Video debates and Interviews

[betsy]

Which does not give anyone license to simply make explanations up and call it science. That's what got the Dover school board slapped down in Federal Court.

Scientists who remain close-minded and afraid to leave their comfort zones to seek answers - like Dawkins and company - and who are blinded by their faith are not scientists.

They're paralyzed on spot. They don't want to know. They refuse to want to know.

Numerous rebukes from other scientists/philosophers, some from the evolution camp (as supported by my various articles) only show the narrow-mindedness of Dawkins and his supporters) who are blinded by their religious fervor in the belief of no-god. They're nothing more but similar in mentality to radical Islamists who see no other options than to insist "death to all infidels," or to looney-people professing religious faith in committing atrocities.

Scientists who remain open-minded and unhampered by bias are the true scientists.

Dover School got slapped simply because of secularism in our society. As explained by the author - an agnostic - of the original article The Church of the Non-Believers.

Edited April 13, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Betsy, you are not only my fave troll, you are my fave idiot.

[ToadBrother]

Scientists who remain close-minded and afraid to leave their comfort zones to seek answers - like Dawkins and company - and who are blinded by their faith are not scientists.

BS. Scientists go where the evidence points, not at every absurd idea out there.

They're paralyzed on spot. They don't want to know. They refuse to want to know.

You'll find most scientists don't give a damn abotu creationism because it was eliminated as an explanation over a century ago.

Do you think they should also revisit phlogiston?

Numerous rebukes from other scientists/philosophers, some from the evolution camp (as supported by my various articles) only show the narrow-mindedness of Dawkins and his supporters) who are blinded by their religious fervor in the belief of no-god. They're nothing more but similar in mentality to radical Islamists who see no other options than to insist "death to all infidels," or to looney-people professing religious faith in committing atrocities.

This is entirely besides the point. I will repeat, I do not care what Dawkins says. Continually going back to that shows just how afraid YOU are.

Scientists who remain open-minded and unhampered by bias are the true scientists.

Scientists who follow the evidence, and not some idiotic interpretation of Genesis because they're faith is to weak to adapt are the real scientists.

Dover School got slapped simply because of secularism in our society. As explained by the author - an agnostic - of the original article The Church of the Non-Believers.

They got slapped because they lied under oath. You might actually want to read the transcripts. At least three of the members of the board perjured themselves, one even claiming an oxycontin addiction as the cause.

[betsy]

Which does not give anyone license to simply make explanations up and call it science.

Right on!

Numerous frauds and hoaxes came from evolutionists in their desperate attempt to have proof of evolution.

Not to mention damning rebukes and insights from scientists....

Although Lewontin wants the public to accept science as the only source of truth, he freely admits that mainstream science itself is not free of the hokum that Sagan so often found in fringe science. As examples he cites three influential scientists who are particularly successful at writing for the public: E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Lewis Thomas, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.

According to a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, the dean of British neo-Darwinists, "the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."

http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_unraveling.html

Sadly, science had been tainted by these pseudo-scientists who are nothing more than quacks!

The following statement says a lot about the credibility of science.

whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.

They'd willingly kept quiet about it simply because he's on their side against creationist.

So the question is....what else did they remain silent about?

[betsy]

BS. Scientists go where the evidence points, not at every absurd idea out there.

hah!

Although Lewontin wants the public to accept science as the only source of truth, he freely admits that mainstream science itself is not free of the hokum that Sagan so often found in fringe science. As examples he cites three influential scientists who are particularly successful at writing for the public: E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Lewis Thomas, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.

According to a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, the dean of British neo-Darwinists, "the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."

http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_unraveling.html

[betsy]

This is entirely besides the point. I will repeat, I do not care what Dawkins says. Continually going back to that shows just how afraid YOU are.

For someone who allegedly doesn't care about Dawkins, you seem to go out of your way to get the discussion away from him....hmmmm

Look at her squirm. She hasn't even posted some out-of-context quote or some other tired anti-Dawkins copy-and-paste rant.

At any rate, it's amusing to see you moving on with your bizarre and pointless anti-Dawkins campaign.

But I do care what Dawkins say because of his fame and influence....and I'm focused on him simply because of his bigotry against Christianity.

[ToadBrother]

Right on!

Numerous frauds and hoaxes came from evolutionists in their desperate attempt to have proof of evolution.

Not to mention damning rebukes and insights from scientists....

http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_unraveling.html

Sadly, science had been tainted by these pseudo-scientists who are nothing more than quacks!

The following statement says a lot about the credibility of science.

They'd willingly kept quiet about it simply because he's on their side against creationist.

So the question is....what else did they remain silent about?

More tired and dishonest quote mining.

I will repeat again, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution. You're basically calling almost to the man every scientist a fraud.

And your evidence is quote mines? Hell, you don't even know what ERVs. I openly challenge you to name the books on evolution you've actually read? Can you even give an accurate single-sentence description of evolution? I can. Let's see if you actually know anything.

[betsy]

More tired and dishonest quote mining.

Quote-mining my foot! That's all you cry about. That's a well-known, tired, worn out, auto-defense move by radical atheists!

Prove it then that Lewontin did not write what I quoted above regarding Dawkins!

If you say I'm quote-mining with that quote I used....then prove it.

Edited April 16, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

What seems to be lost on some of these folks is that I'm not arguing about the details of evolution. There is a thread or two for that I believe.

This thread is showing what a big fraud and hypocrite Dawkins (and company) is. Their questionable method tainted science. No wonder some scientists have come out openly to rebuke or criticize him.

And please, I don't ask you to take my word for it. I don't make threads like this without any support to my arguments. As the title suggests, they come by video debates, articles and interviews. By the looks of it....I don't see the end in sight. There's so many things yet to come out.

Edited April 16, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

I am not the one seeking truth. In my view, I've already found it.

Then why are you so insecure about it that you have to troll Internet forums refuting Dawkins?

[betsy]

Then why are you so insecure about it that you have to troll Internet forums refuting Dawkins?

I told you. Because of his fame and influence to promote his bigotry against Christianity!

That must be one of the reasons how Hitler managed to rise up to power. When someone said boo at his rally - they told him to shut up and stop trolling!

TROLL takes on a whole new meaning when someone is bringing up arguments that's hard to rebutt!

What I want to know is: why are you guys so worried that I'm refuting Dawkins???

Edited April 16, 2011 by betsy

[dre]

I told you. Because of his fame and influence to promote his bigotry against Christianity!

That must be one of the reasons how Hitler managed to rise up to power. When someone said boo at his rally - they told him to shut up and stop trolling!

TROLL takes on a whole new meaning when someone is bringing up arguments that's hard to rebutt!

What I want to know is: why are you guys so worried that I'm refuting Dawkins???

First of all you arent refuting Dawkins. And nobody is "worried" about it... most just dont think hes all that relevant. Hes an author that writes books for money...his books are not even scientific works, hes just some dude (albeit a pretty smart and knowledgable one) with an opinion, and I dont see any evidence that his books are changing anybodies minds on any large scale.

Hes just your personal boogey man and obsession. Why would you expect anyone else to be all that interested?

I think the only reason anyone even replies to most of your disjointed sophormoric rants is to point your consistant intellectual dishonesty and the pathetic level of understand you have of the topics which you seem passionate about. If you care so much about this stuff, you could at least spend some time learning the ABC's.

TROLL takes on a whole new meaning when someone is bringing up arguments that's hard to rebutt!

Yeah... well keep an eye out for that.

Edited April 16, 2011 by dre

[betsy]

Hes just your personal boogey man and obsession. Why would you expect anyone else to be all that interested?

You'r here wasting your time responding, ain't ya?

[betsy]

Hes just your personal boogey man and obsession. Why would you expect anyone else to be all that interested?

You'r here wasting your time responding, ain't ya?

And you keep coming back!

[dre]

And you keep coming back!

Im just here to laugh at you like everyone else is, Betsy

[betsy]

Im just here to laugh at you like everyone else is, Betsy

Entertainment must be hard to come by for you. I'm glad to be of assistance.

[BubberMiley]

I told you. Because of his fame and influence to promote his bigotry against Christianity!

I never heard of him before you I became familiar with your personal obsession with him.

I wonder why you worry so much that some atheist is threatening your faith.

Sounds like you're in a personal battle yourself and you're just projecting.

[betsy]

I never heard of him before you I became familiar with your personal obsession with him.

I wonder why you worry so much that some atheist is threatening your faith.

Sounds like you're in a personal battle yourself and you're just projecting.

Where have you been? I thought you're following the discussion. You got lots of catching up to do. Sorry, can't waste time trying to keep you abreast. You're on your own.

[betsy]

deleted. moved.

Edited April 18, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Excerpts from the Letter by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to Dawkins

May 4, 2008

Dr. Richard Dawkins

University of Oxford

United Kingdom

Dear Richard,

I am in receipt of your open letter of May 2.

Perhaps it was providence that your letter was posted on your website on World Holocaust Remembrance Day. Are you really so callous? Have you developed such uncontrollable loathing to people of faith that you would equate a Rabbi who was your friend and who hosted you at his home and at so many public forums and debates to a monster who killed six million Jews and bombed the people of England mercilessly?

As to your point that the video of the Oxford debate, which you denied ever happened and which your atheism side lost, is not on my website, please look on the left-hand column of my home page. Significant portions of the debate have also been posted on YouTube.

Now, to respond to your other allegations point by point, you say that you were not assailing me in your posting. And then, a line later, you say that I was never affiliated with Oxford University and that I misled attendees at one of my lectures when I claimed to have debated you. You were attacking and attempting to discredit me, Richard, so let's not play games.

The organization I ran for 11 years at Oxford, the L'Chaim Society, was one of the largest student organizations in the University's history, which is why you agreed to participate in approximately five of our large debates. It was an official University Society for most of the time I was there, with Dr. Joshua Silver, your physics colleague from your very own College, New College, serving as its senior member. As you also know, Richard, far from our organization simply setting up shop, as you put it, we had a huge impact at the University, had thousands of student members, regularly hosted large joint events with the Oxford Union, and hosted some of the most influential people in the world, including luminaries like Mikhail Gorbachev, Prof. Steven Hawking, and Elie Wiesel, which is why, I would assume, you were honored to lecture for us on so many occasions, both in Oxford and in London.

So here we are. You and I did debate. You lost that debate, which is no big deal because, as we both know, debates are more about entertainment than serious scholarship and, as we Americans have seen in our presidential primaries, one day Hillary Clinton will win a debate, and the next day Barack Obama will. I take no pride in saying you lost, and indeed, until you denied that the debate ever took place, I had not before harped on the outcome.

Unlike you, I see no deep fissure between science and religion. The Biblical story of creation relates that a supreme intelligence gave rise to the world in a manner that would easily accord with evolution, beginning with inanimate matter and slowly ascending through the vegetable, animal, and human spheres. What perhaps separates us is that you believe all this happened through random mutation and natural selection, and I instead focus on the mathematical improbability of such complex life ever arising spontaneously and without guidance.

Since we were once friends, and since we both have a responsibility to act justly and humanely, I propose a follow-up to our debate, either here in the United States or in the UK, to focus on your recent book on atheism and whether G-d is necessary for morality. Since, in your letter, you mention my "lamentable but vocally confident ignorance of Darwinian evolution," no doubt you will make mincemeat of me and even the score. I would appreciate if you would propose dates that are suitable. When we meet face-to-face, you will find in me someone who wishes to rekindle our friendship, and who, well before the Toronto debate, contacted you many times to meet up when I visited the UK but received no response.

Now Richard, if you can dish it out, you have to be prepared for us religious boobs to defend our pitiful selves when attacked. And the correct response is not to accuse us of being Hitler when we bring intelligent rejoinders. Rather, I would advise you to behave scientifically and to respond to us on the merits of our arguments.

More....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html

[cybercoma]

Can you even give an accurate single-sentence description of evolution? I can. Let's see if you actually know anything.

I'm still waiitng on this one.

[BubberMiley]

Where have you been? I thought you're following the discussion. You got lots of catching up to do. Sorry, can't waste time trying to keep you abreast. You're on your own.

That's true. Like most atheists, I don't spend my time worrying about what I can't know, so I don't follow the debates like you do.

I would say you're a lot more interested in knowing more about atheism than I am.

Hmmm....

[dre]

That's true. Like most atheists, I don't spend my time worrying about what I can't know, so I don't follow the debates like you do.

I would say you're a lot more interested in knowing more about atheism than I am.

Hmmm....

I think Betsy actually represents progress, and the extent to which modern civilization has been able to force the abrahamites to behave. When the church was in charge a guy like Dawkins would have been burned, or drowned, or given a life time sentence under house arrest like they did when Galileo dared to write a book denying that the universe revolved around the earth.

And while her logic is just as confused and tortured as that of the Christians that insisted the world WAS the center of the universe shes behaving much better! She just rants on some message board and acts all confused.

Thats progress man!

[betsy]

That's true. Like most atheists, I don't spend my time worrying about what I can't know, so I don't follow the debates like you do.

I would say you're a lot more interested in knowing more about atheism than I am.

Hmmm....

Well, I thought you've got to know something about what you're arguing about. That's only sensible....unless of course you intend to make up facts or invent your way through the whole discussion. Er....fill-in-the-gaps method, so they say.

Dawkins was slammed for not understanding Christianity or other religions well enough!

Actually I don't follow the debates. I got hooked on a few only after Dre gave the link to Dawkins vs Wright from the other thread. You could say Dre got me into it!

The rest of videos and other stuffs I'm giving out now are just products of various articles I've been stumbling on after reading the original article on "The Church of the Non-believers."

The bigotry of Dawkins and the founding of his New Atheism is what got me quite interested in him. Since I've never really bothered with popular science books, I never imagined he was like this! It's like opening Pandora's box for me.

If this focus is called obsession....then I must be obsessed. I myself thought that it's uselessly juvenile to reason with emotions alone in mature discussions. That personal opinions don't carry too much weight in topics such as this since most of them are inaccurate ramblings and distorted versions of what they don't actually know.

I thought it's only sensible and credible argument and rebuttal to support what I claim, foolish me.

Edited April 17, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Well, I thought you've got to know something about what you're arguing about. That's only sensible....unless of course you intend to make up facts or invent your way through the whole discussion. Er....fill-in-the-gaps method, so they say.

Dawkins was slammed for not understanding Christianity or other religions well enough!

But I'm not arguing about anything. I'm just enjoying the freak show, and watching the crippled christian try and get back on track.