- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (princess of the king @ May 02 2010,00:26) It does seem his concerns of for the children. What I am noticing however, is what he is against he formats in his own teachings, you cannot study religions only not to come away with a learning of controling the masses, now can you. The ones that buck and kick, use the same tatics as ones long ago have used to ensure their belief is bestowed upon everyone else, old tatics new day.
Dawkins is just rekindling an old practice, did you think he was bringing something new to the world.
Critical thinking will bring you to this conclusion anyhow.
If you can't beat them, join them.
I think he wants critical thinking, and expects that if you apply it then you will eventually come to the conclusion he has. He demonstrated that with the example of his own change away from god-belief and the reasons for it. Not all religions can be right, why should you not consider your own just as likely to be wrong as any of the others?Stuart
Stuart,
Dawkins is not bringing anything new to the table, think about it. He has just taken different opinions, combine them together to support his belief.
He states the children of religious parents are brainwashed, hence he will write a children's book to support this, further thinking means that if a parent applies critical thinking they will have already taught their child 'free thinking', with the ones that are 'religious' will not purchase the book anyhow.
So why the need for the book.I am sure his main agenda is to gain public libraries and schools, which as it has been shown time and time again to cause a controversy in public teaching, i.e. creation versus evolution. It will be just a matter of time for it to happen.
Will his work produce harm to children in any way, is the good of the children he is looking out for, what future pro/con will come about in his teachings, for ones that hail critical thinking it seems the only time the application is not used is toward oneself.
It just doesn't sit right Stuart. Alas, though things have a tendency not to change, even though facts and evidence show otherwise.
Quote (princess of the king @ May 02 2010,03:21) Stuart, Dawkins is not bringing anything new to the table, think about it. He has just taken different opinions, combine them together to support his belief.
He states the children of religious parents are brainwashed, hence he will write a children's book to support this, further thinking means that if a parent applies critical thinking they will have already taught their child 'free thinking', with the ones that are 'religious' will not purchase the book anyhow.
So why the need for the book.I am sure his main agenda is to gain public libraries and schools, which as it has been shown time and time again to cause a controversy in public teaching, i.e. creation versus evolution. It will be just a matter of time for it to happen.
Will his work produce harm to children in any way, is the good of the children he is looking out for, what future pro/con will come about in his teachings, for ones that hail critical thinking it seems the only time the application is not used is toward oneself.
It just doesn't sit right Stuart. Alas, though things have a tendency not to change, even though facts and evidence show otherwise.
I believe, although I could be wrong, that Dawkins's children's book is on evolution, not religion.He does not do teachings in the preacher sense, he invites you to suspend your judgment and decide on the evidence what makes sense, not on hearsay or the mythological tradition of your parents.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
What happens to your faith in evolution in the event you allow yourself to learn about Geology?
Are you protecting it by remaining ignorant?Enjoy!
Kent Hovind is a convicted tax fraud. You can legally call him a liar without fear of commiting libel!
Perhaps you can summarise what argument he makes in these 40 minutes of videos that overturns real science. I don't need to see all his creationist posturing and lying. Just give us what you think his convincing argument are.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
In the mean time, care to comment on Polonium Halos in Granite formations?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 25 2010,22:53) Hi Stuart, Here is more Scientific evidence…
Enjoy!
The narrator claims that the radiohalos contradicted “evolutionary theory”. They have nothing to do with one another, this is just ignorant creationist preaching to the gullible. The particles themselves are not called radiohalos, it is the halos that are called that. Uniformitarianism does not say anything about gods. What is more, if the rates of decay were faster in the past, then mutation rates would be much higher, accelerating evolution! He can't have it both ways, buy then he is a creationist with no story of his own to tell about how the earth came to be. We see that, as usual, creationists cannot get the basic facts right.The halos themselves exist, but Gentry's science is dodgy. It appears to be very sophisticated but he uses the same old creationist trick of ignoring evidence that contradicts his prior commitment to a young earth. For example he has not established that polonium isotopes actually are the cause, or even that alpha radiation is responsible. He tries to make claims about historical changes in radioactive decay rates to explain why different radioisotope dating methods give the same 4.5 billion-year age for the earth without applying the same decay rates to his own conjectures. He also does not correlate his samples to the geology of the areas from which they are taken. His halo-containing samples are not all from the rocks he claims they represent.
Read more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.htmlThis chap's hypothesis, supported by evidence, is that what Gentry claims as polonium halos are actually caused by radon. He is basically saying that the radiohalo that “can't be there” actually isn't there!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.htmlStuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 26 2010,19:31) Kent Hovind is a convicted tax fraud. You can legally call him a liar without fear of commiting libel! Perhaps you can summarise what argument he makes in these 40 minutes of videos that overturns real science. I don't need to see all his creationist posturing and lying. Just give us what you think his convincing argument are.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,The beginning of Part 4 is what I want to focus in on; the fossil record.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Oct. 04 2010,18:57) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 26 2010,19:31) Kent Hovind is a convicted tax fraud. You can legally call him a liar without fear of commiting libel! Perhaps you can summarise what argument he makes in these 40 minutes of videos that overturns real science. I don't need to see all his creationist posturing and lying. Just give us what you think his convincing argument are.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,The beginning of Part 4 is what I want to focus in on; the fossil record.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Sorry Ed, no deal. I have already watched an entire lifetime's quota of this convicted liar. The deal is that you summarise the most devastating points he is making.Stuart
Stu, you have a problem with liars, and yet you espouse them when you say there is no God.
You also have nothing to back up your ludicrous statements.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2010,20:51) Stu, you have a problem with liars, and yet you espouse them when you say there is no God.
You also have nothing to back up your ludicrous statements.
Give me a “ludicrous” statement of mine and I will back it up for you. You know I will be able to!Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
