(September 25, 2010 at 11:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Next time, just ask and we'll explain the big words to you.

If you need help spelling them, just ask and I'll help you.

[quote='A Theist' pid='95987' dateline='1285500943']
[quote]He was arguing that evolution is science, and so should be taught in science class. Science doesn't know everything about evolution, but that doesn't mean that you can just insert any other idea in its place.
This was one of the five points where "The Young Turks" said that O'Reilly had the advantage in the debate. O'Reilly insisted that to not even allow for a discussion of religion vs evolution in the science class, presented Dawkins as unreasonable, pompous, close minded, and facist. It was an effective tactic that neutralized his argument.[/quote]

No, because creationism is not science and it has no place in the science classes. By your argument we should be teaching ALL the creation myths, because they are just as valid as your myth.

[quote]Science doesn't know everything about evolution,..[/quote]
[quote]Judging by the comments in this thread, most agree with you that science doesn't know everything about evolution. Can anyone be certain that it even happened?[/quote]

Yes, because we're here.

[quote]Judging by the comments in this thread, it seems that I'm not the only one who sees through O'Reilly's tactics.[/quote][quote] O'Reilly used them effectively to neutralize Dawkins arguments.[/quote]

His tactics consisted of yelling, talking over the top of Dawkins and generally being an offensive arsehole.
If you think he won the debate because of that........

[quote] When O'Reilly got him to admit that science couldn't answer how everything came into existence, Dawkins was put on the defense throughout the rest of the debate.
[/quote]

(September 26, 2010 at 4:19 am)Ace Wrote: As an agnostic atheist I don't say that there isn't a god, because I don't know for sure. I just lack belief in it.
I also think theists shouldn't say "There is a god". The "I don't know" belongs on both sides. Because no one knows.

Some go about claiming why/how everything came about but I won't (I think it's that huge need/desire if you will to answer something we know nothing about). Because I think it's smarter to say "I don't know" than to go about making baseless claims.

"Just because we don't have all the answers" ...
"No one knows how everything came about",..
"Of course science doesn't have all the answers, no one claims that it does."...

Are you also saying, that even though there seems to be strong evidence to support evolution, no one can be certain that it actually happened?

(September 26, 2010 at 4:34 am)blood_pardon Wrote: The only reason I can say "I know there is a God" is because of an on going personal relationship with Him. I like what a man said once "There are three choices. Im a mad man, Im lying, or what Im telling you is the truth"

God is initiating a response from me almost daily, he corrects me for sin in my life, he leads me to hear certain teaching , he puts a deep desire in my heart for me to seek Him, he has brought so much peace and joy into my marriage. And He provides my needs abundantly! An example of this is the other day in wal-mart my wife and I are walking by these lava lamps and she says she wants to get one of those because she remembers having one when she was younger and 3 days later guess what? TWO BRAND NEW lava lamps in the box just sitting by the dumpster! What the...?

That's nice B-p

And the mass murderers and serial killers that say that god told them to do it, what do you think of their personal relationship with your god?

[quote='Tiberius' pid='95939' dateline='1285466548']


[quote]He was arguing that evolution is science, and so should be taught in science class. Science doesn't know everything about evolution, but that doesn't mean that you can just insert any other idea in its place.[/quote]

This was one of the five points where "The Young Turks" said that O'Reilly had the advantage in the debate. O'Reilly insisted that to not even allow for a discussion of religion vs evolution in the science class, presented Dawkins as unreasonable, pompous, close minded, and facist. It was an effective tactic that neutralized his argument.

[quote]Judging by the comments in this thread, it seems that I'm not the only one who sees through O'Reilly's tactics.[/quote]

O'Reilly used them effectively to neutralize Dawkins arguments. When Dawkins admited that science couldn't answer how everything came into existence, he was put on the defense throughout the rest of the debate.

[quote]Science doesn't know everything about evolution,...[/quote]
Judging by the comments in this thread, most agree with you that science doesn't know everything about evolution. Can anyone be certain that it even happened?

(September 26, 2010 at 8:38 am)A Theist Wrote: O'Reilly used them effectively to neutralize Dawkins arguments. When Dawkins admited that science couldn't answer how everything came into existence, he was put on the defense throughout the rest of the debate.

You've already posted this and it has been rebutted. Stop repeating yourself.

Quote:Science doesn't know everything about evolution,...

Quote:Judging by the comments in this thread, most agree with you that science doesn't know everything about evolution. Can anyone be certain that it even happened?

This has been answered as well, or don't you read our replies?

(September 26, 2010 at 8:38 am)A Theist Wrote: Judging by the comments in this thread, most agree with you that science doesn't know everything about evolution. Can anyone be certain that it even happened?

Not 100% certain. We can't be 100% certain of anything. Though we are pretty sure evolution is true based on the huge amounts of evidence to back it up. Evolution is a scientific fact! So we are very very sure.

Like science, I go where the evidence points.

[quote='Zen Badger' pid='95989' dateline='1285502448']


[quote]No, because creationism is not science and it has no place in the science classes. By your argument we should be teaching ALL the creation myths, because they are just as valid as your myth.[/quote]
Dawkins admitted that science doesn't have all the answers to evolution, nor can it answer the question how everything came into existence. Most on this board agreed with him. You really can't be certain that what you believe isn't just a myth. Your belief in evolution is just as much a leap of faith as a Christians belief in God.

[quote] By your argument we should be teaching ALL the creation myths,...[/quote]
I never argued that. I believe that since science fails to answer many questions about evolution, and about how we came into existence, discussions in the classroom should be open to include creationism as well. Instead of one side or the other dictating what we're allowed to think, present the arguments from both sides and let people decide for themselves.

[quote]Yes, because we're here.[/quote]
I can say the same to justify the existence of God.

(September 26, 2010 at 8:07 am)A Theist Wrote: Are you also saying, that even though there seems to be strong evidence to support evolution, no one can be certain that it actually happened?

Yes. I've always argued that. Evolution is a scientific fact; it is not an absolute truth.

(September 26, 2010 at 8:38 am)A Theist Wrote: This was one of the five points where "The Young Turks" said that O'Reilly had the advantage in the debate. O'Reilly insisted that to not even allow for a discussion of religion vs evolution in the science class, presented Dawkins as unreasonable, pompous, close minded, and facist. It was an effective tactic that neutralized his argument.

No, it was a dishonest tactic that O'Reilly didn't even go into that much. Dawkins rebutted it, and turned it around on O'Reilly, saying that what O'Reilly wanted was to discuss one specific brand of religion in a science class. Dawkins isn't against the discussion of religion; he does it all the time. What he is against is the discussion of unscientific ideas in a science class. If you think that is fascist, do you think that preventing someone from discussing Biology in an English is also fascist? It's the same thing, just with different subjects.

Quote:O'Reilly used them effectively to neutralize Dawkins arguments. When Dawkins admited that science couldn't answer how everything came into existence, he was put on the defense throughout the rest of the debate.

He wasn't put on the defensive...that has been his position from the beginning. What O'Reilly (and apparently yourself) do not seem to understand is that there is no logical reason to substitute religion into science when science doesn't know. It isn't scientific, and it isn't helpful. By all means, discuss such things in a religious class, but not in science.

(September 26, 2010 at 8:46 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(September 26, 2010 at 8:38 am)A Theist Wrote: O'Reilly used them effectively to neutralize Dawkins arguments. When Dawkins admited that science couldn't answer how everything came into existence, he was put on the defense throughout the rest of the debate.

You've already posted this and it has been rebutted. Stop repeating yourself.

Quote:Science doesn't know everything about evolution,...

Quote:Judging by the comments in this thread, most agree with you that science doesn't know everything about evolution. Can anyone be certain that it even happened?

This has been answered as well, or don't you read our replies?

I'm trying to answer individual replies. I may sometimes repeat myself in the process.

Here are a couple of your replies to myself and "blood_pardon"...

My question:
Judging by the comments in this thread, most agree with you that science doesn't know everything about evolution. Can anyone be certain that it even happened?

Your answer:
Yes, because we're here.

Your response to "blood_pardon":
And the mass murderers and serial killers that say that god told them to do it, what do you think of their personal relationship with your god?

Just exactly, what did you rebutt?