Feed on Posts or Comments 01 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 07 Aug 2009 12:27 am

Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright (Creationist)

116 Responses to “Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright (Creationist)”

  1. on 07 Aug 2009 at 12:18 pm 1.Lou said …

    Wow, Dawkins was such a sexist! Claim this women is emotional and has some sort of agenda? Of course she has an agenda, so does Dawkins. Dawkins couldn’t answer the simple question. Where is the evidence? She is right. Commonalities are not evidence.

    Dawkins doesn’t understand the difference between fact and theory and that is his agenda and it is hurting his credibility.

  2. on 07 Aug 2009 at 1:41 pm 2.Ken said …

    It has always amazed me how Christians ignore the scientific facts until they need science. My fundamentalist sister’s family is always quick to rely on modern medicine when her God won’t heal them.

  3. on 07 Aug 2009 at 7:27 pm 3.Moose said …

    Forget the doctors! Maybe they should just pray harder. Like really hard. I mean, their god supposedly answers prayers.

  4. on 07 Aug 2009 at 8:57 pm 4.Burebista said …

    “Dawkins doesn’t understand the difference between fact and theory”

    Sure he does. Evolution is now evolutionary fact. I’m not sure why we are searching for new evidence??????? No such thing as a theory. Proof? Who needs proof the DNA is proof. What an ding-bat. He talks about her need to be right.

  5. on 08 Aug 2009 at 4:51 am 5.Delphine said …

    Why does she keep repeating “There’s no evidence of one specie going to another” when there’s MILLIONS of evidence?

    Show you?

    We can’t show a blind man color, and we can’t show a woman blinded by religion logic and truth.

  6. on 08 Aug 2009 at 5:18 pm 6.Xenon said …

    A lot of experiments have been done on fruit flies. They radiated the fruit flies under very
    careful conditions in an effort to beneficially mutate them and they took a look at their offspring.
    They were hoping to produce a new strain of Mutant Ninja Fruit-flies.
    But they never got the results they wanted. In fact not only were they not able to produce a
    better Mutant Ninja fruit fly under intensely controlled circumstances, but in most cases the fruit
    flies that were born had sepia eyes or had white eyes or were sterile or weaker or had useless
    wings or had legs where their antenna should have been and certainly would not survive long,
    much less a battle for survival of the fittest.
    But more importantly the scientists were never able to mutate a fruit fly into anything but a fruit
    fly. That is to say they were never able to mutate a fruit fly into anything else, not even into a
    regular house fly (which would by the way be an enormous Nobel Prize winning project). We
    can’t even get much beneficial micro-evolution, forget about any macro-evolution. Though they
    did get some variation in color. Of course we should anticipate that sometime in the future they
    would be able to do it constructively. But that’s still not very random is it? Note, of course we
    can gene splice and so on, but that’s not exactly random is it.
    So they’ve never been able to see it in a lab, they’ve never been able to prove it in nature, but
    they believe it with a conviction

  7. on 09 Aug 2009 at 11:05 pm 7.Colonel Mustard said …

    Could you write your bullshit with standard spacing?

  8. on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:07 am 8.Admiral Nimitz said …

    Macroevolution is assumed because we can observe microevolution in nature. This is what Richard Dawkins alludes to indirectly. That is the equivalent of assuming I can swim the Atlantic Ocean because I can be observed swimming across an Olympic size pool. There is no direct evidence for macro, it is all theory based on assumptions. That is how science works, especially the historical sciences.

  9. on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:25 am 9.Tommy said …

    Wrong. Macro was accepted by the scientific community long before they actually knew how it worked. Micro came later, as biology advanced.

    Just because we can’t watch it in real-time doesn’t mean we can’t establish it.

  10. on 10 Aug 2009 at 1:32 am 10.BossManJack said …

    Admiral, that’s a false dichtomy. The Atlantic example *could* (but extremely unlikely) be done by a single person. “Macro” evolution cannot be done by individuals ever.

  11. on 10 Aug 2009 at 7:01 pm 11.David said …

    I quickly saw what Wendy Wright did, as I have seen others do, that subscribe to the creationist theory. She immediately told Mr. Dawkins that he was closeminded…well, here we go again…When anyone attempts to share anything other than what a “religious” person believes, or person with ideas such as creationism, they immediately start pulling cards such as what she did…who are the closeminded ones in these and many other cases? It is true that the dinosaurs were here-they truly existed…it is true that humans are here-we truly exist…but there is not one absolute fact of how any organic creature came to be…Were we created by some grand entity such as what people claim to be “God?” I am not ruling out anything, as so very much at this point is a mystery, but I am looking at facts, not things like faith and the like…I have never told anyone nor clamied that a God absolutely does not exist, because I just don’t know, but with the evidence that has been presented to me thusfar, the existence of a God, or the theory (It) created anything, cannot be proven…no human being knows for certain of how humans arrived on earth…and the bible, which is full of ridiculousness, and written by scientifically ignorant people, is no proof whatsoever for me…there is no science in scripture, as science only became known to mankind many many years after the bible was constructed…it is difficult to believe that in the year 2009, or any other current years, that human-beings subscribe to such ridiculous nonsense…I just cannot grasp what people are trying to accomplish with their ideas on religion, evolution, creationism, or anything else…until facts surface to prove things one way or another, then who really cares…If it is fact that God created all animals and humans in the beginning, then dinosaurs and humans would have existed at the same time, and that just did not occur…there was no mention of dinosaurs boarding that ridiculous 450 foot wooden ark, now is there? There are so many holes in the stories of the bible and in all the ideas religious people have brought forth to me. I rely on my own intelligence, and that is all that counts in My book…

  12. on 10 Aug 2009 at 7:32 pm 12.Admiral Nimitz said …

    Tommy they also accepted “bleeding” for healing diseases but that did not make it a truth. Micro has been bserved and Macro has not. It is simple as that.

    Boss you have no line of logic. I was merely pointing out the danger of assumptions. David above spoke of Wendy’s assertion that Richard is close minded but stated nothing of Richards assertion that macroevolution is a fact.

    When Dawkins make such ridiculous statements he only hurts the cause. They are both close minded as are most in this debate. Neither side wnats to admit the weaknesses un their arguments.

  13. on 11 Aug 2009 at 7:01 am 13.David said …

    I agree with Admiral Nimitz, and stand corrected in that I did not state what Dawkins so ridiculously said…But I do stand behind the fact that many people have their take on the ways things are in the universe–where is the evidence and the facts????…Neither evolution, nor creationism, are fact…Neither has been proven whatsoever…I don’t think any “half and half” animal’s fossils has been discovered…I honestly do not believe that we came from apes…I think that theory is ludicrous…I also don’t belive that some entity, or “God” poofed us into existence…rib this rib that…lol…I am not sure how we got here, but we are here…what transpired in the past to lead to our existence, I think will remain a mystery…Did we evolve somehow? I am not sure…I do know that dinosaurs were here, then died out, then mammals took the forefront…Wow! I am sure that if we were created by some entity (which is almost 100 percent debatable), that entity is thinking “man, that human I created is asking too many question with the brain I gave him/her. I think I will not accept him/her into this wonderful heaven of mine.” LoL…If I was the creator of all the universe, I think I would be flattered to think my creation is using their brain, not living some brainwashed existence…Hogwash to most or all of the religious thinkers nonsense!!!

  14. on 11 Aug 2009 at 7:09 am 14.David said …

    Now, how bout adaptation, like the Galapagos tortoise, with the differences in neck lengths and notch in shells…I can agree that animals have adapted over time…but to turn from one thing to the other? Regardless of the shell and neck length, it is still a tortoise…any takes on this from anyone? I would love to here them…

  15. on 11 Aug 2009 at 12:03 pm 15.Tommy said …

    The difference is that bleeding was eventually shown to be wrong while macro was explained through genetics and mutation.

    Holy crap, have any of you even looked at the evidence? Looked at the fossil record? No, I suppose not.

  16. on 14 Aug 2009 at 9:16 am 16.swbts student said …

    i i think we are also forgetting there is in fact science in the bible :]

  17. on 15 Aug 2009 at 9:37 pm 17.Loi13 said …

    Sexist?!
    How is Richard Dawkins being sexist?
    He never said, “You are acting emotionally because you are a woman*” or anything that would imply that.
    He simply said it sounded like there was emotion behind her agenda, which there is. She called him close minded which suggests there is some emotion there, and later she connects creation theory with the treatment of people.
    People get attached to ideas all the time, regardless of gender, age, race, religion, etc. He was throwing out the (accurate) idea that she may have fallen into this all too common mistake.

  18. on 16 Aug 2009 at 2:04 pm 18.RuckerD said …

    What blows my mind more and more every day as I see it clearer and clearer….is the extent to which people have been literally “brainwashed” to the point that they don’t even consider logic and reasoning as an option for their mind!!It’s like it’s a disease! Not just a few people ..but millions. ” A man died on a cross as the supreme sacrafice and his blood poured out onto the ground so that the “sins” of all people 2,000 years later will be cleansed and forgiven!!” Where is the “Logic” in this? There isn’t any!! If this same event happened today in front of all the “believers” …they would NOT believe it!! Yet they will live their lives by a 2,000 year old book written by the hands of men with this “story” in it! And then we wonder why our “Leaders” can make us do and believe whatever they want? Duh!… I am amazed that Dawkins would waste his time and brain power even talking to this woman who has no capability at all of thinking for herself. Whats the new term???? “Sheeple”… This lady has a sense of “bliss” about her though….Isn’t that what they say about ignorance?

  19. on 16 Aug 2009 at 6:12 pm 19.Adrian said …

    Or even that our material world popped to existence without the aid of any intelligence to produce or form the universe as we know it. There is a fairytale that I just cannot buy into. However, seemingly normal people buy this…..Amazing

  20. on 22 Aug 2009 at 5:17 pm 20.lori said …

    where is the evidence that GOD exists is the only question Dawkins should’ve asked. and don’t give me “the ocean, the trees and the birds and the bees” b.s., if she won’t take DNA as a fact evidence, we won’t take something just existing in the world as evidence either.

    just because science can’t explain everything pragmatically YET (because we are not evolved enough, because we are only a few thousand years old etc etc) it doesn’t mean that religion is right.

  21. on 18 Oct 2009 at 7:26 pm 21.Bill said …

    It seems that Wendy Wright takes her name seriously. The more that sychophants swarm around her and pour funds into her organisation, the more she will ride on the right of being Wright. She clearly carries many agendas of her own and other people – religion, as in most cases – is clearly a cloak for accumalation of power and money. In these circumstances, any amount of honest intellectual discussion is of no use. The ears are permanently closed to voices except of of people who agree with the Wright stuff.

    Bill

  22. on 15 Nov 2009 at 8:46 pm 22.Master Fushi said …

    I notice people claiming micro but not macro. They are they same process. Somebody used the example, just because somebody could swim doesn’t mean they can swim the Atlantic, swimming is the process in both cases, but there is the physical barrier of scale that stops the swimmer from swimming the Atlantic. But what is there to stop evolution I might ask? If somebody takes a step do you assume they can’t walk a mile? If you see light flash across your window do you assume it was created and destroyed within your field of view? Or do you accept that the light came from a source that you couldn’t see and continued out of your field of view? If you accept this then you understand the basic premise of “macro” evolution. We have witnessed speciation, there is nothing known that could stop the continuation of this evolution, the fossil record shows an enormaous amount of animals that appear to have changed over time even into different classes. What evidence do you have for I.D.? If none, then why are you even here in the first place?

  23. on 15 Nov 2009 at 9:11 pm 23.Truett said …

    But what is there to stop evolution I might ask?

    Why assume it if you cannot observe it? The same think that keeps a turkey from becoming a pig. DNA
    We have the same evidence for ID as you have for theistic evolution. In order for evolution to happen, intelligence is a must.

  24. on 16 Nov 2009 at 3:56 pm 24.Barney said …

    “Why assume it if you cannot observe it?”

    Mountains of evidence, that’s why. Tons of it. Thousands and thousands of papers that support it. Deny it all you want, but the evidence is still there.

    On the other hand, please identify even one tiny shred of evidence for ID that has been published in a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal.

  25. on 16 Nov 2009 at 4:04 pm 25.Xenon said …

    “On the other hand, please identify even one tiny shred of evidence for ID that has been published in a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal”

    Its the old appeal to authority issue again. It seems to be OK for on some arguments but not others. OK, well then most people believe in God therefore it must be true.

    All that evidence you have for evolution also supports ID. As a matter of fact, ID doesn’t contradict evolution in the least, it is only the catalyst.

  26. on 16 Nov 2009 at 4:57 pm 26.Barney said …

    From Wikipedia: “On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.”

    As for the evidence for evolution also supporting ID, well, that’s just wrong. But I know better than to argue with an ID proponent regarding what constitutes “evidence.” I’ve seen them say things like, “See this beautiful sunrise? What more evidence do you need of an intelligent designer?”

  27. on 16 Nov 2009 at 9:50 pm 27.Bill said …

    People really are desparate who rely on Wikipedia, often discredited by many beacause of false and incorrect entries. Dawkins frequenly comments on the beauty of his obervations of nature. I suggest that Barney and others like you have the courage to read Dawkin’s “The Greatest Show on Earth”, if you really want to consider evidence – of course you need to apply intellectual honesty, which those who hold views supporting ID and creationism, seem unable to do.

  28. on 16 Nov 2009 at 9:59 pm 28.Barney said …

    Bill, I don’t think you’ve read my comments very closely.

    Yes, Wikipedia can be inaccurate, but in this case it is true that an appeal to authority isn’t always a logical fallacy.

    I am a Dawkins fan and I accept the theory of evolution. I do not accept the silliness of ID.

  29. on 14 Dec 2009 at 2:29 am 29.Jay said …

    What kind of evidence does she want? Better yet, what kind of evidence do creationists want? Do they want to see a monkey give birth to a human? That would just break all laws of science.

  30. on 14 Dec 2009 at 4:08 am 30.Curmudgeon said …

    Admiral

    You stated the most logical observations on this entire blog. COngratulations!

  31. on 14 Dec 2009 at 4:07 pm 31.Scott Keith said …

    To call Professor Dawkins a “feminist” for questioning Ms. Wrights emotional motivations is ridiculous. Ms. Wright literally appeals to emotion in this interview by playing the “crippled child” card, as if to imply that Dawkins’ advocacy of Darwinism contradicts any possibility of empathy for the disabled.

    These are all transparent ploys utilized in a vain attempt to affiliate evolution with a “loaded image” of intolerance and cruelty.

  32. on 22 Dec 2009 at 10:49 am 32.Dan said …

    @Lou,

    “Dawkins doesn’t understand the difference between fact and theory and that is his agenda and it is hurting his credibility.”

    Bahahahahahahahaahahahahahahha his credibility?! He basically gave this woman a tapestry of physical evidence supporting evolution that she can go find for herself! She believes in stories like Adam and Eve with ZERO historical basis and has the nerve to ask Dawkins “where the evidence is”?
    Wow… Seriously, only in America and maybe those Sharia Law countries do so many people believe such utter nonsense.

  33. on 22 Dec 2009 at 10:58 am 33.Dan said …

    @Admiral

    Re: your swimming analogy. That’s utter garbage. Macroevolution in limited states has been witnessed. Take the inadvertent effects that the Silver Fox of Russia exhibited after 30+ generations of selective breeding for tameness – the foxes began to physically look like and behave like dogs (floppy ears, going on heat every 6 months as opposed to every year etc). The theory of evolution has passed every real scientific test thrown at it since Darwin originated it. The only people who don’t believe it are people who think that a grossly exaggerated work literature (with minimal evidence corroborating only a few characters) that is over 1500 years old. And it’s really only Americans who accept it literally in large numbers. I mean, what is wrong with you people anyway? The majority of the Western World are able to apply logic to reality, why do so many yanks insist on believing in fairy tales?!?

  34. on 22 Dec 2009 at 12:47 pm 34.Boz said …

    Um, Dan….I hate to rain on your parade, but foxes, wolves and dogs are all part of the Canidae family. You gave an example of microevolution not macro. Eh, sorry….

    Maybe you could work the platypus to prove your point somehow. Maybe lies like yours are why so many don’t by into the fairytale of life coming about w/o aid of intelligence.

  35. on 10 Mar 2010 at 12:55 am 35.Jeff said …

    There are 7 parts to this video, I recommend everyone watches them many good points are made throughout the discussion and both Wright and Dawkins elaborate on their beliefs. Answering many questions which all of you continue to debate over.

  36. on 04 May 2010 at 8:12 pm 36.john S said …

    Dawkins did a terrible job here, he is not a well rehearsed propagandist as this woman obviously is. He should have destroyed her arguments easily, that he did not do so does not reflect on the theory of evolution but rather his own weakness against this type of devious competition. Everytime she did her arrogant smug laugh instead of answering the question he should have called her on it as that was a deliberate disrespectful debating ploy. How many times did she claim that the museums did not even have the fossils he alluded to ? Surreal. Anyone who has ever been to a natural history museum knows that they have fossils of human ancestory. Remember she didn’t claim that the fossils were false, she claimed outright that the fossils didn’t even exist !
    Her story about the handicapped person was the perfect segway for Dawkins to point out that bad things happen in evolution but by her claims ‘god’ would have had to intervene to make this child disabled. So many times he missed all these opportunities, it was dreadful.

  37. on 04 May 2010 at 8:28 pm 37.john S said …

    My wife is a PhD Biochemist working in research and she tells me there is NO controversy in the scientific community about evolution, that is another Lie created and propagated by the anti-science creationists lobby.

    Archeopteryx is a sample of macro evolution, one of the stepping stones between reptiles and birds.

    It is totally amazing to me that layman think they are qualified to pass judgment on a deep and serious scientific theory. Dawkins was dumb to let her keep the entire discussion in laymans terms, he should have talked more about very specific aspects of evolution in detail and then asked her questions like how she would explain away the evidence of ape and human chromosomes, apes having 24 and we 23. All he had to do was knock of her ingrained political talking points to reveal that she really knew knowing about science.

  38. on 04 May 2010 at 9:09 pm 38.Boz said …

    “My wife is a PhD Biochemist working in research and she tells me there is NO controversy in the scientific community about evolution,”

    Appeal to authority fallacy.

    “Archeopteryx is a sample of macro evolution, one of the stepping stones between reptiles and birds.”

    There is the old psuedo-saur again.

    “Based on uniformitarian dating methods, the bird is older than all of the so-called feathered dinosaurs. It stands perched as an excellent example of the fact that evolutionists often ignore their own dating methods to produce transitional series.”

    “It is totally amazing to me that layman think they are qualified to pass judgment on a deep and serious scientific theory.”

    So you don’t want layman to think for themselves? Well, yes I could see where that would be convenient. What about other scientist who judge your beliefs to be wrong? Try reading other POVs.

  39. on 05 May 2010 at 6:13 pm 39.Spence said …

    John S

    Do you even have a basic understanding of macroevolution and microevolution? One observational data while the other does not. Now as an atheist, I realize that you must push both as fact but in reality they are not.

  40. on 25 Jun 2010 at 5:47 pm 40.Thought criminal said …

    “Wow, Dawkins was such a sexist! Claim this women is emotional and has some sort of agenda? ”

    Yes, don’t let the polite Brittish accent fool you. I loved your whole quote, but this part was the best!

    This interview was so exasperating and reinforced all my doubt about macro evolution. (In effect it strengthened my agnosticism, toward both religion and Darwinian evolution.)

    Notice when he’s losing, he starts patronizingly trying to psychoanalyze her. When that doesn’t work, he starts utilizing the argument from authority. I.e. this is what scientists believe! This is what the Arch Bishop of Canterbury believes, don’t you want to be just like him? Are you kidding me? Finally he tells her to go get indoctrinated into evolution “for the Glory of God”?! Here you see his condescending sophistry, upon which his empty crusade almost always depends: He hates religion! Yes, Dawkins, just like communist and socialist totalitarians, your is goal to wipe religion out. You say that in varying smug ways in most of your books. Dawkins moreover thinks that religious people who believe in Darwinian evolution are sadists. And don’t get me started on his pathetic crazy followers. .(That’s a closed inbred community Mr. Dawkins!)
    Yet here he is not above using religion himself to manipulate.

    And lastly, notice how when confronted with the hell of social darwinism he uses it to push a socialist nanny state. Could this explain the left’s love affair with Darwinian evolution?

  41. on 25 Jun 2010 at 6:09 pm 41.Thought criminal said …

    Dan, you need to study up on logical fallacies.

    And even we stupid yanks realize that America bashing does not a counter point make.

    Notice I disagreed with you without stereotyping and insult? See? It is possible.

  42. on 25 Jun 2010 at 7:02 pm 42.Observer said …

    TC, your foolishness is too depressing. Read the link in my previous post- it would seem to pertain to you.

  43. on 25 Jun 2010 at 7:10 pm 43.Thought criminal said …

    “I’m not sure why we are searching for new evidence??????? No such thing as a theory. Proof? Who needs proof the DNA is proof. What an ding-bat. He talks about her need to be right.”

    I think the person who wrote this indecipherable nonsense is “an ding-bat.” Seriously the Dawkinite sheep aren’t even worth dignifying with a response. I hope, for your sake, English is your second language. Go back, proofread, for God sake, and try to figure out what you’re actually saying.

    But I can’t resist dignifying this with a response, so here goes. No one is saying theories don’t exist! “No such thing as a theory.” (?!) Theories exist, obviously. Macroevolution is just a theory. I’m sorry if that twists you into a defensive rage. No it is not comparable to the theories of gravity. (Wikianswers expands upon why this is. Read it if you wish to keep an open mind and grow in knowledge. I have yet to meet a Dawkinite type who does. They are the most insecurely close minded fearful people I have ever encountered.)

    DNA is not proof, as she rightly pointed out about commonalites. Your assumptions are not adequate proof of evolution, just as your hobbled insults are neither. Same goes for arranging animal species and sub species on charts not being proof of Darwinian evolution. You could just as easily use DNA to argue for intelligent design. If you’re going to insist DNA does prove a theory, at least show how you believe it does. This is the problem with militant atheists simply sitting around forums telling each other they are smart and superior rather than educating themselves and studying logic, while practicing humility. Wanting, needing something to be true doesn’t make it so.

    Dawkins never said anything about “her need to be right.” But I suppose this is a fascinating piece of projection since she is the one arguing for keeping an open mind and thinking independently.

    BTW it is the job of science to constantly search for new evidence and revise its theories accordingly. Anything else is pseudoscience. (BTW Darwinian evolution meets 9/10 points for pseudoscience.)

    Ugh. My head hurts from banging it against the wall when I debate Dawkinites.

  44. on 11 Aug 2010 at 3:04 am 44.luke said …

    evolution denial is on par with holocaust denial, blinded with bible goggles – creationism would die without religion.. evolution can thrive with or without it

  45. on 11 Aug 2010 at 1:15 pm 45.Burebista said …

    “evolution denial is on par with holocaust denial”

    Micro or Macro?

    When you use the holocaust card you lose. The murder of millions of Jews compared to the skepticism of a theory is the ultimate in stupidity. I hope you will evolve.

  46. on 11 Aug 2010 at 10:13 pm 46.Max said …

    @43 Thought Criminal,

    The post was priceless! Thanks for the take. I have been making the same observations for years.

  47. on 12 Aug 2010 at 3:19 am 47.Observer said …

    @43 Thought Criminal What cracker white-trash seminary do you come from? Or better yet, Bob Jones U, or Liberty U, or some other diploma mill where jabbering and pissing one’s self is highly esteemed behaviour? You spout off something about learning logic? More likely you learned some BS at a weekend brainwashing session so you could throw around some phrases which sound sophisticated to baffle the buffoons and other hoi polloi at some Christian meeting. While you are trying to display a veneer of education, you are transparently uneducated, and the worst type of charlatan, as in you are some white trash clergy.

  48. on 12 Aug 2010 at 3:20 am 48.Observer said …

    @46 Max
    Are you a complete idiot? I suppose you have already answered that question.

  49. on 12 Aug 2010 at 6:08 am 49.3D said …

    45.Burebista said …
    “evolution denial is on par with holocaust denial”
    Micro or Macro?
    When you use the holocaust card you lose. The murder of millions of Jews compared to the skepticism of a theory is the ultimate in stupidity. I hope you will evolve.

    He didn’t say that evolution denial is on par with the Holocaust, you dumb fuck. He said that evolution denial is on par with Holocaust denial.

    Can we get some smarter trolls please?

  50. on 12 Aug 2010 at 6:10 am 50.3D said …

    45.Burebista said …

    “evolution denial is on par with holocaust denial”
    Micro or Macro?
    When you use the holocaust card you lose. The murder of millions of Jews compared to the skepticism of a theory is the ultimate in stupidity. I hope you will evolve.

    He didn’t say that evolution denial is on par with the Holocaust, you dumb fuck. He said that evolution denial is on par with Holocaust denial.

    Can we get some smarter trolls please?

  51. on 12 Aug 2010 at 1:12 pm 51.Horatio said …

    Nose-Buster

    Back with more of your racial rants? I was curious, do your thought processes consist of anything more than ad-hominem attacks or is that really all you have? A nice counter point here and there might add to your credibility………well on second though no but it would be a nice change of pace.

    ____________________________________

    I just read above that denial of holocaust is the equivalent of evolution denial (whatever that means). That being true this is huge.
    Do we now have those who have personally witnessed macroevolution taking place? I am breathless here since this would throw the dawkinites into multiple orgasmic delight. I hope one of our scholars will elaborate.

  52. on 12 Aug 2010 at 3:18 pm 52.3D said …

    51.Horatio said …

    I just read above that denial of holocaust is the equivalent of evolution denial (whatever that means). That being true this is huge.
    Do we now have those who have personally witnessed macroevolution taking place?

    Have you seen air, you dummy? How do you know that exists? Oh right, because we have other means of proving something exists other than just sight.

    Of course, to these inbred morons, evolution isn’t true unless they see an orangutan morphing into a neurosurgeon in front of their eyes at the zoo. But if we ask for proof that the invisible man breathed soul-phlegm into the man he made out of Play-Doh and duct tape, “how dare you ask for proof… it’s about faith…” etc.

    Still waiting for one of these jagoffs to ‘explain’ why ripping apart pregnant women and dashing babies against rocks is being taken out of context.

  53. on 12 Aug 2010 at 5:23 pm 53.Horatio said …

    3D

    Nice spin. My reference to eyewitness testimony is comparing the Holocaust event with evolution you orangutan. Nobody has ever observed marcoevolution…ever. We have eyewitness testimony of the holocaust.

    (sigh) monkeys…

  54. on 23 Aug 2010 at 4:29 am 54.Barb said …

    Macroevolution is a change at or above the species level. If one mosquito evolves into another mosquito and they look almost alike but cannot interbreed, that is macroevolution.
    If a dog evolves into a different breed of dog who looks extremely different, but they still can interbreed, that is microevolution.
    I do believe we have seen macroevolution in plants in our lifetimes(evening primrose), and in finches at the Galapagos Islands. I know the species of finch does not interbreed with the old – whether it can or not, I do not know.
    I believe there are some salamanders in California who have displayed macroevolution because they can’t interbreed.
    As you can see, I am no expert, but at least I know what macroevolution and microevolution are. And at the DNA level, they are the same.
    I got all of this information from Youtube, cdk007 “MicroEvolution vs. Macroevolution.” Watch it because you will learn more from him.

  55. on 21 Sep 2010 at 2:02 pm 55.HoustonYOUNG21 said …

    When you are in a not good position and have no cash to get out from that point, you would have to receive the loans. Because that would help you emphatically. I get commercial loan every single year and feel fine because of it.

  56. on 05 Nov 2010 at 6:31 pm 56.Louis said …

    Mrs. Richards at one point talks about going to a museum with members of her family including her severally handicapped relative. She proposes that the existence of this poor child that is completely unable to function on even the most basic level is affirmation of god and refutes Darwinism. She seems to believe that a severely handicapped relative that cannot walk, talk, or feed herself is proof of a loving, caring god and intelligent design, Further, throughout her conversation talks about how each person is individually and specifically created by god.

    My question: why would a loving, caring god that is capable and involved in the specific creation of individual human beings create such a profoundly handicapped child and relegate them to a life of personal torture and virtual nonexistence?

  57. on 05 Nov 2010 at 8:23 pm 57.Paul said …

    “Have you seen air, you dummy”

    Air is no more than a combination of gases and can be mixed with other gases so that it may be seen by the naked eye.

    Please, if you must argue a point please no the subject matter. You make us all look like inbreds.

  58. on 24 Nov 2010 at 4:23 pm 58.Palin Can't Dance said …

    I loved her comment where she criticized that the debate has been dominated by “scientists”, and that the comments and opinions of “non-scientists” are never given the consideration that they deserve. WTF? Your basic fundie has no clue regarding the most basic and actual facts and processes behind evolution. When evidence is put in front of them, they do not understand. Just because a “non-scientist” does not understand the evidence does not discredit the evidence. The church did not accept heliocentricity, but the earth still went around the study. Facts do not require the acceptance of idiots to be true.

    And she wonders why “scientists” don’t listen? You know, the medical practice at hospitals is dominated by physicians and surgeons, and the thoughts and opinions of astrologers and East-Indian shamans are never given equal consideration. Think about that next time you’re getting brain surgery.

  59. on 24 Nov 2010 at 9:43 pm 59.Rostam said …

    “and that the comments and opinions of “non-scientists” are never given the consideration that they deserve.”

    I agree with you so your comments are moot. You probably bought into global cooling and now global warming and oort clouds and Hawkings spacemen. lol

    Shame on someone who considers multiple opinions and think for themselves, right?

    Palin may not dance but you can’t think! lol Get some help for you unfounded silly fear of a former governor.

  60. on 13 Jan 2011 at 7:44 pm 60.John R. said …

    Wendy Wright aptly demonstrates the absurdities to which an idea fixee will drive someone.

  61. on 26 Jan 2011 at 11:46 am 61.Ash said …

    How is Bible scripture evidence when real bones are not? I’m confused here.

  62. on 26 Jan 2011 at 1:17 pm 62.Doc said …

    What real bones?

    If real bones exist, what do they prove?

    Barb.

    Don’t use YouTube as a source for science. cdk007 is not a valid source for science.

  63. on 26 Jan 2011 at 2:05 pm 63.MrQ said …

    What real bones?
    If real bones exist, what do they prove?

    Ever hear of fossils? Wonder what they prove? You’re a Doc, figure it out.

  64. on 27 Jan 2011 at 2:40 am 64.Doc said …

    Yes, quite familiar with fossils. You do realize they are not bones…right?

    So, what exactly do they prove Ash?

  65. on 27 Jan 2011 at 2:57 am 65.MrQ said …

    You do realize they are not bones…right?

    Maybe it proves that once (a long time ago) there were bones which belonged to and were part of some organisms/animals which died. And then these bones, over time, became fossilized. Doncha think?

  66. on 27 Jan 2011 at 2:41 pm 66.Doc said …

    Uh Huh, I think so. Was that Ash’s point? Wouldn’t that be the equivalent of telling us that the Sun makes the earth warm?

  67. on 27 Jan 2011 at 3:22 pm 67.MrQ said …

    Ash will need to explain. Ash, please explain!!!

  68. on 27 Jan 2011 at 4:25 pm 68.Anti-Theist said …

    Are the theists supposed to say, “wow! You’re so totally right and I’m leaving the church today.,” after being chastised on this forum; through a damaged ego and hurt pride? Is that what is expected? Are my like no better than the agitators who come in an attempt to needlessly make others feel / look foolish? Do we enjoy rolling in shit with pigs or do we watch, shaking our heads? If I cause offence please forgive me; I only wonder why some of the more seemingly intelligent personalities on this site haven’t figured out the game. Are there motives I have overlooked?

  69. on 27 Jan 2011 at 5:08 pm 69.Doc said …

    Ant-Theist

    I try to assume the best. DO you have any helpful comments? Why you would pause only to make generalities and implied superiority. These only points to some sense of self-loathing or quite possibly issues of low self-esteem.

    Maybe you could answer for Ash? Certainly I am not offended. It seems to be a baffling inquiry since none have dared to provide what appears to be such a simple solution?

  70. on 27 Jan 2011 at 5:39 pm 70.Anti-Theist said …

    Conflict with those who have come to argue / convert and are not hear for enlightenment only drives them further into their unfounded beliefs. Assuming the best, I feel compelled to know why I find fellow rationalists “rolling around in the pig pen.” I know why I did it and I know why I quit; I wonder what motivates others.

  71. on 27 Jan 2011 at 8:47 pm 71.Doc said …

    Why are you still posting?

    I think you mean they are not “here”.

    I think what motivates others are the same reasons the website is here in the first place. Feel free to leave at any point. I’m here simply for curiosity and interest in other opinions.

  72. on 27 Jan 2011 at 9:15 pm 72.Anti-Theist said …

    I post to include my take on the bloggers contributions. You do not come here due to curiosity. If I assume that, as I do, you know the arguments and rebuttals presented by both sides; you are only hear to harass, agitate, and trumpet. I would never tell you not to act like an ape, but if you claim civility around me you should stick to commenting on the submitted articles and refrain from attacking other patrons. I think this too of anyone else; I have no reservations of you being nasty, I just ask that you express the courage to own it.

  73. on 27 Jan 2011 at 9:23 pm 73.Xenon said …

    Doc,

    Don’t pay any attention to Anti-Matter. He is a troll who should be ignored.

    Fossils prove one thing. Something lived and then it died many years ago. The rest is speculation and assumptions. Nothing wrong with such exercise, but to claim these speculation and assumptions are fact is nonsense.

  74. on 27 Jan 2011 at 10:21 pm 74.MrQ said …

    X,

    Fossils prove one thing. Something lived and then it died many years ago. The rest is speculation and assumptions.

    So what do you get from the fossil record? Just that some creatures once existed. Do you think it’s possible to get more than that from fossils? And how would you do that?

    Do you agree with Horatio that the Earth is some 4 billion years old?

    Don’t just troll here, answer some questions. Don’t prove A-T right with his observations. ;-)

  75. on 28 Jan 2011 at 12:41 am 75.Xenon said …

    Do you think it’s possible to get more than that from fossils?

    I dunno, like what? Age? Species?

    Do you agree with Horatio that the Earth is some 4 billion years old?

    I dunno, where did Horatio claim this? I doubt it, in another 50 years the date will change I feel certain.

  76. on 28 Jan 2011 at 12:47 am 76.Hell Yeah said …

    New theory to discuss:

    Religions and gods are actually based on ancient aliens that visited earth to guide our civilization and aliens still visit and watch over us. Another theory could be that we are actually alien decendents, so that is where we came from. What do you think? Check out Ancient Aliens on the History channel to get some information.

  77. on 28 Jan 2011 at 1:33 am 77.MrQ said …

    X,

    Do you think it’s possible to get more than that from fossils?
    I dunno

    That’s your answer? Can anything of value be learned from studying ancient artefacts…. species, age, history? Maybe you think we should abandon the branches of anthropolgy, archeology?

    Do you agree with Horatio that the Earth is some 4 billion years old?
    I dunno, where did Horatio claim this?

    On this blog.
    You are correct that the date may change but it won’t be to a 6000-10,000 years old Earth, of that we can be certain.

    So basically with a simple “I dunno” you can comfortably dismiss entire fields of science. Wow, is that religion in action? Well, what do you know?

  78. on 28 Jan 2011 at 2:08 am 78.Xenon said …

    Mr No Clue,

    Please provide a quote of where anyone claim the filed has no value?

    I asked you Age” Species? and as expected you have No Clue.

    you again live up to your name. No Clue.

    But again, as Ash claims how do (Bones) lol back the assertion of this post?

    Wow!

  79. on 28 Jan 2011 at 2:14 am 79.Boz said …

    Anthropology is the study of man? I don’t see anyone claiming to stop studying. Not even archeology. Mr Q is attempting to appeal to emotionalism.

    The only ones attempting to stop study is the loony liberals who don’t want to consider alternative interpretations of the evidence. They are afraid there theories will not hold up. They might mention the G word.

    I have found most schools I come in contact teach ID anyhow. The kids still get in to great colleges anyhow. Imagine!

  80. on 28 Jan 2011 at 3:20 am 80.MrQ said …

    X,
    Don’t be a hater.
    Just trying to see where you stand. As usual, you slink down to name calling……it reminds me of speaking with a child, or someone who really does not want to answer simple questions.

    So sad, A-T is right. You and the extended family have got nothing but an ancient book to lean on. You’re here trying to shove a bible down people’s throats. Right? Not to learn.

    Now calm down and try to answer.
    How old is our Earth? I’ll even give you a margin of error of 0.5 billion years.

    Please provide a quote of where anyone claim the filed has no value?

    I assume that you meant “field”.

    I asked

    So what do you get from the fossil record? Just that some creatures once existed. Do you think it’s possible to get more than that from fossils? And how would you do that?

    You answered

    I dunno, like what? Age? Species?

    Seems that you just “dunno” and are not willing to expand the conversation. You are quick to pass judgement on any field of science which does not back your bible. Remember post #73

    but to claim these speculation and assumptions are fact is nonsense.

    Again, what are your “facts” to counter the research and modern understandings? Let’s try to be adults here.

  81. on 28 Jan 2011 at 2:32 pm 81.Xenon said …

    Boz

    You are right. We have HY attempting to introduce a new theory, AT spends his time looking in the mirror and Mr Q attempts to spin the discussion. ALl this because Ash was asked simply

    “what do the fossils prove” regarding this thread.

    I guess the answer evades.

  82. on 28 Jan 2011 at 3:10 pm 82.MrQ said …

    X,
    I was just trying to help you use logic, reason, and science to prove that god lives.

    So, starting from my post #80, let’s start that discussion. No need to be afraid, the evidence will clearly show that god is real.

    Start with the age of the Earth, I will increase the margin of error for you to 1 billion years. Your turn now. Like adults we can proceed to carry on the debate and we will surely prove god.

  83. on 28 Jan 2011 at 3:52 pm 83.Boz said …

    Q

    I’m glad to see you finally realize there is a God. Maybe you could help with your fellow cohorts?

    I want to play to your fetish here. I think the earth is 3.5677889947478585 billion years old. I think the evidence is clear. Prove me right Q.

    X,

    Actually when looked at objectively, many see the fossil record as quite an embarrassment especially when attempting to support macro-evolution. Sure macro might be true, but not because the evidence is overwhelming.

  84. on 28 Jan 2011 at 4:23 pm 84.MrQ said …

    X,
    See, Boz and Horatio both agree that the Earth is billions of years old. What do you say? Does that work for you?

  85. on 28 Jan 2011 at 5:18 pm 85.Anti-Theist said …

    I wonder if Dawkins shared oxygen with this short sighted bigot before he vowed not to debate theists.

    Dawkins said:
    “Sometime in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would “win” the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public that is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr. So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation, you will be accused of cowardice or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.”

    All Atheists should at least entertain this notion.

  86. on 28 Jan 2011 at 5:59 pm 86.Curmudgeon said …

    Let see:

    Here in the US theist represent 90% of the population or more. Atheist represent 5% or less. I see your point. Creationism is accepted by a majority of the population.

    Yes, let us not give the atheist any real respectability with their silly premises.
    Dawkins should have used oxygen. See what the oxygen Deprived mind reacts?

    If anyone desires a good laugh don’t buy, check out his book the God Delusion at a local library.

  87. on 28 Jan 2011 at 6:00 pm 87.Curmudgeon said …

    Mr Boz

    The fetish blast was great!

  88. on 28 Jan 2011 at 6:09 pm 88.MrQ said …

    Here in the US theist represent 90% of the population or more.

    Good for you, Cur. Sounds like you’re getting into bed with those Muslim fellows. Don’t forget the lube.

    BTW, Cur, do you agree that the Earth is billions of years old?

  89. on 28 Jan 2011 at 6:34 pm 89.Curmudgeon said …

    I certainly wouldn’t want to be in bed with Richard, Chris and Sam. How does it feel?

    Do you believe matter created itself? R U suffering from a age of earth fetish too? Is it like syphilis?

  90. on 28 Jan 2011 at 6:47 pm 90.MrQ said …

    Cur,
    Just answer the question. Xenon wants answers. So far Boz and Horatio have agreed that the Earth is billions of years old.

    Let’s find the common scientific ground from where we can work from in proving god.

  91. on 28 Jan 2011 at 8:36 pm 91.Rostam said …

    AT quotes Dawkins. I love Dawk but why should we believe Dawk?

    How did life come into existence? That is where common ground begins.

    So how Mr Q?

  92. on 28 Jan 2011 at 8:51 pm 92.MrQ said …

    Rostam,

    How did life come into existence?

    We can work towards that.
    But, for now, let’s work on (and build up) the facts which we can all agree on.
    Don’t be afraid, god will surely emerge from our collection of facts and data.

    How old is the Earth?

  93. on 28 Jan 2011 at 9:04 pm 93.Rostam said …

    Mr Q, you must be monitoring the site continuously.

    You have yet to answer a single question posted you and I just joined so I think I will go back to

    How did life come into existence?

    Once we establish this we can begin to prove God is imaginary. I want to help. Humor me a mere beginner.

    Together we can prove God is imaginary.

  94. on 28 Jan 2011 at 9:08 pm 94.Rostam said …

    I cahnged my mind. To keep the conversation rolling.

    The earth is um lets say 15,000 years old. There you go. Not you will now indulge with some answers, yes?

    God will not – how did you say – “emerge from facts and data”. That was funny though!!

  95. on 28 Jan 2011 at 10:59 pm 95.MrQ said …

    I cahnged my mind.

    I didn’t realize that you had one!

    The earth is um lets say 15,000 years old.

    Fact ALERT! Xenon, we have someone guessing(?) the age of the Earth. How did Rosta arrive at 15,000 years? Did he throw a dart? Rosta, we want FACTS. -Look up ACASTA GNEISS, for starters- And stop being a dumbass.

    Xenon, maybe we chalk Rosta’s opinion to the dogs until he comes up with REAL EVIDENCE and FACTS for his guess.
    So far, Horatio, Boz, and I can agree on around 4 billion years.

  96. on 29 Jan 2011 at 3:19 am 96.Rostam said …

    Mr Q

    You so silly! But maybe you could help me?

    So how did life come into existence? You seem afraid of the question. Are you afraid?

    Is the fetish overwhelming you?

    I’m just dyeing to know. Thanks for helping out a old Mambian Dalit.

  97. on 29 Jan 2011 at 3:36 am 97.MrQ said …

    Rostam

    So how did life come into existence? You seem afraid of the question. Are you afraid?

    Not at all. We’ll get there.

    What happened to:

    I cahnged my mind. To keep the conversation rolling

    Change your mind again? Don’t blame you. Now go away until you can contribute some facts.

  98. on 30 Jan 2011 at 3:12 pm 98.Dale701 said …

    43.Thought criminal said …

    “I’m sorry if that twists you into a defensive rage. No it is not comparable to the theories of gravity.”

    I see Red when I see statements like this, just how dum can people be! I know you think Gravity is proven because you fell down.

    I beg to disagree, I would put evolution as a much more proven theory than Gravity.

    We have not a clue at the quantum level.

    And it is not much better at the galaxy level.
    That is why they made up Dark Energy and Dark Matter, to make Gravity work on the standard model.
    So far, there is not any evidence these things exist, yet they are supposed to be all around us.

    Do a little research, you will find scientists will admit they do not understand gravity.

    Read some of Newton’s comments.
    Gravity works instantaneously across vast distances, which would violate any wave or particle action at the speed of light.

    If it works through space time curvature, how can nothing have a curvature? They used to call this the Ether. I think the new name is Dark Energy and Matter.

    I can easily imagine how changing DNA structure could produce new creatures, but Gravity is beyond me.
    Yet all the anti-evolutionists except the Standard Model, Theory of Gravity without question.
    Why is this?

  99. on 30 Jan 2011 at 3:18 pm 99.Dale701 said …

    I suppose you anti-evolutionists do not believe in Germ Theory either.

    I suggest you stay away from hospitals and doctors, and stick to something that really works like prayer and exorcisms.

  100. on 08 Feb 2011 at 11:40 am 100.Andrew said …

    I love how Wright seems to think an amount of evidence is measured as a percentage. A percentage of what?

  101. on 16 Feb 2011 at 4:18 pm 101.Alex Dankert said …

    Inspite of so MUCH Evidence how are people so blind?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    A very very small extract from the above
    Although it has only recently become available, one of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species,[1] producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin’s original hypothesis of common descent. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor will have inherited that ancestor’s DNA sequence. Notably they will have inherited mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely-related species will have a greater fraction of identical sequence and will have shared substitutions when compared to more distantly-related species.
    The simplest and most powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction. Such reconstructions, especially when done using slowly-evolving protein sequences, are often quite robust and can be used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms (and even in some instances such as the recovered gene sequences of mammoths, Neanderthals or T. rex, the evolutionary history of extinct organisms). These reconstructed phylogenies recapitulate the relationships established through morphological and biochemical studies. The most detailed reconstructions have been performed on the basis of the mitochondrial genomes shared by all eukaryotic organisms, which are short and easy to sequence; the broadest reconstructions have been performed either using the sequences of a few very ancient proteins or by using ribosomal RNA sequence.
    This evidence does not support the rival hypothesis that genetic similarity of two species is the product of common functional or structural requirements, and not common descent[citation needed] (for example, if there is one best way to produce a hoof, all hoofed creatures will share a genetic basis even if they are not related). However, phylogenetic relationships also extend to a wide variety of nonfunctional sequence elements, including repeats, transposons, pseudogenes, and mutations in protein-coding sequences that do not result in changes in amino-acid sequence. While a minority of these elements might later be found to harbor function, in aggregate they demonstrate that identity must be the product of common descent rather than common function.

    The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase, are found in everything from the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core. Other overarching similarities between all lineages of extant organisms, such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, give support to the theory of common descent.

  102. on 16 Feb 2011 at 5:15 pm 102.Alex Dankert said …

    Also, poking holes at evolution does not produce positive evidence for your own point. There is no positive evidence for creation

  103. on 16 Feb 2011 at 6:56 pm 103.Wren said …

    The facts of common descent in no way support atheistic conclusions. Belief in common descent is largely derived from the existence of structures shared by many forms of life. These include structural components, such as the forelimbs, which illustrate a similarity of construction overall, but are yet unique in other ways, providing varied functions. Cellular and molecular similarities are also considered to be derived from a common ancestor and therefore homologous, as in the existence of common organelles in eukaryotes, and nucleic acid (DNA/RNA) as the universal genetic code. Such similarities are used as one of the main proofs for macroevolution and the common descent of all life on earth.

    Based on these observed similarities, evolutionists infer that all life is related through one original life form that generated naturally through abiogenesis (spruced up spontaneous generation). Creationists on the other hand infer that life and the natural laws that sustain it were designed by a common Creator, namely God, Who supernaturally created many original kinds of animals. It is important to note that creationists do not reject fully the idea of common descent, only its ultimate evolutionary conclusion.

    Common descent is a philosophical belief, not scientific in essence. Such assertions made by evolutionists regarding common descent are not falsifiable and cannot be observed in nature or tested by experimentation. It therefore, falls outside the boundaries of the scientific method.

  104. on 16 Feb 2011 at 10:36 pm 104.Biff said …

    Its truly is an odd thing. Wren. Atheist somehow believe that science somehow supports their position. As you point out, no, the facts are interpreted outside the scientific method which becomes a philosophy. Science is making it more difficult to remain an atheist year by year.

    We have already met Charles Darwin’s own criteria for abandoning his theory yet we keep hoping. We have even added aliens to the equation at some points. But God? No, that is faith:)

  105. on 27 Apr 2011 at 9:33 am 105.Anonymous said …

    GOD CAN AND WILL HEAL AMPUTEES – He wants to – there is a law, the law JESUS obeyed that allowed Him to walk on water, feed 5000, calm storms, raise the dead, heal the mentally ill and forgive sin. ”ASK AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE…” ask in faith – believe you will get what you ask for and ”YOU SHALL”. If your faith is not strong enough, get a prayer partner or 2 or more who has strong faith. Then too, Jesus did not heal every sick person on earth when HE was here, nor raise all the dead. The time is coming soon when thre will be knowledge ”why”,I KNOW HE HEALS – I ALSO KNOW HE IS – when our sins are forgivev, we are not always delivered from the results of a sin, but we’re forgiven for the sin. The flesh does not enter into eternity so in real life all amputees are whole. I don’t say this by fzith – I know for sure. Sorry I could’nt answer sooner. I had to charge my browser I’m on a wii

  106. on 06 Jul 2011 at 6:50 pm 106.gary said …

    Maybe Dawkins and schwarzenegger can go on a speaking tour

  107. on 06 Jul 2011 at 6:52 pm 107.maryann said …

    Wow… I can’t believe how many sheep are in Dawkin’s herd! As an atheist, shouldn’t we part with this moronic relic (Dawkins)

  108. on 06 Jul 2011 at 7:08 pm 108.Lou said …

    Because this is a resurrected discussion, please allow me to note that the Lou in it is not me.

  109. on 16 Jan 2012 at 6:25 am 109.Anon said …

    Well, evolution doesn’t mean one species becomes another – it’s not as if a wolf gives birth to a dog, a wolf gives birth to a bunch of wolf-like creatures, and if the ones similar to dogs have some kind of advantage in survival, they’ll continue to propogate more dog-like wolves, until the species gradually transitions into dogs – but technically they’re still wolves. The nomenclature of species is subtle – it doesn’t mean every single animal of its species is the same!

    Dawkins was right – if you had a fossil of a dog, and a wolf, and people said there are no transitional links, if you then found a dog-like wolf, they would ask for two transitional links between the wolf and dog-like wolf, and the dog-like wolf and the dog.

    Besides, not every carcass survives. The majority decay or are consumed. How many of our modern birds and mammals do you think will be preserved as fossils? Almost NONE. If these fools expect a fossil from every generation to survive the ravages of nature to show transitions, we should give them outdated vaccines and separate them from the wonders of modern medicine and biology they so happily deny.

  110. on 21 Nov 2012 at 5:46 am 110.Bravelion said …

    Agree with those here opining that Dawkins missed the point in the discussion, because he was so eager to get Ms Wright to change her entrenched view – and probably because he himself is so frustrated with the lack of accepting what appears to be fact.

    The point he should have emphasised a lot more is, that best available facts as per science should be taught in school – and the fact is that the conjecture of ID and creationism is NOT really a scientific body of facts, it’s not a scientific theory. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it just means that it has no proper evidence to support the conjecture of ID and creationism – he should have focused a lot more on this lacking evidence for her belief, instead of trying to convince her of the evidence for evolution she denies even exist. And then made the argument on the premise that science classes must be based on the best available scientific facts, not just conjecture based on beliefs.

    I think therein lies the way to counter this – this does not deny the ability to teach what Ms. Wright wants to also be taught, it simply puts it out of the realm of science because ID and creationism isn’t science – its faith. Faith and science are two different things.

    To illustrate, the belief a man crucified to death 2,000 years ago rose from the dead and will save us all cannot be proven scientifically, regardless of how much evangelical Christians may argue so – all we have are some written eye-witness accounts, which cannot be corroborated. However, you can still believe in this uncorroborated story and believe it’s devine claim. That’s faith, and if you are Christian you precisely accept that despite the lack of proof you believe – you have faith, and that this is a basic premise of your religion. But it’s not science. So, it can be taught as faith, but not as science. So too with ID and creationism.

  111. on 21 Nov 2012 at 12:58 pm 111.Rob said …

    Bravelion

    You need to learn that Creationism and ID are no the one and same. Big differences especially considering a few scientist have put forth a theory of alien seeding to produce life as we know it.

  112. on 21 Nov 2012 at 3:18 pm 112.Anonymous said …

    Bravelion, the fact that the resurrection story of Jesus can’t be proven scientifically, the biblical accounts are contradictory, none of it exists outside the bible, none of the so-called eye-witness accounts have contemporary authorship, the Christian version is a recasting of earlier myths, and that the biblical version was decided upon by committee; ought to scream myth and legend to everyone but – apparently – the need to believe that complete crap and nonsense is true, trumps reasoned thinking. Go figure.

  113. on 21 Nov 2012 at 7:28 pm 113.Burebista said …

    Socrates cannot be proven scientifically. He must be a myth!

  114. on 22 Nov 2012 at 12:36 am 114.alex said …

    which part of the myth socrates do you doubt?

  115. on 22 Nov 2012 at 2:14 am 115.Anonymous said …

    Burebista, who is also Lou and Biff — tell us – what is the proof that your god exists? You run away from this question all the time. It must scare you considerably.

  116. on 11 Dec 2012 at 8:41 pm 116.Shcadenfreud said …

    This is her core argument:

    Humans are different from one another. Therefore, there must have been an unimaginably all-powerful creator who made each of us individually. He is invisible and lives in the sky, and is always ever-present. You can’t have peace without adhering to the laws he wrote and gave to a 3,500 year old Hebrew orphan.

    This is Dawkins’ argument:

    Humans are different from one another. We are different from one another because our DNA has evolved that way. It’s not an optimal situation, but let’s look at the facts we do have and try and make the best of what we’ve got. If we stop arguing about that which we don’t know to the point of killing eachother, we can have peace.

    Which one makes more sense?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply