Originally posted by scottishinnzAh, the old salefaif: when you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull refuse.
If you believe anything put out by either the Discovery Institute, a right wing evangelical *think tank* (although there is little evidence of them actually thinking about anything), and Michael Behe, a reasonable biochemist, but with little real concept about how evolution works (check out the court transcripts, when he was recently called as an expert ...[text shortened]... e kind enough to supply the case name) then you will never want for moonshine and fairy stories.
"The source! The source! Don't believe anything coming from [XYZ], because it's all agenda-laden lies!"
Does it ever occur to you, Louis, that no lie can ever be told without some dependence upon the truth?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut Dawkins' puts it so well when he says;
Ah, the old salefaif: when you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull refuse.
"The source! The source! Don't believe anything coming from [XYZ], because it's [b]all agenda-laden lies!"
Does it ever occur to you, Louis, that no lie can ever be told without some dependence upon the truth?[/b]
"I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Originally posted by scottishinnzOnce again, Dawkins sets up a strawman to oh-so-expertly knock him down. He presumes that anyone believes the truth can be found "exactly halfway between." What a crock. What makes this crock even worse is that Dawkins is not an idiot, having been exposed to basic ideas across a wide spectrum of disciplines. Yet here he acts as clueless as a grade school student with respect to premises and logical conclusions.
But Dawkins' puts it so well when he says;
"I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Dawkins cannot be completely wrong in all of his conclusions, nor can anyone be: no one is that 'perfect.' Anyone can be generally wrong about anything, as Dawkins is in his belief that the universe is self-creating.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's hardly a strawman. His point is well made. Sometimes, both sides of an argument do not have merit - sometimes only one side is right, and the other completely wrong.
Once again, Dawkins sets up a strawman to oh-so-expertly knock him down. He presumes that anyone believes the truth can be found "exactly halfway between." What a crock. What makes this crock even worse is that Dawkins is not an idiot, having been exposed to basic ideas across a wide spectrum of disciplines. Yet here he acts as clueless as a grade scho ...[text shortened]... erally wrong about anything, as Dawkins is in his belief that the universe is self-creating.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd with respect to whether or not the universe is self-creating, you are correct: that side of the 'argument' is completely wrong. Right at turns, wrong at turns, but fundamentally wrong in the end (or beginning, whatever side you happen to be looking upon).
It's hardly a strawman. His point is well made. Sometimes, both sides of an argument do not have merit - sometimes only one side is right, and the other completely wrong.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt is also possible that both sides can be completely wrong.
But Dawkins' puts it so well when he says;
"I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou talk as if you have proof that the universe is not self-creating. I'd like to see that, I would.
And with respect to whether or not the universe is self-creating, you are correct: that side of the 'argument' is completely wrong. Right at turns, wrong at turns, but fundamentally wrong in the end (or beginning, whatever side you happen to be looking upon).