Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
LOL...That one cracks me up every time! One wonders how much time elapsed between the time he told them to turn off the cameras and the time they started filming again. No wonder he ducks so many debates!
Did you get a chance to take at the link in #1609?
Yeah, click on the link again and look at the Replied video to this. It says something like, “Dawkins stumped let me explain”.
I got into a debate with him, and he kept citing different experiments that proved evolution, but I had to explain to him it took INTELLIGENCE to conduct those experiments.
They don’t get it and don’t WANT to.
That's because they are a bunch of brainwashed religious fanatics who are just as hell-bent on revolution as al-Qaida.
Dawkins was Gibsonized. Do you really think someone who has made a career of addressing questions about evolution—even if you think he’s wrong—wouldn’t be able to answer a questions that a half-dozen posters on this board have answered over and over?
The fact I have to face is that you’re so consumed by your anti-Darwin mania that you can’t even think straight. Come on, the guy talks about this stuff for a living and had just written a book dealing with the subject. It’s not a particularly shocking question—the subject comes up on these threads all the time. You think he’d never heard it before? Heck, you could probably come up with the evolutionist answer yourself, even though you think it’s wrong, if you’ve been paying attention here at all.
If your going to say I posted something, you better provide a link.“Furthermore, I have not been able to find a single scientific report from anyone else that says there is a 2.1 degree apparent angular displacement of the suns position.”“Fichori (sp?) posted it yesterday.”
Of course many Amish kids have a wild phase. They are largely sheltered. You make a valid point, actually. It is better to teach kids how to think rather than to shelter them. But sheltering is a two way street. I sheltered myself from anti-evolutionist debate. Thus I felt ignorant when I read Coulter’s chapter. Public school failed to prepare me.
I never claimed to be a creationist. In fact, I might have been the first on the internet to point out that the sun was not created on the first day and that ‘days’ of Genisis are not solar days.
The insult game works both ways. Slander is slander. The loaded question in the headline assumes that one who doesn’t believe in evolution is dumb. That has been disproven.
Going one step further, since it was proven, then suing educators who raise questions about evolution is Kelo level sick.
“[The Bible] was wrong in most instances but it is very important to have theories to test against.”
I would agree that the perspective of the prophets was ancient. They could see an airplane in a vision and think it was a flying beast. But that doesn’t discredit the Bible. It adds to the great Book’s wonder.
When I was a kid, I once tricked a friend into thinking that chess is an intelligence test. I know a lot of the basic tricks in chess. That poor friend was in awe of me. I later confessed. I had to play other games to get my friend’s self worth back up. Kind of the same thing here. Parents don’t have time to follow every detail of the evolution debate. That doesn’t mean they are dumb.
“You are in favor of teaching as SCIENCE that god is dead?”
If the parent wants his/her kid taught that there are UFOs which shoot poop into space, and that’s the source of all life, that’s their decision. If they want to block their kids from learning evolution, that’s their busines.
I have only one issue: teachers who aid in the delinquency of a minor — such as stealing to celebrate Quanza, or cutting off the heads of infidels. Other than that, I want the parent-teacher relationship left alone.
Got your link filed in my evolution folder. Thank you. =]
If I ever need more ammo, I’ll check it out:
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_109-115.pdf
FRegards ....
He didn’t even answer the question at all! He went into some explanation about evolution “misconceptions”.
I always wondered that myself. If a thousand years is like one day to god, then do the math.
LOL! Ok Dawkins.
Any number beyond a thousand was difficult for many ancients to conceive. They referred to a million as ‘a thousand thousand’. ‘Forty days and forty nights’ was a generalization. I wouldn’t be surprised if a thousand years also was.
Moving on to two more ‘dummies’ who don’t quite understand random evolution: Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. They won impressive awards and honors that could fill half a page. Oh and they were also atheists. But they’re like so many others, just ‘too dumb’ to get it.
Quote: Hoyle ran the numbers to determine the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. They concluded that the odds were 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes, or “so utterly minuscule “ as to make Darwin’s theory of evolution absurd.
Unquote — Godless page 211 [Coulter]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.