(January 3, 2013 at 11:19 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Dawkins said that based on the evidence that Tyson presented before about how abundant the ingredients for life were and how fast it develops when given the chance and how silly someone would be to believe that life exists only on earth given the infinity of the universe.
What was "the implication of his statement" then? Why do you seem to suggest that Dawkins was trying to backtrack in some way when he "realised" that implication?
In the video, Dawkins is pointing out that abiogenesis should not be considered improbable, given the facts that Tyson has just laid out.
(January 3, 2013 at 11:19 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: So baring something tremendously rare on earth which does not seem to be the case there should be life a plenty in the universe. He said it and Tyson agreed. The fact that when he started the statement he was trying to suggest how stupid people were that believed that life only exists on earth does not mean I can't use the well reasoned out thinking to ask my question.
Btw theists do not believe that Man was the only intelligent creation of God.
It seems that you've changed your interpretation of what was being said.
(January 3, 2013 at 11:19 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: So your answer to the question is it doesn't deserve an answer.
No, my answer was laid out clearly, and you apparently find it unacceptable.
(January 3, 2013 at 11:19 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Well I will answer for you until you do give an answer.. GOD is the stupendously improbable theory that you choose to refuse to allow even a space for in your thinking by not even accepting it as a theory even if you believe it to be a stupid , idiotic , unprovable and dangerous theory.
I repeat, "GOD" is not a scientific theory at all.
Quote:From "Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions":
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.
[Emphasis mine]
What repeated testing has the idea of "GOD" been subjected to? The fact is, your Bible specifically and clearly says that your god is not to be tested (Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, and Luke 4:12).
(January 3, 2013 at 11:19 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: also I did clip it because it was the bit I needed but I did acknowledge that the followup existed and left it for you guys to listen to it if you wanted. . .
I was not talking about the followup, and you know it.
(January 3, 2013 at 11:19 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: . . .but the followup does not answer my question it just dodged it but who knows if Dawkins ever debates with a top Christian Apologist again they may force the issue just as when he was forced to recant his Claim that Jesus never existed. But I think he got a bloody nose before and wont be back at least not alone.
Please cite a source for your assertion that Dawkins "recanted" a claim that Jesus never existed.
Serious, but not entirely serious.
