Tuesday, November 29, 2011

My "vicious debate" with a young earth creationist.

I was chided for "misleading folks" since I was presenting scientific evidence to the discussion.


  1. Was this the actual guy you mentioned on youe comment(Russ)or a troll kicking you out? I always try to avoid conversations with these guys in real life but sometimes they come to me.

  2. Yes. That was him. He is a friend of the family and I was on his fb friend's list for a couple years until he unfriended me. I am fascinated by the way people think and what motivates people.

  3. I don't mind what other people think either. However a case in point happen to me in 2009. At the Sam Noble Musem of Oklahoma Natural History, Casey luskin gave his speech on the "7 Myths of Darwin" and his ID rubish. In the end people were talking outside and while I was just standing here overhearing people a guy form the IDEA club (set up by the Discovery institute) tries to talk to me about what I think. I am not a good debater and I am not convince that ID is nothing but repackaged creationism. I try to tell him so and he give me the same old arguments. The only one that remember clearly was him saying, (Does not something that "looks" design mean that it was design". As I said I am not good in trying to counter arguments like this on the spot, especially since I did not want to speak to him in the first place but tried to be pollite about. Later on I thought of a way that countered his argument,


    Here is a box that show 2 line going in but one comming out. Our obesevation shows which one of line goes through and we say so only to find out when the box is removed that our perception is wrong. Now think about that with his argument. If something "looks" designed it could most likely be our bias that it is. Or a overlook. It could be many reasons. But that is not what they want you to think. An example looks design and we cannot figure out how evolution does it( at this point) therefor it is design. Telling people all this knowing they will take your word for it to support what they already believe. Just make sound scientific to the audiance. I'm trying to write this without sound cynical but it really irratates me.
    On the brighter side I have meet people that I speak to that discuss with what they belive and why they beleive it. I gusee why I like speaking with them is that they are not trying to convince me of their ways. One guy studies history of science who is an Othodox Christian. Even just came out with a book

    I found it a good book that shows how certain principal in the ideas of alchmey help develop parts in history like the binary system. A good quick read that is great for discussion. As for the guy shunned you and took you off as a friend, it's funny how people of faith reacting this way when they feel threaten. If you have faith could you not go on regardless of what people think. I feel that Christians who were killed of by animals in the Colliseum had more faith they most modern day beleivers. Sorry for the long response. Hope the rejection by Russ was not to hard since he was a freind of the family. Hope things turn out well. Keep up you work and you videos. Looking forward to any new ones in the future.

  4. Sorry for my engrish and it is not my bussines, of cause, but why are you polemicize with such kind of people? What do you think, is those debates may harm all of us or vice versa?

  5. I meaned that in case of people "falled in faith" psychiatrist rather than psychologist needed. And you adapt this people without salary ans vacations.

  6. //but why are you polemicize with such kind of people?// I think it is very, very important to be aware of the variety of perspectives in the Christian (and/or religious) community and that is why I surround myself with people who embrace an enormous variety of views. If one doesn't understand at least some of the different views, they are less equipped to understand and respond to the topic.

    It is true that some people do need faith/religious belief--and they have the right to embrace it and discuss it as they please. In the same manner, I have the right to discuss it and respond. If a religious zealot chooses to respond with harm, then that is their choice. The responsibility is on their shoulders; I take no responsibility for any harm they choose to display.

  7. //I surround myself with people who embrace an enormous variety of views. //
    Variety endorsed by natural selection.)

    //less equipped to understand and respond to the topic//
    I get it: you need to know the enemy in the face.

    //some people do need faith/religious belief--and they have the right to embrace it//
    Hm... It "sounds" like "some people do need broken legs--and they have the right to break it"... formally you're right, but...

    //If a religious zealot chooses to respond with harm... I take no responsibility for any harm//
    IMHO, you have power (even now your works spread around the world). The more power you have the more hostility displayed. Am I right?

    By the way, what do you think about this statement:

    "religious people are immoral"?

  8. I don't think people are immoral for being religious. I should hope you didn't think I was making that assertion.

    I'm trying not to be hostile as that wouldn't do any good. Thank you for your thoughts.

  9. You forgot to erase his name on the top of the firefox-bar. :-)

    It's a pity you don't speak dutch (or at least I think you don't) as this is an intersting read on as to how people try to defend their religious beliefs (with analyses of theological argumentation):


  10. Hi,

    I'm sad that people are indoctrinated at a fairly young age about the existence of imaginary friends. I'm equally sad when a good science education(in or out of the classroom) is beaten down with the stick of traditional 'wisdom' and 'faith'(in unicorns?). Here's my two cents:

    Its great to see more people like yourself come out in the open in defense of atheism which to quote the famous atheist Sam Harris, is not an -ism at all just as 'not collecting stamps' is not a hobby. I've generally seen that people who reason themselves into a position can always be reasoned out of it(when superior logic is made available to them) and then there are those(the vast majority) who just don't want to see reason. How do you get across to them? You can only take the horse to a river... but you can't make it drink. You can only aid in educating others but you cannot free their minds. Religion is a con, a con that one pulls on one's own mind. Also, do you really think the world as it is now is ready for a world without religion. Would you really want to live in a world, where 90% of its population derives its morality from religion? Can you imagine how chaotic this world will get if these people have no internal moral benchmark? I think the majority need their religion just as a herd of animals needs a stick.