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.

521 Responses to “Where is the evidence?”

1 26 27 28
  1. rupesh says:

    Evidence that evolution is fraud?! There is no evidence of evolution?! Lady! Look up the 9 months that a baby is made in you! It has a tail at the first few weeks! This woman is……..a fucking idiot.
    Admin @ http://www.questionpaper.org

    • Whizzard says:

      A legitimate problem with evolution is that there exist other explanations that account for the same body of evidence but reach alternative conclusions, e.g. that evolved conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice-versa.

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        The best of the explanations that you mention is that the FSM created the universe 6000 years ago, but made it *seem* as if it were much, much older. The more that scientists investigate, the clearer it is that His handiwork – drunk as He was – is perfect.

        • Whizzard says:

          Apprentice Frederic,

          The FSM is an invalid analogy with respect to the conceptualization of a monotheistic god. Because the FSM is defined in terms of constraint, it is a valid analogy to a polytheistic god, but not a monotheistic one.

          With respect to a 6,000 year-old Universe, there’s simply no rational justification for this belief. Better is using extrapolation to arrive at the ~14 billion year-old age which is so commonly referenced (though this figure can change significantly depending on your location, e.g. at the event horizon of a black hole). Best is neither of these.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Since I did bite, I have to respond humbly and truthfully: I don’t understand your use of the critical and seemingly technically defined words “analogy”, “conceptualization”, and “constraint”, so will not bore you or the murderous, drunken, womanizing Rasputin (just kidding, R.!) by verbose arguing. I DO feel that explanations need not be rationally justifiable to qualify as explanations, and the FSM is on at least as firm ground as – say – Jehovah; hope you’ll appreciate a tinge of irony in that claim.

        • Whizzard says:

          Apprentice Frederic,

          Verbose? Really? I could have come in here and said, “God exists due to logical necessity,” and left it at that. Would that have given me more credibility? Of course not, and that’s because a response like that indicates that you won’t respond with the same thoughtful consideration I give to your replies, regardless of whether my explanations are short and concise or long but detailed.

          You might find it interesting that when I talk with religious people about religion, I tend to play devil’s advocate in favor of atheistic perspectives (’cause dogma). But that just gets back to the whole reason I came here in the first place. Religious debate is happening on a scale never seen before the Internet, but the vast majority (very, *very* vast majority) of people on both sides of the debate have no idea that they’re making invalid points because they selected an invalid context for the debate itself.

          Generally speaking, atheists rightfully attack the beliefs of the religious because of the piss-poor reasoning supporting them, and the religious rightfully attack the beliefs of atheists, but for the wrong reasons (that’s where the piss-poor reasoning comes in). Neither side of the debate seems to have any clue that, while exploration of the topic can yield definitive answers, empiricism is in no way suited to the task. This entire website is based off of an ‘a prori’ invalid counterargument to god that does a complete disservice to religious debate all over the world. Essentially, it’s promoting illogical thinking. If you want to revel in your smugness while being ignorantly incorrect, go right ahead.

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          “evolved conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice-versa”. Yes, we can see this in gene therapy, or even proper diet. But all who believe in telekenesis, raise my hand.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          The verbosity I was speaking of was my own, not yours; sorry if that wasn’t clear. The ignorance that you speak of was also my own, but I did ask a serious – and I thought respectful – question to attempt to understand your point of view. If my post seemed smug, I am sorry, but am unsure how to repair that, which probably proves you’re right.

      • Rasputin says:

        For heaven’s sake, Whizzard – KEEP IT SHORT !!! Or else nobody wants to read it. The world’s best newspaper is The Sun in the UK, because it shortens every story to just a few paragraphs plus it’s got pictures of topless strippers on Page Three. At least until recently. The perfect newspaper for any Pastafarian.
        Having said that, I’m delighted that fellow Pastafarians have enough brain cells to argue matters of philosophy in such brain-numbing detail. I’m worried because they can’t have been fulfilling their religious obligation of drinking beer.

        • Whizzard says:


          We think with language. A non-detailed, non-specific, or arbitrary answer is a reflection of the thought process behind the statement. If it isn’t clear on paper, it probably wasn’t clear in thought. This is why I’m not a gangster rapper.

  2. Rasputin says:

    I admire and respect the philosophers and theologians who discuss matters on this website. There is some serious IQ at work here. Pastafarianism isn’t a spoof religion at all. Freedom produces better results than bondage. The free-thinking expressed on this website is superior to that which could be expressed inside those religions which use the buybull or the Koran. It’s remarkable that theology can be discussed at the highest level whilst also talking like a pirate. Aaaarrr.

  3. JJ the Aeroplaine says:

    The fundamental problem with this interview is that Richard Dawkins does not invert her pseudo-logic upon her immediately.

    One thing she continually falls back on, is that Atheism encourages us to mistreat those who we deem as not contributing to society in any meaningful way. Kind of like what the Christians are doing homosexuals, and single mothers, and abortion doctors.. etc

    She also mentions evolutionist regimes that promote infanticide… ect It is perceived she is speaking of Hitler and his constituents. This is incorrect. The Aryan race idea that National Socialism is based on is a creationist belief. According to the Nazis; the master, or Aryan race were decedents of “God’s Angels” and “Daughters of Men”. This is incompatible with evolution, and requires a supreme creator; specifically, the god of Abraham also known as the Christian “God”. From this we can extrapolate that this was not an atheist regime, but rather a branch of Abrahamic Tradition (Judeo-Christian/Islam). For more on this, please see Nephilim.

    If we accept their documented embrace of the Nephilim, then we must accept that they are intelligent designists, if not outright creationists, and identifies National Socialists not as a novel atheist regime, but as another in a long line of Christian atrocities. This gets me to my second point that Christianity is not intended to a inclusive club. What she is referring to when she points to functioning societies we can see evidence of in Uganda, where they are passing laws to put Homosexuals to death, where women are stoned to death in remote sections of the middle east when men want a divorce, the examples of Abrahamic atrocities in the modern day are overwhelming.

    The Abrahamic texts (TalMud, Bible, Al Quran) are used to sanction historic and present day atrocities. These include The Spanish Inquisition, Pogroms, Hitler’s Final solution, Boko haram, Al Qeuida, Islamic State,

1 26 27 28

Leave a Reply