There probably is life out there besides here but there is no way to discern that probability other than to compare the probability of life in the universe to the probability that a planet is just the right distance from the sun (e.i. the probability that a planet is in the Goldilocks Zone http://goo.gl/5uUQ)... among other properties that are necessary for a planet to be habitable by the life on our planet.

Why does she refuse to accept that DNA=Evidence in one form or another

She refused to acknowledge the existence of any of the mountain of evidence as evidence and clearly demonstrated that knowledge of the relevant sciences is not only unnecessary but that theories proposed by people with zero knowledge of the sciences should have equal validity with actual science.

She is a moron.

On a side note, I did just watch all seven parts. This is the first time I've seen Dawkins in an extended debate. He seems a bit sheepish but highly knowledgable and excellent at defending his position.

I was surprised how nice Dawkins was! If he was always that nice I would have great respect for him, however his passions and feelings towards religion usally makes him rather hostile. Wendy Wright was an absolute fail, my creationist friends dont even use those arguments. So far I have only watched the first video, I do hope Dawkins continues to be nice to her even though she has done the usual creationist propaganda nonsense.

(August 7, 2010 at 4:43 am)solja247 Wrote: I was surprised how nice Dawkins was! If he was always that nice I would have great respect for him, however his passions and feelings towards religion usally makes him rather hostile. Wendy Wright was an absolute fail, my creationist friends dont even use those arguments. So far I have only watched the first video, I do hope Dawkins continues to be nice to her even though she has done the usual creationist propaganda nonsense.

Why the focus on whether he is 'nice' or not? It's what he's saying that's important.

If anything, he is way too nice, letting himself be interrupted etc. Boggles my mind that people often accuse him of stuff like shrillness, hostility, aggressiveness, etc. He is polite calmness squared. I just don't get it.

[youtube]X2NhWu1GvE8[/youtube]

Nice but dim (when it comes to theology)

Quote:Why the focus on whether he is 'nice' or not? It's what he's saying that's important.

If anything, he is way too nice, letting himself be interrupted etc. Boggles my mind that people often accuse him of stuff like shrillness, hostility, aggressiveness, etc. He is polite calmness squared. I just don't get it.

If I was a creationist watching that video, I would be convinced that there was no battle between evolution vs creation (as there isnt any, only creationists think there is) and would have to look at what he is saying since he is being completely rational....

(August 8, 2010 at 6:46 am)solja247 Wrote: If I was a creationist watching that video, I would be convinced that there was no battle between evolution vs creation (as there isnt any, only creationists think there is) and would have to look at what he is saying since he is being completely rational....

But if you were a creationist, you would deny his arguments no matter how rational. You would put your faith first, giving it a stronger priority and figuring that there must be some reason that Dawkins is wrong. Maybe the devil is planting false evidence, maybe the scientists are in an evil anti-god conspiracy, or maybe like Wendy in the video, you can just pretend over and over that the evidence is not being presented and instead keep asking where it is.

Faith does not listen to rational anything. It takes pride in not listening.

Quote:I do hope Dawkins continues to be nice to her

I'd like to see him take out a hammer and bash her stupid fucking head in.....but that's probably just me.

(August 8, 2010 at 10:59 am)Minimalist Wrote: I'd like to see him take out a hammer and bash her stupid fucking head in.....but that's probably just me.

Incorrect. Not just you old boy.