Joined: May 2005
|Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,14:13)|
|I just have to laugh ... "only a few ... mmm ... like Dawkins, for example ... he's not very influential... not many others ..." OK. Whatever.|
I'll tell you what ... I won't sell you any bridges and you don't sell me any and we'll be friends, OK!
As for me, I'm going to get back on topic ...
Thankyou, Norm at least for that! I'll consider your words.
Would anyone else like to comment on the real issue on this thread ... ?
We (at least I and Norm and a few others) are debating the validity of my structure for debating Origins, the Nature of Life and related topics, collectively referred to as my Creator God Hypothesis.
I have given you my preferred approach ... are there any more substantive objections?
Why should we bother commenting on anything else you say when you can't even be bothered to back up your own comments with, like, you know, evidence.
First tell us exactly where Dawkins says that science disproves God instead of just laughing it off. If it's so obvious to you, then educate us. We're listening.
Second, does the fact that one, admittedly strongly atheistic and outspoken scientist might believe it mean it is safe to assume all, or even a more that a small minority of scientists believe it too. Gee, I guess that must mean I must be right in thinking that all Christians believe the same as that paragon of Christian thought, Pastor Fred Phelps (look him up if you haven't heard of him).
Finally, perhaps if you started addressing our existing comments (you haven't answered any of mine yet) then maybe we will start to entertain the idea that you are actually interested in anything we have to say.