Here's A Fruit Cake For You.....

[ToraToraTora]

I was looking at something else on YouTube and this was next to it. We were asking about Holocaust denial on another thread and I and others struggle to see how some find it so easy to ignore rock solid evidence and persist with their moronic views on things. This clip perhaps shows the sort of brain dead state that is required, 8mins but worth it:

[pixie374]

I have never understood the debate about the eye, in evolution. Surely, you start with a few cells that can differentiate between light and dark, to movement, to details, to colour etc. Over time. I have never understood why it's a mystery. Even animals have different developments. But, will watch the rest of the link now...

[pixie374]

Ok, well, he came to the same conclusion... so, common sense rather than rocket science.

[ToraToraTora]

the whole point is that the functions of all the organs evolve from simple beginnings over millions of years. Dawkins explained that, pretty calmly. The problem with the creationist types they always ignore that and say how could something so complex emerge out of thin air, then use that to say "god" must have made it!

[pixie374]

Finished watching now. Ok, missed out light direction.... his replies seem obvious, but, also, I do appreciate that a minority will also doubt and ask questions. That's good, surely? You can disagree, but still learn more by other thinkers... it doesn't make them morons. It's quite useful. The interviewer is unwilling to actually think though...

[pixie374]

I know.... People should listen, even to those they disagree with.

[andy-hughes]

That's about it isn't it TTT.

Professor Dawkins takes the time to explain evolution at a level where a competent ten year old could grasp what he is saying, and as soon as he got going, the other guy zoned out and started thinking about the Book Of Genesis.

As the professor pointed out, with admirable patience I think, the book was written by some scribe eight hundred years BC, so what makes that more believable than the concept of evolution.

If I write now, here, today, that the moon is made of green cheese, if someone finds that in a couple of thousand years time, is it true, because I said so, and history apparently gives gravitas proportional to the length of time involved?

Clearly it's not, but that is the premise under which the professor's companion is arguing.

It doesn't stand up to the simplest of scrutiny - but then that's what faith is, believing something you can't know, or prove.

[ToraToraTora]

pixie: "I do appreciate that a minority will also doubt and ask questions. That's good, surely?" - yes it is but he didn't ask any questions he probably didn't even listen to the explanation just sat there thinking about what he was going to say next.
"You can disagree, but still learn more by other thinkers..." - yes disagree but have some sort of reasoning behind it not blind adherence to fairy tales.
"it doesn't make them morons." - if we are talking about something that does have several feasible explanations then of course it doesn't but if you are dismissing centuries of research in favour of mumbo jumbo then yes it does make them morons.
"The interviewer is unwilling to actually think though... " - because he already knows the answers anything else is just deflection by evil unbelievers.
"I know.... People should listen, even to those they disagree with. " - we do, I do, but we are not talking about the best way to do something we are talking about blind adherence to mumbo Jumbo, not merely "disagreement". We can disagree on politics, TV programs, music etc all quite fairly and amicably. This isn't that, this, like the HDs, moon Hoaxers and other fruitcakes is the ignoring of undeniable evidence with no contrary evidence with which to be contrarian.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // I do appreciate that a minority will also doubt and ask questions. That's good, surely? You can disagree, but still learn more by other thinkers... it doesn't make them morons. It's quite useful. The interviewer is unwilling to actually think though... //

Indeed.

Asking questions because you want to hear and think about the answers is all well and good.

Asking questions because you have already adopted your default position, and simply want to shoehorn whatever you hear, to fit what you already believe - that is going to go nowhere.

And anyone who has spent any time at all in the R & S section knows how that goes!!!

[pixie374]

I agree.. listening and actually thinking for yourself is good as well.

[andy-hughes]

To be fair to the interviewer, I think the label 'fruit cake' is a bit harsh.

He's clearly got deeply entrenched views, and being a devout Christian, he not, and never will be, in the business of listening to anything whatsoever that does not completely agree with what he has heard, read, and believes.

[ToraToraTora]

that is the very definition of a fruit cake Andy. Black is white and no amount of clever science is going to persuade me otherwise!

[youngmafbog]

Oh dear that's bible thumpers for you, well at least it was kept civil.

[naomi24]

He’s a creationist. Some people have even more bizarre ideas.

[Khandro]

//I have never understood the debate about the eye, in evolution. Surely, you start with a few cells that can differentiate between light and dark, to movement, to details, to colour etc. Over time. I have never understood why it's a mystery. //

So that's all sorted ! Anything else?

[ichkeria]

The wonders of creation, I have to say, do start to seem less wonderful (tho still amazing) when you consider how many billions of years the primeval soup (or whatever) was bubbling

[pixie374]

Not really, khandro. How about you?
The only thing I'm doubting really, is that even people that imv, are clearly wrong, are necessarily morons or stupid.
What else did you want to discuss, khandro?

[andy-hughes]

ich - // The wonders of creation, I have to say, do start to seem less wonderful (tho still amazing) when you consider how many billions of years the primeval soup (or whatever) was bubbling //

Do they?

Not to me they don't!!

[Khandro]

pixie //What else did you want to discuss, khandro?//

You have effortlessly convinced yourself that you understand how sight (and therefore consciousness) came about, so now all you have to do is answer the question; why?

[pixie374]

Khandro, I haven't- i gave the most obvious suggestion, and certainly never mentioned consciousness.

Neither did I claim at any point, there must be a "why".

[mibn2cweus]

I find it interesting that those who believe 'God' (whatever) gave them a brain seem incapable of using it. I have yet to have been given a satisfactory explanation for how a conscious, thinking, creative mind can exist without means, process or purpose, how such a being can exist before existence itself to create existence in all its current complexity by simply commanding everything, as well as by necessity itself, into existence.
The belief that 'gods' (whatever) ever explained anything must be the greatest impedance to human reason and understanding there ever was.