And dont dare question it !!
"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."Delusion indeed.Mariano, you really don't have foggiest clue about what 'delusion' means.
Jdhuey,I am certain that your comment was supposed to mean something (that is, beyond being yet another argument to ridicule).Thanks for stopping by.aDios,Mariano
Mariano.I look forward to this book coming out. The God Delusion was one of the funniest things I have ever read and i can only expect this next one to show Dawkins own area of expertise with the same amount of logic he has shown in other writings.
I wasn't considering buying the book, but now Mariano has payed some attention to it, I certainly will.After all, if Mariano hates it, it must be good.
"...mathematicians are constantly demonstrating that what is generally thought of as “evolution” simply does not occur—particularly related to the amount of time that it would require to happenstantially concoct even the mythical “simple” cell or even a strand of proteins"Oh c'mon. Any of them published any papers about it?"Moreover, while generally we may not “live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes” we have watched hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of generations of fruit flies and have purposefully subjected them to mutagens. We have observed fruit flies end up with extra and useless wings, shriveled up wings and even legs on their faces but their “evolution” has, vastly, been deteriorative—devolution would be more descriptive."How about lab fruit flies developing ability to survive in lethally low oxygen levels? Still devolution?
I am certain that your comment was supposed to mean something (that is, beyond being yet another argument to ridicule).My point was simple and, I thought, obvious. You misused the word ‘delusion’. The Dawkins quote you cite does not illustrate a delusional statement. I had hoped that you would just look the word up in the dictionary and I would not have to spell it out. ‘Delusion’ refers to holding a false belief despite ample evidence to the contrary. The Dawkins quote was referring to his intent; his intent was his intent – no beliefs stated, false or otherwise. Anyone can have an intent or desire to do something while knowing full well that there is no hope of being 100% successful. It is not delusional for a doctor to intend to cure all of his patients; it is not delusional for the coach of a sports team to have the intent for his team to be undefeated and it is not delusional for an author to have the intent to convince all of his readers. Nothing Dawkins wrote was the least bit delusional, just ambitious and hopeful.Thanks for stopping by.I do what I can.
I bought RDs new book today. I have only read the first chapter so far which in laymans terms would go something like this "Evolution is true, Evolution is true ........ .................."The layman will also have to consult a dictionary every paragraph to get the same message.I hope it gets better
Well you can't fault him for making his point and expressing his intention (not his delusion). Good for you Richard.I'm fascinated as to why so many theists spend so much time obsessing over the few well-known names who dare to stand up and defend science when the atheists have been surrounded for years by people telling them they'll burn in hell/ aren't human/cause global warming/whatever else they can be blamed for, and have learned to live with the nasty (and more importantly unfactual) comments. I can only conclude the scientists are hitting a few raw nerves. If your only response is boast that 52% of people are daft enough to believe in intelligent design and not 40% then that raw nerve must be very painful indeed.
" So many theists "Au contrair ,I think youll find that this is not the case most wouldnt even know or even care who these people are.