Berlinski on Dawkins

Little bit of a reptile!!

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Darwin
• Evolution
• Atheism
• Religion
• Berlinski
• Dawkins
• Expelled

[philackey]

Ok Evos explain how abiogenisis can achieve chirality. How can BILLIONS of amino acids form molecules with all left-handedness to form DNA. This isn't debatable you cannot randomly achieve chirality. If you cannot provide a mechanism to explain your theory, Aabiogenesis cannot be considered. Not until you you give a testable, verifiable solution. The scientific method requires OBSERVATION!! You can't say just because we don't know, someday we might. True science demands proof.

[LowresTV]

Why are creationists  so arrogant? The ignorant's arrogance.

[bestvalue]

@LowresTV Berlinski is an agnostic, not a creationist. Why do atheists call anyone who disagrees with them creationists without having a clue about their true position?

[murdocha]

@philackey Dang, you're right. God did it. Well, back to the drawing board.



[quanahblaine]

@movieklump Ah. The old "ad hominem" counter from an "ad hominem" counter. Good luck movieklump. You obviously inferred something from my original statement to think it qualifies this type of response. I consider this matter closed.

[movieklump]

Berlinski's body language and speech are designed, wittingly or unwittingly, to give the impression of intellectual superiority. Yet what he actually says is idiotic. He shows the traits of a sociopath, someone who will say anything to reach notoriety as he knows he is blessed with intellectual mediocrity in the field of science. To compare Berlinksi with Dawkins is a joke.

[movieklump]

@quanahblaine Four ad hominem attacks without ANY argument what so ever.

"Put more thought into your argument". ad hominem

"....court jester" ad hominem.

"....most compelling language" ad hominem

"elementary school language" ad hominem.

Four ad hominem attacks in one paragraph, all delivered with smug derision without ANY counter argument at all.

Congratulations!

You just proved that personal belief is like mental manure without the scientific method.

[quanahblaine]

@movieklump Do yourself a favor: Put more thought into your argument. I'm going to immediately dismiss it like I would a court jester who's antics have become old. No matter anyone's opinion, the one that provides the greatest debate is the one that has the most compelling language, not the most elementary school language.

[movieklump]

@quanahblaine Design is not intelligent. eg, your teeth, your back, your appendix etc etc Therefore there is

a) no intelligent design.

b) the designer is an idiot

c) people who believe in intelligent design are idiots.

[quanahblaine]

@LogicIrrefutable Those 2 arguments don't belong in the same room. Evolutionary Biology is not an argument against creationism. Hence, why Dawkins treads on thin ice in offering his opinion based on scientific data. Scientific data has yet to prove or disprove intelligent design. Until it does, personal belief will rule. It's simple.

[mathforphysics]

@chichipukaka

But he isn't a very good mathematician.

[ThieleM]

Argument from authority...and ad hominem.

There is no argument here