Finally! The Answer We've Been Waiting For?

[tacoma_kyle]

Huh. Well that is a good point.

[joeactor]

BTW, the Rational Response Squad has "their version" on their web site and youtube...  ABC.com is supposed to post the whole shebang today at 1 or 2 pm EST.

From the preview, it looks like all the same garbage.   Didn't take them long to start invoking the Bible...

Harumph!  Now I'll NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER!

JoeActor

[SteveS]

Thanks for the tip guys --- somehow I thought this was going to air on the 5th.  I'll try to catch it on nightline tonight --- I watched the preview at ABC and the clip the RSS has up.

I'll hold off judgement until I see the whole thing, but when I heard Ray Comfort talking about the 10 commandments I thought WTF?  Scientific proof without the bible?  Pfffff.....

[tacoma_kyle]

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

Like 9 minutes is up on here. Its in that video window on the right side of the monitor. You may have to wait for a ad or two to go through though. Reasonably good 9 minutes. On the atheist side it a guy and a gal, his significant other I am guessing. Shes a babe lol. Nothin against gay but just kidna funny.

The christian guys pulled a pretty lame tactic too haha. Instead of responding to a solid statement, they pulled the 'I have no response' crap . That is a prime characteristic of either being a shitty speaker, havin a weak argument, or both.

[SteveS]

I just finished watching this on T.V.  There is one image I can't get out of my mind.  Now, when this topic was first posted, I said

I expect Mr. Cameron to come out of this looking like a profound idiot.

Imagine my delight when I saw him on national TV holding up pictures of the following:

• a half-crocodile, half-duck
• a frog with bull's horns, which he called a "bull-frog"
• a sheep with a dog's head

Yep, you guessed it, these were exhibited as transitional forms that have not been found by "evolutionists", along with the statement that no genuine transitional form has ever been discovered.

This sure made him look like a profound idiot!  Congratulations Kirk, you've gone on national television and proved, 100% scientifically, that you lack even a high-school education on the topic of evolution.

Note: For the rest of this I'm referring to the videos on abc.com, the coverage on nightline was incomplete and just had highlights.

As for Ray Comfort, this is the summary of his 3 evidences that god exists (in his own words):

1) Creation produces knowledge of a creator
2) Conscience produces the knowledge of a need of his forgiveness
3) Conversion produces a knowledge of god "experientially"

In reverse order, point 3 is crap because it requires faith.  Unless he can scientifically prove than some internal personal experience originated from anywhere other than his brain, then he requires faith to call this knowledge of god.  He said he was going to give us evidence that doesn't require faith.

Point 2 also requires faith as he argued it, because he used the 10 commandments to show that we are in need of forgiveness from god.  And, the last time I checked, these came from the bible.  But, to be fair, in his longer explanation he made the point that human beings have a conscience and animals do not (a point for which he offered up no evidence).  The RSS member "Kelly" attacked this point fairly well, arguing that morals come from society not from god, and backed it up well.  I'd also argue that some human morality certainly appears to have evolved.  This point is weak, and the amount of scientific study regarding morality serves as a firm basis from which to deny that morality, by it's mere existence, somehow indicates that a god exists.  Bunk.

Point 1 is also really, really weak.  Cosmology allows us to understand how the universe developed following the big bang.  It wasn't designed.  Evolution shows us how morphological change and diversification occurs; we can observe it happening (yes theists, speciation has been observed, in fact).  So, life wasn't designed either.  By way of analogy Ray holds up a painting and says that a painting, by it's mere existence, indicates the existence of a painter.  I agree with this, but mostly because I can watch how people make paintings (remember that guy with the curly hair, "a happy little rock lives here by a happy little stream").  Painters creating paintings is an observable phenomenon.  But, physics and evolution show us how the cosmos and life came to be the way they are; natural law is the painter.  On this point we don't even have to settle for a "god was not required" defense; we can say that we reasonably know that god did not hand-build the structures of the cosmos or the forms of living things.

Eh, I guess I should have said how the RSS attacked these points instead of attacking them myself.  They did pretty good, I liked Kelly's points, they were respectable.  I wish they had used evolution and cosmology to attack the creation argument.  I thought Brian's attacking the "creation implies a creator" with the old standby "what created god" was good to get out there on the air ---- I'll be willing to bet, as old as this thought is, that there were several theists in the audience that have never heard it or thought it before.

So - good showing RSS.  Could have been better, yeah, but it was certainly good enough to defeat the really poor arguments put forward by Kirk and Ray.  Plus, I admire their ability to perform under pressure.  They were going up against people that are far more used to standing in the spotlight (I think - I know they run a radio show, but it's not really the same thing as standing in front of the cameras, right?).  Also, Kirk and Ray were able to prepare ahead of time, the RSS had to respond to whatever they were faced with, right there on the spot.

In the end, RSS summarized the debate by stating that no scientific evidence whatsoever for god's existence was put forth by the opposition.  They are, in my opinion, 100% correct.  RSS wins by default, even if this was all they said, because Kirk and Ray failed really miserably to make their case.  Is anyone surprised?

[SteveS]

he christian guys pulled a pretty lame tactic too haha. Instead of responding to a solid statement, they pulled the 'I have no response' crap . That is a prime characteristic of either being a shitty speaker, havin a weak argument, or both.

Right on!  Dude, that was WEAK!  Even the moderator couldn't seem to believe it.  Seems like either they can't think on their feet, and can only regurgitate whatever they came up with before the show, or they honestly had no response.  The counter-points put forth by the atheists certainly required a response.  At least the "what created god" point?!?  They just let that sit there on the table.......

[joeactor]

Well, I'd like to see the whole 90 minutes.  Anyone find a download for that yet?  Seems all chopped up on abcnews.com site.

My impression is that the xtians were confused and muddled.
However, the RRS was nervous and a bit too snippy for my taste.

In my opinion, the RRS needs a Sagan - a public, pleasant figure who can explain things in a simple, calm manner.  In some ways the RRS does more harm than good by going on the offensive.

But I can certainly understand their frustration with the "God Did It" reply...

Waiting for the film,
JoeActor

[Squid]

I don't think RRS will have a Sagan figure, at least not anytime soon.  Their tactics are a bit brash, preemptive and too militant oft times.  This, as you said, can do more harm than good.  I think they'd need to tone down the way they go about many things to attract someone even coming close to Sagan's caliber (that's actually a tall order for any organization).

[SteveS]

I agree with you guys above about the abrasive style.  What I wish they did is come across more toned down on most of the points, more approachable, less angry.  More like "happy atheists" haha.

Then, save the heavy duty mockery for when the theists do something over-the-top stupid like show these retarded half-animals and claim that these are missing transitional fossils.  When they do that, by all means, mock them raw.  Kirk Cameron's crocoduck was crying out for derision.

joeactor - I haven't found a complete download yet either.  You can actually get multiple clips on the ABC site, but they are at most like 12 or 13 minutes each, and they don't add up to the total 90.  :?

[joeactor]

joeactor - I haven't found a complete download yet either.  You can actually get multiple clips on the ABC site, but they are at most like 12 or 13 minutes each, and they don't add up to the total 90.  :?

Thanks for checking.

I'm sure it'll show up on either YouTube or the RRS site at some point...

[SteveS]

Haha, check out this thing they put up on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNLvXllvvsA

Two things about this:

• I find the fact that this guy questioned "Darwinism" (by which I presume he means evolution, more about this below) on the basis of this ridiculous "missing transitional forms" argument depressing, since the entire argument is based on an abject falsehood.  Same with the Macro/Micro evolution distinction - depressing.
  
• Why do these people use the word "Darwinism"?  Was this just totally coined by the creationists?  A sad attempt to turn a scientific theory into an "ism"?  The word "Darwinism" bugs me.  I believe the scientific theory of evolution to be correct on the basis of the evidence in support of it, but I don't consider myself a "Darwinist".  Hell, I don't even know what that means!

Plus - don't you just love the editing on this little gem?  They deliberately make the atheists look stumped on an issue that is just so weak, but they don't include the rebuttal!!!!

Victory through editing.....

[skeptigirl]

...
[li]Why do these people use the word "Darwinism"?  Was this just totally coined by the creationists?  A sad attempt to turn a scientific theory into an "ism"?  The word "Darwinism" bugs me.  I believe the scientific theory of evolution to be correct on the basis of the evidence in support of it, but I don't consider myself a "Darwinist".  Hell, I don't even know what that means!


Plus - don't you just love the editing on this little gem?  They deliberately make the atheists look stumped on an issue that is just so weak, but they don't include the rebuttal!!!!

Victory through editing.....

Your perceptions here are correct. Of course you don't like the term, Darwinism. You recognize it for the calculated effect Creationism promoters use it for.

Creationism - based on Biblical text
Darwinism - reference to Darwin's, "Origin of Species"
evolution - scientific theory

In order to challenge beliefs based on evidence and the scientific process, the Evangelical crowd came up with the Wedge Strategy.

The Wedge document is authored by members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. The wedge document, more than any other ID project, betrays the Discovery Institute's (and intelligent design's) political rather than scientific purpose.

The use of language to specifically influence the reader (or listener) is a tactic widely used by advertisers, Evangelicals, and Republicans. Democrats have been less effective and slower to catch on but they are not above using the tactics. Scientists are the last to recognize what's going on. But that is changing.

The concept of "framing" is becoming more widely recognized. Using Darwinism instead of evolution theory is an attempt to frame the debate between evolution theory and Creation myth on equal terms.

[SteveS]

Yeah, I already argued in another thread that I.D. was primarily a legal quest rather than a scientific one.  Seems somewhat apparent when you review the entire history of the evolution/creationism school debate, education thingy, or what-ever-the-hell-it-is.

For what it's worth, it appears to me that all the politicians (Republicans, Democrats, Green, Libertarian, even the independents) are fairly well versed in this language technique......but I freely admit my opinion may be jaded by my intense dislike of politics  :wink:  .

[cantthinkofaname]

Ray Comfort:  have you ever told a lie?
me:  yes sometime in my life, have you?
comfort: yes
me: well then I won't believe you since you are now considered a liar for life for telling at least one lie in your life.

end of indoctrination