Lying won't get you anywhere.
Your exact words:
"First let me point out in all rationale and logic, we are not discussing Darwin, we are discussing Dawkins. You do seem very confused."
Doesn't sound like the words of someone addressing a typo, does it? Unless this entire sentence of yours is a typo.
LOL lying, you do so much remind me of Auto.
Do you like think you are some kind of psychic? Do you think you know my mind better than I do? That is a very arrogant position.
In all rationale and logic, is the discussion pertaining to Dawkins and not Darwin.... By golly I believe I was right. I can fully understand why you would try and condemn a person for being right.
Was it a confused statement? By golly I believe I was right again. I should be condemned for being right, shouldn't I. LOL.
As for being an easy mistake to make, I can't see where anybody else has made the same mistake. So that analogy of yours falls flat on its face, for if it were and easy mistake to make, many people would have made the same mistake. Nobody else has.:no:
A freudian slip, quite possibly. This just says attention wasn't on the topic at hand, or relating Dawkins works to Darwins as they do go hand in hand. The topic at hand though isn't evolution, it is Dawkins dividing the world.
And now you're even attempted to slither out of a semantic mistake you made. Don't like being shown to be less intelligent than you think you are, do you? And, by the way, by your logic every religious text in the world is a novel. Obviously you don't know much about literature either.
LOL, I already know how intelligent I am, your little semantics will have no bearing on this.
It is in the same context as The Da Vinci Code. Part scientific evidence down specific lines of science but neglecting to give credit to other parts of science, intermixed with Dawkins own personal religious beliefs. It was and is a novel.
Many people in the world conclude other religious texts novels, the Bible, the Veda's, the Dharma's, the Quran et al. I hold this view in my knowledge as well as the other views. The same as I do pertaining to Dawkins religious texts.
But, I digress. Care to mention any of these "fictional analogies" and "stolen cliches"?
Like I have already said once, if you want specific quotes from the God Delusion, you will have to go to the thread which relates to that topic. I don't need to quote specifics of the novel, the God Delusion novel alone was enough to prove the point.
Which by the way has been conclusively proven by the division it has caused in this thread. Dawkins divides the world.
I have already done so, and in doing so, proved the point of the thread.
See that? That's you not responding to my challenge.
LOL is that what I was doing, you little psychic you. Here I was thinking, I was saying to you, take your issues to the other thread.
Ergo, I can safely assume you never read Dawkins, and you're not worth debating with.
Ah, human intelligence is such a wonderful and fascinating thing. Dumb and stupid sometimes, but fascinating never the less.
Too bad you have absolutely no clue what Dawkins' views are, since you have repeatedly failed to respond to any kind of questioning on the matter.
LOL everybody who has read Dawkins works, spent time in his evangelistic crusades or listened to him debate, knows exactly what his views are. He is very outspoken and very opinionated.
He's obviously a lot smarter than you.
Coming from you, I will consider that a compliment.
