Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly that desperation.

Sorry, but it seems that you are projecting. You are the one that is using a failed and dishonest tactic for arguing against evolution. I gave you a more than reasonable challenge and you ran away from it. That reeks of cowardice.

 

[florida2]

No, we've been through that already.
Why don't you just give it up and ignore the topic?

But your quotes are out of context, even some with parts removed from within them. Such as the one from the judge (who is not a revered scientist as your thread title incorrectly claims) which you cut the middle out of. When you read the whole thing he passed no judgement whatsoever on whether the ID claims were true or not but instead said that there were not science.

Nothing anti-evolution at all in what he said, so I do wonder why on Earth you posted it? In fact it's anti-ID since it shows it needs to be kept out of the science classroom.

Again, do you think this sort of thing is an honest way to carry on?

 

[florida2]

LOL!

You are a funny guy.

Here is a taste of some comedy gold:

I've seen that clip numerous times and makes me cringe and laugh in equal measure. Dawkins has much more patience than I would have!

 

[bhsmte]

I've seen that clip numerous times and makes me cringe and laugh in equal measure. Dawkins has much more patience than I would have!

It is a classic!

 

[Hieronymus]

Wow, Dawkins crushing a weak opponent with his arrogance...
What else is new?

Maybe i'll look up some debates, like mrs. Scott would have referred to as 'not good' for the church of naturalism.
I have no debates bookmarked.

You do know Ricky D. has refused to debate able opponents too, don't you?

I don't like debates too much, i don't like watching 'fights'.

 

[lasthero]

You do know Ricky D. has refused to debate able opponents too, don't you?

When did he say that?

 

[Hieronymus]

When did he say that?

He didn't show up for debating WL Craig.
He refused to debate Steven Meyer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He didn't show up for debating WL Craig.
He refused to debate Steven Meyer.

Do you have any citations that support that claim, or is it mere internet rumor? At any rate Craig is a bit of a "Johnny One Note" and his claims have been thoroughly refuted. Only the uneducated find him interesting any longer. Meyer again suffers from the terrible creationist disease of dishonesty. He can't honestly debate against the theory of evolution.

ETA: Don't bother on substantiating your claim for the Billy Craig debate. Dawkins never agreed to such a debate so there was no debate that he did not show up for:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

 

[lasthero]

He didn't show up for debating WL Craig.

He has debated Willian Lane Craig.
He refused to debate Steven Meyer.[/QUOTE]

And yet he has debated Alistar McGrath, Jonathan Sacks, Rowan Williams, Michio Kaku and others. Why are they not 'able opponents'?

 

[Hieronymus]

I was waiting for one of you to come up with excuses.
It doesn't change the fact though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was waiting for one of you to come up with excuses.
It doesn't change the fact though.

What fact? Once again Billy's nonsense has been rather thoroughly refuted. He has nothing but the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Why bother with such low hanging fruit?

 

[Hieronymus]

He has debated Willian Lane Craig.

Not one on one as was the appointment.

Maybe this is why:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)."
(R Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker")

I don't know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not one on one as was the appointment.

Maybe this is why:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)."
(R Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker")

I don't know.

So far that quote of Dawkins has been shown to be correct. Can you find someone that does not meet one of those qualifications and accepts creationism? I am betting that you can't.

 

[Hieronymus]

What fact?

Afore mentioned fact.

Why bother with such low hanging fruit?

So you actually do admit to the fact...
smh...

 

[The Cadet]

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.
(EC Scott, New Scientist, April 22 2000, p.46)

Hey, what do you know - this one is accurate and more or less in context. Shame you didn't understand what it meant, but gradually things are getting better.

Also, any chance of a response to post 136 or 140?

 

[Hieronymus]

All because of this shizzle:

Evolution is unproven and unprovable.
We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.
(Sir Arthur Keith)

... for we can not allow a Divine Foot in the door.
(Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of Demons," the New York Review, Januari 9, 1997,p. 31)

... that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism.
(Steven Pinker "How the mind works" p.162)

So it's religion, and by choice.
And you thought it was science, because that's how they sell it regardlessly.
And now you dislike my topic because it is unacceptable what your prophets have admitted.

And i agree, it IS unacceptable.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'll leave you guys for now, so you can agree with eachother without me ruining it.

Laterrrrr.............

 

[Chris B]

Nope, it violates the laws of matter and energy...
..Appearance is based on the evidence.[/QUOTE

So you oppose the views of these particular revered scientists?
That needs to be done with care.
The physicists very probably understand the laws of matter and energy better than you.
And *everyone* should know that *first* appearances can be deceptive.

A stack of balanced rocks must have been put there?

"The Cheesewring", local to me.

 

[Chris B]

Armoured said: ↑
So you know more than Davies and Hawking, do you?

You think they don't know?

I think they knew exactly what they were saying,
And also that you find that unacceptable so need to find some way to deny or discount their most adequately clear statements.

 

[Chris B]

No,you can see in the quote that it's only the essence and the 'chaff' is not quoted.
It still means the same, as you may have noticed.

"Chaff" here falls under Humpty-Dumptyism.
"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

The bits left out are not chaff, and they DO change the meaning of trimmed "quote".
Calling it "chaff" does not make it so. And the missing interposed sentence is highly relevant.