Huh? I was referring to the quotes I posted. These quotes obviously contradict your description of the book. So either those quotes are some weird mistake, or your characterizations of the book need to be adjusted.

I guess this was a handy example of how you "read" things.

But come on now. We both know you haven't read the book (which isn't that important), you have only formed an unjustified opinion about it (which is pretty bad) and you'll leave no stone unturned in order to keep it like that (which is horrible).

Evidence is rapidly gathering in favor of the hypothesis that FesteringZit is dim.

His choice of name, in itself, should suggest as much.

Now I feel mean for saying this, and I feel pity at the same time, but if you guys genuinely want to have a meaningful exchange with him, some adjustment in your communication methods will be needed.

With VeeDDzz's hypothesis in mind I'll simplify it for you, though I find it hard to believe someone would need this be spelled out for them:

After repeatedly explaining his position being that there is no scientific support for Intelligent Design, Stein finally asked Dawkins to consider a hypothetical: "If Intelligent Design were true, how might it have happened?" After some thought, Dawkins responded "Well, I suppose it might have happened in the following way..."

In the film, the context that showed that Dawkins was responding to a hypothetical was removed, in order to make it look like he was giving ID credence.


PS A response along the lines of "He still said it was alien sperm" would, I believe, be called weasel words.

I meant to say we see evidence of it every day.

Do you dispute that the Crimean war took place from October 1853 to February 1856?

Fair enough. In the future, if I mention Dawkins' quote, I will preface it
with the question that was asked of him.

Although, as I'm sure you are aware, Dawkins wasn't the first
atheist to propose panspermia.

I'll just add that Dawkins only put this forward as being how life on Earth might have started, after having been 'placed there by some intelligence'. He was quite clear that his position, even in this example that he came up with, was that whatever the alien species that may have put life there on Earth would themselves have had to evolve somehow through natural processes.

Complete gibberish, Minister t.

you're an ape whether you like it or not and share more than 98% of your DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos

Arè you saying the only reason you're itt is not to listen and perhaps learn but to persuade others that they are wrong and that you are right?

Oh hi, another gimmick troll account. How fun. Ignored.

It can't be that hard to make an interesting point on your main account. Try it out.

Lol joke account

Right, so you became a minister to get your end away. Makes good sense.

Poe's law

What does Poes law say? That in a thread about religion, sooner or later someone will pretend to be a clergyman?

Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will, to some readers, be indistinguishable from sincere expressions of the parodied views.

If it's hard for you to tell, imagine what it's like for us.

I see that the calling it out of the obvious gimmick only resulted in spam.

Look, we all know ordained fundamentalist ministers don't just happen to pop on on a poker forum and start posting in obscure sub-forums out of the blue.

Give it a rest.

Unsubbed

I'm picturing an ageing lonely man/woman, who leads a conservative lifestyle, stays indoors a lot, watches a lot of TV, and is one more social rejection away from buying a tinfoil-hat.

In a way you are a 'maverick': a type of social outcast, living on the fringes of common human experience. Choosing security, over adventure and travel. Choosing brief and sporadic interaction, over genuine human connection. Living a life of numbness; averse to any feelings of vulnerability, and devoid of experiencing any of life's greatest pleasures and challenges. Risk-averse. Risk-averse. Risk-averse.

But hey.....

At least you're a 'maverick'

Sigh.

This lie has long been debunked. How convenient that no Darwinist has
stepped in to correct you.

Humans share 35% genetic similarity with daffodils. I guess we're 1/3
flowers?

So, essentially, you agree that all life evolved from a common source (hence - common DNA), you just think Darwin got the details wrong?

The percentage similarity with daffodils doesn't 'debunk' anything!
btw, it is not a lie. It has not been 'debunked'.

What do you think it is meant to show?

PS How convenient that you did not cite any 'source'. And I thought you were making an attempt to be more honest than this...

The bibles God sure does play a lot of mind tricks. Makes me think whales walked on land makes me think im an ape by making me very similar.

The 98% is a complete lie.

Why did you not ask for a source for the 98% figure?

How convenient.