Video debates and Interviews

[M.Dancer]

  On 4/7/2011 at 12:36 AM, betsy said:

What do you mean "in a few days?" Haven't you noticed? I've been saying it all the time!

All the discussions I'm involved with in Religion - my arguments/rebuttals, not to mention the topics I've started point to the fact that there's no evidence for evolution!

So you have a theory that evolution doesn't exist....it is after all, an unproven theory...

But lets talk about interesting stuff....like the jewish zombie god...

Cup of blood anyone? Bit of flesh with that?

[betsy]

So Dawkins thinks Intelligent Design is legitimate. His beef is only what type of Designer.

Interview with Stein:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk

Edited April 7, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

  On 4/7/2011 at 12:36 AM, betsy said:

What do you mean "in a few days?" Haven't you noticed? I've been saying it all the time!

All the discussions I'm involved with in Religion - my arguments/rebuttals, not to mention the topics I've started point to the fact that there's no evidence for evolution!

And yet even your most direct claims have been refuted. Mutations add, alter and delete information from a genome.

[betsy]

  Quote

Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists

From Conservapedia

Atheist and evolutionist Richard DawkinsThe atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate creationists.[1]

When Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.[5] Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.[6]

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.[7] Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists refused to debate the

creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.[8]

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of Creation Ministries International is not surprising given that there are several instances of Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents.

In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the Huxley Memorial Debate. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach according to the college audience.[9][10] After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.[11][12] Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.[13

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12-14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, PZ Myers, et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.[17] ”

Richard Dawkins has offered some unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_public_refusal_to_debate_creationists

Edited April 7, 2011 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

Personally I don't see why anyone would debate creationists, ufo-ologists, new agers, homoeopaths, flat earthers, hollow earthers or maple leaf fans....

[GostHacked]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7cI_naNnEY

[GostHacked]

Just to be fair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKzr270FeNA

Edited April 7, 2011 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

[betsy]

  On 4/7/2011 at 1:13 AM, M.Dancer said:

Personally I don't see why anyone would debate creationists, ufo-ologists, new agers, homoeopaths, flat earthers, hollow earthers or maple leaf fans....

But you're not Dawkins, are you?

You're not Dawkins- who's getting high-profile publicity selling books spouting mumbo-jumbo, maligning Christianity.

Why is he afraid? For all his bravado, he ends up cowering. We all know why....it's because he can't stand confident on his own argument!

He is no longer a credible scientist.

[betsy]

If you write books attacking, smearing and maligning someone or something....don't be too sure no one's gonna challenge and try to prove you wrong.

If you know you are right, and you've got facts to back you up....why wouldn't face your challengers? What more when you're a scientist? And what more if you've got sceintific evidences. Surely you can prove them wrong.

Now if you're just full of baloney.....that's another story.

Edited April 7, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

  On 4/7/2011 at 1:43 AM, betsy said:

But you're not Dawkins, are you?

You're not Dawkins- who's getting high-profile publicity selling books spouting mumbo-jumbo, maligning Christianity.

Why is he afraid? For all his bravado, he ends up cowering. We all know why....it's because he can't stand confident on his own argument!

He is no longer a credible scientist.

Your focus on Dawkins and Hitchens alone have done you so much harm. Can I talk more about Kent Hovind? OH NO, only ATHIESTS have no morals.

[GostHacked]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xBlTIvHUME&feature=related

Missing spots = God did it.

The small arms means god has a sense of humour? That is some saddist sick humour leaving a creature defensless aside from those HUGE ASS SHARP TEETH. And a tail that can do some damage. Which also helps with it's balance when mobile.

Had a good laugh at this one.

Edit

Not to mention the dinosaur these guys are talking about most likely was a herbivor or a scavenger. Unlike it's bigger related cousin the T-Rex. Edited April 7, 2011 by GostHacked

[Bonam]

  On 4/7/2011 at 1:53 AM, GostHacked said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xBlTIvHUME&feature=related

Missing spots = God did it.

The small arms means god has a sense of humour? That is some saddist sick humour leaving a creature defensless aside from those HUGE ASS SHARP TEETH. And a tail that can do some damage. Which also helps with it's balance when mobile.

Had a good laugh at this one.

Edit

Not to mention the dinosaur these guys are talking about most likely was a herbivor or a scavenger. Unlike it's bigger related cousin the T-Rex.

I think they're claiming the T-Rex was also a scavenger. In any case, evolution is a natural process which slowly improves on things, as driven by environmental pressures. There is no reason to expect that the T-Rex could have or should have been a paragon of predators. In fact, it's obvious that it wasn't, given that it went extinct.

[GostHacked]

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:08 AM, Bonam said:

I think they're claiming the T-Rex was also a scavenger. In any case, evolution is a natural process which slowly improves on things, as driven by environmental pressures. There is no reason to expect that the T-Rex could have or should have been a paragon of predators. In fact, it's obvious that it wasn't, given that it went extinct.

There are lesser predators and greater predators. Could have been a scavenger mostly but a predator when the oppourtunity provides. But I get what you are saying.

[M.Dancer]

  On 4/7/2011 at 1:43 AM, betsy said:

Why is he afraid?

Unless he has admitted he is afraid, I am afraid that is conjecture on your part.

My own reasons are there is no point to debate fanatsy topics with people who believe in the tooth fairy. Mind you, if I was paid to, I would happily waste my time...

[M.Dancer]

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:08 AM, Bonam said:

In any case, evolution is a natural process which slowly improves on things, as driven by environmental pressures.

That is a common misconception. There is no evolutionary imperative to improve...like shit, evolution just happens...there have probably been more evolutionary changes that have been meaningless (neither beneficial or detrimental) than otherwise.

[Bonam]

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:23 AM, M.Dancer said:

That is a common misconception. There is no evolutionary imperative to improve...like shit, evolution just happens...there have probably been more evolutionary changes that have been meaningless (neither beneficial or detrimental) than otherwise.

The net effect, over time, is to produce species that are better adapted to their environment. That is "improvement". Individual mutations or novel gene combinations can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, but the pressure of natural selection ("survival of the fittest") selects those that are most adept at surviving and reproducing within a given environment.

[ToadBrother]

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:35 AM, Bonam said:

The net effect, over time, is to produce species that are better adapted to their environment. That is "improvement". Individual mutations or novel gene combinations can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, but the pressure of natural selection ("survival of the fittest") selects those that are most adept at surviving and reproducing within a given environment.

I don't like words like "better", they do tend to suggest there is an arrow to evolution. "Better" is a moving target, and what's more populations are constrained by the baggage of previous evolutionary pressures. Take a look at the human spine. It isn't completely adapted to bipedal locomotion, which is why back problems are so prevalent. Or the female pelvis. Bipedalism puts a constraint on how wide it can be, so the increases in brain size means that humans are born prematurely compared to other mammals, and require care much longer.

[GostHacked]

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:47 AM, ToadBrother said:

I don't like words like "better", they do tend to suggest there is an arrow to evolution. "Better" is a moving target, and what's more populations are constrained by the baggage of previous evolutionary pressures. Take a look at the human spine. It isn't completely adapted to bipedal locomotion, which is why back problems are so prevalent. Or the female pelvis. Bipedalism puts a constraint on how wide it can be, so the increases in brain size means that humans are born prematurely compared to other mammals, and require care much longer.

Well we might be in de-evolution. Our collective slothness and big stomachs put such a strain on that back, that has muscles we no longer use as much as we used to, sitting in that recliner watching the hypno-tube.

[ToadBrother]

  On 4/7/2011 at 1:07 AM, betsy said:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_public_refusal_to_debate_creationists

Wake me up when you have something against, say, Ernst Mayr.

[Bonam]

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:47 AM, ToadBrother said:

I don't like words like "better", they do tend to suggest there is an arrow to evolution.

There is. Evolution points forward, along the same direction as the arrow of time.

  Quote

"Better" is a moving target, and what's more populations are constrained by the baggage of previous evolutionary pressures.

True.

  Quote

Take a look at the human spine. It isn't completely adapted to bipedal locomotion, which is why back problems are so prevalent.

Yes, and if there was sufficient selection pressure for spines that were better adapted to bipedal locomotion, such spines would become more prevalent (over thousands / tens of thousands of years if it meant selecting for existing gene combinations or over millions of years if novel genetic information was required).

  Quote

Or the female pelvis. Bipedalism puts a constraint on how wide it can be, so the increases in brain size means that humans are born prematurely compared to other mammals, and require care much longer.

Yes, and yet bipedalism combined with large brains gave humans a substantial advantage in surviving in their environment: the capability for manipulating the environment to suit themselves through the use of tools and abstract thought and communication which allowed trans-generational preservation of non-genetic information. Evolutionary adaptations can certainly come with pros and cons. In the human case, birth difficulties and prolonged infanthood and childhood were clearly a small price to pay for the increased brainpower that allowed us to harness technology.

[ToadBrother]

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:57 AM, Bonam said:

There is. Evolution points forward, along the same direction as the arrow of time.

Well yes, but so does entropy. That's a semantic defense, not a meaningful one.

  Quote

Yes, and yet bipedalism combined with large brains gave humans a substantial advantage in surviving in their environment: the capability for manipulating the environment to suit themselves through the use of tools and abstract thought and communication which allowed trans-generational preservation of non-genetic information. Evolutionary adaptations can certainly come with pros and cons. In the human case, birth difficulties and prolonged infanthood and childhood were clearly a small price to pay for the increased brainpower that allowed us to harness technology.

It's worse than that. The pelvic limits and large brained infants pose massive risks to mother and baby, and create disproportionately large risks of death and injury. Infant and maternal mortality rates prior to the development of modern medicine and better natal health were monstrous, and still are in non-industrialized populations. You're right that selection pressures are such that the increased risks aren't selected against, but no optimum is reached, or can be reached. If the brain size increases over time, babies will have to be born earlier and earlier. Mind you, the fact that brain size has not really increased substantially over the last few hundred thousand years suggest that a equilibrium may have been reached.

Edited April 7, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:51 AM, GostHacked said:

Well we might be in de-evolution. Our collective slothness and big stomachs put such a strain on that back, that has muscles we no longer use as much as we used to, sitting in that recliner watching the hypno-tube.

That is still evolution, evolution to adapt to our present environment. For example, genes that make the heart stronger and able to not have a heart attack while supplying blood flow to your countless layers of fat become more valuable. Also, individuals with high basal metabolic rates likely have a strong positive selection pressure right now, since they remain fit easily in comparison to those with low basal metabolic rates. This is of course in direct contrast with earlier times in human evolution, when being able to go on little food was a survival factor.

[Bonam]

  On 4/7/2011 at 3:01 AM, ToadBrother said:

Well yes, but so does entropy. That's a semantic defense, not a meaningful one.

I don't see how it's not meaningful. Evolution acts to make species better adapted to their environment as times flows forward. This is obviously so. You don't see species that are worse and worse adapted to their environment becoming more prevalent over time. Such a backwards evolutionary process would result in the extinction of life.

  Quote

It's worse than that. The pelvic limits and large brained infants pose massive risks to mother and baby, and create disproportionately large risks of death and injury. Infant and maternal mortality rates prior to the development of modern medicine and better natal health were monstrous, and still are in non-industrialized populations.

Yes, and? The large brains were obviously sufficiently beneficial to be selected for despite the higher birth mortality rates and any other negative effects.

  Quote

You're right that selection pressures are such that the increased risks aren't selected against, but no optimum is reached, or can be reached. If the brain size increases over time, babies will have to be born earlier and earlier. Mind you, the fact that brain size has not really increased substantially over the last few hundred thousand years suggest that a equilibrium may have been reached.

If an equilibrium was reached, then that is the optimum, given the existing selection pressures.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

  On 4/7/2011 at 3:11 AM, Bonam said:

Evolution acts to make species better adapted to their environment as times flows forward.

No it doesn't.. evolution doesn't act...it is random but because the opportunities are so great, it becomes a question of odds that some mutation renders itself either benefiocial or detrimental and again it is only a question of odds that the mutation is passed along...

Evolution has no mind, no thought..if anything is acting...it is random chance.