Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Doesn't Debate Young Earth Creationists

[ThinkForYourself]

...
The bottom line is where you put your faith; whether you put it in the ever changing and self contradicting conclusions of "science" or in the word of God. Ultimately, since you can't prove any of it yourself, faith is all you have to go on.

I can either put my faith in a story, or I can put my faith in hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence, combined with the best method of finding the truth about our world that mankind has come up with: The Scientific Method.

The choice is easy, Science.

If I'm going to believe in stories, I might as well believe in Santa. Everything that can be said about the bible, can also be said of Santa and his stories. All we need to do is believe Santa filled the people writing his story with HIS holy spirit, and voila!

For instance, there is an eyewitness account of seeing Santa: "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus". We just need to accept that Santa filled the author with HIS holy spirit and the author wrote HIS holy word.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, one thing for sure, given that scenario the faith of the atheists certainly does prove they believe in nothing and they've gotten all of it back.

I don't see how.

The world is no better for faith in God? So the atheists are simply happy to go along with the decay and transgression because its all on them and all humans who participate in life.

What are you talking about? I don't know many atheists who are completely happy with the state of the world. Most are eager to improve the world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madaz]

This isn't a discussion of philosophy, this is KWcrazy preach section.

Yup, it is what it is...

 

[KWCrazy]

I can either put my faith in a story, or I can put my faith in hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence, combined with the best method of finding the truth about our world that mankind has come up with: The Scientific Method.

There is another method, as I have mentioned many times, which is to actively seek the Lord with all your heart. Only then will you find Him; or know he cannot be found. You could also get into close, one on one discussions with people who have found Him and ask them about their experiences. You might be surprised what you find. Of course, this requires the courage to accept that there might be more to life than our physical existence; courage which most atheists lack.

The problem with the scientific method is that because science is the study of the PHYSICAL world around us, it only addresses characteristics of the physical world. It can't address the existence or non-existence of God, nor can it account for the origination of the universe by ANY means; natural or supernatural. It can make claims that the earth tests to be millions of years old, but it simply cannot refute the contention that the earth was created in its matures state. Supernatural events cannot be tested naturally. If you don't understand the limitations of science, then you don't understand science at all.

The reason that it's pointless for Creationists to debate evolutionists is because the latter take refuge in a science that they don't understand. When you encroach on their belief system they immediately call you names and begin to disparage your intellect or education. They believe in what they can see, feel, hear, touch and taste, period. They demand physical explanations for supernatural events which historically were intentionally carried out in contrast to natural law. When man lived under the law and was judged under the law God demonstrated His authority many times. Now that man need only have faith, God does not reveal Himself to unbelievers. Therefore, they cannot possibly understand your arguments.

Evolutionists know the failings with their belief system. Most of them know the myriad of problems and inconsistencies in what they believe. They know that matter and life cannot originate. They know that there is no mechanism for increasing complexity in any organism. They know benevolent mutations are hopelessly rare, but lacking anything else that has become the driving force of evolution. It does no good to show the improbability of their claims. Most of the discovered evidence has been addressed by evolutionists and creation scientists alike. While most people would see the vast disparity of conclusions based on the same evidence to demonstrate the subjective nature of those conclusions, evolutionists insist that their side is smarter and that their side is right. They simply attack the source rather than consider that the evidence may have more than one possible interpretation.

Essentially, it's a waste of time talking with them. A closed mind is of no more value than a closed book. They are absolutely convinced that there is no explanation other than the natural one, and that there is no existence beyond the grave.

Actually, I wish that for their sake they were aright. Unfortunately, most of us know better.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

I don't see how.

Yes, we know.

What are you talking about? I don't know many atheists who are completely happy with the state of the world. Most are eager to improve the world.

And yet they condemn the Christians who are actually doing something in their own place and time.
"Eager to..." Isn't indicative of "Actually are ..."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, we know.

Then kindly explain it, and be specific.

And yet they condemn the Christians who are actually doing something in their own place and time.

"Doing something" isn't indicative of "improving the world".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The problem with the scientific method is that because science is the study of the PHYSICAL world around us, it only addresses characteristics of the physical world. It can't address the existence or non-existence of God, nor can it account for the origination of the universe by ANY means; natural or supernatural. It can make claims that the earth tests to be millions of years old, but it simply cannot refute the contention that the earth was created in its matures state. Supernatural events cannot be tested naturally. If you don't understand the limitations of science, then you don't understand science at all.

That's right, supernatural claims cannot be tested naturally. How then are they tested?

Essentially, it's a waste of time talking with them. A closed mind is of no more value than a closed book. They are absolutely convinced that there is no explanation other than the natural one, and that there is no existence beyond the grave.

Quit projecting.

 

[madaz]

There is another method, as I have mentioned many times, which is to actively seek the Lord with all your heart. Only then will you find Him; or know he cannot be found.

Once one knows He cannot be found, one then realizes this method is erroneous.

 

[KWCrazy]

Once one knows He cannot be found, one then realizes this method is erroneous.

It was once said that the North Pole couldn't be found, but men with determination found it.

The Lord is much easier to find than the North Pole, and millions have already found Him. The problem, then, is that your compass is way out of wack. Like many people you want physical proof of God. This is foolishness. You are living on something physical that only God could make, and yet you pretend that somehow it came about all by itself. You're a living, breathing entity which only God could create, and yet you pretend that somehow in some primordial soup in a world devoid of oxygen a magic Frankencell formed itself and from that cell all life forms, plant and animal evolved. This is what YOU call science. I call it foolishness.

Any REAL scientist would admit that there is no known answer for the problem of first cause; that there is no process by which abiogenesis could have happened; that the formation of everything from nothing had to involved forces outside of that formation. Any REAL scientist would admit that there is no possible way to date a rock that was created by God. Science can only study the natural world. It can only find answers that are rooted in natural law.

The problem with debating evolutionists is that they simply don't understand the limits of science. They seem to think that what science can't test must not exist. They simply refuse to believe that Idaho exists because they've never been to Idaho and they don't see the testimony of those who have been to Idaho as valid evidence of its existence. They proclaim that potatoes need not come from Idaho. Though the majority of the people of the world may know differently, the evolutionist can only see within the narrow confines of what he believes to be his existence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It was once said that the North Pole couldn't be found, but men with determination found it.

It was once said that a leprechaun's pot of gold could not be found. Oops.

The Lord is much easier to find than the North Pole, and millions have already found Him.

Then why can't they show that they have found a universe-creating super-being? It should be easy, right?

The problem, then, is that your compass is way out of wack.

Or yours is...

Like many people you want physical proof of God. This is foolishness. You are living on something physical that only God could make, and yet you pretend that somehow it came about all by itself.

You are begging the question. Is it really true that only God could make the physical Earth, and whatever else? What we have learned through science makes this unlikely.

This is what YOU call science. I call it foolishness.

You may call it what you like.

Any REAL scientist would admit that there is no known answer for the problem of first cause

If true, that means that "God" is not a known answer either. No known answer means no known answer.

that there is no process by which abiogenesis could have happened

That is not the case. While the precise process is not yet known, nothing known to science suggests that abiogenesis is impossible.

that the formation of everything from nothing had to involved forces outside of that formation.

Did the formation of God from nothing involve a meta-God? It is not clear that the universe had formed out of a pure philosophical nothingness.

Any REAL scientist would admit that there is no possible way to date a rock that was created by God.

Now you are just showing your ignorance of science. Methods to do this have been created and are well-tested.

Science can only study the natural world. It can only find answers that are rooted in natural law.

This much is true.

The problem with debating evolutionists is that they simply don't understand the limits of science.

They seem to think that what science can't test must not exist.

No, what they are saying is that, without evidence, your claims regarding God are unsupported and may be dismissed as wishful thinking, not knowledge.

They simply refuse to believe that Idaho exists because they've never been to Idaho and they don't see the testimony of those who have been to Idaho as valid evidence of its existence.

Idaho they have no problem with. How about people who claim that they've been to Middle-earth?

They proclaim that potatoes need not come from Idaho.

I assume that you mean that they proclaim that Idaho-potatoes need not come from Idaho.

Name one evolutionist who would be willing to make that exact claim. You are providing a straw man evolutionist.

Though the majority of the people of the world may know differently, the evolutionist can only see within the narrow confines of what he believes to be his existence.

The majority of people... including the millions who don't believe in the Abrahamic God?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It was once said that the North Pole couldn't be found, but men with determination found it.

The Lord is much easier to find than the North Pole, and millions have already found Him. The problem, then, is that your compass is way out of wack. Like many people you want physical proof of God. This is foolishness. You are living on something physical that only God could make, and yet you pretend that somehow it came about all by itself. You're a living, breathing entity which only God could create, and yet you pretend that somehow in some primordial soup in a world devoid of oxygen a magic Frankencell formed itself and from that cell all life forms, plant and animal evolved. This is what YOU call science. I call it foolishness.

Any REAL scientist would admit that there is no known answer for the problem of first cause; that there is no process by which abiogenesis could have happened; that the formation of everything from nothing had to involved forces outside of that formation. Any REAL scientist would admit that there is no possible way to date a rock that was created by God. Science can only study the natural world. It can only find answers that are rooted in natural law.

The problem with debating evolutionists is that they simply don't understand the limits of science. They seem to think that what science can't test must not exist. They simply refuse to believe that Idaho exists because they've never been to Idaho and they don't see the testimony of those who have been to Idaho as valid evidence of its existence. They proclaim that potatoes need not come from Idaho. Though the majority of the people of the world may know differently, the evolutionist can only see within the narrow confines of what he believes to be his existence.

It sounds like you're saying a REAL scientist wouldn't actually do any science.

 

[KWCrazy]

It sounds like you're saying a REAL scientist wouldn't actually do any science.

Real scientists acknowledge the limitations of what they can study.
If you don't have a microscope you can't study microscopic organisms.
If you can't detect spirits you can't study spiritual entities.
If by definition a miracle defies the laws of science, you can study the physical effects of miracles but not their cause. You cannot replicate them.
Science can answer questions about our physical world, but it cannot go beyond that. The answers it comes up with may be right and may be erroneous.

 

[madaz]

It was once said that the North Pole couldn't be found, but men with determination found it.

There is a crucial difference between KNOWING something cannot be found and SAYING something cannot be found.

 

[madaz]

It was once said that the North Pole couldn't be found, but men with determination found it.

The Lord is much easier to find than the North Pole, and millions have already found Him. The problem, then, is that your compass is way out of wack. Like many people you want physical proof of God. This is foolishness. You are living on something physical that only God could make, and yet you pretend that somehow it came about all by itself. You're a living, breathing entity which only God could create, and yet you pretend that somehow in some primordial soup in a world devoid of oxygen a magic Frankencell formed itself and from that cell all life forms, plant and animal evolved. This is what YOU call science. I call it foolishness.

Any REAL scientist would admit that there is no known answer for the problem of first cause; that there is no process by which abiogenesis could have happened; that the formation of everything from nothing had to involved forces outside of that formation. Any REAL scientist would admit that there is no possible way to date a rock that was created by God. Science can only study the natural world. It can only find answers that are rooted in natural law.

The problem with debating evolutionists is that they simply don't understand the limits of science. They seem to think that what science can't test must not exist. They simply refuse to believe that Idaho exists because they've never been to Idaho and they don't see the testimony of those who have been to Idaho as valid evidence of its existence. They proclaim that potatoes need not come from Idaho. Though the majority of the people of the world may know differently, the evolutionist can only see within the narrow confines of what he believes to be his existence.

Only the foolish claim to know the origin of life without credible scientific or factually reliable evidence. Science certainly doesn't make a claim to know and if YOU knew the limits of science you would know this fact. You are promulgamating the misconception that evolution is the same as abiogenesis.


Ps. The majority of people in the world know for a fact that potatoes need not come from Idaho.

 

[KWCrazy]

There is a crucial difference between KNOWING something cannot be found and SAYING something cannot be found.

You claim to KNOW that God cannot be found and ye he has been found by millions of people. What does that say about what you "know?"

 

[KWCrazy]

Only the foolish claim to know the origin of life without credible scientific or factually reliable evidence.

That's why you will never know the truth. You're looking for credible "scientific" evidence of something which happened outside of the laws of science. It's like searching for penguins in the desert.

Science certainly doesn't make a claim to know

Tell that to the multitude of internet scientists who support the notion of abiogenesis despite there being no scientific evidence for it and mountains of evidence which precludes it.

You are promulgamating the misconception that evolution is the same as abiogenesis.

You are promulgating the misconception that you can get to the second rung of a ladder without having a first step. You're the one spreading the lie of common descent from a single magical Frankencell that somehow appeared despite all evidence proving it could not. You can say that your theory doesn't cover the arrival of the first cell just the second, but if the arrival of the first cell is impossible then EVERYTHING is impossible. The thing is, God can do the impossible. Natural law cannot.

Ps. The majority of people in the world know for a fact that potatoes need not come from Idaho.

There IS NO Idaho. That's just geographic mythology.

 

[madaz]

You claim to KNOW that God cannot be found and ye he has been found by millions of people. What does that say about what you "know?"

Don't turn it around on me, YOU made the claim, here it is again-

There is another method, as I have mentioned many times, which is to actively seek the Lord with all your heart. Only then will you find Him; or know he cannot be found.

Once upon a time millions of people "knew" the sun orbited the earth, it took Science and a lot of time for the truth to eventuate.

 

[madaz]

You are promulgating the misconception that you can get to the second rung of a ladder without having a first step. You're the one spreading the lie of common descent from a single magical Frankencell that somehow appeared despite all evidence proving it could not.

Now you are promulgating lies.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You claim to KNOW that God cannot be found and ye he has been found by millions of people. What does that say about what you "know?"

With millions of different stories.

Real scientists acknowledge the limitations of what they can study.

Correct.

If you can't detect spirits you can't study spiritual entities.

Although that apparently doesn't stop people from making claims about such entities and about what those entities demand of us.

Science can answer questions about our physical world, but it cannot go beyond that. The answers it comes up with may be right and may be erroneous.

You didn't answer my previous question. Given that supernatural claims cannot be tested naturally, how then are they tested? How do we obtain supernatural knowledge?

 

[madaz]

That's why you will never know the truth.

You will never know the truth regarding the existence of gods either. Personally I dont know if gods exist or not, what I do know is that there is no reliable evidence to suggest they do. From my own experience believing in things without proof almost always leads one further away from any "truth".

You're looking for credible "scientific" evidence of something which happened outside of the laws of science. It's like searching for penguins in the desert.

I agree the supernatural can not be measured or tested by science. The supernatural in my opinion is purely within ones imagination. However discounting the existence of penguins in the desert is well within the realms of Science.

There IS NO Idaho. That's just geographic mythology.

Idaho does exist, I have been there and seen it for myself.