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 ...
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?
Then consider...have you ever contemplated anything? Do you simply read and memorize? Are you capable of thinking on your own? How do you explain billions of first hand testimony to the truth that God exists for millenniums?
Believe me, I've thought about the issue far more than you have. Hundreds of hours, at a minimum. Quite Maybe even thousands of hours. And probably unlike you, I've actually given "both" sides (it's really more complicated than that, but for simplicity's sake I'll say "both sides") real and serious and honest consideration.
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?
You answer mine.
Do you believe that life is too complex to have arisen on its own? Do you believe that the complexity of life is a compelling argument for a Creator? Apparently you do.
My guess is con man, rather than idiot.
Why didn't he tell us about the fine structure constant? If he had, people wouldn't need to threatened with hell in order to get them to believe.
Dawkin’s is both a bigot and a statist who would have the state take your children from you if he could for introducing them to your faith. I would say that makes him the idiot. Others may get different mileage but if they do I’d suggest a carburetor overhaul.
The only thing you have shown is that you are foolish with your thinking.
What relevance is there on the complexity of life regarding the initial creation of life? Let’s add another one, since you obviously are too dogmatic to point out that no atheist, whether they are a scientist or not...can explain the creation of life. So, let’s make it easier...how do you explain away Billions of individuals personally witnessing God for many millennium? And last of the easy ones, at what point did you decide that science has 100% knowledge of everything?
“I like my brother-in-law and he is an idiot. My liking him doesn’t make any difference.”
Hmmm, so because you like your brother in law and he is an idiot...that the other poster you are replying to who likes someone and does not think he is an idiot, that indeed he must be an idiot? Are you confused with your logic? Or, simply did not think it through. Or, were you trying to say that the two can be mutually exclusive, which is true, but in reality it doesn’t HAVE to be mutually exclusive...sorry, just noticed the flaw and am having fun.
For the same reason He didn't tell us about plate tectonics: irrelevant to His mission.
If he had, people wouldn't need to threatened with hell in order to get them to believe.
No one is threatened with hell in order to get them to believe. The only people who go to Hell are those who choose to go of their own free will.
I usually don't pay any attention to these side arguments and false identity accusations. But in this case it's too obvious to ignore. Gumlegs has nailed it. You ARE Ted "medved" Holden. Either that or you're a friend, wife, daughter whose account Holden uses, or you're a big time Holden groupie. But I think you ARE Ted.
It isn't just the linking to an otherwise obscure Holden page in the present instance.
Even just glancing at your posting history, there are numerous circumstantial similarities, e.g. common interest in archery, same view of neanderthals. And then there's far more telling stuff like this post of yours (wendy1946) and this page at Ted Holden's site.
In that case you reproduce, not only without referencing, but without even linking the Holden page, a very long quote from the obscure Velikovskian Gunnar Heinsohn, EXACTLY as it appears on the Holden page.
EXCEPT THAT, tellingly, you (wendy1946) leave off the last few sentences, starting with Heinsohn's quote of Velikovsky. That would have been too much of a give away, if you were medved, and trying to hide your identity. But maybe you (wendy1946) are not medved (Ted Holden) and just happened to stumble on this obscure Holden page, and cut and pasted, and just coincidentally left off the last few sentences of a long quote you otherwise copied in full, and just never mention that this is all from Holden's site, and was a personal communication to Holden from Heinsohn.
EXCEPT THAT, you (wendy1946) happen to know that Heinsohn is at the "Univ. of Bremen," something which Holden never mentions on his page.
No. You're Ted Holden alright.
I'm the oblivious type. Always the last to pick up on the juicy behind the scenes stuff.
...life is too complex to have arisen on its own... the complexity of life is a compelling argument for a Creator.
I can reasonably infer this because you have demanded that I explain the creation of life, as if any failure to provide such an explanation implies the existence of God.
Okay. So now answer me this:
You believe that God must exist, because life and man are too complex to have arisen on their own.
So tell me... God is (by definition) more than man. He is more powerful and necessarily more complex.
If life is too complex to have arisen on its own, without a Creator, then the same is even more true of God.
Therefore, by your reasoning, God must also have had a Creator.
And that Creator, whoever he is, must also have had an even greater Creator. And so on, ad infinitum.
So your prize argument for the existence of God turns out to be an absurdity.
Let's take your second prize argument:
...how do you explain away Billions of individuals personally witnessing God for many millennium?
How do you explain away the many Billions of individuals personally witnessing to the truth of the glorious Islam for these many centuries? To this day, the witnesses for Islam bear witness with their very lives. They long for death for the truth of the glorious Islam!
Or, how do you explain away the many Billions of individuals personally witnessing to the obvious truth of Hindism? (O Ganesha, god of knowledge, wisdom and wealth!) Do you not know that Hinduism is so old that nobody knows, nobody can know exactly how long people have worshipped in this faith?
Your second prize argument for the existence of God is as invalid as your first.
By the way, you've as much as admitted that you don't even know who the hell Michael Martin is, or at least didn't when this conversation began.
Also note: In nothing I've said have I claimed that God doesn't exist. Frankly, I much prefer to believe in God's existence. I was merely stating that many of those who argue for God's existence are far out of their league. They imagine themselves so wise when they don't understand even the first and most basic things about what their argument.
Rather than approach the argument with any shred of openness and intellectual honesty, they take the simplest and most easily refutable arguments and then honestly claim in their arrogance that others who don't buy their simplistic arguments are "idiots." It's akin to an arrogant fifth-grader standing up and loudly proclaiming how very much smarter he is than 45-year-old Uncle Henry who has a family of his own and runs a manufacturing plant.
You yourself have proven both the arrogance and the lack of substance I speak of, staring with your smart-ass reply to my pointing out that many who argue for God's existence are out of their depth:
"That is true, but we can ramp down to the atheist level for short time periods to explain how absolutely idiotic their positions are..."
If you want to have a serious discussion, go read, digest and honestly answer the points raised by Michael Martin and others. There are at least some good interlocutors on the side of belief in God as well. Not as many as one might wish for, and I can tell that none of them are people you've heard of. But you'll find them if you dig deep enough.
Sorry, that should've been they don't understand even the first and most basic things about the argument.
Just happened to check in, in the middle of the night. I'm on my way back to bed now.
When the closest a person can come to competing in the marketplace of ideas is to beg moderators to ban the other guy, most people assume he doesn’t have anything to contribute. Lonely over there at DC these days??
Man?? The point which Behe and others have made is that even simple one-celled life-forms are vastly too complex to have arisen on their own. Evolution is not compatible with the emerging science of cell biology.
Dunno, Ted. I only hung around there for a month or so when it first opened, and that was some years ago now.
It's easy to remember seeing as how I only have one identity to keep track of. LOL!
Guy? I thought you were "wendy"?
No, I ain't beggin. I don't care in the slightest what the mods do, if anything. Just thought they might want to know, if they don't already.
Although, if you did get banned -- again -- having resorted to showing up in drag this time, it would be kinda fun to see what you try next!
So it would appear that displaying *any* evidence is a colossal waste of time. That seems a bit too pessimist for me, but I am beginning to think that that is an axiomatic truth in every evo/cre debate. I used to get John Clayton’s pamphlets every month...an atheistic geologist who tried to convince his christian wife that God does not exist. However, his own research, he claims, proved otherwise. And now he is a Christian. I think he still holds on to some of his evolutionary theories, but habits die hard and all that.
Ouch.....
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.