Log in

View Full Version : Dawkins running scared?


tatty000
February 28th, 2008, 11:07 AM
Recently, it came to my attention that Richard Dawkins turned down an opportunity to debate the Christian 'champion' in defense, William Lane Craig.

source (http://markmeynell.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/missing-the-point-perhaps-william-lane-craig-interviewed-in-the-daily-telegraph/) and source on this dude (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493)

What's up with that? He said it would do nothing for his CV, when in actual fact, any atheist that wants a good debate would look to William.

Edit - I forgot to type my intentions of this post...

What do ya'll think of this 'William Lane Craig'? I've been reading over his previous debates, and they haven't been too bad at all.

Perna de Pau
February 28th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Yes that is a standard reply from Dawkins when he is invited to debate with creationists.

No I had never heard of this Craig.

I agree with Rimmer that the argument is not as simple as Craig puts it.

On the other hand I have to admit that rejecting creationism does not mean rejecting God. In fact I know many religious people who accept evolution and reject creationism.

The point is that accepting evolution and rejecting creationism makes God almost useless.

Loki
February 28th, 2008, 06:16 PM
I think my views on Dawkins are well known - I think he's an arse! I think he does a disservice to his cause and the cause of rational thinking by coming over as a total prat.

Never heard of Craig but I'll be sure to look him up. Is he a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) - I'm sorry but I don't have much time for them. I will listen to their points but I think it's BS.

tatty - you're a bright bloke - why do you believe in Genesis? Even when I was a Christian I never took that book as anything other than allegory.

Fallen Hero
February 28th, 2008, 08:37 PM
Ditto... It makes no sense to me, I'm a twat, so I always enjoyed Revelations the most.

Loki
February 28th, 2008, 09:17 PM
The Revelation of St John the Mushroom Muncher! I love that book - it's a classic!
Especially the bit when he says "if anyone changes the drugged up cobblers I've just written then you will go to hell! And get buggered by pitchfork wielding demons - FOR EVAH!!!!"
Now THAT was copyright!

tatty000
March 1st, 2008, 12:48 AM
The point is that accepting evolution and rejecting creationism makes God almost useless.
Not at all. There is much that God could of have done besides creating.

Loki, most Christians believe in Genesis as a proper book, but the beginning interpretation is where people vary (creation).

I really don't have an opinion on creationism or evolution, I find both ideas to be really far fetched. It isn't something that really bothers me, either.

I do not believe in young earth though. How people pull the Bible to be like that is speculation. The earth's age is never mentioned, and I believe the gap between verse 2 and 3 to be those millions of years we all like to hear.

Loki
March 1st, 2008, 01:41 AM
I do not believe in young earth though. How people pull the Bible to be like that is speculation. The earth's age is never mentioned, and I believe the gap between verse 2 and 3 to be those millions of years we all like to hear.

True - the age of the earth is guessed upon by adding all of the begats up.
Unfortunately many Christians believe in the "Literal Truth" of the Bible - nothing added, nothing taken away.

The way I used to console my conflicting ideas was to think of *days* as periods of time.
Even so - the evidence for evolution is far greater than the evidence for creationism.
I'm not saying Darwin has got it spot on - but it's the best theory we have at the moment -IMO.

tatty000
March 1st, 2008, 01:46 AM
True - the age of the earth is guessed upon by adding all of the begats up.
Unfortunately many Christians believe in the "Literal Truth" of the Bible - nothing added, nothing taken away.

The way I used to console my conflicting ideas was to think of *days* as periods of time.
Even so - the evidence for evolution is far greater than the evidence for creationism.
I'm not saying Darwin has got it spot on - but it's the best theory we have at the moment -IMO.
I personally find Evolution too far fetched. We adapted from a small cell into what we are today just seems, extreme. Until I can personally witness evolution in humans today, I won't take it too quickly.

Creationism also seems a bit far fetched. I could not imagine God simply going 'poof' and boom, humans are there. I'd like to think of that as a big time frame where we are something that grows... I personally don't know, and ignore it for the some part.

Neither side can influence me on it, I've found both to be 50/50 on science, so I don't bother.

Loki
March 1st, 2008, 02:02 AM
I'd like to think of that as a big time frame where we are something that grows...

Wouldn't that be consistent with evolutionary theory ;)

I need to sleep I'm afraid - bloody timezones!

tatty000
March 1st, 2008, 02:58 AM
Wouldn't that be consistent with evolutionary theory ;)

I need to sleep I'm afraid - bloody timezones!
That's it though, I cannot think that we come from another creature. That isn't growth which I'm thinking of.

Time zones? It's only 2 bloody pm!

Perna de Pau
March 3rd, 2008, 11:30 AM
Not at all. There is much that God could of have done besides creating.



What for exemple?

And how would you explain the evolution from non human to human from a theist point of view?

tatty000
March 3rd, 2008, 11:52 AM
What for exemple?

And how would you explain the evolution from non human to human from a theist point of view?
God created the earth, or at least all the particles and what not to make the big bang. He created the life around us, such as trees, bugs etc.

I don't quite understand what you mean in the 2nd question. Non human turns into human, isn't that a self explanatory point in evolution?

Loki
March 3rd, 2008, 12:41 PM
That's it though, I cannot think that we come from another creature. That isn't growth which I'm thinking of.

Time zones? It's only 2 bloody pm!

Hahaha - I have another Aussie friend that can't understand why I sleep in the daytime :D - You Antipodeans and your funny daylight - I bet it's coming to Autumn there? So strange :icon_cool:

Re: The point :D
Couldn't the theory of exogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia)be equally applicable as to the creation method?
Or the Dream Time?

Perna de Pau
March 3rd, 2008, 02:50 PM
I don't quite understand what you mean in the 2nd question. Non human turns into human, isn't that a self explanatory point in evolution?

I understood that you accepted evolution to a certain extent:

God creating the particles for the big bang and then the sequence of elements combining in order to create organic material, then living beings (although I do not see very well how the "creation" of trees and bugs fits into that).

If this is the case at some point a certain species of non-human primates evolved into men. My question was about the role of God in such evolution.

But if you do not accept evolution at all forget it.

rzm61
March 3rd, 2008, 02:54 PM
Can anyone explain dinosaurs?

They weren't ever mentioned in the Bible.
Were they walking the earth during one of the 7 days god made the earth before man?

If so, how did they all die off? Did god kill them all? Did he consider it a "failure" to where he killed off one of his own creations? If so, then god is indeed not perfect. Seeing how he killed off one of his own creations.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 3rd, 2008, 03:04 PM
I have been told that there are dinosaurs and they explain it in some dude slaying the last one. I think he did consider it a failure.

Loki
March 3rd, 2008, 03:15 PM
Can anyone explain dinosaurs?

They weren't ever mentioned in the Bible.


The nephilim?

rzm61
March 3rd, 2008, 03:19 PM
The Nephilim. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim)

appearance accounts for the prehistoric “giants” of Canaan, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but additionally to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation

Nephilim, possibly due to seeing the very tall structures of Canaan that appeared to have been built by a race of giants

They mention giants, however not all dinosaurs were giants. Also the fact that giants is a pretty vague term.

tatty000
March 4th, 2008, 06:07 AM
I understood that you accepted evolution to a certain extent:

God creating the particles for the big bang and then the sequence of elements combining in order to create organic material, then living beings (although I do not see very well how the "creation" of trees and bugs fits into that).

If this is the case at some point a certain species of non-human primates evolved into men. My question was about the role of God in such evolution.

But if you do not accept evolution at all forget it.
I never stated I accepted evolution. What I stated was that I have not taken a side on this discussion, I'm just in the middle. Both evolution and creationism can work with the Bible, I've seen it over and over again from both sides. I simply have not taken a stance, and it isn't something that bothers me.

tatty000
March 4th, 2008, 06:09 AM
Can anyone explain dinosaurs?

They weren't ever mentioned in the Bible.
Were they walking the earth during one of the 7 days god made the earth before man?

If so, how did they all die off? Did god kill them all? Did he consider it a "failure" to where he killed off one of his own creations? If so, then god is indeed not perfect. Seeing how he killed off one of his own creations.
You haven't thought about taking the Christian view point of this once, have ya?

Whilst dinosaurs may or may not of have been mentioned in the Bible, there are hundreds of other creatures that are not mentioned in the Bible, too. Just because it isn't there, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Extinction happens a bit, we see it all the time. Dinosaurs were probably just another one of those creatures that died up.

Wallsy
March 4th, 2008, 08:54 AM
You Antipodeans and your funny daylight - I bet it's coming to Autumn there?

Our seasens are each exactly three months. Autumn is March-May.


Wallsy.

tatty000
March 4th, 2008, 09:37 AM
What do our seasons count for in Melbourne, though, Walsy? Surely you've heard the term 4 seasons in a day?

*Millions.
I didn't want to overstate and seem like I'm making up garbage. But yes, the amount of species in exist cannot be measured.

Loki
March 4th, 2008, 09:46 AM
Our seasens are each exactly three months. Autumn is March-May.


Wallsy.

Mate - I was just playing with tatty :D

At least you have seasons - we have...

Warm rain
Cold rain
Snow
Very cold rain

The last time we saw the sun a new religion was started:icon_eek:

Wallsy
March 4th, 2008, 10:06 AM
Surely you've heard the term 4 seasons in a day?

I even have the song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Seasons_In_One_Day).


Wallsy.

Mushuukyou
June 12th, 2008, 03:35 PM
Even so - the evidence for evolution is far greater than the evidence for creationism.

There is evidence for creationism? :icon_eek:

sudikics
June 12th, 2008, 04:52 PM
Yes, of course. Haven't you read that book of books, the Bible? :icon_lol:

[/sarc]

Mushuukyou
June 12th, 2008, 05:17 PM
Yes, of course. Haven't you read that book of books, the Bible? :icon_lol:

[/sarc]

Unfortunately, I was low on toilet paper for a few weeks..

tagnostic
June 12th, 2008, 07:07 PM
Unfortunately, I was low on toilet paper for a few weeks..

many a time
incarcerated
have i resorted
to the bible
Smokin with the Lord

(smells like shit, but the tobacco stays lit)

Loki
June 12th, 2008, 07:35 PM
many a time
incarcerated
have i resorted
to the bible
Smokin with the Lord

(smells like shit, but the tobacco stays lit)

I think the modern editions use normal paper. The Bible really has got thicker over the years...

tagnostic
June 13th, 2008, 02:48 PM
I think the modern editions use normal paper. The Bible really has got thicker over the years...

as have
its readers

Perna de Pau
June 13th, 2008, 04:30 PM
as have
its readers

While their numbers are growing thinner...:)

GeoffBoulton
June 13th, 2008, 07:48 PM
Recently, it came to my attention that Richard Dawkins turned down an opportunity to debate the Christian 'champion' in defense, William Lane Craig.

He never debates with such people because they use such appearances to 'credibility' to their argument - "See, Richard Dawkins takes us seriously enough that he will debate with us". Now they can't use that line they are obviously settling for the next best thing - "See, Richard Dawkins wont debate with us because he knows we will win".