The thumbnail is hilarious, seems to suggest that Hitchens superior intellect is so great that inferior Hitchens needs to read it several times before comprehending it.
No problem to teach darwinism in faith schools. The odd thing is that if God is the logos e.g. reason/logic of the universe he would have known the outcome of evolution so it is still within a logic design framework. Would be frigtening if evolution would lead to an irrational outcome. Dawkins might eventually have to eat his hat(e) once he recognises that evolution and the entire universe is governed by one logic, the word of God, e.g love thy neighbour, and selfishnes being the deadly sin.
Something tells me if you took Peter's extreme Christian views a Squeshed them into Christopher's extreme right-wingism you would create a force unto fox news that what would be a rival for leadership lol maybe there is a god and created this super being and said... nah that's too much and separated them into two beings to fight over for the good of mankind as a whole lol. I swear if Peter favored bush and repubs the way chris did O'Rielly would have a run for his money.
No scientific theory is 'absolute truth', they are the best evidence-based and continually tested and improved, falsifiable explanations of the world. Intelligent design offers no method, no disproof and is the result of marrying an argument from ignorance to begging the question. ID is just creationism with a lab coat. Evolution theory might be proved false, but special creation/design is already known to be wrong.
Chris makes a good point here. Intelligent Design, good theory though it is, is scientific, but also theological. It oughtn't be taught alongside Darwinism.
Then again, I don't think public education is such a good idea. Homeschooling and private? Sure. But if you are required to be educated, let it be controlled by the parents, not by the State. I don't think I like public school. It's violent and uneducational (except in peer pressure).
@GenghisKhan44 It's not a good theory, natural selection has been shown to be true by the various authroites on science from which every school should teach the findings of.
@GenghisKhan44 Intelligent design has absolutely nothing scientific about it. It predicts absolutely nothing, and it derives its theories from incredibly childish deductive reasoning.
In 2003, for the first time that CH knows about the US intervened in Iraq on the right side. That's his point. Just because every US action leading up to that time was heinous and even the motivations and deceptions employed in the actual invasion can be seen as heinous does not dispute the fact that Saddam Hussein's removal was the only shining light in the whole sordid affair. It was the only slice of goodness. Otherwise I defy any one to write down that they wish he was back in power in Iraq.
When anyone says I.D. has merit, they prove they know very little about evolution.
For all those people: You can lie to children about the origin of life, but the evidence for evolution will always increase, and scientific analysis will win in the end. Future generations will have a vast database of evidence, both fossilized and genetic, to compare and describe our early ancestors.
NOT to intervene in Iraq would have been an imperialist move? Hitchens, please.
On the subject of the war in Iraq, C.Hitchens has totally disgraced himself. He sounds pathetic any time he tries to apologize for the neocon gang that plunged the US into the war.
On the subject of religion, C.Hitchens is no different than fundamentalist preachers. I’m not religious, but I can’t stand Hitchens’ atheist demagoguery nonetheless.
@AdamSzm He just points out all of the fallacies in religious belief while still supporting the idea of free thought. I disagree partially with his support of the war, but i cannot disagree with his logic about religion. The difference between CH and a fundie preacher (cant believe that any rational person and even make that statement) is that Hitchens does not base his argument on something that can be neither disproven nor proven. His arguments can be objectively critiqued
@haz020190 Peter got his religion when he was in his 40s, he and his Jewish wife both converted. Christopher's atheism has nothing to do with his childhood.
In our shop we have 3 or 4 titles by Mr Dawkins, 2 titles refuting "The God Delusion". Then we have 2 shelves worth of books devoted to Christianity or famous X-ian types, many variations on the bible, couple of prayer books. What else? Half a shelf in the kid's section. After that a smattering of Buddhism, then the token Jewish and Muslim titles. It's a small shop, obviously. Then numerous X-ian inspired classics. It's a hotbed of enlightenment, humanist and atheist belief. uh. obviously.
Creationist propaganda is most certainly not suppressed there are dozen of books by authors of absolutely no credentials discussing it. It's religious, not scientific, it's just that simple. And when the time comes when it will be hard to find books mentioning instantaneous creation (besides perhaps the bible, but let us hope that that smut will soon be suppressed as well) it won't be because of a global conspiracy, it will because like flat-Earth theory no one wishes to drag up dead concepts.
Peter failed to mention that these bookstores which do not carry texts on intelligent design also do not carry serious scientific discussions in support of alchemy, astrology, or necromancy. Damn these secular liberals with their so-call [air quotes] science and logic [/air_quotes].
Yes, Religion IS imposed intolerably onto those who either disbelieve in God, or believe in a Religion that differs immensely with a Christian God at schools. The pledge of allegiance is but one of the many impositions used; and I needn't delve why that's wrong.
But I'll do so willingly.
Never did I stand during the pledge of allegiance, unless I wanted a "lovely" trip to the Principal office for disobedience. It's solely my right to believe what I choose to believe in.
I haven't thought about the Pledge of Allegiance for years until I read your comment. Looking back in retrospect, what a fucking weird thing that was.
It's comical that Peter thinks there's a meaningful distinction between "bone-headed literalist creationism" and intelligent design. At least a distinction in anything but the interior decorating.
@supruzr It is not comical but rather pitiful that you would laugh, failing to apprehend the difference between the belief that God created the universe as a child might build a little castle with a bunch of building blocks and the idea that God designed a set of rules under which the building blocks of the universe interact. The first is literalist creationism and the second is intelligent design.
As C. Hitchens said, it was the CIA who originally funded and helped install the Saddam Hussein wing of the Ba'ath party. Saddam then used that power to setup a dictatorship, taking control of Iraq and proceeding to invade Kuwait while attempting to gain power in Syria. During which the Kurdish people were being slaughtered en masse. The Ba'ath party are the imperialists here. And since we'd mistakenly helped them gain power in the first place it was our responsibility to put an end to it.
Saddam Hussein was nothing more than the Arabic Manuel Noriega.
Interpret that to mean I'm agreeing with you, except for the small part about "we'd mistakenly helped them", where you seem to be attempting to paint the US government as like some kind of "Wow, I was totally not aware they were doing that" group. That's just not true, sonny jim.
While it's true that helping them WAS a mistake, it's not true that the US government did not have full knowledge of what they were doing. They did.
How exactly did you manage to gather all that from such a simple statement? Firstly, I wasn't referring specifically to the US Government when I said "we'd". You're not the only country indebted to the Middle East.
Also, regardless of your government's awareness of the situation (which I never mentioned) it changes nothing. If that's the case then it was an even worse mistake - to which the Western world would be indebted even more so. Please, spare me your assumptions next time.
Perhaps if it acted more humanely in world affairs, the image of American imperialism would wane. It's not enough to resurrect a straw man in the argument. Incidentally, I'd regard America's late entry into World War II as an example of its role as "defender" of democratic principles. I would not regard it in imperialistic terms. Ergo, Hitchens is talking rubbish.
Moreover, the hypothetical decision not to invade hardly leads to the designation of a country as imperialistic. I'd imagine that most would agree that a country's decision not to impinge upon the borders of another is far from imperial in any sense. As we now know, America (and its poodle, Britain) were trying to protect their own strategic interests. Both countries fought for international supremacy and oil, nothing more. To find contrariwise is to have your eyes fastened shut.
ok straight away u seem like someone who spends too long purving over conspiracy theories on the internet. when you don't do anything to a country when it shits all over its people then there is a choice to itnervene or not to intervene. A lot of the time we don't intervene, why? well because the regime is a puppet, which was happening under Kissinger. Now are you saying this wasn't imperialist?? Not doing anything has proven to be the most imperialist acts of all, if u know much about history
Example? Conspiracist? Hmm, so you honestly (honestly) believe that America, even given its decision to remove the democratically elected Allende of Chile, its highly unethical funding of the Nicaraguan Contras, its smear campaign of the democratically elected Chavez (who, incidentally, sits on a huge oil-hulking landmass), is to be regarded in an ethical light? Can it stand tall after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? Invasion is never acceptable unless it is agreed internationally. Period.
I wasn't condoning any of those events in South America, they were certainly imperialist but then every time there's an intervention or non-intervention then it's called imperialist? Again with the examples you gave, I'll refer you back to Kissinger. But Kissinger also sustained Saddam Hussain so would u then say not doing anything was imperialist as well?
Also the international community did nothing to help Rwanda, Sudan, Serbia (NATO had to help with that) etc, so u wud have done nothing?
Furthermore, the argument that the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to save the Iraqi people was made void when Blair clearly said on a number of occasions that the USA and UK would not invade Iraq if Saadam disarmed.
Like BeholdZeus said, the invasion of Iraq was for strategic reasons rather than humanitarian.
That's actually not the point. The reason that the US/UK invaded was because of WMD but a JUSTIFICATION of the continuance of that is indeed to end oppression, torture and mass deaths by a sadistic dictator
Your memory is failing you. The United Nations sent in inspectors who were messed about and denied access to certain sites by Saddam. You have also forgotten that Saddam had already used WMDs on the kurds, killing over 100,000 people. Iraq was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and previous resolutions calling on him to give up WMDs. Once the invasion began, the invading forces had the legal obligation to leave only when Iraq had become stable. and governable.
"Saddam had already used WMDs on the kurds, killing over 100,000 people"
I don't know why you are talking about the Kurds since that was in the late 80's. Just because he used WMDs then does not mean he had them in 2003.
"The United Nations sent in inspectors who were messed about and denied access to certain sites"
Those same inspectors said in 2003 and 1998 that Iraq did not have WMDs that constituted a threat. So don't make it out as if their opinon was important.
Halabja proved Saddam had WMDs and was prepared to use them. After 1988 the US assisted Iraq in a disposal of other WMDs. If there was no possibility of WMDs in Iraq then why were the UN's inspectors instructed to search for them. You seem to be arguing against yourself. With hindsight this is easy to stand on a soap-box about. At the time, however, there was a justifiable suspicion that there were WMDs in Iraq. So there was a point in bringing it up, but it is one that you refuse to acknowledge
Again. If he was such a threat in 1988 then they would have invaded then. The fact is, they didn't bother till 15 years later. So 1988 has nothing to do with it.
Ok. The Weapons Inspectors had said pre 2003 that 90-95% of all weapons were accounted for. Blix said he needed several more months, which were not given.
All programs were dead. That was said by the UN inspectors pre 2003.
Bush said they were still producing WMDs and stockpiling. Wrong.
The weapons inspectors that were in Iraq had made claims before 2003 that Iraq had stopped its weapons programme and that most of its arsenary had been destroyed.
Bush claimed that they were continuing to produce and stockpile WMDs. Wrong.
Furthermore, on March 7 2003, Blix said they would only need a couple of months to inspect Iraqi Sites fully. That time was not given and their advice was ignored.
And Bush said that one of his greatest regrets in office was the failure of US intelligence in Iraq. However, check your facts, the inspectors had not finished their inspections in 2003 when the invasion began.
All of this is frankly a circular argument. It is always easy to criticise such actions with hindsight. It never cease to amaze me that people such as you seem to argue a pro-Saddam argument.
I am still mystified when a theist calls a religious "theory" skeptical in an attempt to make it sound scientific and credible while making the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection seem dogmatic and religious. It is a Cartmanesque example of mental acrobatics.
Are you serious? From a British perspective, there was no argument to be made. The war was out and out illegal. To date the Lancet, Iraq Body Count and other organizations have collated that over 1,000,000 people have been killed since the war began (though, to my mind, further statistics were added from the beginning of US led sanctions). If you call that progress, I'm sorry, but I'd have to disagree with you. No WMDs, No Exit Strategy. IRAQ = A War for Oil, nothing more.
"Theory of Intelligent Design" = Scientific Hypothesis of Intelligent Design which has no worthwhile reputation. Now that is the title theory that the Creationist keep pushing. While Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which is known as a fact, that all the details are still to be known of.
Not to be dogmatic, but it is a "theory," and like any theory it is subject to change. Ergo, it contains facts AND inconsistencies. BUT as Dawkins contends, "it is still the best theory we have" to explain how life came to be as it now is. Hence, until it is bettered by another theoretical postulation, it is all that we have.
It will always be the theory of evolution, because the base concept of evolution is proven. The details, and sub theories may change (genetic drift, and how much natural selection plays a roll), but evolution itself is more solid than the theory of gravity.
The key is that "God dun it" is not a responsible or plausible answer ANYONE should be willing to accept. The ancient Greeks were known for using gods to explain everything, and now we are using science to find the real answers.
And I agree with you, most assuredly. No one should accept the dubious if not impoverished hypothesis that God "dun it" as you say. But you are wrong about the Greeks. Did Democritus, Leucippus, Thales, Anaximander, believe that the Gods were responsible for all created matter? Did they even believe in creation ex nihilio? No, they did not. Was the One of Plato and Aristotle God per se? No, it was not. The Greeks you must be speaking off were those not yet enlightened.
That is a rudderless argument. We have cathedrals spread throughout the world. Does that mean that all our scientists and philosophers are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus No. In every generation there are those flattered by fables and those scornful of their content. We are not more intelligent than the early Greeks were. Our knowledge has simply been added to. Roman senators most likely used religion as a toy with which to enslave their audiences
Moreover, science is not the study of ontology. Philosophy, in many ways, is. Science addresses the "how" things came to be: philosophy, the "why" they came to be. Science addresses the material and iterative functions of life. Philosophy addresses the purposefulness of the finished investigation. Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy dealing with "essential" qualities of life, deals with questions of "being"; what it is, what is means to be, what being is in relation to others.
The theories are the how, as are the laws. Philosophy asks what the laws mean for us as human beings. It discusses how we might live together, how knowledge should function in society; it questions whether we can know anything at all. It questions whether there is universal goodness, truth, beauty. Trust me, it is far from defunct. Indeed, philosophy first gave birth to physics and thence science. The analytics of philosophy are the analytics of science.
The problem for the United States if it is an Empire is to avoid the folly of a Universal Empire after which then comes the fall of the Empire, is Iraq the high point of this.
I support the idealiims of hitchens wanting the war but the reality on the ground is a diaster and may cause the end of the US hegemony.
The rise of the EU and Germany is the result and for all the best reasons I welcome this.
The EU is the biggest exporter and the new superpower. Zionism in the US must be limited.
Under no circumstances was the Iraq war justifiable. I buy the argument that the people were living under a dictator, but it is up to those people to chose to through off the bonds of oppression. Remember, the US gave the very chemical weapons they were looking for to Sadam in the first place - these weapons were used in the Iraqi campaign against Iran. Why didn't they topple him then? Because he was a strategic asset. My friend, OIL was the primary reason for the invasion of iraq.
intelligent design attempts to refute evolution while providing no reasonable scientific alternative. it seemingly explains how life came about, but at the same time explains nothing, because the premise ends up being "this part we dont understand, hence god did it", and once this plugging of science with religion comesinto play, its all over. evolution shouls be attacked and critiqued until it can be no more, i agree. but by evidence and science, not by religious jealousy.
Yeah, I agree with what some people have said here. Peter outright and plain lies when he says there are no books about ID or that it is not allowed to publish them. There are LOADS. I can name many, I even own some myself to see what their points actually are.
Peters position is weak enough, but outright lying really shows his colors.
Christopher Hitchens is just full of rhetoric, floating around on a cloud of whimsical 6-syllable words, his showmanship in front of the masses easily out does his brother, but his Brother is substance and doesn't rely on subtle little snide remarks and jeering to support his arguments. Read some Peter Hitchens it is purely common sense.
Not really. I find nothing of note or use in Peters Blog. Maybe instead of displaying your impression of big words you have trouble with, you could tell us what peter says you think is so true or what Christopher has said that is so false. Actual points is much better than ad hominem so I invite you to try some.
We call it a theory because there are still open questions and the model is not complete. The same can be said of gravity. We know exactly what gravity does and how it behaves, but we can't say for certainty what it actually is. That's not the case with evolution, for which we already have a more complete picture of than for gravity.
If it's an idea someone has that has not been tested, we call it hypothesis. Big difference.
skepticism towards the theory of evolution does not give the green light to make up things and spin them off as science. if ID could come up with any testable model, they would have a case - as it stands now, they don't.
What creationists dosent realize is what theory really means, it does not mean "Something i can think of". A theory is a model for how something works. A theory that can predict a future event and also that can be simulated and tested in an experiment of sorts. Creationism is not a theory, even if you bend the the term theory to fit creationism its not nor could ever be a scientific one. No creationism in science class until they can show a working model.
Christopher has realized the monetary benefits of being an intellectual Englishman in America. He loves the adoration of being the naughty boy in the family. If he was chocolate, he would eat himself.
God, this guy at the beginning licks Christopher Hitchen's arse. I can see why he moved to America rather than stay in Britain where no-one takes him seriously anymore.
Ah ad hominem instead of an actual point. How weak. Christopher has explained his reasons very clearly for why he has moved. Maybe you should read them before just making things up?
Darwinists refute teaching fiction in science classes. Well what the fuck do you think? IDer's are being "suppressed" because they are something rational people like to call FLAT FACED WRONG.
Oh, and Peter Hitchens has nothing worthwhile to say.
Just a typical moronic creationist. He may have no idea how the 'realm of nature' took its present shape, but i'd say a fair few of us have some quite decent dot-points to refer to on the subject.
I hope people understand that the "theory" in the theory of intelligent design does not refer to a scientific theory. There is a very big difference between scientific theory and general theory. ID is most certainly not scientific theory, as the theory of evolution most certainly is a scientific theory.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution = all life evolving from a single common ancestor.
Creation = all life being designed by God, if you try to create totally new animals by crossbreeding animals from different "family groups" of animals you'll have no success. There are limits to variation, dogs will always be dogs, cats cats etc and always have been.
Genesis 1 isn't to be taken literally -_- If you do you will have loads of trouble understanding it seeing as on certain days - he does the same thing as before. Why would he do the same thing twice? It doesnt show when the days end. It doesnt say the 7th day has ended. Like we can still enter God's rest today
Same thing - two different days. Now try to take that literally?
But ultimately it basically says God made everything. It is a piece of near eastern ancient literature, and downplays the false beliefs of other people at the time for example the babylonians. Saying how is was the one true God that formed and filled 'everything'. I don't mean to sound too liberal but it is clear if you think about it
With respect, you are wrong about that. Genesis Ch 1 V 3 - 5 God is saying let there be light in V 14 - 19 He is creating the Sun, stars and moon. The light that lit the Earth in the first 3 days was the 'light of God'. God showed something very unique at the start and will show itagain at the end. Compare these verses Revelation 21:23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. also Revelation 22:5
Even the English is sadly lacking in a linguistic context. Why would god say "Let there be light?" Let = please allow; surely god would command "there will be light"? And what is the distinction you are trying to draw between the light of the sun and 'god's light'. Surely if god illuminates things he has no need to instruct himself to permit it to illuminate other matters? You are showing yourself to be contemptibly daft.
You dont seem to realise that the account was not written in English anyway, but in Hebrew. Furthermore, English cannot sum up in a few words what some Hebrew words can describe on their own.
The word in question is ' yehiy 'or'. Some say it could mean, 'let it exist'.
Even the word we use, Amen, means 'let it be so'.
Which in real terms is a command but it is also an agreement.
If you read the first verses of the Gospel of John, you'll realise that God is not one dimentional like you or I, but spoke the world into being through His Word, who is a person. Jesus.
there is absolutely no historical evidence of jesus's existence. There is absolutely no proof that that child is the same man that we see at 30. Not a single historian or geographer or scibe of the time didn't write a single thing about Jesus. Now how can it be that scibes, historians, and geographers would write in detail about the escapades of Ceasar's daughter but fail to write anything about the virgin birth, and the miracles going on? It's all religious bullshit.
Josephus' Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) "Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When ----->
---> Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today. "
aladon friend, I have read the bible very carefully and i know it quite well, also I have read enough of quran too to know it is the same bullshit magnified to great extremes.
religions are bullshit.
judaism is god 1.0, christianity is god 2.0, and islam is god 3.0.
sorry you still need to give me some proof of any nonsense you defend, but I know you can't because to believe, means you have no proof, else it wouldn't be a belief anymore. try reading some real books eh
My Christianity is based on facts not assertions. Which evidence do you base your life choices on? I'll tell you, you base your choisce of belief on what you have been force fed by atheistic scholars who are detrmined to drag a whole generation into their philosophical world view.
You are force fed and dont even recognise the fact. The media, schools, colleges give you nothing else to consume, so therefore you are forced to take what they give you. A good example; I was watching World Cup Football the other day and after the game, they drifted into some mad production about evolution in Africa etc as if it was FACT. That is force feeding the world with the the theory of evolution.
You are conditioned and boxed off and dont even see
Buddy, I don't watch TV, didn't go to college. I'm about as uninfluenced as you can be.
You aren't being force fed anything. You're just a scared, naive, confused person.
Evolution via natural selection is not only the best account of natural history, it's the only account worth consideration.
I'm not "boxed off", or "conditioned" like you think. I don't have a naive bone in my body. I'm skeptical of EVERYTHING. You're telling me to open my mind up to possibilities, HA!
Listen, you dont have to go to college or watch TV. My point is that evolution has captivated the minds of just about everyone. Even though most people couldn't tell you the first thing about it. They just believe it becasue they are told to or are expected to. It's called 'conformity'.
If you dont 'conform' you are labelled as weird, wrong, stupid, blind etc.
People are not given the choice, (in science) to explore other possibilities even though evolution is very poor in evidence. Evolution is very well presented in School and on TV but for those who wish to dig a little deeper in the subject, it is a frustratingly fruitless experience.
Even when evidence points to Biblical accuracy, it is explained away in any other way the imagination can muster.
So, science is very poor on evidence. Yet, you just said "Even when evidence points to biblical accuracy.
So, science doesn't use that stuff called evidence, yet when evidence (assuming it's scientific evidence, you're speaking of) is pointing to biblical accuracy.... Then it's REAL evidence, right?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The evidence is, that evolution by natural selection IS proven beyond any serious, or reasonable doubt. It's a fact. Science is true.
"evolution by natural selection IS proven beyond any serious, or reasonable doubt. It's a fact."
Thats the problem, it isn't proven at all. It's actually unprovable and that in itself shows me that you are seriously conditioned and dont really understand the science that is involved in evolution.
And this conversation can go nowhere because you refuse to even try to learn something, or check these "TOTALLY BOGUS" theories out.
All you've done is made yourself look dumb to people who are so much more intelligent and know for a fact that you're flat out wrong, Incorrect, Facilely detected, and probably laughed at. I know I get a good laugh every time you reply.
But honestly, it really does pain me to witness such severe gross ignorance and depravity. That's why I reply.
You should challenge yourself to at least try and study some of the journals from creation scientists. You'll probably not do that becasue you'll discount it as a fairy story etc, but that shows that you are unscientific. To only look at one side of the presented evidence is unscientific
I know more about creationism than I want. I know more about religion than anyone should want to know. Honestly, it's not even very interesting. The only reason I bother studying it is because of the ill effects religion causes.
You know nothing about science, though. That much is certainly clear.
What's hilarious about you silly creationists is, you always try bluffing some sort of profound knowledge of science. It's immediately proven false when you deny evolution.
Listen aladdin. I don't have the time, nor the patience to sit and play games with sad little people on the interwebz. It's been fun, but it must end, unfortunately.
Take some time to actually read and comprehend some of the immensely accurate and profound information you are foolishly attempting to discard, or discredit. The evolution of the eye is very convoluted and takes a sharp mind and a lot of a patience to comprehend. Patience and comprehension, you should work on those.
first of, evolution is proven many times. two months ago again. They found a fish that within 100 generations could evolve in a other species.
The eye evolved in a few million years which is short.
And indeed: given enough time, anything can happen is not science. but that isn't evolution. Everything consist of constants: Action reaction,: Causality. Science is has proven that over and over again therefor:
for every reaction there has to be a action. therefore there is no god
First off. Saying evolution is provenb, doesn't prove that it is. It simply isnt. Only people that roam the halls of Youtube seeem to think so. Scientists dont.
This is just going in circles. You are correct, I dont understand evolution, because it is not possible to understand the impossible. Maybe you meant I dont understand the ttheory of evolution! So lets see, if I dont agree with you then automatically I am rendered as having no knowledge on the subject?
Atheists have this arrogance that 'they are correct' and people of faith are just idiots.
My previous statement shows understanding that evolution IS NOT what you cited
@aladon1965 You don't understand evolution because you somehow believe that the ultimate goal of evolution is to create a new species. It is not. There is no goal to evolution.
This is ignoring the fact you confuse evolution with Natural Selection. Evolution is fact, genes change. Farmers have been exploiting this fact for centuries, that's where we get dairy cows from, the modern banana, various breeds of dog.
@aladon1965 Now, on natural selection. Natural Selection is the mechanism by which evolution is 'regulated' in nature. A species which is more successful at reproducing will continue to reproduce and dominate its competitors who are less successful.
The result isn't a new species at all, it is simply being able to survive in an environment more effectively than competitors, in order that you might reproduce.
Academically flawless? So how old do you think the world is? If your answer is anything over 10000 years old then you are a hypocrite. Which you are anyway as the world is 4.6 billion years old.
Radioactive clocks based on the half life of certain isotopes eg. Potassium Argon dating or on a smaller scale Carbon dating. Even dendrochronology can go back further than 6000 years. Look these up on wikipedia if you dont believe me.
I didnt quote wikipedia, I recommended that you look up those things on wikipedia. By the way, wikipedia happens to be extremely accurate in spite of the fact that it is user generated. It is rigidly maintained.
Yeah let's use common sense. Light is coming to us from millions of light years away, concluding that the universe is millions of years old. Tadaa! Wasn't that hard? Common sense proves you wrong.
"A paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including physicist Paul Davies) claiming that light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe'. If this is proven, then your common sense has done you no good in this case.
Most nuclear processes are mathematically related to the speed of light, a faster c might well mean a faster rate of radioactive decay, explaining much of the evidence used to justify the billions of years of geological hypothesizing."
2nd century ad means at least 200 years after Jesus's time, and luckily for us, there were certain civilizations at that time that were fully able of documenting historical events like the Romans the Illyrians the Chinese even somewhat the Egyptians, yet somehow it is always the illiterate in the middle east where miracles and gods are born. Judaism, christianity and islam.
The thumbnail is hilarious, seems to suggest that Hitchens superior intellect is so great that inferior Hitchens needs to read it several times before comprehending it.
VampirePraemium 5 days ago
No problem to teach darwinism in faith schools. The odd thing is that if God is the logos e.g. reason/logic of the universe he would have known the outcome of evolution so it is still within a logic design framework. Would be frigtening if evolution would lead to an irrational outcome. Dawkins might eventually have to eat his hat(e) once he recognises that evolution and the entire universe is governed by one logic, the word of God, e.g love thy neighbour, and selfishnes being the deadly sin.
fourteatwo 1 week ago
nor has you! rofl
MyMyMyAccount 2 weeks ago
I've spent ten parts of this debate being very curious about this thumbnail.
Raydienz 2 weeks ago
Something tells me if you took Peter's extreme Christian views a Squeshed them into Christopher's extreme right-wingism you would create a force unto fox news that what would be a rival for leadership lol maybe there is a god and created this super being and said... nah that's too much and separated them into two beings to fight over for the good of mankind as a whole lol. I swear if Peter favored bush and repubs the way chris did O'Rielly would have a run for his money.
MajorDestruction 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from HauensteinCenter
Science IS skepticism.
undisputedgreatest 1 month ago
Hitchens imperial argument....@_@. He sounds like my dad saying evolution theory is just as credible as creation science. This is where he loses me.
mikejpete 3 months ago
No scientific theory is 'absolute truth', they are the best evidence-based and continually tested and improved, falsifiable explanations of the world. Intelligent design offers no method, no disproof and is the result of marrying an argument from ignorance to begging the question. ID is just creationism with a lab coat. Evolution theory might be proved false, but special creation/design is already known to be wrong.
JaguarEscarlata 4 months ago
@MusicHypno You do know that the big bang has a similar problem.
XxWallZzxXZ 6 months ago
pffff, intelligent desing isnt interesting at all, and theres plenty of errors that have been found in evolution, and corrected
MGsven 7 months ago
Chris makes a good point here. Intelligent Design, good theory though it is, is scientific, but also theological. It oughtn't be taught alongside Darwinism.
Then again, I don't think public education is such a good idea. Homeschooling and private? Sure. But if you are required to be educated, let it be controlled by the parents, not by the State. I don't think I like public school. It's violent and uneducational (except in peer pressure).
GenghisKhan44 7 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 It's not a good theory, natural selection has been shown to be true by the various authroites on science from which every school should teach the findings of.
Coolguyrob2006 7 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 Intelligent design has absolutely nothing scientific about it. It predicts absolutely nothing, and it derives its theories from incredibly childish deductive reasoning.
Emaniac69 6 months ago 2
He could stop whit that claping hand manipulation
jurecar 7 months ago
An intimidating clarity belongs to the thought of Christipher Hitchens
GeorgesBarras 7 months ago
"Ssssssssssssssssssssss"
Saitothesushi 8 months ago
Oh wow, there is quite a variance in mental capabilities among those brothers!
Jotto999 8 months ago
In 2003, for the first time that CH knows about the US intervened in Iraq on the right side. That's his point. Just because every US action leading up to that time was heinous and even the motivations and deceptions employed in the actual invasion can be seen as heinous does not dispute the fact that Saddam Hussein's removal was the only shining light in the whole sordid affair. It was the only slice of goodness. Otherwise I defy any one to write down that they wish he was back in power in Iraq.
jimmybillabong 9 months ago
When anyone says I.D. has merit, they prove they know very little about evolution.
For all those people: You can lie to children about the origin of life, but the evidence for evolution will always increase, and scientific analysis will win in the end. Future generations will have a vast database of evidence, both fossilized and genetic, to compare and describe our early ancestors.
northoforacle 11 months ago
OMG My ears! Peter is cutting my ears apart! The whistling cuts like a plasma beam!
Manyhigh 11 months ago 4
Comment removed
hemlock91 11 months ago
NOT to intervene in Iraq would have been an imperialist move? Hitchens, please.
On the subject of the war in Iraq, C.Hitchens has totally disgraced himself. He sounds pathetic any time he tries to apologize for the neocon gang that plunged the US into the war.
On the subject of religion, C.Hitchens is no different than fundamentalist preachers. I’m not religious, but I can’t stand Hitchens’ atheist demagoguery nonetheless.
AdamSzm 11 months ago
@AdamSzm He just points out all of the fallacies in religious belief while still supporting the idea of free thought. I disagree partially with his support of the war, but i cannot disagree with his logic about religion. The difference between CH and a fundie preacher (cant believe that any rational person and even make that statement) is that Hitchens does not base his argument on something that can be neither disproven nor proven. His arguments can be objectively critiqued
Romo201988 8 months ago
how can peter grow up alongside chris and still end up like this? its insane!!
haz020190 1 year ago
@haz020190 Peter got his religion when he was in his 40s, he and his Jewish wife both converted. Christopher's atheism has nothing to do with his childhood.
shawndimery 5 months ago
The point about Imperialism is one of the cleverest I've heard advocating the war.
Nizlopi2 1 year ago
I agree with Hitchens about religion, but I agree with Hitchens about the war.
jacksawild 1 year ago 3
Hitchen's response here is truly masterful
aweiss 1 year ago
"I think there is a difference between launching an aggressive war and not doing so."
Spot on.
hugoegbert79 1 year ago
CH: Do you think that ID is a case that has merit?
PH: Yes.
How can one be so simple-minded with a sibling of whom is quite the opposite!?
tomroutledge 1 year ago 7
In our shop we have 3 or 4 titles by Mr Dawkins, 2 titles refuting "The God Delusion". Then we have 2 shelves worth of books devoted to Christianity or famous X-ian types, many variations on the bible, couple of prayer books. What else? Half a shelf in the kid's section. After that a smattering of Buddhism, then the token Jewish and Muslim titles. It's a small shop, obviously. Then numerous X-ian inspired classics. It's a hotbed of enlightenment, humanist and atheist belief. uh. obviously.
averki1 1 year ago
sorry, i meant "enlightenment, humanist and atheist BELIEF"
averki1 1 year ago
no, obviously the use of belief was a terrible slip...
averki1 1 year ago
belief should have been "values"... fuck me that's actually worse.
averki1 1 year ago
NEWS FLASH... Peter is a dork and is obviously out classed by his power house bro Chris.
kick08ful 1 year ago
Anyone noticed that Peter's sibilance sounds like squash shoes squeaking
ChrisWales22 1 year ago
peter, peter, peter, you really are clueless, evolution is a certified FACT!
LowleyUK 1 year ago
Creationist propaganda is most certainly not suppressed there are dozen of books by authors of absolutely no credentials discussing it. It's religious, not scientific, it's just that simple. And when the time comes when it will be hard to find books mentioning instantaneous creation (besides perhaps the bible, but let us hope that that smut will soon be suppressed as well) it won't be because of a global conspiracy, it will because like flat-Earth theory no one wishes to drag up dead concepts.
jacobob321 1 year ago
oh Peter. why are you a christian/ID-tard.
Naabenstadt 1 year ago
and now peter's saying that nobody understand biology, so I guess all modern medicine is just fancy placebos then
like homeopathy
MrCattlehunter 1 year ago
Peter failed to mention that these bookstores which do not carry texts on intelligent design also do not carry serious scientific discussions in support of alchemy, astrology, or necromancy. Damn these secular liberals with their so-call [air quotes] science and logic [/air_quotes].
vau0807 1 year ago
oooh that was brilliant from christopher...I thought that lecturer had him pinned.
Skipissatan 1 year ago
"Nor have you"
Evolution via natural selection.
niginit 1 year ago
He just said that Dawkins doesn't have any knowledge of the subject that he's been studying his entire adult life.
Winterdenni 2 years ago
You have read the name Jesus in the OT?
vernonpage 2 years ago
christopher you got applause from me at the 3 minute mark!
eugdog106 2 years ago
i wonnder why you cant find inteligent design in bookstores...
elphenom9 2 years ago
Yes, Religion IS imposed intolerably onto those who either disbelieve in God, or believe in a Religion that differs immensely with a Christian God at schools. The pledge of allegiance is but one of the many impositions used; and I needn't delve why that's wrong.
But I'll do so willingly.
Never did I stand during the pledge of allegiance, unless I wanted a "lovely" trip to the Principal office for disobedience. It's solely my right to believe what I choose to believe in.
Now am I right?
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago
I haven't thought about the Pledge of Allegiance for years until I read your comment. Looking back in retrospect, what a fucking weird thing that was.
obdami 2 years ago
It's comical that Peter thinks there's a meaningful distinction between "bone-headed literalist creationism" and intelligent design. At least a distinction in anything but the interior decorating.
supruzr 2 years ago 18
@supruzr It is not comical but rather pitiful that you would laugh, failing to apprehend the difference between the belief that God created the universe as a child might build a little castle with a bunch of building blocks and the idea that God designed a set of rules under which the building blocks of the universe interact. The first is literalist creationism and the second is intelligent design.
CebeliusBotV 1 year ago
Pete, 4:00 minutes. LOL!
libertineKuntSodom 2 years ago
As C. Hitchens said, it was the CIA who originally funded and helped install the Saddam Hussein wing of the Ba'ath party. Saddam then used that power to setup a dictatorship, taking control of Iraq and proceeding to invade Kuwait while attempting to gain power in Syria. During which the Kurdish people were being slaughtered en masse. The Ba'ath party are the imperialists here. And since we'd mistakenly helped them gain power in the first place it was our responsibility to put an end to it.
LlortnA 2 years ago
Saddam Hussein was nothing more than the Arabic Manuel Noriega.
Interpret that to mean I'm agreeing with you, except for the small part about "we'd mistakenly helped them", where you seem to be attempting to paint the US government as like some kind of "Wow, I was totally not aware they were doing that" group. That's just not true, sonny jim.
While it's true that helping them WAS a mistake, it's not true that the US government did not have full knowledge of what they were doing. They did.
supruzr 2 years ago
How exactly did you manage to gather all that from such a simple statement? Firstly, I wasn't referring specifically to the US Government when I said "we'd". You're not the only country indebted to the Middle East.
Also, regardless of your government's awareness of the situation (which I never mentioned) it changes nothing. If that's the case then it was an even worse mistake - to which the Western world would be indebted even more so. Please, spare me your assumptions next time.
LlortnA 2 years ago
"It's just as imperial not to invade Iraq, and to leave the status quo the way it is, as it is to intervene." What sort of argument is this?
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
he means that whatever move you take, if u do nothing or do something, it'll always be called imperial because it's america
getupjumpy 2 years ago
Perhaps if it acted more humanely in world affairs, the image of American imperialism would wane. It's not enough to resurrect a straw man in the argument. Incidentally, I'd regard America's late entry into World War II as an example of its role as "defender" of democratic principles. I would not regard it in imperialistic terms. Ergo, Hitchens is talking rubbish.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
Saddam wasn't a facist like Hitler then??
getupjumpy 2 years ago 2
Moreover, the hypothetical decision not to invade hardly leads to the designation of a country as imperialistic. I'd imagine that most would agree that a country's decision not to impinge upon the borders of another is far from imperial in any sense. As we now know, America (and its poodle, Britain) were trying to protect their own strategic interests. Both countries fought for international supremacy and oil, nothing more. To find contrariwise is to have your eyes fastened shut.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
ok straight away u seem like someone who spends too long purving over conspiracy theories on the internet. when you don't do anything to a country when it shits all over its people then there is a choice to itnervene or not to intervene. A lot of the time we don't intervene, why? well because the regime is a puppet, which was happening under Kissinger. Now are you saying this wasn't imperialist?? Not doing anything has proven to be the most imperialist acts of all, if u know much about history
getupjumpy 2 years ago
Example? Conspiracist? Hmm, so you honestly (honestly) believe that America, even given its decision to remove the democratically elected Allende of Chile, its highly unethical funding of the Nicaraguan Contras, its smear campaign of the democratically elected Chavez (who, incidentally, sits on a huge oil-hulking landmass), is to be regarded in an ethical light? Can it stand tall after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? Invasion is never acceptable unless it is agreed internationally. Period.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
I wasn't condoning any of those events in South America, they were certainly imperialist but then every time there's an intervention or non-intervention then it's called imperialist? Again with the examples you gave, I'll refer you back to Kissinger. But Kissinger also sustained Saddam Hussain so would u then say not doing anything was imperialist as well?
Also the international community did nothing to help Rwanda, Sudan, Serbia (NATO had to help with that) etc, so u wud have done nothing?
getupjumpy 2 years ago
Furthermore, the argument that the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to save the Iraqi people was made void when Blair clearly said on a number of occasions that the USA and UK would not invade Iraq if Saadam disarmed.
Like BeholdZeus said, the invasion of Iraq was for strategic reasons rather than humanitarian.
rgman268 2 years ago
That's actually not the point. The reason that the US/UK invaded was because of WMD but a JUSTIFICATION of the continuance of that is indeed to end oppression, torture and mass deaths by a sadistic dictator
vernonpage 2 years ago
Well they didn't invade because of WMDs. That is what they told us.
rgman268 2 years ago
Your memory is failing you. The United Nations sent in inspectors who were messed about and denied access to certain sites by Saddam. You have also forgotten that Saddam had already used WMDs on the kurds, killing over 100,000 people. Iraq was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and previous resolutions calling on him to give up WMDs. Once the invasion began, the invading forces had the legal obligation to leave only when Iraq had become stable. and governable.
vernonpage 2 years ago
"Saddam had already used WMDs on the kurds, killing over 100,000 people"
I don't know why you are talking about the Kurds since that was in the late 80's. Just because he used WMDs then does not mean he had them in 2003.
"The United Nations sent in inspectors who were messed about and denied access to certain sites"
Those same inspectors said in 2003 and 1998 that Iraq did not have WMDs that constituted a threat. So don't make it out as if their opinon was important.
rgman268 2 years ago
"Just because he used WMDs then does not mean he had them in 2003."
Neither does it mean that he didn't and the inspectors had not finished their hampered investigations when the invasion began.
The same weapons inspectors did not make this claim in 2003 as they had not finished their work. Know your subject before making claims.
vernonpage 2 years ago 2
"Neither does it mean that he didn't and the inspectors had not finished their hampered investigations when the invasion began"
If it doesn't mean that he did have WMDs and then it doesn't mean that he didn't have them, then why mention the gassing of the Kurds?
The gassing of the Kurds in late 80's has nothing to do with the claim that Saadam had WMDs in 2003.
So there was no point in bringing it up, which is what I alluded to at the begining of the point.
rgman268 2 years ago
Halabja proved Saddam had WMDs and was prepared to use them. After 1988 the US assisted Iraq in a disposal of other WMDs. If there was no possibility of WMDs in Iraq then why were the UN's inspectors instructed to search for them. You seem to be arguing against yourself. With hindsight this is easy to stand on a soap-box about. At the time, however, there was a justifiable suspicion that there were WMDs in Iraq. So there was a point in bringing it up, but it is one that you refuse to acknowledge
vernonpage 2 years ago 2
Again. If he was such a threat in 1988 then they would have invaded then. The fact is, they didn't bother till 15 years later. So 1988 has nothing to do with it.
Ok. The Weapons Inspectors had said pre 2003 that 90-95% of all weapons were accounted for. Blix said he needed several more months, which were not given.
All programs were dead. That was said by the UN inspectors pre 2003.
Bush said they were still producing WMDs and stockpiling. Wrong.
rgman268 2 years ago
The weapons inspectors that were in Iraq had made claims before 2003 that Iraq had stopped its weapons programme and that most of its arsenary had been destroyed.
Bush claimed that they were continuing to produce and stockpile WMDs. Wrong.
rgman268 2 years ago
Furthermore, on March 7 2003, Blix said they would only need a couple of months to inspect Iraqi Sites fully. That time was not given and their advice was ignored.
rgman268 2 years ago
And Bush said that one of his greatest regrets in office was the failure of US intelligence in Iraq. However, check your facts, the inspectors had not finished their inspections in 2003 when the invasion began.
All of this is frankly a circular argument. It is always easy to criticise such actions with hindsight. It never cease to amaze me that people such as you seem to argue a pro-Saddam argument.
vernonpage 2 years ago
I am still mystified when a theist calls a religious "theory" skeptical in an attempt to make it sound scientific and credible while making the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection seem dogmatic and religious. It is a Cartmanesque example of mental acrobatics.
beriukay 2 years ago
I'm not a fan of the Iraq war, but Hitchens made an incredibly solid argument for the invasion.
AledoCasizzle 2 years ago
Are you serious? From a British perspective, there was no argument to be made. The war was out and out illegal. To date the Lancet, Iraq Body Count and other organizations have collated that over 1,000,000 people have been killed since the war began (though, to my mind, further statistics were added from the beginning of US led sanctions). If you call that progress, I'm sorry, but I'd have to disagree with you. No WMDs, No Exit Strategy. IRAQ = A War for Oil, nothing more.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
The evidence is not partisian. How that evidence is used is so.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
"Theory of Intelligent Design" = Scientific Hypothesis of Intelligent Design which has no worthwhile reputation. Now that is the title theory that the Creationist keep pushing. While Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which is known as a fact, that all the details are still to be known of.
nidodson 2 years ago 4
Not to be dogmatic, but it is a "theory," and like any theory it is subject to change. Ergo, it contains facts AND inconsistencies. BUT as Dawkins contends, "it is still the best theory we have" to explain how life came to be as it now is. Hence, until it is bettered by another theoretical postulation, it is all that we have.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
It will always be the theory of evolution, because the base concept of evolution is proven. The details, and sub theories may change (genetic drift, and how much natural selection plays a roll), but evolution itself is more solid than the theory of gravity.
The key is that "God dun it" is not a responsible or plausible answer ANYONE should be willing to accept. The ancient Greeks were known for using gods to explain everything, and now we are using science to find the real answers.
nidodson 2 years ago
And I agree with you, most assuredly. No one should accept the dubious if not impoverished hypothesis that God "dun it" as you say. But you are wrong about the Greeks. Did Democritus, Leucippus, Thales, Anaximander, believe that the Gods were responsible for all created matter? Did they even believe in creation ex nihilio? No, they did not. Was the One of Plato and Aristotle God per se? No, it was not. The Greeks you must be speaking off were those not yet enlightened.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
Some people had to believe it at some point in time to build the monuments they did to the greek gods, same with the early Romans.
nidodson 2 years ago
That is a rudderless argument. We have cathedrals spread throughout the world. Does that mean that all our scientists and philosophers are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus No. In every generation there are those flattered by fables and those scornful of their content. We are not more intelligent than the early Greeks were. Our knowledge has simply been added to. Roman senators most likely used religion as a toy with which to enslave their audiences
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
Moreover, science is not the study of ontology. Philosophy, in many ways, is. Science addresses the "how" things came to be: philosophy, the "why" they came to be. Science addresses the material and iterative functions of life. Philosophy addresses the purposefulness of the finished investigation. Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy dealing with "essential" qualities of life, deals with questions of "being"; what it is, what is means to be, what being is in relation to others.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
I always thought of Scientific Theories as the how, and the laws as the why. Much of what philosophy adds is just meaningless.
nidodson 2 years ago
The theories are the how, as are the laws. Philosophy asks what the laws mean for us as human beings. It discusses how we might live together, how knowledge should function in society; it questions whether we can know anything at all. It questions whether there is universal goodness, truth, beauty. Trust me, it is far from defunct. Indeed, philosophy first gave birth to physics and thence science. The analytics of philosophy are the analytics of science.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
The problem for the United States if it is an Empire is to avoid the folly of a Universal Empire after which then comes the fall of the Empire, is Iraq the high point of this.
I support the idealiims of hitchens wanting the war but the reality on the ground is a diaster and may cause the end of the US hegemony.
The rise of the EU and Germany is the result and for all the best reasons I welcome this.
The EU is the biggest exporter and the new superpower. Zionism in the US must be limited.
infokemp 2 years ago
Under no circumstances was the Iraq war justifiable. I buy the argument that the people were living under a dictator, but it is up to those people to chose to through off the bonds of oppression. Remember, the US gave the very chemical weapons they were looking for to Sadam in the first place - these weapons were used in the Iraqi campaign against Iran. Why didn't they topple him then? Because he was a strategic asset. My friend, OIL was the primary reason for the invasion of iraq.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
cont.
intelligent design attempts to refute evolution while providing no reasonable scientific alternative. it seemingly explains how life came about, but at the same time explains nothing, because the premise ends up being "this part we dont understand, hence god did it", and once this plugging of science with religion comesinto play, its all over. evolution shouls be attacked and critiqued until it can be no more, i agree. but by evidence and science, not by religious jealousy.
dinabio1 2 years ago
Yeah, I agree with what some people have said here. Peter outright and plain lies when he says there are no books about ID or that it is not allowed to publish them. There are LOADS. I can name many, I even own some myself to see what their points actually are.
Peters position is weak enough, but outright lying really shows his colors.
irishmauddib 2 years ago
Christopher Hitchens is just full of rhetoric, floating around on a cloud of whimsical 6-syllable words, his showmanship in front of the masses easily out does his brother, but his Brother is substance and doesn't rely on subtle little snide remarks and jeering to support his arguments. Read some Peter Hitchens it is purely common sense.
Belegaer 3 years ago
Not really. I find nothing of note or use in Peters Blog. Maybe instead of displaying your impression of big words you have trouble with, you could tell us what peter says you think is so true or what Christopher has said that is so false. Actual points is much better than ad hominem so I invite you to try some.
irishmauddib 2 years ago
watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI&feature=related
valerienanh 3 years ago
Once more with feeling...
We call it a theory because there are still open questions and the model is not complete. The same can be said of gravity. We know exactly what gravity does and how it behaves, but we can't say for certainty what it actually is. That's not the case with evolution, for which we already have a more complete picture of than for gravity.
If it's an idea someone has that has not been tested, we call it hypothesis. Big difference.
hackenbollox 3 years ago 2
skepticism towards the theory of evolution does not give the green light to make up things and spin them off as science. if ID could come up with any testable model, they would have a case - as it stands now, they don't.
1n354a 3 years ago 9
And they can't because they're using scientific language, but no actual science.
hackenbollox 3 years ago 6
i mean christopher
ProudToBLoud 3 years ago
What creationists dosent realize is what theory really means, it does not mean "Something i can think of". A theory is a model for how something works. A theory that can predict a future event and also that can be simulated and tested in an experiment of sorts. Creationism is not a theory, even if you bend the the term theory to fit creationism its not nor could ever be a scientific one. No creationism in science class until they can show a working model.
KnAWMR 3 years ago 4
Christopher has realized the monetary benefits of being an intellectual Englishman in America. He loves the adoration of being the naughty boy in the family. If he was chocolate, he would eat himself.
aladon1965 3 years ago 5
God, this guy at the beginning licks Christopher Hitchen's arse. I can see why he moved to America rather than stay in Britain where no-one takes him seriously anymore.
8Swindon 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
only in america would they take somebody like hitchens seriously, even the talentless piers morgan has made a career there.
ProudToBLoud 3 years ago
Ah ad hominem instead of an actual point. How weak. Christopher has explained his reasons very clearly for why he has moved. Maybe you should read them before just making things up?
irishmauddib 2 years ago
NO ONE takes CH seriously in Britain? You're as deluded as the creationists!
vernonpage 2 years ago
Darwinists refute teaching fiction in science classes. Well what the fuck do you think? IDer's are being "suppressed" because they are something rational people like to call FLAT FACED WRONG.
runevirage 3 years ago 3
Oh, and Peter Hitchens has nothing worthwhile to say.
Just a typical moronic creationist. He may have no idea how the 'realm of nature' took its present shape, but i'd say a fair few of us have some quite decent dot-points to refer to on the subject.
sassymarvin 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Christopher is a fascist, and Peter is only marginally better. George Galloway owns them both.
NukeFascistAmerica 3 years ago
I hope people understand that the "theory" in the theory of intelligent design does not refer to a scientific theory. There is a very big difference between scientific theory and general theory. ID is most certainly not scientific theory, as the theory of evolution most certainly is a scientific theory.
aadoza 3 years ago 2
OMG Peter is a creationist.
FilipeBrasAlmeida 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution = all life evolving from a single common ancestor.
Creation = all life being designed by God, if you try to create totally new animals by crossbreeding animals from different "family groups" of animals you'll have no success. There are limits to variation, dogs will always be dogs, cats cats etc and always have been.
ubiedubie 3 years ago
You Believe there were Dogs and Cats and people roaming around the Cenozoic era?
Or did God create them from nothing?
gusb232 3 years ago
well its possible they were all wiped out and new creatures created. Also its possible that animals today "did" evolve from them. But not humans.
ubiedubie 3 years ago
Creative but Those ideas Are not supported but Evidence or the Bible.
God made Plants on the 3rd day,
Sun moon and Stars on the 4th day,
All land animals on the 5th Day
I assume Noahs Flood didnt kill the Dogs and Cats.
gusb232 3 years ago
Genesis 1 isn't to be taken literally -_- If you do you will have loads of trouble understanding it seeing as on certain days - he does the same thing as before. Why would he do the same thing twice? It doesnt show when the days end. It doesnt say the 7th day has ended. Like we can still enter God's rest today
ubiedubie 3 years ago
What you have said is completely false. Genesis 1 is meant to be literal. God does not repeat the same thing on different days.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Read Genesis 3-5, then read Genesis 14-19.
Same thing - two different days. Now try to take that literally?
But ultimately it basically says God made everything. It is a piece of near eastern ancient literature, and downplays the false beliefs of other people at the time for example the babylonians. Saying how is was the one true God that formed and filled 'everything'. I don't mean to sound too liberal but it is clear if you think about it
ubiedubie 3 years ago
aladon1965 3 years ago
Even the English is sadly lacking in a linguistic context. Why would god say "Let there be light?" Let = please allow; surely god would command "there will be light"? And what is the distinction you are trying to draw between the light of the sun and 'god's light'. Surely if god illuminates things he has no need to instruct himself to permit it to illuminate other matters? You are showing yourself to be contemptibly daft.
vernonpage 2 years ago
You dont seem to realise that the account was not written in English anyway, but in Hebrew. Furthermore, English cannot sum up in a few words what some Hebrew words can describe on their own.
The word in question is ' yehiy 'or'. Some say it could mean, 'let it exist'.
Even the word we use, Amen, means 'let it be so'.
Which in real terms is a command but it is also an agreement.
aladon1965 2 years ago
If you read the first verses of the Gospel of John, you'll realise that God is not one dimentional like you or I, but spoke the world into being through His Word, who is a person. Jesus.
aladon1965 2 years ago
Please supply me with evidence of Jesus' existence. The BIble is NOT proof.
vernonpage 2 years ago
there is absolutely no historical evidence of jesus's existence. There is absolutely no proof that that child is the same man that we see at 30. Not a single historian or geographer or scibe of the time didn't write a single thing about Jesus. Now how can it be that scibes, historians, and geographers would write in detail about the escapades of Ceasar's daughter but fail to write anything about the virgin birth, and the miracles going on? It's all religious bullshit.
raelko 2 years ago
Josephus' Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) "Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When ----->
aladon1965 2 years ago
---> Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today. "
aladon1965 2 years ago
The Bible has been tested and retested many times by the greatest skeptics and been found academically flawless and extremely accurate historically.
Raelko, try reading non-atheistic literature and see if your ignorance subsides.
aladon1965 2 years ago
aladon friend, I have read the bible very carefully and i know it quite well, also I have read enough of quran too to know it is the same bullshit magnified to great extremes.
religions are bullshit.
judaism is god 1.0, christianity is god 2.0, and islam is god 3.0.
sorry you still need to give me some proof of any nonsense you defend, but I know you can't because to believe, means you have no proof, else it wouldn't be a belief anymore. try reading some real books eh
raelko 2 years ago
No I wont. Your language is just insulting to God.
aladon1965 2 years ago
@aladon1965
Who?
Listen, Alladin, stop with the religious assertions, prove a point, or GTFO.
niginit 1 year ago
@niginit
Or you'll do what?
My Christianity is based on facts not assertions. Which evidence do you base your life choices on? I'll tell you, you base your choisce of belief on what you have been force fed by atheistic scholars who are detrmined to drag a whole generation into their philosophical world view.
Sucker!
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965
Firstly, what I intend to do is, let you make a complete fool of yourself. Which you have done quite nicely.
You mean "base your choice ON belief OF".
Now, on to your nonsensical statements.
How do you get force fed something that you willingly seek out and read, or listen to?
You're trying to be a pot calling a kettle black. I'm sure you were force fed Christianity, no doubt your parents were staunch Xtians.
It wouldn't be so easy to discount you if you weren't so dumb.
niginit 1 year ago
@niginit
Thanks for your niceties.
You are force fed and dont even recognise the fact. The media, schools, colleges give you nothing else to consume, so therefore you are forced to take what they give you. A good example; I was watching World Cup Football the other day and after the game, they drifted into some mad production about evolution in Africa etc as if it was FACT. That is force feeding the world with the the theory of evolution.
You are conditioned and boxed off and dont even see
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965
Buddy, I don't watch TV, didn't go to college. I'm about as uninfluenced as you can be.
You aren't being force fed anything. You're just a scared, naive, confused person.
Evolution via natural selection is not only the best account of natural history, it's the only account worth consideration.
I'm not "boxed off", or "conditioned" like you think. I don't have a naive bone in my body. I'm skeptical of EVERYTHING. You're telling me to open my mind up to possibilities, HA!
niginit 1 year ago
@niginit
Listen, you dont have to go to college or watch TV. My point is that evolution has captivated the minds of just about everyone. Even though most people couldn't tell you the first thing about it. They just believe it becasue they are told to or are expected to. It's called 'conformity'.
If you dont 'conform' you are labelled as weird, wrong, stupid, blind etc.
You know what I'm talking about.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@niginit
People are not given the choice, (in science) to explore other possibilities even though evolution is very poor in evidence. Evolution is very well presented in School and on TV but for those who wish to dig a little deeper in the subject, it is a frustratingly fruitless experience.
Even when evidence points to Biblical accuracy, it is explained away in any other way the imagination can muster.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965
So, science is very poor on evidence. Yet, you just said "Even when evidence points to biblical accuracy.
So, science doesn't use that stuff called evidence, yet when evidence (assuming it's scientific evidence, you're speaking of) is pointing to biblical accuracy.... Then it's REAL evidence, right?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The evidence is, that evolution by natural selection IS proven beyond any serious, or reasonable doubt. It's a fact. Science is true.
niginit 1 year ago
@niginit
"evolution by natural selection IS proven beyond any serious, or reasonable doubt. It's a fact."
Thats the problem, it isn't proven at all. It's actually unprovable and that in itself shows me that you are seriously conditioned and dont really understand the science that is involved in evolution.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965
It isn't unproven. That's just stupid.
You creationists are like trolls. You should go out and say absurd things. I think it's just to get attention and bug people.
Again, evolution is a scientific fact. You don't live in reality Aladdin.
Please, take your silly trolling to some other forum, or some other poor schmuck.
niginit 1 year ago
@niginit
You disappoint me. I thought you were a little brighter than that.
It's not proven - and it's not fact. It's a collection of junk they are trying to make something out of.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965 Bloody silly thing to say. Read something
yatter1 1 year ago
@aladon1965
And this conversation can go nowhere because you refuse to even try to learn something, or check these "TOTALLY BOGUS" theories out.
All you've done is made yourself look dumb to people who are so much more intelligent and know for a fact that you're flat out wrong, Incorrect, Facilely detected, and probably laughed at. I know I get a good laugh every time you reply.
But honestly, it really does pain me to witness such severe gross ignorance and depravity. That's why I reply.
niginit 1 year ago
@aladon1965
It is fact, you cretin.
What scientific degrees do you own?
And what are your scientific sources for this false psuedo-scientific information?
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@niginit
You should challenge yourself to at least try and study some of the journals from creation scientists. You'll probably not do that becasue you'll discount it as a fairy story etc, but that shows that you are unscientific. To only look at one side of the presented evidence is unscientific
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965
I know more about creationism than I want. I know more about religion than anyone should want to know. Honestly, it's not even very interesting. The only reason I bother studying it is because of the ill effects religion causes.
You know nothing about science, though. That much is certainly clear.
What's hilarious about you silly creationists is, you always try bluffing some sort of profound knowledge of science. It's immediately proven false when you deny evolution.
niginit 1 year ago
@niginit
Evolution, didn't and cannot happen. Evolution in a nutshell, is "given enough time, anything can happen!"
That is not science.
have you ever actually thought through the evolution of the eye as it is told by Mr dawkins? It is incredibly bad and infantile.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965
Listen aladdin. I don't have the time, nor the patience to sit and play games with sad little people on the interwebz. It's been fun, but it must end, unfortunately.
Take some time to actually read and comprehend some of the immensely accurate and profound information you are foolishly attempting to discard, or discredit. The evolution of the eye is very convoluted and takes a sharp mind and a lot of a patience to comprehend. Patience and comprehension, you should work on those.
niginit 1 year ago
@aladon1965
first of, evolution is proven many times. two months ago again. They found a fish that within 100 generations could evolve in a other species.
The eye evolved in a few million years which is short.
And indeed: given enough time, anything can happen is not science. but that isn't evolution. Everything consist of constants: Action reaction,: Causality. Science is has proven that over and over again therefor:
for every reaction there has to be a action. therefore there is no god
SseBb 1 year ago
@SseBb
First off. Saying evolution is provenb, doesn't prove that it is. It simply isnt. Only people that roam the halls of Youtube seeem to think so. Scientists dont.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965 Actually, evolution has been proven. It was visibly observed in the long term e.coli experiment performed by Richard Lenski.
This is not to mention all we know of genetics, and all the wonderful, beautiful evidence provided to us through analysis of the fossil record.
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764
My point proven!
Listen, with respect, evolution is unproven. Talk to an honest scientist in any field relating to origins and they'll confirm my words.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965 I just provided you with an experiment performed in the laboratory which demonstrably proved evolution.
Secondly, any honest scientist in the field of biology will tell you evolution is demonstrably proven beyond a doubt.
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764
Adapting and mutating but remaining within a species is NOT evolution.
Not proven.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965 You clearly don't understand evolution then.
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764
This is just going in circles. You are correct, I dont understand evolution, because it is not possible to understand the impossible. Maybe you meant I dont understand the ttheory of evolution! So lets see, if I dont agree with you then automatically I am rendered as having no knowledge on the subject?
Atheists have this arrogance that 'they are correct' and people of faith are just idiots.
My previous statement shows understanding that evolution IS NOT what you cited
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965 You don't understand evolution because you somehow believe that the ultimate goal of evolution is to create a new species. It is not. There is no goal to evolution.
This is ignoring the fact you confuse evolution with Natural Selection. Evolution is fact, genes change. Farmers have been exploiting this fact for centuries, that's where we get dairy cows from, the modern banana, various breeds of dog.
qqs764 1 year ago 2
@aladon1965 Now, on natural selection. Natural Selection is the mechanism by which evolution is 'regulated' in nature. A species which is more successful at reproducing will continue to reproduce and dominate its competitors who are less successful.
The result isn't a new species at all, it is simply being able to survive in an environment more effectively than competitors, in order that you might reproduce.
qqs764 1 year ago
Academically flawless? So how old do you think the world is? If your answer is anything over 10000 years old then you are a hypocrite. Which you are anyway as the world is 4.6 billion years old.
automaticSOM 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Most reasonable estimates are indicating a little more than 6000 years.
Now, you may not accept the fact that I have evidence for this, in the Bible.
So, what do you base your 4.6 B years on?
Make it short.
aladon1965 2 years ago
Radioactive clocks based on the half life of certain isotopes eg. Potassium Argon dating or on a smaller scale Carbon dating. Even dendrochronology can go back further than 6000 years. Look these up on wikipedia if you dont believe me.
automaticSOM 2 years ago
@automaticSOM
You lose. Anyone who quotes 'Wikipedia' cannot be serious.
aladon1965 1 year ago
@aladon1965
I didnt quote wikipedia, I recommended that you look up those things on wikipedia. By the way, wikipedia happens to be extremely accurate in spite of the fact that it is user generated. It is rigidly maintained.
automaticSOM 1 year ago
@aladon1965
Yup, here we go. Evolution and wikipedia, the two most fallacious things known to man, right?!
LOL
You creationists are so silly. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
niginit 1 year ago
Common sense.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
Common sense? Try exhibiting some.
aladon1965 2 years ago
Yeah let's use common sense. Light is coming to us from millions of light years away, concluding that the universe is millions of years old. Tadaa! Wasn't that hard? Common sense proves you wrong.
MusicHypno 2 years ago 24
"A paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including physicist Paul Davies) claiming that light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe'. If this is proven, then your common sense has done you no good in this case.
Most nuclear processes are mathematically related to the speed of light, a faster c might well mean a faster rate of radioactive decay, explaining much of the evidence used to justify the billions of years of geological hypothesizing."
aladon1965 2 years ago
@MusicHypno
it's very logic. one simple explanation: E=ΓMC²
now go to youtube type in relativity and there are loads of easy explanations of this
SseBb 1 year ago
@MusicHypno You think people who think the Earth is flat are going to know that light, composed of photons, takes any amount of time to travel?
ScientificExploits 4 months ago
really?
well i don't know what bible you are reading but the one I use, it's hardly anything like what you describe.
heh
raelko 2 years ago
do you know what evidence means?
2nd century ad means at least 200 years after Jesus's time, and luckily for us, there were certain civilizations at that time that were fully able of documenting historical events like the Romans the Illyrians the Chinese even somewhat the Egyptians, yet somehow it is always the illiterate in the middle east where miracles and gods are born. Judaism, christianity and islam.
raelko 2 years ago
2nd century is AD 100 - 199.
aladon1965 2 years ago