No one disputes that. Although I'm not sure you know what it means
Mars Bars and Crisps then. The similarity is fake and only due to location.the anology would be better if you said Mars Bars and Snickers are both made of Chocolate
Now you're just taking the pi55.Now can the theory of evolution be proven? After all, it is called the theory of evolution in acknowledgment of the fact that it is not a confirmed scientific law.
Last edited by Dreadful Scathe; 14th-October-2008 at 04:37 PM.
There are some people who post in this forum who apparently take it for granted that because they have not been able to persuade me, or produce arguments strong enough to oblige me, to change my views, that must be because I'm dogmatic.
Such faith in the unanswerable nature of their own arguments is enviable.
I have a theory, Stewart. My theory is that Jean Harlow is dead.
Now, I didn't see her die. It's entirely possible that no-one who can directly assure me that they saw her corpse (or even who could give indirect evidence as to the circumstances) is still alive. Therefore, in order to prove that Jean Harlow was dead I will have to use some documentary evidence - mostly secondary - and draw some all-but-inescapable conclusions therefrom, in order to satisfy a sceptic that she is, in fact, with the choir invisibule.
Evidence such as: news reports, possibly a death certificate from the Public Records Office, maybe pointing to the fact that everybody who knew her acted exactly as if she was dead for the 20 years or so after she died.
In fact, I would be in exactly the same position as someone who was having to show that there is every reason to conclude that evolution is a true hypothesis, and no reason to conclude that it is an untrue hypothesis.
Just because you don't see something happen or have any eye-witnesses to question, doesn't mean you can't draw iron-clad conclusions.
My main challenge to geoff332 in the first place was to his abject failure to accurately, or even loosely, characterise the central arguments in TGD, and thence to attack the remarks he made about Dawkins' approach to the subject of the book.
The thing about debate was very much secondary, and I'm afraid I was not sufficiently hard on myself in respect of my attempt to avoid invective, because I want to feel good about being grown-up about this, but I couldn't resist giving hints about what I had been thinking of writing. It may be that if I had left all that out, geoff wouldn't have been so gosh-darned cross and maybe 7 pages of posts could have been shortened. A learning experience.
E-N-N-Y-W-A-Y-Y-Y...
I acknowledged there was a debate about whether creationism/ID should be taught as an alternative to evolution, but I remain convinced that to use the word 'debate' about the direct argument between the two camps is to deprive the word of useful meaning. Otherwise it becomes indistinguishable from a handful of other words and phrases which have the position pretty much covered - argument, difference of opinion, dispute, row, etc.
The fact that, e.g, Time magazine or Wikipedia use the term in that sense is not - really, really - not any good evidence that there is a debate. The Americans are very hung up on free speech, and (unless they are themselves a politician and trying to smear other politicians by pretending that a current trivial relationship with someone who was in a terrorist organisation 35 years ago is the same thing as being a terrorist) they are still hung up on this idea that you have to respect what people say. This leaks out into thinking that you cannot be scathing about foolish statements.
I say that's rubbish. I don't respect what people say when they say things that are patently barking. I don't respect people simply because they exist - except in the trivial sense that I don't dishonour them either. Respect is either given to those who have earned it or it becomes worthless. Respecting everybody is in some senses indistinguishable from being indifferent to everybody.
When I write something stupid, I fully expect to have someone challenge me. When I write something someone else thinks is stupid, I remain perfectly content for them to challenge me - and I will defend my position. You can be sure I won't respond by whingeing that they ought to show respect for what I write just because it was something written and that it was written by someone; still less will I be claiming that respect is due to me in particular.
If you want to see the flaws of Hitchens' militant Atheism exposed Barry (and I think we both know that you don't - but there maybe others reading who are prepared to watch this video without prejudice but with an open mind ) I'd highly recommend this video of said Mr Christopher Hitchens debating Dinesh D'Souza.
Intercollegiate Studies Institute - Flash Video Player
Phew. That was long.
I didn't see any flaws in the atheism. Most of what he said made absolute sense to me. Tho I hold my hand up and say I am an agnostic more than anything else. Any specific flaws you saw we can start a new thread about ?
On the other hand, D'Souza didn't really seem to have an argument other than 'science doesn't have all the answers so that makes religion right'.
D'Souza? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
The guy is the most dishonest debater I have ever come across (well, with one exception: see below about his ex-girlfriend). Given the man's educational background I find it very difficult to believe that he believes the absolute drivel in the arguments he spouts. That makes him dishonest. If I'm wrong, then he seriously pulled the wool over the eyes of the tutors at the educational institutions he attended.
I find it equally hard to believe that he does not - like his ex-girlfriend Ann Coulter - simply say the most outrageous and despicable things he can think in order to make money by being 'in demand' as an 'entertaining' debater.
Dinesh D'Souza would have difficulty 'exposing the flaws' in German National Socialism.
But Will - thanks for thinking of me, and thanks for the link.
I like this on a blog
-----------
According to Hitchens, morality is nothing but a chemical reaction in the brain," ."If right and wrong is determined by instinct, than it means we're nothing more than genetic meat puppets dangling from the strings of our DNA!"
And if you accept that maybe you will start to appreciate the life you have and stop telling others how to live theirs
----------------------
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks