So what is Dawkins afraid of? Does he have the guts to debate? (rejecting, myth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory.
Im sure these Evolutionists would be happy to know that ! > Anointed-One.net
We'll have to disagree then. You certainly have that right be wrong, though.
And there goes the colossal condescension that makes fundamentalists the target of derision. The inexecrable self-satisfying loathsome swill that characterizes the holier-than-thou attitude of those who believe themselves without sin - correction - without need of judgment of their own self-righteousness.
Dawkins has the intellectual honesty to debate ideas. Fundies seem to only have the intellectual dishonesty to create a Straw Man.
Im sure these Evolutionists would be happy to know that ! > Anointed-One.net
Hmmm...
Looking over this article the vast majority of quotes are more than 20 years old. (Hell, the one quote about a lack of transitional forms is 50 years old!)
That's a whole lifetime in science. Furthermore, nothing I see in those quotes discounts evolution in the slightest. What I do see is honesty in accepting the unknowns. And that is the way of Scientific inquiry.
Im sure these Evolutionists would be happy to know that ! > Anointed-One.net
I'm gonna go ahead and second what Astron said.... most of those quotes are at LEAST 20 years old... there are even a few attributed to papers written before the 1900s!!
I'm gonna go ahead and second what Astron said.... most of those quotes are at LEAST 20 years old... there are even a few attributed to papers written before the 1900s!!
And you wonder why you're not taken seriously.
You feel a need to put your trust in 19th century Darwinnian Evolution , yet you bash some of the quotes being 20 years old ?! In addition to the many Evolutionists who dont have faith in their own Field, are you familiar with the over 700 (and growing) worlds top PHD Scientists who dissent from Darwin ? www.dissentfromdarwin.com . Of course other than our personal Theistic Creator , you MUST force yourself to believe in Darwin regardless of its desperate unproved theory because its the only other game left in town.
No, really, we believe it because its the theory thats most likely to be true. That's all.
You have a motive to want to prove their is a God. But we have no motive to want to disprove it. If it were true, we would want to know. But it looks like it isn't true.
You feel a need to put your trust in 19th century Darwinnian Evolution , yet you bash some of the quotes being 20 years old ?! In addition to the many Evolutionists who dont have faith in their own Field, are you familiar with the over 700 (and growing) worlds top PHD Scientists who dissent from Darwin ? www.dissentfromdarwin.com . Of course other than our personal Theistic Creator , you MUST force yourself to believe in Darwin regardless of its desperate unproved theory because its the only other game left in town.
On the first page two of the four comments are discussing abiogenesis. Maybe one of them makes the claim that they're questioning natural selection via common descent.
And it's not a matter of trusting 19th century anything. That's a ridiculous and uninformed statement.
I still dont understand how dawkins, or any atheist can have a debate with religion. Atheists well..in this case scientists don't claim to know the unknown, religious claim to have all the answers to what happens when we die, the creation of the universe, and it is all based off of a 2000 + year old book. Religious people even admit it is faith. What is their to argue about? You can't have a debate against faith since it is based on nothing, all it is is faith.
BTW i am from japan, and us japanese find literally hillarious how people can reject scientific facts which lead to the theory of evolution, and all the evidence and instead believe that women are made from dirt and a rib, and everything was created in 6 days. I mean...honestly..? This is isnt even christianity vs science, this is just stupidity vs reason. Come to japan and try to tell us that we all came from dirt and a rib and watch how we will laugh in your faces. It's the most ridiculous thing i have heard. I didnt grow up with christianity around me so i am saying it like it is from a third person perspective, it's simply ridiculous sorry.
Most of the creationists also have basically no understanding of evolutionary theory and all the evidence supporting it. Evidence supporting creationism a 2,000+ year old book based on nothing and "claims" to be the word of god...and people believe it's the word of god well..because the bible says so! What awesome logic!
Creationists please please watch this video. It is satire, but pleaseeee just watch it.
This is basically what it's like trying to have a debate with a creationist/religious person. It is impossible, again it is satire but many creationists speak 100% like him and believe 100% what he does. How can Dawkins argue with this nonsense?
Listen to 2:40, and how creationists deny all of these scientific facts.
On the first page two of the four comments are discussing abiogenesis. Maybe one of them makes the claim that they're questioning natural selection via common descent.
And it's not a matter of trusting 19th century anything. That's a ridiculous and uninformed statement.
The above should be reversed btw. I didn't catch it on time to edit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.