Wendy Wright and Richard Dawkins

[Delphiki]

Evolutionists often do not agree among themselves.

Is that right?

Yeah I guess that's why there's 30,000 different ways to interpret the Theory of Evolution.... Oh wait... That's the bible.

Why don't you ask Ray Comfort if he believes the same creation story as Kent Hovind or Ken Ham?

 

[Jazer]

Yeah I guess that's why there's 30,000 different ways to interpret the Theory of Evolution.... Oh wait... That's the bible.

You only need two views. Did evolution happen very fast or did it happen very slow. Evolutionists do not agree. If you started all over again at the beginning would everything turn out different or pretty much the same? Again, evolutionists do not agree on the most basic of beliefs when it comes to evolution.

 

[Nabobalis]

You only need two views. Did evolution happen very fast or did it happen very slow. Evolutionists do not agree. If you started all over again at the beginning would everything turn out different or pretty much the same? Again, evolutionists do not agree on the most basic of beliefs when it comes to evolution.

Link to back up that assertion?

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

Actually, if you kept the two separate and understood why they must be kept seperate then you wouldnt have any problems with science (reality) at all.

 

[Greg1234]

Is that right?

Yeah I guess that's why there's 30,000 different ways to interpret the Theory of Evolution.... Oh wait... That's the bible.

How many ways are there to interpret red shift? Compton or Doppler?

 

[Greg1234]

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

What rules? This guy is just another one of those materialists who hates Christianity more than any rule or smiley can suppress or dilute. Darwinism is more emotion than anything else. A platform to perform malicious acts not as science but in the name of science.

 

[SignOfGod]

Darwinism is more emotion than anything else. A platform to perform malicious acts not as science but in the name of science.

The ToE wether you like it or not is a fact, you should stop listening to what others think and start thinking more for yourself.

 

[OllieFranz]

The ToE wether you like it or not is a fact, you should stop listening to what others think and start thinking more for yourself.

Not quite. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a model that science has constructed to help us understand the fact of evolution. The model is constantly undergoing revision as new data is discovered, but the underlying fact does not change. There is enough data that we are reasonably sure of the broad outline of the facts. The revisions in the theory are all centered on details.

On the other hand, if our understanding of the Bible does not agree with the fact, then either our understanding of the Bible is flawed, or the Bible is wrong.

 

[Tomatoman]

What rules? This guy is just another one of those materialists who hates Christianity more than any rule or smiley can suppress or dilute.

No one here hates christianity, that is just a conceit of yours to make you feel oppressed and worthy. What is disliked is the fascist approach of bible literalism insisted on by creationists here. Personally I don't believe that your dogma has much to do with christianity, at least not christianity as I understand it, the christianity that focuses on concepts such as forgiveness, tolerance, love and empathy, rather than the unquestioning worship of an intolerant, cruel ogre who delights in genocide and suffering for those who displease him, which is the primitive belief system of fundamentalist creationists here.

Darwinism is more emotion than anything else.

I have a feeling that 'darwinism', whatever that is, invokes a more emotional response in you than any of those you are addressing.

A platform to perform malicious acts not as science but in the name of science.

What malicious acts are you referring to?

 

[SignOfGod]

Not quite. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a model that science has constructed to help us understand the fact of evolution. The model is constantly undergoing revision as new data is discovered, but the underlying fact does not change. There is enough data that we are reasonably sure of the broad outline of the facts. The revisions in the theory are all centered on details.

On the other hand, if our understanding of the Bible does not agree with the fact, then either our understanding of the Bible is flawed, or the Bible is wrong.

Thank you I bow to your superior knowledge, unfortunately you/me/us being right makes no difference to a creationist because the damage has already been done..

 

[Delphiki]

You only need two views. Did evolution happen very fast or did it happen very slow. Evolutionists do not agree. If you started all over again at the beginning would everything turn out different or pretty much the same? Again, evolutionists do not agree on the most basic of beliefs when it comes to evolution.

Ask all the "evolutionists" here and see what answer you get. I bet they all agree speciation takes a very long time (in most cases). The only time you get different answers is dependent on what life-form you're talking about. Things like bacteria and fruit flies actually evolve quicker than whales and orangutans. They all pretty much agree on this.

Now, looking at the creationists side of things:
Was there a big ice layer surround the earth in outer space or did Noah's flood waters come from subterranean oceans? Was the world and universe created in 6 literal days or was each day figurative, equal to thousands or millions of years. Are Adam and Eve symbolically representative of early man or were there literally one man and one woman? Did the serpent have legs at any point?

These are just a few things that you and all your creationist brethren are likely not to agree on.

 

[DrkSdBls]

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.

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.

You misunderstand. This Debate, the one occurring in the Video, is completely pointless and does little to further either point of View. No body cares what either one of them has to say and Basing the decision of "what we teach our children in school" on what these two have to say is like Basing it on any discussion we have on these boards. Honestly, I think most people here are smarter then those two combined. At least there's some Entertainment and Intelligence found here.

Dawkins is no where near as smart as he thinks he is and just likes to talkto hear himself talk. Every time he uses the Word "Darwinism", as if it's an actual Word, I just what to shove a pencil in my ear.

 

[AV1611VET]

These are just a few things that you and all your creationist brethren are likely not to agree on.

And you and all your sci-fi brethren agree on how the moon was formed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly, I think most people here are smarter then those two combined.

-- Go ahed an tel us how edjucatid yu is.

 

[mandyangel]

Wendy was really nice to grant this guy an interview, but she's being too nice, you just can't convince somebody like Dawkins and his atheistic comrads. She repeatedly talked about DNA, his response was always the same, snarky and full of yuppy attitude. Wendy also brought up perhaps the biggest point: where oh where is the carcus of the monkey man?

 

[VehementiDominus]

where oh where is the carcus of the monkey man?

Ardipithicus.
Australopithicus.
Homo Heidelbergensis.
Homo Habilis.
Homo Rudolfensis.
Homo Ergaster.
Homo Erectus.
Homo Sapiens.

Just a handful, there's plenty more, obviously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wendy also brought up perhaps the biggest point: where oh where is the carcus of the monkey man?

Want to see something interesting?

Google Charles Darwin, then google P.T. Barnum -- they lived during the same years.

I wonder if they had a business relationship with each other?

 

[VehementiDominus]

She repeatedly talked about DNA

There are certain aspects of DNA (Well, all of it really, but a few in particular) that can only mean that DNA came about by common descent.

For example, chromosomal fusion, in which two chromosomes become attached. These chromosomes will have two centromeres and a a big block of telomeres in the middle, such as with human chromosome #2.

Human chromosome #2 is a chromosome made of two chromosomes also found in chimpanzees and other great apes. We still have these two chromosomes, but they've fused together to become a single chromosome.
If you'd like to provide an alternate and viable explanation other than common descent then feel free, however, I highly doubt you can.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Want to see something interesting?

Google Charles Darwin, then google P.T. Barnum -- they lived during the same years.

I wonder if they had a business relationship with each other?

Guess what!

Queen Victoria was alive at the same time, too!

All three of them must've been best buddies, I mean, being alive at the same time as someone... wow, what're the chances?

 

[AV1611VET]

Guess what!

Queen Victoria was alive at the same time, too!

All three of them must've been best buddies, I mean, being alive at the same time as someone... wow, what're the chances?

Let's not bring the crown into the circus, eh?