Don't 'debate' creationists! »
Posted By RickyDawkins 1 year, 12 months ago in NewsToday the United States is being confronted with large numbers of scientifically ignorant, politically active Christians who are locked into ultra-religious, anti-scientific views and who want to force these views on others through our elected officials, our courts, and our schools. Creationists can generate lies more quickly than you can refute.
Read Full Story at scienceblogs.com »
188 Views Share Story 106 Comments Report
Submitted By:
RickyDawkins
Atheism can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence ...
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 359 of 796 Comments (view all)
-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 12 months ago
A scientist, Charles L. Rulon, debated an ID creationist, and here are the opening remarks he gave to justify joining in the debate.
**It pits oratory against science in a venue where you'll be judged on your rhetoric.
**It gives publicity to creationists.
**Creationists can generate more lies more quickly than you can refute.
**Debates give equal time to two sides, falsely elevating creationist trivia to equality with scientific substance.
**The debates are often used to recruit members to fundamentalist Christian organizations.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/dont...
Reply-
-
-
0%
scriblerus11 year, 12 months ago
Rulon points out a sort of law of rhetoric, which really should be obvious: Who wins a debate depends a great deal MORE on the audience than on the skills of the debaters. The results of the 2004 presidential elections are a good example of the principle. To my mind--that of a 20-plus year teacher of rhetoric--John Kerry won the Kerry-Bush debates hands down. But much of the rest of the country felt otherwise.
Reply -
0%
CrazyRay1 year, 12 months ago
Just avoid people like this:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/
...for your own sanity, that is.
Reply -
100%
mark-stevens1 year, 12 months ago
What I find most interesting is the ministers and scientists are both just guessing. Neither have enough facts or proof that would hold up in court.
Evolution and the human body makes no sense. Think on how complex it is for humans to reproduce... If Lilith/Eve was an after thought how did we get a reproductive system??
Reply -
-
-
25%
melm1518051 year, 12 months ago
Rick Dawkins, thanks for the re-alignment of the debate. I just thought, what a nice intro with people who might take time to "think out of the box." and leave an additional thought. If you believe in science/evolution and then you wear some distinctive apparel you lead a bifurcated existence. Maybe that individual wants to make sure that everyone else and god can pick you out of the crowd-when it becomes necessary.
R.E. netscape comment blog 07/08/07
melm151805
avatar
Reply
Is there anyone else out in web land that agrees that everyone's religion or no religion is their own business? And, also agrees that no one should display their religious connection in PUBLIC. I mean no distinctive hats, no nun's robes, no skull caps and on and on. All I'm saying is why must those who wear these things need to call attention to themselves? Are the rest of us supposed to treat people with special garb different? ... I don't feel disgusted, just left with empty feeliings
Reply -
0%
acts02381 year, 12 months ago
RickyDawkins blog is sincerely written and sincerely wrong. RD exposes a vast ignorance of many claims the Bible makes about the Earth being in existence long before Genesis account of Adam and Eve. The Bible states: "My people perish for lack of knowledge". It appears people outside of Faith also perish in ignorance. The Bible is quite plain to those "who will study to show themselves approved" the Earth was inhabited and flourished with life then was destroyed and "Re-created in Genesis Chapter 1. Please pick up a Strong's Concordance and begin studying a you will discover a wealth of astonishing truth and facts that science continues to uncover. Scientist did core sampling at the Polar Regions and found the Polar Regions used was covered subtropical foliage. They scratch their collective heads as to how and when! Go to the Bible... God's Word it tells you how and a little due diligence will uncover when, and it was before Genesis account of recreation.
Reply -
100%
invest071 year, 12 months ago
RickyD
So presenting an opposing view to your beliefs is something to be feared?
The problems with evolution are myriad and deserve to be debated openly and honestly.
I know from our volleys last week you do not know how to answer any post directly. I also know that you beleive that problems with evolution should not be presented. Nuttin but your scripture will do.
Neither position, evolution or ID, can be definitievly demonstrated by science. What you call "proof of evolution" is nothing more that interpretation of observations based on a preconception.
It would do you good to exmaine your beliefs and ask yourself if what you spout as "truth" may not be true at all.
One of the earmarks of true science is skepticism, something that you have thrown out the window.
Reply
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 12 months ago
"Help them find non-scientists. If there is some insistence on that horrible 'debate' format, suggest that they get a speaker who can handle it masterfully. Ask a lawyer. Seriously. There are all kinds of case law on the subject of creationism in the schools, and the Dover case alone is entertaining and instructive. There are great possibilities in that story: I'd like to see a 'debate' in a church where a lawyer explains how thoroughly Buckingham screwed the pooch in that case by recruiting his church to donate creationist propaganda to the public school.
Encourage them to get wide local support. There's a strange attitude that the best response is to bring in a single hired gun to defeat the creationist bad guy. Far better is to tap into local resources and get a broad base of opposition that will also be there next time one of these clowns rolls into town."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/dont...
Reply-
0%
humemacdonald1 year, 12 months ago
Thanks for posting this Ricky. I honestly feel bad that this is such an issue for you in the States.( I,m waiting the natural rebuttal that this invites;)) Whatever happened to the clear demarcation between Church and State? As far as I know there is no encroachment on the part of creationists on the public school system here. We do however, have a small number of "faith" based grade schools.
Reply
-
-
0%
retbg1 year, 12 months ago
Advice from my old Scottish Grandmother: Never get into a mud fight with pigs - the pigs love it!
Arguing with a fundamentalist type (of whatever faith) about anything is futile, time wasting, accomplishes nothing but heating up the immediate surroundings with a lot of hot air and BS (and Al will not like that). You get frustrated at their ignorance and they get to feel superior because they KNOW they are going to Heaven and you are going to Hell. I'll see you down there, I'll be on the 8th level.
Reply-
-
0%
cantfoolme1 year, 12 months ago
Och, those wonderrrful bonny wee Glasgy poliss.
I agree that it is difficult to argue rationally with those who can only respond by stating that we are angels of satan or some other crap. Of course we can never prove a negative but it is so easy to argue against the fables of Genesis, Adam and Eve and Noah. I have watched both christian and moslem videos attempting to use a version of their own "science" to counteract real science. Naturally they are preaching to their own people and receive plenty of applause. I am very tempted to go to one of those "love ins" and drop a few bomb shells that they just cannot answer but if i did i would fear for my life. You only have to look at how Dawkins was threatened by Haggard's heavy mob once Haggard had realised that Dawkins had swept the floor with him on the TV interview.
Reply -
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 12 months ago
There is no hell...but if there is, I hope it's a cold day in hell...I'm not partial to heat!, but I'll sit by a fire if it's cold! :-) for lot's of good ole fashioned campfire stories....where the story of creationism will probably be told over and over and over and over again through eternity...ok that would be hell, after the first few times and the laughter subsided..
Reply -
-
0%
markmawn21 year, 12 months ago
Agreed. My creedo is don't argue with a Born Again. They are always right!
Reply
-
-
0%
bigeric1 year, 12 months ago
While some Christians may be "scientifically ignorant", not all of us are ignorant dults. I suppose you're going to tell me that the "word" of the scientific community is your gospel and whatever current "science" tells you, that's what your faith is placed in. I'm the same, only I believe the Bible to be God's word to us and my faith is placed in Him. Science is important and can shed light on many problems and issues today but where "science" and God's word diverge, I'll take my chances with God. And I don't believe that creation is incompatable with the known scientific facts.
Reply-
0%
retbg1 year, 12 months ago
Hummmmm Sounds pretty reasonable to me! Room for both points of view and respectful of both? You obviously are not an Evangelical. Reasonable people can always reason together. The problem arises when one side DEMANDS that their position be acknowlegded as "RIGHT" and ABSOLUTE.
My issue is with those pious folks who demand that I accept their faith as the only true one and if I don't accept that position, consign me to their version of hell or whatever. As for "doctrine", when it comes to the respect or worship of GOD, doctrine is the moral equivilant of "pole vaulting over mouse turds"
Reply -
0%
tkyrchncs1 year, 12 months ago
I think there isn't any divergence. Fact and truth do not mean the same thing. There is allegory. Parables as used by our Lord were allegory--a story, often created out of whole cloth, which reveals the truth without being factual.
Reply -
0%
HomerJS491 year, 12 months ago
Mary Baker Eddy believed that Christ was the ultimate scientist, Hence: Christian Scientists.
Reply -
0%
scriblerus11 year, 12 months ago
bigeric: "where "science" and God's word diverge, I'll take my chances with God."
Where do they diverge? I am a Christian too, and I don't really see any divergence except in the sense that you have two completely separate realms of consciousness in science and religion. There really is no conflict between the two because mythos and science have little to do with each other.
Reply -
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 12 months ago
Sorry, big guy, gotta disagree. The Bible has been shown numerous times to be in error. It is not the inerrant word of God, or we would be back in the days of stoning each other over wearing cotton poly blends. I cannot buy into the Bible cause of the way fundies have warped its meaning.
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 12 months ago
Scientists gladly re-examine their theories once they have been challenged. It is the religious who are not willing to evaluate and incorporate new evidence.
I wouldn't say that science is gospel, just that it is a reliable guide. More reliable than ANY scripture on Earth.
Reply
-
-
100%
bigeric1 year, 12 months ago
retbg
No, I'm not an "Evangelical", I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist. While I believe my position to be absolutely right, I also believe that you have the right to accept a purely scientific explanation if you choose. But as I said, I also believe that many of the scientific "facts" known about the earth are compatable with creation and that there are scientific "facts" that are an incorrect assumption by scientists. Very little of the scientific theory of evolution is actually provable, scientific fact. In answer to your other point, people (unlike evangelicals) who are comfortable with their beliefs don't feel the need to force their views on someone else.
Reply-
0%
retbg1 year, 12 months ago
You and I are in complete agreement (I think). 1. absolutes do not apply - to say that "absolutly" there is no God is a mistake as anyone who really studies particle physics should agree. On the other hand, to say "absolutly" that science is contrairy to the theory of "creation" as defined by the literal bible is equally flawed.
As to your point about converting others to one's faith, You got it right on the head. IF ONE TRULY BELIEVES IN HIS HEART, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR EVERYONE (OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER) ELSE TO BELIEVE. That's is where I have a problem with most religions - in order for their faith to be RIGHT, everyone else's faith has to be WRONG! Why can't we both be right, love one another and let mankind be the winner. Personally, I think that would please God more than our current situation.
Reply -
0%
infidell2space1 year, 12 months ago
(((Very little of the scientific theory of evolution is actually provable, scientific fact.))) You , bigeric are quite mistaken, the evidence for evolution is extensive. In fact there is more evidence for evolution then there is the theory gravity, germ theory or nuclear theory, do you question any of these theories, and if not why not? You should look in to evolution with an open mind and here are a few links to help; http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ http://www.talkorigins.org/ http://www.mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTM...
Several books you should read that would help; The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, All books at amazon.com by Richard Dawkins, any of them = http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/105-1697644... dawkins&Go.x=11&Go.y=11&Go=Go
Reply -
0%
quackpot1 year, 12 months ago
NO scientific theory is "provable". But, many scientific theories, including the theory of evolution are VERY useful tools for gaining new knowledge.
If you are not interested in a framework for gaining new knowledge, then any theory will do you just fine. If the God theory gives you inner peace, go for it.
Reply
-
-
0%
NoWayMan1 year, 12 months ago
a question for creationists and intelligent design theorists:
we know that brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes, brown hair over blond hair, dark skin over fair skin, etc.
is this an act of science (ie, darwinism) or does this mean that god simply prefers people with these traits over people with the weaker traits?
Reply-
-
0%
CrazyRay1 year, 12 months ago
...or if we were created, why do we have to breathe? Why do we need the oxygen in the air, can't we just survive off of that magic hocus-pocus?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 12 months ago
Idiots?? People who subscribe to evolution are idiots YET people who say life came from a ball of clay fully functioning are hitting on all cylinders?? Any balls of clay jump to life in your neighborhood lately?
Reply -
-
-
0%
Amazing11 year, 12 months ago
I think anyone who gives the nod to Intelligent Design should not be allowed to run for president. Intelligent Design as a theory is neither intelligent nor does it show any great design. But it sells to the ignorant who protest that they are not descended from apes. Evolution does not say we are descended from apes, only that we are related. And were I an ape, I daresay I would be appalled at the actions of my city cousins who start wars for no good reason and kill each other seemingly for the sport of it.
Reply-
0%
infidell2space1 year, 12 months ago
Now you're just being plain silly Amazing1, we all know the war was for oil and our god is bigger then their god and killing them proves it. Just ask Pat Robertson or an army General.
Reply -
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 12 months ago
I agree with you Amazing1, tho there are bands of chimps, usually a gang of juvenile males, who display gang like activities, beating other chimps for what seems no good reason,actually going out on a hunt and killing just for the sport. Not because they were threatened, or hungry. I guess we are more related then we know in some instances, tho I wouldn't think chimps feel remorse or have a justice system. We are all branches off of branches off of branches etc....
If it were intelligent design, there would be no flaws and there are billions of flaws.
Reply -
-
-
0%
retbg1 year, 12 months ago
Go to your room. No bananas for you. Much too on point. You must be one of them apes.
Reply -
-
-
67%
nu20071 year, 12 months ago
When will people start to realize that a debate is not a platform for learning and accepting facts? It is only good for filling the appetite of people who are hungry for confronting people with different beliefs. You don't find a real conclusion after a debate because each group will find their own "convincing" arguments that they are right. You can rarely see one group outdebate the other group, which then say, "Oh, you are right! Sorry for my ignorance! Please enlighten me more with your facts." And then the audience applauds to the winner group? Don't be silly! People do not back down in a heated debate. Science don't establish facts out of debate. There are some pioneers who dig out some evidences to build a theory. Then it's left to the rest of the science community to independently verify the evidences and strengthen the theory into facts. Let evidences speak for themselves, not your loud voice.
Reply -
0%
Theo_ll1 year, 12 months ago
all smart people know that the creationist are correct so I agree there is no need for a debate. God made everything.
Reply -
0%
rockman0691 year, 12 months ago
I find this to be an affront on three cases; it assumes religionists are not scientific, that religion goes against science, and that a debate will change the truth. I disagree with all three with a qualified "no" on the last--it can only steer ones perception of truth without actually changing it.
Reply -
0%
0gramstransfat1 year, 12 months ago
I love the Scooby Doo references in the story!! If you want to believe that humans are the focus of a cosmic tug-of-war in a battle between good and evil, go ahead. All you need to do is watch the Star Wars saga or the Lord Of The Rings trilogy to see how it's going to end. Just remember, the earth was evolving life long before men decided to write religions.
Reply -
0%
saneman1 year, 12 months ago
I can't imagine anybody wanting to waste their time debating with creationists. Weakminded people will always latch onto something (Religion) when their lives are out of control.
Reply -
100%
robcrocker1 year, 12 months ago
The real "ideological" problem in this country right now isn't "creationism" it's "environmentalism" and our "Global Warming Evangelicals"......
They are funded big time by the tax free foundations. It's 30 to 40 Billion, yes Billion with a B, every year. That's a lot
of money and it buys a lot of influence and it's really screwing up our national policy debates.
Reply-
0%
Charlson1 year, 12 months ago
The oil companies make that much in tax breaks given to them by the Republican Congress and Bush.
Reply -
92%
RickyDawkins1 year, 12 months ago
We have evidence of global warming. We do not have evidence of a Creator.
Reply
-
-
0%
Gotitright1 year, 12 months ago
There are those that believe in creation and also in scientific facts. If life can change on earth, it does not make it non-created. What was the primate that came just before us on earth and how has been linked to us through DNA? I missed that one Mr Wizard! Only because Alec Baldwin left those facts out on "Walking with Man". Kind of an important fact, don't you think? At least for the scientific minded.
Reply -
100%
Socrates11 year, 12 months ago
I have one question for the creationist--Who did Cain and Abel "beget" with? If Eve was a Grandmother, who were the mother's?
Reply-
-
0%
SonOfTheMask1 year, 12 months ago
I have questions for the evolutionist - Why did male/female sex evolve in the first place? In other words, why did simple organisms, which reproduce by fission (splitting into two), evolve into lifeforms that require two genders to procreate?
And, another related question would be, how did asexual life evolve into two genders in the first place? When did the first "male" and first "female" arrive on the scene? Kind of like the old "chicken and the egg" paradox...
Lastly, what was the "evolutionary advantage" that has compelled the natural world (outside of bacteria and the like) to "select" two genders as the basis of procreation across nearly every lifeform?
Reply -
86%
lvrofwolves1 year, 12 months ago
Abel didn't beget anyone because he was murdered by Cain, God told him that the bloods of his brother cries from the ground, bloods supposedly meaning, all of Abels potential begettings are killed as well. Cain married his sister and begot children. Must have been gods devine intervention so they didn't have a bunch of retarded,deformed children, who continued to marry each other and beget/begot-whatever. Intelligent design by God??? sounds like a big giant mess to me. Your first 2 creations screw up, disobey, try and shirk their responsibility on Satan made me do it, then beget a murderer, who married (but I think just knocked her up) his sister....God says well..let's try this again, starts over with Noah and 2 of everything else on Earth.....oops...another screw up, guess Noah and his family weren't as rightious as God had thought.
Now come on...what a bunch of BS
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
JBrooks011 year, 11 months ago
I wouldn't try to teach the Pig to sing, then conclude it's the Pig that was stupid! -grin-
Reply
-
-
0%
Gotitright1 year, 12 months ago
The story of Cane and Able is much like the one of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve means Man and Woman. It is a story of early man and his failures that lead to our position in God's eyes leading to the great flood. It is not a literal story as far as I know.
Reply -
0%
history-ferret1 year, 12 months ago
The Scientists and Creationists are both WRONG.
Creation did not began 6 days ago or 13.7 Billion years ago. It began 10½ Billion years ago; our moon says so. Each day is 2 Billion years in Time duration.
Genesis 2.4 ONE DAY STRETCHED OUT INTO 7 DAYS.
4½ Billion years ago, and you come to the fourth day in the Bible. We are living 500 Million years into the Sixth Eon/Aeon day of Time, there remains 1½ Billion years of the Sixth Eon/Aeon day of Time. Then the Seventh Eon/Aeon day, Yah's Sabbath Day of REST from all his works.
READ HEBREWS Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 4:8-9 Another DAY OF REST, YET IN OUR FUTURE.
TOTAL TIME OF THIS CREATION 14 BILLION YEARS. THERE REMAINS 3½ BILLION YEARS OF TIME LEFT in this Creation.
Revelation 10:6 Last part: that there should be time NO MORE.
We are going into a Control Steady State Universe. After the Universe is recreated.
Reply-
0%
retbg1 year, 12 months ago
No such thing as a "steady state"in the universe. If there were, there would be no atomic or sub atomic movement and so nothing.
Reply -
-
65%
RickyDawkins1 year, 12 months ago
This is where your calculations fail Ferret:
You forgot to multiply the number of days in a Jewish leap-year by the total number of apostles who were seated at the last supper, minus the total number of times Mary was raped.
Reply
-
-
0%
melm1518051 year, 12 months ago
Is there anyone else out in web land that agrees that everyone's religion or no religion is their own business? And, also agrees that no one should display their religious connection in PUBLIC. I mean no distinctive hats, no nun's robes, no skull caps and on and on. All I'm saying is why must those who wear these things need to call attention to themselves? Are the rest of us supposed to treat people with special garb different? I don't feel disgusted, when I encounter them in a store so much as they don't like anyone different than themselves. Oh! I do believe in school uniforms up to High school and Jump suit for all air passingers!
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 12 months ago
The article is about evolution. The creationists are the ones who make a big deal out of it by denying the scientific evidence. They probably do this because the laws of science and nature almost always conflict the written word of the bible.
Reply
-
-
-
67%
JBrooks011 year, 11 months ago
Well, when the notion that evolution as "the" explanation for life has been proven as a certifiable fact, as has the roundness of the earth, then perhaps your analogy will be relevant. If it were as cut and dried,....clear as the blue sky, then the question wouldn't be up for debate, even among scientists.
Reply
-
-
0%
wildman65571 year, 12 months ago
Fundamentalist Christians insist that their interpretation of the Bible is literal. It isn't. While the Greek New Testament is fairly easy to translate because of the large existent Classical Greek Literature, ancient Hebrew is a nightmare. Look at Shakespeare, that is English that is less than 500 years old, but still it is difficult to translate. Imagine something that is 4500 years old. Even the Pharisees in Jesus' time had difficulty (note how they missed his coming) and they were 2000 years closer.
Geneses 1 agrees quite well (amazingly well actually) with modern science if you don't insist on taking the length of the day too literally. Judging from the difficulty translating ancient Hebrew, it is more than likely that the day isn't meant to be taken a literal 24 hours and that science and Geneses 1 IS in amazing agreement with modern science.
Reply-
0%
woodsywizz1 year, 12 months ago
You stole my thunder! I was going to point out the first few verses of Genesis beautifully, poetically describe the Big Bang, the coalescence of matter, the formation of stars & planets, and the evolution of life...until TA - DA! Here we are. That's where the allegory comes in. Remember, a metaphor can be "true", fairy tales describe real human characterics & dilemmas (dilemmae?). Nattering over the literal descriptive 'truth' of the Bible completely ignores the philosophical category of Spiritual truths - which are best conveyed in story form (unless you like the deep, succinct poetry of the Tao Te Ching). When Evangelicals try to bug me about God vs. Science (what a silly, false opposition!), I just say, "I believe in God, and I believe God created Evolution." Since it's a matter of faith, I don't require evidence. Science describes the physical world, and marks the boundaries of our ignorance. Anything outside of certain knowledge relies upon faith.
Reply -
-
50%
icelander1 year, 12 months ago
The order of creation is:
1) Ocean
2) Light and Darkness
3) Firmament
4) Land
5) Plants
6) Sun, moon, stars, planets
7) Fish
8) Birds
9) Animals
10) People (well, person)
That is so wrong it's not even funny. Where are the bacteria and viruses? Where are the insects? How can you have plants before you have a sun to power photosynthesis? How can you have night and day before you have a planet to rotate to provide night and day?
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.