I’ve already mentioned some of those reasons in an earlier post. And I do watch “Animal Planet” from time to time, so I’ve seen things.
I’ve heard something like this before but I’m not sure of the number. I’ve tried to find out what the forumula is to get this number. Is there some process that can be done to come up with this or is it a guess? How did someone come to this ratio? I genuinely want to know, not trying to be confrontational about it.
Yes and no. He stated they loved or rather felt emotion, but I don’t think he equated human love on par with animal love. As I stated before there is no such thing as a Blessed Mother Theresa to be found in the animal kingdom.
How bout we just let this go for now?
Hi akey, I derived this probability from a book entitled “Answering the New Atheism” here’s excerpt from the book:
My question is, why does it have to come from something you can see when actually, you can’t see love? You believe in love though you can’t see it. You see it’s charactertics that are manefested in its existance, such as happiness, kindness, etc. But yet you don’t believe the same about God. You do not see God yet you see the characteristics of God manifested in His exsistance such as birth, death, love, the power of healing when science cannot explain it and the overall exsistance of the universe.
I do. As an analogy, do you want me to claim that the current RCC catechism is pre-Vatican Council II and attack that? I realize that you are not attacking specific points of the theory of evolution, but I do want religious people to understand that Darwin or Darwinism is not the same as the modern theory of evolution. It has gotten much more sophisticated over time. Many apologists use this as a straw man technique.
IIRC, I’ve not been replying to you, others have.
Ok, thanks for the info. Does anyone have any idea where to find how he got this number? To me it sounds like it supposed to be based on some sort of calclation since a ratio is mathematical so maybe I can see what math was involved.
This is a straw man on a whopping scale. I’m not accusing you of it, but rather your source. First, the accusation against Dawkins is really just gratuitous. Who knows the point Dawkins was trying to make.
You’ve been writing a lot about love - asking for proofs and such. I’ll ask you to do this first: Define love as best you can. We can’t really get anywhere before laying that groundwork.
First, I want to make the distinction between “will” and “love”. One is an act requiring reason the other an emotion requiring nothing at all and as we know sometimes defies all reason. Christ’s willingness to die for our sins is one of those times. One must take certain things into consideration when determining how to use will. Love doesn’t require anything of the sort.
What you are describing above is an instinct to survive not necessarily love, although who’s to say that they (earlier forms of humans) didn’t love as we do.
We cannot define love. Because love is not tangible, we cannot tell one another what it tastes like, feels like, looks like, smells like, etc. We can only describe its characteristics. Love IS a source from which all things good are derived. What we see, taste, smell, feel, etc. are the manifestations of love, not the source of love. Much like God, love cannot be defined because we cannot uses our senses to describe its source.
Let’s stop right here. If I accept to work with your premise that love defies all reason, then there is nothing to debate – What is debating if not reasoning?
How is this a “straw man” argument, is the calculation wrong? Dawkins stated that the odds against a propitious string of DNA arising by chance are 1 000 000 000 to 1? Is this correct? According to my book, the probability is more like: 1 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to 1. That’s a big difference. So, who’s right?
Now I have a question for you…
What did you not follow in my explanation?