3830223 Views
666 Comments

Where is the evidence?

Published April 7th, 2013 by Bobby Henderson

Here’s a video that has been making the rounds.   Richard Dawkins shows great patience in interviewing Creationist Wendy Wright.  I find it painful to watch but also fascinating.



666 Responses to “Where is the evidence?”

1 30 31 32
  1. リチャードミルのrm 011レッドtpt石英をntpt炭素であるもう一つの興味深い材料を用いた一対の赤い色のついたtpt石英材料が用いられている。これらの材料は、一緒に時計のケースを作ります says:

    [url=http://www.ooobag.com/wallet/louisvuitton/index_6.html]リチャードミルのrm 011レッドtpt石英をntpt炭素であるもう一つの興味深い材料を用いた一対の赤い色のついたtpt石英材料が用いられている。これらの材料は、一緒に時計のケースを作ります。をここで見てください、最初のリチャード・ミルntpt rm 35-01ラファエル・ナダルを実際に行った。ボート漕ぎとテニスにレースから・・・[/url]

  2. Keith says:

    I could only watched for 6 minutes, 2 fundamentalists getting nowhere.

  3. Rekasharma says:

    Absolute shocker to read out whole story ,,,,,,,,,

  4. Rekasharma says:

    Event Management Companies in Delhi

  5. Problem says:

    Both Atheists and Abrahamic religious indoctrinators are wrong in their view of reality in my opinion ,they are both hard headed and uncompromising in their view points with no compromises ,the same birds with opposite wings but flying off in the wrong direction and opposing each other relentlessly .The religious books are full of errors and manipulations equally science refuses to acknowlege anything that cant be touched tasted smelled or tested by their instruments .Both are blind and leading the world into the ditch

    • The Sauceror says:

      Okay, Problem, so what is your solution to the existential problem of understanding reality?

      • Captain Haddock says:

        Epastamology! Imagined ‘knowledge’ diverges exponentially.

    • Keith says:

      The very nature of science dictates that it can only examine things that can be tested and subjected to scrutiny, so there is no point in blaming science for ignoring things that do not come within the parameters required by the scientific process.

      • Excelsior says:

        Keith,
        The fundamental difference between science and religion is that science deals only with reality which shows it’s existence in our universe, whereas religion believes in non-existant things (things not of our universe) like spooks (gods), magic (miracles), and heavens and hells. Since the things that a Theist believes in can not be observed, therefore his beliefs are based on faith. The Atheist only believes those things that are observable in our universe, everything else is just conjecture or hypothesis.
        The only exception is the FSM which is really real! Ramen!

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        Keith, Excelsior, you’re right, but the trouble with the “science vs. religion” debate – other than that it has gotten good and boring – is that there is really a better way to cut sides: rational thought and decent behavior (humility, compassion, and tolerance) versus the opposite. Religious types seem rather less likely to exhibit any of those redeeming characteristics and simply rely on ancient texts and their priesthood – who are, again, typically REALLY less capable of rationality. The last global warming denier I heard from had found scripture that proved that God wouldn’t *allow* warming to happen. The last “Christians” I’ve heard from want to hunt down LGBTs and Muslims. Why should we imagine that that kind of thinking would ever answer infinitely deeper and harder questions about our behavior, our cosmos, or our consciousness, or our very existence???? I wonder what the question is that Problem knows the answer to; Sauceror’s question to Problem is a good one.

        • Keith says:

          Problem is correct to a certain degree, in that many scriptural writings are either bogus or of doubtful provenance. On the other side of the coin there have been scientific forgeries and errors. The difference is that scriptural authorities still present said scriptural writings as fact, whereas scientists prove other scientists wrong and science moves on. People like these

          http://amazingbibletimeline.com/bible_questions/q1_bible_who_wrote/

          are still positively attributing the authorship of various elements of the buy-bull to people for whom there is no evidence of their existence (eg. Moses) or scriptures with an ad hoc attribution. Noone in the scientific community (as far as I know) accepts the existence of Piltdown Man or Hyrarchos.

        • The Sauceror says:

          Dear Keith, case in point: Piltdown Man. The Scientific Method ultimately proved to be self-correcting. Religion did not.

        • Keith says:

          It took a long time for Piltdown to be exposed for what it was, partly because few people were allowed to examine the original remains. Most had to put up with examining a cast. In the case of Hydrarchos (which is how I should have spelled it) it was spotted almost immediately.

  6. SillyKiwiMan says:

    This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. Your opinion is wrong on so many levels.

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      This was supposed to be in response to Problem. Fucking jet lag…

      • Rasputin says:

        We’ve all done it.

  7. Excelsior says:

    Keith,
    Thanks for the link “timeline”. I made a startling discovery. The Bible started being written in 1513 BC by Moses but Adam was created in 4004 BC (the same time the universe was created). Since Adam didn’t write a diary, how could Moses know what Adam was doing 2500 years before he was born? Anyone who takes the Bible seriously should be locked up in a gooney-bin!

    • Excelsior says:

      Sorry for the typo. It should read “looney-bin”!

      • The Sauceror says:

        But “gooney-bin” sounds SO much better.

        …. for some reason, it reminds me a little bit of the “Gloty Train”. I wonder if anyone else noticed that.

        • Excelsior says:

          Yes, “gooney” sounds better, but calling a lunatic a “goon” isn’t polite.

        • Keith says:

          Perhaps “gooney-bins” are the transfer points for borched mesoms.

  8. Problem says:

    Let’s look at the way things really are neither science or religion has brought world peace .Science has created devices and modified natural things that are bringing us to the brink of extinction if they don’t stop using their intelligence to create weapons of mass destruction biological agents ,modified natural foods and other negatives .While they have done much good they also have created a lot of evil because a lot of individuals are only in it for themselves and don’t give a rats ass for others .Religions have manipulated human behavior since time immemorial but there has been little change in human behaviour .Again a lot of religious people are only looking out for their own benefit . There also have been good religious people who have benefited mankind and tried to improve human behaviour .Actually I think religions have been used by unscrupulous individuals to entice ignorant folk to go to war and justify reasons for killing one another .The real answer I think is to teach ethical behaviour and to study the reasons why peoples egos clash so much. Study reasons why human egos are so repulsive and there I think might be the answer

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      You’re still an idiot

    • Keith says:

      People have been modifying foods since mankind started planting crops. You only need to look at the banana, the coconut, onions, apples, pigs, cows, wheat and a host of other things. The fact that people can modify things directly at a genetic level merely means that years of cross breeding have been bridged more quickly. For the effects of scientific irrantionality, look up Lysenkoism and see what happened in the Soviet Union.

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      Dear Problem (+Keith, SKM, and others!), please forgive me for being tiresome: “science” and “religion” are not the two opposing halves of the world. I think you (P) overstate the harm science has done/may do, but I do agree, FWIW, that teaching ethical behavior (which has always gone on, and which manifestly has “stuck” in a lot of the CoFSM’s communicants) is a good thing to do. The “repulsive human ego” issue went on fairly dramatically with Hitler in Germany in the 30’s; Keith and SKM are safely outside the US – not sure where P is from – and it would be interesting to see their expected and typically astute comments on current Nazi-ism here in the US. As a side issue, we should be philosophical about balancing not being regarded as a legit religion against the implied bad rap of acceptance in the religious crowd, heehee.

      • Rasputin says:

        Problem says (May 27, 9pm), “There have been good religious people who have benefited mankind and tried to improve human behaviour”.
        That’s true. It especially applies to the Divine Bobby and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    • Excelsior says:

      Mark Twaine made many sarcastic remarks about religion, fot instance:
      “Religion began when the first con-man met the first fool!”
      “When one man has hallucinations, he’s crazy. But when huge masses of people have hallucinations, that’s religion!”
      We can excuse his ignorance because he never heard of Pastafarianism!

      • Rasputin says:

        Yaarrgghhh, ye be correct, Excelsior!

1 30 31 32

Leave a Reply