Quote:wkins had no point to stand on when O'Reilly got him to admit that science doesn't have all the answers. No way was Dawkins the clear cut winner.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers, no one claims that it does. That doesn't mean it isn't the best method for understanding the universe. It doesn't claim to "know" anything. It goes where the evidence points. Unlike religion, it doesn't make baseless assertions. There is no evidence for god, and so god is not used as an explanation. God is a non-answer and so it is totaly useless to us.
The problem with you theists (not all of you) is that you want all the answers right here and now.
Well tough. Feel free to answer the big questions yourself if you like, don't mean you're right about it though.
Science is a method, a tool used to open up, look into, discover and learn. Not a sudden...BANG...we know everything. That is what religion does. Religion answers everything, that's what makes it so unbelieveable. Plus it can never provide evidence for it's claims.
So yes, Dawkins won that argument. His points stand.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
