I read it a couple of years ago and it proved one thing....anybody who knows their stuff on the Bible could easily defeat his logic. He’s nothing special just taking pretty old arguements and wrapping them in his personal view and “objective observation”.
Watchman wrote:
I read it a couple of years ago and it proved one thing....anybody who knows their stuff on the Bible could easily defeat his logic. He’s nothing special just taking pretty old arguements and wrapping them in his personal view and “objective observation”.
Any arguement from the bible can be “defeated” with logic.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
Watchman wrote:
I read it a couple of years ago and it proved one thing....anybody who knows their stuff on the Bible could easily defeat his logic. He’s nothing special just taking pretty old arguements and wrapping them in his personal view and “objective observation”.
If you read it, which btw came out only about a year and a half ago, you would know that the bible along with any holy scripture is far from evidence of god. You would also know about the excuses theists such as yourself make to defend the bible and to subvert science, you would know what the big bang and evolution really is instead of having all your misconceptions about it, you would see why there doesn’t have to be a god, and you would have realized that your religious beliefs are only there for the sheer accident of being born in the family that shares those beliefs.
Watchman wrote:
I read it a couple of years ago and it proved one thing....anybody who knows their stuff on the Bible could easily defeat his logic. He’s nothing special just taking pretty old arguements and wrapping them in his personal view and “objective observation”.
If you read it, which btw came out only about a year and a half ago, you would know that the bible along with any holy scripture is far from evidence of god. You would also know about the excuses theists such as yourself make to defend the bible and to subvert science, you would know what the big bang and evolution really is instead of having all your misconceptions about it, you would see why there doesn’t have to be a god, and you would have realized that your religious beliefs are only there for the sheer accident of being born in the family that shares those beliefs.
I seriously doubt you read it.
why would you seriously doubt I read it...i said i read it which means I read it....listen, when Dawkins professed a belief that if we find a signature of design in biology that it lends plausibility to panspermia [that little green men seeded life on Earth], but could never be the work of any deity, I nearly laughed out loud. This is the same guy that says belief in a Creator poses the problem of infinite regress [i.e. Who made God? and soon], but he thinks that if evidence of design is found that it means life had enough time to evolve on another planet, become technologically advanced enough to master biogenesis and space travel, travel to this planet and seed life here, which required a bunch of time all of its own to get to the stage where it could study the intracies of biological cell technology to the point where design could be inferred. Wow. That’s a lot of time. How old does he think the universe is again?
Watchman wrote:
I read it a couple of years ago and it proved one thing....anybody who knows their stuff on the Bible could easily defeat his logic. He’s nothing special just taking pretty old arguements and wrapping them in his personal view and “objective observation”.
If you read it, which btw came out only about a year and a half ago, you would know that the bible along with any holy scripture is far from evidence of god. You would also know about the excuses theists such as yourself make to defend the bible and to subvert science, you would know what the big bang and evolution really is instead of having all your misconceptions about it, you would see why there doesn’t have to be a god, and you would have realized that your religious beliefs are only there for the sheer accident of being born in the family that shares those beliefs.
I seriously doubt you read it.
why would you seriously doubt I read it...i said i read it which means I read it....listen, when Dawkins professed a belief that if we find a signature of design in biology that it lends plausibility to panspermia [that little green men seeded life on Earth], but could never be the work of any deity, I nearly laughed out loud. This is the same guy that says belief in a Creator poses the problem of infinite regress [i.e. Who made God? and soon], but he thinks that if evidence of design is found that it means life had enough time to evolve on another planet, become technologically advanced enough to master biogenesis and space travel, travel to this planet and seed life here, which required a bunch of time all of its own to get to the stage where it could study the intracies of biological cell technology to the point where design could be inferred. Wow. That’s a lot of time. How old does he think the universe is again?
p.s. have you read the Bible from Gen to Rev?
and it was 2 YEARS AGO..
I’ve never read it but...the way you explain it I can agree somewhat with you I mean. If evidence for design is found it doesn’t mean god at all BUT I don’t know where he gets the other stuff from, I guess it’s possible. Kinda random but...I guess I’d have to talk to him to actually understand why he says that.
Ohh for you have believed the lie, evolution is not observable, measurable or repeatable. It is a belief/theory about how the world works. It has never been observed by most men, which puts it on par with aliens and deity [at least on this level]. The only positive is that it certainly has as much evidence as deity.
Watchman wrote:
Ohh for you have believed the lie, evolution is not observable, measurable or repeatable. It is a belief/theory about how the world works. It has never been observed by most men, which puts it on par with aliens and deity [at least on this level]. The only positive is that it certainly has as much evidence as deity.
Actually a theory in science is not just a belief. In order for something to become a theory one must be able to test it and others must be able to get the same results. Actually Gplex’s sig still has the science definition of theory in it.
Watchman wrote:
Ohh for you have believed the lie, evolution is not observable, measurable or repeatable. It is a belief/theory about how the world works. It has never been observed by most men, which puts it on par with aliens and deity [at least on this level]. The only positive is that it certainly has as much evidence as deity.
Actually a theory in science is not just a belief. In order for something to become a theory one must be able to test it and others must be able to get the same results. Actually Gplex’s sig still has the science definition of theory in it.
How can you test evolution, when you cant even observe it? No scientist [even an evolutionist] is going to say they’ve actually observed evolution in action. If such a thing were possible, this debate would be over!
I’m afraid it’s just more wishful thinking [That’s what “just imagine” means]. You see, any example falls flat because it admits that during a short time, changes occur within a species for instance. They never, ever turn into something else. They’re always just a variation of whatever species they happen to be. Now recorded history might be too short a time to see such a wondrous transition, but the fossil record [allegedly spanning billions of years] doesn’t show any transitional forms either. Darwin admitted this glaring inconsistency but said it was due to the “imperfectness of the fossil record.”
dont take evolution as true or you will infected by Dogma. Science continually self corrects. It doesn’t demand that only one answer be considered.
Watchman wrote:
Ohh for you have believed the lie, evolution is not observable, measurable or repeatable. It is a belief/theory about how the world works. It has never been observed by most men, which puts it on par with aliens and deity [at least on this level]. The only positive is that it certainly has as much evidence as deity.
Actually a theory in science is not just a belief. In order for something to become a theory one must be able to test it and others must be able to get the same results. Actually Gplex’s sig still has the science definition of theory in it.
How can you test evolution, when you cant even observe it? No scientist [even an evolutionist] is going to say they’ve actually observed evolution in action. If such a thing were possible, this debate would be over!
I’m afraid it’s just more wishful thinking [That’s what “just imagine” means]. You see, any example falls flat because it admits that during a short time, changes occur within a species for instance. They never, ever turn into something else. They’re always just a variation of whatever species they happen to be. Now recorded history might be too short a time to see such a wondrous transition, but the fossil record [allegedly spanning billions of years] doesn’t show any transitional forms either. Darwin admitted this glaring inconsistency but said it was due to the “imperfectness of the fossil record.”
dont take evolution as true or you will infected by Dogma. Science continually self corrects. It doesn’t demand that only one answer be considered.
Yes. Lets ignore the many transistional fossils we have.
this is pointless....your claims about transitional forms PRESUME the truth of Darwinism. If Darwinism were true, that would be all well and good, but if it’s not, this is all hubris and rubbish.
»
Religion
» "The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins
First 
