Richard Dawkins: One fact to convince a creationist to doubt

Richard Dawkins: One fact to convince a creationist to doubt

Richard Dawkins: One fact to convince a creationist to doubt

La la la, says Dawkins, you cannot argue with a mind like that. Then he delivers a knock-out punch line.

Know anything about this? Email us
WalterEgo Nominated by WalterEgo
Email a friend Privacy policy
Misc
Link to this page
Newsletter: Sign up
Download   ?

Get plug-in

Keep BoreMe fresh: Contribute

View by top voted  |  date

Guest (14 days ago)

you guys have no idea what your talking about. the crux of your argument is reference to some film or simply saying "it's been answered before"... yeah, great way to win someone over to your point of view. but if you did actually listed to what he said you'd realize that making informed decisions, based on scientific fact makes perfect sense, rather than following a 2,000 year old fiction book or making up ideas from thin air
   

Guest: Beezoo (14 days ago)

The theory of evolution is not scientific fact based on proof, it's only another theory based on specks of evidence, and accepted because many "scientists" are too proud to simply say "we just don't know the answer at this time." Plus they favor materialistic answers because it makes them final authority on the subject. I see darwinism as speculation at best and biblical creationism as entirely myth without credible foundation.
      

Guest (14 days ago)

"specks of evidence" If evolution hasn't been proven by the staggeringly vast array of evidence, then nothing can be. In that sense, the fact that evolution is a "theory" is not a reason to discredit it.
      

Guest: Mark (13 days ago)

The Theory of evolution is a theory suggesting how evolution happens as the same way the theory of gravity is trying to explain why there is gravity not suggesting that gravity exists because it is quite obvious it does!
   

Guest (13 days ago)

it's more than 3000 years old.

Guest: Beezoo (14 days ago)

What a narrow-minded, shallow-thinking fool. He needs to watch the videos "Holographic Universe" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". The people behind those movies demonstrate far more depth of thought and understanding than Dawkins ever does.
   

Guest: Dan (14 days ago)

Such irony. Dawkins' "knockout argument" is paint thin and without a whiff of probative substance, has been answered decisively many times -- then he complains that his opponents don't listen!
      

Guest (14 days ago)

OK, so how do you justify a stance that says "even if every bit of evidence points in one theory, I will believe in one without evidence"?
         

Guest: pyro (11 days ago)

Latest comment: "thats just one guys answer, should everyine else be tarred with it? whatever next, racial steretypes or stabbing goths? "
      

Guest (14 days ago)

And what are those arguments Dan? People always say that, but they can never really say what those arguments are
   

Guest (14 days ago)

I looked up 'Holgraphic Universe'. Got to the point where they talked about "only 5 senses" and realised that it was twaddle - completely insubstantial twitterings by someone trying to come with a new science for those who want to go a little alternative. Yes, all we know of the world is our perceptions of it, but if it has the same material effect as a real world, then, for all intents and purposes it is real. Hardly an earth-shattering conclusion - just tripping people up over terminology.

plavynplavyn (12 days ago)

The main point of the argument is that all factual evidence points to the theory of evolution as the correct mechanism for the changing nature of species, even including the creation of new species. what's even more important, is that as new evidence comes to light (e.g. genetics) it also fits the theory. If someone can actually point to ANYTHING AT ALL which contradicts the theory of evolution i'll be very happy to hear them out, but sadly, i'm guessing, all we'll get is more of the same overarching comments that have nothing to do with anything

Guest: Beezoo (14 days ago)

His whole argument is based on the premise that there are only two possibilities - the biblical account of creation and Darwin's. I believe he continues with that premise because he makes money arguing with people who are greater fools than he is. The truth is that both theories are very flimsy at best.
   

Guest (14 days ago)

Not at all. In fact, he repeatedly uses other religions to demonstrate that there is no reason to believe in Christianity.
   

Guest: peter (11 days ago)

Beezo creationism is not a theory, there is nothing to back it up except the bible. It is not even strong enough to be called a Hypothesis.

Guest (12 days ago)

"it doesn't affect me at all... AT ALL!!!!" we can see that! almost running out of curses for a second there. I think i'll convert to that a muslim jehova witness atheism. Sounds cool.

Guest: just my opinion (12 days ago)

Why cant we all just accept that we as people just cant agree on most things let alone how the universe was created, let us just live our lives the best we can and keep our belefs to ourselves.

Guest: Arand (14 days ago)

I'm getting more and more convinced that letting Dawkins represent the theory of evolution is like letting Cartoon Network represent the film industry. Pretty darn obvious why creationists won't have nothing of it. The "Beyond Belief 2006" vid here on site is a very good kernel