1. Jordan opens children's museum

Comment #36963 by Habalabam on May 3, 2007 at 12:44 am

I'm positively damaged. I'm finding myself incredulous that what I'm reading is not another blow to science.

I read the whole article just waiting for creation science exhibits and "scientists" helpfully "explaining the holes in evolution".

Yes, go Jordan!

2. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #27645 by Habalabam on March 26, 2007 at 1:05 am

Hoping for a happy birthday and that you will live to see the shifts to which you've dedicated so much of yourself.

This form of attention may remind you of the idolizing that you seek to avoid, but at least nobody here doubts that today we are celebrating a man. Nothing more than a great man.
We may be few, but speaking for myself I can tell you that my devotion does not come cheap.

3. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27083 by Habalabam on March 23, 2007 at 5:29 am

I thought that I would read the "The Dawkins delusion". I'm now positive that I wouldn't come past the preface without my retort buffer running over.

McGraths arrogance at even pretending to present an argument is just annoying. He got his butt handed to him nicely.

I think that Atkins could have made a better argument on what science means by "economical explanation". As it stood, Gods existence passed as an economical explanation.

Atkins should've stuck to the "God hypothesis is proposed, now pending evidence"-definition of atheism.
The door was definitely open when a womans question presuppposed atheism as an ANSWER. It's not. It's just a term whose existence is regrettable because it describes a position that does not require a term in any other context.

Atkins approach on "why"-questions as unjustified was very well presented. His description of the scientific method likewise.

I think McGrath can be summarized by
"wouldn't it be great if...... therefore, let's pretend that such is the case" and "wouldn't it suck if....... therefore, let's ignore it".

I believe McGrath got away with the point of Darwin being a contemporary scientific position. It was a sneaky version of the "just-a-theory-not-a-fact". Atkins shouldn't have ignored that one.

4. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25435 by Habalabam on March 13, 2007 at 5:07 am

I'm so frustrated by this form of debate.

Can somebody who listened through give me a rundown of the following:
* What DID the creationists get away with?
* What could they PRETEND to get away with?

If the creationist really got his nose grounded, I'll listen for mere entertainment value. If he in all unlikelyhood raised any form of relevant objection to anything, then I'll listen. The normal gibberish has no information or entertainment value.