On July 25, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Use the form below to search the site:
Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!
All entries, chronologically...
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Richards seems to confuse Deism with Theism. The fact that we don’t KNOW how the cosmos started EXACTLY is not an argument for a god. Leaping from that into a personal, all goodness, intervening deity is a HUGE leap. Deism might be argued
….Theism is just ridiculous.
i love how genuinely righteous christopher gets towards the end
makes my faith in humanity comeback a little
Jay says nothing just comes into existence uncaused and Christopher says except god and jay says no not god. he certainly knows shed loads about god, its as if he’s on the god phone getting all this info..what a guy..
Richards damns himself by saying that because we know that the universe exists and CAME into existence, it must be the MAGIC MAN!
@Embrigh i rate hitchens, but i agree his use of ad hominem is a real weakness in his game, assuming it is the principle of reason he is advocating. i disagree with richards, but his rhetorical style is superiour to hitchens in this debate. i don’t think his (richards) arguments carry much weight though.
Even if Mr. Hitchens was calling them all pig fucks every other word it still wouldn’t invalidate the points he’s making, but since he’s not doing that or anything close to that, I fail to see what the fuck Richards is talking about.
@PurpleChevron Nicely put, if you don’t mind my saying.
Jay Richards does the best job of arguing his case against Hitchens as I’ve ever seen, and I’ve watched a lot of Hitchens’ debates. If only Hitchens had a bit more understanding of Quantum Mechanics I feel like this debate would have not been so close. I credit Jay Richards with having his guns loaded before this one began, but he’s still arguing a failed position for a terminal cause.
Empirical reason to think the universe begin to exist is referring to the Big Bang Theory, you fucking idiot. It’s being recreated by the Large Hadron Collider. That’s empirical “reason.” If he says “empirical” one more fucking time, I’m going to flip out.
@Embrigh
Exactly, it’s a lame retort by a guy not making any sense (even as Ben Stein throws him loaded softballs), count the insults, when he’s never been under attack only the bullshit from his mouth has. It’s absolutely fair to tell anyone who believes in theistic nonsense that they have no business staking a claim to the scientific method.
@244Ohiro
And I’m sure you would also say that your more intelligent.
LOL
It does’nt work that way and we all know the truth.
If you were where I am, you’d would’nt give up your faith because someone like Dawkins or Hitchens told you to.
I use reason and truth when I say ” Who the hell is Hitchens and Dawkins to tell me how I should Think ?”
@53dumey Nice try again, I can hear the panic in your typing, LOL! C’mon man, come to the light, it’s BEAUTIFUL! Trust me, I’ve been where you are and it’s the most liberating feeling to renounce delusions and embrace reason and truth. I’ve never been happier nor a better person morally!
Jay they are not insults being hurled but intelligent observation of your inability to answer the questions put to you.
how come its always the person supporting creationism that says “the debate is this, not that!” Hitchens will go anywhere.. he isnt scared to go where you dont want to go Jay Richards..
The problem is theists like Richard and Stein seam to think they know everything. Anything science can’t explain, god must have done it!
The infallibility of an argument is a sign of its weakness, not its strength.
Hitchens is avoiding the Matter question.
He would rather go on an anti-religous rant and hog all the time.
He lost the debate 40 mins ago.
Ben Has to step in to back his boy when he’s getting curbstomped
Explain, Dfatboy112, exactly how the “Biological component” of DNA can be separated from this nebulous, as yet undefined concept of ‘information’ which you posit is separate and unrelated to the natural and fully explained origin of the DNA onto which it us apparently printed?
How can you claim that DNA is a code, that a code is information, that information does not occur naturally, and that THE NATURAL OCCURRENCE OF DNA IS IRRELEVANT, a seemingly glaring hole in your logic?
Dont.
Lie.
To me.
@Dfatboy112 So, in a single comment, you’ve presented a straw man (lightning striking a mud puddle, an old creationist favorite that’s about half a century out of date), tried to present an unknown as a fact without any evidence, and you accuse me of fallacy?
You’re not that bright, are you?
1) Define INFORMATION and explain why it cant occur naturally, or shut up.
2) If DNA is the source of this information, and DNA occurs naturally, it is ENTIRELY relevant, NOT a red herring, you idiot.
@Etimos Again you’ve made a fallacious comment. I just want to point out the red herring you pulled. I am not arguing whether or not the the biological component of DNA can naturally form. That is irrelevant to the whole argument. The point is that the information contained in DNA cannot occur naturally. Lighting bolts and primordial soup don’t create information. But i guess you probably believe it does.
Try to have the intellectual honesty to present your opponent’s argument as it is.
@Dfatboy112 Frankly, I dont care what it sounds like to you, because people much, much more clever than you, working in specialized fields of biology dealing with DNA have determined that DNA IS NATURALLY OCCURRING. Furthermore, they have demonstrated that fact in laboratory conditions where through simulated early-earth conditions they have caused the component bases of RNA to form spontaneously!
YOU, on the other hand, can prove nothing. YOUR argument is blind faith, don’t project on me.
@Etimos “If you define DNA as a code, then, since DNA is naturally occurring, your argument is bunk.”
That sounds like a statement of blind faith to me. Even though you believe that DNA contains no code or genetic information you also claim that even if it did that information could have originated naturally with no intelligence. That is pure dogma that i am not going to waste any time on arguing with someone who denies observable scientific facts because of a prejudice they hold.
oh yeh even if a creator had to make the universe that doesnt support theism if anything deism so your sky daddy bullshit is still bullshit it seems there whole argument is uh we got here god did and he cares about us WTF
evolution? ughhh how can we still be debating that it is undeniable if you denie it then i have they right to call you a willful ignorant FOOL
Hitchens says, “You just said, ‘Nothing can come into existence uncaused, unless it’s GOD’…” He pretends to be an idiot, when in fact he actually IS. He is fast becoming an insufferable boor! Richards mops the floor with the pretentious Hitchens, as not often so decisively seen. You are witnessing coming features in the ID debate, when the foolish notions of an overdrawn Darwinian account will dissolve into fantasyland, whence they came.