I have perused a few threads here and noted some very amusing remarks.
Under the rubric of intellectualism, some individuals claim that God cannot exist because ________________________ (fill in the blank as you wish).

How the profoundly finite mind can comprehend the infinite is never remotely answered.

This kind of presumptuous faux analysis is rather like a teenager dressing down his parents. "Things have changed since you were a kid. You don't understand."

The king of scientific know-it-alls is atheist Richard Dawkins.

From the arrogant, pontificating style of this socialist, you would think he is quite beyond mistakes. But you would be terribly wrong to think that.

Here are some quotes from Dawkins' books, illustrating just some of his fallacious thinking.

"There is a considerable surplus of humans." - Page 105, The Blind Watchmaker

In fact, everyone alive on earth today could easily fit inside one cubic mile.
Moreover the similar hysterical claims of the Club of Rome in the 1960s were as wrong as they could have been. Julian Simon wrote a brilliant and well documented book, "The Ultimate Resource." Sycophants of Dawkins are encouraged to read it.

“I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.” - Page 46, Ibid

In fact, Dawkins butchered the original quote. Nobody suggested that a single monkey could write all of Shakespeare. Nor is the proposition credible in the least.

First, Dawkins himself defines "impossible" as one chance in 10^40th power.
There are at least 50 different keys on any keyboard. Therefore to reach Dawkins' own definition of "impossible" would only necessitate a string of 24 consecutive letters. 1/50 x 1/50 x 1/50... 24 times is "impossible" according to Dawkins. A single poem would be much less likely than just "impossible."
Self-styled scientists claim an intellectualism that is too often astonishingly ignorant.

“An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.” - Page 81

Stevie Wonder has far more than 5% of an eye. He can't see anything.
The absurdity of claims like this are anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.

“ . . . all 10 million copies of the New Testament could simultaneously dance upon the surface of a pin’s head.” - Page 116

Dancing New Testaments. Leave it to Dick to suggest dancing books.


“Modern DNA replication is a high-technology affair, with elaborate proofreading techniques that have been perfected . . .” - Page 129

And yet Dawkins begins this book by claiming that the natural wonders surrounding us are not "designed" but "designoid." Design implies a Designer.
This Dawkins simply cannot allow.

Now my computer is extremely sophisticated and well DESIGNED.
However, DNA is 40,000,000,000,000 more compact in storing information than any chip in my Dell black box.

Moreover, although I have DSL, and a download speed of 1.5 Meg per second, your eye is reading this and downloading it at 4 gig per second.

No "design" there, eh?

“Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.” - P 139

"(Our ‘maximum amount of luck’) is one chance in 10 to the 20th power." - P 146

From all things are possible to one in 10^20 in only seven pages. Dawkins contradicts himself, though his supporters will doubtless try to spin out of this.
“ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.” - Page 160

Look, a marble statue is waving at us!

Hello!

Whatever happened to "one in 10^20"?


Dawkins is the best known, most militant atheist on earth.
He wrote in response to me, "The Pope is evil."

I think that about does it.

Great!

A warm welcome from the 'evil atheist committee'!

There's lots where he comes from a veritable cornucopia. Bet he's american too.

I have perused a few threads here and noted some very amusing remarks.
A "few" being the operative word. If he/she/it had read more then it wouldn't have posted this drivel.

The king of scientific know-it-alls is atheist Richard Dawkins.

From the arrogant, pontificating style of this socialist

How very dare Richard Dawkins. Not only an atheist, but also a socialist!

That's just scary....
maybe he concluded scientifically that socialism is ok.....wait no I mean atheism.....wait no ..jelly donuts.

You're trying to get nominated for your funny poll aren't you..

HAHHAHHAHAHA

OK stop it yer killin' me....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hahahahaha!!!

Baby Jesus thanks you.

At what age did he get the holy flamethrower?

OK 20-something jesus thanks you then.

The problem with Dawkins is not that he is an atheist. His problem is that when you strip away all of the "science" he sounds pretty much indistinguishable from any wild-eyed religious kook, street-corner prophet begging change.

And like most of them he could probably benefit from a large dose of MAOI inhibitors.

Well, if you strip away the science anyone sounds like a nutter.

How very dare Richard Dawkins. Not only an atheist, but also a socialist !
Now that IS a sin !
;)

He's a zealot and he makes a living complaining and pointing fingers at people.

Did Einstein go around saying "I'm a scientist so all you terrible religious people need to stop oppressing me!"

No.

He's a zealot and he makes a living complaining and pointing fingers at people.

Did Einstein go around saying "I'm a scientist so all you terrible religious people need to stop oppressing me!"

No.

Einstein was a political beast and zealot.


See wikipedia for instance:

co-founder of the liberal German Democratic Party.

The Macmillan Company published About Zionism: Speeches and Lectures by Professor Albert Einstein.

'The World as I See It' 1933

In the face of Germany's rising militarism Einstein wrote and spoke for peace (American Museum of Natural History 2002).

During the 1930s and into World War II, Einstein wrote affidavits recommending United States visas for a huge number of Europeans, raised money for Zionist organizations and was in part responsible for the formation, in 1933, of the International Rescue Committee

In a 1938 speech, "Our Debt to Zionism"

Einstein was one of the authors of a 1948 letter to the New York Times criticizing Menachem Begin's Revisionist Herut (Freedom) Party for the Deir Yassin massacre

In a 1949 Monthly Review article entitled "Why Socialism?" Albert Einstein described a chaotic capitalist society, a source of evil to be overcome, as the "predatory phase of human development"

With Albert Schweitzer and Bertrand Russell, Einstein lobbied to stop nuclear testing and future bombs. Days before his death, Einstein signed the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, which led to the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.

Einstein was a member of several civil rights groups, including the Princeton chapter of the NAACP


So he said, I'm a socialist and you capitalist pigs are evil.

same difference.

I love it when a moron enters the scene thinking he has some good point to make and only exhibits the depths of his own stupidity and feebleness.

For example this most recent idiot, under the pretense of intellectual discussion, attacks human thought and intellect replacing it with a blind hope in the words of unknown authors and holy authority figures, about some absolute knowledge about an absolute Being.
The idiot wants to replace exploration and thinking, based on the authority of human perceptions, with sightless faith driven by existential anxieties, the hope that everything is ordained and for the best with nothing to go on but a text passed down through the ages and written with such ambiguous language and metaphorical methods as to remain relevant no matter what.

This most recent retard claims that man can never know the infinite, being finite himself, yet would claim no less knowledge himself.
The argument proceeds from the acknowledgement of weakness to the expectation of strength.
It’s the cry of the imbecile stating that since man is limited then anything he imagines, which is not, must be fact.
Here is an imbecile using ignorance itself as gnosis.
‘We cannot know; therefore we do know.’
The religious fanatic uses intellectual integrity as an argument against intellectual integrity and honesty as an insult.
This is a psychology that uses the absence of knowledge as knowledge.
‘I do not know; therefore I do know.’
The logic that claims that everything it hopes for must exists within the regions where man has yet to explain.
This is a psychology surrendering to fate; a slavish imbecile cowering before the unknown, damning everyone that stands up to it, and begging for salvation from the darkness.

Science deals in probabilities and hypothesis, expanding human knowledge using observation and reason.
This retard wants to use the absence of absolute knowledge as evidence for the possibility of an absolute being, which he can neither explain not comprehend nor define and yet has a certainty about.

I will not even attempt to defend Dawkins from these types of brainless twits – he does a fine job himself - but given the option of taking advice from a Dawkins or this most recent retardation of the human soul, I would more gladly respect the words and insights of a courageous, perspicuous and well-thought out mind than an idiot trying to find ways to save himself from the inevitable.

As is often the case a moron argues against himself with the very arguments he uses. He shows his ilk through his words and reasoning.
We can do nothing more than sit back and enjoy the spectacle of a retarded mind attempting to sound like it is something other than what it is.

I can only say that if these fools are made in god’s image, then what an imbecile God must be running this universe.

Well, since no-one else is going to do it, I feel obliged to give my queen the recognition she craves for yet another faultless, razor-taloned deconstruction of yet another crazy-eyed evangelist's assumptions. http://www.ndisonline.org/TopClass/icons/toolbar_up.gif

I look forward - with great anticipation and no small degree of genital quivering - to my friend paucorumhominminium's response and the ensuing bloodbath.

Never change, Saty - my toga is newly-pressed, ample popcorn procured, and my front-row seat booked. ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Colosseum_at_night.jpg/800px-Colosseum_at_night.jpg

yay another idiot! Welcome idiot.


The rules prohibit such hateful name-calling as Sock Puppet Path has displayed. Are there exceptions for the Cesspool? Why?

I suspect that Sock Puppet Path behaves in such a vile, anti-intellectual manner often. It comes quite naturally to Leftists and atheists.

Heh. This is already my new favourite thread.

A "few" being the operative word. If he/she/it had read more then it wouldn't have posted this drivel.


Oli, if you were as civil as the rules provide, you never would have written your intolerant, hateful message.

If you had a clue as to what my "drivel" was, you would have quoted it and refuted it in a proper, scientific manner.

But you did not. How shameful of you.

Were you too lazy to cite the "drivel," or are you full of.....


I suspect it is both.

Oh I agree. Dawkins is a militant disguised as a scientist. Complete load of sh*t.

His socialist leanings are his only saving grace if they were not unfortunately encumbered by his anti-theism.

Oli, if you were as civil as the rules provide, you never would have written your intolerant, hateful message.
Intolerant and hateful? Hardly. Bored with the same repetitive "arguments" with no evidence. As I said, if you had read more of SF then you'd have seen that you've posted nothing essentially new and could have saved us all the time and effort.
If you had a clue as to what my "drivel" was, you would have quoted it and refuted it in a proper, scientific manner.
I've seen your style of drivel before, many times. Refuted in a scientific manner? Refute what? That Dawkins is wrong because he's a socialist? Or your so-called points? Sadly your original post displays a total lack of reasoning ability: so I saw no need to try to refute as you obviously wouldn't have understood the argument, since you hadn't understood the reasoning, language and ideas expressed which you "refuted".
But you did not. How shameful of you.
Oh, can I live with the shame? No shame to me, there's no point in refuting woowoos who can't understand what they're discussing.
Were you too lazy to cite the "drivel," or are you full of.....
Why should I cite anything - it was your entire original post, obviously...
I suspect it is both.
Ah yes. You suspect. Therefore you are right, non?
Hardly, you're woowoo.

Oh I agree. Dawkins is a militant disguised as a scientist. Complete load of sh*t.

His socialist leanings are his only saving grace if they were not unfortunately encumbered by his anti-theism.

My compliments on your being an independent thinker, samcdkey.
How many are there like you, who can think for themselves, rather than prattle the popular line?

Please allow me to quote Dawkins some more. There's nothing like using people's own words against them, rather than just calling somebody an "idiot".

Demon Haunted World, by Richard Dawkins

Page 68 “In order to set natural selection going on a real planet, all that is required is the existence of inherited information.”

["All!" "All!" Whence came such "inherited information for the first life form? Recall that Darwin's archaic book (1859) was titled "The Origin of Species".
This of course includes the very first species to be living. What was it and where did it's "inherited information" come from?]

Page 101: “(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ‘chance’ instead of ‘natural selection’ he’d have been right.”

[ What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. Dawkins’ first error was in substituting “protein” for “bacterium”. Complex as a protein is, a bacterium has hundreds of them in it. Secondly, “probability” is purely a matter of “chance”. Mutation “is indeed a chance process”, and ONLY mutation configures proteins and enzymes. Not only did Dawkins butcher the quote, but he also butchered the very idea. Playing word games with "chance" and "luck" are what Dawkins and his sycophants do exceedingly well.]

P 155: [Figure 5-10 Dawkins mislabels the "leaving angle" in a prism, and puts it inside the glass. This ignorant mistake is far more egregious than mistakes pointed out so hysterically by self-anointed "intellectuals" like Dawkins, and Al Gore and Bill Clinton and John Kerry. How many of you knew that Al Gore flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School?]

P 287: “An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.”

[This is one of my personal favorites. An elephant is just one giant infection.
Hilarious. Dawkins sycophants will of course even try to defend this nonsense.]

"The Pope is evil." - Richard Dawkins

Presumably Dick thought Saddam Hussein was a peach of a guy. After all, "he kept order"! But then, so did Adolph Hitler.

Carl Sagan was another very prominent atheist. And hypocrite.

While Sagan promoted reductions in the human population, he had five children himself.

Sagan was a militant atheist, and yet a memorial service was held for him at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, in New York City on February 27, 1997.

It is ironic in the extreme that this atheist who constantly belittled and denied God was celebrated in one of God’s Sanctuaries. This irony undoubtedly escaped the illuminati who attended and waxed eloquent on the Chessie Cat of Science.

Pale Blue Dot, by Carl Sagan

Page 32: “In 1989 only 30% of people surveyed said the sun is not alive. We can recognize here a shortcoming . . .”

[Carl Sagan was a teacher. We can thank teachers like Sagan for this profound ignorance. The contemporary "solution" in public education is to teach self-esteem, while promoting homosexuality, as if that will somehow improve the ghastly system socialists have wrought in our schools.]

Page 57: "Much poor planning in the universe."

[Whenever arrogant atheists like Dawkins and Sagan aren't waxing eloquent over the great and wondrous things all around us, they're condemning them and calling them "lucky" and "designoid," but of course not "designed."]

P 151 (In the year 2010) “The stay‑at‑homes on earth . . . “

[Isn't that great! Sagan thought most earthlings would have fled earth three years hence.]

P 268 “The price (of a manned Mars mission) must be reasonable . . .$100 billion “

[You say "$100 billion," I say pototto.]

[Wherever will all the militant "artistes" and "intellectuals" get their federal grants if we keep spending hundreds of billions for manned Mars missions?
I mean, what about global warming cutbacks, and more funding for education, and for welfarism, etc, etc. ]

P 375: “[Living on Mars] is not very expensive.”

[Elsewhere Sagan says "Sex was invented." Brilliant, no?
And please, no silly claims of "taking it out of context." Didn't happen.
Wasn't necessary. Dawkins and Sagan said things that were breathtakingly ignorant and hypocritical. But I repeat myself.]

P 386 “Eventually the solar system will become too dangerous for us. “

P 394 “ We will spread through the Milky Way.”

P 396: [Sagan extrapolates man's top speed to the speed of light. Evidently he wasn't too familiar with physics, and the power requirements for such a fantasy.]

P 400 “So much Milky Way, so little time. “

P 32: "We can recognize here a shortcoming."

[Indeed we can.]

My compliments on your being an independent thinker, samcdkey.
How many are there like you, who can think for themselves, rather than prattle the popular line?


Cacoethes cognitum est paucorum hominum.:shrug:

Yup. We're more on less on-track. But: Illuminati and "promoting homosexuality" in the same post. I take it back. You are not a woowoo, you're an uber-woowoo. Excellent.

[Elsewhere Sagan says "Sex was invented." Brilliant, no?
And please, no silly claims of "taking it out of context."
Silly question I know, but have you ever heard, or understood, the word "humour"? Didn't think so.
P 396: [Sagan extrapolates man's top speed to the speed of light. Evidently he wasn't too familiar with physics, and the power requirements for such a fantasy.]
Oh please, enlighten us all with YOUR familiarity with physics. Go on, please.

Hey Oli, what's a "woowoo?"

Billions and Billions
by Carl Sagan

P 51: “An infinitely old Universe has no need to be created. It was always here.”

[So much for the Big Bang. Will Arno and Penzias have their Nobel Prize revoked because our "infinitely old Universe was always here"?]

P 46: “The reason [the most important discoveries of science are often the most unexpected] is that Nature is far more inventive, subtle, and elegant than humans are.”

[Dawkins would call all this elegance "luck" and "designoid."]

P 48: “But funding is very meager at NASA these days . . .”

[Take the money away from the poor and hungry of color. NASA comes first.
I guess, even before art.]

P 84: “Arguments from authority carry little weight.”

[Unless you're quoting the authorities who preach Global Warming and Impending Doom, or Evolutionary Gravity. See, if you don't march in total lockstep with Darwinists, then you don't believe in gravity either.
Arguments from authority are all scientific know-it-alls preach. Take Oli, please. And pray tell, why isn't there an IGNORE button?]

P 137: “The wholesale attack on the global environment is not the fault only of profit-hungry industrialists or visionless and corrupt politicians.”

[Motivation for more money is only bad when exercised by mean old capitalists. When you demand more for NASA, it's alllll good. wink, nudge]

P 142: “The last phrase of the middle paragraph represents a tortuous compromise with the Roman Catholic delegation, opposed not only to describing birth control methods, but even to uttering the words ‘birth control’.”

(Meanwhile, Carl Sagan had five children: Dorion, Jeremy, Nick, Sasha, and Sam. Others were “chauvinists”, never Carl.)

P 183: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Almost no one follows it.”

[When atheists aren't mocking the Holy Bible, they're preaching from it.]

P 197: “[The Reagan Administration spent its capital recklessly. The United States is vulnerable to virtually instant annihilation.]”

[Reagan "is going to start World War III," the left said. "The Soviet Union will just match us," the left said. When the Berlin Wall came down, and the Soviet Union was no more, the left changed its tune, and spun "We knew it was going to happen."

Being a Leftists means you never have to admit you were dead wrong, much less you are sorry.]
P 244: “In their posthumous award to Dr. Sagan of their highest honor, the National Science Foundation declared that his ‘research transformed planetary science . . . his gifts to mankind were infinite’.”

(“Infinite gifts to mankind” would make life perfect, would they not? Is life perfect now?
I love it when know-it-alls quantify things. They’re always so very precise. )

I will not even attempt to defend Dawkins from these types of brainless twits – he does a fine job himself - but given the option of taking advice from a Dawkins or this most recent retardation of the human soul, I would more gladly respect the words and insights of a courageous, perspicuous and well-thought out mind than an idiot trying to find ways to save himself from the inevitable.

Oh please, anyone using science to disprove God needs to review Science 101.

Hey Sam, will you allow me to call Satyr a "brainless twit?"

Cacoethes cognitum est paucorum hominum.:shrug:

"Truth will always be paucorum hominum (of few men)." - Schopenhauer

My compliments on your being an independent thinker, samcdkey.
Do enlighten us as to how your capacity for independent thinking has allowed you to conclude that God is at play in the universe. So far your arguments in favour all seem to be rooted, quite fallaciously, in incredulity. You'll have to do better than this in order to convince even agnostic fence-sitters like me.

Arguments from authority are all scientific know-it-alls preach.
Oh please. my ribs are cracking.
Take Oli, please. And pray tell, why isn't there an IGNORE button?]
Free gift to you since you're obviously too silly to look and/ or find: try clicking on the name of the person and then clicking on the ignore button... it's REALLY REALLY technical but you might manage to do it.

IceAgeCivilizations
Hey Oli, what's a "woowoo?"
Oh the irony....
IceAgeCivilizations
Hey Sam, will you allow me to call Satyr a "brainless twit?"
You probably could, but you'd be wrong.

Do enlighten us as to how your capacity for independent thinking has allowed you to conclude that God is at play in the universe. So far your arguments in favour all seem to be rooted, quite fallaciously, in incredulity. You'll have to do better than this in order to convince even agnostic fence-sitters like me.


"Cast not pearls before swine."

"The fool hath said in his mind there is no god."

The number of possible sequences for hemoglobin is one in 10 to the 190th power.

There are a mere 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

But it all just came together, real nice.

Stay on the fence, please.

"We will become God." - Victor Stenger, scientific know-it-all and, of course, atheist

"Cast not pearls before swine."

"The fool hath said in his mind there is no god."

The number of possible sequences for hemoglobin is one in 10 to the 190th power.

There are a mere 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

But it all just came together, real nice.

So, why is it so hard to imagine those things coming together to make up our universe? Were you expecting a different result?

So, why is it so hard to imagine those things coming together to make up our universe? Were you expecting a different result?


When those of your own stripe make remarks of incredulity, it is all well and good. You have no criticism of them.

But let someone from the other side of the political fence make similar remarks of incredulity, and you relentlessly and consistently discount and demean them.

Can you say "hypocrisy"? Well, yes, but only when pointing to someone other than yourself.



Carl Sagan said of spectral analysis, "It amazes me still."

The remarks of incredulity by your fellow atheists and leftists can be found in countless books. I will not, as Richard Dawkins says, "multiply them up." You know it full well. You are in a state of denial.

Your own observations are Arguments of Ennui.
Given merely a few irrefutable observations of reality, your hypocrisy burns as brightly as a supernova.

Example the First: "solid" steel is roughly one part in 10^16 matter, and the rest is empty space

The profound engineering of such a construct, you may find utterly boring. Just find me something manmade that is remotely as efficient an engineering feat.

Example the Second: light conveys information, energy, and in fact life itself, through a vacuum, through air, through water, through glass, plastic, fused quartz, and assorted other materials, with amazing speed and efficiency, without which nothing. Nor would mankind be here unless light had its speed decreased by passing through such materials. No refractive index, no eyesight. Sorry.

No energy coming from the sun with c at 3 x 10 ^10 centimeters per second, no photosynthesis, no plants, no mankind.

This is because of the finely tuned speed of light, and the relationship between energy transmitted thereby and c. We remain warm because c is exceedingly great. We hear radio transmissions from aircraft for that same reason.

We hear in stereo for precisely the opposite reason, because the speed of sound is so slow. Our ears do a Fourier analysis of sounds, discerning differences as small as 1/2000 of a second in reaching one ear before the other.

Were our eyes to do a Fourier analysis, we would not see white light, but rather the spectral breakdown of white light, as a prism does.

Thirteen orders of magnitude constitute the range sound intensities we can hear, and the light intensity visible to us is similar in range.

How "lucky" we are indeed.

"The heavens proclaim the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork."

A vegetable looks down upon its roots, surrounded by fine grinds of sand and desert as far as its cauliflower eyes can see and thinks, in its simplistic potato-head way:
“This soil is too perfect for my feeble roots to have been an accident. Someone must have designed it that way and planted me here for a reason.”

If the vegetable had never taken root, there would have been no potato-head to think anything about how imperfect the soil was but since the vegetable exists it perceives its own existence as too fantastic to have been anything less than purposeful.
The providence of its taking root seems so miraculous in contrast to the surrounding dirt that it becomes so thankful for itself and the soil that birthed it that it worships it and fears its loss.
So the vegetable begins imagining a farmer and projects upon Him all the characteristics it newly discovers in itself or exaggerates them into proportions that make it proud and safe.
When things get tough it dreams that all will be well because there is a farmer there taking care of it and fertilizing it and watering it.
If there is no rain, it preys to the farmer to come and water its needy roots.
If the rains come it sees this as evidence of the farmer’s existence.
If the rains don’t come its withering death leaves nothing behind to wonder about what happened to the farmer or if it had preyed in vain to a farmer it had never perceived nor could ever define or prove.

How mathematically amazing it seems to the simple vegetable brain that its own existence mirrors the environment that made it possible; how fantastic it all appears to it that its measuring systems correspond to universal patterns.

But its amazement is false and hypocritical.
It does not only feel lucky it now projects all its anxieties upon the universe and places there all the answers to the questions it invents, wanting to find a purpose where only it can provide one and a meaning only where its potato-brain can construct one.
It needs an outside authority to alleviate the pressures of taking responsibility for a life it had no hand in and a fate burdened by uncertainties and ignorance.

It wants to feel like all is well no matter what rains come or do not come and it wants to feel like even its demise should have some meaning and its every suffering and chlorophyll tear must have had some purpose.
So this pathetic, insecure, ephemeral uncertain and anxious vegetable uses its potato-brain to imagine all sorts of farmers with kind faces and green thumbs.
How can it cope with its slowly decaying roots otherwise?

Oh please, anyone using science to disprove God needs to review Science 101.Good point.
I never knew advanced science was so God friendly.

Here’s a clue, you simple-minded imbecile:
Use science to disprove leprechauns or anything that tiny mind of yours can imagine and then I’ll attempt to explain to that small mass you call a brain why trying to prove a negative is an absurdity.

Here’s another clue:
The burden of proof, simpleton, lies with the one proposing a ‘fact’ or a ‘truth’ not with the one remaining skeptical or unconvinced.
Something becomes more or less probable based on the evidence and arguments it provides for its own validity.
Even then human honesty and intellectual integrity maintains a level of skepticism in all hypothetical ‘truths’ and only deals in degree of validity and not with absolute certainties, as imbeciles, like you, do.

Cacoethes cognitum est paucorum hominum.:shrug:Wow, impressive.

Now say it in English without sounding like a retard.

Last I heard Christianity was the “popular line”.

Hey Sam, will you allow me to call Satyr a "brainless twit?"If you keep your sentences even shorter the full depth of your intellectual depravity will not become too obvious.

Please call me anything you like.

I once had a blind man comment on my choice of pants.
That was funny also.

When those of your own stripe make remarks of incredulity, it is all well and good. You have no criticism of them.

But let someone from the other side of the political fence make similar remarks of incredulity, and you relentlessly and consistently discount and demean them.

Can you say "hypocrisy"? Well, yes, but only when pointing to someone other than yourself.

Funny that, particles and hemoglobin exist. And those on the other side of the fence are arguing what?

Example the First: "solid" steel is roughly one part in 10^16 matter, and the rest is empty space

Steel exists, too.

Example the Second: light conveys information, energy, and in fact life itself, through a vacuum, through air, through water, through glass, plastic, fused quartz, and assorted other materials, with amazing speed and efficiency, without which nothing. Nor would mankind be here unless light had its speed decreased by passing through such materials. No refractive index, no eyesight. Sorry.

Ha, that's rich. Did you know that light existed before eyesight? In other words, light did not evolve to our eyesight.

No energy coming from the sun with c at 3 x 10 ^10 centimeters per second, no photosynthesis, no plants, no mankind.

The sun existed before mankind, too.

How "lucky" we are indeed.

What does luck have to do with it?

"The heavens proclaim the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork."

*POOF*

The wave of the magic hand?

Did you know a pothole shapes the puddle of water within it?

A vegetable looks down upon its roots, surrounded by fine grinds of sand and desert as far as its cauliflower eyes can see and thinks, in its simplistic potato-head way:
“This soil is too perfect for my feeble roots to have been an accident. Someone must have designed it that way and planted me here for a reason.”

God eats people?

Even hardcore atheists dont take Dawkins seriously these days, i wouldnt worry about him unduly. He tends to appeal to people who used to be religious but need a new form of religiosity and dogma to fill the void - in this instance evangelical atheism fills the gap perfectly.

The central problem with strong atheism is that it falls into the exact same trap that theism does - it assumes absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe. It replaces speculation with certainty.

Quite litterally, as the thread starter suggests dawkins 'knows it all'.

A vegetable looks down upon its roots, surrounded by fine grinds of sand and desert as far as its cauliflower eyes can see and thinks, in its simplistic potato-head way:
“This soil is too perfect for my feeble roots to have been an accident. Someone must have designed it that way and planted me here for a reason.”


So the vegetable begins imagining a farmer and projects upon Him all the characteristics it newly discovers in itself or exaggerates them into proportions that make it proud and safe.


But its amazement is false and hypocritical.

It needs an outside authority to alleviate the pressures of taking responsibility for a life it had no hand in and a fate burdened by uncertainties and ignorance.



You voted for Bill "alpha male" Clinton, didn't you.

You think Saddam Hussein wasn't such a bad guy. After all, he "kept order."

:p

"Sex was invented." -- Carl Sagan

You voted for Bill "alpha male" Clinton, didn't you.

You think Saddam Hussein wasn't such a bad guy. After all, he "kept order."

:p

"Sex was invented." -- Carl SaganYes I voted for Bill “alpha male” Clinton and I love Osama.

Now that I’ve fitted into your simplistic, retarded, world views and emotionally driven, childish metaphysics and political perspectives maybe you can prove you aren’t a simpleton.

Then, maybe, you can expand upon your wonderment about how “perfect” the universe is and how it is too perfect to have not been created.

paucorumhominum:

You'd probably be more convincing if you gave the context of your quotes instead of just extracting a few words here, a few words there, out of context.

Carl Sagan was another very prominent atheist. And hypocrite.

Sagan was a self-proclaimed agnostic, not an atheist.

Sagan was a militant atheist, and yet a memorial service was held for him at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, in New York City on February 27, 1997.

I don't think Sagan had much of say in that...

Pale Blue Dot, by Carl Sagan

Page 32: “In 1989 only 30% of people surveyed said the sun is not alive. We can recognize here a shortcoming . . .”

[Carl Sagan was a teacher. We can thank teachers like Sagan for this profound ignorance. The contemporary "solution" in public education is to teach self-esteem, while promoting homosexuality, as if that will somehow improve the ghastly system socialists have wrought in our schools.]

Hmm... the writer's homophobia shines through in a comment ostensibly about a science book.

P 151 (In the year 2010) “The stay‑at‑homes on earth . . . “

[Isn't that great! Sagan thought most earthlings would have fled earth three years hence.]

What's the rest of the sentence? What did the three sentences before that one say?

P 386 “Eventually the solar system will become too dangerous for us. “

P 394 “ We will spread through the Milky Way.”

Can't see any problem with those.

P 396: [Sagan extrapolates man's top speed to the speed of light. Evidently he wasn't too familiar with physics, and the power requirements for such a fantasy.]

Sagan is quite explicit about that. You obviously didn't read far enough. (Is this your own work, by the way?)

Demon Haunted World, by Richard Dawkins

Dawkins didn't write "The Demon-Haunted World". That was Sagan, again. (Remind me who the idiot is again...? Have you even read either of these books?)

Page 68 “In order to set natural selection going on a real planet, all that is required is the existence of inherited information.”

["All!" "All!" Whence came such "inherited information for the first life form? Recall that Darwin's archaic book (1859) was titled "The Origin of Species".
This of course includes the very first species to be living. What was it and where did it's "inherited information" come from?]

The question of abiogenesis is as yet unsolved. Most probably, the inherited information you're looking for arose by accident.

Darwin's "archaic" book specifically does not discuss abiogensis. If you'd actually read it, you would have read the part where Darwin explicitly deals with that issue.

Billions and Billions
by Carl Sagan

P 51: “An infinitely old Universe has no need to be created. It was always here.”

[So much for the Big Bang. Will Arno and Penzias have their Nobel Prize revoked because our "infinitely old Universe was always here"?]

Sagan explicitly recognises that an "infinitely old universe" is not the only possibility. In discussing this one possibility, his statement is a no-brainer. Once again, you probably didn't read far enough to understand the context.

It's like you went through these books reading the odd sentence or two, probably with the specific aim of finding sentences you thought you could ridicule to your friends. You'll need to try a lot harder to gain credibility with other people. Start by reading the books in full.

Once you've done that, maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.

paucorumhominum dude, it's even more arrogant to claim that a being that denies the laws of physics exists because ________________________ (fill in the blank as you wish).

And that there is one god, but it's various followers don't agree on anything.

So, go away, learn to think, and get back to us when you are worth debating.

Good point.
I never knew advanced science was so God friendly.

Here’s a clue, you simple-minded imbecile:
Use science to disprove leprechauns or anything that tiny mind of yours can imagine and then I’ll attempt to explain to that small mass you call a brain why trying to prove a negative is an absurdity.

Here’s another clue:
The burden of proof, simpleton, lies with the one proposing a ‘fact’ or a ‘truth’ not with the one remaining skeptical or unconvinced.
Something becomes more or less probable based on the evidence and arguments it provides for its own validity.
Even then human honesty and intellectual integrity maintains a level of skepticism in all hypothetical ‘truths’ and only deals in degree of validity and not with absolute certainties, as imbeciles, like you, do.

And here I was thinking all along that science was based on the ability to disprove a hypothesis.

You know, H(null) = zero?:shrug:

Let me take a wild wild guess, don't actually work in science, do you? :D

Wow, impressive.

Now say it in English without sounding like a retard.

Last I heard Christianity was the “popular line”.

Sorry, I don't perform translation services, and even if I did, I wouldn't sound like you.

paucorumhominum:

You'd probably be more convincing if you gave the context of your quotes instead of just extracting a few words here, a few words there, out of context.

1. I took absolutely nothing out of context. IF I had done so, you would have cited my errors. But you did not, because you are clearly too lazy even to look up my citations.

tsk, tsk




Hmm... the writer's homophobia shines through in a comment ostensibly about a science book.

"Homophobia" means "fear of men." I have no such fear.
You make false accusations in a puerile attempt to change the subject.
This is terribly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific of you.

Moreover, you did not reference any of your remarks. I did, very precisely, by page even.

Shame on you for your anti-intellectualism and anti-scientific comments.


What's the rest of the sentence? What did the three sentences before that one say?

Why don't you look them up for yourself.



Sagan is quite explicit about that. You obviously didn't read far enough. (Is this your own work, by the way?)

Wrong again. You're batting -100% here.

I read the entire book. You're too lazy even to go to my few citations, which I personally wrote.





The question of abiogenesis is as yet unsolved. Most probably, the inherited information you're looking for arose by accident.


Obviously you're unfamiliar with the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis.

Look up the Nobel Laureate who said as much.




It's like you went through these books reading the odd sentence or two, probably with the specific aim of finding sentences you thought you could ridicule to your friends. You'll need to try a lot harder to gain credibility with other people. Start by reading the books in full.

Once you've done that, maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.

It's like I read these books cover to cover.

Next time you have criticisms of what others have cited, try looking them up for yourself. Don't be so lazy. Relying on the pathetic excuse of "out of context" is the height of laziness.

The only way to "gain credibility" with leftist know-it-alls is to agree with them/you. This is hardly representative of the scientific method.
Leftists know-it-alls would have condemned Copernicus for his heresy, and lit the flames to burn Giordano Bruno at the stake for proposing what all the know-it-alls at that time then knew to be "fact, fact, fact."

;)

Even hardcore atheists dont take Dawkins seriously these days, i wouldnt worry about him unduly. He tends to appeal to people who used to be religious but need a new form of religiosity and dogma to fill the void - in this instance evangelical atheism fills the gap perfectly.

The central problem with strong atheism is that it falls into the exact same trap that theism does - it assumes absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe. It replaces speculation with certainty.

Quite litterally, as the thread starter suggests dawkins 'knows it all'.

You don't know what you're talking about. I was never religious, but I respect the well thought out arguments of Dawkins tremendously. You misunderstand Dawkins' position, like most of his detractors. Dawkins never assumes absolute knowledge of the lack of a creator- never. He only says that the existence of such is so extremely unlikely that it makes no sense to believe it.

You don't know what you're talking about. I was never religious, but I respect the well thought out arguments of Dawkins tremendously. You misunderstand Dawkins' position, like most of his detractors. Dawkins never assumes absolute knowledge of the lack of a creator- never. He only says that the existence of such is so extremely unlikely that it makes no sense to believe it.

He generalises and picks and chooses his arguments to fit his bias, that makes him dishonest in my opinion. I think heliocentric is right, he appeals to people who are either ex-religion or have a beef with theists, or are simply unaware of his propensity to glorify atheism as an alternative religion.

The biggest flaw in his reasoning is to use science to judge faith. That makes him as guilty as those who use faith to judge science, as far as I'm concerned.

You don't have to be a theist to twist science to fit your beliefs.

He systematically addresses the arguments put forth by theists, what more do you expect him to do?

He confronts faith, which is believe in something in absence of evidence, with the tools of science. Why can't science have something to say about a proposition? Why should all other fields of study be subject to scientific inquiry, while faith is placed off-limits? Certainly the faithful attack science as often as they like, using ostensibly scientific means (rather than faith). I don't think there's anything wrong with that, if they have a case. They should also not object when scientists like Dawkins debunk their flawed arguments.

You don't have to be a theist to twist science to fit your beliefs.

but it sure helps.

He systematically addresses the arguments put forth by theists, what more do you expect him to do?

He confronts faith, which is believe in something in absence of evidence, with the tools of science. Why can't science have something to say about a proposition? Why should all other fields of study be subject to scientific inquiry, while faith is placed off-limits? Certainly the faithful attack science as often as they like, using ostensibly scientific means (rather than faith). I don't think there's anything wrong with that, if they have a case. They should also not object when scientists like Dawkins debunk their flawed arguments.

One cannot confront a proposition without an appropriate tool.

How can you use a tool of science to measure something that cannot be tested, replicated or observed?

If I make a negative claim in science, I must be able to test it and observe it; if I cannot, no scientist worth his salt will even consider the claim.

Apparently, this does not apply to Dawkins.

but it sure helps.

Not really, Indians are deeply religious and believe very strongly in the sanctity of life, yet there have been no attacks on abortion clinics or arguments against stem cell culture in India. Its easy to use religion as a podium to wield power, just as it is easy to use scientific credentials to obfuscate science. All you need is people who won't look too closely at the argument to see if you are being true to the principle you are supporting/defending.

I think this an example of how theists put their beliefs off-limits to rational investigation. Something created by an intelligent designer would leave indications that it was designed, rather than evolved through a natural process. Theists make claims about reality that can be placed under scientific scrutiny, such as miracles, the effectiveness of prayer, wealth and health benefits from being pious, ect.

How can you use a tool of science to measure something that cannot be tested, replicated or observed?

It's not really a question of tools. The central dogma of science is that the world is the result of natural processes.

Theists often overlook this simple fact because you can still do science and be a theist because you are looking at a small problem when doing science. If you did science with integrity however you can't really take any other position that the world is the result of natural processes. If everything is the result of natural processes there is no room for god.

How could you trust the results of your peers on different subjects if they are working on a topic that is not the result of natural processes? You cannot. Hence all research topics must be accepted as being the study of natural processes. If all topics have natural causes there is no room for supernatural causes.

I know how the human mind works. It doesn't work rationally. Hence it skips the central dogma of science if personal believes are at stake.

If I make a negative claim in science, I must be able to test it and observe it; if I cannot, no scientist worth his salt will even consider the claim.

Apparently, this does not apply to Dawkins.

Dawkins is very, very careful to say that he cannot assert with 100% certainty there is no God, only that it is very unlikely. He does in fact support this assertion with reasoned arguments and evidence.

I suspect that Sock Puppet Path behaves in such a vile, anti-intellectual manner often. It comes quite naturally to Leftists and atheists.

Incorrect. It comes quite naturally to any frustrated humans.

It's not really a question of tools. The central dogma of science is that the world is the result of natural processes.

Theists often overlook this simple fact because you can still do science and be a theist because you are looking at a small problem when doing science. If you did science with integrity however you can't really take any other position that the world is the result of natural processes. If everything is the result of natural processes there is no room for god.

How could you trust the results of your peers on different subjects if they are working on a topic that is not the result of natural processes? You cannot. Hence all research topics must be accepted as being the study of natural processes. If all topics have natural causes there is no room for supernatural causes.

I know how the human mind works. It doesn't work rationally. Hence it skips the central dogma of science if personal believes are at stake.

What is a natural process?

Dawkins is very, very careful to say that he cannot assert with 100% certainty there is no God, only that it is very unlikely. He does in fact support this assertion with reasoned arguments and evidence.

I know what he says, I've read it. Does he call himself an agnostic?:)

What is a natural process?

Well, i'm sure you can answer that one yourself if you claim to be a scientist.

Well, i'm sure you can answer that one yourself if you claim to be a scientist.

How is that an answer? Is the hydrogenation of oil a natural process? Is plastic? What about food supplementation, suntan oil and sugar? Stem cell technology, cloning, is that natural? Or supernatural? Or artificial?

How is that an answer? Is the hydrogenation of oil a natural process? Is plastic? What about food supplementation, suntan oil and sugar? Stem cell technology, cloning, is that natural? Or supernatural? Or artificial?

All that you have mentioned are caused by natural processes.

Turning water into wine would be a supernatural process.

Unless the process involves a shipment of grapes and a batch of yeast.

I know what he says, I've read it. Does he call himself an agnostic?:)

No, because an agnostic says it's not possible to study the question, that science can make no judgements about God. Dawkins points out that science can make judgements about the assertions of faith, as well as the human nature of belief.

If can say that the moon landing was real, even if I acknowledge the slight possibility that it was a hoax. Since I was not present at the time, I cannot say with 100% certainty that men landed on the moon, but the contrary explanation is so unlikely as to be for most practical purposes untrue. I should also point out that even scientific "laws" contain the slight possibility of being false. Everything in science is only true to a reasonable degree. Scientific advances depend on this doubt.

All that you have mentioned are caused by natural processes.

Turning water into wine would be a supernatural process.

Unless the process involves a shipment of grapes and a batch of yeast.

IOW, a process is natural once it can be explained, regardless of whether the products of the process are naturally present or not.

But why do you define any process as being natural?

No, because an agnostic says it's not possible to study the question, that science can make no judgements about God. Dawkins points out that science can make judgements about the assertions of faith, as well as the human nature of belief.

If can say that the moon landing was real, even if I acknowledge the slight possibility that it was a hoax. Since I was not present at the time, I cannot say with 100% certainty that men landed on the moon, but the contrary explanation is so unlikely as to be for most practical purposes untrue. I should also point out that even scientific "laws" contain the slight possibility of being false. Everything in science is only true to a reasonable degree. Scientific advances depend on this doubt.


If you think science can make judgments about anything, then you need to review Science 101 too.

paucorumhominum:

1. I took absolutely nothing out of context. IF I had done so, you would have cited my errors.

You took everything out of context. You cited single sentences, or fragments of single sentences. Be brave: cite entire paragraphs, or at least enough to give the correct context.

But you did not, because you are clearly too lazy even to look up my citations.

I have no doubt that your out-of-context quotes read as you presented them. But without context, your entire post is useless as any kind of unbiased analysis. You remind me of the infamous creationist "Quote book".

"Homophobia" means "fear of men." I have no such fear.

Jsut so you know, "homophobia" is commonly taken to mean fear of homosexual people. Actually, I suspect you knew that, but I'd rather think you ignorant than deliberately deceptive. Benefit of the doubt.

You make false accusations in a puerile attempt to change the subject.

Explain to me how your little asides about gay people are at all relevant in a post ostensibly about a couple of books on unrelated subjects.

This is terribly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific of you.

*yawn*

What's the rest of the sentence? What did the three sentences before that one say?

Why don't you look them up for yourself.

Too lazy. :)

Also, I had hoped I might prompt you to re-read them in context, and thus cast a more critical eye over your initial conclusions.

The question of abiogenesis is as yet unsolved. Most probably, the inherited information you're looking for arose by accident.

Obviously you're unfamiliar with the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis.

You're right. I am unfamiliar with your "insuperable statistics". A brief summary would be nice at this point, to clarify the issue for others who may similarly be less informed than you. Be my guest.

Look up the Nobel Laureate who said as much.

Which Nobel Laureate? Are you going to make me guess?

Next time you have criticisms of what others have cited, try looking them up for yourself. Don't be so lazy. Relying on the pathetic excuse of "out of context" is the height of laziness.

No context was presented.

My point is self-evident.

The only way to "gain credibility" with leftist know-it-alls is to agree with them/you.

How you presume to know what my politics is, or how my political views might be relevant to the current discussion, puzzles me. Maybe this is just an aside, akin to your issues with gay people.

Leftists know-it-alls would have condemned Copernicus for his heresy, and lit the flames to burn Giordano Bruno at the stake for proposing what all the know-it-alls at that time then knew to be "fact, fact, fact."

Yes, they all laughed at Copernicus. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. The take-away message is that most people who are laughed at turn out to be wrong. Only rarely do they turn out to be right. So, not much of a rallying cry.

If you think science can make judgments about anything, then you need to review Science 101 too.

I think the scientific method can be used to study anything.

I think the scientific method can be used to study anything.

You're a victim of inductive speculation.:shrug:

It is laughable to accuse leftists of being the ones who would have condemned Copernicus and burned Bruno. Right wing conservatives are always the ones who are certain of being right. Suspending judgment in the face of uncertain facts is a learned discipline. Insisting on dogmatic certainty is chiefly the characteristic of conservatives.

When a scientific theory is challenged, the defenders don't arm themselves and try to kill the heretics. They respond by insisting on evidence. Violence is used by the religious, because there is no other way to respond to challenges to immutable dogma.

What science cannot tell us, man cannot know.
-- Bertrand Russell

Wasn't it actually rightists that condemned Copernicus and burned Bruno?

It is laughable to accuse leftists of being the ones who would have condemned Copernicus and burned Bruno. Right wing conservatives are always the ones who are certain of being right. Suspending judgment in the face of uncertain facts is a learned discipline. Insisting on dogmatic certainty is chiefly the characteristic of conservatives.

When a scientific theory is challenged, the defenders don't arm themselves and try to kill the heretics. They respond by insisting on evidence. Violence is used by the religious, because there is no other way to respond to challenges to immutable dogma.

What science cannot tell us, man cannot know.
-- Bertrand Russell

That explains why most suicide bombers are Marxists.

You're a victim of inductive speculation.:shrug:

Please explain.

Please explain.

Science is not about getting evidence to reach conclusions (inductive speculation) but about choosing the hypothesis/conclusion which best explains the relevant available evidence (abductive reasoning)

If you believe science/the scientific method can be used to study/explain everything, you are speculating based on evidence not available.:)

Well I didn't say science could explain everything now, only that no subject is off limits to scientific investigation.

Well I didn't say science could explain everything now, only that no subject is off limits to scientific investigation.


Unless the hypothesis is testable and repeatable, it is generally a waste of time.

Like prayer?

Like prayer?

As a scientific hypothesis? I would say yes. What would the endpoint be?

Unless the hypothesis is testable and repeatable, it is generally a waste of time.

Untestable hypotheses are unscientific. (See science).

However, a hypothesis need not be repeatable to be open to scientific enquiry. A lot of historical research, archaeology and so on, deals with one-off events.

Untestable hypotheses are unscientific. (See science).

However, a hypothesis need not be repeatable to be open to scientific enquiry. A lot of historical research, archaeology and so on, deals with one-off events.

Thats interesting, how do they verify these hypotheses?

Thats interesting, how do they verify these hypotheses?

Well, like you said, they "repeat" them.

See, scientists have "repeated" :

1. The Big Bang
2. Abiogenesis
3. The fossilization of countless animals
4. The Tungusta Explosion
5. The Cambrian Explosion

to name but a few of our "repeated" experiments, all in the "name of science" (wink, nudge)

Such Arguments from Authority are as weak as they are widespread.

It's not really a question of tools. The central dogma of science is that the world is the result of natural processes.

Theists often overlook this simple fact because you can still do science and be a theist because you are looking at a small problem when doing science. If you did science with integrity however you can't really take any other position that the world is the result of natural processes. If everything is the result of natural processes there is no room for god.

How could you trust the results of your peers on different subjects if they are working on a topic that is not the result of natural processes? You cannot. Hence all research topics must be accepted as being the study of natural processes. If all topics have natural causes there is no room for supernatural causes.

I know how the human mind works. It doesn't work rationally. Hence it skips the central dogma of science if personal believes [SIC] are at stake.

"THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF SCIENCE..."

Science begins with a self-imposed dogma of naturalism. This circular logic makes conclusions based on its own definitional dogma, and you call that intellectual for some reason.

"Let's see, there is no god, and so we must conclude that there is no god."

"Atheist liberals - oh the inhumanity." - Me

Thats interesting, how do they verify these hypotheses?

Accumulation of supporting evidence.

For example, suppose you want to verfiy that a historical event such as the Battle of Britain actually occurred. What do you do? Answer: You gather documentary evidence written about that event at the time. You interview any people who have direct knowledge. You might find physical evidence of downed aircraft etc. In the end, you have enough evidence to say with some certainty whether the event occurred or not, and, if it did, what happened.

Archaeology is no different. In fact, researching even something as recent as the Battle of Britain can involve archeology.

Well, like you said, they "repeat" them.

See, scientists have "repeated" :

1. The Big Bang
2. Abiogenesis
3. The fossilization of countless animals
4. The Tungusta Explosion
5. The Cambrian Explosion

Scientists gather an accumulation of evidence for all these things. The Big Bang, or the Cambrian explosion, for example, is supported by an accumulation of evidence of many different types. All the evidence taken together points inevitably to the conclusion that these events occurred.

"THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF SCIENCE..."

Science begins with a self-imposed dogma of naturalism. This circular logic makes conclusions based on its own definitional dogma, and you call that intellectual for some reason.

Half right.

Yes, science has a "dogma" that explanations must have "naturalistic" causes. In other words, science draws a stark line in the sand. It says that if only a "supernatural" cause is postulated for a particular occurrence, then that occurrence is, by definition not scientific. Science cannot investigate it, except possibly to determine (a) whether the occurrence was real or whether people are mistaken about the occurrence, or (b) whether there is an alternative, naturalistic explanation for the supposedly "supernatural" event.

The half you got wrong was the circularity part. Saying "science only permits naturalistic explanations" is not at all circular.

4. The Tungusta Explosion


I think you mean 'Tunguska', and what is it you allege scientists are repeating over this one?

As for the rest, there is evidence that leads us to the theories.

The half you got wrong was the circularity part. Saying "science only permits naturalistic explanations" is not at all circular.

The root word of science is "scientia," Latin for "knowledge."

To pretend that we seek knowledge only if it is naturalistic hardly constitutes an actual search for.... knowledge.

Moreover, there are thousands of scientific experiments ongoing at any time seeking supernatural events, causes, and correlations.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

The root word of science is "scientia," Latin for "knowledge."

To pretend that we seek knowledge only if it is naturalistic hardly constitutes an actual search for.... knowledge. The word root for "dumbass" is "dumb", Middle English for "lacking the power of speech".

To say that all fundie religious folks who can't comprehend the basics of scientific inquiry are dumbasses hardly constitutes an in insult to their collective - - - intelligence.

The root word of science is "scientia," Latin for "knowledge."

To pretend that we seek knowledge only if it is naturalistic hardly constitutes an actual search for.... knowledge.

Nobody is pretending anything.

I've simply told you what science is. Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural one.

Moreover, there are thousands of scientific experiments ongoing at any time seeking supernatural events, causes, and correlations.

No there aren't.

Ha ha, yes, he's a bit of a lying idiot there with that last bit, isn't he James!

Scientific Know-it-alls

Yeah, those silly scientists that investigate the world around us and determine what is true! Are they loopy or what?