Wendy Wright and Richard Dawkins

[Tomatoman]

Your perplexity?

No, I haven't thought about it -- you routinely demonstrate it,* so what's to think about?

* In my opinion though, I think a lot of you guys' perplexity is fake -- just to test the strength of our faith.

No, I'm guessing you haven't thought about what the point of having to go through all the following is:

In my opinion, the Antichrist is going to dismantle Christianity with near-flawless ease and make Saul of Tarsus -- who, in his words, made havoc of the Church -- look like Mary Poppins.

In addition, he is going to make evolution look so simple, even children can understand it, and even put on a demonstration of abiogenesis.

His shenanigans will be short-lived however, when THE Creationist shows up and puts an end to it.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Because if just one prophecy isn't fulfilled -- just one -- then God isn't God.

That's why Satan thinks he can win; if he can just get one prophecy to fail before his time is up, it's curtains for God.

Wasn't Jesus prophecised to be named Emmanuel, not Jesus?

Didn't Jesus also allegedly say that the second coming would be during the lifetime of his disciples?

Also, I forget who the Bible says will destroy Tyre, but it wasn't Alexander the Great. Y'know, the person who did seige the city and destroy it.

Didn't he then say it would be desolate and no one would ever live there again?


Not to mention the vast majority of "passed" prophecies written about in the Bible can only shown to've happened within the fictitious constraints of the Bible, anyway.

It's like in Star Wars, when Obi and Qui gon keep saying that Anakin is the chosen one who will bring balance to the force. That prophecy is only fulfilled in Star Wars, just as most of the Biblical prophecies are only fulfilled in the Bible.

Or in the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. It's phophecised that when Ganon comes, the Hero of Time will save Hyrule - lo and behold, Link is the Hero of Time and saves Hyrule. Prophecy fulfilled! That makes the Legend of Zelda just as real as the Bible, by your standards.

 

[SignOfGod]

I have been told that the Bible is a law unto itself, and creationists of course.

 

[Jazer]

Didn't Jesus also allegedly say that the second coming would be during the lifetime of his disciples?

Mat 24 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

In Matthew ch 24 they ask Jesus two questions. They ask Jesus when the Temple in Jerusalem will be tore down. That was in 70 ad and it was in their lifetime that Jerusalam was destroyed. The other question had to do with the end of the age. We know now that the Church age is 2 thousand years and will soon come to an end.

 

[SignOfGod]

Creationism whether by design or accident makes God look ridiculous, if the creation was done how the Bible says it was done would require 100% miracles, the flood about 99.9% miracles and in both cases God eventually got it all wrong,
the leaders of creationism [the money people] have deliberately set out to make creationism complicated to the average not so smart believer, to every one else creationism is just plain ridiculous and requires only about three brain cells in order to be able to dismiss it completely.

Why creationists should attack evolution is not known because evolution is so far removed from the creation [how ever it happened] it shouldn't even enter their thinking, but as the leaders [the money people] know creationists need something to hate so they chose evolution, it also stops them asking questions because they don't understand any of it.

Creationism is a beautiful setup, to make it work all you need is slow dim witted people of which there are plenty,
more in some countries than in others but at least more than a few everywhere.

 

[Delphiki]

Why creationists should attack evolution is not known because evolution is so far removed from the creation [how ever it happened] it shouldn't even enter their thinking, but as the leaders [the money people] know creationists need something to hate so they chose evolution, it also stops them asking questions because they don't understand any of it.

Agreed. If there was any scientific counterpart to creationism, then it would be the study of abiogenesis or the field of cosmology, as those deal with biological and universal origins respectively.

The only reason the Theory of Evolution gets singled out is because it makes the highly religious feel like they aren't special. They feel it's demeaning to be considered an ape or even descendant of one. We're supposed to be special, and the only species with a soul. And despite of fitting the very definition of animal, they don't want to come to terms that that's exactly all we are: technologically advanced animals.

 

[Mikecpking]

Agreed. If there was any scientific counterpart to creationism, then it would be the study of abiogenesis or the field of cosmology, as those deal with biological and universal origins respectively.

The only reason the Theory of Evolution gets singled out is because it makes the highly religious feel like they aren't special. They feel it's demeaning to be considered an ape or even descendant of one. We're supposed to be special, and the only species with a soul. And despite of fitting the very definition of animal, they don't want to come to terms that that's exactly all we are: technologically advanced animals.

What most christians don't realise is that the bible calls people and animals 'souls' from the Hebrew word 'nephesh' which literaly means a 'breathing creature'. For me the bible is about 'why' and not 'how'. As a christian who has studied science, geology and has an interest in astronomy and cosmoslogy find that these subjects in no way, contradicts my faith. Having also studied theology, I see the same mistakes often made , like in the case of Wendy Richards differentiating animals and humans by the idea that humans somehow have souls and spirits where animals do not.

Ecclesiated 3:18-19 makes it clear that animals and humans have the same spirit and even the writer that God inspired to write in Genesis 2:19 calls animals 'souls'!

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Mat 24 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

In Matthew ch 24 they ask Jesus two questions. They ask Jesus when the Temple in Jerusalem will be tore down. That was in 70 ad and it was in their lifetime that Jerusalam was destroyed. The other question had to do with the end of the age. We know now that the Church age is 2 thousand years and will soon come to an end.

A few questions for you:

Why do you think the "sermon on the mount" is only recorded in one of the four gospels?

Is it possible that Matthew was written after AD 70?

Do you know if we have an autograph of Matthew?

If we know the end of the church age is two thousand years, why did Paul and Jesus teach that the second coming was imminent?

 

[SignOfGod]

If we know the end of the church age is two thousand years, why did Paul and Jesus teach that the second coming was imminent?

Imminent could be meant like the Spanish for tomorrow 'mañana'?
the Cornish have a similar word 'Directly' it can be taken the same as 'mañana' but without the urgency.

 

[Greg1234]

As a christian who has studied science, geology and has an interest in astronomy and cosmoslogy find that these subjects in no way, contradicts my faith.

There's no reason to integrate a falsified theory.

 

[Mikecpking]

There's no reason to integrate a falsified theory.

Sorry,but geology has yet to be falsified. I suggest you start stuying, do some field work and take off your blindfold to God's creation.

 

[VehementiDominus]

There's no reason to integrate a falsified theory.

The problem there is; it's never been falsified.

You may think it has, because all your other little creationist buddies tell you it has, but have you ever noticed how YECs are always fanatical Christian zealots?

Show me one published paper that agrees with you.

I mean, you get your standard, moderate Christian, who, in all likelihood accepts evolution. You know, people like Ken Miller, who's actually a legend. The vast majority seem to fall in this category.

You get your atheists who all accept evolution.

Then you get your die-hard, God-obsessed fanatical Christian, who's nearly always a YEC, and who nearly always rejects evolution. The kind that class Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Banana Man as their all time favourite heroes - next to Jesus - of course. The kind that'll believe anything so long as it confirms their unfounded beliefs, and reject everything that disagrees with their unfounded beliefs.

Just an observation, but this nearly always seems to be the case.

So who's more likely to be right, fanatical Christian zealots, or 150 years of tried-and-tested biological science, with evidence and peer-review?

 

[DrkSdBls]

So who's more likely to be right, fanatical Christian zealots, or 150 years of tried-and-tested biological science, with evidence and peer-review?

Do you honestly expect an honest answer to that question?

You get your atheists who all accept evolution.

Oh, btw, That's not 100% true. There is an exception to that rule. Stupid yet true.

 

[driewerf]

I think RD is too friendly. He brings constantly new arguments in the discussion, while I think this is wrong. Because bringing new arguments gives the impression that Wright's questions/remarks weren't answered properly - exactly the thing WW wants to have. He should answer much more along the line

I just answered that qsuestion, then why do you ask it again?

Didn't you hear me? I answered that question too. Why do you ask it again?

Point out that she is the one that is deaf to the arguments, but don't give the impression that previous answers were wrong or incomplete. Show her debating tactics, her empty rhetoric. There is much more value in showing the dishonesty of professional creationists than in answering PRATT's.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I've never been able to get through this whole series. I'll give it another go. Wish me luck...

 

[Delphiki]

I've never been able to get through this whole series. I'll give it another go. Wish me luck...

Honestly, the entirety of it is just like the first 5 minutes.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Honestly, the entirety of it is just like the first 5 minutes.

Yeah I just watched the first video all the way through.

Wendy: You have no evidence

Richard: Yes we do, here it is.

W: Yeah but there's no evidence.

R: Yes there is. And here's some more.

W: Ok fine but where is the evidence you keep claiming exists?

R: Right here.

W: But how can you make those claims without evidence?

 

[Delphiki]

The irony being, of course, that she's undoubtedly a Christian.

 

[Inan3]

This saw a recent spotlight in the internet atheist community, so I figured I'd share it here as it's related to the conflict between creationists and knowledge. I recommend creationists and rationalists both check it out.

YouTube - ‪Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)‬‏

Well, I don't think you should be biased. You recommend creationists, and rationalists but you left out atheists. Be nice and include them also.

 

[Delphiki]

I meant what I said. Creationists vs. those who think rationally,