Comments on: 04-05-10

By: Karl

Karl — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:34:35 +0000

I watched the entire debate on YouTube. Thank you Mr. Shermer for taking part in it.

I did not see this debate live. At the time of the debate I was going through the personal painful process of discovering my understanding of science had been distorted many years from church sources. Later in 2005 I finally made my switch away from the church and then attended lectures of the Skeptic Society with Shermer.

It was such a breath of fresh air for me. A new beautiful world view. I just wanted to say that if you ever question the validity of the work – I can tell you there are silent voices like mine where your message has gotten through.

I am a layman that works in areas unrelated to science. But having gone from reading solely religious sources to subsequently reading from people like Shermer, Dawkins and Randi – I have my brain back.

Yes, you probably lost the debate to the crowd in the room. But not to the hundreds of thousands that have viewed the debates on YouTube. You are awesome. You are brave. Thank you.

By: matthatter

matthatter — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:26:14 +0000

That is SO BACKWARDS! Did you not understand any of what he wrote? It’s not about shattering dreams or any of that. It’s about looking for solutions & answers to questions, and following the evidence, even if you personally dislike the idea.
You tell me what’s close-minded: I am willing to put ideas to the test in order to better understand the world around me, and then follow the evidence. Sometimes I have to adjust my worldview as I acquire more data, because I don’t know everything;
or:
The bible/koran/torah tells me what happened. I can’t really test any of it, & even the stuff I could test is irrelevant, because no matter what they may show, I won’t change my mind cuz God already told me what happened.
Tell me Andrew, which one of those statements was close-minded? Ideas are only rejected when they show themselves to fold under testing, but it’s always open to revision. How much flexibility does religion offer?
As for why he’s saying that to this audience, it’s because THEY INVITED HIM TO DEBATE! Are you KIDDING ME!? You know what a debate is, & why we have them, don’t you? He was there because there are people who are trying to eradicate the teaching of a valid, solidly founded branch of modern science because it offends them. That’s why. Do you REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS, or are you just being combative?
I’ll wait to write more. For all I know you won’t reply. It IS an old thread. Hope to hear from you.

By: W. Corvi

W. Corvi — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 00:04:16 +0000

I was talking with a young-earth creationist one time about my field (astronomy), and evidently feeling beaten, he blurted, “On your deathbed, you’ll have real doubts!” I sweetly replied, “On YOUR deathbed, so will you.” He about went NUTS! This seemed to be the crux – he was very unsure of his own claims, but thought that if he could get me to believe them, it would strengthen his own, even if that getting me was in his own mind of winning the debate. I think he already HAD severe doubts, and it bothered him that I didn’t.

The setting was, I was showing people the moon through my small telescope. Someone asked about the age of a certain crater. This fellow started preaching that the moon was made just a few thousand years ago, in its current form. He tried to deny that the craters were due to impacts, but were somehow instilled there by god. However, there is OVERWHELMING evidence that they were made by impacts, over billions of years. All visible in the telescope as we looked.

By: Patrick dePoortere

Patrick dePoortere — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:06:53 +0000

I feel it is a shame that Mr Shermer: “believe[s] it a mistake for scientists to participate in such debates and I will not do another”. There is no doubt that in reaching out to those “cognitively bullet-proof” he has sown the seeds of rational thought and poked holes into the devices of the emotional dramatists.

Oh and as a Catholic I have to say Pope John Paul II’s 1996 encyclical: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, is inspired by Pope Pius XII 1950 encyclical: Humani Generis.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:10:40 +0000

Maybe Andrew is a parody of a creationist. He cannot mean what he says seriously, can he?

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 05:04:44 +0000

To Andrew I say that Mr. Shermer is only interested in the truth. The sort of anger you direct at him is no doubt similar to that directed at Copernicus when he attempted to help the church recognize the truth that the earth travels around the sun and not vice versa. The church believed that Copernicus was spewing pure nonsense too. I have the greatest respect for a person who attempts to reveal the truth to those who refuse to accept it in the face of irrefutable evidence, especially when that person knows it will draw anger and hatred from others.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:04:07 +0000

Skeptics and doubters make me laugh, its humerous seeing how closed-minded they are, rejecting everything there is, and for Mr. Shermer, i have nothing to say for him, all he does is try to shatter peoples dreams, hopes and beliefs….demolishing there faith by saying what they believe is wrong, well hopefully Shermer is reading this so he can see how wrong ‘HE’ is. Who is he to say whats real and what’s not? who is he to assure to everyone that what people believe is pure nonsense? who the hell does he think he is? Every show ive seen him on all he does is question everything, if someone says ‘up’, he says ‘down’, if someone says ‘left’, he says ‘right’…thats all he does, is trying to disprove what people believe, and belief is one of the most powerful emotion there is imaginable, and all he does is try to ruin that for people. I have no respect for him whatsoever.

By: Jeff Brinkman

Jeff Brinkman — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:55:13 +0000

“If science has taught us anything, it has taught us that you can’t get something from nothing – (no matter what that something is, whether it be gas, physical matter, etc., and no matter how small that something is). So that’s it – are you willing to break scientific law and say that actually something can come from nothing?”

As has been stated by many others more eloquent than myself, the earliest life was likely no more than simple molecules that could replicate. We’re not talking fully developed DNA here, but perhaps something more akin to simple RNA. In any case, it has been shown that given a source of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen and a source of energy, amino acids will form. This may be all that was needed for the start of life. If this is, in fact, how life started, then it did indeed start from something, not nothing. I don’t think you could find a scientifically-educated evolutionist that claims life sprung from nothing.

Regarding “evidence to believe”, a third-hand account from a 2000 year old book of a miracle isn’t scientific evidence. If you believe that it is then you do not fully understand the definition of either science or evidence.

By: -Fred Thorlin

-Fred Thorlin — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:29:37 +0000

Some how, I suspect, when we get to add up all of the matter and subtract the anti-matter we will get a zero. You are right. You start with zero. You end with zero. And it is zero sum in between. But it is fun.

By: Aaron Myers

Aaron Myers — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:37:05 +0000

Dear Mr. Shermer,

First, let me say “thank you” for writing this article. I appreciate your candor and your unwavering commitment to skepticism. As a believer in Christ myself, I see nothing wrong with the need for “evidence to believe” (i.e. doubting Thomas). The Lord Jesus didn’t bash Thomas for his skeptical attitude; instead, He met him where he was and gave him the scientific evidence that he needed – real visual proof (physical holes in his hands and side).

This being said, I have only one question for you and all other evolutionary scientists: How did it all begin? If science has taught us anything, it has taught us that you can’t get something from nothing – (no matter what that something is, whether it be gas, physical matter, etc., and no matter how small that something is). So that’s it – are you willing to break scientific law and say that actually something can come from nothing?

Sincerely,
Aaron Myers (a skeptic myself with regard to the evolutionary explanation for the birth of that very first “something”)