But the invisible man can be known to exist by the evidence he leaves behind
Which is why I changed it into "undetectable man", to be more on par with the unfalsifiable nature of the god AV believes in.
You know, that design that is so apparent in biological systems that Dawkins was forced to go to an alien race creating man to avoid the logical conclusion......
LOL!!!!!
Dishonest creationist propaganda makes another victim..... See, this is just one more example of how we can know that you are not honest, or at least that you are incredibly ill-informed.
Here's the background of that story.....
Ben Stein makes a creationist propaganda flick called "Expelled: no intelligence allowed". He tries to get some big names for interviews for in the flick. Dawkins is a prime target. However, he knows that Dawkins has far too much integrity and dignity to willingly participate in a show where the goal literally is anti-science propaganda. So,
he lies. He says it's an educational documentary about science instead. Dawkins accepts.
During the interview, Dawkins is asked the following question:
"
Let's suppose that first life was in fact designed. Given that assumptions, what would be your explanation?"
So effectively, Dawkins is asked to
bend over backwards and ASSUME that life is designed and to then give his "best guess" as to how that could have come about.
Dawkins, already sensing that something fishy is going on, answers something along the lines of that the only reasonable option seems to be that some advanced alien civilisation seeded life on earth to terraform the planet and that evolution took over from there. He immediatly goes on to say that those aliens themselves also must have had to come about through some darwinian mechanism and with some kind of origin of life.
He goes on to explain how this doesn't solve the question of how life can come about at all and reïterates that he was asked to bend over backwards for no particular reason - since there is no reason to assume life was designed at all, and that this assumptions just moves the question of how life came about to another planet in another time.
But that part is off course quickly edited/cut and doesn't show up in the final "documentary".
See....
So this is the level of discourse we get from you.
Lies upon lies upon lies.
Misrepresentation after misrepresentation.
References to sources that are blatantly intellectually dishonest. And simply dishonest, full stop.
I notice you don't have a problem with Dark Matter or Dark Energy which can never be seen or directly detected....
Neither can a black hole.
There's indirect detection there.
And no, I don't have any problem with
any provisional scientific explanation. Precisely because of its provisional and scientific nature.
If tomorrow dark matter is refuted and replaced with something that fits the evidence better, I won't be weeping. I'll be cheering. My world won't come crumbling down. Instead, new worlds will open up.
Can you say the same as a fundamentalist theist?
I say you can't. In fact, if I've learned anything from fundamentalist theists, it seems as if their whole world will collapse if they find out that their religious beliefs are wrong. Some even go so far as saying that their fundamentalist belief is the only thing that keeps them from going on killing sprees.
So that unfalsifiable nature strawman only comes into belief by you when it comes to God, right??????
No, only in your fantasies.
