What PBS doesn't want you to see

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=F-yEu-b_YD0

That's a decent one

 

[DaveSimmons]

Our President just recently went to church with his family (A used to regularly attend before becoming President). Funny we don't see the anti-religion folks posting anything about him.

Once again, Creationism in the sense it is normally used, and used in the OP, is rejection of evolution, natural selection, carbon dating, etc. and is belief that God made pretty much all species appear at once in the recent past, with the dinosaurs being wiped out because they wouldn't fit on the ark. It's taking the story of Genesis as literal truth with a day being the current 24 hours.

That rejection of natural law is NOT required belief for Christians. Even the Catholic church accepts that the natural law of the universe that their God created includes evolution. They just hold that mankind is a special case where their God intervened directly to sidestep natural law (just as with miracles).

(Note: I'm an agnostic myself.)

 

[IronWing]

It should be rather obvious, but I was simply pointing out through example that you can be a Christian and a scientist. Christianity has abetted science, not hindered it. Just look at how science fluorished after the Reformation.

But this point has nothing to do with the creationist drivel with which you opened this thread.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo < watch this its actually interesting.

If questions from "religious people" are so easy to handle, then why do evolutionists routinely duck debates with creationists?

World atheist convention rejects Australian creationist debate challenge

http://creation.com/global-atheists-reject-debate-challenge

Since this is about as public an anti-God pretension as there could be, and one based on a claim to rational argument, we sent an open letter of invitation/challenge to the convention organisers. This was for a public creation-evolution debate, offering for it to be formally videotaped with each side freely able to distribute it, regardless of the outcome. They were to be permitted to have a panel of their choice of atheists (preferably including Dawkins) formally debate the issue&#8212;of whether the evidence best supports creation or evolution&#8212;against our choice of CMI staff scientists.

Global atheists turn down debate

We got a rejection back the same day&#8212;which didn&#8217;t surprise us, except for possibly the speed.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

..with the dinosaurs being wiped out because they wouldn't fit on the ark

Haven't heard that one before.

 

[IronWing]

If questions from "religious people" are so easy to handle, then why do evolutionists routinely duck debates with creationists?

World atheist convention rejects Australian creationist debate challenge

http://creation.com/global-atheists-reject-debate-challenge

Since this is about as public an anti-God pretension as there could be, and one based on a claim to rational argument, we sent an open letter of invitation/challenge to the convention organisers. This was for a public creation-evolution debate, offering for it to be formally videotaped with each side freely able to distribute it, regardless of the outcome. They were to be permitted to have a panel of their choice of atheists (preferably including Dawkins) formally debate the issue&#8212;of whether the evidence best supports creation or evolution&#8212;against our choice of CMI staff scientists.

Global atheists turn down debate

We got a rejection back the same day&#8212;which didn&#8217;t surprise us, except for possibly the speed.

Perhaps the organizers didn't wish to take time out of their conference to address a fringe group of religious.

I have to say though that I can't help but think attending that international atheist conference would be anything but three days of boredom mixed with annoyance.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Richard Dawkins and his crusade

Photo <www.expelledthemovie.com>​

Richard Dawkins


As quoted on the site of the 2010 Melbourne Global Atheist Convention, Dawkins states:
&#8220;The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science &#8230; We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance &#8230; &#8221;
Translation: We have to spend a lot of time and money fighting the creationists (who are winning hearts and minds) and defending evolution.

SO WHY WON&#8217;T THEY DO SO IN AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM? ONE WITH CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS WILLING TO FLY DOWN TO WHERE THEY ARE&#8212;A FORUM WHERE, UNLIKE IN THE ATHEISTS&#8217;/SKEPTICS&#8217; BOOKS AND ARTICLES, ARGUMENTS CAN BE REBUTTED IN THE OPEN LIGHT OF DAY.

Dawkins himself, while in Australia in March 2010, will also be holding a public lecture in Brisbane, home of CMI-Australia. The venue bills him as one who, via his latest book The Greatest Show on Earth, &#8220;comprehensively rebuts the creationists by pulling together the incontrovertible evidence for evolution.&#8221;

In addition to highlighting this pointed refusal to debate the issues, CMI will, prior to Dawkins&#8217; arrival, be releasing a new book by Dr Jonathan Sarfati comprehensively rebutting the best that Dawkins could come up with on evolution, the intellectual foundation stone of his atheism. Stay tuned!

Curiously, Dawkins says that he refuses to debate creationists simply because it gives them prestige. Yet, he has gone ahead and debated some &#8216;creationists&#8217; while insisting that he would not debate creationists. Since he insists that he will not debate creationists even while debating some, he is obviously picking and choosing those he considers to be easy targets or those who he knows will not effectively counter his evolutionism.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Perhaps the organizers didn't wish to take time out of their conference to address a fringe group of religious.

I have to say though that I can't help but think attending that international atheist conference would be anything but three days of boredom mixed with annoyance.

Here's the response from PZ Myers from the atheist group to the request for a debate. Very classy indeed.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php

"I thought long and hard about this request…I'm sure I spent hundreds of milliseconds wrestling over it. I also thought about how to respond appropriately, given that Creation Ministries International is a Christian organization. Here's my answer to Carl Wieland."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If such a debate were scheduled I'd like the concession rights for earplugs and alcohol.

 

[Fenixgoon]

read, "POV"

immediately clicked on link

Zipped pants back up

Sad face

hahahahaha

 

[grrl]

Neffing in a troll thread.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Trolling in a neffing thread with random Youtube link.

 

[allisolm]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is supposed to be.

According to the OP it's supposed to be about some nefarious tinfoil hat plot by the PBS to keep knowledge away from the public. Of course the OP hasn't mentioned that since the first post which means it falls in the usual PJW religious troll thread category.

 

[Anubis]

how the hell did they get a 30 min video on YT, the limit was 10 min until recently when it went to 15 min?

 

[Jeff7]

No one click on the OP's link. If he knows what it's about, he should be able to explain it himself. :awe:

how the hell did they get a 30 min video on YT, the limit was 10 min until recently when it went to 15 min?

1h29m.

 

[IronWing]

Here's the response from PZ Myers from the atheist group to the request for a debate. Very classy indeed.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php

"I thought long and hard about this request…I'm sure I spent hundreds of milliseconds wrestling over it. I also thought about how to respond appropriately, given that Creation Ministries International is a Christian organization. Here's my answer to Carl Wieland."

Consistent with your self-agrandizing theology you have attempted to place creationism as the center piece of the atheist world view. In fact, creationism is more like a mosquito, no one cares about it unless it is buzzing around one's ears or trying suck one's blood.

 

[Robor]

Ban.

:thumbsup:

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

According to the OP it's supposed to be about some nefarious tinfoil hat plot by the PBS to keep knowledge away from the public. Of course the OP hasn't mentioned that since the first post which means it falls in the usual PJW religious troll thread category.

What more is there to say? PBS aired one side of the argument and refused requests to air the video I provided.

I never said that it was a "nefarious" plot.

This is a thread about origins, not religion. I beleive that the designer of the universe is the Christian God, but you can believe in ID and and have any concept of the designer you want. I can't help it if others want to turn my threads into religion. When they do, I do my best to respond.

Apparently, you've made up your mind that anything I post is a "religious troll thread". Even if it is, and it isn't, athesist troll threads are far more numerous than religous troll threads.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

By the way, biology text books = fail. They contain false and misleading information about evolution.

How does it feel to be brainwashed by your educational system?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/TexasPrelim.pdf

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Consistent with your self-agrandizing theology you have attempted to place creationism as the center piece of the atheist world view. In fact, creationism is more like a mosquito, no one cares about it unless it is buzzing around one's ears or trying suck one's blood.

Why would atheist want to make origins the centerpiece of their world view, as there position on the subject has no merit? Atheists duck debating proponents of ID because they have an untenable argument. They wish the issue would just go away.

 

[IronWing]

Why would atheist want to make origins the centerpiece of their world view, as there position on the subject has no merit? Atheists duck debating proponents of ID because they have an untenable argument. They wish the issue would just go away.

That was my point, they don't. Hence they didn't invite the mosquitoes to the picnic. Your grasp of logic is as weak as your grasp of science.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

By the way, biology text books = fail. They contain false and misleading information about evolution.

How does it feel to be brainwashed by your educational system?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/TexasPrelim.pdf

PJW, I was intrigued by some of your posts in previous threads on evolution where you seemed to be able to keep your cool better than many pro-evolution militant atheists, & was impressed enough by some of your comments to invite you to my lab in Madison so you could see what real, non-extremist evolutionary biology is all about. However, your recent posts are really nothing more than trolls where you deliberately bait rabid non-believers into pointless invective-laden internet arguments. Pity you have nothing better to do with your time. You're not changing anyone's mind here.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

That was my point, they don't. Hence they didn't invite the mosquitoes to the picnic. Your grasp of logic is as weak as your grasp of science.

No, they don't and I explained why in my post. There was no problem at all with my logic.

If atheists have a superior position on the topic of origins than proponents of ID, why are they unwilling to debate them in a public forum?

Why does Dawkins say he is unwiling to debate so as not to lend credence to his oponents, then reverses himself and debates patsies? Thereson that they don't want to debate is that have an untenable position and public debate would show how bankrupt their ideas are.

If you hold a position that can't stand the scrutiny of the light of day, maybe you need to re-think the position.

 

[Jeff7]

By the way, biology text books = fail. They contain false and misleading information about evolution.
...

Agreed. They speak nothing of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is clearly more valid than any other creation story. I even have physical evidence of the existence of spaghetti, right in my own kitchen.

No, they don't and I explained why in my post. There was no problem at all with my logic.

If atheists have a superior position on the topic of origins than proponents of ID, why are they unwilling to debate them in a public forum?

Why does Dawkins say he is unwiling to debate so as not to lend credence to his oponents, then reverses himself and debates patsies? Thereson that they don't want to debate is that have an untenable position and public debate would show how bankrupt their ideas are.

If you hold a position that can't stand the scrutiny of the light of day, maybe you need to re-think the position.

And NASA doesn't debate the nutjobs who say that there are aliens on Mars, or who say that the Moon landings were faked. Debate against fairy tales and delusions is pointless.

 

[IronWing]

No, they don't and I explained why in my post. There was no problem at all with my logic.

If atheists have a superior position on the topic of origins than proponents of ID, why are they unwilling to debate them in a public forum?

Why does Dawkins say he is unwiling to debate so as not to lend credence to his oponents, then reverses himself and debates patsies? Thereson that they don't want to debate is that have an untenable position and public debate would show how bankrupt their ideas are.

If you hold a position that can't stand the scrutiny of the light of day, maybe you need to re-think the position.

It's their convention, not a public forum. I wouldn't expect an accounting conference to accept a presentation by creationists anymore than I would the atheists. Now back to the topic of private sector embrace of creationist principles or more specifically the lack there of. Can you suggest a single real world useful aspect of creationism?