Reply With QuoteEveryone is allowed their opinion.
Everyone is allowed their opinion.
I read 'do you have an hour(ly) fee'
I don't claim to be free but I aim to please at a reasonable rateOriginally Posted by KurtKlaus
"lilolee
Everyone is allowed their opinion."
Lilolee, it reminded me of one of those Penguine cafe orchestra tunes that kept on going round and round ... let me find one
Managed about 3 minutes before I couldn't bear her any longer
Unless they try to present it as fact, ignoring the truth, and try to brainwash others into their blinkered view of the World.
Great song, this thread was worth for that.
But who said you had to listen, I didn't.
I have watched 8 minutes so far assuming zilch and I would say she has the upper hand so far.
Dawkins has not addressed her point about species mutation other than to touch on DNA taxonomies. He has even had to back down from one of his approaches as she sidestepped into ad hominem accusations.
I shall watch it to the end though.
Good post thanks
B
She keeps talking herself into a hole, then actually saying OUT LOUD "back up, back up from that" then changing the subject.
And every time she's proven to be wrong, she giggles until she can think of something else to change the subject to.
Basically, she knows what she believes. She refuses to accept overwhelming evidence that doesn't agree with her beliefs, and is articulate enough to argue her point, but not intelligent enough to realise that she is wrong.
Having just watched the linked debate, the first thing that struck me is that I always find it highly ironic that creationists seem to demand extraordinary physical proofs from Scientists in support of evolution whilst being able to offer none for the existence of God. It also seems to me that the Christian’s complaint that they are being censored and/or oppressed must be one of the great historical ironies when one remembers the persecution of many due to various religious dogmas throughout the last millennium and a half.
I should suppose declare my position and say that I think that the Scientific (Darwinian) account of evolution is so convincing that it takes a ‘special’ kind of skeptic to continue to attempt to refute it, and I especially tire of the Creationist’s tendency to bluntly deny facts that are uncomfortable for their beliefs. I think one of the problems is that the quality of the debate from creationists, such as the woman in this video, tends to unfortunately be so poor that many more informed people may loose patience with them because they (the Creationists) spend most of their time arguing from a prejudicial and poorly substantiated point of view. I think this happened here on several occasions. I think she is well meaning in her own individual way, but I do take issue with her declared position and beliefs. I have to say that I find this area particularly interesting having studied Philosophy and Psychology in the past. From my experience, each of these disciplines have their own individual and mutually incompatible views in this area. It’s a complicated thing to go into but just lets say that from my recollection the Philosophers don’t trust the Psychologists and that a lot of the Philosophers don’t tend to agree with each other as well - although this is a grand over-simplification of the matter.
The biggest problem I think that Creationists have from a Philosophical perspective is avoiding the infinite regression implied by the notion of a creator. In short: ‘who created the creator?” There is an oft told story that people think originates from Bertrand Russell, or perhaps Mark Twain. Nobody seems to really know for certain, but the story is a nice illustration of the problem. This is the Wikipedia version of the story which is quoted from Hawkin’s “A Brief History of Time”. Those that are interested can find the article here:
“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's tortoises all the way down!" —Hawking, 1988
Interestingly enough I think that both Creationists and Scientists share this problem. The problem for the creationist is who creates the creator? I think the problem for the scientist is: what comes before? However,, I suspect that only the Scientists are trying to find an account that deals with this problem, Creationists (like the old lady in the story) apparently don’t see the problem. There are theological and philosophical positions that claim that God has necessary existence due primarily to defining he/she/it as a perfect being (I find it makes no sense to donate God a gender particularly if he/she/it is perfect). A counterclaim for this position is the existence of evil. Again those interested can find out more here.
There are a number of things that she does during the debate that I find irritating - there is always a sense that arguing with people like this is made more difficult as they tend to meander and backtrack and use terms in an ambiguous manner (although I’m sure there are some here who would no doubt say the same of me). As a result I’m not surprised that academics won’t take her seriously, I think it might help her persecution complex somewhat if she came to recognise that she just might not have either sufficient education, nor intellectual capacity to be able to enter a debate with an academic or a scientist at the level of credibility she appears to assume is her natural right. I feel troubled in coming to this conclusion but point out that several times during the debate she was invited to look at and discuss the physical evidence that Dawkins put up to support his case but refused to do so. That seems to me to be a wilfully inconsistent position to take up.
I had other problems that I had with what she had to say which I have listed briefly below:
1) She seems to think that if there is any (even minor) inconsistency in the scientific account then the total scientific account is wrong and can be discounted in toto. Even though Christian teaching and dogma seems very inconsistent from my perspective.
2) She claims that Dawkin’s position as an atheist makes him biased whithout being able to see that her belief in God might also do the same thing.
3) She talks about a loving God-creator but won’t ask questions of a God that creates disabled children neither does she address God’s role in the existence of evil. Normally Christians tend to offer a defence based on the notion of free-will at this point, but she didn’t (although to be fair Dawkins didn’t seem to raise it). If I were in Dawkin’s position I would have pressed her hard on this point.
4) She demands evidence for large scale ‘macro’ evolution but will not look at the evidence that is available - again a highly ironic view from someone that has no shred of physical evidence for God. None what-so-ever. I feel as sure as I can be that her contribution to the debate and any subsequent assessment of evidence and data would be filtered through her own prejudices. Now we all have these, me as much as, and possibly more so, than others but scientists should be trained to discount these prejudices. It is to protect scientific objectivity that the scientist is forced to accept a particular methodology and provide evidence in such a way that it convinces firstly their peers but also anyone else that has an interest that their findings are valid. Again I see no such rigour or method from Christians.
5) She seems to be offended when people point out that her understanding of biology, genetics and evolution are poor and that she has disregarded evidence. She seems to think that if someone points out that her understanding of the facts is either untutored, ignorant or prejudiced then she is being demeaned. I find this a worrying trend in modern debate that people reserve the right not to accept the power of the facts or the argument if it makes them uncomfortable or
6) She claims that atheistic Communist states are evil and seems to claim that a lack of faith automatically has this sort of outcome. Firstly I’d point out that Christianity has a particularly poor track record for human rights and has been disposing of its critics and non-conformists in particularly cruel, inhumane and degrading ways for millennia. We should remember that when faced with the problem of sorting Cathar from Catholic, Arnaud Amalric the papal legate, recommended that the soldiers killed them all as God would be able to recognise his own. I find all ideologies and dogmas inhumane, whether political or religious. Her contention that it is only Commies and Nazis that kill is highly selective.
7) I also find it slightly risible that she claims that science is censorious when Christianity in particular, has a very poor historical record for free throughout and free speech where a religious faction has control. I would imagine that her claims that the current generation of Scientists were preventing Creationists from putting forward their views would be found ironic by Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus. I believe that it is only within the last 10 years of so that the Catholic Church has forgiven Copernicus.
8) She seems to want to claim that each of us are so genetically individual that they must have been created by God, yet as far as I know, the genomes of species tend to have far more genes in common than they have individually. Her view of Genetics as a whole seems inconsistent and poorly informed. I would comment further but admit that mine are too, so I’ll leave criticism of her views with regard to genetics to others if they have the inclination.
10) She brings up disability as a complaint about evolution and she seemed to argue as if those that suffer disability have had this foisted on them by some evolutionary process (which seems illogical to me). I would have thought what is far more pertinent is the thought that if there is a creator, it must be the creator that has created the person as disabled. If that it is the case, if she finds it repugnant that evolution has created such a condition surely she should feel equally troubled that a creator had chosen to do so.
I’m sure other things will strike me more as I think about this. It would be great if there was a creationist here - or someone who has a religious perspective to post their views, I for one would find it very interesting to see what they thought.
Last edited by Harry Tuttle; 17th September 2013 at 02:43.
A lot of valid points in your reply, but on the point quoted a fear you will be in for a long wait. ;-)
R
(As an aside, this discussion should be in the BP).
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Mr. Tuttle, I like the cut of your jib, are we sure the old lady didn't said Tuttles perhaps they misheard her? I maybe have to wonder if this is where Terry Pratchet got his idea from for A'Tuin in Discworld.
Mr.Ralphy what is the BP? other thatn the elevated blood pressure it could bring on?
The woman is a gurning fool.
I got 18 minutes through this - fascinating to watch her sidestep all the evidence points. Great post, and Mr Tuttles reply made for some great reading and agreement. It's scary that they're trying to get their views into the education system - I can see why Hawkins is addressing the creationists, or rather banging his head against a brick wall.
(BP is the Bear Pit for expressing views etc).
"As an aside, this discussion should be in the BP"
"BP is the Bear Pit for expressing views etc."
Ok by me, I have no idea where it is. So if someone wants to transpose it....
@Harry T: game-set-match. Thanks.
All very salient points I think. Some not too dissimilar tactics are regularly deployed in discussions involving certain members here too!
jeff
Harry Tuttle, I agree with you 100%. Scientists are always asked for 'proof', religion offers none. But can you please change your name to Mr. Turtles?
Last edited by Kirk280; 17th September 2013 at 20:58. Reason: Typo
Ah you're probably right I just replied to the thread without realising where it was. I don't know whether the OP has to do that, or whether it can be done my one of us, but it hasn't generated any real discord so maybe we should just leave it to drop its way down the ratings and get it shipped into the BP if someone wants to turn it into a debate.
I would but I'm afraid that I'm not that stackable. Perhaps that's my superhero superpower - a distinct lack of stackability.
Fine by me place it where you think it is meant to be whether it be BP or trash. I like the way it is going anyway.
Then if you're quite happy to move it I'd suggest the Bear Pit as it appears to be the traditional place for this sort of thing and as it is a private forum it allows some members to express themselves in a more freestyle fashion.
I still think you should express yourself as a turtle.
As much as I respect Prof. Dawkins debates like this are almost always pointless - only one side uses reason, evidence and logic.
You're all wrong. Dawkins is a prick. He denies the existence of God, yet God exists.
It has been proven Clapton is God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV3bn_nceNU
Scientific fact.
FACT
Lick my skidmarks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t4qXH_YaBs
Anyone reading this isn't worthy of my transsexual sunshine.
Ok how does a move take place do I do it or does the collective mass orgainse it?
Do you know I don't know either - I read through the forum FAQs the other night in an attempt to but couldn't figure it out. If we sit still for a bit someone better informed and more experienced may be along in a minute to tell us.
Um...
...whilst we're waiting d'you here the one about the Cannibals eating a comedian?
The only person who can 'move' a thread is Eddie.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
The woman is a looper, but what is more offensive is the way she says 'creator'.
I have posted it on the boys locker room and I think it is named "and then the fight started", in lieu of not being Eddie The Man
Posting Permissions
