Это не так уж и важно. Всё равно времени бы не хватило даже на создание ДНК.
Good and Evil.
- Thread starter ольга
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
He's entitled to his opinion. It doesn't "prove" anything.
If it helps you sleep at night, you're welcome to believe Sky Daddy did it. I think that's the answer you cling to, so I don't see much point in arguing it.
Он был самым известным атеистом в мире. Исследования ДНК заставило его изменить своё мировоззрение. Что Вас может сподвигнуть изменить свои взгляды?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Maybe in the UK.
If you're looking for a household name in atheism, that would be Dawkins.
I will bet he made the usual mistake of doing a simple permutative calculation of DNA just randomly (as you say) coming into existence. This is a hopelessly naive method for solving such a problem. I don't know; I haven't read his treatise.
On what, exactly?
The natural evolution of DNA? Well, a plausible alternative, for one.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Why trust the final 7 years of his life? He was an atheist for 66 years.
He was also not equipped to speak about DNA
Почему мы не должны ему доверять? Он работал преподавателем в Оксфордском, Йоркском, Кильском и ещё в нескольких известных университетах. Имел награды. Думаю, что он обладал достаточно критическим мышлением.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Did he teach Biochemistry?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Did he publish anything in a science journal?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
What about Origin of life research?
Я не знаю. Он всю жизнь религии изучал, и атеизм проповедовал, это точно.
У него много книг. Что то публиковал, наверное.
Почитайте в интернете про него. В Википедии тоже есть статья. Вообще, почти все "столпы" квантовой механики тоже были верующими, если Вы не знали. Вряд ли их можно упрекнуть в отсутствии критического мышления.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
So he is not equipped to talk about Origin of life Research or the Evolution of the cell or DNA?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I know who he is, best thing not to consult a philosopher regarding cutting edge Scientific research. If he knew any OOL research he would not have worried about DNA.
Also, Einstein was not a Bible believer.
Dirac, Penrose, Hawking, Weinberg, Feynman, Curie, Bohr, Peter Higgs, Gerrard T’Hooft and Roger Penrose were/are all atheists.
That is 11 Nobel prizes with most of them making important contributions to QM
Эйнштейн не был атеистом. А Комптон, Милликен, Паули, Гейзенберг, Дирак, Таунс, Пензиас, Раби и многие другие были верующими. Более того, я открыла в Википедии список верующих христиан наших современников, которые занимаются исследованиями ДНК и микробиологией, и обнаружила среди них множество известных имён. Так что, Пин, вера не зависит от образования. Это глубоко личное.
You offer the same 'typical' less-than-intelligent-easily-refutable arguments every other believer offers. Childish at best. You even offered Antony Flew as your hero, yet he was not a scientist and died of dementia, the most likely reason he changed his views.
Faith depends on where you were born. You were born into a Christian family so you were indoctrinated to be Christian. If you were born in another part of the world, you could be indoctrinated into Islam and you'd be extolling the virtues of Muhammad. Many scientists were indoctrinated into their religions, it was political and social suicide to call yourself a non-believer back then. Again, your argument are just so puerile and flaccid.
Мои родители выросли при атеистическом СССР. Меня даже не крестили в детстве, я покрестилась будучи уже достаточно осознанной. Так что, никакого религиозного воспитания у меня не было.
Насчёт учёных "того времени": откройте хотя бы Википедию, и посмотрите список известных учёных нашего времени, которые являются верующими. Наверное, Вы удивитесь. Среди них и биологи, и физики, и химики, и палеонтологи, и представители всех других наук. Вера не зависит от образования, или воспитания. Пинбол и Дэйв тому пример - оба выросли в религиозных семьях, но верующими не стали.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm not really interested in a pissing contest between believers and atheists as a decider who is right in this discussion. Spirituality is a deeply personal thing and - unless you plan on using it as an argument in your case - has no business coming into it.
Olga would like to convince us that God is there and all we have to do is want to believe in him and he will appear. (I don't entirely disagree with this. I am sure God will appear before those who want to see him - I'm just not convinced that he exists outside the minds of those people.)
Q would have us believe this is all "childish". Well, not really. A large majority of adults are believers, therefore belief is certainly an adult behaviour. But I would say it is irrational. Olga shows us this when she says God will appear if we want him to (this is a wishful thinking fallacy), and Olga doesn't offer any reasons why anyone should be convinced by what she believes to be true i.e. so far it is an entirely subjective experience.
I don't care of Flew kissed the ring of the Pope; this is not a popularity contest - argument by authority is a fallacy. If Olga would like to present Flew's argument, we can see if it holds any water.
Olga would like to convince us that God is there and all we have to do is want to believe in him and he will appear. (I don't entirely disagree with this. I am sure God will appear before those who want to see him - I'm just not convinced that he exists outside the minds of those people.)
Q would have us believe this is all "childish". Well, not really. A large majority of adults are believers, therefore belief is certainly an adult behaviour. But I would say it is irrational. Olga shows us this when she says God will appear if we want him to (this is a wishful thinking fallacy), and Olga doesn't offer any reasons why anyone should be convinced by what she believes to be true i.e. so far it is an entirely subjective experience.
I don't care of Flew kissed the ring of the Pope; this is not a popularity contest - argument by authority is a fallacy. If Olga would like to present Flew's argument, we can see if it holds any water.
Last edited: