[photon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

as far as dawkins goes, i agree with him, i like him, but he really does come across as a baffoon and maybe even a hypocrite when he gets into his child like rants and name calling. He talks about religion eliminating the need for understanding, well so does name calling as your conclusion.

Is this an actual opinion of Dawkins, or of people's perception of Dawkins? Because these rants and name calling are mostly mythical, on the contrary I've seen Dawkins respond to people ranting and calling religious people names with rational and balanced responses.

Unless you have some actual examples of this behaviour.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

The bible may be full of a lot of exaggeration, but it is one of the earliest forms of scientific observationtional evidence of major events in human/earths history.

Simple observation isn't science, and the Bible is no different in its observation of events.. some it gets right, some it gets wrong, some it makes up out of whole cloth, each depending on the author's goal when they wrote whatever book they did.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

There is archaeological evidence that supports noah's flood

A global flood? No there isn't, and there's tons against it. The whole account is nonsense.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

genetic evidence that supports adam and eve

Genetic evidence supports evolution completely not adam and eve. Unless you're talking about Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, but those are just names, those two people didn't live at the same time.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

etc...

Etc like this?

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

just it's a bit more sophiscated then how it is presented in the bible. In fact one theory states that a noahs flood actually started in Canada..

I think you mean made up idea with no support, not theory.

Originally Posted by GGG

I disagree that evolution stops when people developed the ability to think.

I never said it did. I was responding to your comment that "now shouldn't survival of the fitest be aloud to prevail". My point was that the basic survival of the fittest is the only factor in animal survival, in humans we minds and society, so while evolution still occurs, we make choices beyond the simple dictates of evolutionary pressures.

(Evolution is not survival of the fittest by the way, it's change of frequency of alleles in a population.. descent with modification through natural selection)

Originally Posted by GGG

The same concepts still prevail. Those traits and belief systems which cause the greatest amount of genetic material to passed on the ones that will continue. Now the Social Darwinism aspect may be a stretch that beliefs are passed down in a darwinistic manner but at some point if religion has no benefit it should disappear on its own.

But just because a concept or social trait or whatever has benefit doesn't mean it should be allowed to propagate. Or sometimes a change should be actively pursued rather than just allow it to change slowly. Or even a change forced onto the majority against their will because it is the right thing to do. Slavery, women's rights, equality of races, etc.

I'm not saying that religion is that case; while I think some religions are harmful I also think limiting the freedom to have a religion is more harmful. Religion might disappear on its own, it certainly does the more stable and prosperous a society becomes.

I'm just saying that our society is (and should me) far more than just a simple survival of the fittest social construct.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin incidentally.