Wendy Wright and Richard Dawkins

[Delphiki]

Irrelevant. The mechanism is impotent.

If you mean the mechanism of trying to explain human evolution to Wendy Wright, then obviously, yes.

 

[Thobewill]

Irrelevant. The mechanism is impotent.

But we can show that it did happen, that there are transition fossils. Unless you are an old earth creationist, and believe that god specifically crafted each species and put them on the earth when the time was right, how did they get there?Whether you believe they were placed there by the devil is another matter.

 

[Insane_Duck]

But we can show that it did happen, that there are transition fossils. Unless you are an old earth creationist, and believe that god specifically crafted each species and put them on the earth when the time was right, how did they get there?Whether you believe they were placed there by the devil is another matter.

Can you be an evolutionary creationist? (I mean, would that be the right term for it) If you believed God worked through evolution. I know many that hold this belief, but I always considered it a type of creationism.

 

[OllieFranz]

Can you be an evolutionary creationist? (I mean, would that be the right term for it) If you believed God worked through evolution. I know many that hold this belief, but I always considered it a type of creationism.

The term is theistic evolutionist, and the majority of educated Western theists are just that, to one extent or another. Most of us fully accept the same naturalistic evolutionary model as the atheist evolutionists do. Science does not contradict God, but, by design, it cannot learn anything about Him.

Most of the Western world fully embraces science. The Creationists want to pervert science by making it account for miracles. It was never intended to do that.

The rules of chess do not cover every move every piece could possibly make, that would be chaos, since physically you can always move any piece to any square. The rules of chess only cover those rules that are legal in an official game.

Likewise, the scientific laws of nature should only cover natural processes. Declaring miracles out of bounds is not denying the possibilty that they exist, it is merely confirming that they defy the natural laws.

 

[Cabal]

I'm pretty sure I actually saw a Christian group calling themselves evolutionary creationists, and specifically as distinct from theistic evolutionists; because theistic evolutionists are (apparently) only comprised of those icky liberal Christians.

Shame they haven't lost the fundie attitude entirely, but at least it's a start, although really I'd rather have a bunch of YECs that respected the jobs and beliefs of their brethren than a bunch of people correct on the science that still acted like total knobs.

 

[USincognito]

Irrelevant. The mechanism is impotent.

Actually it's "objections" like these that are impotent.

 

[Skavau]

Why do all the creationists Dawkins talks to have mad staring eyes? I mean, here is a picture of Dawkins arguing with pastor Ted Haggard (the anti-homosexual Haggard was sacked from his job after a male prostitute revealed his 3 year affair with him.)

His eyes are nearly as out there as Wendy Wright's.


Is it compulsory for all creationsist to have mad staring eyes?

It is part of indoctrination if I was to make a quick guess (or a consequence, even). You see it with Scientologist handlers as well.

 

[Willtor]

Irrelevant. The mechanism is impotent.

You should tell software engineers and computer scientists that before they solve any more complex problems using evolution. Let them know that what they are doing is impossible.

 

[Willtor]

I'm pretty sure I actually saw a Christian group calling themselves evolutionary creationists, and specifically as distinct from theistic evolutionists; because theistic evolutionists are (apparently) only comprised of those icky liberal Christians.

Shame they haven't lost the fundie attitude entirely, but at least it's a start, although really I'd rather have a bunch of YECs that respected the jobs and beliefs of their brethren than a bunch of people correct on the science that still acted like total knobs.

I haven't seen "evolutionary creationism" used in that way. Admittedly, I have mostly seen it in these forums and on a couple of blogs, but I have typically seen "evolutionary creationism" used to denote a proper subset of "theistic evolutionism" that admits God's active role in nature. The name is also a tool to disarm YECs from some of the rhetoric they have read on AiG or ICR.

This is not to say you're wrong -- there may well be people who use the term aggressively. I'm just cautioning you from painting with too broad a brush.

 

[Insane_Duck]

It is part of indoctrination if I was to make a quick guess (or a consequence, even). You see it with Scientologist handlers as well.

Or more likely the subset of people that would submit to it easily?

 

[DrkSdBls]

A Debate between a Pompous Gasbag and an Insipid Airhead.. Talk about your Lose-lose Fiasco.

Watch up until the 3rd before I realized that there is nothing to gain from either Side resulting from this Debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

A Debate between a Pompous Gasbag and an Insipid Airhead.. Talk about your Lose-lose Fiasco.

Watch up until the 3rd before I realized that there is nothing to gain from either Side resulting from this Debate.

It comes with Del's recommendation, though.

What's he seeing that you're not?

 

[VehementiDominus]

It comes with Del's recommendation, though.

What's he seeing that you're not?

Part 4 and 5.

 

[AV1611VET]

Part 4 and 5.

Thanks for ruining it!

I was setting him up for that --

 

[Jazer]

Why should we sit through 7 videos on a conflict between creationists and knowledge, when we've got you guys here routinely pointing that out to us?

Actually I like Dawkin.
He brings up somewhat valid points that will cause people to have to think things all the way though.
As he admits there is a lot of discussion and debate as to what evolution is.
Evolutionists often do not agree among themselves.

 

[Jazer]

there is nothing to gain from either Side resulting from this Debate.

What is to be gained is what we teach our children in school. They all are tested and expected to learn the same science even if they are home schooled or go to a private christian school. Each state makes that determination.

Pompous Gasbag and an Insipid Airhead

Maybe but right now the courts are leaning toward the "Pompous Gasbag" so the "insipid airhead" has lost a little bit of ground. We would be better off to work this our among ourselves then to have it go into the court sytem. Although perhaps that has it's place if you want to draw people attention to the issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually I like Dawkin.

Dawkins can take a hike.

I try to keep by beliefs so simple, a child can understand it; but science keeps snooping around like flies on honey, and I have to keep the two separate.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Dawkins can take a hike.

I try to keep by beliefs so simple, a child can understand it; but science keeps snooping around like flies on honey, and I have to keep the two separate.

But that's what science does. It snoops around, it investigates, it follows the evidence and draws conclusions from that.

The conclusions it draws are demonstrably accurate - they can be shown to be accurate beyond any reasonable doubt.

Your beliefs, however, are based on nothing more than blind faith - belief in something that it makes no sense to believe in.

You're right, though, your beliefs are simple. So simple that a child can understand it, try explaing to a child abiogenesis or the big bang. Because a child can understand it so easily at such a young, impressionable age means that it's easy to indoctrinate them - to get them to believe it as 100% "Truth" while they're young and they won't dare question it when they're older. It's rare that they do.

But what you're teaching them is demonstrably wrong, yet by the time they're old enough to realise that they can't because they've been brainwashed into your beliefs and your beliefs include "This is correct, everything else is wrong.". In my honest opinion, this kind of indoctrination is child abuse - it stunts a child's mental and acedemic growth, condemning them to beilieve the ancient myths of bronze age barbarians as factual, and in most cases building their entire lives around this myth. How many more Einsteins, Keplers, Hubbles or Darwins would we've had if Christianity hadn't stupified so many children at a young age?

How much more advanced would our technology and understanding of this universe be?

 

[Jazer]

I try to keep by beliefs so simple, a child can understand it

When it comes to the Bible most people are doing good if they can function at a third grade level.

Dawkins can take a hike.

At least he can function at more of a 8th grade level, so that makes things more interesting. Of course anyone who has ever had a 8th grader knows that they think they know everything. So you have that issue to deal with

 

[Jazer]

if Christianity hadn't stupified so many children at a young age?

This is a violation of the rules, where do we find a sysop to deal with this?