Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

[nutmeg]

Poo was a problem. I believe Noah asked for "guidance" on the poo problem as it was piling up in one corner of the boat.

The poo was shoveled over the side of the boat and not until after the floods ended was it discovered by Captain Cook.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:


Even IF Noah got all the animals on that boat, they would have died from the poo. All the worlds animals would have to produce an incredible amount of poo....

Obviously Noah had some nurses on board, to shovel the shit overboard.
Or maybe those same nurses invented bed pans.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

There is no scientific reason to make those false dichotomies in the first place. Just a natural, inevitable consequence would be all that's required.
Random chance or something supernatural is guessing. They are unnecessary and groundless even without a theory of everything.

False dichotomy?

What kind of ignorance do you wish to promulgate. By saying I was misrepresenting what inevitable consequence must be... you implied you knew something about the speculation of inevitable consequence.

Now we see your false accusation was backed by your pure troll bullshit.

 

[jem]

This was Stu's quote which started off his stupidity.

He implies inevitable consequence or the Theory of Everthing- leads to some new concept... yet won't say what that concept is.

Quote from stu:



The burden of proof rests on you, the one claiming a (scientific) random chance claim is being made.
The claim as much as there is one, is of inevitable consequences, not particular random chance. Random chance is your determined wilful misrepresentation of that.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

False dichotomy?

What kind of ignorance do you wish to promulgate. By saying I was misrepresenting what inevitable consequence must be... you implied you knew something about the speculation of inevitable consequence.

Now we see your false accusation was backed by your pure troll bullshit.

Yes. Your false dichotomy. It's a dichotomy and it's false.

And where exactly am I supposed to have said you were misrepresenting what inevitable consequence must be...I didn't...so couldn't have been implying any such thing as this speculation red herring you've now concocted.
Do you really have that much of a no idea about what's said from post to post?

One inevetable consequence for sure is you'll start with the abuse just as soon as you're out of your depth, which is always pretty quickly.

 

[jem]

This was your troll b.s. which started this off.
Then you offered up your pure speculation of inevitable consequence.
Yet you refuse to explain how inevitable consequence would lead to some conclusion other than random chance or a creator.

Your pure troll b.s. is exposed.

Quote from stu:


The burden of proof rests on you, the one claiming a (scientific) random chance claim is being made.
The claim as much as there is one, is of inevitable consequences, not particular random chance. Random chance is your determined wilful misrepresentation of that.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

This was your troll b.s. which started this off.
Then you offered up your pure speculation of inevitable consequence.
Yet you refuse to explain how inevitable consequence would lead to some conclusion other than random chance or a creator.

Your pure troll b.s. is exposed.

Yeah yeah, it's all troll bullshit just because your creator nonsense can't deal with it.

It's self evident. A natural occurrence with an inevitable consequence leads to a consequence which is inevitable. duh
That's hardly what ever it is you mean by random chance and certainly requires nothing supernatural like a divine creator.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Yeah yeah, it's all troll bullshit just because your creator nonsense can't deal with it.

It's self evident. A natural occurrence with an inevitable consequence leads to a consequence which is inevitable. duh
That's hardly what ever it is you mean by random chance and certainly requires nothing supernatural like a divine creator.

So according to your bullshit.. it is a misrepresentation to say "random chance" but it is ok to say "natural occurrence" .

You are full of shit. Which is entertaining.

The disgusting troll part of you, is the part which projects your deceits and frauds onto those calling you out.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

So according to your bullshit.. it is a misrepresentation to say "random chance" but it is ok to say "natural occurrence" .

You are full of shit. Which is entertaining.

The disgusting troll part of you, is the part which projects your deceits and frauds onto those calling you out.

I never said it was a misrepresentation to say "random chance".

I said your fictive choice between whatever you mean by "random chance" and a divine creator is a false dichotomy.
The misrepresentation comes in the way you try to misunderstand what science and scientists say, just to defend an imaginary creator.

How quickly you lose the thread of an argument. No wonder you get so angry and frustrated.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

I never said it was a misrepresentation to say "random chance".

I said your fictive choice between whatever you mean by "random chance" and a divine creator is a false dichotomy.
The misrepresentation comes in the way you try to misunderstand what science and scientists say, just to defend an imaginary creator.

How quickly you lose the thread of an argument. No wonder you get so angry and frustrated.

its always boils down to this with you, Stu. When caught trolling you, you pretend words mean their opposite and soon you will once again deny the authority of dictionaries.