This bitch is making me so angry

[Talk Talk]

I can prove that Lumpy Humpy is a political fossil though xxx

[Batch]

aying she has been "brainwashed" and calling her "insane" is an equally blinkered view,

That is genuinely the only reason I can think of that would lead to anybody believing in creationism.

[pauld]

Personally I dislike Dawkins intensely because he's every bit as hectoring, arrogant and evangelical as those he opposes. He may be right but he's still a git.

And BR if it annoys you so much, I'd suggest not watching it. Just a thought, like

EDIT: For the record, creationists are fucking idiots though. They should lock the pair of them in a room and let them beat each other to death with (respectively) the Bible and The Ascent of Man

[Barry Scott]

I can't help but note that your posts seem to place much more of a requirement on Dawkins to justify his position and "prove her wrong" than on her to prove fucking anything.

This is also my issue (not with r4e I might add). I'm an atheist and have been challenged to "prove" my thinking. I don't have to prove anything. Because by being an atheist I'm not choosing science over religion, I'm choosing no religion, nothing, so therefore I don't have to justify and find proof for anything. I always had an issue with the, "if you can't prove it to be false, it's true" argument. See Pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[BANGKOK RED]

Personally, I do not find Dawkins' argument in this video convincing as he fails to explain anything in any sort of depth.

And exactly how is he supposed to do that when she won't accept the very existence of fossils that do exist? He is always going to struggle to get past the first hurdle when she wont even acknowledge the vast amount of evidence that does, as a FACT, exist?

[reeves4england]

And exactly how is he supposed to do that when she won't accept the very existence of fossils that do exist? He is always going to struggle to get past the first hurdle when she wont even acknowledge the vast amount of evidence that does, as a FACT, exist?

As I have already said, she brings absolutely nothing to the debate and clearly does not understand what she is talking about in terms of the science. But you've obviously chosen to ignore that just because I wrote an extra line or two about Dawkins' side of the argument. Perhaps Dawkins could get a bunch of creationists to read his book THEN talk to them about the issue, rather than picking some ignorant woman (from a group/organisation for whom evolution is a side issue rather than their sole focus) and presenting her as the face of that epistemic community.

I haven't read his book on evolution myself, maybe I will get round to it one day.

[BANGKOK RED]

And BR if it annoys you so much, I'd suggest not watching it. Just a thought, like

Would such an attitude towards discussion not make this forum a tad redundant Paul?

[Ardiles]

I think that anyone who thinks they know the definitive answer to the creationism vs evolution debate is deluded.  I don't buy the literal creationist argument that the earth was created in 7 days etc., and I've read Dawkins' first book and it seems compelling to me.

Where it all gets a little grey for me is that while evolutionary theory and science do a good enough job of explaining observable phenomena during the last few million (or even billion) years, they are unable to go back any further.  Science is unable to explain anything before a point a few milliseconds after the Big Bang.  It cannot explain how or why the Big Bang happened, because the rules of science as we understand them breakdown if you go any further back than this point a few milliseconds after it.

So what led to the Big Bang?  No one knows.  And until we find an answer (and I'm not sure we ever will), I think it's a little naive to completely rule out some sort of creationist explanation...created by a god or some other force/power that we do not understand.  Just my take on things.

[BANGKOK RED]

I agree Ardiles.

How can we discount something that we don't know about? Personally I am open to the idea of some sort of higher being provided that it is part of science rather than fantasy. What is daft though is those who believe in things like Adam and Eve to the point that they reject evolution. Why not just compromise and accept that if there is a god, then could he not have created evolution?

[Ardiles]

Spot on.

[pauld]

I agree Ardiles.

How can we discount something that we don't know about? Personally I am open to the idea of some sort of higher being provided that it is part of science rather than fantasy. What is daft though is those who believe in things like Adam and Eve to the point that they reject evolution. Why not just compromise and accept that if there is a god, then could he not have created evolution?

I think you've summed up my own point of view rather well there BR. Would you mind if I printed it out and put it on some kind of laminated card that I could proffer at people in lieu of having to explain stuff? Obviously one with nice sharp edges for dealing with the extreme Dawkin-ists/creationists who aren't prepared to listen to anyone else

[Batch]

The creationist we were laughing at here believes that the world is 10, 000 years old. That is unquestionably incorrect and completely different to what ardiles posted about. As pointed out religious belief and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[jonny72]

So what led to the Big Bang?  No one knows.  And until we find an answer (and I'm not sure we ever will), I think it's a little naive to completely rule out some sort of creationist explanation...created by a god or some other force/power that we do not understand.  Just my take on things.

To be fair, evolution (and evolutionists) doesn't rule out there being some form of super being / force - they're just pretty sure it isn't a bloke with a grey beard wearing sandals and that the biblical account is bollocks.

[herthab]

I think that anyone who totally refutes the possibility of a higher force is as close-minded as the Creationists. I'd like to think that there was unknown power at work.

What I completely refute is all organised religions spouting their drivel. There was a documentary series on Darwin recently, where they linked his theory of evolution to ethnic cleansing. While that may, in part, be true how many people have/are suffering as a direct result of religious bigotry?

[Talk Talk]

how many people have/are suffering as a direct result of religious bigotry?

I was forced to attend Sunday School as a child.

I am still scarred by the experience thank you.