mean it does not exist. Existence is not determined nor limited by anyone's personal experience.

As far as the sciences go (and don't get me wrong, I'm a big student of them, particularly quantum and theoretical physics)...though most of history, what we thought turned out to be wrong. A thousand years ago, we *knew* the Earth was the center of the universe. Six hundred years ago, we *knew* the Earth was flat. Imagine what you will know tomorrow, or a hundred years from now: most of what you know now will likely be wrong.

Hah! I see what you did there, using the lack of evidence for your viewpoint as proof of your point! Clever, very clever!

Oh wait...

I think I'll side with the viewpoint that's supported by cold hard scientific fact and textbooks full of proof rather than taking that im god's special snowflake based solely on "faith" ta.

Also while your at it, next time your praying can you get me our lord and saviors viewpoint on the dinosaurs that technically shouldn't exist.

[TeePee]

Anyone who thinks evolution is a product of random chance and magic has only ignorance with which to argue against it.

[shadowmaster]

Anyone who thinks evolution is a product of random chance and magic has only ignorance with which to argue against it.

Don't know about magic but I'm guessing there must be some random chance involved, due to the useful mutations you require for natural selection to occur.

[Koolpc]

Where is the proof that God 'didn't' start evolution?

Everyone goes on that there is no god, but where is the proof that there is no god?

I believe in god and faith has a lot to do with my belief. There is a lot that science cannot understand, and god is one of them.

[Bluecube]

But where's the proof there is a god? There's plenty of proof through observation and analysis that animals (ourselves included) are the result of natural selection and evolution. But god? Nah.

[Stewart]

Where is the proof that God 'didn't' start evolution?

Where is the proof that God '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''did''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' start evolution?

Everyone goes on that there is no god, but where is the proof that there is no god?

Where is the proof that there is a God?

I believe in god and faith has a lot to do with my belief.

Faith is ignorance made a virtue.

There is a lot that science cannot understand, and god is one of them.

There is a lot that science has understood, and science has yet to conclude for anything 'omfg godz dided it!11'

Do you see?

Science has, however, concluded against the existence of God. And God said 'let there be light ffs, and there was light ffs!'. Good stuff. However, science has concluded that the Sun, via a process of nuclear fusion produces visible radiation as light.

God made the Earth 6000 years ago, scientists carbon date rocks and do not get a date of 6000 years, they get dates up to 6.4 billion years.

So when science makes a conclusion, so far it has not needed to reduce itself to 'a big man in the sky with magic powers did it'

And the reason science has yet to conclude that Christian God did it, is because it is highly unlikely a book written by pre-scientific unknown peoples is a correct explination for the human species, the formation of the Earth and the universe itself.

You can believe man was made from dust and women from a mans rib if you like. You can also believe babies are delivered by storks ad christmas presents by Santa. These magically explinations, however, are not true. These things actually happen by mundane, scentific means - sex and your mom hiding things in the wardrobe until xmas eve.

Magic!

[manwithnoname]

Where is the proof that God 'didn't' start evolution?

Everyone goes on that there is no god, but where is the proof that there is no god?

I believe in god and faith has a lot to do with my belief. There is a lot that science cannot understand, and god is one of them.

before I start I've nothing against people who believe in god (or a number of gods) anything in the post below is my general interest and I'm not trying to catch any body out.

You can argue the point both ways:

There's no god, because there's no proof that there is a god.
There is a god, because there's no proof that there is no god.

When you say 'faith has a lot to do with my belief.' is your faith not everything to do with your belief?

[Stewart]

If I take a black piece of card and lock it in a box, you can have faith that the card is white. Because its in the box, I cannot prove that it is black, but your faith that it is white does not make it more likely to be white.

If its black, its black. Faith will not change this.