"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[ImmortalFlame]

I never said it did. Dunno why you even brought it up to be honest.

You said that Dawkins had "earned the allegation" that he was "Satan", and therefore implying that Grandliseur's dismissal of his arguments is justified.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How can I be dishonest about a claim I never made?

The dishonesty isn't the claim - it's in using a single report of something someone said as a means to discredit or dismiss the body of someone's work.

You are the one appearing to be dishonest by trying to strawman my argument into a discrediting Dawkins works as a scientist argument. Which I have made no mention of.

See above. Grandliseur dismissed Dawkins arguments on the basis that looking into his face was like looking into the face of "Satan", and you said that Dawkins "earned that allegation".

Quote me where I said his work as a scientist is null/void because of this article. You can't because it's all in your head.

And your video, I cannot look at the face of that devil and not see the smiling face of satan.

Because your beliefs tend to lead to actions that harm everyone. Denials of the sciences is directly tied to movements of the anti-vax type. Denying obvious facts for superstitious reasons and harming others as a result.
And please, even your myths warn you about making false claims about others. Smearing Dawkns as you did is a clear violation of the Ninth Commandment.

To be fair Dawkins is earning that allegation. Both him and Sam Harris have chosen the path of bigotry and hatred.

Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee

You are the one who brought up Dawkins beliefs on feminism in a thread that was entirely about Dawkins' scientific arguments.

 

[Enoch07]

If that is your claim then deal with the OP. This looks like a desperate attempt at a runaround to me.

?

What are you even talking about!

 

[Enoch07]

You said that Dawkins had "earned the allegation" that he was "Satan", and therefore implying that Grandliseur's dismissal of his arguments is justified.

Misrepresenting my statements again.

I said he was "earning that allegation" as in the process of. Which is my opinion as he has shown evidence of bigotry.

I never implied anything about discrediting his work. That assumption is on you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

?

What are you even talking about!

You have to be kidding me. Your reading comprehension cannot be that poor.

If your claim has any validity, and you are not making an empty attack against Dawkins then deal with the video in the OP. I linked it for you once. I will do so again. Hold on a few seconds:

 

[Enoch07]

You have to be kidding me. Your reading comprehension cannot be that poor.

If your claim has any validity, and you are not making an empty attack against Dawkins then deal with the video in the OP. I linked it for you once. I will do so again. Hold on a few seconds:

LoLz

I am not challenging evolution.

Perhaps you should reflect on your reading comprehension skills before you judge mine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Misrepresenting my statements again.

My quoting of you was accurate.

I said he was "earning that allegation" as in the process of. Which is my opinion as he has shown evidence of bigotry.

You said he had "chosen the path of bigotry and hatred". That sounds far more severe than merely suggesting he had "shown evidence of bigotry".

I never implied anything about discrediting his work. That assumption is on you.

You supported Granliseur's dismissal of his work, and brought up his alleged bigotry in a thread that was supposed to be about his discussions of scientific topics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LoLz

I am not challenging evolution.

Perhaps you should reflect on your reading comprehension skills before you judge mine.

Actually you did. Your first post here was self contradicting. Though you did not seem to realize it. I am clearly not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Did you even go to college?

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion, and I take exception to the question.

Let's say I didn't go to college. Does that mean that I, by default, conclude that science is presumptions and guesswork?

 

[Enoch07]

My quoting of you was accurate.

Well you did change it to past tense so, it was incorrect.

You said he had "chosen the path of bigotry and hatred". That sounds far more severe than merely suggesting he had "shown evidence of bigotry".

Meh the case can be made with the evidence.

You supported Granliseur's dismissal of his work, and brought up his alleged bigotry in a thread that was supposed to be about his discussions of scientific topics.

You need to make less assumptions, and use more facts.

I merely agreed with his opinion that Dawkins is a terrible person, evidence supports this idea.

 

[SalixIncendium]

To be fair Dawkins is earning that allegation. Both him and Sam Harris have chosen the path of bigotry and hatred.

Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee

In posting this article, you're merely deflecting. How one behaves has no bearing one's scientific knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion, and I take exception to the question.

Let's say I didn't go to college. Does that mean that I, by default, conclude that science is presumptions and guesswork?

Claims were made about what was taught in college. That is clearly not the case, that is why I asked.

Your question is a non sequitur. I was responding to a post that showed quite a bit of ignorance by the poster. Science is not presumptions and guesswork, it was wrong and ignorant to make that claim.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You made claims about what was taught in college. That is clearly not the case, that is why I asked.

And you seem to be a master of the non sequitur. Your statement about science being presumptions and guesswork is clearly wrong and highly bigoted. Though to be honest it is a more common belief among those that did not go to college.

If you don't want people making incorrect deductions about your education level it is wise not to write posts that show ignorance about what is taught in college or how work is done in the sciences. Your post was wrong on many levels.

@SalixIncendium is not @William Milverton.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well you did change it to past tense so, it was incorrect.

Ah, that's true. Fair enough.

Meh the case can be made with the evidence.

Maybe, but the fact that you've gone from saying he has "chosen the path of bigotry and hatred" to saying he has simply "shown evidence of bigotry" is about as close to a retraction as you can get - especially since you have yet to factor in his own retraction.

You need to make less assumptions, and use more facts.

No assumption. You agreed with Grandlisuer's assertion and dragged the subject of Dawkins' attitude to feminism into a thread about Dawkins' discussions of science.

I merely agreed with his opinion that Dawkins is a terrible person, evidence supports this idea.

In a thread that was supposed to be about his scientific opinion.

 

[Enoch07]

Actually you did. Your first post here was self contradicting. Though you did not seem to realize it. I am clearly not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

Nope, I fully support evolution. No doubt about it. I also support the creation story in Genesis. There is nothing about either that denies the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@SalixIncendium is not @William Milverton.

Yes, my apologies and I already edited that post. I thought that Milverton was responding to my post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, I fully support evolution. No doubt about it. I also support the creation story in Genesis. There is nothing about either that denies the other.

Sorry, but evolution is a refutation of the Adam and Eve myth. Of course all of the Genesis is simply myths. Now you may try to reinterpret them, but then you are essentially denying Genesis when you do so.

 

[Enoch07]

Maybe, but the fact that you've gone from saying he has "chosen the path of bigotry and hatred" to saying he has simply "shown evidence of bigotry" is about as close to a retraction as you can
get - especially

Nope, I still feel the same.

No assumption. You agreed with Grandlisuer's assertion and dragged the subject of Dawkins' attitude to feminism into a thread about Dawkins' discussions of science.

I agree with his opinion Dawkins was a terrible person. Everything else is your assumptions.

In a thread that was supposed to be about his scientific opinion.

Well someone made a claim he was a terrible person. I happen to agree with that claim and backed it up with evidence. It's a debate forum thats what we do here.

 

[ChristineM]

To be fair Dawkins is earning that allegation. Both him and Sam Harris have chosen the path of bigotry and hatred.

Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee

I don't know about Sam Harris but you consider Dawkins honesty to be be bigotry and hatred?

Remember this is the guy who says "I can't be sure God does not exist",
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
why is that seen as bigotry or hatred?

Is it that his honesty in the use of facts offends you?

See also Adam Lee has lost it | Richard Dawkins Foundation

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree with his opinion Dawkins was a terrible person. Everything else is your assumptions.

You said he was earning the reputation of being "Satan".

Well someone made a claim he was a terrible person. I happen to agree with that claim and backed it up with evidence. It's a debate forum thats what we do here.

But you did so in a thread that is about his scientific views.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, my apologies and I already edited that post. I thought that Milverton was responding to my post.

No worries.

Claims were made about what was taught in college. That is clearly not the case, that is why I asked.

Your question is a non sequitur. I was responding to a post that showed quite a bit of ignorance by the poster. Science is not presumptions and guesswork, it was wrong and ignorant to make that claim.

I agree completely that the claim that science is presumptions and guesswork is rooted in ignorance.

But William's post appear to be more of a generalization than a claim that he attended college...

You were taught that at College...

Which is why interpreted your response as a generalization that those that didn't attend college were ignorant of the sciences.

If that was not your intent, and your 'college' comment was based on the assumption that he went to college and learned that sciences were presumptions and guesswork, I'll recant my previous comments based on my interpretation of your statement.