Logicboy03:


Take note of the bold and then go and read the panspermia hypothesis.












See how stoopid some people are? Everyone can see how Dawkins was talking about a different origin of life than panspermia.

Now i know you are into dubious means of debating..
In your unbolded,it said life must have evolved elsewhere in the universe then by some means,probably his alien bullshit came to earth..notice the 'universe' not "earth"..
So are you suggesting life evolved on earth and came to earth..if so going by your bolded,you are a semi-cretinous rétàrd!!qed

Creatrixity:
Now i know you are into dubious means of debating..
In your unbolded,it said life must have evolved elsewhere in the universe then by some means,probably his alien bullshit came to earth..notice the 'universe' not "earth"..
So are you suggesting life evolved on earth and came to earth..if so going by your bolded,you are a semi-cretinous rétàrd!!qed

?


I didnt even argue.....I put Dawkins quote next to two definitions of the panspermia hypothesis. They were quite different.


Clearly, you have been thoroughly debunked because it is clear that Dawkins was not talking about panspermia in that interview

Hmm
And again, Dawkins himself said he was indeed talking about erm directed panspermia in that video.

This logicboy dude is such a terrier!so persistent..i hope you get that award you missed last year..

^^I wonder o!What part of that does he not understand?

Same claims made, yet no evidence

Creatrixity: ^^I wonder o!What part of that does he not understand?

You know, since Dawkins has said he was indeed talking about directed panspermia it is either Dawkins does not know what it means ----- or maybe someone else does not know what it means.

Hold on to that straw guise, hold it tight...

Logicboy,and because you are slower on the uptake,fyi that "person" is you!

lol......


Enigma and CreativeX make claims but hate to table evidence.

And once again, Dawkins himself said specifically that he was talking about directed panspermia in that video.

@ Creatrixity

Please, we do not need to show anyone any evidence; let it be homework or assignment.

What more evidence do you need..and stop practicing your self acclaimed trademark of slapping "anonyism" tags on people because you are quite guilty of that now

Enigma: @ Creatrixity

Please, we do not need to show anyone any evidence; let it be homework or assignment.

Gbam!

Game, set, match!

Dawkins himself has said specifically and in fact with both his hand and mouth that he was talking about directed panspermia in that video.

On second thoughts,let logic boy keep playing color-blind and keep waiting for us to present evidence when enigma and myself have already done that countless times...

^^^ And in fact I actually have specific evidence and it will take me only seconds to put them here . . . . . but no need.

Anonyism 101-


Make claims and then expect the opponent to provide proof for your claims.



Goodnite everyone

Thanks for enjoying the show!

lol

Dawkins said specifically and in fact with both his hand and mouth that he was speaking of directed panspermia in that video.

Logicboy03: Anonyism 101-


Make claims and then expect the opponent to provide proof for your claims.



Goodnite everyone

Thanks for enjoying the show!

This is the dumbest post i have seen this week..so much for logic!..

Talking about 'dumbest' one of the responses ridiculing Dawkins for his directed panspermia hypothesis used the expression 'dumb and dumber'.

Instead of putting forward the evidence let me gift out something I've been amusing myself with in my mind since this little exchange started.

Presently, our friend is putting forward the hypothesis presented by Dawkins in that video as worthy.

Now if we present the evidence of (a) Dawkins himself saying it is directed panspermia and (b) Dawkins actually distancing himself from saying that the hypothesis is worthy . . . . . . .

Summary of logicboys posts on this thread so far...
Posts surface about the shakiness of dawkins logic..logicboy to the rescue of his champion..would probably have adopted panspermia as model for the origin7 of life..saw how ridiculous that theory was then switched to name calling and invectives..has nothing more to post then carries out his "ultimate jutsu" of handing out anonyism tags..

I love these guys........


I am so loving the Anonyism and lies you guys are spouting right now!


Erm....do you guys know that you are years late (4) for the lying christian agenda?

This video of Ben Stein's dpocumentary has surfaced many conservative christian forums claiming that Ben Stein exposed Richard Dawkins.

Logicboy03:


Pansermia?


God, these christians can lie! Was Dawkins talking about panspermia in the interview?

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could figure that out easily.

Logicboy03: Anonyism 101-


Make claims and then expect the opponent to provide proof for your claims.



Goodnite everyone

Thanks for enjoying the show!

The atheist claims God doesnt exist. His only "proof" is that christians cannot prove that God exists.

So what is the atheist doing any differently than the above accusation?

Logicboy03:

?


I didnt even argue.....I put Dawkins quote next to two definitions of the panspermia hypothesis. They were quite different.


Clearly, you have been thoroughly debunked because it is clear that Dawkins was not talking about panspermia in that interview

smh

davidylan:

The atheist claims God doesnt exist. His only "proof" is that christians cannot prove that God exists.

So what is the atheist doing any differently than the above accusation?

Fail......

The christian claims that god exists and the atheists tells the christian to prove it (Which the christain cant prove, by the way)!

The burden of proof is on the claimant and not the skeptic

davidylan:

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could figure that out easily.

I missed your stoopidity!


How was work today? I assume that you work in a fake lab since you're a fake biologist!

I am going to revise that my last post slightly for greater clarity and repost it here.


Presently, our friend is putting forward the hypothesis presented by Dawkins in that video as worthy --- because he thinks the hypothesis being put forward by Dawkins is different from [directed] panspermia.

Now if we present the evidence of (a) Dawkins himself saying it is directed panspermia and (b) Dawkins actually distancing himself from saying that the hypothesis is worthy . . . . . . .

Logicboy03:


Fail......

The christian claims that god exists and the atheists tells the christian to prove it (Which the christain cant prove, by the way)!

The burden of proof is on the claimant and not the skeptic

Which is quite funny considering the atheists response to every question to show prove of his alternate universe is met with "i dont know".
The burden of proof is not on the christian... frankly most christians would be just fine discussing their faith without your constant need to insert vituperative bile. Its ok not to believe God exists... you're the one tearing your hair out.

Logicboy03:


I missed your stoopidity!


How was work today? I assume that you work in a fake lab since you're a fake biologist!

today was saturday, i went shopping.

Oh by the way, you should pay attention to enigma.