The battle of evolution vs creationism

[SkepticThinker]

Please tell me why Dawkins debated John Lennox but refuses to debate Dr. Craig?

Ask Dawkins. Maybe because William Lane Craig isn't a scientist?

 

[Iti oj]

Listen it is impossible to refute something with out a working knowledge of it. Maybe you are right but until you understand the theory and its evidences you will never say anything intelligent, be taking serious, or make a valid point.

 

[McBell]

Ps 53:1 "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

If I look foolish by your standards, then you look foolish by my standards.

I understand that you have to protect your faith.

I just happen to be of the mind that if your faith requires lies and deceit in order to remain intact, it is not a faith worth having.

But to each their own.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He's not even trying to understand. He's just trying to out stubborn everyone

He has stated that one kind of life has produced other kinds of life. Now he's denying it again

Exactly.

We're telling him the sky is blue, and he's telling us it's pineapples. :areyoucra

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ask Dawkins. Maybe because William Lane Craig isn't a scientist?

Or maybe because he's a disingenuous primadonna and not a serious academic at all- he's merely a showman, a debator and NOT a thinker, who makes all sorts of silly demands (that he gets to go first in a debate, how the stage is set up, what sorts of things the moderator will ask), then attempts to misquote and/or mischaracterize his opponents view, while changing the subject and avoiding counter-arguments. Oh, did I mention he's devoted his life to trying to rehabilitate long discredited arguments for the existence of a fictitious being?

Yeah, why would a serious academic refuse to debate such a person?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Or maybe because he's a disingenuous primadonna and not a serious academic at all- he's merely a showman, a debator and NOT a thinker, who makes all sorts of silly demands (that he gets to go first in a debate, how the stage is set up, what sorts of things the moderator will ask), then attempts to misquote and/or mischaracterize his opponents view, while changing the subject and avoiding counter-arguments. Oh, did I mention he's devoted his life to trying to rehabilitate long discredited arguments for the existence of a fictitious being?

Yeah, why would a serious academic refuse to debate such a person?

Well yeah, there's that too. That's the better answer.

I usually find myself rolling my eyes in exasperation as he launches into his tired old spiel. I can't sit through it anymore.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nice

Um, okay. So are you going to start producing some evidence for your intelligent design hypothesis??

 

[McBell]

Um, okay. So are you going to start producing some evidence for your intelligent design hypothesis??

Don't hold your breath.

But if he does, I only hope it is better than his "god is a metaphysical requirement" debauchery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't hold your breath.

But if he does, I only hope it is better than his "god is a metaphysical requirement" debauchery.

It better involve the same level of repeatable, observable and testable evidence that is demanded of evolution.

If I were holding my breath I'd be long dead by now.

 

[Simurgh]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produced cats. Neither one of us has seen anything different.

We do not see anything different now, but if you had any clue about how evolution works you would know better than to make such an ignorant statement. Each existing taxonomic group has a last common ancestor in its background before a split into a more distinct, subgroup occurred. So, by the time there is the dog-cat dichotomy there are roughly 165 million years of evolution in place.

Megaconus: Furry Proto-Mammal Stuns Paleontologists | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

I don't think it is science and of course I don't think it is a fact, for reasons I already gave.

…………
Science is supposed to be based on repeated experiment and observation. There has never been a repeated experiment that proves macroevolution nor has there been any observation of these large scale changes that is plaguing the theory. So there is no repeated experiment nor observation, which are two of the main key elements of the scientific method....so how can it be science?? Not only isn't it science, but it is a religion. It is what you believe happened. You can't prove it. That is as religious as any belief that I've ever heard of.

Ignorance is bliss and needs to be staunchly defended, hm? If you just close your eyes and pretend the evidence is not there, then how can you even pretend to be scientifically literate? Yet, you belief in stuff based on texts that are nothing but interpretations—by various people who come to numerous different conclusions—of things written down over the last 2000 years by people with specific political agendas. That is your religion and your truth.

You are right, it is rather funny. You are making a big fuss about what I said about Sam Harris regarding what he said in reference to Dr. Craig in there debate. To be quite honest, I don't know what the heck you are talking about me having selective hearing and about the context of the quote. What are you talking about? I said, in post #613:

"Sam Harris said that Dr. Craig put the "fear of god" in some of his atheist friends."

So after you made your above comment, I actually watched the debate to see if I missed something, and here is what Sam Harris actually said:

"First of all let me say it is an honor to be here at Notre Dame. I am very happy to be debating Dr. Craig; the one Christian apologist who seems to put the fear of God in many of my fellow atheists"

Now compare that to what I said previously. So what is taken out of context and what is selective about it?

Yeah, that’s exactly what he said, but apparently you did not get the next phrase and the gist of the rest of the clip. Where he talks about the horror of religion and its moral failings it and where he mentions Craig as one of the people who supports that quality religion seems to support globally. The “fear” you refer to is obviously not the kind of fear that you want us to belief it is supposed to be. This fear refers to the fear that irrational, questionable morality (based in scriptures that clearly advocate brutality, violence, and misogyny).

You, on the other hand insinuate that Craig’s ideas and opinions make atheists afraid of his god. Not so, we fear people like Craig and his ilk because their teachings instill hate and intolerance in their followers and makes people who seek knowledge that questions Craig’s ideas. Craig and others like him want to control people’s thinking.

Harris also states in this clip that Craig misquotes him frequently and misappropriates what he says in order to further his agenda. Apparently you are a true Craig follower since that seems to be what you do to.

What I am saying is I want to hear him debate someone who holds to the theory of ID. It is not enough to debate someone that shares his expertise on the field of cosmology, because that person can be a fellow atheists and they may just have disagreements concerning whatever it is they disagree with in physics, just like I have debates with Jehovah Witness's about certain theological implications, but we still both believe in God. Get the point?

The part you don’t seem to get is that he is a scientist who cares nothing for ID since it is not science, it is merely christian apologetics , in short, the usual made-up stuff to justify ignorance. So no, as he stated multiple times, he will not debate people who have nothing to contribute to human knowledge and that cannot be scientifically verified.

Your use of red herring fallacy here will not change that. Why would he want to waste his time debating people who do nothing but insist they are right because some book tells them so? Teleology is not science. Who you debate belief with notwithstanding, debating science is different from debating religion for obvious reasons and why you insist on mixing them seems to be nothing but hubris on your part. What has your belief in some god to do with reality? It’s called BELIEF for a reason.

I am sure Dr. Craig would love to debate your guy. Set it up.

That’s funny. Who in his right mind would want to waste time with that guy? He has yet to come up with something interesting and rational to say. And since he always says the same thing, regardless of who asks him what, debate is a term that really cannot be applied here.

 

[Ouroboros]

You've completely missed the point. The point wasn't for me to be Captain Obvious, the point was the fact that most of these people on here are agnostics, atheist, naturalist, or any other belief that does not include the belief in a supernatural Deity. Someone suggested that God could have used evolution as a method for his creation....and my point was, fine, if that is the case then that would still mean your belief of agnosticism/atheism/naturalism is FALSE.

I think it was me who suggested that God used evolution.

Atheism would have a problem, sure.
Agnosticism too.
Evolution would not.
Naturalism would not either.

Pantheism and Panentheism are not in conflict with naturalism and not in conflict with evolution. In fact, they're very much harmonious with both naturalism and evolution.

It all boils down to that it's your, and only your specific lack of understanding of God, naturalism, and evolution. Nothing else.

Evolution is true. Deal with it and adjust your view of God accordingly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And what is that, exactly? Evolution states simply that "everything reproduces with variation and this variation, over time and with enough environmental attrition, results in speciation." What you are seeing "every day" is exactly what evolution says occurs and nothing else is required. All that is required is for things to reproduce WITH VARIATION, and this is EXACTLY WHAT WE OBSERVE.

I've explained this to you dozens upon dozens of times. Why is it so difficult for you to understand??

If you don't see the difference in microevolution (different varieties of the same kind), and macroevolution (changes to a different kind), then I can't help. Even in the definition you gave, evolutionists believe this on a much grand(er) scale than what is necessary.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And with that, you've made another point that has nothing to do with evolution.

Congratulations. :clap

Um, I was responding to what someone ELSE said. So if my point had nothing to do with evolution, then neither does the post I was replying to.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dogs produced dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

Categorical error.

You're using vague classifications to see patterns in larger and more general categories.

"Dog", "Cat", Fish" are only colloquial terms, not scientific, taxonomic, or cladistic.

My basis for drawing that conclusion is independent of what some guy in a white trench coat with a test tube in his hand tells me

Your arrogance and ignorance is duly noted.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ps 53:1 "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

And the bigger fool says in his heart, "I, and only I know the True God(tm), and I would never listen to anyone else and learn anything new besides what I can read in an ancient book written by fishermen and sheepherders."

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You should probably listen to the enormous groups of educated men in white coats who do this stuff for a living (and review the mountains of evidence that's been collected for 150+ years), because you know next to nothing about evolution. Nobody is asking you to accept the word of some guy in a white trench coat with a test tube in his hands. Notice how I never mentioned anything like that in my description of how things become accepted science? That's not how scientific theories come to be. It's the BODY OF EVIDENCE collected by thousands upon thousands of people who study the stuff for a living, that needs to be considered. I don't see you doing anything like that.

If you need medical advice, do you consult lawyers, or do you consult doctors? Hello!

The body of evidence is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats.

Edit: Quick question - Do you accept germ theory? How about plate tectonics?

Those are not particular subjects of interest to me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ask Dawkins. Maybe because William Lane Craig isn't a scientist?

John Lennox isn't a scientist either.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I understand that you have to protect your faith.

I just happen to be of the mind that if your faith requires lies and deceit in order to remain intact, it is not a faith worth having.

But to each their own.

Oh and what lies and deceit would that be, Mest?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Exactly.

We're telling him the sky is blue, and he's telling us it's pineapples. :areyoucra

I am telling you that dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats. If there is any exception to that, then I haven't seen it yet. Come to think of it, neither have you. If me saying dogs produce dogs is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Or maybe because he's a disingenuous primadonna and not a serious academic at all- he's merely a showman, a debator and NOT a thinker, who makes all sorts of silly demands (that he gets to go first in a debate, how the stage is set up, what sorts of things the moderator will ask), then attempts to misquote and/or mischaracterize his opponents view, while changing the subject and avoiding counter-arguments. Oh, did I mention he's devoted his life to trying to rehabilitate long discredited arguments for the existence of a fictitious being?

Yeah, why would a serious academic refuse to debate such a person?

Wait a minute, Dr. Craig is not a serious academic? That is absolutely ridiculous.