Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dodges Debates, Refuses to Defend Evolution...(what a coward!)

Discovery Institute ^ | October 6, 2009

[tpanther]

It’s funny to watch those that fling poo demanding proof via the fraud of peer review, never offering any proof themselves.

Like Chrissy Fit Matthews and his “settled science” poo.

But in the liberal world, up is down, down is up.

It’s actually the strongest argument liberals have for evolution...they fling poo just like their supposed ape ancestor cousins.

And let’s not forget their high profile liberal handlers like al gore with the “debate is over” poo, shutting it down, because embarassingly; like Dawkins here, they can’t handle the heat in the kitchen.

Thus the lawsuits...and these liberal tactics.

Again Sparkles...keep up the good work, as anytime a liberal opens his mouth and is busily destroying his own argument, the best thing to do is get out of the way!!!

So tell us more!

Keep it coming...Filo!

[tpanther]

Richard Dawkins is an amateur liberal philosopher who behaves like a spoiled brat when he is not behaving like Bill Maher, Rosie O’Donnell or some other radical leftist fraud.

Spot on post and good tagline too!

[tpanther]

Obviously another buffoon who got his degree from a degree mill.

---

Yup...along with all these too...MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton...

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

[Filo]

It’s funny to watch those that fling poo demanding proof via the fraud of peer review, never offering any proof themselves.

That's funny. I haven't demanded any proof from creationists. I already know they have none.

I also haven't offered any to the 'thumpers.

They are too stupid to understand it anyway. . .

And let’s not forget their high profile liberal handlers like al gore with the “debate is over” poo, shutting it down, because embarassingly; like Dawkins here, they can’t handle the heat in the kitchen.

Except that Gore is wrong, Evolution is right.

Do try and keep up.

So tell us more!

I'm only telling you two things: you're wrong and you're stupid for believing what you do.

But thanks for the encouragement. It means oh so much to me.

Actually, creationists are even better proof for evolution than liberals, retaining so many of their plant-like characteristics from days of yore.

[tpanther]

George Bush dodged debate with Cindy Sheehan

---

Only Sheehan’s the liberal evolutionist, while W is the conservative creationist.

Here we merely have the situation in reverse with Dawkins.

Do you ever wonder why NO liberal is a creationist, head in sand boy?

Or did the indoctrination centers teach, (pardon the pun) you not to think too?

[tpanther]

That's funny. I haven't demanded any proof from creationists.

I know liberals are self-absorbed, but perhaps you're both incredibly self-absorbed and honestly believe what you're saying, sans your earlier Freudian slip about evolutionists being laughable.

But many a liberal has been demanding "peer review proof" and "evidence" on these threads sparkles.

That you don't care the slightest bit about it, doesn't surprise anyone, the worst of the evo-cultists just squeal really loud with their hands over their ears anyway...

...but just understand alot of your liberal friends just aren't as far down the Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole as you are sparkles.

The rest was pretty sad even for you..."plant-like"...?come on...give it a little more liberal punch...I bet there's even a few of your fellow Chrissy Fit FR poo-flinging liberals pulling for you and just a good bit embarassed for you as well!

[Filo]

But many a liberal has been demanding "peer review proof" and "evidence" on these threads sparkles.

Why on Earth would anyone bother?

The creationists don't need proof. Their little book tells them what to believe.

They also don't understand the concepts of proof, logic or science.

Asking a 'thumper for proof would be like asking a moth to do calculus.

Better to just appreciate them for what they are. . .

[csense]

For instance you can drive around a curve to see skid marks on the road and another car wrapped around a tree, smoke and steam coming from the engine. One can reasonably conclude from those facts that the car missed the curve and hit the tree. Of course, there are always those idiots who will say that wasn't the case at all -

Yet, you would have us believe that not only was there no driver, but that the car was actually a motorcycle, as it braked, before hitting the tree.

And you think we're idiots....

[Filo]

Yet, you would have us believe that not only was there no driver, but that the car was actually a motorcycle, as it braked, before hitting the tree.

Nope.

But nice try.

And you think we're idiots....

No, I know you're idiots. Comments like the above just cement that.

[BlueDragon]

I guess that you cannot see how the qualifier "empirical" is being applied to "testable" and "falsifiable" in relation to the assumption of abiogenesis.

You wave it all away with the statement "nonsense".

A more honest man would admit that that portion of "evolutionary theory" is indeed assumption, regardless of the consequence. Many in the scientific community do. The admission itself does not nor would not negate the idea, in and of itself.

What are you so afraid of?

[OriginalIntent]

Dawkins, the cowardly liberal child who cannot stop crying and blubbering.

The immature people who defend him in spite of his secular religious evolutionary dogma wrapped in the typical cowardice along with his painful sophomoric leftism, all end up sounding exactly like the emotional adolescent that Richard Dawkins has proven himself to be.

Radical leftist clowns like Dawkins do not deserve any respect, nor should they be defended for their Barney Frankish hissy fits.

[tpanther]

Why on Earth would anyone bother?

The creationists don’t need proof. Their little book tells them what to believe.

They also don’t understand the concepts of proof, logic or science.

Asking a ‘thumper for proof would be like asking a moth to do calculus.

Better to just appreciate them for what they are. . .

---

Now that’s the spirit!

[tpanther]

Exactly....better yet...just throw a box of plastic, metal and some wiring up in the air and watch a car rain down from the sky like magic and THEN it hits a tree with no driver...

and call THAT “proof” of “science”.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[csense]

I see. So your response is to just call people idiots and imbeciles. I stand in awe at your superior intellect....

[Filo]

I see. So your response is to just call people idiots and imbeciles.

Not people, creationists.

[Tax Government]

Evolution is not the enemy, any more than pond scum is.

[Tax Government]

Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the “new atheism,”

The opening statement, above, is a straw man. There is no "leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution." There are hundreds of millions of people, perhaps billions, who accept the principle of darwinian evolution without there being a "leading spokesman." If I were a planner in the Russian intelligence services, charged with finding ways to make America's conservative movement appear ridiculous, I'd start by arranging to increase the posting of threads like this one. Because they are beyond ridiculous.

[count-your-change]

You haven’t seen my pond scum.

[mquinn]

ID is just the lipstick on the pig of Creationist science.