Creationism: Still Crazy After All These Years

Watching this right now, from RichardDawkins.net

This video is provided free to the public by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.





Eugenie Scott's presentation at the AAI 2009 Convention in Burbank, California. Scott is the head of the National Center for Science Education, which works to protect the teaching of Evolution in American schools.

Eugenie Carol Scott (born October 24, 1945) is an American physical anthropologist who has been the executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) since 1987. She is a leading critic of young earth creationism and intelligent design.

[edit on 7/12/2009 by Daniem]

Richard dawkins has no evidence against creationism, other than name calling. If he was solid and totally believed what he said, would he be ridiculing what others believed.

Why should anyone believe anything this guy says, over any creationist who is also articulate.

reply to post by andy1033

Richard dawkins has no evidence against creationism

Wrong. He has evidence for evolution. Evolution itself show that the Biblical creation story is wrong.

Why should anyone believe anything this guy says, over any creationist who is also articulate.

Dawkins is talking about science, which is supported by evidence, while the creationist is talking about faith and non-science. Faith IS belief without a need for evidence.


I would love to see you post links to some source that shows Dawkins name calling people.

Originally posted by andy1033
Richard dawkins has no evidence against creationism, other than name calling. If he was solid and totally believed what he said, would he be ridiculing what others believed.

Why should anyone believe anything this guy says, over any creationist who is also articulate.

He doesn't need evidence of creationism because he's a proponent of evolution. There's plenty of evidence of that.

It's the creationists that need to present any kind of evidence of creationism, of which there is none.

It's like saying, "Prove to me there isn't a city of interdimensional space faeries at the center of every planet that cause gravity. Oh, you don't have any evidence? Well the space fairy idea must be just as plausible since you can't prove me wrong."

This guy has evidence and logic to support his argument, whereas creationists must rely solely on faith and then blame others for their own lack of evidence.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


All dawkins does, is name calling, nothing more nothing less. He intrudes on peoples beliefs that are none of his business, only because he has such an ego that nothing is more than man, lol.

reply to post by Daniem


I wouldn't get into a debate, I had 2 jehova's wittnesses, was like banging my head against a brick wall talking to these brain washed zombies

reply to post by Daniem


I once heard a pastor say that the reason they can find a missing link is because there is no missing link there was God. When I asked him about carbon dating and proving that the Earth is older than 10,000 years he said something about Moon dust and proven the Earth was 10,00 Years or younger. I thought he was crazy till I found some of these articles.

www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp
orgs.usd.edu...

Now each of these articles is for the idea of Moon Dust and against it.

My point is we don’t have a clue, we base our beliefs and opinions that others give us, without researching it ourselves. I have heard carbon dating is wrong and I have heard it is right. Frankly I don’t know too much about carbon dating because it bores the hell out of me, But I have a friend who is a Christian Scientist(oxymoron?) His goal in life is to prove God exists by using science. So far Neither have proved who is right and who is wrong.

I think this quote from the movie Angels and Demons will sum up what I am trying to say...

Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: Christianity's most sacred codices are in that archive. Given your recent entanglement with the church, there is a question I'd like to ask you first, here, in the office of His Holiness.
[Walks towards Robert Langdon]
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: . Do you believe in God, sir?
Robert Langdon: Father, I simply believe that religion...
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: I did not ask if you believe what man says about God. I asked if you believe in God.
Robert Langdon: I'm an academic. My mind tells me I will never understand God.
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: And your heart?
Robert Langdon: Tells me I'm not meant to. Faith is a gift that I have yet to receive.

Heres another article that I pulled from another thread it seems to have merrits.

www.endtime-truth.com...

[edit on 7-12-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]

a wizard came down and made everything

or we all came from things so tiny you can't even see them with the naked eye?

both sound insane to a person who hasn't heard either before


i love when people think their side sounds more rational tho

reply to post by Gakus

both sound insane to a person who hasn't heard either before

This is a point I have also tried to make.

I don't think there are many of us who happen to realise this

I wish I could throw you a hundred stars for saying that.

How about 1 star and one of my wife's cookies? Their really good.

One side being stupid and biased.

both sound insane to a person who hasn't heard either before

But where would you find this person? Good God he'd have to be living under a rock with headphones on.



[edit on 8-12-2009 by randyvs]

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Daniem

 

I once heard a pastor say that the reason they can find a missing link is because there is no missing link there was God. When I asked him about carbon dating and proving that the Earth is older than 10,000 years he said something about Moon dust and proven the Earth was 10,00 Years or younger. I thought he was crazy till I found some of these articles.

www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp
orgs.usd.edu...

Now each of these articles is for the idea of Moon Dust and against it.

Do you know what happens to dust and dirt after thousands and millions of years? It becomes compacted and eventually turns into rock. The moon dust argument is just silly.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by riley]

Creationism is not crazy. Evolution is crazy.

There is not one single proof of evolution in all of science. If it were based on real science the theory wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

Show me undeniable proof of evolution. Show me why I can believe we came from hominid ancestors over a period of millions of years, in a way that it cannot be disputed, and I will consider your view. Until you do this, scientists the world, you're not showing me science. You're showing me lies.

Both sides of this argument will be debated till the end of all time, both are still classified as theories because of the simple fact, both have missing parts.

Darwin has admitted before his death, that his theory was incorrect after discovering the Galapagos Islands. Science proves adaptive traits, in all species. As I have learn in collage as a medical student.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gilgamesh predates the bible and its tablets there for disproving the story of Noah and the ark. As it is described, not say the story it self is a lie as in most case the story has a line of truth, just the characters change through out time. The bible especially tells stories in parables.

Science must deal in strict facts, once they begin add none truths it become harder to prove the theory, also scientist have a hard time excepting when something is proven to be false because this means they have to rewrite the theory itself.

So you can now see how both sides will be debated forever.

Originally posted by drmeola
Both sides of this argument will be debated till the end of all time, both are still classified as theories because of the simple fact, both have missing parts.

Darwin has admitted before his death, that his theory was incorrect after discovering the Galapagos Islands. Science proves adaptive traits, in all species. As I have learn in collage as a medical student.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gilgamesh predates the bible and its tablets there for disproving the story of Noah and the ark. As it is described, not say the story it self is a lie as in most case the story has a line of truth, just the characters change through out time. The bible especially tells stories in parables.

Science must deal in strict facts, once they begin add none truths it become harder to prove the theory, also scientist have a hard time excepting when something is proven to be false because this means they have to rewrite the theory itself.

So you can now see how both sides will be debated forever.

Pardon, but as a medical student in college you should know creationism / intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is an untested and unprovable hypothesis, unlike evolution that is actually testable and provable (on the micro scale), and has evidence to support it. It is a scientific theory, unlike creationism, which is a colloquial theory.

Information

reply to post by Avenginggecko


Thank you for the correction, it was many years ago and I changed my major so at times in my old age I do get a couple of things mixed up.

But I don’t by into the whole micro scale of proof, there is something missing on all sides, be it the missing link, or how archeology finds more and more thing everyday that out date the preconceived notions of the bible.

As I have said, this will be as it is until the end of time.

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
Creationism is not crazy. Evolution is crazy.

There is not one single proof of evolution in all of science. If it were based on real science the theory wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

Show me undeniable proof of evolution. Show me why I can believe we came from hominid ancestors over a period of millions of years, in a way that it cannot be disputed, and I will consider your view. Until you do this, scientists the world, you're not showing me science. You're showing me lies.

They would have you believe their theory of evolution like the theory of global warming. Evolution is no different really. Same smoke and mirrors, just different crack pot scientists.

So if the bible is all you need to know in life why don't you just read the bible 24/7 instead of one day a week?

You Creationists accept science all around you everyday when you watch tv, drive your cars, eat your frozen food, and type on the internet.

Yet when the same entity explains to you where we came from you reject it as if you have been taught to without even realizing it.

You should all be living like the Amish until you drop the dead weight non-sense that has been programmed into your brain by religious teachers since the day you were born.

reply to post by one_enlightened_mind


Gotta love their childish approaches,"im not dumb, YOU are!" type of thing. But then again, religion is pretty childish in it self.

There is not one single proof of evolution in all of science

Says people who read the bible You dont know how science works little friend.

Seriously, why do you even bother? If you cant bring anything interesting to the table then what are you realy tryin to do here? It has already been accknowledged that there is proof of evolution, so just because you come and say "NAHA.. there is no proof" like a little baby, why dont you tell us WHY there is not proof, or rather why the proof isnt acctually proof.

Unless things like the swine flu evolved, what do YOU think happened? God made it? Of course it evolved.

Show me undeniable proof of evolution

We have observed speciation several times. I'd call that proof... but im guessing you wouldnt? Plz dont respond if your just gonna say "Thats not proof! "

Show me WHY it isnt, or else you will just be concidered a dishonest instigator, one who dont care about the facts, but just supports his own group no matter what.

I asked my jehova's wittness visitors if they had ever looked at the theory of eveolution in any way. I was told "NO, the bible is the best sciencs text book on the planet". Thje bible can answer all your questions.

there's not really much you can say to people who believe so strongly in the bible.

Does anybody know if there is any possible way a very simple, unknown, but well-versed "christian" like myself could have a one-on-one conversation with Richard Dawkins? I have some questions I'd like to ask him and I'm sure he has some that he wouldn't mind throwing my way. I don't care if I'm not his "intellectual" peer...I just want to talk to the guy. I've noticed that he is held quite high in opinion in regards to anti-creationism and matters pertaining thereto.

I just want to talk to him...face to face...e-mail..it doesn't matter. Anybody know how?

Respectfully
A2D

reply to post by Daniem

Richard dawkins has no evidence against creationism Wrong. He has evidence for evolution. Evolution itself show that the Biblical creation story is wrong.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm on your side.

But evolution itself doesn't really show that the Biblical creation story is wrong. It shows that the Bible has been misinterpreted (IMO, of course).

The creation story in the Bible is much more powerful as an allegory on mankind's journey to self-awareness than it is as a supernatural physics textbook.