TR,in any mature discussion one should never have recourse to invective when dealing with counter propositions.I remind you that respect for the other perspective is the mark of integrity and maturity.
Let me offer you a passage from a more superior intellect than yours or mine:
Hans Kung says in his "The Beginning Of All Things":
"Thus if science is to remain faithful to its own method it may not extend its judgement beyond the horizon of its own experiences."

"Scientists should reflect that subject and object, method and object, are interwoven,and thus a distinction must be drawn between the phenomena that can be grasped by scence and reality as a whole.No method however certain,no scheme however adequate, no theory however precise may be made absolute.The perspectivity and variableity even of mathematical scientific methods in particular require us to be constantly aware of their limits in respect of their limits of reality as a whole, which is always greater. Arent there perhaps entities , events and reciprocal effects in our universe that do not take place in the physical sphere, and that therefore a priori evade the possibility of scientific knowledge?"

Please note the absence of any term such as "bollocks" that does not give your view point any justice or credibility.Ofcourse we shall listen politely to what you have to say.The least you can do is to reciprocate. Is that too much to ask?

socrateas

TR quote<<<..On the other hand.I do know that once I die, and the atoms in my body become scattered back into the biosphere,>>...ahhh but what of the energu that traveled allong those atoms...as nerves/muscle...thought etc

ENERGY CANT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED...thus the energy that allowed your body to function...that joined into the synaps connections of your mind thinkin g its you...that energy went elsewhere..clothed in your soul body/astral body...into the unseen

much in life is unseen..airs radiation ..electric flow..dont think science can validate the energy destroyed itself...just as the wiords form the book...your life essence cant be destroyed

<<I become nothing...I return to the same state I was in before I was born.>>>ok here energy WASNT CREATED,,,you were a living sperm..that occupied your mothers ovum into living...the eneregy has gotten much bigger..but wasnt created at your conception...it was before thus remains after

<<For individual atoms..without order cannot think>>...but in being in motion..still have affect...thus must have a cause...

see nature/natural/autoniomous..dosnt begin to describe the true cause..who may only be knowable via the affect[us/nature/they reflect the living cause...life comes from living..full stop..science has NEVER..made life..from non life

Yes Socratease, I agree with Hans Kung's paragraph. And there is much to admire in the statement 'no theory however precise may be made absolute'.

However, this statement works AGAINST God, not for him. If a coherent theory about God cannot be constructed then don't do it. It is far better to admit that somethings are just beyond human reasoning and not go off on some ill defined tangent.

But this is not what religious people do. The religious moderates sprout a load of non-sensical religio-speak pretending that it is "deep and meaningful", and the fundamentalists are so absolutely "sure" of their Koranic/Biblical fairy tales that they are prepared to start wars over them, or invade my privacy on a Saturday morning when I'm trying read the newspaper.

But such is the rampant double standards and hyprocracy that most religious people delude themselves into. At least Richard Dawkins is completely honest if nothing else.

(BTW I still like the biting humour of the word 'bollocks'. It conveys a precise meaning that can't be reached by using other words. But since it offends you I will refrain from using it.

Under one god, please learn to construct a proper sentence with a coherent argument in it. You currently come across as someone really stupid.)

TR, let me tell you something about myself.
I began my education in a ultra-conservative school run by the London Missionary Society which was a coterie of Baptist and Methodist fundamentalists. .
Afterwards I attended Teachers' College in Allahabad,India, I was taught by German Roman Catholic nuns who made no attempt to convert me. I was drawn to the solemnity and beauty of the ritual drama of their Mass. I loved all the Gregorian chanting and smell of incense. My views of God began a syncretic ensemble but very tentatively. I made a conscious decision to emigrate to Australia where i taught for over 40 yrs till ill health forced my retirement. I then began to attend theology courses at Murdoch University where my eyes were opened in sheeer amazement. The old concepts of God were being seriously challenged. I couldnt believe it. I was excited and very angry because every Sunday I heard the same boring sermons that could have been written over 100 years ago.The Anglican Church held back on its duty to conform to emerging truths. I walked out of the Church for which today i have nothing but contempt because they lack credibility.All the currents priests have been through the same courses and will privately agree with you about the recent developments.
I read up a lot of modern books on science and spirituality by writers like Hans Kung who was sacked by the arch Conservitive Roman catholic Church for his open and modern visions of Reality.
Today, TR,no thinking and honest Christian really believes in the Old God of the Old testament nor the New Testament. The theistic God of the past has run his/her/its course and is dead as a dodo. I now belong to a rationalist Christian group ( we dont use the word "church" any more!) called Unitarians. We dont have any creeds or dogmas. All we have are questions. We believe that the truth is evolultioary and keeps coming into existence. Maybe that is the only manifestation of God we may lay claim to, in a way.

socratease.

*,>>...ahhh but what of the energu that traveled allong those atoms...as nerves/muscle...thought etc*

Quite simple OUG, all that energy in your body will become energy
for wormfood, when you fall off the old perch, as we all do eventually.

You will be recycled!

BTW, Dawkins has just published a new book, 480 pages bringing
together all the evidence for evolution theory. It should make
interesting bedtime reading for you, but I doubt if you will
bother to read it and inform yourself.

The excerpt is that in which Richard Dawkins responds to the

dorkind..quotes<<..If you were able to teach every person,..what would you want people to believe?

I would want them to believe whatever evidence leads them to;..I would want them to look at the evidence,..judge it on its merits,..not accept things because of internal revelation or faith,..but purely on the basis of evidence.>>>so i simply ask the question that twice has stumped the doork

..<<question,..‘Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?’,...a question that he was asked on two separate occasions on the day>>

...EXPECTING YOU TO PROVIDE THE REPLY,..he cannot give...

ie..<<..give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?’


PLEASE GIVE ANSWER TR

...so i let YOU.. reply the question

anyhow to reply his<<..judge it..on its merits,..not accept things because of internal revelation..or faith,..but purely on the basis of evidence.....

this is still your godhead[dorkins]talking>>..Not everybody can evaluate all evidence;..we..can't evaluate the evidence..for quantum physics...So it does..have to be..a certain amount of taking things on trust.>>....LOL

MORE BULL FROM YOUR GOD-HEAD..QUESTION<<..A lot of people think that evolution...is all about random chance.

That's ludicrous.

That's ridiculous.>>...LOL THEN GOES ON TO SAY THIS CCCRAPPP

<<..Mutation is random...>>>lol

continue dorks..quote<<..in the sense>>...lol...<<that it's not anticipatory...of what's needed.>>lol

#THEN...lol..<<..Natural selection is anything but random.>>>lol

then..<<Natural selection is a guided process,>>>lol
<<guided not by any higher power>>> boy the end is going to explain the science ....right?...lol...nope i think not

<<but simply by which genes survive..and which genes don't survive.>>>ie.... random chance...lol..very scientific...lol

lol...<<That's a non-random process>>...lol
from
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx