Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

[Dr.Drock]

I'm not a fundie. You're letting your bigotry do your thinking for you.

As I've pointed out in this thread already, I have no idea why you science-y types are so insecure about your beliefs that you feel the government has to exclude all other beliefs.

We science types are exclusive, if you want to teach something as science it has to have scientific facts behind it.


How that's asking so much, is astounding to me.

That's your criterion?

Then why is AGW being taught as fact?

Shouldn't be, should just as a possibility, not a fact.

Which is probably how the overwhelming majority of science institutions teach it as.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Indeed. However:

“The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”​

You state definitively those conditions were present.

Sutherland says it's what we might imagine.

Do you see the difference?

Agreed, but it's based on what evidence we do have of what was present during early Earth. They didn't just throw in some arbitrary chemicals and do funky things to make them react.

Yes it may be what would have been considered optimal conditions, which is why I said it's very tentative evidence.

Tentative indeed.

Slightly more evidence than you have for your sky fairy doncha think?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Agreed, but it's based on what evidence we do have of what was present during early Earth. They didn't just throw in some arbitrary chemicals and do funky things to make them react.

Yes it may be what would have been considered optimal conditions, which is why I said it's very tentative evidence.

Tentative indeed.

Slightly more evidence than you have for your sky fairy doncha think?

Speculation and conclusions are only opinions not evidence.

 

[Photonic]

Tentative indeed.

Slightly more evidence than you have for your sky fairy doncha think?

Speculation and conclusions are only opinions not evidence.

Back to your hole.

 

[daveman]

Agreed, but it's based on what evidence we do have of what was present during early Earth. They didn't just throw in some arbitrary chemicals and do funky things to make them react.

Yes it may be what would have been considered optimal conditions, which is why I said it's very tentative evidence.

Tentative indeed.

Slightly more evidence than you have for your sky fairy doncha think?

Oh, look, another atheist who's incapable of understanding faith.


Meanwhile, there is nothing in all of the universe, no event in history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no god."

And no, atheist butthurt and petulant foot-stamping is not proof.

 

[Photonic]

Tentative indeed.

Slightly more evidence than you have for your sky fairy doncha think?

Oh, look, another atheist who's incapable of understanding faith.


Meanwhile, there is nothing in all of the universe, no event in history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no god."

And no, atheist butthurt and petulant foot-stamping is not proof.

Which one?

 

[Dr Grump]

I forget -- what part of evolution shows the origin of life?

What part of creationism scientifically shows the origin of life?

Where are the scientific facts backing this?

(For Daveman, not YWC)

Easier to believe than some dude just waved his wand...

 

[Dr Grump]

Tentative indeed.

Slightly more evidence than you have for your sky fairy doncha think?

Oh, look, another atheist who's incapable of understanding faith.


Meanwhile, there is nothing in all of the universe, no event in history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no god."

And no, atheist butthurt and petulant foot-stamping is not proof.

Faith is easy to understand. Why people believe in a flying spaghetti monster is another thing altogether..

You believe in the god. The onus is on you to prove it...

 

[daveman]

Slightly more evidence than you have for your sky fairy doncha think?

Oh, look, another atheist who's incapable of understanding faith.


Meanwhile, there is nothing in all of the universe, no event in history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no god."

And no, atheist butthurt and petulant foot-stamping is not proof.

Which one?

His. Yours too.

 

[daveman]

What part of creationism scientifically shows the origin of life?

Where are the scientific facts backing this?

(For Daveman, not YWC)

Easier to believe than some dude just waved his wand...

Hey, if you want to go through the mental gymnastics to believe what the image says, go for it.

 

[daveman]

Slightly more evidence than you have for your sky fairy doncha think?

Oh, look, another atheist who's incapable of understanding faith.


Meanwhile, there is nothing in all of the universe, no event in history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no god."

And no, atheist butthurt and petulant foot-stamping is not proof.

Faith is easy to understand. Why people believe in a flying spaghetti monster is another thing altogether..

You believe in the god. The onus is on you to prove it...

You're really clueless, aren't you?

 

[InDoctriNation]

Easier to believe than some dude just waved his wand...

Hey, if you want to go through the mental gymnastics to believe what the image says, go for it.

Actually, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity or deities. The fact that you would post such a blatant strawman of the position is evidence of the fact that you are either completely clueless or intellectually dishonest. Either way, it's not looking good for you...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Easier to believe than some dude just waved his wand...

Hey, if you want to go through the mental gymnastics to believe what the image says, go for it.

Actually, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity or deities. The fact that you would post such a blatant strawman of the position is evidence of the fact that you are either completely clueless or intellectually dishonest. Either way, it's not looking good for you...

so are you saying matter always existed ? If the answer is yes how do you prove such an assertion ? If the answer is no then what dave posted was accurate.

Seems you are in a tight spot with your view of Dave.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Easier to believe than some dude just waved his wand...

Hey, if you want to go through the mental gymnastics to believe what the image says, go for it.

Actually, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity or deities. The fact that you would post such a blatant strawman of the position is evidence of the fact that you are either completely clueless or intellectually dishonest. Either way, it's not looking good for you...

Our beliefs and Dave's really aren't that different.

We don't believe in 100% of the gods man has thought up. He doesn't believe in 99.999% of the gods man has thought up.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Hey, if you want to go through the mental gymnastics to believe what the image says, go for it.

Actually, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity or deities. The fact that you would post such a blatant strawman of the position is evidence of the fact that you are either completely clueless or intellectually dishonest. Either way, it's not looking good for you...

so are you saying matter always existed ? If the answer is yes how do you prove such an assertion ? If the answer is no then what dave posted was accurate.

Seems you are in a tight spot with your view of Dave.

Depends on what you mean by always. Contemporary understanding of Big Bang Cosmology suggests that because space and time are inextricably bonded together, time had its "beginning," if you will, at the "moment" of the big bang (rapid expansion of space and time). In this view, since it doesn't make sense to postulate that there was a time before the inception of the expanding universe, the universe has always been around because time, as well as space, "began" with the expanding universe. This does seem to suggest that the universe may in fact be eternal.

Either way, what Dave posted about atheism was highly inaccurate and presumptuous, as any beliefs about cosmology and abiogenesis are not contained within the definition of atheism.

 

[Photonic]

Hey, if you want to go through the mental gymnastics to believe what the image says, go for it.

Actually, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity or deities. The fact that you would post such a blatant strawman of the position is evidence of the fact that you are either completely clueless or intellectually dishonest. Either way, it's not looking good for you...

so are you saying matter always existed ? If the answer is yes how do you prove such an assertion ? If the answer is no then what dave posted was accurate.

Seems you are in a tight spot with your view of Dave.

The worst part of this is you will never see just how ironic your post is.

 

[daveman]

Easier to believe than some dude just waved his wand...

Hey, if you want to go through the mental gymnastics to believe what the image says, go for it.

Actually, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity or deities. The fact that you would post such a blatant strawman of the position is evidence of the fact that you are either completely clueless or intellectually dishonest. Either way, it's not looking good for you...

I'm sure it comforts you to feel that way, but no.

 

[daveman]

Actually, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity or deities. The fact that you would post such a blatant strawman of the position is evidence of the fact that you are either completely clueless or intellectually dishonest. Either way, it's not looking good for you...

so are you saying matter always existed ? If the answer is yes how do you prove such an assertion ? If the answer is no then what dave posted was accurate.

Seems you are in a tight spot with your view of Dave.

Depends on what you mean by always. Contemporary understanding of Big Bang Cosmology suggests that because space and time are inextricably bonded together, time had its "beginning," if you will, at the "moment" of the big bang (rapid expansion of space and time). In this view, since it doesn't make sense to postulate that there was a time before the inception of the expanding universe, the universe has always been around because time, as well as space, "began" with the expanding universe. This does seem to suggest that the universe may in fact be eternal.

Either way, what Dave posted about atheism was highly inaccurate and presumptuous, as any beliefs about cosmology and abiogenesis are not contained within the definition of atheism.

But certain views on cosmology and abiogenesis inevitably result from atheism.

If the universe wasn't created, nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything.

Or do you have a third option?

 

[Dr Grump]

so are you saying matter always existed ? If the answer is yes how do you prove such an assertion ? If the answer is no then what dave posted was accurate.

Seems you are in a tight spot with your view of Dave.

Depends on what you mean by always. Contemporary understanding of Big Bang Cosmology suggests that because space and time are inextricably bonded together, time had its "beginning," if you will, at the "moment" of the big bang (rapid expansion of space and time). In this view, since it doesn't make sense to postulate that there was a time before the inception of the expanding universe, the universe has always been around because time, as well as space, "began" with the expanding universe. This does seem to suggest that the universe may in fact be eternal.

Either way, what Dave posted about atheism was highly inaccurate and presumptuous, as any beliefs about cosmology and abiogenesis are not contained within the definition of atheism.

But certain views on cosmology and abiogenesis inevitably result from atheism.

If the universe wasn't created, nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything.

Or do you have a third option?

Oh, oh, pick me!

This being just appeared out of nowhere and waved a magic wand..

You don't see any irony in you saying that "something came from nothing, how can that be"

As opposed to your poppycock that "This being (who also must have come from nothing, right - stay with me here, I'm using your logic) waved his magic wand and created the universe."

You do realise how silly this sounds, right?

 

[daveman]

Depends on what you mean by always. Contemporary understanding of Big Bang Cosmology suggests that because space and time are inextricably bonded together, time had its "beginning," if you will, at the "moment" of the big bang (rapid expansion of space and time). In this view, since it doesn't make sense to postulate that there was a time before the inception of the expanding universe, the universe has always been around because time, as well as space, "began" with the expanding universe. This does seem to suggest that the universe may in fact be eternal.

Either way, what Dave posted about atheism was highly inaccurate and presumptuous, as any beliefs about cosmology and abiogenesis are not contained within the definition of atheism.

But certain views on cosmology and abiogenesis inevitably result from atheism.

If the universe wasn't created, nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything.

Or do you have a third option?

Oh, oh, pick me!

This being just appeared out of nowhere and waved a magic wand..

You don't see any irony in you saying that "something came from nothing, how can that be"

As opposed to your poppycock that "This being (who also must have come from nothing, right - stay with me here, I'm using your logic) waved his magic wand and created the universe."

You do realise how silly this sounds, right?

How many people have you talked into renouncing their faith?

If you say any number higher than zero, you're lying.