YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

?Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.?

• Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

So there I saw about to start this thread and I find someone beat me to it

Islets, great quote. Interestingly I think best actually used it himself at one point (other way around of course)!

Did best quote and attribute it correctly though? I thought it summed up what happened quite nicely, although instead of claiming victory, he has claimed persecution.

Disappointed that I am having wasted several days reading and contributing to the discussion, I've learnt a lot about YE creationists. I think I knew deep down it was never going to go anywhere, but best has a great opener of "show me evidence of evolution and I will believe". Sucks people right into the discussion. I doubt whether he will return, he is probably off to his next forum to start asserting his opinions afresh.

Interestingly, a lot of the arguments he entered, such as 'speed of light slowing down', 'no transitional fossils' and 'no beneficial mutations' are near the top of the list on creationist websites as 'flawed arguments to avoid using in debate'.

No he didn't attribute it at all, he used it to describe another poster who decided to join the conversation. In many ways made is sound like it was his own quote!

What I learned from it was that it's astonishing how badly you can interpret scientific evidence if you don't take everything into account. It appears to be very easy to find partial quotes and individual theories which seem to support alternative models as long as you ignore all the supporting evidence and the rest of science.

I'm really not sure whether he genuinely believes what he says or if he's just trying to derail science in the name of God.

I think he believes what he's saying. In some respects he's right - if you can't take the Bible literally, what's the point of it at all? A question I ask nearly every Christian I ever talk to - and one of the reasons I'm an atheist. Best's position is: "I DO believe in God so I DO believe the Bible must be correct therefore evolution MUST be wrong and - aha, I can prove it is, so the Bible wins".

But Best I would like you to come back. I've seen your "evidences for God" on Youtube and I'd like to discuss them with you.

I'd also like you to explain how you can 100% accept natural selection but reject the idea that mutations can add information. What do you think the natural selection that you accept is working on?

So come back. I'll play nice. I almost promise

Islets Have you seen this? If not, deep breath and try to avoid throwing your laptop out of the window in frustration...I promise you will want to!

Allow me to introduce Wendy Wright, of Concerned Women of America:

(It's an hour long, but you only need (or could probably survive) 10 minutes).

Ahhh! Wendy Wright, the most annoying woman on YouTube!

Teach the controversy...... Why? Just because there are other views of the world, doesn't mean they should be taught in schools as fact.

I'm actually a little disappointed with Dawkins in this interview, there are several moments when I think, "this would be a great time time to mention [insert classic Dawkins quote here]" and he doesn't.

Still, I expect Wendy went away thinking she won, as is often the case with creationists.

Have you ever seen "How do I take a leak?" You'll know what I mean if you have!

oh and one of his facebook supporters says mn blocked her for trying to add to the conversation.

I have been on mn for years and I have never known mn to do something like this without anyone noticing.

sorry Pedro I didn't mean to tread on your toes

oh and one of his facebook supporters says mn blocked her for trying to add to the conversation

I think she was saying that one of us contacted her and called her names via FB...she then blocked them. I don't believe that, quite honestly.

If she's also saying that MN blocked her from contributing then I really, really don't believe that. Why would they?

I'm guessing they tried to post on the thread after it reached capacity.

To even begin to believe that MN could identify them from a new username set up and stop them posting immediately to a specific thread suggests just how daft they are!

sorry Pedro I didn't mean to tread on your toes

Not at all. Saved me the hassle!

Islets Have you seen this?

Have so far made it through 20 minutes. Watching it short 10 minute bursts as that is all my blood pressure can cope with. The laughing is so rude! What a patronising, rude woman....

Aha. I'm here. Hi, all.

As just one of many many people of faith who do NOT take the Bible literally, I'd like to ask Best and Ruggles how they feel about the following:

{Shameless paste-ins from the West Wing - be it noted that the speaker is a Catholic, President Bartlett:}

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"

Verse"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."

My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"

Verse Leviticus 11
7and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
8Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side?"

"Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?"

[http://westwing.bewarne.com/second/25admonitions.html]

NOBODY is fundamentalist. Therefore the argument that creationism (or homophobia) are enjoined upon Christians fails. Which is just as well in the light of the geological records.

excellent post seiglinde

Didn't Obama make a speech along similar lines - pointing out how Leviticus condones slavery and so on? Think it was before he was Prez.

Yes, I seem to remember this too, Ellie. Confirms my view that Obama channels Bartlett a LOT

I am feeling very bitter about the whole thing...

best pmed me to keep discussing and I said I was keen to carry on talking but would require reassurance that me words would not be used for anything without my permission and guess what?

No reply.

I since had a fab discussion with a proper biologist and discovered that I was on the right track with there being no piece of DNA that codes for a specific organ....instead a collective sensing of cells causes organs to develop when the environment is right...

Ellie I just wanted the Wendy and Richard interview, I thought it was really good. Thanks for linking to it.

Icbineg, don't be bitter. Your arguments were really well founded and persuasive, and from what I read on FB at the time, RR is feeling rather wounded by the whole thing. Probably because MNers didn't bow down to his "superior" knowledge You had an incredible patience and knowledge to debate him like that - I tend to think along the lines of the Scott D Weitzenhoffer quote.

ICB, I too think you did an amazing job. And now here I am, keen to help - and where is Best?

I followed most of the thread and I'd like to see best come back and attempt to redeem himself. As an atheist, I appreciate that it seemed he was at least trying to make arguments for his beliefs and I think he did it in a respectful way most of the time.

I haven't seen whatever he said on FB but if he was misrepresenting what anyone said, that's definitely not cool. I did think it got a bit bullying toward the end. That said, I can see how dealing with such a person might get frustrating after a while.

But I doubt he'll come back if he's reading this because it already sounds like nothing but more arguing will come of it. Too bad because it started out to be an interesting discussion.

I am interested to know what came across as bullying. People were upset at being told they were irrational, possibly violent, crazy, their intelect belittled and views misrepresented. We also called bad form on name calling behind our backs.

Sieglinde I have some spare time today - want me to start a thread about Stalin & atheism?