Dawkins and the "Banana Man"

*~~~*~~~Note~~~*~~~ *

I am posting this article fairly soon after the last. Make sure you scroll down to read the last post as it ties in with this one.

One can see an awful lot of militant atheism on YouTube. Thankfully, there are a handful of people out there who aren't afraid to jump into the fight. Both sides are hardly even in number, what with the DMCA's getting slapped on people left and right. It's cowardly, for sure. If you can't think of a good counterargument- scream copyright violation, right?!

This video of Dawkins is a puzzling piece of work. I mean, what exactly is a "cousin" if not an ancestor, anyway? A cousin is still part of the family construct, is it not? Last I checked it was. So is he saying that these "cousins" all-- every single one of them!! -- suddenly up and disappeared in EVERY genetic way and there is no hope of ever reconstructing what their DNA may look like?!! That does not make any kind of logical sense. Why would an entire branch of a family DNA sequence disappear? Under what circumstances could/would this occur? (maybe GOD?!! No, I'm not giving this idea serious consideration. Just giving you an idea of the dead ends Dawkins doesn't like to think about.)

The man seems to tremble at being called on to give an example of the very hypothesis he shouts so loudly about and tries to convince us of. But then again, this flaky interview didn't garner him any book sales so.... I suppose this only makes him a propagandist. And a bad one at that.

Oh, and here's a point to ask your friendly neighborhood biologist: aren't alligators and crocodiles considered "cousins" of dinosaurs? These two beasts are modern and yet haven't changed much since the last evolutionary era. And what about the mighty cockroach?!! In all it's shapes and sizes over the millennia surely the cockroach can be studied as one of those amazing scavengers(like crocodiles!) which has the genetic heartiness to trace its origins back to whatever evolutionary era scientists might like to examine.

But in Dawkins' mind, that just doesn't work. We can't study something from the past, says he. We have to look at what we have NOW in front of us to give us the answer about if there is a God. *shakes head* Man, you can't have it both ways. You scream that science will prove there is no god and then proceed to preach exactly what ways we shouldn't use science to find answers. Confused much? I know I am. I keep hoping for a straight answer from this guy but I haven't heard one from him yet.

And this next video is just an example of the way Dawkins wiggles out of debating. Yes, Kirk Cameron is strange little puppet. Yes, the debate would have been excruciating and this is probably why Kirk dropped out. But it appears as though Dawkins would rather be a stand up comic than a serious scientist. I just can't take anyone seriously when they're so busy slapping names on their opponents like, "banana man." Honestly, it just makes me hungry. Or want to go to the zoo. Not listen to a supposed "serious scientist" blather on and on about bananas and monkeys.

Pay careful attention to the expression on his face and the nervous twitch of his hands. He's a bit unsure of himself and how his stand up act will be received. I imagine this to be about the same level of nervousness a white man showed the first time using the term "African American" instead of the more profane descriptive used in the past to denote color or race.

So you have to ask yourself- what do militant atheists think of everyone else who does not share in their disbelief?