"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Enoch07]

Sorry, but evolution is a refutation of the Adam and Eve myth. Of course all of the Genesis is simply myths. Now you may try to reinterpret them, but then you are essentially denying Genesis when you do so.

No.

Evolution is not a refutation. Here is a link for ya.

Evolution - Wikipedia

Adam and Eve is only refuted by Evolution if you hold the fallacy of Adam and Eve being the first 2 humans that all humanity came from. This fallacy is of older times and slowly Christians are moving away from that fallacy, as greater understanding of scripture is coming to fruition.

 

[Grandliseur]

if his stance on creationism is an intractable one against the evidence supporting evolution.

It all comes down to perspective and paradigm, what those who support a 'no God' position think of as evidence, we don't, and what we think of as evidence, they don't. There can be no bridge between the two disagreeing camps. That should seem fairly obvious by now.

For all I care, you can believe as you like. I am happy in my so called God delusion. I hope you are happy in your beliefs. But, please don't come running when the sheet hits the fan, as we believe it shall soon. I had an uncle who chose not to belong to any church and thought he had rejected God, and in the end he said something like, "I'm not going to change track now just because I am dying. I made my choice." I think that is the manly way to do things, namely, stick with your guns and not come running when things go south.

 

[Enoch07]

I don't know about Sam Harris but you consider Dawkins honesty to be be bigotry and hatred?

Remember this is the guy who says "I can't be sure God does not exist",
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
why is that seen as bigotry or hatred?

Is it that his honesty in the use of facts offends you?

See also Adam Lee has lost it | Richard Dawkins Foundation

Just going by the Guardian article and evidence he has shown before. I could always be wrong about the guy.

 

[Grandliseur]

What I know is that it's a question that asks the creationist if his stance on creationism is an intractable one against the evidence supporting evolution.

I thought I answered that one. If I have evidence for someone's existence, how can anyone convince me that this person doesn't exist?!
Just because you think there is enough evidence doesn't mean it tickles my fanny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No worries.



I agree completely that the claim that science is presumptions and guesswork is rooted in ignorance.

But William's post appear to be more of a generalization than a claim that he attended college...


Which is why interpreted your response as a generalization that people that those that didn't attend college were ignorant of the sciences.

If that was not your intent, and your 'college' comment was based on the assumption that he went to college and learned that sciences were presumptions and guesswork, I'll recant my previous comments based on my interpretation of your statement.

His post about what people learned in college sounded similar to what a person that had never been to London might say about the daily activities of those people. Many people that have not gone to college have still learned on their own. I am not saying that one cannot be intelligent if one does not go to college. But the claims of what is taught at college and what science is was the cause of my question about his personal experience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just going by the Guardian article and evidence he has shown before. I could always be wrong about the guy.

The only other "evidence" that you had was a video that you clearly did not watch. And the article did not support your claims either. So you are 0 for 2 in regards to your unsupported claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought I answered that one. If I have evidence for someone's existence, how can anyone convince me that this person doesn't exist?!
Just because you think there is enough evidence doesn't mean it tickles my fanny.

The problem is that there is no reliable evidence for creationism. Most creationists do not even understand the concept pf evidence and almost all are afraid to learn.

 

[ChristineM]

Whatever you say. The article speaks for itself.

This shows your unwillingness to actually research what you cite.

"Lee relies on quotes that have been cherry-picked by people determined to bring down Richard and Sam"

Please do not get me wrong here, i am not a supporter of Dawkins, his work is fine, his naivety in making statements that are easily misrepresented by his detractors is not fine.

However, cherry picking selected bits of text and taking them out of context in order to bolster the gullible anti atheist is a far worse.

 

[Enoch07]

You said he was earning the reputation of being "Satan".

Well to be fair Satan is a fairly terrible entity. Certainly the comparison is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's whatevs.

you did so in a thread that is about his scientific views.

So?

 

[Enoch07]

This shows your unwillingness to actually research what you cite.

"Lee relies on quotes that have been cherry-picked by people determined to bring down Richard and Sam"

Please do not get me wrong here, i am not a supporter of Dawkins, his work is fine, his naivety in making statements that are easily misrepresented by his detractors is not fine.

However, cherry picking selected bits of text and taking them out of context in order to bolster the gullible anti atheist is a far worse.

Take it up with the fine folks at The Guardian. I didn't write the article. If you have a problem with them cherry picking etc, then I suggest you write an email to their editor and express your displeasure.

 

[Enoch07]

The only other "evidence" that you had was a video that you clearly did not watch. And the article did not support your claims either. So you are 0 for 2 in regards to your unsupported claim.

If you say so. The article speaks for itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take it up with the fine folks at The Guardian. I didn't write the article. If you have a problem with them cherry picking etc, then I suggest you write an email to their editor and express your displeasure.

Sorry, but when you use a source you are responsible for its accuracy. It is no longer the Guardian's fault if they are inaccurate. One should always vet one's sources. You do not seem to generally agree with the Guardian, you should be very wary when using them for that reason.

 

[ChristineM]

Just going by the Guardian article and evidence he has shown before. I could always be wrong about the guy.

So going by a cherry picked hate article you decide the victim of the article is the hater?

Fyi, the guardian, although usually a far and even handed newspaper does have it's faults, one of those faults in recent years is its continued biased attacks on Dawkins

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you say so. The article speaks for itself.

Actually it doesn't. And by hanging on to that source and not finding any others you make their claims your claims. Christine already explained to you the problem with that article. Now it appears that you have nothing except your unsupported claim about Dawkins.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why the pressure for us to discard our beliefs!

If you pressured me to disbelieve that people exist with whom I exchange frequent communication, even get assistance from, - wouldn't I be an idiot to accept your statements that these or this person/s don't exist when I have daily exchanges with and from them?! While God doesn't speak to me, he surely answers our prayers and has told us what he wants from us.

This question is not just a question about an old revered book - which you seem to think it is. I and others have prayers answered frequently. If that is so, to take your word, and the word of unbelievers, the ungodly - who have nothing but empty arguments to present to us - that this God who answers our prayers doesn't exist - would be insane. The claims of the unbelievers are insane. But, you have the right to your beliefs, as we have to ours.

The thing is, we will all reap what we sow. We hope our harvest includes life, an entry into Paradise, the erasure of this evil world with so much killing.

And your video, I cannot look at the face of that devil and not see the smiling face of satan.

You were doin swell til that last sentence. No more Red Bull.

 

[ChristineM]

Take it up with the fine folks at The Guardian. I didn't write the article. If you have a problem with them cherry picking etc, then I suggest you write an email to their editor and express your displeasure.

Correct, you only did what the article was designed to do, lure the gullible into spreading hatred based on bs.

 

[Faithofchristian]

(it's only 2:30 long)​

I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

So has Dawkins said, so it also can be said of those who Support evolution.
So what goes around comes around.

It's no doubt that Dawkins thinks of himself as being intelligent, but yet has no concept of the first earth age. And what got us from there to here.

 

[Grandliseur]

You were doin swell til that last sentence. No more Red Bull.

Sorry, if I caused trouble. I speak my mind too freely at times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So has Dawkins said, so it also can be said of those who Support evolution.
So what goes around comes around.

It's no doubt that Dawkins thinks of himself as being intelligent, but yet has no concept of the first earth age. And what got us from there to here.

He understands the history of the Earth quite well.

You should really try to learn why we know the stories of Genesis to be myth.

 

[Faithofchristian]

He understands the history of the Earth quite well.

You should really try to learn why we know the stories of Genesis to be myth.

Look who's exactly talking about Genesis,
Look evolutionist like creationists the first thing they run to, to either to prove their case, is to the book of Genesis.

But yet neither the evolutionist nor the creationist, has no knowledge or understanding at all, of the first earth age.

But yet to hear the evolutionist and the creationist, think they it all together.

But yet there is no where in the Bible that states that everything started at Genesis.

Therefore whether it be the evolutionist or the creationist, They both have no concept about the first earth age.

Unto which the bible is very plain about the first earth age. And what got us from there to here, in this second earth age.