Hilarious: Dawkins Defining Nothing…

Hilarious: Dawkins Defining Nothing…




Seriously, how can any-body take these alleged atheists seriously? It’s a serious question. I managed to stop laughing long enough to ask it. So, when you’ve recovered from the illogical (and downright hilarious) Dawkins’ Definition of “nothing”, let’s hear your answer. O and don’t forget to comment on his acceptance of the “mysterious” in the origin of the universe. How on earth does that fit with his insistence on empirical scientific “evidence” (think the theory of ‘evolution’), not to mention his infamous mockery of the mysteries of Faith? He seems to be one mixed up gentleman, with the emphasis on “mixed up”.  So, be serious, how can any-body take the likes of Richard Dawkins seriously? I don’t take him seriously at all. He is to science, what Trump & Clinton are to American politics, in my humble opinion. But what about you.  Do you take Dawkins seriously?  

Comments (151)

  • Leo

    The myth that all life came by chance from one cell, which in turn came from non-living matter, is a speculative, dis- credited hypothesis, a philosophical naturalism wrapped in pseudo-science. I’m sure there is no shortage of dis-credited hypotheses doing the rounds, so what is so dangerous about evolutionism, and what makes its fundamentalist adherents so fanatical.

    Evolutionism allows men to profess, without appearing mad, that things make themselves. It, so they think, confirms them in their rejection of the ex nihilo creation of life and matter by God. Submission of will to belief in a Creator and Divine Lawgiver is no longer required of a believing evolutionist.

    The only explanation for the endless propagation of this unscientific theory, is that evolution is actually an unscientific means of war against against Christ, His Church and Christian civilization.

    Why is evolutionist naturalism kept alive with such fanaticism, and regardless of all reasonable argument? Well, think of the highest towers in the disbelieving, revolting against God, City of Man that stretches as far as the eye can see. Think how the evils of Modernism. Marxism, Secular Humanism, and Eugenics topple without the foundation of evolutionism to underpin them.

    Biologist, Julian Huxley, shows how the dogma of evolution imposes itself as the foundation of the modern relativist religion:

    “In the evolutionist way of thinking, there is no place for supernatural (spiritual) beings capable of affecting the course of human events, nor is there necessity of them. Earth was not created. It was formed by evolution. The human body, the mind, the soul, and everything that was produced, including laws, moral, religions, gods, etc., are entirely results of evolution, by means of the natural selection”. (Cfr. HUXLEY, J. Evolution after Darwin, p. 246)

    Evolutionism is one of the “dogmas” of the modern atheistic mind.

    Applied to theology and philosophy, belief in Evolutionism can be pointed as one of the causes of the triumphant relativism in our days. The logical outcome is the rejection of Absolute Truth, and with that, dogma and morality. Evolutionism is not biological science, but a naturalistic dogma of relativist metaphysics. So relativism then becomes an absolute principle!

    Paul Lemoine, President of the Geological Society of France and Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, wrote:

    “Evolution is a sort of dogma in which its clergymen no longer believe, although they uphold it to the people: it is necessary to have courage to say this so that the men of the future generation guide their researches in a different way” (Encyclopédie Française, Tome V, ps. 5-82-3, 5-82-8)

    L. Harrison Matthews, evolutionist geologist confesses:

    “The fact of Evolution being the backbone of Biology and that Biology is therefore in the particular position of a science founded upon a not-confirmed theory – is it then science or faith? Believing in Evolution is, thus, the exact parallel of believing in a special creation – both are concepts that believers take as true, but neither one nor the other was capable, so far, of proving anything” (L. H. Matthews, Introduction for the “Origin of Species”, of Charles Darwin, Dent and Sons, London, 1.971, p. XI, apud Duane T. Gish, op. cit. p. 15).

    Richard Dawkins, close minded evolutionist scientist, informs us that Darwin makes it possible to man to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” ( Darwin’s Black Box, M. Behe, op. cit. p. 252).

    Another known evolutionist, Richard Lewontin, confessed:

    “We stayed in the side of science, despite the patent absurdity of some of its constructions, despite its failure to accomplish many of its extravagant promises in relation to health and life, despite the tolerance of scientific community in favour of certainly non-proved theories, because we have a previous compromise, a compromise with Materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science, in some way, compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenon of the world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our previous adhesion to Materialist conception of universe to create a display of investigation and a set of concepts that produce Materialist explanations, it does not matter how contradictory, how deceiving and how mythological they are to the non-initiated. Beyond that, to us, the Materialism is absolute; we cannot permit that the ‘Divine Foot’ gets in by our door” (New York Reviews of Books, 1987).

    That evolutionism has been moulded by factors other than Biology is confirmed by the following observation. I trust that evolutionists will not quibble with source.

    “Reading the detailed report of Schweber of the moments that preceded the formulation of the natural selection theory by Darwin, I was particularly touched by the absence of decisive influences from its own field, Biology. The immediate precursors were a social scientist [Comte], an economist [Adam Smith] and a statistician [Adolph Quetelet]” (S. Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p.55).

    And so what, someone will say, protesting apathy towards matters theological and philosophical. Maybe the following will disturb their mental lethargy.

    If the theory of Darwinist evolution had its origin in Darwin’s philosophical and economical readings, it provided a great vehicle for the propagation of Marxist materialism. In effect, “Marx was a great admirer of Darwin” (Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p.57).

    “When the ”Origin of Species” showed up, Marx and Engels, the apostles of the world as a flow, saluted it with great joy. In 1860, Marx wrote to Engels: “Although developed in crude English style, this is the book that contains the basis of our perceptions in Natural History” (Howard E. Gruber, Darwin on Man, The University Chicago Press1981, p.71).

    Marx wrote:

    “It is amazing how Darwin recognizes, between animals and plants, his English society, with the division of work, the competition, the openness to new markets, the “invention” and the Malthusian “fight for survive”. It is the bellum omnium contra omnes (the war of all against all) of Hobbes” (The Panda’s Thumb, Jay Gould, p.56-57).

    The closed ties between Evolutionism and Marxism is proved by the witness of Bishop O’Gara, Bishop of Yuanling, in China. According to the testimony of this Prelate, when the Communist Liberation Army of Mao Tsé Tung entered in a town, all the population was forced to participate in a course of propaganda and indoctrination, and, the first lesson was not about the doctrine of Karl Marx, but about Evolutionism, trying to convince the people that man came from the monkey. ( Patrick Troadec, L’Évolutionisme, French apostile, p. 2).

    I don’t think there is any need to spell out the attraction that evolutionist-inspired racial theories held for the motorised Attila operating out of Berlin between 1933 and 1945.

    October 13, 2016 at 1:33 pm
  • Leo

    “Classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily for such a long time by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” – Nobel prize-winner Sir Ernest Chain, co-discoverer of penicillin, 1970.

    Repeated attempts to dress evolutionism up as science need to be treated with a lot of scepticism, particularly when in matters concerning origins, neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.

    One absolutely essential point to be made in any discussion of the hypothesis of evolution, is that microevolution and macroevolution are totally different.

    MICRO-evolution is a fact of science that concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. MACRO-evolution on the other hand is the unproven hypothesis that one species “evolves” over time into something entirely different.

    It is therefore very important to be on our guard against any bait switch tactics employed by evolutionists which attempt to persuade people that what takes place in micro evolution is proof of macro evolution. Such attempts are at best, scientifically flawed.

    “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.”
    [As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]

    So, in the interest of clarification, I think it is reasonable, when referring to evolution, to understand it as a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world.

    Here’s one very obvious question that I expect jumps out at everyone straight away. If a giraffe is related to an elephant, or a zebra is related to a horse, where exactly can I see all the intermediary “species” between those creatures and their ancestors? Is it not correct to say that under evolution changes to species take place very gradually? For that to be true, there must surely be a great many physically distinguishable creatures all along the spectrum of “evolutionary” change. And what exactly is a zebra, or a giraffe, or a flamingo currently “evolving” into? Where are the transitory generations?

    For evolution to stand scrutiny, we should be awash with material evidence, bringing us back step by speculative step to whatever the common ancestors are supposed to have been. Is it not true that laboratory experiments on stratified sedimentary rock formations have shown the deposition of sedimentary particles to have taken place rapidly? Is it not logical to deduct that fossils found in a rock that took less than a year to form must have lived together at the same time? Is it not true that for the hypothesis of evolution to be a reality, billions of years of gradual change are required?

    And forgetting about any fossil record, the “intermediate forms” of today should be visible to us right now, walking around. There must be a multitude of creatures, at every stage of development, at any moment in time.

    Objective evolutionists at least recognise the risk involved in presuming that evolution has taken place:

    “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

    Steven Stanley, from Johns Hopkins University, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

    “Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.

    “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, evolutionist, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

    Evolutionist, David Kitts acknowledges the issue and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

    “Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), “Search for the Holy Transformation,” Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

    When it comes to the fossil record, evolution is one giant collection of enormous gaps. And of course, we have had the hoaxes, or frauds. In the case of Man, we need only recall Java man, Piltdown man, Peking man, and Nebraska man. There never has been found and there never will be found anything that is more than ape and less than man.When fraudulent means are used to provide so-called evidence of Evolution, it is reasonable to draw the obvious conclusions.

    Let’s be clear, macro evolution and “speciation” (the evolutionary transformation into “new” species), no matter how much is said about natural selection, genetic variation, and mutation, are scientifically unfounded speculations.

    All the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:

    “New” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.


    “New” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.

    Let’s hear what some evolutionist authorities have said concerning natural selection:

    “If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]

    “Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]

    “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]

    For those who refuse to accept, or even consider, that the order and beauty of the universe reflect the will of a Divine Creator, I might end with the words of the great G. K. Chesterton:

    “To an atheist, the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody.”

    October 13, 2016 at 1:47 pm
  • Athanasius


    I see our atheist contributors have vanished today. Do you think it might be because they have no answers to the facts presented?

    October 13, 2016 at 3:09 pm
    • Drexus

      No, just waiting for an intelligent answer from the theists — or did you forget already?

      October 14, 2016 at 4:24 am
      • Athanasius


        You’re good with the one-liners but not so clever when it comes to putting a rational case for your irrational denial of God. At least Dawkins attempts to hide his lunacy behind some intellectual waffle. Still makes people laugh, but credit to him for trying.

        October 14, 2016 at 3:57 pm
      • Drexus

        Answer the questions I presented first — if you think my position is so irrational.

        October 15, 2016 at 5:49 am
      • editor


        I have spent some time trawling to see if I could find the question which you say you “presented first” and I cannot find it.

        If you repeat it here, I’ll do my best to provide an answer.

        Thank you.

        October 15, 2016 at 12:53 pm
      • Drexus

        Your objectives have been revealed. You care not for any objective truth in dialog — only talking points, untenable to anything constructive. Calculated in scoring subjective points as aimed more valuable than truth.

        Go pretend with someone else’s time. You’re dishonest in your objectives.

        October 15, 2016 at 11:04 pm
      • editor

        Nonsense. It’s YOUR objectives that are suspect. You have not come on here to explain the meaning of Dawkins’ ridiculous “something from nothing” blether, but to attack God again. That seems to be the sum and substance of “science” these days. That’s the point at which the “with-it” thinking of contemporary “scientists” and atheists meet: they are both intent on rubbishing religious belief, especially Catholic belief. Their entire philosophy rests on disproving the existence of God, and since that cannot be done, scientifically or in any other way, by any other means, they settle for rubbishing belief in God. See if I care…

        In not one of your posts have you addressed the issue of that daft nonsensical proposition – that something can come from nothing – oh and that we have to accept that uncritically because, well, after all, “something mysterious” happened at the start of the universe. You bet. Still, not the “something” you expect a scientist to argue. They usually want empirical evidence, stuff you can see and observe. Mysteries? Used to mock us Catholics for talking about the Mysteries of Faith, so I suppose it’s a step forward to identify some mysteries of science.

        It’s certainly more than a little interesting; we’re now being told that it’s perfectly logical to exercise faith in “something mysterious” happening at the start of the universe, as long as it’s not God, the Creator of the Universe. Yes, I’d say that is very interesting indeed. With bells on, if you’ll excuse my descent into ungrammaticalness… 😀

        October 15, 2016 at 11:15 pm
      • Athanasius


        First you must present properly constructed questions. All I’ve read from you so far is a litany of mocking denials.

        October 15, 2016 at 2:14 pm
      • Therese


        I’m waiting for your isuperior intellect to answer to Faith of Our Fathers very simple, and I’m sure very easily explained, answer regarding chickens and eggs. Did you miss it, or don’t you know the answer? Do expound.

        October 14, 2016 at 5:14 pm
      • Drexus

        “isuperior”? What word is this?

        “…to answer to Faith of Our Fathers very simple…”

        What manner or grammatical blunder is this? I’m not even sure what’s trying to be said here.

        October 15, 2016 at 5:53 am
      • editor


        It’s always a mistake in debate to mock your opponent for a slip of the tongue, or in this case, the keyboard. If you really can’t comprehend the question, why not ask politely for a clarification?

        I think it’s clear that Therese meant to write as follows: “I’m awaiting your superior intellect to answer Faith of our Fathers’ simple question and I’m sure easily explained answer regarding chickens and eggs [which came first?] Did you miss it, or don’t you know the answer? Do expound.”

        I recall the blogger Faith of our Fathers (FOOF) asking that question and you have still not answered it, so Therese (and the rest of us) would be interested in your answer.

        Thank you.

        October 15, 2016 at 12:31 pm
      • Drexus

        So, you want me to answer the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg — as somehow relevant to anything about the Big-Bang comment from the video of this article?

        October 15, 2016 at 8:17 pm
      • editor


        Nope. Nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory. Just answer the question – which came first, the chicken or the egg? Heavens, you’re clearly struggling to answer, so let me help you. The answer is obvious, man. The chicken came from nothing and the egg came from something, so, logically, something came from nothing and it’s a MYSTERY whether the chicken really was the something or whether the egg was the something but one of them has to be the nothing. It’s obvious. Something mysterious went on between the chicken and the egg. Ask Krauss. Don’t you understand that?

        October 15, 2016 at 10:54 pm
      • Drexus

        “which came first, the chicken or the egg”

        This is an old thought experiment — moot in defining the origins of a species as definitive to an ever changing description of imperceptible shifts in physiology.

        The argument goes: at what point is a species no longer a species, but something different. The key component of this exercise rests with an objective description verses a biological description of change.

        Were we to be critical of the definition of what a human is, technically, we could only maintain that description for a single generation. For each generation takes on imperceptibly small changes — as defined by the shape of the respective environment.

        Now, if your really interested in how this works, I’ve written articles that describe this. Further, natural selection and artificial selection both play on the response mechanism of entropic adaptation.

        As an example, let’s say a specific race of humans — Australians — narrowed their genetic profile by discouraging marriage with any other race. At the same time, let’s say all other races on earth mingled equally with each other. If you roll forward 10 generations, what might you find?

        For tha Austrailans, their genetic profile will have adapted to a static environment — allowing entropic adaptation to refine their genetic responses to a higher degree. Outside of Australia, the whole world would have a more homogeneous genetic profile — blending the distinctiveness of many races into a more common profile.

        Roll forward 100 generations and the genetic delta between Australia and the rest of the world would be quite distinct.

        The question then becomes, when did Australians become Australians? And when did the composite race of the world become indistinct? The answer is always weighed against the definition of what an Australian is or what a member of the human species is.

        With imperceptible changes happening from generation to generation, at what point does the definition stray from the current understanding?

        Many would postulate that humans today are no longer humans — as understood from 200 years ago. From the perspective of science, our species is defined by how a species functions in a given environment. Since our environment is not defined only by physical environment (trees, soil, temperature, etc.) but by the development of our most invested survival trait: Sociality. So, the definition of what a human includes the developed social capability we depend upon for survival.

        To that, we are completely different that the humans of 200 years ago — for our environments are magnitudes apart.

        October 15, 2016 at 11:49 pm
      • Athanasius


        A scientist who gets thrown by a single letter typo at the start of a word to the extent that he cannot decipher the word’s meaning? That doesn’t bode well for the scientific community. Ditto the “grammatical blunder” you highlight.

        Insulting those you consider inferior in intellect to yourself is not a good way to impress anyone. Quite the contrary.

        I note that you have not addressed the content of Leo’s posts. But then, you haven’t really addressed the content of any posts on here, except to mock and deny what is patently obvious to all rational human beings. Sad, that!

        October 15, 2016 at 2:22 pm
      • Therese


        Now that Editor and Athanasius have very kindly clarified the meaning of my post to you so that you may understand it (and as you were unable to perform such a simple function yourself I must withdraw my suggestion that your intellect is superior), please do now answer Faith of Our Fathers’ very simple question. Either that, or confess that you are unable to do so.

        October 15, 2016 at 4:37 pm
  • Leo


    Better say nothing yet, but maybe we’ve “sent them homeward, tae think again”.

    I see you were on the receiving end of a bit of waffle and wind earlier. You can tell when the opposition is running out of arguments: the spiteful ad hominem attacks start. I’m inclined to take that as a concession, even if it won’t ever be admitted.

    If they come over the hill again, I’ll be very interested in the atheist explanation for moral law and it’s binding, obligatory force. And the usual mutterings about some social contract, “as long as no one is hurt”, non-aggression pact, don’t even begin to count as persuasive evidence.

    October 13, 2016 at 6:03 pm
    • Margaret Mary


      I’ve been reading your comments and they are of your usual high standards. You should write a book!

      October 13, 2016 at 6:28 pm
      • Petrus

        My one wish is that I had the knowledge and literary prowess of Leo. Outstanding.

        October 13, 2016 at 7:26 pm
  • Leo

    Margaret Mary and Petrus

    Thank you very much for those words. I think that the flattery police will be knocking on both your doors in the near future.

    Any literary capabilities are an illusion, believe me. Truth be told, it’s mostly bodgering posts together, passing on the work of others. I wouldn’t have thought, though, that my efforts compare with Editor’s or Athanasius’ when it comes to expressing things, and putting right those in error. And I can think of other bloggers too who can say all that needs to be said, in a few lines, without testing anyone’s attention span.

    As for books, I think my station is with the readers. Well maybe if I stapled two or three marathon posts together, I might have the quantity anyway. Amazon wouldn’t be rushed off their feet with orders but at least I’d have my Christmas shopping well and truly sorted for once.

    For some reason I’m reminded of the following:

    Mick was talking to a friend one day: “Ye know, this speed reading crack is great. Yesterday, I read War and Peace from cover to cover.”

    Friend: “Right. That sounds a bit impressive. What’s the storyline then?”

    Mick: “I think it’s about Russia”.

    October 13, 2016 at 10:37 pm
    • Athanasius


      You underestimate your talent for writing, as well as over-estimating mine. Like the others, I find your contributions very concise and informative. But I’m quite sure we all recognise that whatever our individual talents, they are a gift from God and we will have to render an account for them. There now, that should keep us all very humble.

      October 13, 2016 at 11:52 pm
    • editor


      “I wouldn’t have thought, though, that my efforts compare with Editor’s or Athanasius’ when it comes to expressing things…”

      Ever humble, our Leo. Of COURSE your efforts compare very well with Athanasius… 😀

      And LOVED the joke. Priceless!

      October 14, 2016 at 12:22 am
  • gabriel syme

    I would like to echo the praise of Leo for his excellent contributions to this thread. Excellent work.

    Its amazing to think that many secular persons regard the religious as ignorant and backward, yet even just to scratch the surface of topics like this (never mind go into detail) undoubtedly shows who it is who is really ignorant and credulous.

    October 15, 2016 at 12:43 am
  • editor

    Given that we are now at the “going round and round in circles” stage with this thread, and given that it has become acrimonious in the extreme, I am now going to close it.

    Thanks to all who contributed. And to our atheist friends – God bless you!

    October 17, 2016 at 11:05 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: