"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Enoch07]

Yes, an attack article even admitted that Dawkins tried to make up for past errors. That refutes your claim all by itself.

It is fine if you do not like someone. Making false claims against that person is wrong no matter what he believes or what he supports.

I didn't make up anything. I am not a writer for the Guardian. Talk to them if you are displeased.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

.
.
Human science’s answer to why atoms seem solid is ‘because it’s magic’
They have spent way over $13,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers money on the Hadron Collider at Cern
in the hope it will give them some answer other than ‘because it’s magic’
9 years later, it hasn’t
They have attempted to mask this by giving the PR impression that the Higgs Boson is matter
It isn’t. It is still energy. They divide energy and divide energy and divide energy in the hope of finding matter, and all they end up with is more energy

You do realize that matter and energy are essentially the same thing, right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't make up anything. I am not a writer for the Guardian. Talk to them if you are displeased.

Subduction Zone isn't contesting the article or its authenticity, they're contesting the use of it to paint Richard Dawkins in a specific light without the context of his subsequent apologies and the acknowledgement that his views on women (or a specific instance of an expression thereof) in no way impugns his work as a scientist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't make up anything. I am not a writer for the Guardian. Talk to them if you are displeased.

You were the one that made the bogus claim. The article you cited did not support your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone isn't contesting the article or its authenticity, they're contesting the use of it to paint Richard Dawkins in a specific light without the context of his subsequent apologies and the acknowledgement that his views on women in no way impugn his work as a scientist.

Exactly, using an article that only showed that Dawkins made errors in the past does not support that claim of "bigotry and hatred". Strange how he ran away from those claims when the article that he cited did not make such claims.

 

[Enoch07]

Subduction Zone isn't contesting the article or its authenticity, they're contesting the use of it to paint Richard Dawkins in a specific light without the context of his subsequent apologies and the acknowledgement that his views on women in no way impugn his work as a scientist.

Take it up with the Guardian then. I didn't write the article, I just read it, and presented it here.

 

[Enoch07]

You were the one that made the bogus claim. The article you cited did not support your claim.

Take it up with the Guardian then. I didn't write the article, I just read it, and presented it here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Enoch, you were the one that made a claim about Dawkins that you cannot support. It is rather apparent who has the "beam" in his eye. You do realize that bearing false witness against others go beyond simple lying, don't you?

 

[Skwim]

Why the pressure for us to discard our beliefs!

A question as to how you stand on creationism is pressure to discard your beliefs? Really? Gotta say, that's kind of sad.

This question is not just a question about an old revered book - which you seem to think it is.

No. You seem to think I think it is. What I know is that it's a question that asks the creationist if his stance on creationism is an intractable one against the evidence supporting evolution.

.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Take it up with the Guardian then. I didn't write the article, I just read it, and presented it here.

Did you even read my post?

Again, neither me or Subduction Zone have an issue with the article.

Do you understand that?

 

[Enoch07]

Enoch, you were the one that made a claim about Dawkins that you cannot support. It is rather apparent who has the "beam" in his eye. You do realize that bearing false witness against others go beyond simple lying, don't you?

I'll let Richard tell you himself.

 

[Enoch07]

Did you even read my post?

Again, neither me or Subduction Zone have an issue with the article.

Do you understand that?

Take it up with the Guardian then. I didn't write the article.

Don't shoot the messenger brotha!

 

[Skwim]

To be fair Dawkins is earning that allegation. Both him and Sam Harris have chosen the path of bigotry and hatred.

Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee

"The atheist movement"!!! (from the article). You have to be kidding. Do you really buy into this kind of fictional journalism? No need to answer. Obviously you do.

.

 

[Enoch07]

"The atheist movement"!!! (from the article). You have to be kidding. Do you really buy into this kind of fictional journalism? No need to answer. Obviously you do.

Nope, this is the Guardian though. Which is an extremely left leaning news organization. So take it for what it's worth, or not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't shoot the messenger brotha!

That depends whether the messenger is being deliberately obtuse and omitting information.

Simple question: Do you understand what Subduction Zone's issue is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll let Richard tell you himself.

Still failing. From what we see that speech was about specific feminists. Did you listen to it? Apparently not. The feminists that he is talking about there are crazy.

Pointing out that some members of a group, that are crazy, are crazy is not bigotry nor hatred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, this is the Guardian though. Which is an extremely left leaning news organization. So take it for what it's worth, or not.

Left leaning means that they have their own agenda. The far left eats their own, just as the far right does. Try to find a source that supports your claims. By the way, Dawkins later clarified his views, that was in the Guardian article. In other words your own article refuted your claims, not the Guardians claims.

 

[Enoch07]

That depends whether the messenger is being deliberately obtuse and omitting information.

No deliberation to be had here. #handsupdontshoot

Still failing. From what we see that speech was about specific feminists. Did you listen to it? Apparently not. The feminists that he is talking about there are crazy.

Well if you agree with him then my job is done here. Toodles!

 

[Skwim]

I'll let Richard tell you himself.

OMG, You missed the entire point of his presentation. And, no, I'm not going to explain it to you. I prefer to leave it to you as a learning challenge. Now, go and watch it again.

.

 

[Enoch07]

Left leaning means that they have their own agenda. The far left eats their own, just as the far right does. Try to find a source that supports your claims. By the way, Dawkins later clarified his views, that was in the Guardian article. In other words your own article refuted your claims, not the Guardians claims.

Take it up with the Guardian. They are the ones that titled the article as:

Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee