Dawkin's God Delusion

[Lionel Ritchie]

while i agree with the point you're trying to prove, i would call the gradual increase in height of keepers manual-selection, rather than natural selection. i doubt goalkeepers are breeding.

Indeed. which is why I said...

I contend this due to a variant of natural selection that does not involve gene survival

Though what two or more consenting goalkeepers get up to in their own box is none of my business.

[Poor Student]

Right you are I think ...about the width at least. The theory is still sound though as, at it's kernel is the fact that in under 150 years the average height of football goalkeepers has grown 7-9 inches -far outstripping any increase in height that has taken place in the population at large.

I contend this due to a variant of natural selection that does not involve gene survival and where the agent of selection is those many, many volunteer coaches of underage football teams who picked out the two lankiest 8-12 year olds in their squads, threw a ball approximately at them and whosoever grabbed it became the keeper and whoever tried to head it became Peter Crouch.

Part of the reason why FIFA have conducted experiments with larger goals is to try and restore the goalkeeper/goalmouth ratio to a level closer to it's origin.

Within those rules John has posted you can trace the evolution of other aspects of not just football but rugby as well

Lionel, I'm not following you too well (probably my fault) but is this an argument in support of Intelligent Design?

[bennocelt]

wow 14 pages of this stuff
anyway sorry i didnt read all that

just a question..............someone said that Dawkins daughter or grand daughter was christened...............is that true? would be quite strange if so

anyway i like the guy, he is dead on what he says about religion

[Lionel Ritchie]

Lionel, I'm not following you too well (probably my fault) but is this an argument in support of Intelligent Design?

Don't worry PS. I'm probably not explaining it too well ...I can't be if you thought there was an argument for the vicious pre-meditiated LIE that is Intelligent Design in there.

I'll have a crack at it agin later when the b@stard behind my eyes eases up

[Cymro]

Lionel, this is a case of football becoming more global and professional, rather than evolution (in the space of 150 years?).

In the early days of the game the guys who played it were your typical miners, butchers, bakers etc who drank 5 pints before and after the game and got paid diddly squat for doing it. Basically, any old sod could do it.

These days the game is a massive money business and kids are getting selected from youth as goalies cause they're taller than their average classmates or what have you. They're then taken to pro clubs as apprentices where they meet more of the same kids from their age/height range in their area/country/continent (delete according to size of club) and the best are kept on by the club to be pros.

It may be evolution in the very vaguest sense of the word since it is progression, but nothing like evolution in the sense biologists think of it.

[Schumi]

The population in general has got significantly taller over the past 100 years, generally believed to be because of improved nutrition. I'd imagine a large part of the increase in goalkeepers' height is because of an general increase in height.

[sonofstan]

Pompous, self- refuting, absurd, yet obstinately refusing to die: this thread is beginning to resemble God in many important ways

[BohsPartisan]

At any rate the Bible's a stonking read. Just spent ten days in Scotland and the Gideons Society gave me some fine bed time reading. Nothing like a fine dram and a few verses of Genesis.

[John83]

At any rate the Bible's a stonking read. Just spent ten days in Scotland and the Gideons Society gave me some fine bed time reading. Nothing like a fine dram and a few verses of Genesis.

I don't know. It started out okay, but then they killed off the main charactor really early, and then it got all preachy.

[jebus]

Lord Winston argues in the Guardian today that titles such as 'The God Delusion' is more damaging to science than anything, given to good quotes I think,

"I think it is verey patronising to call a serious book about other people's views on the universe and everything a delusion. I don't think it is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light"

and

"Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and in the fundamentalist scientists"

Which pretty much sums up what I've being trying to sasy in this thread better than I have put across here myself

[BohsPartisan]

"I think it is verey patronising to call a serious book about other people's views on the universe and everything a delusion. I don't think it is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light"

This is a shoddy arguement which basicly says if someone else has a certain view of things, it should not be criticised no matter what evidence there is.
By this logic, Nazis there was nothing wrong with what the Nazis did or what the US is doing in the middle east because after all it fits with their view of the universe.
Is it also wrong to call a schizophrenic person delusional because its their view of the world?

"Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and in the fundamentalist scientists"

Dawkins deals with this. He deals with uncertainty not by being certain but by probability.
Every criticism I've read of Dawkins's book either misquotes him or misrepresents what he says.

[finlma]

"I think it is verey patronising to call a serious book about other people's views on the universe and everything a delusion. I don't think it is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light"

Dawkin's book doesn't once patronise people's view of the universe. It's people's belief in the existence of a supernatural God that he criticises.

On another note - Dawkins appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox the other night. That Bill O'Reilly is one serious loud mouthed fool.

[strangeirish]

On another note - Dawkins appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox the other night. That Bill O'Reilly is one serious loud mouthed fool.

Not as loud mouthed as usual. I think he was intimidated by Dawkins. See for yourself here.

[BohsPartisan]

Not as loud mouthed as usual. I think he was intimidated by Dawkins. See for yourself here.

What a moron that o Reilly is. He clearly hasn't read the book yet at the end he still has the gaul to say "your book is fascinating!"

[Poor Student]

What a moron that o Reilly is. He clearly hasn't read the book yet at the end he still has the gaul to say "your book is fascinating!"

From all I've heard from people who've read the book he fell into a lot of the traps Dawkins outlines that he would have known had he read it. From all I've heard of Dawkins, this is my first time seeing him, it sounds like he was pretty tame on O'Reilly as if he was aware that he was an irrelevant segment filler and couldn't be arsed.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Lord Winston argues in the Guardian today...

...and who the fcuk is Lord Winston when he's at home anyway?

Beyond that I think BohsPartisan took him assunder tidily enough.

[Risteard]

[jebus]

...and who the fcuk is Lord Winston when he's at home anyway?

Beyond that I think BohsPartisan took him assunder tidily enough.

He's a very respected British scientist, heres a link. And personally I don't think BP took him assunder, I thought the Nazi comment wasn't even worth commenting on, and as BP has said himself here, whilst a probability of 99.9% isn't certain, its close enough to be certain, so really you are dealing in certainties if you believe that.

I don't understand why Dawkins went on Fox to be honest, it would be hard to make O'Reilly look like anymore of an idiot than he makes himself look on a daily basis anyway, plus it's Fox, their viewers aren't exactly known for changing their minds on any topic. Here's a link for his interview with the Panel last year, in which I think he makes some good points (the child abuse one especially), but he also comes across as very insulting on two or three occasions (three if you count the child abuse comment, which a lot of people could take as a serious insult)

[finlma]

but he also comes across as very insulting on two or three occasions (three if you count the child abuse comment, which a lot of people could take as a serious insult)

Its not insulting. He's speaking what he believes to be the truth. If someone went on talking about God and the reasons he existed I would think it is rubbish but it wouldn't be insulting cause its what the person believes. Just like mass every week - its not insulting, just a load of people being deluded with a flase hope

[jebus]

Its not insulting. He's speaking what he believes to be the truth. If someone went on talking about God and the reasons he existed I would think it is rubbish but it wouldn't be insulting cause its what the person believes. Just like mass every week - its not insulting, just a load of people being deluded with a flase hope

Fair enough, but calling people's beliefs nonsense, which he does here, and stating that calling your child catholic, muslim etc. is child abuse (even if I agree with the point he is trying to make) comes across as very harsh and insulting, and is what Lord Winston was getting at when he said that tone does science more damage then good