(January 13, 2015 at 3:49 am)bob96 Wrote: Dawkin's himself has acknowledged that there is not enough time in the Universe for it to have self assembled, blind mutation after blind mutation.

You say "Dawkins himself" as if he were a particularly important figure in evolutionary biology research. Anyways, where do you think he says that? Because you most certainly misunderstood it, misquote it, or it's simply made up.

Ray comfort is one of the worst for that quote mining. He's one of the worst for just about everything actually.

---

I think we need to get rid of this idea that one out of context quote disproves established scientific theories. Or even an in context quote.

(January 13, 2015 at 11:01 am)robvalue Wrote: I think we need to get rid of this idea that one out of context quote disproves established scientific theories. Or even an in context quote.

Only the religious + scientifically illiterate think that quotes have any bearing in such a discussion, because that's all they have for their faith.

(January 13, 2015 at 3:49 am)bob96 Wrote: Why would you say that all of the man-made things in New York city are more complex? We know precisely how everything works.

The latter point is not a measure of complexity; human knowledge of a given thing is not the arbiter of the nature of that thing. If you present to me a box with a light on it, and the light works via a simple battery inside the box, but I don't know that, that doesn't mean that New York is less complex than what's inside the box. It just means that I don't know how the box works.

Why are you so attached to the argument from ignorance?

Quote: Our understanding of the bacteria is very much incomplete.

Yours more than most. But your ignorance of how bacteria work- and more broadly your ignorance as to how science works, as every field of study is incomplete, or else it would stop- is not an excuse for god belief.

Quote:Dawkin's himself has acknowledged that there is not enough time in the Universe for it to have self assembled, blind mutation after blind mutation.

Okay, so first of all, still don't care; Dawkins being wrong about something carries no weight with me.

That said, I highly doubt he actually said this; it's more likely you're clinging to a creationist quote mine, than that you're accurately representing the position of Dawkins, especially when we actually know how bacteria evolved.

(January 13, 2015 at 3:49 am)bob96 Wrote: Dawkin's himself has acknowledged that there is not enough time in the Universe for it to have self assembled, blind mutation after blind mutation.

I do not recollect that quote, but for sake of argument, it is obviously wrong. Here we are. To believe that this is the only universe, IMHO, is ridiculous. This is just the one where the one in a million chance the universe worked. Had the universe not, we would not be here discussing it. It has been shown, time and time again, that we can simulate early earth conditions that would generate all the necessary building blocks of life.

That's the good thing about science. It doesn't make any difference who says what. It all comes down to evidence. Unlike religion, we don't just accept stuff that certain figures say (or are quoted as saying). Dawkins could announce himself christian tomorrow and it would make no difference to anything.

(January 13, 2015 at 2:34 am)bob96 Wrote:

(January 12, 2015 at 6:55 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Argument from Authority.

Fail.

Yes, but they are *your* authorities! The most brilliant minds in science believe in God. For many, it was science that changed their minds.

You obviously don't understand your fallacy. Their expertise is in their field. Citing them as support for any case outside their specialty is fallaciously asserting their authority in the case under question.

Never mind the fact that you're misrepresenting Einstein's beliefs altogether.

Color me shocked -- another dishonest argument from a Christian.

---

(January 13, 2015 at 3:49 am)bob96 Wrote:

(January 12, 2015 at 5:28 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The former, though I've no doubt you'll go on to tell me it's the latter, based solely on the fact that you don't understand biology so well.

Either point of which would be entirely moot, given that "it's so complex, and I can't see how that would have happened naturally!" is still only evidence for your ignorance of how it could have happened naturally and not evidence for god.

Why would you say that all of the man-made things in New York city are more complex? We know precisely how everything works. Our understanding of the bacteria is very much incomplete. Dawkin's himself has acknowledged that there is not enough time in the Universe for it to have self assembled, blind mutation after blind mutation.

False, and probably deliberately so.

(January 13, 2015 at 2:34 am)bob96 Wrote:

Quote:“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.’”

–Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, former post-doctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology and author of The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God.

What bull *Sigh*.
You should really be reading a science book, not that propaganda nonsense. Of course I have the strong suspicion that you don't care about the truth.

---

(January 13, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Never mind the fact that you're misrepresenting Einstein's beliefs altogether.

It's not like I haven't provided the relevant correction straight away. But that's the creationist for you, lying for Jesus till he comes home.

Allah.

(January 13, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Allah.

I ain't no Allah-back girl.