Indeed. Why should Maher defend evolution publically when every scientist that tries to in debate largely losses the debate and increases the number of people against evolution. Why do you guys think there is such a dismissive attitude toward debating and an iron fisted approach toward allowing that debate to happen in schools too. Evolutionists are all too aware of the dangers involved in the public hearing the evidence. That is why they'd rather it didn't happen. And that's why these guys are so abusive, snobbish and dismissive on the whole. They know they are an 'endangered species'. The Nazi war machine held to it's propaganda as did the German people even after they were defeated. Many wouldn't believe the truth even when it was shown to them. And today, Neo-Nazis go so far as to say that much of what Nazis are to blame for never happened. I don't offer that as a comparison to Nazi-ism. I Offer Nazi-ism as an example of how propaganda has a life of it's own inspite of truth. Let the whaling commense.
Cite please.
Why do you guys think there is such a dismissive attitude toward debating and an iron fisted approach toward allowing that debate to happen in schools too.
No one on the anti-evo side brings actual, rigorous, peer-reviewed and tested science to the table when they want to begin one of these "debates". They simply seem to retreat to their institutes every time they're defeated in the court of public opinion and slap together another half-baked "theory" with which they can suck donations from the gullible and try to back-door religion into science class.
Evolutionists are all too aware of the dangers involved in the public hearing the evidence. That is why they'd rather it didn't happen.
A conservative judge in Pennsylvania gave about as impartial a hearing as Creationists are about to get, and he came down firmly on the side of the ToE. You're right when you say that I don't want this debate to happen, though. Instead of Bill Maher, why not an Ivy League biology prof?
And that's why these guys are so abusive, snobbish and dismissive on the whole. They know they are an 'endangered species'.
I think that my side gets abusive out of frustration. How many times can you try to explain a position to a person who simply doesn't want to hear it and only listens to try to score points off of you? As for snobbish, well, we have standards and we demand that others meet them. Is it snobbish to demand a certain level of knowledge and expertise?
The Nazi war machine held to it's propaganda as did the German people even after they were defeated. Many wouldn't believe the truth even when it was shown to them. And today, Neo-Nazis go so far as to say that much of what Nazis are to blame for never happened. I don't offer that as a comparison to Nazi-ism. I Offer Nazi-ism as an example of how propaganda has a life of it's own inspite of truth. Let the whaling commense.
I think that I'll let that last paragraph stand on its own. It does a beter job of debunking your position than I could.