Creation - Evolution Debates - Dawkins Vs Lennox at Cambridge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEf6mKZqJZs&t=1753s

I have to admit I feel insulted when someone says I'm not allowed to have an opinion and speak about things I'm not an expert in. If this was not the intent those I'm speaking to mean, I'm sorry but it comes across that way. I want to point out that experts disagree, so to say that we cannot formulate our opinions because there is an expert that says otherwise is about as insulting as it gets. Science is not a cult is it, where the free exchange of ideas is looked down on, or is it?

We believe what we put our faith in that is telling us the truth if we are not concerned with truth, what is the point any lie or error will do. Truth is very exclusive something either is true or not, therefore it does have a dogmatic feel to it. Any belief system we hold we treat this way if we believe in a purely materialistic universe that will be held up to judge all things in the universe. Anything not seen as a material view only will be a threat to that world view, this will be no different for anyone's point of view on what they believe is true or not.

So we debate and argue which is, in my opinion, a great thing as long as we do it in a respectful manner without twisting or ignoring truth when we have to admit our own views are not consistent with the truth in reality. If our views contradict themselves we know we are not standing on good ground if our views do not reflect reality, we know we are not standing on good ground. If we find our views are not in agreement with someone else's view, good, lets put the views to the tests as we sort it all out. If you only want to live in an echo chamber listening to those who agree with you and not allow your opinions about truth to be tested, that is a blind faith dogmatic view that requires to be shielded from skepticism.

The bottom line sharp educated people are on both sides of any discussion, defend your own views if you cannot or will not, why believe and question other's points of view?

If you're referring to what I think you are, of course you're allowed to hold any opinion you wish, expert or not.

But when we state an opinion we hold in the presence of others, don't they have the right to challenge (or even agree with) you?

If you come to a place dedicated to discussion & voice some opinion, shouldn't you expect to hear dissenting views? If you object to this, perhps stay away from such places?

I have come here to express my opinions and hear other's views. I find someone telling me I should not contradict the views of an expert troubling as much as inviting me to stay away from a place as this as you just did here.

When has anyone told you that you "should not contradict the views of an expert"?

I would review our discussions.

Please do but I certainly don't remember telling you that you're not entitled to your own views. It's when you promote your views as being the new 'received orthodoxy', I have a problem!

What I have done is to explain the position of the broad swathe of specialists in certain fields & recommened we listen to their more expert opinions. And if they take the position that we cannot draw any useful conclusion on the subject of abiogenesis (say), then simply accept that.

I didn't say you claimed I was not entitled to my views, but you are suggesting even here to question specialists is unreasonable, even though you do it. From where you are sitting, you may think you are reasonable, but where I am sitting, you are suggesting that what I believe can only be described as dogma, and what others have are pure as rain reasoning. To which I say it is nonsense on a grand scale. Two people of good faith can see the same thing and come up with different ideas on why, you find fault in disagreement with some you seem to put on a pedestal, while I'm telling you that is being selective not according to facts and reasons.

What you are doing is merely pointing to those that agree with you and saying in effect, these guys don't agree with what I am saying so I cannot be right and are in error. In doing this, you don't address any point brought up as not worth the time and effort to consider. What you are doing, in essence, is suggesting I only say the things I do because of my dogmatic beliefs. You then by suggesting this removes from you any reason to take anything you don't deem in agreement with you as a valid reason or evidence to the contrary; further, you then can say there are no reasons to disagree with your beliefs.

Out of experience, there are certain opinions I have that I don’t express in OD, especially when I start a new thread, because I know people will argue with me even though I believe any reasonable person would agree with me. During those times it feels a bit disappointing, so I’d rather not get disappointed. I’m not evaluating the reasonability of anyone’s opinions in this forum or any forum anyone is referring to, but I’m saying that sometimes you have to decide whether posting every single opinion is worth it.

The debate touches many of the topics I have seen addressed here and elsewhere.

There should be no sacred cows. I think everything in the public domain should be open to scrutiny & that applies to all of science.

But if you're going to challenge the broad body of speciliasts in any field, then you need to do so from a position of specialised knowledge & expertise of your own. You clearly don't possess any such expertise, so your arguments seem vacuous.

You are making this personal instead of talking about the topics in question.

I don't see how to avoid that because you're attempting to challenge well established science but without the necessary understanding of what it is you're challenging?

Again personal, not the topic.

Make yourself better informed about the subject or accept that you need now & again to defer to those who are much better informed.

I wouldn't walk into my doctor's surgery & challenge their diagnosis of my complaint if I had no medical training. It's usually sensible to place trust in those with long years of training & much greater specialist knowledge than we possess.

If you are unwilling to challenge something you feel is in error, you are not using your own mind, you might as well join a cult where you are told what to think and why. As I pointed out to you very smart and well educated people disagree on many of the points brought up here. The debate at the top of this link proves that.

But creationists like yourself only believe that evolutionary theory is one vast error because it contradicts parts of your religious dogma.

You seem unable to present science-based arguments to challenge evolution, that actually stand up.

You have a selective memory.

I have been giving you reasons why I disbelieve evolution that says all life comes from a single common ancestor, and abiogenesis, and have not brought up scripture once. I've presented you with a link that a chemist spoke about chemical reactions presenting problems for the theory. I've addressed informational instructions talking about why that is important and not found due to chance without intention, and answered your complaint about revelation. It doesn't matter that people believe or disbelieve; what matters is it true or not, not that a committee believes it.

"I have been giving you reasons why I disbelieve evolution that says all life comes from a single common ancestor, and abiogenesis, and have not brought up scripture once"

I can't remember ever seeing more moderate people of faith challenge evolution as a theory, only the more devout & dogmatic. In fact most of the main religions have accepted modern evolutionary theory because their own specialists recognise it as good & sound science. The Catholic Church formerly accepted the theory of evolution in 1950.

I have seen numerous baseless challenges to it from creationists however. You don't have to constantly refer to your motivation for that motivation to be clear enough.

Well, I think that this only shows I am concerned about the debate while you are more concerned about who is disputing and why.

Evolution is a well established scientific theory & the foundation of modern biology. There isn't a debate around it except in the minds of dogmatic followers of scripture!