Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright (anti-evolutionist)

Kipperhell

Sam Vimes wrote: »

She most certainly does not hold her own. Ignoring everything Dawkins says and changing the subject whenever he asks a difficult question in the hopes that no ones notices she can't answer it is not holding her own, it just keeps the debate going around in circles in perpetuity

I guess I see it differently to you. I don't think she had a convincing argument or expressed some great point but she expressed her view without losing her points. She circled Dawkin's a few times and turned points at him. I could see some people not understanding what she was doing and being convinced but obviously the people I would associate would see it in plain sight.
To a certain extent I would think she knows evolution is highly likely and she has chosen that to make a stand for her societies sake. If I felt strongly enough about something and saw it as the greater good I might lie too. I know people tell their kids about God to keep control over them I don't think it is a stretch to believe some "religious" people are doing the same. In fact it is actually highly probable given the history of the world that it will never stop.

Sam Vimes

Kipperhell wrote: »

I guess I see it differently to you. I don't think she had a convincing argument or expressed some great point but she expressed her view without losing her points.

We definitely see it differently

She didn't lose points because someone like that can start a debate with the assertion that the sky is green and not lose a single point. She simply evades any attempt to prove her wrong through a dishonest debating style, realising she can't respond but throwing up a smokescreen so she doesn't have to admit it

Kipperhell wrote: »

She circled Dawkin's a few times and turned points at him. I could see some people not understanding what she was doing and being convinced but obviously the people I would associate would see it in plain sight.

tbh the only people I could see being convinced are people who were already convinced beforehand and ignored Dawkins as much as she did. I don't see how anyone could be convinced by:

Scary woman: There are no intermediary fossils, just drawings. You can't see it in a musem
Dawkins: You can see hundreds of examples in any good museum (gives examples). Go and look
Scary woman:.........A darwinian society would be bad blah blah blah
Dawkins:: I completely agree but that doesn't change the facts. The fact of evolution doesn't mean we have to have a Darwinian society
Scary woman:.........There are no intermediary fossils, just drawings. You can't see it in a musem

Kipperhell wrote: »

To a certain extent I would think she knows evolution is highly likely and she has chosen that to make a stand for her societies sake. If I felt strongly enough about something and saw it as the greater good I might lie too. I know people tell their kids about God to keep control over them I don't think it is a stretch to believe some "religious" people are doing the same. In fact it is actually highly probable given the history of the world that it will never stop.

I think you're right to an extent but I'd go as far as to say she's lying to herself too. It goes back to my earlier point that some people are too terrified to admit the possibility that they might be wrong because they think it'll make people eat babies. You would be inclined to think that people like that are just lying to us but having tried to talk to a few people like that they appear to be able to convince themselves too

stevejazzx

Kipperhell wrote: »

I guess I see it differently to you. I don't think she had a convincing argument or expressed some great point but she expressed her view without losing her points. She circled Dawkin's a few times and turned points at him. I could see some people not understanding what she was doing and being convinced but obviously the people I would associate would see it in plain sight.
To a certain extent I would think she knows evolution is highly likely and she has chosen that to make a stand for her societies sake. If I felt strongly enough about something and saw it as the greater good I might lie too. I know people tell their kids about God to keep control over them I don't think it is a stretch to believe some "religious" people are doing the same. In fact it is actually highly probable given the history of the world that it will never stop.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

She does not hold her own.
Refusing to accept the evidence Dawkins supplies her and repeatedly changing the subject to some kind of wishy washy debate on Christian vs atheist morals does not constitute holding ones own, it constitutes ignorance, and and in her case delusion. It requires only a modicum of perception from any clued in teenager to discern that which questions how on earth you arrived at your conclusion that she 'holds her own'. I'm not a biologist but I have read considerably on evolution and consider that I have good understanding of it and could explain properly in either lay man terms or slightly more detailed if necessary but there is no way I would ever stand in front of someone like Dawkins and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. Whatever wacky creationist opinion exists about Dawkins skills when discussing atheism no one can question his expertise in biology. Well no one that is except idiots and Wendy whatevername is comes across as such in that insterview.

Zillah

Kipperhell wrote: »

I guess I see it differently to you. I don't think she had a convincing argument or expressed some great point but she expressed her view without losing her points. She circled Dawkin's a few times and turned points at him. I could see some people not understanding what she was doing and being convinced but obviously the people I would associate would see it in plain sight.

Without losing her points?

She claims something, Dawkins explains why she is completely wrong, then she changes the subject.

How is that in any way worthy of anything other than disdain?

ChocolateSauce

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because she really really really really wants her version of reality to be the real one

Close but no cigar; she knows her version of reality is right. :P

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could be convinced by:

Scary woman: There are no intermediary fossils, just drawings. You can't see it in a musem
Dawkins: You can see hundreds of examples in any good museum (gives examples). Go and look
Scary woman:.........A darwinian society would be bad blah blah blah
Dawkins:: I completely agree but that doesn't change the facts. The fact of evolution doesn't mean we have to have a Darwinian society
Scary woman:.........There are no intermediary fossils, just drawings. You can't see it in a musem

Sounds like a thread I know :pac:

I would agree with you though, the people who find this stuff "convincing" are religious crazy people who are not really looking to be convinced by rationality they are just looking to find any excuse to cling on to their religious beliefs.

Which is why it becomes some what pointless to debate them. Dawkins corrects this woman about fossils and she ignores him. She doesn't really care about fossils, or evidence for evolution. She doesn't care if her argument is correct or not. All she cares about is being able to say I have good reasons for not accepting evolution. She doesn't care if they are good reasons or bad ones, like a child she just wants the justification behind her beliefs. It is the adult version of "My mum says so".

It is the crazy thing about a lot of religious people, particularly people like Creationists, they care so much about appearing to be rational and scientific but care so little about rationality and science.

nitrogen

I don't know why Dawkins wastes his time. It's like arguing with someone who denies the world is round, and keeps asking for evidence. It's beyond pointless giving these idiots publicity.

sajidm0074

please google "wendy wright retard", you will get better results

Kipperhell

stevejazzx wrote: »

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

I think you guys are missing the point I am not saying she comes across as using a logical arguments and makes logical points. She is doing a good job of sticking to her points regardless of what she is confronted with and doesn't really get flustered. She is effectively a logic terrorist using gorilla tactics and will have success with that.

You may see it as her only preaching to the converted but I would certainly imagine there are some people swayed by her arguments and style. I would be very curious about her education, I suspect she may have gone to a Christian college. I find America has a strange notion of their freedom of speech and democracy as I don't believe they have either. I think anybody who believes in God is already susceptible to conspiracy theories and can easily believe in a liberal agenda. They see random actions and claim a structure with control.

Anybody who says scientists should not be the authority on science is clearly not using logical argument but the point is there are no formal rules in sound bite style media exposure. Terrorists don't use standard warfare. She is a terrorist:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why it becomes some what pointless to debate them.

Which is why I try not to respond to J C or the donkey related believer anymore. The only thing you'll ever get out of it is an ulcer

Wicknight wrote: »

Dawkins corrects this woman about fossils and she ignores him. She doesn't really care about fossils, or evidence for evolution. She doesn't care if her argument is correct or not. All she cares about is being able to say I have good reasons for not accepting evolution. She doesn't care if they are good reasons or bad ones, like a child she just wants the justification behind her beliefs. It is the adult version of "My mum says so".

They also love the idea that there is a debate going and and that there's some controversy over evolution so they can instill doubt in people's minds. Dawkins of course knows he's never going to convince these people. He's just putting them on tv to show that there is no debate and they're just mental :P

Sam Vimes

Kipperhell wrote: »

I think you guys are missing the point I am not saying she comes across as using a logical arguments and makes logical points. She is doing a good job of sticking to her points regardless of what she is confronted with and doesn't really get flustered. She is effectively a logic terrorist using gorilla tactics and will have success with that.

You may see it as her only preaching to the converted but I would certainly imagine there are some people swayed by her arguments and style.

You might actually be right there. It's a tried and tested technique used by politicians called proof by assertion, where you repeat something so many times, regardless of correction, people start to believe it. As they say "a lie told often enough becomes the truth"

I would hope that people are generally smart enough to notice that she's just dodging the issues but I might be disappointed

Zombrex

sajidm0074 wrote: »

please google "wendy wright retard", you will get better results

If I Google that the first hit is your post .... arrragghhh, I've broken the Internet!!

patrickthomas

Wicknight wrote: »

If I Google that the first hit is your post .... arrragghhh, I've broken the Internet!!

Now that is funny, needed a laugh after watching "wendy wright retard" who is living proof of her own "theory" she did not evolve and was invented by an imaginary man who lives in the sky.

Agonist

Galvasean wrote: »

Yes that was interesting, a sob story about being jailed for 'just praying'. I bet if you look into it she was probably yelling obscene bible passages at people nearby.

Possibly the sentence was imposed for breaking the terms of an injunction or for contempt of court, rather than the praying.

More likely, she got six months in a secure unit for being clever, articulate and subhumanly crazy.

Galvasean

sajidm0074 wrote: »

please google "wendy wright retard", you will get better results

I did an image search and found pictues of Sarah Jessica Parker, Britney Spears and Quentin Tarantino. Am I doing something wrong?