Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Don't Like#3

[lucyfanclub]

What an articulate and intelligent person.

[powerinstars6]

I love what she says about critical thinking.

[1Skeptik1]

Well done Barbara, insightful and honest, most refreshing.

Thank you.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Clearly, Ms. Forrest believes modern science has disproven God exists. And if she had her way, we would all abandon our superstitious beliefs. And would become as enlightened as she is. But she's not as smart as she thinks she is. Because if it wasn't for the Declaration of Independence, we wouldn't have any inalienable rights from our Creator. But only alienable civil rights granted by government that can be taken away by them just as were given. As a philosopher, you'd think she'd know that !

[Articorse]

Hello, dear alien, I come from the planet Earth.

I'd like to learn more of this creator of yours, who seems to adhere to documents written by your own kind.

It's a pity the god most people from my planet follow doesn't really listen when they speak to him.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Dear friend,

Sarcasm does not become you.

And unless you are a Bulgarian who has immigrated to America, then what concern is it of yours that our founding documents were framed upon the belief in a Creator from Whom our rights are inherent from ?

[Articorse]

I'm sorry about the sarcasm, I'll try to be serious now.

The fact that your documents reference a deity doesn't negate the fact that it's the documents that give you these rights. The deity doesn't intervene when these rights are broken - hence it either doesn't exist, or it wasn't the one to give them in the first place.

As for whether I live in the US - no, I don't. However, I dislike ignorance in all its forms. Also, the USA is the most inflential country in the world, whether we like it

[Articorse]

or not. So anything that your country starts to encourage - my stupid, ignorant, copycat government will try to replicate.

Again, I apologize for the sarcasm earlier, but please don't try to twist the work of brilliant men into something so trivial.

And for the record - I agree that if Barbara Forrest had her way, you'd abandon all superstitous beliefs. And that is just what I'm saying.

Live life and be a moral person. Do you really need to read what's good and bad in a 2000 year old book?

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I agree we should respect & be kind to one another just because we all live together on the same planet. But I will never concede our rights come from government. They must be inherent to us antecedent of government. Even if they merely are inherent to us from nature, because we are in fact part of nature's creation. Because otherwise we will never be anything other than government slaves.

[Articorse]

The fact that you don't accept it, doesn't make it true, unfortunately.

You seem a reasonable person, and I'm sorry if I seem condescending, but no matter how much you want something to be true, it doesn't make it so. The thing is that no rules, rights, privilages, duties or morals are 'inherent'. There is the inherent biological conscience that stops us from killing each other and makes us help each other, but that's about it. From there on, it's all subjective.

Don't get me wrong, I think

[Articorse]

that most of the morals our global society has come to accept are great - we should help each other whenever possible, we should never hurt each other, unless that leads to a net benefit in the long run, etc.

But as wonderful as these morals are, they're manmade.

And so is government. The original idea behind government, or at least your government, is to serve the people. Not to rule over them, but to uphold these very values we both cherish so much.

I believe your founding fathers had this

[Articorse]

in mind: whenever the people feel they are becoming slaves of the government - they should rise up and reform the government to again represent the needs, wants and right of the people.

Anyway, I recommend you listen carefully to what Dr. Barbara Forrest has to say. She is smarter than you give her credit for. She makes no appeals to emotion, no unjustified claims - only appeals to reason.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because in America we are born with certain unalienable rights that are inherent to us antecedent of government. That's what our Declaration of Independence says. It even says they are inherent from a divine Creator. But does not say God. And postulates they may just as well be inherent from nature itself. And no matter how much evolutionistic humanists don't want that to be the case, doesn't change the fact. Nor do I hold much regard for Ms Forrest.

[Articorse]

Like I said - even if they are inherent from a creator, said creator doesn't enforce them, hence we have to look out for them ourselves. That is the part that government is supposed to play. I'm not saying it's actually playing that part, but that's the original idea.

Also, evolution has nothing to say on government, I don't understand how you even managed to include it in this discussion. 'Evolutionistic humanists', as a group, have no views on government.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I agree it is our responsibility to know & defend our rights. Unfortunately we know nor do neither. And I blame government ran public education for that. Which is an equally viable response to the views (or lack thereof) held by evolutionistic humanists. Which lends to what I originally said, that as a philosopher, you'd think Barbara Forrest would know that.

[Articorse]

I lost your train of thought here.

I don't understand the term evolutionistic humanist. One suggest they support the theory of evolution, one of the most supported theories in the history of science, so it doesn't really mean much to be 'evolutionistic', while the other suggests they hold humans in the highest regard - again I find nothing negative here.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Evolutionism denies God by attempting to explain the origin of species apart from God. Making science their own god of sorts in effect. And humanists also deny God holding themselves in the highest regard. And so neither group wants to concede, as you don't, that our rights are inherent to us antecedent of government.

[Articorse]

No, evolution doesn't make science into a god. The denial of one god doesn't mean it has to be replaced by another. Even if that were the case, how do you explain the fact that there are so many theists, who believe fully in evolution? The catholic church, for example, accepts evolution as a proven fact.

I still don't understand the term 'humanist', though, you seem to be using it as a substitute for 'atheist', which it is not.

And like I said - whether our rights are descendent from a god is

[Articorse]

completely irrelevant, because said god doesn't enforce them, therefore the government must look out for them.

Maybe it'll matter once we're dead, I don't know what your philosophy on that is, but it doesn't matter one bit while we're here.

I'm not trying to prove to you that god doesn't exist, or that evolution is true, simply to point out that our rights are being enforced by the government, no matter where they came from.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

The primary function of government is to preserve & safeguard our rights. And not bestow them upon us. Nor to incrementally erode them either.

[abyssquick]

@JustAboutMyFaith Yes, but the Deistic God of our founding fathers. This nation was founded at the height of Deism, which is a rather specific form of Theism. I don't think, judging from your opinions above, that using the founding fathers' use of the word "creator" is prudent historically, to support your point of view. these men were inventors, scientists, intellectuals. They certainly didn't have the fundamentalist sway you seem to have. I suggest taking interest in history, to remedy this.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I am not a religious fundamentalist. And I have studied evolution, natural history, theology, and American history for probably as many years as you've been alive.

[abyssquick]

@JustAboutMyFaith -- you need only wear the shoe if it fits. Obviously, I am going by impressions - hardly a fitting sample. Hence my tentative wording.

You yet overlooked my entire point, and deferred me to an argument from authority. "I'm probably older than you" is not in any sense scientific. It is actually the antithesis of the very scientific thinking you declare yourself to have cultivated thoroughly.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

When I used the word "probably" I was being tentative then too. But now I see you are an impudent youngster.

[abyssquick]

@JustAboutMyFaith - The word "probably" does not absolve the authoritarian intent of your last criticism, or it's unscientific nature. Still, you are ignoring my points entirely. Completely.

My age is irrelevant, suffice to say I'm not a "youngster." If you presume "being older" somehow makes opinions more valid... then I really don't know what to say. In my experience, intellectual depth depends on the -content- of what a person says (not the source's elevated consideration of itself).

[patrickledford420]

@JustAboutMyFaith you know "faith" means beleif without evidence right? you kinda make yourself look stupid or willfuly ignorant with that name

[JustAboutMyFaith]

@patrickledford420 Really ? And I'm supposed to take anything seriously coming from someone evidently on a perpetual 420 break ?

[CaptChrisT]

lol we rational people always sound kind of paranoid when we say Intelligent Design is creationism in disguise. Not saying that it isn't of course.

[Escuerd]

My sister (in TX) had a biology teacher (also a Baptist preacher) who would bring up a bunch of creationist/ID talking points in class.

I told my sister (who has studied a good bit independently) that I thought it might be good for her to teach her to think independently of authority and to question what her teachers say.

Of course, it's disgusting that all it will do for all (or almost all) of the other students is confirm their prejudices and deprive them of a thorough education in biology.

[jenblumfeld]

4:39: "So, you've got some 15-year-old with acne telling you how to understand what you teach." LOL, creationist fools.

[FHB71]

But isn't that really sad that a science teacher is not able to answer a few challenging questions. I have to admit the questions are tough, but I as a scientist have good answers for all of them instantly and I can also see the rethorical tricks within the questions. So I can expect any serious science teacher to know answers for them and let the acne boys and girls believing in ID look like what they are deluded morons ;-)

[TheProf1988]

trouble is, science teachers have to have a broad knowledge of all fields of science so they wont understand evolution at the detail that a biologist with an evolution dedicated field

[FHB71]

Yes, but it is not that hard to answer the questions asked, they just require some basic understanding. I am no biologist, too, but just my common sense and undestanding of it is enough and I am neither more clever than the average nor the opposite.

[TheProf1988]

yeah, i do see where your coming from, the teachers are supposed to be the ones with the answers lol. its the function of their occupation

[FHB71]

... yes, but when I remember school ... :-) Most of my teachers where not really enthusiastic enough, they just did their job. I do not think that they would have been able to explain it.

[TheProf1988]

agreed.

[DracoReincarnated]

Gah! Grammar error at 8:21!

NO DAMN QUESTION MARK! =)

[OpenDiscussion]

censorship test

[OpenDiscussion]

censorship test result: PASS

[thechessstick]

Is this Barbara Forrest chick Jewish? She seems to have a real hatred towards Christians. Does anyone know? The Stick!!

[Swa6543]

Wrong cheesestick- She's exposing the hatred and contempt Christian creationists have for evolution and the constitution! Christians are trying to abolish evolution and circumvent our constitution and are fascist assholes! So aim that accusation where it belongs!!

[EarlFaulk]

Man you posted this same crap in part 2. You are obviously one of the christians who hates having their beliefs questioned she talked about in part 2. All she said that there is a segment of the christian population that cannot accomodate science findings into their religion, ie fundamentals.

[thechessstick]

Hello Faulk. Are you related to Peter Falk. He is a great Jewish actor. Anyway, any young earth creationist invites scientific inquiry. They do get a bit upset at evolution be foisted upon the generally ignorant American public as being science. Evolution is obviously a religious belief and should be treated as such and U.S. tax dollars should not be used to promote it. Evolution is actually just a lie from the devil and is being spread by his sheep such as Barbara Forrest. ...The Stick!!!

[EarlFaulk]

Actually Faulk is an abbreviation of my last name, a belief huh? Welcome to my ignore list, I dont bother debating with creationists.

[tattypatty]

I agree. I really get mad when my doctor foisted medicine and radiation on me when I had cancer. He should have just had me pray or repent for whatever I'd done to make god mad. I'm furious when they put epileptics on meds, too. Haven't these eggheads heard of exorcism?

[TheProf1988]

you come across as nothing more than a bigoted nazi

[TheProf1988]

cant remember what this was a response to...?

[DonsonJack]

She´s Hot

Of course i agree with her as well :D

[newalbion]

"...a 15-year-old with acne..." She might have added: "and half a brain". The Kitzmiller/Dover ruling by Judge Jones will only slow the ID/Creationists down, but unfortunately not stop them. Not only hope springs eternal but also stupidity.

[xxxjppjxxx]

Excellent video, 5 stars.