There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Aupmanyav]

Where do atheists get their 'truth' from, considering they don't have a central reference book of their own?..

Gospel by Tommy Ohlsson, Gospel by Asis K. Chaudhury, Gospel by Alan C. Tribble, Gospel by Phillip G. Ratcliffe.

 

[metis]

Some chunks of Dawkins books read like fairy tales, here's his "explanation" of how the eye lens evolved-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

See, he's saying a lump of jelly "spontaneously" appeared out of thin air as if by magic, then magically formed itself into a lens shape, he's a funny guy..

Even though I haven't read this book by Dawkins, I did read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by him, and let me just say that posting just the above quote is very deceptive as he hypothesizes that this may be only one stage out of many that eventually formed a more complex eye.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Wait there's more from Dawks, his "explanation" of the evolution of flight sounds more like the screenplay for a Disney cartoon than a scientific theory, count the number of "guesses" and "perhapses"..-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees..
Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds..
Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees.
Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Improbable, pp113–4)

Well now we know; according to him, animals used to hurl themselves out of trees and get splatted on the ground, or else they hopped around like crackheads until they miraculously sprouted wings..

 

[metis]

Wait there's more from Dawks, his "explanation" of the evolution of flight sounds more like the screenplay for a Disney cartoon than a scientific theory, count the number of "guesses" and "perhapses"..-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees..
Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds..
Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees.
Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Improbable, pp113–4)

Well now we know; according to him, animals used to hurl themselves out of trees and get splatted on the ground, or else they hopped around like crackheads until they miraculously sprouted wings..

Well, I'm more inclined to thin that maybe he's more on the right track in that it's easier to picture a stage between non-flight and flight than any other scenario.

 

[adi2d]

Wait there's more from Dawks, his "explanation" of the evolution of flight sounds more like the screenplay for a Disney cartoon than a scientific theory, count the number of "guesses" and "perhapses"..-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees..
Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds..
Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees.
Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Improbable, pp113–4)

Well now we know; according to him, animals used to hurl themselves out of trees and get splatted on the ground, or else they hopped around like crackheads until they miraculously sprouted wings..

Ok ill play. He used guess twice and perhaps twice. What do I win?


PERHAPS bats are birds because it says so in an old book. My GUESS is you will find some way to explain this

 

[Serenity7855]

How dare some use an academic termilogy of the scientific method! We should all use a flawed standard held by a person just due to the fact that they do not understand this methodology and refuse to learn about. We have discovered this in Quantium Mechanics. You just ignore this as it refutes your argument. Red Herring. People have tried to correct you but you ignore this. The treatment you see is the result of your own inability to understand logic. Pointing out fallacies is one method to figure out if an argument is valid and sound. If your argument contain fallacious it shows a flaw in your thinking. You want special treatment due to your inability of understand methods of logical. Considering you have not yet poked a hole in my logic I fail to see any merit to this statement. After all I am not the one whining about people using logic based methodology to refute my argument No I expect quote mining while ignoring the context of the quote itself. This is standard from you and what I see here. It is dishonest to use a generalization as use of a specific while ignorning that it is fallacious as you have doneGenesis 3:19
This only provides evidence of my point that the use of dust is fallacious. As you have noted there is more to life and even "dust" then generalized statements. Yet the Bible does not mention a process or any of this. You are taking specifics and retriotfiting this into the verse. This is post hoc rationalzation which is fallacious. AIG is not credible. The whole article is post hoc rationalization. Your link to this site further shows you do not understand the scientific and logic side of your arguments.

Ok ill play. He used guess twice and perhaps twice. What do I win?


PERHAPS bats are birds because it says so in an old book. My GUESS is you will find some way to explain this

There is a big difference between explaining it and reasoning it out. Clearly, Shuttlecraft is reasoning over the ineptitude and winsome influence of a man who charismatically announced his preposterous agenda to remove religion from our society in a very effective manner by taunting and persecution of the theist. The loathsome man, Dawkins, is an effective and beguiling dictator to non-believers and an agitating anti-theist responsible for much of the hatred and anger we see between thiests and atheists today. All that Shuttlecraft is doing is exposing the gullibility of non-believers in listening to, what essentially is, an educated fool who has gain a degree of knowledge but lacks the wisdom to use it, indicative of many educated atheists today. The man who was too frightened to debate with William Lane Craig because he had already taken a beating from other theists and did not want to be finished off by the truth that WLC peddles. A very wicked and hostile individual who is an embarrassment to academia.

 

[metis]

There is a big difference between explaining it and reasoning it out. Clearly Shuttlecraft is reasoning over the ineptitude of a man who charismatically announced his preposterous agenda to remove religion from our society in a very effective manner. The man, Dawkins, is a dictator to non-believers and an agitating anti-theist responsible for much of the hatred and anger we see between thiests and atheists today. All that Shuttlecraft is doing is exposing the gullibility of non-believers in listening, to what essentially is, an educated fool who has gain a degree of knowledge but lacks the wisdom to use it. The man who was too frightened to debate with William Lane Craig because he had already taken a beating from other theists and did not want to be finished of by the truth that WLC peddles. A very wicked and hostile individual who is an embarrassment to academia.

That's all quite an assumption based on more assumptions. Dawkins is brilliant in his field and is highly respected amongst his colleagues, but when out of one's field, the same degree of admiration certainly may not be as present. The one thing I don't particularly admire about him is his outspokenness and outright verbal hostility at times.

I think he missed the lesson of "one can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar".

 

[outhouse]

The man who was too frightened to debate with William Lane Craig

.

Is this honest.

I understand you are desperate here, but a little honesty is required.

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | theguardian.com

To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.

William Lane Craig is a complete idiot, in which I personal would trash in a debate.

 

[outhouse]

The one thing I don't particularly admire about him is his outspokenness and outright verbal hostility at times.

.

You will notice most time he is accused of this, it is in defense from attacks by theist who are ignorant in what they debate.

 

[outhouse]

Where do atheists get their 'truth' from, considering they don't have a central reference book of their own?..

Something you might not understand.

Education and knowledge

 

[Shad]

There is a big difference between explaining it and reasoning it out. Clearly, Shuttlecraft is reasoning over the ineptitude and winsome influence of a man who charismatically announced his preposterous agenda to remove religion from our society in a very effective manner by taunting and persecution of the theist. The loathsome man, Dawkins, is an effective and beguiling dictator to non-believers and an agitating anti-theist responsible for much of the hatred and anger we see between thiests and atheists today. All that Shuttlecraft is doing is exposing the gullibility of non-believers in listening to, what essentially is, an educated fool who has gain a degree of knowledge but lacks the wisdom to use it, indicative of many educated atheists today. The man who was too frightened to debate with William Lane Craig because he had already taken a beating from other theists and did not want to be finished off by the truth that WLC peddles. A very wicked and hostile individual who is an embarrassment to academia.

This has nothing to do with what I said. Beside Sean Carrol put Craig in his place awhile ago. It happens when people debate outside their experience and expertise. Dawkins fails when outside biology, Craig fails when outside theology. His philosophy is a non-starter. I am not a fan of Dawkins, give the man enough rope and he will hang himself so keep your stereotyping underwraps.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some chunks of Dawkins books read like fairy tales, here's his "explanation" of how the eye lens evolved-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

See, he's saying a lump of jelly "spontaneously" appeared out of thin air as if by magic, then magically formed itself into a lens shape, he's a funny guy..

Don't even bother trying this one again. Unless you want to be known for being intentionally dishonest.

And secondly, what does this have to do with a “central reference book” of truth and/or morality??

 

[Serenity7855]

Is this honest.

I understand you are desperate here, but a little honesty is required.

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | theguardian.com

To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.

William Lane Craig is a complete idiot, in which I personal would trash in a debate.

And this is exactly why I said this in my last post. "The loathsome man, Dawkins, is an effective and beguiling dictator to non-believers and an agitating anti-theist responsible for much of the hatred and anger we see between thiests and atheists today. All that Shuttlecraft is doing is exposing the gullibility of non-believers in listening to, what essentially is, an educated fool who has gain a degree of knowledge but lacks the wisdom to use it, indicative of many educated atheists today." You have been sucked in my the Dawkins Lying Charm.


From the same source that you took your information from.

Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist​

What is new is the belittling posture toward religious believers and the fury of the polemics. The New Atheism is certainly a far cry from the model of civilised interlocution between "old atheist" Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston that took place and was broadcast on BBC Radio in 1948. The New Atheists could learn a lot from the likes of Russell, whose altogether more powerful approach was at once respectful and a model of philosophical precision.

In his latest undignified rant, Dawkins claims that it is because Craig is "an apologist for genocide" that he won't share a platform with him. Dawkins is referring to Craig's defence of God's commandment in Deuteronomy 20: 15-17 to wipe out the Canannites. Here is Craig's offending passage:

"[If] God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of [the Canannite] children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

I am disinclined to defend the God of the Old Testament's infanticide policy. But as a matter of logic, Craig is probably right: if an infinite good is made possible by a finite evil, then it might reasonably be said that that evil has been offset. However, I doubt whether Craig would be guided by logic himself in this regard and conduct infanticide. I doubt, that is, that he would wish it to be adopted as a general moral principle that we should massacre children because they will receive immediate salvation.

But whatever you make of Craig's view on this issue, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists. Hence it is quite obvious that Dawkins is opportunistically using these remarks as a smokescreen to hide the real reasons for his refusal to debate with Craig – which has a history that long predates Craig's comments on the Canaanites.

Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist | Daniel Came | Comment is free | theguardian.com

William Lane Craig is a complete idiot, in which I personal would trash in a debate.

You cannot even do that here. I wonder who you really have engaged in debate. You are a booster sir.

 

[Shad]

Poor Craig, someone does not want to debate him so he throws a fit. No one is obligated to debate someone just due to the demands of said person.

 

[Serenity7855]

This has nothing to do with what I said. Beside Sean Carrol put Craig in his place awhile ago. It happens when people debate outside their experience and expertise. Dawkins fails when outside biology, Craig fails when outside theology. His philosophy is a non-starter. I am not a fan of Dawkins, give the man enough rope and he will hang himself so keep your stereotyping underwraps.

Sean Michael Carroll, is a senior research associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. He is a theoretical cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity. William Lane Craig is an American analytical philosopher and Christian theologian. Craig's philosophical work focuses on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time. The debate was restricted to cosmology. Need I say any more. WLC did exceptionally well, equalling Carrols performance. Not bad for not being educated in cosmology.

 

[Serenity7855]

Poor Craig, someone does not want to debate him so he throws a fit. No one is obligated to debate someone just due to the demands of said person.

How very puerile from someone who claims superior intellect.

 

[Shad]

Yet Carrol caught Craig quote mining and mispresenting Carrol's own book. It undermines one's arguments when you can not even quote your opponent's work correctly nor understand it. Craig fails on every level, which shows why his arguments are flawed. He does not understand what he is talking about.

 

[Serenity7855]

Something you might not understand.

Education and knowledge

The bible is always true and has been for hundreds of years. Education and knowledge is subjected to errors and mistakes. We don't always teach the truth, just the best explanation as the truth. Knowledge can be, and is, corruptible. As are many who think they possess it. The Bible has never changed its mind or contradicted itself. Take a look at science for an example of that. You speak from ignorance and bias.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wait there's more from Dawks, his "explanation" of the evolution of flight sounds more like the screenplay for a Disney cartoon than a scientific theory, count the number of "guesses" and "perhapses"..-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees..
Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds..
Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees.
Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Improbable, pp113–4)

He makes the same point you missed when you misquoted his discussion about the evolution of the eye (the incomplete parts of the quote you provided are bolded):


“In any case, I introduced (gliding) flying fish as a prelude to the theory that true, flapping flight evolved not from tree gliders but from fast-running, ground-dwelling animals whose arms became freed from their normal role in running. Flying fish and flying squids, although they live in water, illustrate the principle that if a gliding animal can move sufficiently fast along the surface it can take off without the support of a tree or cliff. The principle might work for birds, because they evolved from two-legged dinosaurs (indeed, you could say that technically birds are dinosaurs), some of whom probably ran very fast along the ground, as ostriches do today. To pursue the analogy with flying fish for a moment, the two legs would play the role of the fish’s tail, propelling the animal forward very fast, while the arms play the role of fins, perhaps originally used for stabilizing or steering, and later growing aerofoil surfaces. There are some mammals such as kangaroos that propel themselves very fast on two legs, leaving their arms free to evolve in other directions. Our species seems to be the only mammal to use the two legs in the alternating, bird-like gait, but we are not very fast and we use our arms, not for flying but for carrying things and making things. All the fast-running, twolegged mammals use the kangaroo gait in which the two legs push together rather than alternately. This gait grows naturally out of the horizontal spine-flexing of a typical running quadruped such as a dog. (By analogy, whales and dolphins swim by bending the spine up-and-down, mammal style, whereas fish and crocodiles swim by bending it alternately to left and to right, following the ancient fish habit. Incidentally, we should wonder more than we do at the unsung heroes among the mammal-like reptiles who pioneered the up-and-down gait that we now admire in sprinting cheetahs and greyhounds. Vestiges of the ancient fish wriggle are perhaps still to be seen in tail-wagging dogs, especially when the movement spills over to the whole body in the squirming of a submissive dog.)

Among ground-dwelling mammals, kangaroos and their marsupial kind don’t have a monopoly of the ‘kangaroo gait’. My colleague Dr. Stephen Cobb was once lecturing to zoology students in the University of Nairobi and he told them that all wallabies are confined to Australia and New Guinea. ‘No Sir,’ a student protested. ‘I have seen one in Kenya.’ What the student had seen was undoubtedly one of these (Figure 4.5).

This animal, the so-called springhaas or spring hare, is neither a hare nor a kangaroo but a rodent. Like kangaroos, it hops to increase its speed when fleeing from predators. Other rodents like the jumping jerboa do the same. But piped mammals don’t seem to have taken the next step and evolved the power of flight. The only true flying mammals are bats, and their wing membrane incorporates the back legs as well as the arms. It is hard to see how such a leg-encumbering wing could have evolved by the fast-running route. The same is true of pterosaurs. My guess is that both bats and pterosaurs [you used the word 'birds' here] evolved flight by gliding downwards from trees or cliffs. Their ancestors, at one stage, might have looked a little like colugos.

Birds could be another matter. Their story is different anyway, centred around that wondrous device, the feather. Feathers are modified reptilian scales. It is possible that they originally evolved for a different purpose for which they are still very important, heat insulation. At all events, they are made of a horny material which is capable of forming light, flat, flexible yet stiff flight surfaces. Bird wings are very unlike the saggy skin flaps of bats and pterosaurs. The ancestors of birds therefore were capable of forming a proper wing which didn’t have to be stretched between bones. It was enough to have a bony arm at the front. The stiffness of the feathers themselves took care of the rest. The back legs could be left free to run. Far from being awkward and clumsy on the ground like bats and, presumably, pterosaurs, birds can use their legs for running, jumping, perching, climbing, prey-catching and fighting. Parrots even use their feet like human hands. Meanwhile the front limbs get on with the business of flying.

Here’s one guess at how flying got started in birds. The hypothetical ancestor, which we can imagine as a small, agile dinosaur, runs fast after insects, leaping in the air with its powerful hind legs and snapping at the prey. Insects had evolved into the air long before. A flying insect is perfectly capable of taking evasive action, and the leaping predator would benefit from skill in mid-course correction. To some extent you can see cats doing this today. It seems difficult because, since you are in the air, there is nothing solid to push against. The trick is to shift your centre of gravity. You can do this by moving bits or yourself relative to other bits. You could move your head or tail, but the obvious bits to move are the arms. Now, once the arms are being moved for this purpose, they become more effective at it if they develop surfaces to catch the air. It has also been suggested that the feathers on the arms originally developed as a kind of net for catching insects. This is not so far-fetched as it sounds, for some bats use their wings in this way. But, according to this theory, the most important use of the arms was for steerage and control. Some calculations suggest that the most appropriate arm movements for controlling pitching and rolling in a leap would actually resemble rudimentary flapping movements.

The running, jumping and mid-course correction theory when compared with the tree-gliding theory, reverses the order of things. On the tree-gliding theory, the original role of the proto-wings was to provide lift. Only later were they used for control, and then finally flapping. On the jumping for insects theory, control came first, and only later were the arms with their surfaces commandeered to provide lift. The beauty of this theory is that the same nervous circuits as were used to control the centre of gravity in the jumping ancestor would, rather effortlessly, have lent themselves to controlling the flight surfaces later in the evolutionary story. Perhaps birds began flying by leaping off the ground, while bats began by gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees. The debate continues.”
-Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbablepp. 122-126

Climbing Mount Improbable - Richard Dawkins - Google Books



Also, as you can see, he’s not just pulling crap out of thin air and running with it, rather he’s using known examples as comparisons to walk through how flight probably evolved in different animals. Does it still sound like a fairytale to you?

Well now we know; according to him, animals used to hurl themselves out of trees and get splatted on the ground, or else they hopped around like crackheads until they miraculously sprouted wings..

[youtube]1-FHzf4xnWw[/youtube]
World's Weirdest - Flying Squirrel - YouTube

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The bible is always true and has been for hundreds of years.

Which is presumably why you still follow all of the commandments made in the old testament, right?

Also, here is a rather interesting visual representation of all of the inaccuracies and internal inconsistencies contained within the Bible:

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

Education and knowledge is subjected to errors and mistakes.

They are also subject to revision, correction and refinement. The Bible is not. If the Bible is wrong, which it has been, it remains wrong forever. When education or knowledge are wrong, it has the capacity to change through increased understanding.

We don't always teach the truth, just the best explanation as the truth. Knowledge can be, and is, corruptible.

And the people who try to corrupt it largely do so for religious reasons; for example, the creationism movement.

As are many who think they possess it. The Bible has never changed its mind or contradicted itself. Take a look at science for an example of that. You speak from ignorance and bias.

See the above.