- Joined
- Sep 24, 2023
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 3
How we got here
Yesterday I posted a video of evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, interviewing flat Earth creationist, Wendy Wright -
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vno1lAydv-8&t=33
Description
Interview with Richard Dawkins In 2009, Richard Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright at her office at the Concerned Women for America for his documentary, The Genius of Charles Darwin. This is one of the most frustrating interviews Dawkins gave with evolution deniers - if not the most frustrating interview to watch in the history of the origins debate. Wright, while adopting a patronizing tone, argues that evolution is wrong with tired creationist canards, misconceptions, and inaccuracies (e.g., suggesting that Haeckel's drawings are still in textbooks today, that there are no transitional forms, that evidence for evolution is nothing but hoaxes), but even after Dawkins corrects her misconceptions repeatedly, she continues to repeat the same claims and denies that there is any evidence that evolution is the means by which new species of lifeforms develop. Even when asked to look at examples of transitional forms in the form of casts of fossils in any respectable museum, she repeatedly states that she has been to the museums' and asserts that she has 'never seen the physical evidence'. Wright accuses Dawkins of personal attacks while employing ad hominem attacks against him, accusing him of being controlled by evil and deception. She proposes that Christian morality results in a better environment (as opposed to a Darwinian society) and therefore a literal interpretation of the Bible must be true while modern scientific explanations must be false. Dawkins responds (on several accounts) that he would not want to live in a Darwinian society because of ruthlessness of such a system, largely to no effect. Wright talks to Dawkins as if she has answers that he doesn't, most strikingly on the subject in which Dawkins is an established expert. She argues that it shouldn't only be scientists doing science, but that even the uneducated should be empowered to debate scientific facts and flatly deny evidence. Wright claims that 'evolutionists' are 'oppressive' because 'they won't let other ideas through', presumably ideas that are not backed up by evidence. Wright's responses rely upon logical fallacies and subjectively induced neoromantic pathos claims to 'prove' that 'we should love each human being therefore the Bible is true'. The debate actually got so absurd that, in an attempt to make even the slightest dent in Wright's titanium-plated cranium, Richard Dawkins, the great crusader for reason and against religion and superstition, began trying to explain that Evolution itself is not per se incompatible with (Christian) faith!
--
More to follow...
Poor James’s addict response.70 IQ
Is this an attempt at the ‘worst response of 2024’ award?Then what?
I made this entertaining post, expressing myself musically and replying to the latest garbage from Mad as a Tiger, including the OP -
Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-76567
(Mad as a Tiger would not have got it)
More to follow...
Why are you photoshopping various posts together you utter weirdo?
Go back to your own origins thread pal don't be startin it hereWhy are you photoshopping various posts together you utter weirdo?
You miss the point, as per usual.Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-76797
Einstein didn't believe in your God, Mad as a Tiger.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. You clearly didn’t watch the videos that triggered you.Religion is not scientific, it's unscientific. There is no compatibility, whatsoever.
Nobody claimed he did. That wasn’t the point.So, I make two points:
Einstein didn't believe in Mad as a Tiger's God (Jesus of Nazareth)
This is a retarded statement which makes no sense. You offered zero evidence to back it up. So there was nothing to refute.Religion is incompatible with science
You’re a time waster (often intoxicated) who doesn’t deserve repliesIn return? Nothing
I'm going to start calling Mad as a Tiger from now on - Wendy (because it's easier to type)
I can imagineIt's difficult 4 me to understand an intellect so deficient.
*glug glug, 70 IQ glug glug*Now listen here Wendy. You ain't in your Catholic spewing anti-atheist censorship thread now, what was your point? Einstein believed in God? Define "God", write any or all of your evidence for Einstein's believe in "God" here -
James, do you have a form of ADHD?_______________________________________________
Religion is unscientific, you fucking tard. Everything supernatural is, you bimbo.
Wrong (as always) you were spamming the thread by going around in circles with MAF and I pointed out the obvious to put a stop to it. You’d still be at it now if I hadn’t intervened.I mean, this is just fucking hilarious
This is the same person (Mad as a Tiger AKA 'Wendy') whose head finally exploded when I, ostensibly, left out "On the" -
I couldn’t have given 2 shits about it you weirdo, however, you were doing your usual pestering routine with MAF so I stepped in to put a stop to it ( which worked btw)lol You're such as brazen liar.
Tell us why me not saying "On the" was in any way meaningful, you total fucking spoofer*.
*Now hang on a second, I actually believe that in your dim brain that it did have some meaning.
Tell us why me saying - It's origin of species not origin of life.. had some meaning, because I left out "on the", write it here, embarrass yourself -
_____________________________________________
Dim Jim, have a sit down and I’ll explain like you are 5 years of age….No one said that there aren't scientists who believe in "God", you total thicko
View attachment 4166