I rest my case.
Posted on 12/25/2009 11:36:48 PM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
referring to U.S.-based evangelist Ray Comfort, who argues that the universe and life is the result of an intelligent creator, Dawkins said: "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.
"You can't prove there's no God, no fairies, no leprechauns, or that Thor or Apollo don't exist. There's got to be a positive reason to think that fairies exist. Until somebody does, we can say technically we are agnostic about fairies. We can't disprove them, but we think it's a bit of a waste of time trying. And the same goes for God."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I noticed Obama is also taken to this "a century ago" cr*p as if it's all meaningful. Look, the health care system proposed "a century ago" was little more than band aid stations in factories. We created a far more sophisticated and useful health care system separate and apart from that sort of thing.
It's the same here. People figure out better stuff. They've learned how to do dating with more precision, plus, more skeletal materials have been dug up.
Don't get caught lingering in the 19th century when it comes to medicine or paleontology. Don't be just another ignorant Obamista!
And, He is coming back soon!
Mr. Dawkins prefers to believe that life began out of nothing...just magically appeared. There was no primordial soup before life, there was only inorganic matter, so don’t bother me with that crap. Mr. Dawkins simply does not understand the concept of billions of people knowing God for many millennium. He does not understand that the only purely exact science is conceptual, it is in our minds. From where do our thoughts come from? Gee, maybe they are simply electrical/chemical responses to stimuli...really Dawkins, get a life and get some intelligence that means something.
More proof that atheism itself is a faith. If these things cannot be proven, then how can anyone claim with "scientific certainty" that they don't exist?
“Unfortunately, a lot of the people arguing against the atheist position, while not idiots, are waaaaay out of their league.”
That is true, but we can ramp down to the atheist level for short time periods to explain how absolutely idiotic their positions are...life did not begin from nothing...there was no primordial “soup”...there was no soup at all until after there was life...etc, etc, etc,...
Don't forget about the rules of cleanliness and personal hygiene handed down in the Bible. The use of handwashing and the drinking of running water were proposed in the Bible and of course, later confirmed to be good ways of staying healthy by science thousands of years after the Bible was written.
There’s no proof of evolution, either.
Dawkins is indeed a very bitter and angry person, like most outspoken atheists. Not content to let us “ignorant superstitious peasants” worship as we please, Dawkins rails, curses, and condemns.
Hmmm...I wonder if there is anything in Dawkins’ writings or speeches that would cause the slightest inconvenience to Beelzebub and his minions?
I think not, JMHO.
Refute a ‘...theory????” It’s NOT a law.
They can listen to Moses, so to speak.
If they don't choose to believe Scripture, then they wouldn't be convinced is someone rose from the dead.
For all the evos who claim that someone regrowing limbs would convince them, it wouldn't. Their lack of belief isn't do to not enough *evidence*, but their own choice. The *lack of evidence* is just an excuse.
What's really ironic, however, is that they then go on to disparage anyone who uses evidence to support their beliefs saying that true faith doesn't rest on evidence because if you have evidence, you don't have real faith or that your faith is *weak*, because in their book faith is believing in something there's no evidence for.
So where they get off claiming that they would have faith if there were better evidence is beyond me.
I rest my case.
However, much to my surprise, you appear to be a supporter of Dawkins, seeing as how you are here highlighting a claim where Dawkins is indubitably correct, and even restrained in his language. Ray "Banana Man" Comfort certainly is an idiot.
(Heck. I knew bananas were domesticated, and what wild bananas looked like, back when I was nine years old, just from watching nature films and kids' science books and such. And here are two adults, having specifically chosen the subject as a lecture topic to make a point, and they haven't a friggin' clue. THAT takes good, old fashioned, drooling at the mouth, idiocy all right.)
How many times is it you've been banned now?
Where is Mr. Dawkins ‘positive’ evidence that one type of animal can ‘Evolve’ into another?
Did Sandy Bergler sneak that out of the National Archives in his pants also?
However, its good to see that Mr. Dawkins admits that it is a waste of time to try to disprove God.
You don’t seem to be getting anywhere with that little schtick, do you?
While I have you here, I would like to have your response to the various points raised in Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.
What? You've never read it? Hmmm.
Have you ever read anything by Michael Martin?
In fact, have you ever heard of Michael Martin?
Dawkins is an idiot on religion. So at worst, they’re even.
Maybe those space aliens whom Dawkins believes may have seeded earth’s life forms may have been fairies! A silly, bitter man, Dawkins. Bob
Okay smart guy, answer my questions...exactly how did life begin from nothing? Before there was any organic, any life, how did life begin and where did it come from. Where do your thoughts come from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.