Video: O’Reilly versus Dawkins on evolution. What could go wrong?
posted at 4:00 pm on October 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Food-fight material from the eternal debate for a slow-news Saturday afternoon. Every time we have a thread on this subject, a bunch of commenters end up pointing out that creationism and evolution aren’t strictly incompatible. In fact, O’Reilly takes that position himself. But if that’s how you want to play it in the classroom — teaching “evolution plus,” with the theory of design tacked onto the basic Darwinian syllabus — why don’t we get to teach “evolution minus” too showcasing evidence that there is, in fact, no God? Most biology teachers are content to teach the theory and leave the question of ultimate origin in the air, but if believers want to be aggressive about pursuing that, let’s be really aggressive and teach both possibilities. I’m sure Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris would leap at the chance of putting together a video presentation for America’s many impressionable Christian schoolchildren aimed at showing why God almost certainly doesn’t exist. How about it?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 15 Next »
I thought the part about Dawkins asking Bill to stop screaming in his ear to be the keeper portion of the evening. For those who’ve not read it but are interesting, Dawkins’ book is much better than his prior Delusion.
/conath
elcapt on October 10, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I demand Hawkins’ theory of accretional epistemology be balanced with Kuhn’s theory of exploded paradigms!
Chris_Balsz on October 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM
You had me until line 6 and the words
Ryan Gandy on October 10, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I do believe there is a God, till something or someone can show me without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God!.
hawkman on October 10, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Textbooks are full of false Darwin theories that science has proven wrong. They are being taught as fact. These false diagrams and embryo drawings need to be removed to stay unbiased.
PrezHussein on October 10, 2009 at 4:08 PM
G.K. Chesterton
kingsjester on October 10, 2009 at 4:08 PM
This is one of those cases where someone tells me there is a horrific car wreck down the street…and for once, I just walk the other way.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Bill, help the cause by shutting up.
Orange Doorhinge on October 10, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Why don’t we just throw down hard core and have Ed and AP debate the issue via podcast? One can remain anonymous while revealing their voice, right?
sluhser589 on October 10, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Really, Dawkins? Nothing else should be taught except evolution?
SouthernGent on October 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM
I don’t need to view it to know how this turns out. Unfortunately for Creationists and ID Proponents, this is as close as we will get to seeing Dawkins debate anyone on the other side. He routinely declines any debate with either. As a result, Dawkins is of little value to this discussion. He is simply a mouthpiece for atheism with no substance.
Vaporman87 on October 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Like you can possibly defeat the perfectly persuasive power of a homoerotic banana!
greenonions on October 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Yeah, this atheism act is getting tiresome…
Lando Jones on October 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM
O’Reilly needs to make “fascism” his word of the day, sometime, so he’ll learn the definition. I agree with O’Reilly’s side of the argument (I’m a pretty strict evolutionist, but I have no problem with mentioning its shortcomings, problems and the fact that many people believe otherwise), but he goes a little off-course with his “fascist” accusation. What O’Reilly meant was “closed-minded, nasty, and condescending”, which would have been apt to say.
General evolutionary theory is a very important topic to teach. It is one of the most powerful systems Man has ever created/discovered (depending on ones view) and ranks up there with the chain reaction as one of the intellectual foundations of the modern world. But that is general evolutionary theory I am talking about. Biological evolution is just one theorized application of it and it is particularly frustrating to see people push for biological evolution to be taught as absolute law when it is the more general idea of evolutionary systems that is really important.
Dawkins is just a twerp, by the way.
progressoverpeace on October 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Again…the media ignores Theistic Evolution.
Genesis 1 was written as a theological response to neighboring cosmologies (Egyptian and Assyrian). It was not written as a scientific play-by-play documentary on how earth and life came into being.
The biggest damage to evangelism is the literal interpretation of Genesis 1. This interpretation eliminates the intellectual side of Christianity, and actually hinders medical science.
jediwebdude on October 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Interesting, but not very.
I yearn for a real “slow news day,” one in which there is no worry about Iran, Af/Pak or Osama Obama not trying to sabotage our nation.
Maybe then I can work up some emotion for overpaid nutjobs babbling about evolution.
MrScribbler on October 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I’m all for teaching the children all sides of every thing.
Give them knowledge. Don’t hold anything back.
bridgetown on October 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Fixed it for me.
MrScribbler on October 10, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Darwin said that competition within a specie was more intense than between species.
I get it now.
A crank like Dawkins (I largely agree with his “side” on this but let’s face it, he’s a jerk) versus a boor like O’Reilly.
SteveMG on October 10, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Traffic whore.
God aside, evolution is a scientific joke and entropically impossible.
Valiant on October 10, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Should they teach reincarnation?
the_nile on October 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Yawn.
TheBigOldDog on October 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM
AP’s challenge would be fine if we had school choice. Then you would have educational environments not controlled by extreme leftists and atheists where all sides could get a fair review. AP has to know his challenge would not be executed in a balanced manner given America’s public school prisons with their leftist/atheist anti-American wardens. So, it is not a challenge provided in good faith.
ray on October 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Ahhh, stealing crap from LGF again?
Perhaps Chuckles will put you back in the good books again.
As one of the many, many people banned from there, I am not impressed by the blatant attempt at traffic whoring. Just make fun of the Nobel Laureate Barack Obama again and I’ll be happy.
mjk on October 10, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Everything in the universe is contingent on something that precedes it, ie. the tree is contingent on the acorn, the chicken is contingent on the egg. NOW the “scientists” want us to believe against all evidence that the universe itself is contingent on NOTHING. More smart power in action.
Mojave Mark on October 10, 2009 at 4:22 PM
The conflict between science and religion is just like the conflict between bicycles and birds.
Loxodonta on October 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM
O’Reilly is a moron for putting “Atheist” on the screen to describe Dawkins. Dawkins’ education:
“Dawkins attended Oundle School from 1954 to 1959. He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, graduating in 1962. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen’s supervision at the University of Oxford, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966…”
Dawkins maintains that the purpose of a science class should be to focus on science (not religion).
He’s a fascist! Ummm, no he’s science professor.
perroviejo on October 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Bill O’Reilly came off like a stupid jackass. Dawkins was on the show to present evolution as science, not about moral compasses.
He didn’t say that. He said find a better science but not fairy tales.
Aqualung
© Ian Anderson 1971
In the beginning Man created God;
and in the image of Man
created he him.
Norman Blizter on October 10, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I’m glad you found an outlet for your virginity.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Too many huge gaps and no direct links between species to simply accept Darwinisn as cold hard fact. I have no problem with evolution THEORY being taught so long as the fact that evolution can not explain creation by any known means is also taught.
Teach Creation as an unsolved mystery and Evolution as a post-Creation theory on life’s mutations and everyone should be happy.
Guardian on October 10, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Errr … because there IS no evidence. When you find any, let us know.
Gregor on October 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Evolution is predicated on death. No death, no fitness function.
Either God designed a suboptimal natural order in need of improvement (whither then the need for God in the first place), God designed the natural order with its current state built into the fitness function (whither then Darwin’s strict requirement of an unguided process, indeed the idea of moral agency at all), or God designed the universe in an optimal state predicated on some moral agent’s continuing adherence to a moral law, without which the whole system would spiral into destruction.
spmat on October 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I don’t bother watching O’Reilly debate this issue because he’s uninformed and makes our side (design) look stupid. Just like global warming where he says “who knows, but cleaning up goop in the environment is a good thing”. It’s not informative.
That said, is AllahPundit arguing with a strawman here with all of his talk of “teaching” design? Most of us simply want science taught, not fairytales, but we don’t ask that design/creation be taught. Did O’Reilly advocate teaching it?
RightWinged on October 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM
i saw this yesterday. am i the only one that noticed bill admitting that he is an agnostic? he clearly said “i don’t know” at one point in the debate…
homesickamerican on October 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM
If Man evolved from the Apes then Who created the Apes?
David2.0 on October 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I don’t know whether there is a God or not; however, I find it funny that atheists and scientists can’t see the irony in their belief that from an incredible smallness burst forth an nearly infinite universe…it must take a whole lot of “faith” to believe that theory.
kagai on October 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM
How does someone who doesn’t know the difference between a falafel and a loofa have anybody take him seriously ? BOR is a creep of the first order , no conservative , no intellectual , and no cultural warrior . Creep . Just a creep . Factor creep.
borntoraisehogs on October 10, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Come now, if we don’t insist on teaching American public school children something about the origins of the universe and beyond, then how oh how could the United States maintain its prestigious rankings in science education?
MeatHeadinCA on October 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Since, in his view, there is no “better science”, he implicity said nothing else should be taught. I’m agnostic myself. I just don’t know why atheists are so militant. Seriously, we all get it. You don’t like god. Okay. Yay! Woohoo!
SouthernGent on October 10, 2009 at 4:35 PM
My great grandmother barely broke five feet and weighed a buck-oh-five.
I am just shy of six feet, and weigh a stone or two more.
CLEARLY, there is evolutionary pressure on the species.
BUT NEITHER MY GRANDMOTHER NOR I CLAIM A KNUCKLE DRAGGING APE IN OUR FAMILY TREE.
(But then again, I am from South Carolina….most of our trees are STUMPS!!! Hah!)
seejanemom on October 10, 2009 at 4:36 PM
….why God almost certainly doesn’t exist.
AP. Does this mean you are not certain because you can’t prove it?
Please, we get the point now. You re an atheist. Good for you. Now can we please move on now. Thanks!
Erikimmigrant on October 10, 2009 at 4:36 PM
You’re obviously projecting hostility about your own celibate existence. Once again, the pea-brain conservative needs to respond in the most childish manner thus disproving Anita MonCrief’s belief that conservatives are tolerant of the opinons of others.
Norman Blizter on October 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM
As I have just finished stuffing my face when this thread popped up, a food fight right now sounds less than appealing. So I’m going to drop my two cents and fly.
I’m with ya on this one Allah, whats good for the goose/is good for the gander, equal opportunity education by all means.
This will never happen of course, because if Hitchens, Dawkins & Co. were allowed to place sound cogent arguements side by side with creationist bronze-age mythology based on less evidence than there is for Sasquatch, well we all know which way that’d go don’t we?
Sorry ’bout the drive-by kids, but I’m out.
(might pull a “gawker” and peek back in at the shit storm though)
Archimedes on October 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM
hawkman on October 10, 2009 at 4:06 PM
It’s impossible to prove a negative: I do believe in unicorns, till something or someone can show me without a shadow of a doubt that there are no unicorns.
I’ve shifted the burden of proof from myself (to prove the affirmative) to you (to prove the negative, which cannot be done).
BLOC on October 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM
The theory is that man and ape evolved from the same ancestors.
the_nile on October 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM
No more O’Reilly for me, thank you.
rrpjr on October 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM
What a ridiculous quote. The idea of god is just that, an idea. It’s an abstract construct and not something that has been proven without a doubt. It would be better worded
“Without the concept of god there would be no atheists”
Norvell on October 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM
“If Man evolved from the Apes then Who created the Apes?”
Utterly devoid of intellectual merit, just invert your queery. If God created the universe, who created God?
Archimedes on October 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM
So Anderson is saying Man existed before the Universe? Interesting theory.
Chesterton was a thinker, a writer, and a philosopher.
Anderson was the leader of Jethro Tull.
uknowmorethanme on October 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM
@ kagai on October 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM
You have no idea what atheist think or what evolution entails. The beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.
Within 10 years, NASA will be launching a satellite that will most likely confirm without a shadow of a doubt that we are but one among millions of universes, and events such as the Big Bang occur when these universes collide.
The problem with christians is that they get one conceptual idea of “science” and then they continue to argue against that idea no matter what new evidence or observations are made. Most on this board argue against Darwinism and 19th century science, purposefully ignoring the amazing advances of the 20th and 21st centuries.
thphilli on October 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM
It is called the theory of evolution.
Johan Klaus on October 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM
The arguments to disprove God are the same arguments used to disprove evolution.
The reality, and the truth, is that evolution does not say anything about how the universe was created.
The Big Bang Theory is just as plausible as God.
uknowmorethanme on October 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Personally, I’ve been unable to get beyond Bertram Russell, who once said: “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it might just as well be the universe as God.”
The problem with injecting God into science classes is that scientific hypotheses are at least in theory falsifiable.
But since it is not possible to prove a negative — that there is no God — it is not possible to falsify the hypothesis that God exists. One can certainly present data that are consistent with the existence of God, but that’s far different than proving that God exists.
BLOC on October 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM
We have evidence that there is, in fact, no God? I think that’s news.
DarkCurrent on October 10, 2009 at 4:47 PM
You’re minimizing the word theory with your tone. Gravity is just as much a THEORY. However a theory is a well substantiated explaining for an occurence not just a thought without any backing. We have tested the theory of gravity several times over and seem to come to the conclusion it most likely exists. Same thing with evolution. Evolution has shown to occur in nature through natural selection. If you don’t believe in evolution you don’t believe in natural selection and in that case I don’t know what to tell you.
Norvell on October 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Does Richard Dawkins really exist? I don’t really care but he certainly inspired a hilarious South Park episode.
Monica on October 10, 2009 at 4:52 PM
And of course, scientist do not make statements that they propose as fact, that X happened twenty million years ago or that X star is 430 light years away or the discovery of the clustering of Quasars 10 Billion Light away.
Johan Klaus on October 10, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Why bother with that? Just come out and say it:
God doesn’t exist; therefore, God doesn’t exist.
That’s what I love about the pseudo scientific community. The are SO full of intellectual merit.
Saltysam on October 10, 2009 at 4:52 PM
So Anderson is saying Man existed before the Universe? Interesting theory.
Not at all silly, when man came into being(evolved)he neede some way describe his mysterious surroundings & origons with an extremly limited (neanderthal) actual knowledge base to go on.
By the the idea of god/s evolved evolved to what we know as monotheism, he implented his construct around bronze age knowledge.
Man created god as a means to explain his circumstance in lieu of actual science. While science has not yet, nor ever will answer, every pondering of man. It none the less has disproved the infalible word of god ad nauseum.
Archimedes on October 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM
You really are a dumbass. I think it’s pretty obvious what Anderson meant.
Norman Blizter on October 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM
FIFY
Mangy Scot on October 10, 2009 at 4:54 PM
God created evolution.
There, that fixes it.
Robert17 on October 10, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Utterly devoid of intellectual merit, just invert your queery. If the question is “if physical matter came from something physical, wouldn’t that chain have to have been started by something that transcends the rules of that chain?” then it’s devoid of intellectual merit to ignore the premise of the question and instead ask “what laws not transcending those we are aware of created this thing you claim is the maker of laws transcending that which we are aware of?”. pretty basic.
Richard Bushnell on October 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Allah,
First, even if it was true that there was no evidence God exists, that doesn’t mean you have any reason to say “He almost certainly doesn’t exist.” You’re confusing lack of evidence for a proposition with evidence against a proposition, which is invalid argumentation.
Second, there is evidence God exists. Excellent evidence. If you wish to be informed on this issue, I recommend you stop only reading things which confirm your world view. Lee Strobel has some compelling compilations of the best evidence out there for God, published under The Case for Christ and The Case for a Creator.
The evidence he interviews experts on includes the lack of any scientific explanations for the Cambrian Explosion, the origin of DNA, the irreducible complexity of machines in cells, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics to allow for any life in our universe, and the lack of any scientific explanation for the Big Bang. Any one of these topics points to God. Together they are unanswerable.
David Mickelson on October 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Yeah, not going to watch this trainwreck. Otherwise I will be forced to start drinking before the sun goes down. Mark me down in the “Who gives a F#ck what BillO or RD has to say” column.
di butler on October 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM
EVERYONE will believe that there is a God and that he created the world. It’s just a matter of whether you want to believe it now, or believe it later.
“The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” Psalm 14:1
thewhippingpost on October 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM
You have got no idea of what I am thinking or what is my tone. The theory of evolution has plenty of problems without me listing them.
Johan Klaus on October 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I’m confused. Should one interpret the book of Anderson literally or figuratively, in part or wholey? And where’s the data supporting these claims?
Loxodonta on October 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM
So how about teaching where evolution theory has flaws…using facts? How about showing how nature tends to follow patterns that are unexplained? How about teaching the math behind evolution and explain how even though we know we exist, we have no clue scientifically how it all came to be…but this theory has about 1 in a trillion trillion possibility of being the way to go?
Conservative Voice on October 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM
YOU’RE MISSING THE FREAKIN’ POINT!
If someone wants to be believe that God created the universe because nothing can create itself or have no creator, that logic needs to be applied to God as well.
Maybe God had a creator, are people willing to accept that idea?
Norman Blizter on October 10, 2009 at 5:00 PM
If they kept evolution in the confines that we can see this species is x% similar based on the following data points, instead of claiming the theory…thus this animal evolved from this animal…I think people wouldn’t have such an issue with evolution.
Conservative Voice on October 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM
They deserve each other.
RobCon on October 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Go for it. I’m not sure what a blank video would achieve, but I’m no atheist intellectual of the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris(*snicker*) caliber.
Darth Executor on October 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM
You’re right, my bad.
Norman Blizter on October 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Which came first; the chicken or the egg.
Johan Klaus on October 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Obviously not.
Norman Blizter on October 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I believe this debate can be solved if we all keep writing lots of trite sayings.
frankj on October 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM
An easy challenge allahpundit.
Disprove the following statement as it pertains to what we see and know in this world, and something more compelling than Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Where there is order, behind that order is a mind, a purpose, and a will.
look to the rock on October 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Nobody believes that (except Mormons), it’s a strawman fabricated by the eternally infantile minds of the current crop of atheist “intellectuals”.
Darth Executor on October 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM
fify
daddio on October 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM
AP, you obsess about God too much for an athiest. You need a trip to the Grand Tetons, or some place of similar beauty, to blow the stench of the city off and ponder what a miracle of matter our world is.
The elegance and richness are not accidents of nature.
eaglesdontflock on October 10, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Norvell, name one scientific law, theory or model that has been proven without a doubt.
spmat on October 10, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Why bother with that? Just come out and say it:
God doesn’t exist; therefore, God doesn’t exist.
That’s what I love about the pseudo scientific community. The are SO full of intellectual merit.
Saltysam on October 10, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I would not pretend to know. But, if the unalterable(demonstrably false), infalible word of god is proof of his existence, and then proved falible is must then surely discredit the pemise from which it derives.
Of course I’ll pre-empt to common refrain “where has it proved falible?” Let us take Noah & the Ark, the whole world was supposedly submerged for 40 days/nights. And Noah went out and collected two of each species and placed them on his Ark according to gods wishes.
Hmmmm, how did he manage 2 Llamas(Peru)/2 Polar Bears(N. pole)/2 penguins (S. pole)/ 2 lemurs(madagascar/ 2 pandas(China) and on and on. Did he use his frequent flyer miles? Then let us take the basic 3′s of this proposal, of mammals alone their are currntly over than 130,000,000 classified species, X2 makes 260,000,000. And that is just the mammals! On a vessel smaller than my condo bldg, I hardly think so.
It makes for interesting reading and is full of moral lessons that pertain to getting along in life, granted. Kinda. But as a rock solid foundation for rational thought, I don’t think so.
Archimedes on October 10, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Where there is order, there is intelligence.
I think the difference must be whether or not people see order. For some, for example, death seems disorderly and so seems without point, or without purpose.
Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Allah,
what’s funny to me, is that you are so ideological that you make the logical error of claiming that there is “in fact” evidence that there is no God. It is by nature unprovable as well as un-disprovable.
Even to prove evolution as fact would not disprove the existence of God. All that it would do is make you feel better about your unprovable ideology.
I too believe in an unprovable ideology. The difference between us is that I believe in God and you believe in “not-God.” There is security in what I believe, and there is by definition “nothing” in what you believe.
I am no more interested in your rants on the the non-existence of God than I am interested in bloggers who blog about scientific evidences of God. I don’t read a news blog to hear about God or “not-God.” I can read about faith and ideology elsewhere.
poorrichardsnews on October 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM
It is certain that it will not be solved here and now.
Johan Klaus on October 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM
…and I hate myself for posting on this thread. Heh.
Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
[quote]So how about teaching where evolution theory has flaws…using facts? How about showing how nature tends to follow patterns that are unexplained? How about teaching the math behind evolution and explain how even though we know we exist, we have no clue scientifically how it all came to be…but this theory has about 1 in a trillion trillion possibility of being the way to go?[/quote]
But you fail to understand to some, evolution is gospel. That’s what the debate always comes down. One religion versus another. One is taught in church, one is taught in schools. There may be more scientific fact in the theory of evolution, but you also have to have faith that the gaping holes and problems will be fixed someday
LordDaMan on October 10, 2009 at 5:10 PM
In other words allahpundit, deal with this huge elephant in your room. Explain order to me.
Explain to me how that in all you see of mans creation and work in this world, where this order exists, there is behind that order a mind, a purpose, and a will.
Our laboratory here is this earth, and the many works of man in it through the years.
look to the rock on October 10, 2009 at 5:10 PM
I’m not a scientist, so my opinion is bunk.
However, God (at least the Christian one, probably other versions, MAYBE some not so much) can exist alongside:
evolution,
the Big Bang,
aliens,
some other stuff.
They are not mutually exclusive.
foucaultsvac on October 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Creation and evolution are two separate subjects…aren’t they??
Itchee Dryback on October 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Hi Spirit, I guess that could be the case but it would seem much like what the definition of is is.
It is what it is.
look to the rock on October 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM
the egg.
the_nile on October 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM
I believe there is a God unless, of course, there isn’t.
catmman on October 10, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Looks like the point flew WAY above your head.
Saltysam on October 10, 2009 at 5:15 PM
A “bunch”? I thought I was the only one…feels like it most times.
I fully agree with Bill O on that.
Not “tacked on”…but “in tandem”.
What evidence is there for that?
JetBoy on October 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Norman Blizter on October 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Whether a person believes in God or not, one thing is certain; if God exist we, as humans with our very limited comrehension, could not comprehend.
Johan Klaus on October 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Hawkins, Hitchens and their ilk can make all the videos they want. God doesn’t fear scrutiny He welcomes it and rewards those who diligently seek him.
Present both sides. That’s all most creationists, like myself, ask.
pugwriter on October 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM
If someone wants to believe something can create itself, logic needs to be applied to logic as well.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Saltysam on October 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 15 Next »