The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...we don't want any special treatment for Creation Science - and we welcome debate on our ideas - unlike the Evolutionists - who often refuse to engage in debate, or even be in the same room with Creation Scientists - because they invariably lose the debate when a Creation Scientist challenges their unfounded assumptions and ideas.

Science is not done through debates, it's done in a lab but creationists don't have any experiments to back up their position so they try to steer the topic away from that as much as possible

J C wrote: »

All we ask is that people obey the Equal Status Act and don't sack people or advocate the sacking of people just because they express a WELL FOUNDED scientific opinion that 'God did it'!!!

Sacking someone for expressing a scientific opinion is not covered by the equal status act

J C wrote: »

...and if Creation Science was the 'rubbish' you claim it to be, HUNDREDS of evolutionists wouldn't have spent the past 5 years on this thread debating with ONE Creation Scientist ... and still LOSE every Evolutionist argument that you have put forward!!!

J C, the fact that you won't shut up about it does not mean you have won the debate and the reason people have lost interest in debating creationists is because they don't quite realise this. We have just proven that the eye is not irreducibly complex by showing less complex versions of the eye that function just fine and you just keep shouting INDICATES DESIGN over and over in the hopes that it will all go away. That's not winning an argument. This is a rough extract from an interview with Richard Dawkins and a creationist called Wendy Wright:


Wright: 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 such as australopithecus, ). Go and look
Wright:.........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

That's not winning an argument, that's changing the subject so she doesn't have to admit she's been shown to be wrong

you can see it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

monosharp

J C wrote: »

....I accept aspects of Evolutionary theory and ID. For example, I accept that Sexual and Natural Selection occur ... what I don't accept is that either phenomenon can account for the development of Man from pondslime.

Then in the name of God, Buddha and Allah why can't you talk about the aspects of Evolution you disagree with instead of trying to rubbish the whole thing ?

Aspects of Evolution are challenged all the time, thats what science is.

If an aspect is found to be wrong then the theory changes.

If you proved there was a magical barrier to macro-evolution tomorrow then that new evidence would prove aspects of the existing theory wrong, the new findings would be incorporated into the theory and it would still be called Evolution.

What is so difficult to understand about this ?

And for the last time JC, what you call the 'development of Man from pondslime' is NOT evolution.

Its Abiogenesis, why do you continue to label them togeather ? It only shows ignorance on your part when you do this.

The fact of Evolution, life changes over time. (yes its that simple)

The theory of Evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution, it explains the diversity of life, how different species possibly arose from a common ancestor. (It explains the diversity of life, NOT the origin of life)

Abiogenesis is an umbrella term with dozens of different hypothesis's which try to explain the origin of life.

Will you please at least specify which thing you are attacking in your posts.

Evolution does not require abiogenesis, abiogenesis does not require evolution. They are separate.

All I ask is for my respect to be reciprocated which isn't asking too much in any society that wishes to retain the vestages of civilisation and liberality.

Then stop talking nonsense.

When you label evolution 'mud to man' its not only rude, its completely incorrect and whats more, you KNOW its completely incorrect.

Now can you please kindly respond to my post about the evolution of the eye.

You claimed intermediate stages of the eye could not function, we showed you 'possible' intermediate forms of the human eye in examples of simpler eyes in other species.

Or to put it another way, the Eye is 'reducible'.

monosharp

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you can see it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

And round .. and round ... and round ... and round ..

I honestly do feel dizzy after listening to that woman.

Shouldn't there be some kind of organisation to help people this ignorant ? I mean, in a less civilized society that woman would have starved to death after selling her cows for magic beans.

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

And for the last time JC, what you call the 'development of Man from pondslime' is NOT evolution.

Its Abiogenesis, why do you continue to label them togeather ? It only shows ignorance on your part when you do this.

The fact of Evolution, life changes over time. (yes its that simple)

The theory of Evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution, it explains the diversity of life, how different species possibly arose from a common ancestor. (It explains the diversity of life, NOT the origin of life)

Abiogenesis is an umbrella term with dozens of different hypothesis's which try to explain the origin of life.

Will you please at least specify which thing you are attacking in your posts.

Evolution does not require abiogenesis, abiogenesis does not require evolution. They are separate.

Emphasis like that really doesn't help against J C tbh. Everyone reading this thread knows that J C keeps lumping abiogenesis and evolution together, including J C because probably hundreds of people have told him so at this stage. It's even in one of the tags. It's his ability to pretend things like that never happened that have resulted in a 18,815 post thread and it's the fact that people eventually get sick of correcting him only to be ignored and go away to do something more constructive like piss into the wind that allows him to say he's won debates. It's a good old proof by assertion with a bit of argument ad nauseum thrown in

Don't take J C seriously, he's probably taking the piss at this stage. I find it hard to believe that someone can be that deluded. I really just post here when I can be bothered to try to stop other people being taken in by his nonsense

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...different DNA sequences producing the SAME functional protein and the same DNA sequence producing different functional proteins (using the Hox Box genes) are evidence of SOPHISTICATION in DESIGN ... and NOT spontaneous evolution!!!!

...especially when the final protein produced is observed to be essential and EXACTLY like it is to be functional.

no

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...we don't want any special treatment for Creation Science - and we welcome debate on our ideas - unlike the Evolutionists - who often refuse to engage in debate, or even be in the same room with Creation Scientists - because they invariably lose the debate when a Creation Scientist challenges their unfounded assumptions and ideas.

All we ask is that people obey the Equal Status Act and don't sack people or advocate the sacking of people just because they express a WELL FOUNDED scientific opinion that 'God did it'!!!

...and if Creation Science was the 'rubbish' you claim it to be, HUNDREDS of evolutionists wouldn't have spent the past 5 years on this thread debating with ONE Creation Scientist ... and still LOSE every Evolutionist argument that you have put forward!!!

no

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

And round .. and round ... and round ... and round ..

I honestly do feel dizzy after listening to that woman.

Shouldn't there be some kind of organisation to help people this ignorant ? I mean, in a less civilized society that woman would have starved to death after selling her cows for magic beans.

The way she she says creator makes me want to smash my computer into tiny pieces to make it stop

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sacking someone for expressing a scientific opinion is not covered by the equal status act

....how very CONVENIENT for the dominant Elite!!!!

...the last time such scientific 'witch-hunts' were engaged in with impunity .... it was the Middle Ages !!!!

...and you guys have the audacity to ask me to identify Creation Scientists - so that you can ensure they are sacked from their jobs!!!!

...and could I remind ALL of the Theists amongst us that this applies to YOU TOO ... if you express the opinion that God did it (or even some vague 'intelligence' did it)... through Evolution ... and this is exactly what is happening to Theistic Evolutionists who point to the Intelligent Design of life as proof of their Theistic EVOLUTIONIST position!!!

...and they will 'come for' the rest of the Theistic Evolutionists when they have sacked and/or marginalised the ID subset within their ranks!!!!!

...and meanwhile the 'pseudo-liberals' who would staunchly defend the rights of every other 'minority' (even when, in some cases, they are a MAJORITY) ... stay strangely SILENT when this discrimination is directed at Christians and Orthodox Jews ... now WHERE and WHEN did we see such craven moral cowardice BEFORE???

J C

monosharp wrote: »

you can see it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

And round .. and round ... and round ... and round ..

....yes Prof Dawkins does go on a bit!!!

...but he won't even meet Creation Scientists ... who just might straighten out his thinking ... once and for alll!!!

Do you REALLY think that this video clip helps the Evolutionist cause??

....this time Prof Dawkins picked the wrong person ... and instead of getting a pseudo-liberal to salivate all over him ... Wendy Wright (the non-scientist, as Prof Dawkins kept reminding her) put Prof Dawkins (the scientist) firmly but politely in his place!!!:eek:

I'd say it was Wendy Wright RIGHT, Prof Dawkins WRONG, based on this clip!!!!

Wendy is America's answer to Miriam O'Callagan !!!!

...go Wendy GO!!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The way she she says creator makes me want to smash my computer into tiny pieces to make it stop

...that is the Holy Spirit convicting YOU!!

....leave the computer alone ... it isn't responsible ... it is God who is claiming you as His Created CHILD ... and illuminating your darkened SOUL!!!

...it can be very painful and frightening to fall into the hands of the Just and Living God ... I too went through such a phase during my transition from Evolutionism to Creationism!!!

J C

monosharp wrote: »

.... in a less civilized society that woman would have starved to death after selling her cows for magic beans.

...sounds like she could still be starved to death ... if some people could have their way ... such is the animosity towards Creationists (and especially towards the really capable and confident Creationists, like Wendy Wright) on this thread!!!!

pts

JC I questioned your statement that creationists are being unfairly silenced and asked you to back it up. You never replied so I'll say it again:

You claim to be a real scientist. Lets do this as real scientists do. Could you link to a paper by a creationist which has been peer reviewed but rejected for publication, coupled with the feedback (which you get from the reviewers) on that paper. Additionally an explanation from you or the author why he/she thinks the peer review feedback and reason for rejection was unfounded.

If you can do that then you may have a case, if not you are talking absolute rubbish.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....yes Prof Dawkins does repeat himself ad nauseum!!!

..but he won't even meet Creation Scientists ... who just might straighten out his thinking ... once and for alll!!!

Do you REALLY think that this video clip helps the Evolutionist cause??

....this time Prof Dawkins picked the wrong person ... and instead of getting a pseudo-liberal Chrisitian to salivate all over him ... Wendy Wright (the non-scientist, as Prof Dawkins kept reminding her) put Prof Dawkins (the scientist) firmly but politely in his place!!!:eek:

I'd say it was Wendy Wright RIGHT, Prof Dawkins WRONG, based on this clip!!!!

Wendy is America's answer to Miriam O'Callagan !!!!

...go Wendy GO!!!!:D

Wow. The ability of the human mind to believe what it wants to believe is truly amazing. Christians, and everyone really, should take a look at the lengths you will go to to convince yourself you're right and then take a long hard look at themselves

J C

pts wrote: »

JC I questioned your statement that creationists are being unfairly silenced and asked you to back it up. You never replied so I'll say it again:

....just read the thread ... just read this Page!!!

....the hostility against Creation Scientists is palpable ... and not a squeak out of ANY pseudo liberal to say it is WRONG!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by Malty_T
You are not allowed to question science using pseudo scientific rubbish crap of methodologies that will ultimately get you fired...or worse destroyed and humiliated in a public forum with great glee by your fellow colleagues..
...ID has been dumped out again and again so yes, were a biologist or physicist serious enough to consider backing it then they'd have to go as they quite simply are no longer doing their trained job as scientist.

....like I have said ... the Medieval Inquisition was the ultimate in 'liberal thinking' and 'academic freedom' in comparison!!!!

...but this is unfortunately how the 'hive minds' of some of todays pseudo-liberals 'think'!!! :eek:

Turtwig

Each time you mine, I shall quote.:p

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh for petes sake,

Science is about questioning its own established theories, every biologist has the right to question ANY theory. In fact this has happened to evolution on MANY an occasion and the model has been MODIFIED to take these better PREDICTIONS into account. It's how you question it that decides whether it is science or not.

You are NOT allowed to question science using PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC RUBBISH CRAP of methodologies that will ultimately get you fired...or worse destroyed and humiliated in a public forum with great glee by your fellow colleagues..
Science is rough business you, quite literally, live and die by your evidence and predictions.
ID has been dumped out again and again so yes, were a biologist or physicist serious enough to consider backing it then they'd have to go as they quite simply are no longer doing their trained job as scientist.

ID/Creationism =/= science.
Sorry.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wow. The ability of the human mind to believe what it wants to believe is truly amazing. Christians, and everyone really, should take a look at the lengths you will go to to convince yourself you're right and then take a long hard look at themselves

....touché!!!!

...Wendy is a very competent confident lady!!!!

....and she objectively DID 'tell it like it is' to Prof Dawkins ... and he REALLY didn't have any effective response...

....when a non-scientist like Wendy can so effectively challenge Prof Dawkins on EVERY point he raised (including scientific issues) ... can you imagine what would happen if the 'Good Professor' ever decided to have a 'head to head' with a Creation SCIENTIST!!!!!!:):D:eek:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

"I don't know and you don't either!"

...sounds like two Evolutionists talking to each other!!!:eek::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....I accept aspects of Evolutionary theory and ID. For example, I accept that Sexual and Natural Selection occur ... what I don't accept is that either phenomenon can account for the development of Man from pondslime.

monosharp

And for the last time JC, what you call the 'development of Man from pondslime' is NOT evolution.

Its Abiogenesis, why do you continue to label them togeather ?

... the supposed development of man from green unicellular pondslime IS 'evolution' ... the supposed production of the pondslime itself is 'abiogenesis'

...so once AGAIN I'm right and you are wrong about evolution and abiogenesis!!!!!:eek::D

...of course the whole thing is a load of baloney ... but at least I know the supposed difference between evolution and abiogenesis!!!!:D

J C

monosharp wrote: »

If an aspect is found to be wrong then the theory changes.

If you proved there was a magical barrier to macro-evolution tomorrow then that new evidence would prove aspects of the existing theory wrong, the new findings would be incorporated into the theory and it would still be called Evolution.

....so you can have any 'origins' theory ... provided it's EVOLUTION!!!!:eek::D

....how 'open minded' is THAT!!!!!:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....touché!!!!

...Wendy is a very competent confident lady!!!!

....and she objectively DID 'tell it like it is' to Prof Dawkins ... and he REALLY didn't have any effective response...

....when a non-scientist like Wendy can so effectively challenge Prof Dawkins on EVERY point he raised (including scientific issues) ... can you imagine what would happen if the 'Good Professor' ever decided to have a 'head to head' with a Creation SCIENTIST!!!!!!:):D:eek:

Wolfsbane, if you're around, as the only person who I think is genuine on this thread, are you actually convinced by this sh!t?

Do you honestly think Wendy Wright came off well in that interview?


Bear in mind that the interview was recorded as a means to give her enough rope to hang herself so he could include it in a documentary he's making about the delusion of creationists. He certainly doesn't think he lost the debate and I find it hard to believe that anyone honestly would (honestly being the operative word). Even as a creationist you have to admit that all she did was dodge his questions................right?

Edit: also note that he did not suppress her opinion or try to silence her, on the contrary the unedited interview has been put on the internet for all to see. Creationism wishes it was suppressed because it has nothing to say, let one talk long enough and any unbiased observer can see they're talking nonsense

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wolfsbane, if you're around, as the only person who I think is genuine on this thread

Oh thanks:mad:
That's the last time we side with you then.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh thanks:mad:
That's the last time we side with you then.

We're know you're dodgy Malty. Sure aren't both of us part of the evolutionist conspiracy to silence creationism by interviewing proponents of it and putting it all over the internet and into a documentary :rolleyes:

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We're know you're dodgy Malty. Sure aren't both of us part of the evolutionist conspiracy to silence creationism by interviewing proponents of it and putting it all over the internet and into a documentary :rolleyes:

Shhhhhhh

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... the supposed development of man from green unicellular pondslime IS 'evolution' ... the supposed production of the pondslime itself is 'abiogenesis'

JC, I cannot believe that you can't even define Evolution.

Are you purposely trying to distort it ?

Facts are empirical data, objective verifiable observations. (Observation)
'A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.' Douglas Futyuma. (Established Hypothesis)

A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.

wikipedia wrote:

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.[1] The similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.

In black is the definition of evolution.
In red is something which is implied by evolution but it in no way requires it.

Life could have come from space aliens or god or just plain magic. Humans could have simply poofed into existence 150,000 years ago and our similarities to Chimpanzees and other life could simply be the product of the designers 'magic process' but it still doesn't disprove evolution.

Evolution is change in the genetic material of organisms from one generation to the next. Thats it. How life began, when life began, how we're related to other species, etc etc are separate issues.

You do realize that even if you disproved natural selection that it wouldn't make any difference to the fact of evolution.

Imagine we didn't know anything about fossils, DNA, Natural selection etc.

Guy 1 - These fruit flies seem to be changing to adapt to their environment, they are changing from one generation to the next.
Guy 2 - How ?
Guy 1 - Don't know, maybe magic or god but they definitely are changing because we can observe it.

This is THE FACT OF EVOLUTION

The theory of Evolution is the HOW

It attempts to explain the FACT of evolution using evidence such as the fossil record, DNA, the relationship of species, testing and making predictions.

If you proved life came from magic or god just after the earth was created it would make almost no difference to evolution, fact or theory.

The following is a list of scientific definitions of Evolution.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

These definitions are by the scientific community, these definitions explain what evolution is.

But if your reading your definitions from a dictionary I can see your problem.

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

The words highlighted are rubbish and this is certainly NOT a definition of Evolution.

Other dictionaries.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These are WRONG and are NOT scientific definitions of evolution.

Now lets move on to Abiogenesis.

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.

Can you see that writing ok JC ? Would you like me to make it bigger ?

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

...so once AGAIN I'm right and you are wrong about evolution and abiogenesis!!!!!:eek::D

No JC, once again you aretalking complete utter nonsense.

Either you don't know the scientific definition of Evolution and Abiogenesis or you are intentionally lying.

pts

J C wrote: »

....just read the thread ... just read this Page!!!

....the hostility against Creation Scientists is palpable ... and not a squeak out of ANY pseudo liberal to say it is WRONG!!!

Lets ignore the rhetoric and persecution complex for a second and talk as scientists. Are you saying that good ideas brought forward by creationists are being ignored by the scientific community?
If so I would like to see an example of that. Anyone can say anything they like, but the scientific community has a form of quality control I'm sure you are familiar with, namely peer review.
If you feel that the process of peer review is unfair I would like to see an example of that. I don't think you are entitled to create grand conspiracy theories if bad ideas are rejected for good reason.
So let's see if you can put you money where you mouth is and actually deliver a case of unfair treatment of a creationist.

NukaCola

J C wrote: »

....this time Prof Dawkins picked the wrong person ... and instead of getting a pseudo-liberal to salivate all over him ... Wendy Wright (the non-scientist, as Prof Dawkins kept reminding her) put Prof Dawkins (the scientist) firmly but politely in his place!!!:eek:

What interview were you watching.

She came across very uninformed and foolish to be honest ''Show me the evidence''.....''Theres overwhelming evidence in any elementary biology text book''....''But show me the evidence''

What any rational person must do is look at two sides of the argument and then make up their own mind. The difference between Creationism and Evolutionism IMO is Creationism supporters will always believe in their own opinion not taking the overwhelming facts against their case into consideration. Evolutionism supporters change their opinions with proven facts and if they were to be overwhelmingly be disproved would abandon the theory....

NukaCola

Just a few quotes from the last 2 pages JC.
They sum you up perfectly i think.
Why anyone would want to have a proper discussion with you is beyond me.

J C wrote: »

I must say that believing onself to be 'monkeys cousin' and a direct descendant of a 'slime ball' is something that even Bozo the Clown would probably laugh at!!!

J C wrote: »

...and you guys have the audacity to ask me to identify Creation Scientists - so that you can ensure they are sacked from their jobs!!!!

J C wrote: »

...that is the Holy Spirit convicting YOU!!
it is God who is claiming you as His Created CHILD ... and illuminating your darkened SOUL!!!
...it can be very painful and frightening to fall into the hands of the Just and Living God ... I too went through such a phase during my transition from Evolutionism to Creationism!!!

J C wrote: »

...sounds like she could still be starved to death ... if some people could have their way ... such is the animosity towards Creationists

J C wrote: »

... the supposed development of man from green unicellular pondslime IS 'evolution' ... the supposed production of the pondslime itself is 'abiogenesis'
...so once AGAIN I'm right and you are wrong about evolution and abiogenesis!!!!!:eek::D
...of course the whole thing is a load of baloney ... but at least I know the supposed difference between evolution and abiogenesis!!!!:D

J C wrote: »

....how 'open minded' is THAT!!!!!:eek:

And finally

J C wrote: »

...we don't want any special treatment for Creation Science - and we welcome debate on our ideas - unlike the Evolutionists

You clearly dont understand the concept of debate.....

Sam Vimes

Actually JC and Wolfsbane, I think I'll grant you that someone might be afraid of losing a debate to a creationist. A debate isn't necessarily about who's right, it's about who puts forward the most convincing case

If having a debate with an actual scientist who honestly believed what he was saying they would have no problem entering debate because their opponent would put forward their case and it would be rebutted all within the confines of science. But a creationist can spout any old nonsense and make it sound like science to the lay person. The scientist would be completely unprepared for it because it's just pulled out of the creationist's ass and so would not be able to give an adequate response. He can't point to peer reviewed articles as evidence or point out the specific flaws, not because there are no flaws but because the creationist made it up ten minutes before walking into the debate

Of course the scientist could go and read up on the specific nonsense being spouted and a few weeks later come back with a definitive and crushing blow but it's too late at that stage, the debate is long over

And that's why creationists insist on having "debates" over the issue instead of submitting articles for peer review like real scientists. Of course if you ask a creationist they'll say that they never appear in scientific journals because they're being censored and not at all because they never submit anything because they know it'll be destroyed

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wolfsbane, if you're around, as the only person who I think is genuine on this thread, are you actually convinced by this sh!t?

Do you honestly think Wendy Wright came off well in that interview?


Bear in mind that the interview was recorded as a means to give her enough rope to hang herself so he could include it in a documentary he's making about the delusion of creationists. He certainly doesn't think he lost the debate and I find it hard to believe that anyone honestly would (honestly being the operative word). Even as a creationist you have to admit that all she did was dodge his questions................right?

Edit: also note that he did not suppress her opinion or try to silence her, on the contrary the unedited interview has been put on the internet for all to see. Creationism wishes it was suppressed because it has nothing to say, let one talk long enough and any unbiased observer can see they're talking nonsense

....Prof Dawkins may have set out to give Wendy Wright 'enough rope to hang herself' (like you claim) ... but if this was the case, then this competent and highly-articulate lady 'turned the tables' on Prof Dawkins and used his 'rope' to 'hang' him ... to the point where he had nothing effective to say in response to the points she made!!!

She didn't evade ANY question put to her by Prof Dawlins, but instead took enthusiastic control of the interview from the 'get go'!!!

For example, Wendy completely 'wrong-footed' Prof Dawkins when she pointed to the Piltdown Man FRAUD, the Nebraska Man FOLLY and the Haeckel embryo 'recapitulation' ERRONEOUS drawings that continue to be taught as fact in some biology textbooks, right up to today....without any substantive response from Prof Dawkins.
Wendy pointed to the complete lack of intermediate structures between the main genera and between different organs carrying out the same function ... again without any subststantive response from Prof Dawkins.
Not bad in a 10 minute interview between a Non-Scientist Creationist and one of the leading Evolutionist Scientists in the World today!!!!!!!!:eek::D

The fact that this happened, says a lot more about the weakness of Evolution and the strength of the Creationist case, than it does about the relative training/abilities of the two protagonists in this interview. Prof Dawkins' eminence as a scientist is obvious, but the fact that an American housewife could 'beat the pants off' him on an issue on which he is a pre-eminent World Authority, means that it is Evolution itself that is in deep trouble scientifically and logically!!!

I especially like the way Wendy firmly and politely responded to Prof Dawkins questions about what motivates Creationists (as if the overwhelming evidence for the Direct Creation of life isn't enough to motivate any Christian to challenge the load of erroneous baloney that makes up the Evolutionist Paradigm)!!!!
She told him that one reason was that the only logical basis for the strong to protect the weak is the fact that ALL Human Beings (from conception to old age) are made in God's Image ... while the idea of the strong destroying the weak is the very basis of Evolution!!!
Prof Dawkins did protest in passing that he too believed in protecting the weak ... but he cited no particular reason underpinning this beilef !!!

IF the objective of the interview was to somehow show up weaknesses in Creationism ... the exact opposite was the result.

I can see how a leading scientist might EXPECT to more than 'hold his own' with a non-scientist on a topic that he is World Authority on ... but this was NOT how it turned out in this interview!!!!:)

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wolfsbane, if you're around, as the only person who I think is genuine on this thread, are you actually convinced by this sh!t?

Do you honestly think Wendy Wright came off well in that interview?


Bear in mind that the interview was recorded as a means to give her enough rope to hang herself so he could include it in a documentary he's making about the delusion of creationists. He certainly doesn't think he lost the debate and I find it hard to believe that anyone honestly would (honestly being the operative word). Even as a creationist you have to admit that all she did was dodge his questions................right?

Edit: also note that he did not suppress her opinion or try to silence her, on the contrary the unedited interview has been put on the internet for all to see. Creationism wishes it was suppressed because it has nothing to say, let one talk long enough and any unbiased observer can see they're talking nonsense

Hi, Sam. Just viewed it now.

Yes, she came off reasonably well, as did Dawkins. All we got was a brief statement of their positions, not any examination of their cases.

Wendy's only weak point was in the wrong use of the term species. She denied evolution from one species to another - but she meant one kind to another, as she clarified toward the end when she gave the example of birds to mammals.

My quick analysis, with paraphrasing:
Wendy's case: there is no weight of evidence for kind to kind evolution ('macroevolution').
Dawkin's response: there is. The textbooks show it.
Weny's response: the same textbooks that teach Haekel's recapitulation.
Dawkins' response: that was a Victorian mistake.
Wendy's response: it was still being taught well into the 20th C.
Dawkin's response: the overwhelming evidence for evolution exists.
Wendy's response. Show me.

Dawkin's case: emotional agenda, not science or theology, drives creationism.
Wendy's response: well, evolution reduces man to mere material and the respect due him is accordingly debased. Creationism demands respect for the those created in the image of God.
Dawkin's response: you should ignore the logical consequences, and accept the scientific fact.