Creationism vs. Humanism: Christopher Hitchens vs. Jay Richards - Part 9
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- This debate was held at Stanford University by the CCN (a Christian TV network) and features author and columnist Christopher Hitchens vs. Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute.
If intellect can be expressed as the sharpness of a knife than Christopher can be considered as a razor and Richard as a spoon.
.....made of rubber
😆
And Hitchens takes the gold!
"he also believes in the virgin birth and resurrection but doesn't feel that these events break the natural laws"
Therefore, it's impossible to take much of anything he says very seriously. You simply cannot have it both ways.
I wish Hitchens would have, for at least our amusement, pressed him to possibly explain how the virgin birth and the resurrection remain within the laws of nature. Not that he is an expert, mind you, but I would have loved to hear his theory. haha
My favorite part was when Hitchens said that thing about religion that absolutely destroyed it. And then Richards completely ignored it, nor refuted it, and instead went on to say that "since universe has a beginning that rock solid evidence that his specific god was just 'always there' and made the whole thing."
Oh wait... that wasn't a "part," that was the entire video.
Creationism makes a presupposition that there is a guiding hand in all that happens. To me that fills me with far less wonder than a universe that unfolded according to certain physical laws (that are different depending when and where you are in the universe) and that we were a result of those 14 billion years or more of this unfolding. We will soon vanish from the universe, as all things do, but it was cool being here to try to figure these things out! :)
Beautifully put. I wholeheartedly concur.....
To answer Stein's last question about "Seeing" natural selection or some form of evolution. Just look at Bacteria. They reproduce at an extremely rapid rate and when put into an extremely restrictive environment adapt within 21 days to that environment to maintain a proper colony size. A size that does not over use the available resources and one that does not let too much of the resource behind.
You’ll never convince me this isn’t Mikey Day in a blonde wig.
"Although scientists have ample evidence that oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere a little more than 2 billion years ago, why this happened has long been the subject of speculation. Fundamentally, the oxygen in the air is a byproduct of photosynthesis."
Oh, and I apologize again, this was an article that was not on the NASA website.
Stein's mind is like his voice.........DULL!
I think Mr. Hitchens, as smart as he is, cannot argue some of the points. There were times when it came to the origin of the universe and inorganic matter that he could have owned.
Wonderful
man hitchens always cracks me up, his humour is so british :D
Your point is well made and beyond valid; indeed free speech is vital. However, there's no call to pranays, whoever s/he is, an idiot merely for the natural and highly moral desire to protect those too young to have critical thinking skills from psychologically toxic propaganda.
Please, can somebody arrange a debate between Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Stein? Hitchens would rhetorically destroy that little frog and that would be that.
While I am a fan of Hitchens I don't think this was his best performance. Some good points made but strayed from the point too many times and perhaps used some standard arguments that didn't really work here. Not sure if he had the moderates or undecided on his side. I'd note he makes superior points when he stays on point.
What I mean by "own" is to get rid of the semantics of "beginning" and "organic".
Organic matter does not mean "living matter". It could exist prior to life. Meteores are found to have orgainic matter.
When it comes to protocells, there has been plenty of evidence for abiogenisis. Of coarse you can't witness it, but it has been shown that amino acids and genetic material could have formed during the early earth. Maybe soon, we could recreate life, which may soon happen.
Dark matter is basically negative matter, so basically think of the Big Bang as a separation of positive and negative energy and matter.
Since I don't have time to search out the video for that response, what exactly did Hitchens say to destroy religion?
c)Lifeforms separate the amino acids from their oxygen environment outside. There was plenty of time for organisms to build a tolerance through the first extinction due to oxygen. The organisms that could tolerate it more survived.
You're using the same standards that are needed for living things today.
By the way, oxygen was not shown in all rocks older than 2.4 billion years (my mistake). The beds of rust (iron oxide), are not shown before that time.
B)The rock may have had oxygen in them (many rock do) However free oxygen in both the water and atmosphere was absent in early earth.
The point is, what you are saying, "No one still thinks that Oxygen was absent in the early atmosphere", is actually the mainstream belief.
Therefore, you're no one is more like most of the scientific community. Furthermore, the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere comes after the presence of oxygen producing bacteria.
Isn't it interesting that something like 75% of the panels questioning (& I mean DIFFICULT questions even experts in astro physics cannot answer YET) went to Hitch & the remaining relatively easy stuff (what is the meaning of existence i.e. an invitation to babble about God a bit more) went to the theist. Funny that eh? - Oh yeah & Ben Stein was asking the questions half the time. Why am I not surprised?
I think that humans being part of the ape family is very elegant. One of the things Mr Hitchens and I disagree on. I cherich my realtion to apes, to mammals, to trees, to microflora and microfauna. Its all part of the beauty and elegance of life. Of which, my species and I am a part of. Though, admittedly I do feel some shame knowing Ben Stein is one of my species.
Without a doubt, Richards and the panel lost their debate against Hitchens. Hitchens was great but if this was later in life he would have made a better showing of it. As Richards and the panel already believe they know the answers, I dont think what year of their life would have made a difference. None of them have a shred of proof of their belief. Facts, science, evidence and critical thinking always provide better answers than what we feel is comfortable and fairy tales.
Remember, most people believed thought it took a god to make the sun move across the sky. They did not understand cosmology. So a god must being doing it. If you apply the same reasoning for anything today we do not understand you are making the same mistake. As well as subscribing to belief systems that harm people and delay us humans from creating a just and equal world. We will never push ourselves to finding the answers if we think we already know them. Especially 'answers' that keep us harming each other.
I think I had an epiphany at 3.35
@Jiryu02 To support your argument - oxygen is not only created by photosynthesis. In fact, elements heavier than hydrogen is created by stars burning fuel. An introductory astronomy class will show that, generally, elements up to iron are created through nuclear fusion in stars. Also, photosynthesis simply separates oxygen molecules from the H2O atom, which would need oxygen in the first place anyway. In essence, the whole argument is meaningless and creationism is still stupid.
So you're telling me that all throughout the earths existence there was always a significant amount of oxygen in the atmosphere?
I'm sorry but I really don't know where you're getting your information. As far as scientific studies are concerned, your wrong. I looked on the NASA website to see if your claim held water and here is a direct quote:
"Before 2.4 billion to 2.2 billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere contained almost no oxygen and could support only single-celled life"
I didn't say that he majority must be right. I'm saying that the crew that believes in creationism has a history of being dishonest.
Even if the whole of evolution and abiogenisis isn't true, the claims that creationists make, like oxygen being present in the early earth, is just a broad misunderstanding of science. They seem to counter claims that weren't even made in the first place.
Your claim was never backed by evidence in the first place.
He thinks if he repeats the words "argument from authority" enough it will make his case valid. The arguments i've seen him use took all of five minutes to stamp out, his response was to say that they came from high school science textbooks, and that somehow they were therefore wrong. Let him go on if you'd like to hear how jaw droppingly wrong he can get even basic science.
And I'm disagreeing with you, free oxygen was not present in the early earth. There was not a significant amount of oxygen in the atmosphere either so the conditions of early earth could produce amino acids.
I didn't skip anything, just disagreeing and showing you the contrary.
Why is Ben Stein here? Looking at his shoes, it seems he was going to the gym, and fell into the auditorium here.
JUST LISTEN do not look at the video
a) Oxygen is not necessary for all life, you're correct in saying most life, however there was a time where most life didn't depend on oxygen. They went extinct because they were intolerant to oxygen after oxygen producing. Cyanobacteria.
THAT ONE DOESNT PASS..............LMAO !
You do know that the oxygen in water in both the atmosphere and oceans are totally different from free oxygen (O2) and the element oxygen?
Oxygen can be dissolved in water and not just apart of it (as in H2O)
Furthermore, water was used in the Miller Urey experiment and resulted in amino acids.
Yey! vid watched!
WTF was Stein doing there.. oh it was a Christian do.
Pity Hitch isn't up to scratch on the science of evolution bit. (although he still gets the thrust of his points home).
But it still shows the legitimacy of Miller-Urey. (I disagree with "bad science" but I'll let that go)
Creationism is piffle.
Finally, I would advise you not to use talking points from creationist websites. Of course they have an opposition and they are willing to give bogus explanations for any natural explanation for life.
You're 85% tar thing was the smoking gun. My question to you is, why choose one side over the other? I'm sure that you are not equipped to confirm the validity of one over the other.
Not exactly guesswork -I'd say 'hypothesis' based on SOME evidence like the double slit experiment. Saying 'goddidit' is no explanation, it is a claim - a claim that says 'everything has to be created SOMEHOW -errrrr... except God of course' That in legal circles is called 'Special Pleading' i.e. I can make exceptions but you can't. Why? Because I say so!' -Not very convincing is it?
@jonathanpaulmayer
sure can
And you are from the minority.
However, so far the evidence that supposedly contradicts evolution has a counter argument by evolution and science in general.
The description of the early earth was never in conflict with evolution, though. So whoever has made the claim, along with any organization they belong to, is not trust worthy.
haha well said
Quantum Theory --- something can come from nothing
nashkita77 The issue is more about if we've ever seen anything begin to exist. Fact is that we really haven't. We've just seen the universe rearrange its energy states. We've never seen anything begin to exist so we can't claim that it must have had a cause, much less what the cause was.
EE Ehrenberg Brilliant description
you can put to different species in a cage and see if the 2 finches get it on. Make sure they're hetero birds, though
Same old vapid arguments wrapped in flowery language from Hitchens