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: « Previous 1 … 12 13 14 15 Next »
To me, as a religious person and someone who has done a lot of scientific observations, and some experiments, in the natural sciences, the Theory the Theory of Evolution, as used by real scientists, doing real scientific work, does not seem to be saturated with faith. It does seem to explain many things that are very difficult or impossible to explain rationally without the theory.
However, the Theory of Evolution as a cultural phenomena, the one that’s thrown around by political advocates and opponents, does seem to be dripping in faith and propaganda, both for and against.
There are many misconceptions about exactly what the Theory of Evolution is and what it isn’t. For example, the Theory says nothing about the origin of life on earth, simply how and why life changed after origin.
Here’s a list of misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution which I believe is useful and instructive. I haven’t read the whole site, but I haven’t read anything there that’s anti-theist yet. And so far, it simply does not touch upon the issue of God, which seems an appropriate approach for science. Unfortunately, in the “culture wars,” Evolution is used as a hammer by opponents to crush things that the Theory says nothing about.
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM
That mankind is essentially bad and in need of restoration?
daesleeper on October 11, 2009 at 12:18 PM
it is totally incompatible….
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Proof evolution does not exist…my quarter is worth less now then it did a year ago…un-evolution?
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I’ve posted this before:
The Bombing of Dresden
Live and learn.
Shy Guy on October 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM
obamanomics…
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Well, let’s see…it has proven that atheisism contributes nothing…seeing as our education, and the worlds education system was created by the faithful…and our hospital system the same.
So the proof is, the faithful build and create, the atheists only dismantle and complain.
Every atheistic driven society has failed…so the prove is this, the societies of faith are stable, the societies of secularism fail.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Arguing the existence of God/Creator/Intelligence with grown children in adult bodies is a waste of time. Scientific “reasoning” is not a part of the debate with the issue of God-or-Not: Atheists have chosen to deny a God because of a fear of judgement, an acknowledgement of Good vs. Evil.
All the scientific reasoning in the world does not explain MATTER itself, or EXISTENCE OF LIFE. Reasoning can explain that for some unknown reason all matter in the universe (our universe, because some thinking mathematical scientists posit multiple universes) collected into at least ONE great bundle, compressed in upon itself by a still unexplained idea named GRAVITY, until said matter overheated, expanded into a chain reaction called THE BIG BANG.
Not one scientists can or even tries to explain where MATTER itself came from because THEY CAN’T! That lies in the realm of philosophy (another word for FANCY RELIGION) where few scientists dare to go (although oddly enough the first modern scientists, Renaissance and The Enlightenment, never hesitated to apply scientific reasoning with philosophical reasoning).
So it is a waste of time to argue with these children – AP included – about what should or should not be taught in school. Seize control through election just like The One and his Commies did, and teach what our Founders taught, PERIOD. There is a God. There is not a State religion – that is ALL the constitution and the Founders say and said. To take the discussion of GOD out of schools is a blatant violation of the Constitution and the idea of Liberty. Teach Jesus-as-The-Real-One, or Allah, or Buddha or anything else EXCLUSIVELY is also a violation of said Liberty.
It’s not that complicated, folks.
klickink.wordpress.com on October 11, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Since we’re talking about science, what scientific evidence is there that “there is, in fact, no God”? The most commonly-stated argument from science to atheism is evolution. If evolution doesn’t prove it, what scientific discovery does? What is the scientific evidence that there is no God?
JS on October 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
This site is known as an anti-theis site, it just is a little more subtle.
The fact is, the one argument about not teaching creationism to children does not harm, is just plain false. Where ever faith was erased from education, where creationism supplanted evolution, the society fell apart. The most obvious is Germany during the 30′s and 40′s. Evolution, indeed the “superior race” drove much of the insidious actions of the German’s.
But it was a good try to sneak that site in as being “unbias”…
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Doesn’t it make sense that since 85%+ of the people, and well educated people believe in a God, that it would be taught as a viable alternative…or at least in conjunction with the other prevalent theory?
I guess the bottom line is, what harm is their in teaching this alternative theory…since our society’s foundation is one of faith, what is wrong with supporting that faith?
What harm is created? I still don’t understand the problem with teaching both theories, since both are just as “theoritical”.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Interesting quote from Coyne. Transgenics strikes me as applied evolution. If we can genetically modify pigs enough to transplant their organs into humans it would seem to reinforce common descent. However, if someone wanted to make a case that it proved the need for an intelligent designer (God or a geneticist) that could be interesting.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I think they are both wrong. Evolution should be taught as the accepted and well supported scientific explanation for the appearance and diversity of life. But it should be pointed out to children (just as a caveat) that science can’t address meaning or ultimate origins as it is a methodology that creates and tests hypotheses by gathering evidence through experiment — which much be reproducible — and by logical inference. I believe agnosticism to be the most honest for a non-believer. Atheism is an assertion that goes beyond science because a person is then absolutely sure that there is no God of any type. I think a degree of skepticism is called for even here.
What I got from OReilly is that he believes in Jesus until some better explanation comes along; that’s not a ringing endorsement. Perhaps that was not his intent, but nonetheless, faith is not based on a checklist of what one wants to have answers to. There is an emotive dimension that deepens one’s experience of living; life means a lot more to the religious than to most non religious people; Right to Life did not come out of the Atheists; and for good reason. Meaning is not “out there”. We give life its meaning by what we choose to believe in and invest our life energy into.
Dawkins and the atheists usually dominate the conversation with the wrong questions and a twisting of historical events and their meaning. Religious adherents frequently fall into their traps. Bu t then again we’re all imperfect. I wonder where I heard that before.
mbabbitt on October 11, 2009 at 12:41 PM
proof evolution does exist… after the devaluation of the dollar, the inflation of prices.
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Scientifically sound observation imo!
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
its not because it is directed by intelligence…ie intelligent design.
applied evolution..to humans….is eugenics.
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Since the only evidence in favor of the existence of a God is provided by humans I think the burden of proof falls to creationists.
Blind faith advocates would be well advised to leave the God debate out of schools, when children have both sides fairly related to them a much higher percentage of the time religion loses, young people relate to logic a little easier than believe because I’m telling you to.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM
thomasaur on October 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I didn’t know that. I still haven’t reviewed the whole site, simply some of the misconception pieces. Where is it anti-theist?
I want faith taught to children. I’ve taught Catholic Catechism classes. But, I don’t see how one teaches faith in the public schools without having to teach all faiths and the lack of faith. So, I’d prefer religion to be discussed from an historical point of view in the public schools, but without any attempt to encourage faith in any particular religion. Instead, I want the teaching of faith left up to parents and the religious organizations to which they belong.
I was so sneaky that I wrote: “I haven’t read the whole site, but I haven’t read anything there that’s anti-theist yet. And so far, it simply does not touch upon the issue of God, which seems an appropriate approach for science.”
If you think I’m devious to the point that I would intentionally mislead readers here, you don’t know me at all.
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM
You missed the mark. The theory of evolution does not pretend to touch on origin, meaning, ethics, and destiny.
The idea of a common ancestor is an extrapolation from and not a tenet of evolutionary theory. It shouldn’t be because it is not testable or falsifiable.
Atheism must hang its hat on evolutionary theory as it is the best fit for their worldview’s origin. Evolutionary theory can tell us nothing about ethics, meaning, and destiny.
daesleeper on October 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Who’s Richard Dawkins?
Cody Baker on October 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Ooooh, impressive. Evolution has a proven empirical record of hard evidence, what does religion have?
Ummm yeah hearsay.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Game show host, Family Fued was his claim to fame after Hogan’s Heroes.
thomasaur on October 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Allah brought up the possibility of evidence that there is no God. He asked if theists would mind such evidence being taught in schools. I asked him to provide this evidence.
I would also point out that the claim “God does not exist” is a claim to know something, just as is the claim “God exists.” So it seems to me that the atheist must shoulder the burden of proof as well as the theist. However burden of proof issues are notoriously complicated.
JS on October 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Problem is the case can be made for the lack of a God can be made logically and in the face of belief through faith, when both are presented fairly or even independently more kids will go with logic.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Tons of evidence for this! lol!
daesleeper on October 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I think that will be the bigger story than where we originated. Once humans can manage genetic information, you will see human-directed intelligent design. It will likely be the biggest and most controversial issue of this young millenium.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Yes there is, think of a time when Christianity was at a near stranglehold in American society say safely between 150-400 years ago, now track the rise in public education, at least before 1975 the education was very firmly founded in Judeo Christian pro America but at the same time as general education rates rise the percentage of people who relate to themselves as deeply devout falls.
Even in the overwhelming Christian influence of revolutionary times, many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. The educated think more independently.
Critical thinking skills and general improvement in education produces skepticism in blind faith.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM
That is great! As long as we define logic as agreeing with your worldview!
daesleeper on October 11, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Easy. The egg.
Pot-Kettle-Black. What books have you read that don’t confirm your own world view?
Ah, a Christian apologist! There’s an unbiased source.
Lee Stobel is joke. He interviews only those “experts” he knows already agree with his point of view and ignores any evidence to the contrary. His “Case For” books have been thoroughly dismantled on sites like infidels.org
Unanswerable? Please, the questions you pose have been answered countless times. People like you simply refuse to listen.
chumpThreads on October 11, 2009 at 1:21 PM
What does religion have?
Believers in every culture on every continent, from the earliest records.
More than twice as many natural sciencists who are religious believers than atheists.
About ten times as many believers than non-believers worldwide.
At least thousands, and more likely millions, of first person eye-witness accounts.
The incredibly amoral, decadent, and evil acts of avowed atheists during the last half of the 20th Century that resulted in the slaughter of millions of unarmed, defenseless, innocent people because of their religious beliefs or ethnicity.
Just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more.
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 1:25 PM
An honest statement well expressed.
Geochelone on October 11, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Yeah large numbers of DNA hardwired people have never been duped all at the same time.
I don’t believe you, and a rising number of other people don’t either.
Its the same both ways, that’s how blind faith works.
Hearsay.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM
What kind of world would it be if everything was logical?
We would lose many unpleasantries. But we would also lose fun, humor, laughter, and all the emotions. But most importantly, in a logical world, there would be no love.
Any buyers?
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 1:34 PM
War, anger, hate, prejudice, fear, doubt, worry, ego.
Logic is such a low percentage of need.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Breed those traits out of the gene pool.
daesleeper on October 11, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Or accept the strong need to teach logic and maturity over emotion and never growing up.
Or even understanding the connection between emotion and mechanism that creates the need for spirituality.
We can learn to control the outrage trigger.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 1:47 PM
By compulsion of course!
The Vulcan world you describe does not exist. It cannot exist. Mankind has a fallen/bad nature. You cannot socialize it out of him. I don’t care how many times you re-read the Humanist Manifesto II. Man is essentially a spiritual being.
daesleeper on October 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM
The Vulcan world doesn’t have to exist, just a lot more understanding of human nature.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I apologize for being rude to you.
Thanks, but this is one of those very difficult subjects for all of us. I’ve tried to inject some humor, but sometimes I get serious, and it’s just so difficult to discuss this issue seriously without offending somebody.
I want there to be a “marketplace of the ideas” regarding these issues. I learn from people with whom I disagree, and I most often respect their points of view, even when I believe them to be untrue.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but this thread seem to have been dominated by those who believe in evolution, but not religion, demonstrating general contempt for all those who have religious beliefs; and those who have religious beliefs, but don’t believe in evolution, demonstrating general contempt for all those who believe in evolution, or are agnostics or atheists.
I’m sorry to be different, but I believe in evolution, and I know God exists from my own personal experience. And I like many agnostics and atheists, people from other Christian denominations, even some denominations that some don’t consider to be really “Christian,” Jews, Buddhists, Zen Buddhists, Sufi, Muslims, and a few other odd and sundry belief systems.
So, I’m getting a little grumpy with the tone here. Sorry.
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Which is how I ended up a christian and you an atheist I reckon…
daesleeper on October 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM
++ nailed that one…Mmm..Mmmm…Mmmm!
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 2:10 PM
What is the scientific evidence there is?
Shambhala on October 11, 2009 at 2:14 PM
What the Hell has that got to do with evolution?
Shambhala on October 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Scientists and atheists never lie, never commit fraud, and never attempt to dupe others for fame, profit, or simply the fun of it? Here’s some evidence of that. There is a lot more, though.
Have you ever read any books on religion and the history of religion?
Name the continent where people live and where religion is not practiced. And, when expeditions go to Antarctica, do they only allow atheists?
Have you ever read any scientific books on Paleolithic Art?
While there are disputed that all of it is religious in nature, I don’t believe there are any disputes that at least some of it is religious art.
Yes. This is how it works.
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Your conclusion is based on belief?..how logic based is that?
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I answered the following question: “What does religion have?”
So, I cited several things that religion has supporting it, then cited something that opponents of religion have that is not in their favor.
What’s wrong with that?
This thread is not merely about evolution. Or, don’t you believe in thread evolution?
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM
What does that have to do with evolution?
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Have you ever been kissed by an elephant?
Sorry! Off topic! What does that have to do with evolution?!
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Why bother? Who’s to say there’s any moral imperative?
Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Just a little clue, that comment was designed to be exactly that way although it does express dis-belief.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 2:46 PM
its not because it is directed by intelligence…ie intelligent design.
applied evolution..to humans….is eugenics.
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM
I think that will be the bigger story than where we originated. Once humans can manage genetic information, you will see human-directed intelligent design. It will likely be the biggest and most controversial issue of this young millenium.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Jeff from WI on October 11, 2009 at 2:50 PM
War, Obama, Democrat enslavement of minorities.
Learning more about your personal human nature could have a considerable effect regardless of the even much more significant moral imperative.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 2:51 PM
It depends if it is genetic and can be isolated. There will be some tricky questions about where the government can intrude in reproductive design. The gay issue isn’t of great consequence, and would be one the government would almost certainly leave to individuals to decide.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Looks a lot like human nature to me, with all its failings and mechanisms for survival intact, including the drive for something larger to believe in as a foundation, the prejudice to deepen its strength and the outrage to reproduce it over and over.
And a name is a name is a name, enviro whackadoos, Buddhists, Christians, anarchists, name a movement and its all the same mechanism.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 3:01 PM
obviously it does. atheism is a totaly atheistic theory…as evidenced by the quotes I gave. do you have your own private theory of evolution?
common ancestor, the tree of life, are central to evolution…without them…you don’t have evolution.
you can think evolution tells us nothing about ethics, or morality…but clearly it does…there is no right or wrong in evolution..there is only power and survival…and we’ve seen evolution applied in the gas chambers of nazi germany.
marxism and darwinism, both grew out of atheism….outdated 19th century ideas, ahve cost the lives of hundreds of millions…
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:06 PM
infidels.org? oh please a sneeringly arrogant atheist web site…that dismisses anything it doesn’t agree with by labeling it ‘creationist’
as far as logic, truth, etc…infidels.org and atheism in general has none to speak of.
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:08 PM
oh yeah here’s the typical darwiniac/atheist answer: it evolved…because evolution is true.
evolution is nothing more than an atheist fairy tale.
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM
no skepticism in your blind faith in evolution though. you atheist are so smug, and think you are SO SMART…when you’re dumb as dirt…nothing more than legends in your own mind..
moron.
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM
oooooh what evidence? hmmm?? the fossil record doesn’t show it, the lab doesn’t show it, the field doesn’t show it…in fact the fossil record show creation…fully formed animals..
all ya got is a story…a BS story.
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Starve the troll.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM
yeah I shouldn’t cast pearls before swine like you, but I njoy making you look foolish…not that its very hard…
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Have a nice day..slick.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM
why don’t you darwiniacs tell me what the lower and higher races are, and why they are lower and higher?
and why should they be eliminated? hmmmm??
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:17 PM
oh I am fat boy! you too sweet cheeks!!
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Really lousy piece of editing there O’Reilly. Bill said “all alternatives to science should be taught that are ‘legitimate’.” Wow! Who gets to decide that one Bill? All of them should be taught? Good freakin grief! Religious beliefs should be taught at the parents discretion only.
Also, good one. chumpThreads on October 11, 2009 at 1:21 PM
oakpack on October 11, 2009 at 3:29 PM
What makes war and slavery bad? If they provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number, aren’t they necessary?
Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 3:31 PM
What necessitates legislation to prevent a citizen from drowning a dog that don’t work, vote, and wouldn’t live past twenty anyhow? I ask for an answer based in science and logic and not myth.
Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM
sweet cheeks – you darwiniacs – swine like you – you look foolish – all ya got is a story…a BS story – you atheist are so smug – and think you are SO SMART…when you’re dumb as dirt – legends in your own mind – evolution is nothing more than an atheist fairy tale – (here’s a good one) atheism is a totaly atheistic theory – we’ve seen evolution applied in the gas chambers of nazi germany. – ….outdated 19th century ideas, ahve cost the lives of hundreds of millions
Wow right4life. With arguements like those, how could you ever lose?
oakpack on October 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM
whats good for the goose is good for the gander, don’t you think??
I’ll tell you what, you want to argue evolution with me…why don’t you answer question I posed above, about ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ races?
what are the lower races, and why are they lower??
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:46 PM
So long as you don’t mind some war and slavery turn about’s fair play in the deal.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 3:50 PM
wow such uh ‘brilliance’ truly you are a legend in your own mind!!
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Atheists aren’t really free-thinkers, they’re as socially conformist as Southern Baptists. They hold forth the same generally agreed ethical presumptions as churchgoing Americans. They hate nazis and are kind to kittens, because one ought to. But like swingers they have a separate counterculture giving affirmation and collective enjoyment of what Shattuck calls “transgression”–that sweet sense you got your hand in the cookie jar, so neenerneener. It’s a counterculture because it’s parasitic, it’s an opposition. Put Sikhs on the moon and they’d refer to their own traditions but Islam wouldn’t come up before college. Put atheists on the moon and they’d teach their kids about the Crusades and Inquisition in grade school. They’d have to.
Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 3:54 PM
no answer huh? no surprise.
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I think we can all agree that teachers should be teaching science in science classes, not ideology. They should go where the evidence leads them. In that case they shouldn’t rule out scientific inquiries which may make some athiest scientists uncomfortable. These would include:
1. Inquiries into the origin of the Big Bang. The universe had a definite beginning. Basic logic dictates that whatever began to exist must have had a cause. Nothing can begin to exist for no reason. What Cause explains the Big Bang?
2. Inquiries into the laws of physics. Every one, from the force of gravity to the strong nuclear force to the cosmological constant is minutely set to allow for a universe which supports life. Tinker with any of them and life becomes impossible. So compelling is the fine-tuning of the laws of physics that many athiest scientists have been backed into a corner in recent decades, forced to come up with fanciful “alternate universes” which we can never study or interact with–being other universes–to explain our own extraordinary universe.
3. Inquiries into the origin of DNA. Darwin, being a steamboat-era scientist, of course had never heard of it. He starts Origin of Species with single-celled organisms already there. How did DNA–an information-based code or language–arise on its own? There’s currently no scientific explanation, but every other code we know of was designed by an intelligent mind.
4. Inquiries into the Cambrian Explosion. Before the Cambrian, all life was either single-celled or invertebrate. Suddenly we see in the fossil record fully-formed vertebrates appearing with no antecedent forms. 36 of the 40 known phyla appear suddenly. Darwin himself considered the Cambrian fossil record a major threat to his theory. He assumed scientists would find an answer. They haven’t.
5. Inquiries into the “irreducible complexity” of structures or “machines” within the cell which only function with all their parts working. You cannot simplify them and have them give any purpose or evolutionary advantage. Many biologists are compelled to believe in an intelligent designer when they see these impossibly complex machines under their microscopes. There’s no naturalistic explanation for their origin.
Of course I didn’t come up with these lines of thought myself. For more scientific information on why the purely naturalistic worldview breaks down under scrutiny, please look at Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator, Patrick Glynn’s God: The Evidence, or Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box.
David Mickelson on October 11, 2009 at 4:00 PM
you want to argue evolution with me
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 3:46 PM
No.
oakpack on October 11, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Allah, I think you’re looking at this all wrong. It’s not what could go wrong, it’s what could go right. When two blowhards as cyclonic as Bill O’Reilly and Richard Dawkins go head to head in the Fox studios, hilarity is practically guaranteed to ensue. It might even be the perfect storm of hilarity.
Rich Fader on October 11, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Creationists are the Truthers of The Right. Complete with fallacy, tortured logic, conspiratorial fantasy and “sciencey” sounding language. It’s frustrating that reasonable conservatives are forced to throw in with retrograde lunatics such are on display in these threads.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Ah, Allah’s weekly attempt at pumping the numbers with the “no proof” questions. Tasteless.
Hopefully Doc Zero gets your spot soon, Allah. It’s starting to smell.
DrRansom on October 11, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Really? How so?
You seem to be saying your comment..one that provides no evidence to refute the subject and claim you were responding to..was one that was based in belief, but that was just a clever way of showing how fact based and logical you are because you have no evidence other than your belief. How does that work?
You state that the comment was “designed” to do that. It was neither intelligently designed nor empirically based imo. Maybe your thought process has evolved into something else??
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 5:26 PM
.
Heh! Dream on.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 5:29 PM
What is the scientific position for the source of original matter? Just curious.
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Read about string and m theories.
ray on October 11, 2009 at 5:40 PM
You’ve read it…what does it conclude, and what is the evidence that gives it credibility?
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 5:53 PM
.
Educate yourself and you will know that Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 5:57 PM
No need for me to be educated on that..its been my claim early on in this thread and in others. It good to see an honest atheist (if you are one) admit that their beliefs as to origins are just as based in faith as the creationists. Congrats on your honesty!
I’ll state it again.
Creation and evolution are two separate subjects.
Heres my question. Why do evolutionists insist on trying to make them the same subject?
Whats the point..does it make them feel more Spockish and sciencey and that would somehow make a statement regarding their intelligence in general? I don’t know…just asking.
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM
You actually think that if evolution was proven that it would disprove the existence of God?
What a moron!
MaximusConfessor on October 11, 2009 at 6:22 PM
.
I admit no such thing. My “beliefs” have nothing to do with what is accepted science. Neither do yours. Perhaps you prefer to make up both sides of the argument so you can lose both ways.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 6:29 PM
While your right about the Cambrian explosion, it’s the whole entire fossil record which absolutely disproves evolution to anyone with an open mind who is capable of breaking away from the herd mentality.
cjk on October 11, 2009 at 6:30 PM
This forum is not the place learn about advanced theoretical physics. If you have had any college level physics or chemistry you could skim some materials and get the basic gist in a couple of hours. It has nothing to do with evolution.
The mathematics in m theory is interesting in that it shows there are multiple dimensions and universes that could be “occupying” the same space of our perceived dimensions in our universe. There is a tremendous amount about our universe we do not know.
ray on October 11, 2009 at 6:51 PM
.
This is just standard procedure for ID lunatics. Only PhDs are qualified to defend reason and science. Whereas, any strip mall evangelist is qualified to deny it. They, of course, never require themselves to provide anything approaching coherent argument let alone detailed proofs that an Extra-Dimensional Wizard spoke the magic words that brought the universe POOF! into existence fully formed 6000 years ago.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 7:03 PM
I take “rudeness of post” from someone like you, as merely not using all the words needed to express yourself fully because of posting constraints…other words, I don’t take it personally.
I always respect your postings, even if vehemently disagreeing…we all have to assume that words fly off the keyboard to make a point, and we can’t always use the “right” word not to offend.
Too often people play a “gotcha” game because someone shorthands a post.
Of course you didn’t “sneak” that was a bad choice of words from me…and I didn’t take the time, though I read it, to assimilate that you had not read the whole site.
So I could apologize just as readily as you (and I do, I almost posted without being more specific about that, a common occurrence with all of us)…but just be aware that I only personally attack when attacked, the rest is just clumsy typing.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 7:18 PM
News Flash….commons sense doesn’t come wrapped in a PHD thesis….
There are plenty of PhD’s in science convinced we were in global warming, and a few thousand good ol farm boys knew different, several hundred taxi cab drivers knew different, amazing how common sense trumps a PhD so often…
Of course the coherent question never answered is….where is the proof of evolution? It is a theory only…and a theory that every dozen years they have to “change” to fit their argument.
So who is relying on a “wizard”…the theists, or the evolutionist hoping for the elusive wizard of a missing link.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Then I misunderstood your position, that said, I never stated that mine do, so I’m not sure of your point in stating that.
What do you mean by my making up both sides…or any side of the argument for that matter? The only claim I’ve made is that evolution and creation are separate subjects…which you seemed to agree with. That statement by you was the basis of me stating it seemed you hold a common trait with creationists, and that trait is that the view you hold is based on faith.
Now you distance yourself from that view..or so it seems. You can easily clear it up my confusion..if your beliefs aren’t based on science or faith, what are they based on…or better yet, what are your beliefs on the subject?
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 7:41 PM
.
Of course you miss the whole point of my post which is that a double standard is employed. Now you want to jump back to evolution and of course then you will jump back to the big bang.
.
The proofs are repeatedly provided here but that horse never drinks.
.
Here is a comprehensive treatment of Evolution. If you really want the answer to your “question which never gets answered” (which I doubt)you can find it here.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Mmmm..tasty word salad. But I think you miss the finer points of reality ala Dryback and the Realists…all the whining seems to be initiated by the atheists, and that is the foundation of their attempts at relevance and attention.
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 7:48 PM
.
Such a question only betrays a staggering ignorance of a theory you so clearly despise. Perhaps you should investigate before making judgments. Common sense is neither.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 7:49 PM
when are you darwiniacs going to evolve some new lines? everyone who disagrees with evolution is ‘ignorant’ right…
go ahead and tell us of the wonders of ‘natural selection’ you know that tautology? if its ‘fit’ it survives…how do we know its ‘fit’ it survives….meaningles…as is the entire theory of evolution…just an evolutionary fairy tale.
why don’t you just tell us the exact mutations in order that led to the eye?? instead of a fairy story about ‘light sensitive cells’?
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 12 13 14 15 Next »