We have an admission from Dawkins , uncoersed, that there IS a form of
intelligence required for first life and that is 'must have come from
outer space by aliens'  .  

We have staunch atheist and cofounder of the DNA structure, Dr. Francis
Crick , that has put in writing the same thing that Dawkins said
verbally.

We did have world atheist Guru , Prof. Anthony Flew, who for 75 years of
his life was a devout atheist  who has since departed from classic
atheism .

Whos left to carry the torch of 'atheism' into the 3rd Millennium ?
Which atheist kingpin do you predict will fall in the near future thru a
deliberate admission of intelligent design ?   Place your bets please
..and no pushing in the line ; everyone will have a chance at
predicting.

(0)

Ken wrote:
> (0)
> 

Off course.

Just more Lying for Jesus.

We have already provided him with a link that explains what the 
question was and the context of the answer.

He knows that the answer to his question as to who will carry the 
atheist torch (even if there were to be such a thing) will be ...

...just about everyone.

Whilst the evangelicals thrash about in indignation, it simply 
represents the death throes of a superstitious idea.

Secularism is winning the argument and religious belief is in such 
rapid decline that it must now be regarded as in collapse.

regards, Ian

"Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote

> We have an admission from Dawkins , uncoersed, that there IS a form of
> intelligence required for first life and that is 'must have come from
> outer space by aliens'  .

No Dave, that isn't what he said. He was asked if there was any possible 
circumstances for ID.

"Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked 
whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which 
intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, 
and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. 
I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I 
must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the 
leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that 
they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and 
unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. 
Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from 
fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order 
to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over 
backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking 
about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best 
case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction 
scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and 
I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely 
seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that 
life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence 
from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something 
similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was 
that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' 
was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would 
THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some 
equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can 
never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on 
Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the 
alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress 
must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to 
play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity 
cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the 
creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial 
flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby 
organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity --  
and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently --  
comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have 
explained again and again in my writings. "

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

> We have staunch atheist and cofounder of the DNA structure, Dr. Francis
> Crick , that has put in writing the same thing that Dawkins said
> verbally.

Crick did not 'cofound' DNA and he later rejected panspermia.

Steve M

On Apr 30, 3:19 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > (0)
>
> Off course.
>
> Just more Lying for Jesus.
>
> We have already provided him with a link that explains what the
> question was and the context of the answer.
>
> He knows that the answer to his question as to who will carry the
> atheist torch (even if there were to be such a thing) will be ...
>
> ...just about everyone.
>
> Whilst the evangelicals thrash about in indignation, it simply
> represents the death throes of a superstitious idea.
>
> Secularism is winning the argument and religious belief is in such
> rapid decline that it must now be regarded as in collapse.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  We both have religious belief Ian.  Your faith is centered on
non intelligence for an intelligent , personal, and highly tweaked
Universe...and my faith is based on an Intelligent Source for same.
Since i just dont have within me the huge faith you do that
rocks,dirt, gas   can give us personality traits ...i freely confess
that YOUR faith far surpasses mine . Congradulations Ian !

On Apr 30, 4:57 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote
>
> > We have an admission from Dawkins , uncoersed, that there IS a form of
> > intelligence required for first life and that is 'must have come from
> > outer space by aliens'  .
>
> No Dave, that isn't what he said. He was asked if there was any possible
> circumstances for ID.
>
> "Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked
> whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which
> intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish,
> and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could> I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I> must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the
> leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that
> they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and> unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet> Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from
> fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order
> to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over
> backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking
> about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best
> case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction
> scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and
> I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely
> seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that
> life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence
> from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something
> similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was> that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia'
> was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would
> THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some
> equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can
> never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on> Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the
> alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress
> must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to
> play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity> cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the
> creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial
> flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby> organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity --  
> and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently --  
> comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have
> explained again and again in my writings. "
>
> http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
>
> > We have staunch atheist and cofounder of the DNA structure, Dr. Francis
> > Crick , that has put in writing the same thing that Dawkins said
> > verbally.
>
> Crick did not 'cofound' DNA and he later rejected panspermia.
>
> Steve M

REPLY:  Dawkins trying to back-stroke out of his weak moment when
interviewed .  His entire evolutionary career was a waste of time
because Darwinnian Evolution has been proven to be totally fallacious
by real modern science.  But like all atheists, it is the ONLY thing
he has to hang onto out of sheer desperation and pride. One day (and
willfully I might add) , Dawkins will become a full fledged
Creationist including Bible Believer and witness to our wonderful
awesome personal loving Creator . Oh..if we could hear from Chuck
Darwin right now !!!

On Apr 30, 4:57 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote
>
> > We have an admission from Dawkins , uncoersed, that there IS a form of
> > intelligence required for first life and that is 'must have come from
> > outer space by aliens'  .
>
> No Dave, that isn't what he said. He was asked if there was any possible
> circumstances for ID.
>
> "Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked
> whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which
> intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish,
> and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could> I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I> must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the
> leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that
> they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and> unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet> Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from
> fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order
> to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over
> backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking
> about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best
> case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction
> scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and
> I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely
> seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that
> life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence
> from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something
> similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was> that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia'
> was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would
> THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some
> equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can
> never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on> Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the
> alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress
> must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to
> play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity> cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the
> creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial
> flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby> organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity --  
> and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently --  
> comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have
> explained again and again in my writings. "
>
> http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
>
> > We have staunch atheist and cofounder of the DNA structure, Dr. Francis
> > Crick , that has put in writing the same thing that Dawkins said
> > verbally.
>
> Crick did not 'cofound' DNA and he later rejected panspermia.
>
> Steve M

REPLY: Read the 2nd sentence in the following on Crick :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

wrote

>> Crick did not 'cofound' DNA and he later rejected panspermia.
>>
>> Steve M

>REPLY: Read the 2nd sentence in the following on Crick :
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

Yes, and ???? Nowhere does it mention 'cofound'. You are such an idiot you 
don't understand what is said.

Steve M

wrote
>REPLY:  Dawkins trying to back-stroke out of his weak moment when
>interviewed .  His entire evolutionary career was a waste of time
>because Darwinnian Evolution has been proven to be totally fallacious
>by real modern science.

Wrong. It's you that has been found out once again. Every Creationist is an 
out and out liar with no credibility. People like to make fun of Dawkins 
because he has a great deal of credibility. More than the entire bunch of 
Creationists will ever have.

You have nothing to back your wild claims. All you post is one pathetic lie 
after another. Making libellous accusations shows how low you will go.

Steve M

On 1 May, 15:06, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>  wrote
>
> You have nothing to back your wild claims. All you post is one pathetic lie
> after another. Making libellous accusations shows how low you will go.

Even if the lies were true it still does not change the facts and it
is an indication of the poverty of the creationist case that they have
to lie in order to promote their beliefs.   It is extraordinary that
people should go to such lengths to defend the childish notion of a
creator for which the only evidence is a myth from the Stone Age.  Are
they really so stupid that they have not realised that far from being
the word of a god the bible is nothing more than the ramblings of a
collection of very fallible human beings?

DavidW-G

Dave in Lake Villa  wrote:
> We have an admission from Dawkins , uncoersed, that there IS a form of
> intelligence required for first life and that is 'must have come from
> outer space by aliens'  .  

I think the word I'm searching for is .. bollocks.

-- 
Voltaire: Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities

Steve Marshall wrote:
>  wrote
> 
>>> Crick did not 'cofound' DNA and he later rejected panspermia.
>>>
>>> Steve M
> 
>> REPLY: Read the 2nd sentence in the following on Crick :
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
> 
> Yes, and ???? Nowhere does it mention 'cofound'. You are such an idiot you 
> don't understand what is said.

Dave obviously meant "confounded" - as he obviously is by most science.

regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> REPLY:  Dawkins trying to back-stroke out of his weak moment when
> interviewed .  His entire evolutionary career was a waste of time
> because Darwinnian Evolution has been proven to be totally fallacious
> by real modern science.  But like all atheists, it is the ONLY thing
> he has to hang onto out of sheer desperation and pride. One day (and
> willfully I might add) , Dawkins will become a full fledged
> Creationist including Bible Believer and witness to our wonderful
> awesome personal loving Creator . Oh..if we could hear from Chuck
> Darwin right now !!!

C'mon guys.

Realise what is happening here.

Dave is doing what he does best - posting to wind us all up. Credit 
where credit is due - he's very good at it.

These things are posted simply to be as irritating to atheists as 
possible. If you fall for it and post any response, we all know what 
happens...

... we simply give him a platform for more wind-ups.

regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY: Read the 2nd sentence in the following on Crick :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

.. and it is such a shame that he didn't read further down:

Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults 
in private but should not be taught to young children."

and

He was skeptical of organized religion, referring to himself as a 
skeptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism"

and

In 1960, Crick accepted a fellowship at Churchill College Cambridge, 
one factor being that the new college did not have a chapel. 
Sometime later a large donation was made to establish a chapel and 
the fellowship elected to accept it. Crick resigned his fellowship 
in protest

regards, Ian

"Ian Smith"  wrote

> C'mon guys.
>
> Realise what is happening here.
>
> Dave is doing what he does best - posting to wind us all up. Credit where 
> credit is due - he's very good at it.

Yes, you're right, of course. Every post is deliberately inflammatory, but 
usually not criminal. Libelling people is a bit different to writing the 
usual piece of rubbish.

Steve M

On May 1, 11:44 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > REPLY:  Dawkins trying to back-stroke out of his weak moment when
> > interviewed .  His entire evolutionary career was a waste of time
> > because Darwinnian Evolution has been proven to be totally fallacious
> > by real modern science.  But like all atheists, it is the ONLY thing
> > he has to hang onto out of sheer desperation and pride. One day (and
> > willfully I might add) , Dawkins will become a full fledged
> > Creationist including Bible Believer and witness to our wonderful
> > awesome personal loving Creator . Oh..if we could hear from Chuck
> > Darwin right now !!!
>
> C'mon guys.
>
> Realise what is happening here.
>
> Dave is doing what he does best - posting to wind us all up. Credit
> where credit is due - he's very good at it.
>
> These things are posted simply to be as irritating to atheists as
> possible. If you fall for it and post any response, we all know what
> happens...
>
> ... we simply give him a platform for more wind-ups.
>
> regards, Ian

Sorry to inturde but this same mouthy a-hole has been blackballed by
almost everyone in both alt.rv and rec.­outdoors.­rv-travel for the
preaching his religious crap and is now roundly ignored.
The toser has no friends there either
Thanks for keeping him off our backs
Hal

In message
,
IlBeBauck@gmail.com  wrote:

> On Apr 30, 4:57 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
> wrote:
>> "Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote

>> > We have staunch atheist and cofounder of the DNA structure, Dr. Francis
>> > Crick , that has put in writing the same thing that Dawkins said
>> > verbally.
>>
>> Crick did not 'cofound' DNA and he later rejected panspermia.
>>
>> Steve M
> 
> REPLY: Read the 2nd sentence in the following on Crick :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

"Found" is the past tense of "to find", the word Dave meant
is "co-finder". "To found" has a different meaning.

Read:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/found
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/founder
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/find
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finder

"Timothy Baldwin"  wrote

>
> "Found" is the past tense of "to find", the word Dave meant
> is "co-finder". "To found" has a different meaning.
>

Dave has been told several times before that Crick was co-discoverer of DNA. 
He ignores any correction, no matter how valid. And he is apparently unable 
to tell the difference even after it's been pointed out. Thus we can tell 
how valid his claims and opinions are. (Not at all.)

Steve M

On May 1, 9:00 am, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>  wrote
>
> >> Crick did not 'cofound' DNA and he later rejected panspermia.
>
> >> Steve M
> >REPLY: Read the 2nd sentence in the following on Crick :
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
>
> Yes, and ???? Nowhere does it mention 'cofound'. You are such an idiot you> don't understand what is said.
>
> Steve M
t
REPLY:  'CoFound' and 'Co Discover'  is a matter of semantics.   If he
discovered something, then he 'FOUND' it .  He CoFOUND the dna
structure along with Jimmy Watson . Stop being absolutely silly and
willfully ignorant Steve.  And please answer this : Why dont you want
an intelligent personal Creator to exist for our intelligent personal
Universe ?

Discover and Find..mean the same thing.  If he cofound the dna
structure (with associate Jimmy Watson) , then ...he FOUND it !
Steve,  how come you dont want God to exist for your life ?  You know
a bunch of materials didnt give us what we have, so, why are you
pretending they did ?

On May 2, 7:12 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> On May 1, 9:00 am, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:>  wrote
>
> > >> Crick did not 'cofound' DNA and he later rejected panspermia.
>
> > >> Steve M
> > >REPLY: Read the 2nd sentence in the following on Crick :
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
>
> > Yes, and ???? Nowhere does it mention 'cofound'. You are such an idiot you
> > don't understand what is said.
>
> > Steve M
>
> t
> REPLY:  'CoFound' and 'Co Discover'  is a matter of semantics.   If he
> discovered something, then he 'FOUND' it .  He CoFOUND the dna
> structure along with Jimmy Watson . Stop being absolutely silly and
> willfully ignorant Steve.  And please answer this : Why dont you want
> an intelligent personal Creator to exist for our intelligent personal
> Universe ?

Willfully ignorant.....A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black, if
I've ever seen one

Note:
Most of Dimwit Dave's replies have
nothing to do with the original subject
He almost never answers a direct question, but instead goes
off on some tangent or leading question about Dog, sex, or religion
completely unrelated to the original subject with the intent to gain
control of the thread and push HIS point of view

wrote

>REPLY:  'CoFound' and 'Co Discover'  is a matter of semantics.   If he
>discovered something, then he 'FOUND' it .  He CoFOUND the dna
>structure along with Jimmy Watson .

Cofound does not me that they found DNA. It just shows how utterly ignorant 
you are.

On May 4, 4:15 pm, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>  wrote
>
> >REPLY:  'CoFound' and 'Co Discover'  is a matter of semantics.   If he
> >discovered something, then he 'FOUND' it .  He CoFOUND the dna
> >structure along with Jimmy Watson .
>
> Cofound does not me that they found DNA. It just shows how utterly ignorant
> you are.

An attack on semantics from a fundy fuckwit that's ALWAYS mixing terms
like relative/absolute or micro/macro when arguing his dumbassed
points of view