The Skeptical Teacher

Musings of a science teacher & skeptic in an age of woo.

Bill O’Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins: O’Reilly Shows Why He’s a Wedge, The Simplest of Tools

Posted by mattusmaximus on October 14, 2009

Bill O’Reilly is a wedge, the simplest of the tools.  Here’s why…

A video from a FOX News interview of Bill O’Reilly & Dr. Richard Dawkins discussing evolutionary science, God, and religious belief is now making the rounds on the Internet, and I wanted to share both it and my thoughts on it here.  First off, here’s the video…

In addition, here’s the full transcript of the obviously edited video (just watch it closely and you can catch the numerous cuts which probably left out most of Dawkins’ best arguments), and a careful read will expose a number of flaws in O’Reilly’s muddled thinking.

Allow me to point out just a few of the biggest loser arguments made by O’Reilly in this exchange:

1. Argument from Ignorance: Essentially, O’Reilly is arguing from ignorance – in this case using the famous “god-of-the-gaps” logical fallacy – when he states that because science hasn’t yet produced an answer on the question of life’s origins then Christianity must be correct…

O’REILLY: Tell me where I’m going wrong here. I believe in creative design. I believe in evolution, but I think it was overseen by a higher power, because as we just stated and you acknowledged, you guys still haven’t figured out how it all began.

Btw, I really like how O’Reilly tries to slip that phrasing in there… creative design.  It’s not intelligent design – which has become synonymous with creationism – it’s now creative design.  Makes me think that O’Reilly’s hypothetical god is like some kind of basket-weaver or something similarly silly.  I might also point out that one could just as easily use this kind of argument to justify that space aliens or a Flying Spaghetti Monster made the universe via creative design🙂

2. False Dichotomy: O’Reilly very clearly implies through his arguments that this is a question of science versus God, specifically Christianity.  Of course, the fact that he has Dawkins, who is a staunch atheist, on the show plays into this false dichotomy.  O’Reilly completely neglects to mention that numerous religious scientists, including evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins, have come out publicly and stated quite clearly that intelligent – oops, I mean creative – design, or creationism, is a bunch of pseudoscientific baloney.

The folks at FOX were cutting out parts of the interview, but they missed a piece, because Dawkins (however briefly) did indeed catch O’Reilly on this particular point:

DAWKINS: Why would you muddle up the question of giving you a moral compass for life, which is important, with the other question, which is explaining the nature of the world, the nature of life, the nature of the universe? That’s what science is about.

Bottom line: you can both accept modern evolutionary science and garner specific moral teachings from your religion (or non-religion, for that matter).  The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as O’Reilly would have the viewer believe.

3. Moving the Goalposts: Notice how O’Reilly not-so-cleverly attempts to change the conditions of “success” on Dawkins in the interview…

O’REILLY: I’m throwing in with Jesus rather than be thrown in with you guys, because you guys can’t tell me how it all got here. You guys don’t know.

RICHARD DAWKINS, AUTHOR, “THE GOD DELUSION”: We’re working on it. Physicists…

O’REILLY: When you get it, then maybe I’ll listen.

DAWKINS: Well, if you look at the history of science over the centuries, the amount that’s gained in knowledge each century is stupendous. In the beginning of the 21st century, we don’t know everything.

O’REILLY: All right. When you guys figure it out, then you come back here and tell me, because until that time I’m sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy.

Notice that O’Reilly keeps on saying, “When you guys get it, I’ll listen” but he never – on purpose, I think – states exactly what “it” is.  Many creationists & pseudoscientists perform the same logically fallacious sleight-of-hand when attempting to cast doubt upon science – they state that they’ll accept the evidence that science presents, yet they never tell what the nature of that evidence may be.  This allows them to use a tactic called moving the goalposts of the argument, which means that when evidence challenging their beliefs actually is presented to them they can deny the evidence or simply state that “it’s not enough”.  And when more evidence is presented, they simply move the goalposts again, and so on…

4. Present “All” Views: Another trick that O’Reilly pulls out of the creationist hat is that old standby, present “all” views…

O’REILLY: No. You present in the science classroom all the alternatives that are legitimate. Now, Adam and Eve, you don’t have to do that, all right. That’s for the Biblical portion of a theology class. But, as I said, there are more believers than nonbelievers, and that should be presented. I’ll give you the last word.

This is an argument designed to appeal to the notion of fairness inherent in most people in the Western democracies.  In our society, it seems just plain unfair to not allow all sides of a debate to present their point of view, but this particular argument is easily countered.  Note that when discussing science, one must abide by very specific rules – such as following the scientific method and being able to test & potentially falsify your ideas. However, the O’Reillys of the world would much rather circumvent the requirements of science yet still call their religious ideology science, which is unfairly stacking the deck in their favor.

In addition, another thing to note is that when this argument is presented, it is always presented in the context of a specific religious belief vs. evolution – in this case O’Reilly’s view of Christianity vs. evolution.  If they truly do mean teach “all” alternative views, then why don’t they ever advocate for things like Raelianism, $cientology, or Islamic creationism?  The point here is that they’re outright hypocrites, because they whine and moan about “fairness” and teaching “all” views when in reality all they wish to do is stack the deck and give disproportionate time to presenting their personal religious point of view.

5. Blatant Anti-Scientific Stance: In one section of the interview, O’Reilly stoops pretty low claiming that when Dawkins argues against allowing blatantly religious views into science classrooms he is taking a fascist stance.  O’Reilly actually equates defending the teaching of science with fascism!

O’REILLY: Yes, for you to say you cannot, in a public school classroom, a science classroom, talk about brilliant men, and I know brilliant, smarter than you, who do believe in a higher power, who do believe that there was an overseer of the universe, and you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.

What a douchebag.  This is clearly an attempt to make an ad hominem attack on anyone who, like Dawkins, opposes the teaching of religious ideology or pseudoscientific tripe masquerading as science.  It is an extremely slimy and weaseling way of Godwinning the discussion by, in a roundabout way, of implying that your opponent is a Nazi.

I’ve seen this kind of argumentation before when actor Ben Stein made similar arguments and stated that “Science leads you to killing people” in the context of the Holocaust…

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

Of course, the irony here is that O’Reilly’s career and lifestyle are wholly dependent upon the very science that he so disparages.  I don’t recall any Bible stories talking about television, radio waves, or the Internet, do you?  Last I saw in the history books, it took good old fashioned science to come up with those things😉

45 Responses to “Bill O’Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins: O’Reilly Shows Why He’s a Wedge, The Simplest of Tools”

  1. anaglyph said

    Oh dear. I’d forgotten about that Dawkins video with O’Reilly. So depressing. The problem with ‘debating’ someone like O’Reilly is that you can never gain ground – he has everything on his side; the ability to change his argument as he sees fit, the ability to call on magical thinking (that has no rules of evidence), and ultimately, the ability to cut out anything that he doesn’t agree with. I was surprised to see Dawkins in this scenario – he’s refused so many of these kinds of setups. Ultimately it makes him look bad I think. There are a few debates up on YouTube (which are for the most part live and unedited) where he fares much better, and is much more personable.

  2. ALoha,
    I’ll gladly tell you exactly what the goal post is for your first affirmative in a scientific debate about “ex nihilo” creation that you posit. I’ll even give you a $1000
    dollars if you can find any scientist who can even articulate an affirmative on the cause
    or origin of all energy, matter and life and remotely stay scientific and out of his sacred
    evolutionary “faith” views in doing it. You talk a lot just to hear yourself beat up on
    your own strawmen arguments. Your only way to win a debate on this issue is to censor your
    opponents. O’Reilly is a liberal, unbiblical, unscientific novice on this issue. So are
    you. Any time any place.

    Gerald Wright (Author of the upcoming “The Supreme Scientist.”)

  3. anaglyph said

    I’ll even give you a $1000
    dollars if you can find any scientist who can even articulate an affirmative on the cause
    or origin of all energy, matter and life and remotely stay scientific and out of his sacred
    evolutionary “faith” views in doing it.

    That’s a vacant proposition. A scientist merely says: ‘We don’t know’, or ‘We don’t know yet‘. This is explicitly not the same as saying ‘God did it’. Religiously inclined people frequently make this elementary mistake of logic. Science does not (yet) know the origin of life. But neither does religion. At least, it can’t make up its mind about how it happened:

    •A being not unlike humans conjured it out of nothing using words.
    •It was created from a dream time by a rainbow serpent
    •It was made from the remains of a giant bottle broken in pieces
    •A spider created it from a snail and a clam shell
    •It was made from the souls of twin boys, who themselves were made of spit
    •It sprang from a reed growing in mud
    •It formed from a giant ossified snake

    So which is it? Or, is it only your religion, Mr Wright, which is correct?

    What is happening here is that science is being honest and religion is being duplicitous. Science says ‘We don’t know the answer’ and Religion says (with astonishing hubris) ‘We do!’ And, as the Skeptical Teacher correctly asserts, whenever science gets ground on pointing out the implausibility of religious claims (the sun isn’t a chariot pulled across the skies by a god; the Earth and all things on it weren’t created 6,000 years ago; we aren’t supported by a tower of elephants and turtles), religion merely rearranges its argument. It’s a historical fact, Mr Wright. Deny it if you like, but, as with all the other denials of religion, it does not change the truth of things.

    • Not so Mr. Confessed Ape Descendant (C.A.D.) … how could your educated monkey mind come to any scientific conclusions on something you are totally in the dark about, viz, origins? Add to your denial the real factual truth that scientists have been saying that the origins of this universe is “settled science” and that “nothing will give rise to something as sure as the sun rises” for decades. Put up or shut up. You’re making a fool out of yourself. My book — “The Supreme Scientist”– presents abundant proof (scientific, historical, biological, etc.) of God’s creation of everything that exists. Gerald Wright “Chief Scientist”

  4. Sorry, sir, but all your ad hominem attacks on me or the Bible’s account of creation will not add a single particle of evidence to any of the atheistic claims — singularity, big bank, big foam, big crunch, ad infinitum — about origins. Either admit that you have NO empirical evidence pertaining to the origin of matter and the universe, or be about presenting it or excuse yourself completely from the debate. I’m not the least bit interested in being charitable and giving any evolutionists the first particle of matter, photon, dna molecule or second of time for the sake of discussion and allowing you to leapfrog over ex nihilo creation. You’re not God. So give it up already. “The fool said in his heart there is no God….but Dawkins and Maher say it out loud!

    • Anaglyph said

      My coment was not an ad hominem, but an observation. If you actually read what I wrote before (or took the trouble to attempt understand it) you would not be challenging me to ‘admit that I have no empirical evidence’. As I quite clearly stated: ‘Science does not (yet) know the origin of life.’ Go back and read that very slowly, just so you understand what I’m saying.

      Now, the next part of my argument following on from that is that neither does religion, unless you want to accept the strange accounts of many different creation myths as being equally valid.

      And, if you are not prepared to accept that we were spun into existence by a spider, then I ask once again a very simple quesion (which, I note, you, and all religious people reliably fail to be able to answer coherently): If none of the other religions I mentioned are correct in their estimation of how the universe was created, then why, Mr Wright, is YOURS the right explanation?

      If you can’t answer that question coherently, then you may excuse yourself from the debate (and I won’t accept the explanation that your God ‘told you’ it was so – every religion on the planet that is, or ever was, can say that, making them all equally valid).

  5. “big bank” should be “big bang” or whatever else anyone wants to conjure up in their non-scientific minds

  6. Aloha whoever you are. If you will read my original post on this site, you will note that I did not posit any religious affirmative, only a challenge that evolutionists fulfill their affirmative obligation on materialistic exnihilo creation of all matter and present a single spec of empirical evidence. Never been done.
    Also, presenting negatives against all other supernatural views manifests complete ignorance about history, this universe and all laws of science; as well as being a distraction from their absolute failure and inability to present any evidence about origins…period.
    So be about it, you’re in the affirmative. Saying scientists say “they don’t know” is absolutely untrue. They have been saying all their basic postulations are “settled science” for decades. My book proves otherwise.
    YES, I believe I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ proved he was the supernatural first cause and creator of everything and the Jehovah of the Old Testament with real empirical evidences amongst millions of witnesses. That’s why I wrote the book!
    Yet, I will not allow you to distract me from requiring that evolutionists prove their first affirmative FIRST so I can Negate it and then present my first Affirmative. Especially since I wrote 310 pages in the book to save me that time.
    Thanks for your time and interest. Mahalo.

  7. More ad hominem smoke. You’re batting zero when it comes to addressing the point I raised from the beginning. This is why evolutionists won’t debate anything on evolution in public, they’ll lose with their first affirmative…or lack thereof. Talk talk talk about singularities, big bangs and spontaneous generation of life and a 1000 other silly speculations w/o proof of a single one. Jim Carrey’s famous words come to mind: “Looooosers!” Find me one scientific falsehood in Genesis 1 and I’ll give you a 100 in Darwin or Dawkins.

    • Anaglyph said

      Only, I did adress the point you raised in the beginning. You just don’t want to acknowledge that fact, because it doesn’t suit the blustering style of repetitive rhetoric that you think serves as logical argument.

      What I said, and I will repeate it AGAIN, is that scientists can accept that there are things we just might not know. Your response that scientists have been saying ‘for centuries’ that the science is ‘settled’ is completely baseless. Which scientists said that it’s settled? When? I don’t believe you can give me even one instance of any credible scientist making the claim that they understand what happened at TZero or exactly how life began on this planet. Your entrenchment in this position alone shows two things: your astonishing lack of understanding of science, and your massive hubris. You have based your entire argument on exploiting the ex nihilo proposition, as if that’s some kind of stroke of genius. A bright schoolkid can do better than that. You say that’s why evolutionists ‘won’t debate in public’ when the truth is that there is nothing to debate – science does not, at this time, know how life arose, or how the universe began (if, indeed, it ever had a beginning in any way that is meaningful to human minds). Since you plainly have trouble with understanding that idea, I’ll say it again: science does not, at this time, know how life arose. Science does not have any problems with accepting that it might not understand things, as hard as that idea seems for you to comprehened. Making up stories to explain things you don’t know (as you are doing) does not trump ‘does not know’.

      Science can maintain that kind of logic in its framework. Science does not, no matter how many times you repeat the point, claim to know everything. That’s just how you want to frame it, because otherwise your ‘argument’ is exposed as the trite flummery it really is: hubristic proselytizing of a creation myth dreamed up by Middle Eastern goatherds.

  8. Sir I will not write my book again for your benefit. If you don’t know scientists have been saying that they know their views on origins are so right that they qualify as being as much a scientific “theory” as the “theory of electricity” and the sun’s rising, you have not been reading enough on this issue to even discuss it. You’re in denial. If you think I’m wrong go and read Hawking’s latest books (listed in my book). If you want anecdotal proof: tell me why all the theories of atheists on “origins” are taught in “science” classes all over the world and all the ones that posit a supernatural creator have been banned by these very ignorant CADS. Let’s face reality, friend: No scientist today knows anything about origins or the completion of the universe all the way up to historical records. They say “nobody” created everything out of “nothing.” (You cannot dispute this, friend, so accept what your view demands.) They also can present “nothing” in the way of empirical evidence to support anything that they say “probably, must have, could have, must have…” taken place for our universe to exist as it most certainly does. So all you have to offer in your great debate on this issue as far as any first Affirmative on Origins of our universe is “NOTHING!” That’s your dilemma and yet you persist in trying to convince people about how smart our scientists are. A jackass knows better than this! (I require in real life — as I have debated a number of well-credentialed evolutionists — and in my book that I require atheistic evolutionists to deal with ex nihilo creation (or any other modern view about eternal universes and multiverses) or concede the debate. So far you haven’t started.

  9. I said “scientists have said for decades and not centuries as you misrepresent.” My last statements is a bit jumbled…simply put: “I require evolutionists to deal with ex nihilo or concede the debate. I insist they deal with “origins” as “origins” and not jump over the starting line and say they finished the race when they didn’t even start. The truth is that evolutionists can’t present any evidence for over 13.7 billion of their conectured years of age for our universe and not just your “Tzero” or before the first trillionth of a second or whatever these imaginitive little kids want to conjure up and pass off as “science.” Again, this is why they don’t debate: they have “nothing” with which to start!

    • Anaglyph said

      Oh I give up. It’s like trying to have a conversation with a speaking parrot. Yes, that’s an ad hominem – after a certain point it becomes tiring attempting to discuss logical propositions with someone who has one banal point to hammer and no rational process. You think whatever you want to think Mr Wright, I simply do not care. You plainly know more than the smartest people that have ever lived and can’t be educated any further.

  10. I know more than any scientist who says his cousins are “apes, jackals and starfish” (Dawkins) and any person who is a CAD (Confessed Ape Descendant). I don’t claim to be the smartest person in the world…but I do know the smartest person who’s ever lived and have read all of his writings: Jesus Christ. When you show me one scientist who’s had the best selling science book for 35 centuries, our dating system is based upon his birth, our US Constitution closes with acceptance of his lordship, and our Declaration his Creatorship, and billions still sing hopeful hymns about him … then we can have an intelligent discussion about history and science. Until ten you’re just a parrot immitating fools without any education to back up your biblical bias. But we who were created in the image of the almighty God (Jehovah/Jesus) and possess his wisdom and love pray for you to open your eyes and behold his glorious creation. Consider your own DNA which unfolded will reach to the sun and back many times, or your eyeballs, for crying out loud. Aloha and agape, the “Chief Scientist,” Gerald Wright.

    • Anaglyph said

      >>”…then we can have an intelligent discussion about history and science.”<<

      With you, Mr Wright, no-one will ever be able to have an intelligent discussion about science. Every word you write demonstrates clearly that you have no clue how science works, nor ineed, what it actually is. And even if someone was to take the trouble to point out the numerous terrible assumptions, egregious errors and logical fallacies in the paragraph you wrote above, it would be a futile exercise since you plainly are unable to follow rational thought processes.

  11. And just what little tidbit of “science” have you presented in all your posts so far? zip, zero, zilch, nada. So why don’t you just ignore me and present your “scientific” proofs and/or intelligent and rational postulations about from whence all matter and energy came into being…of evolved after your “Tzero” event miraculously happened? And please don’t quote Dawkins and tell me that “Nothing is a whole lot of something.” You have very aptly proved that you have “nothing” to say on this issue…but you want to act au courant and elitist and smarter than everyone who disagrees with your made up words and theories. I nailed this over and over in my book, and I appreciate your taking your time to demonstrate how vacuous your comrades on this issue are. (John 1:1-3; 8:32; 20:30-31)

  12. I will close this discussion by saying I have heard and understood your denial and escape-debate default line: “scientists admit that there are things that scientists don’t know…” And I agree, neither you or any other secular scientists knows anything about the issue of origins. But that didn’t stop any of you from writing libraries full oABOf books telling the world about what you are cocksure about on the issue and telling eveyone that you know it wasn’t God who created it. IF YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT ORIGINS (as Hawkings said and Darkins said there was a “gap” in scientific knowledge there, O’Reilly), then how in the name of all that is logical, rational and reasonable could you KNOW it wasn’t the almighty, invisible God of the Bible? Repeat 100 times: “I DO NOT KNOW WHAT OR WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE! (Then we’ve made some progress here.)

    • Woody said

      Funny, we start with an elementary question: How did something come from nothing. Scientifice theories abound somewhat, supernatural creation theories abound (and there are a number of different ones depending on which true faith has your ear). Look at it from my perspective if you will, your putting a one true god in the throne and talking about the truth of that god’s claim, based upon one of many ancient scriptures which are all subject to centuries of edits, hoaxing at the excited times of their writing and as lacking in historical provenance the next.
      It seems strange to me that religious believers who understand what it means to have faith, would include the word science or scientific in a debate at all.
      Jesus this, Jesus that, God this, God that, these are storys/faiths, no sturdier I think than the scattered thoughts i’ve tried to explain above.

      • Anaglyph said

        You’ll make no ground with Mr Wright, Woody. Like all people who hold superstitious beliefs, he wants to have his cake and eat it. Because science quite demonstrably works to explain our world, he wants it to endorse his views when it suits him (using the internet, for example) and lend authority to his persona (“Chief Scientist”), and even to appear to attempt to have an argument with some basis in logical discourse, but ultimately his only defense for the point of view he holds is “God explains it in the bible”. It’s the lamest form of religious argument, and it’s ultimately tiring. Mr Wright does not care to attempt to convince anyone with good argument that he has a legitimate point of view – he just has one lame routine that he wheels out over and over as if it’s meaningful. If he gets no traction with it, he quite predictably resorts to lots of capital letters and bible quotes.

    • mattusmaximus said


      Does this include the believers acknowledging not knowing whether or not God created the universe? Because the problem with this line of argumentation is that it is a classic argument from ignorance. Someone who shares Gerald Wright’s position will use this argument to “prove” that science cannot ever know the answer, and then they’ll turn around and say “Therefore, God did it!”

      Such an argument is inherently self-contradictory: we don’t know how it happened, but we know God did it. We don’t know, therefore we know. See? A very obvious contradiction.

      If believers like Gerald Wright would simply acknowledge and accept this point, then I would say we’ve made some progress here.

      • Anaglyph said

        Mr Wright will never acknowledge that point, though, as you can see from his replies above. He is quite unable to entertain the idea that not knowing something is a perfectly legitimate position. Don’t try to get him to tackle this logically, though, because he is also quite unable to embrace logical thought.

  13. Woody … First, you’re just parroting what so and so said ad nauseum. Nice try at distracting us from your total lack of scientific evidence to support a single atheistic claim about origins and evolution. If you could prove every word that I have written in my book on Origins, plus every word in the Bible, you still would not be able to prove your totally unscientific views about any thing past 10,000 years…including the time you claim to believe in. Furthermore, everything you say about Christ and his Bible represents nothing more than more parroting of ignorant people who don’t Moses from a foot disease. If I couldn’t prove that Christ was the Creator beyond any reasonable historical or scientific doubt, I’d join you in your miserable and hopeless life. BUT I CAN! (whoops)
    So and so…Anaglyph (a small stone head??)…You said “science quite demonstrably works to explain our world”… hahaha now your are a comedian. First you can’t present a single explanation about the creation of this world that is scientific and not forever trapped in the most ridiculous foolishness that CADSs could makeup. Ok, enuff, I agree you came from a gorilla. Put that as your first affirmative the first time you debate this issue. The last professor that said such in a debate with me at our University here corrected himself and said he didn’t come from a gorilla…but from their lower ancestors. What a gas. Beats jackels and starfish, though. I like this Dawkins quote: “We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes.” Wow, you can’t write comedy this funny. Ok so you are an ape. (Ever hear about the Indian lady who married a snake?) Have a great life with your ape family and friends. I prefer Christ and those created just a little lower than angels (Hebrews 2:7). (I am a “Chief Scientist” because I’ve never been proven wrong on a single earth science for 70 years.)

  14. Not so mister mattusmaximus (another mystery moniker to hide your identity and let you escape debate and responsibility. Use your real name as am I. My view and identity is fully disclosed for criticism…neither is present from your side. I am not in the affirmative on this issue in these posts; but you guys are. I don’t need to apply my requirement to me for two reasons: (1) I am not in the affirmative…and it is already out there in my 310 page book. (2) I only need to present a negative that pokes holes in your alleged affirmative. I did. In fact, you did it to yourself. You said you know nothing. So I accept and you forfeit the point and we don’t need to go further to prove Dawkins has nothing to offer on Origins. I am a professional in this business and you are obviously rank amateurs. Learn the science of debate, ok. (Then you’ll debunk Dawkins, et al, for me.

    • mattusmaximus said

      We don’t know what or who created the universe, therefore we know it was leprechauns…

      Just as logical as the argument from ignorance made by Gerald Wright.

      I will allow the readers of this comment thread to make their own conclusions as to who is “winning” this debate.

  15. äre fully disclosed

  16. Correction: YOU don’t know who created the universe and it could be leprechauns…and I fully accept your ignorance on this issue. You have a right (gov’t) to be as ignorant as you choose to be. But WE Christian Creationists do claim to know who created the universe and are willing to prove it..actually have proved it over and over since Christ was resurrected from the dead. Of course, you wouldn’t believe in anything beyond what your eyeballs can see and wouldn’t believe in the resurrected Christ if you met him after you killed him…typical of deniers (John 11:43-48). Your loss.

  17. You’re still in the Affirmative…so prove it; you’ll have a lot better chance of proving they did it rather than Nothing and Nobody. I await your revelation behind your belief. (Now we’re making progress!)

  18. No, so please tell me in a few words where any part of it is “specious” or not truthful. While you’re at it tell me what you think of Dawkins little internet video chat (24/4/12) with Lawrence Kraus about the “Quatum Mechanics” they say “no one understands”… but proves “nothing is something…you can get everything from nothing…literal nothing…absolute nothing.” Is that true science to you? That is not even specious; that is patently and palpably false.
    That doesn’t appear to be genuine science; that appears to be goofy and wacko pseudo cultic and pagan idiocy. And yet that is your teacher, eh. You need to read my book! (I do give free copies to those who are poor and sincerely seeking truth.)

  19. “quantum” or any other word you want to call it, like “giant leaps of faith out into the abyss.”

    • Woody said

      Proof of ressurection?
      Insults to us, our logic and reason?
      Another book to convince us about our invisible friend, with what you call evidence?
      Rubbish thinly veiled as science going on and on and on?
      Self-righteous bible-thumpers who take forever to tell us that fairies are real seem to do well in politics, you may as well take your book with you.

  20. Congrats Woody, you have now abandoned your obligation to prove anything scientific or historical about any of the major platforms of evolution — ex nihilo creation, spontaneous generation of life (showing how life sprang from gas, dirt and rocks), transitional fossils and living ones (there would be billions of them walking around, and I could write a book about your absolute failure to perform your affirmative obligations — and crawfished away with your bait and switch to my having to prove the Bible to you. Well, it’s survived far greater attacks from far greater critics than you or anyone you can cite for over 3500 years. The historicity of Christ’s life is undeniable (yes, inspite of idiot Bill Maher’s “Horus” joke in “Religulous”), and you don’t want to debate that either. You will lose! Again, this isn’t the forum to write my book or any of the other 1000’s on Biblical Apologetics; but us a place were you could come up with one bonafide verifiable fact supporting your theory that matter is eternal or created itself and all things. That flatly contradicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Sorry, but you can’t find a case where an inferior unintelligent cause creates a well-designed and superior effect. Evolution is an insult to all true scientists and the only way they have ever “won”a debate was with themselves or by rewriting history. (Global warming hoax anyone!) Question: How do you know there are no “invisible” supernatural realms all around us? We know there are invisible physical realms around us because we see the effects. And our universe contains effects that are greater than any physical cause that can be found in that universe. Oh well, wouldn’t want to bore you with real science. I wouldn’t waste a second of my life pursuing a secular scientific endeavor that only says everything in existence is w/o purpose or hope and we and all the universe is destined to be anihilated or become maggot’s meals. IF atheistic evolution were true (and there’s no evidence that it is), I still wouldn’t waste my time looking for information in a black hole to nowhere. That’s dumb!

    • Anaglyph said

      Congrats Gerald. By revealing your credentials as a Global Warming denialist, your scientific credibility is about, oh, zero. Real science? You haven’t the faintest clue.

      • Woody said

        You were right, Anaglyph, Gerald’s faith-armour is impenetrable to our logic and reason and just about anything else except his glaringly inept logical errors. You’ve tried hard, your comments are clear and factual. Gerald’s comments are an arrogant disservice to christians everywhere.

    • mattusmaximus said

      Is there anyone else here who finds it ironic that Mr. Wright, as a creationist, is openly criticizing ex nihilo creation? After all, isn’t that the entire basis of the creationist argument – God created everything out of nothing (ex nihilo). The irony is so thick you’d have to cut it with a chainsaw🙂

      • Anaglyph said

        In Mr Wright’s version of ex nihilo, it’s all AOK because there was a supreme being (ie, magic) that somehow is permissable in his strange world view that he thinks constitutes science. If you can just make shit up, you can always ‘win’ this argument.

  21. I appreciate all the specific scientific facts you have all presented as your Affirmative (whatever you would ever admit to affirming). I am not a denier of global warming, you are! I admit that it was hotter in the 1930s than now, hotter during the Medievel Warm Perior and hotter worldwide 5000 years before Christ. It is not as warm now as then, and I’ll give anyone a $1000 if they can prove it is. (I’ve had that challenge on the table in Hawaii for a decade and no takers yet.) A little heads up if you ever decide to debate Global Warming: your first affirmative must include scientific-historical proof of global temperatures from the beginning of history, along with CO2 levels. We’ll then get into the tropical animals and trees being found all over the world, including in Siberia and the ice caps. Is there any liberal clap trap that you young people won’t swallow?
    I don’t believe everything was created by nothing; I believe someone greater than everything created everything that’s physical and visible from nothing that is physical or visible (Hebrews 11:1-3). That agrees with all known science.

    • Anaglyph said

      Your complete lack of understanding of climate science (I mean, seriously, everything you just trotted out is banality of the highest order) just serves to emphasise what we’ve already determined about you, Mr Wright – you are scientifically illiterate. You say ‘sciencey’ sounding things, and you phrase your words to attempt to give them scientific credibility, but to anyone who understands science what you write is nonsense.

      Does it not puzzle you at all why people won’t take your $1000 offers or engage you in public debate? You probably think it’s because they can’t win against you because you’re right, but since in your world it’s just OK to make shit up, no-one can EVER win against you. They don’t debate you because they think you’re right – they won’t debate you because you make no sense.

      You have some quite baffling notion that ‘we young people’ (it’s flattering to be thought of as young, but I’ll go with that) are swallowing ‘liberal claptrap’ by accepting that AGW is a real thing, but the fact is, Mr Wright, it’s not the liberal claptrap we’re accepting, it’s the science. Like 95% of all climate scientists on the planet (you know, the ones who are EXPERTS in this matter) we can follow the science. Not the nutty opinionated ‘oh it’s been warmer before so there’s nothing wrong’ pseudoscience that you have bought into, but the actual science.

      And as for your fancy footwork with the ex nihilo question: because you can’t accept that there are situations back at the beginning of the universe that are hard to explain, you just made up a story to explain it. That’s not at all convincing. What’s more, YOUR story is the right one, you say. Where is your evidence for that? I’ll bet you $1000 – no, let’s make that a cool million – you can’t provide any (without referring to your own story for support, because anyone can do that). Where’s your evidence that the Eskimo story is not right, or the Australian Aborigine’s story, or, for that matter, the Hawaiian islanders’ story is not right? Why is YOUR God the right one, Mr Wright? Because you think so? Pah. Everybody thinks their God is the right one. If you’d been born into a Muslim family in Jakarta instead of a Christian family in the US, you’d be defending this argument with recourse to Allah.

      You say that your idea that ‘something greater than everything’ created everything that’s physical, and ‘that agrees with all known science’. Well, no it doesn’t. At least, it agrees with all known science about as much as saying we were farted into existence by unicorns. Your stance is defensible only by faith, Mr Wright, not by science.

  22. First, clean up your speech. Second, present one scientific fact you can prove by empirical evidence about where anything in this universe came from. Third, present 5% of certified climatologists who accept AGW…and I’ll present over 31,000 on one petition that says you’re full of hot air. All the rest of your drivel isn’t worth addressing for you have ignored every law of science — cause and effect (you believe the effect must be greater in quantity and quality than the cause or not), biogenesis, etc. — and waste time in the process. Put up or give up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: