betsy

Furthermore.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Then that means, your view of science is very limited indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

It seems you only quote-mined and posted snippets of statements you want! In other words, you're taking the article out of context! Did you even go down to read the conclusion of your source? Makes sense. After all, how many Christian scientists founded the disciplines of science - another FACT that I've posted! Did you even read who wrote that article? Davis A. Young, evangelical Christian geologist from Calvin College

Did you read this part?? http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm There is no contradiction! Flemming was simply criticising Cuvier's and Buckland's interpretation of the flood. And if you read Flemming's view about the olive branch - implying that somehow some plants (and therfore some other living things) were still around - it only supports my assertion that Moses was not given a blow-by-blow account of everything that's been written in Genesis! From what we can see, Genesis was only a summary since graphic details of origin are scattered throughout the Bible by different authors from different time. An example I can think of is the way it was described how God stretches the heavens (at least 11 times), and we found only recently that indeed, the word "stretch" is how the universe's "expanding" should be described! Furthermore, this statement also support that:

I lack sleep so I might not be seeing this right. But doesn't these two statements contradict one another?

CITE! If you feel so confident and sure....then support your claims! Just the way I supported all my claims!

I hardly watch debates....but I look forward to Craig and the Empty Chair. Whether Dawkins shows up or not, Craig will critique his book, The God Delusion. I eagerly await what Craig has to say....(no I haven't read that pop book - it's meant as a rah-rah-rah kumbaya for the fundamentalist atheists at the expense of God and those who have faith). If Craig is rarin' to have a go at that book - with or without Dawkins - I assume he's got lots of things to say. He'll be ripping it apart!

Indeed it's just all lame excuses. You're just going circular with your rebutts! But I agree with your statement above! Evolutionist scientists should look beyond the natural to find answers! Putting parameters in quest for answers regarding origin....trying to come up with myths....trying to fit everything in a tiny box....is not fact-finding at all. And to quote you, "investigation is off the agenda since it might uncover facts that undermine existing (and comfortable) belief structures." To an atheist, it must be scary coming face-to-face to the possibility of Intelligent Design! That there is a Creator. That there could be a God. So they turn tails and say, "Oh no! We won't go there!"

Frog princes and apes, or monkeys or birds.... If you're going to refute....refute this posted fact! FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS CONTRADICTED A BIBLICAL REFERENCE. You're trying to bring refutations to things that are not being presented as arguments! It's like, the mosquito sits on your nose and yet you're trying to swat the flies that are flying about, and proudly yelling "well I'm going for the fly!" Never mind aiming for things behind or on the far sides. Aim for bulls-eye!

Yada-yada-yada. All lame excuses! face it, Harris invoked the "C-word" corectly! Dawkins wouldn't face Craig out of fear! Especially more so after he saw the result of the Craig-Krauss debate. Dawkins can say what topic they can debate on. Apparently it was Krauss who chose that topic he debated with Craig. So what's the problem? Cybercoma sez Dawkins wants to argue about evidence for God. Well, go ahead and argue about it then? What's stopping Dawkins? Just face Craig! One-on-one! That's what everyone wants to see, by the looks of all the pressure that's mounting!

By the looks of it, that's not the only thing you failed to read. You also didn't read the article I posted, "William Craig on Krauss." Didn't even read the topic title of the debate between Craig and Krauss. IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD? Otherwise you wouldn't use this as your sorry excuse for Dawkins. So what's the point in talking to you? You don't read! Period. Not even with your own cut-and-paste! Therefore you don't even know what you're talking about! This is like talking to a toddler! Come back to me when you've got something!

Then all the more he should come out to debate Craig on that ground! Pure baloney! If that is so, then why does he insists on debeting only with priests, bishops, cardinals....all of whom are surely already convinced without evidence! Don't tell me the clergy - of all people - wouldn't be debating with views based on faith! If Dawkins wishes to debate with reason, then why is he so afraid of Craig? By the looks of it, Lewontin is quite right in his rebuke about Dawkins! How many unsubstantiated and counter-factual claims did dawkins make in his pop science books - which of course he'll fail to defend with reason! Dawkins want to debate amateurs! Or those who he feels he can fool with his mumbo-jumbo! Anyway, whether Dawkins faces Craig or not.....Craig will critique the God Delusion. The question is: will Dawkins stand behind his book and defend it? ...or will he leave his baby without any defense at all? If so, the only delusion I see is that of Delusion of Grandeur by Dawkins who fancies himself the "light of the New Atheist movement"....with all those grandeur ways of putting all faith believers down, but cannot even defend his own provocative views! There goes the "light" by the looks of it! Snuffed! Face Craig already, I say....and put that mouth where his money is!

That's what he said. That statement alone is quite loaded, don't you think? Why did he have the need to even say that. It's kinda like a sore loser from a contest saying, "I knew beforehand the contest was rigged!" or "I just knew right away the judges were biased!" It sounded more like Krauss knew he bombed in his arguments/rebutt (as how William Craig explained in the rebutting article I provided, "Craig on Krauss." Krauss scrambled to write that article trying to save face....or ego.....or his upcoming book! We're not bragging, believe me! But by those numbers that showed how much Craig won the debate.....perhaps we get to understand why someone must be quaking in his boots, so afraid to go one-on-one with William Craig! He won't even come out to defend his own book, God Delusion!

Amen. These days, "truth" is stretched into many forms.

No. It's not about bragging. Considering the date that Krauss wrote his article - April 5 - it makes me wonder if it has anything to do with the outcome of the debate? If Craig won by a long shot, surely Krauss could tell by the actual reaction of the crowd where he stood in that debate. Furthermore, it makes me wonder if his article was his way of scrambling to protect his upcoming book - another pop book I suppose - which he plugged in that same article.

He didn't actually deal with the posted fact. FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS CONTRADICTED A BIBLICAL REFERENCE! His "point" is pointless in this posted fact. And as I've explained to him, the posted fact is just stating a simple fact. That is, so far, no archeological findings contradict any Biblical references. The fact is not claiming archeological findings are proving the existence of God. His response was off-key. Your statement seems to contradict itself. Generally speaking, if a book gives us an idea (directly or indirectly) of the people of the time, their practices (whether religious or not), their customs/traditions, and these are verified by science.....surely they are useful as historical texts. Let me just use your own exmple: Isn't that history right there? So it's history in such a way that they give us a look into how things were during that time - verified to be true by science. Of course since science shies away from dealing with anything supernatural....we cannot accept the parts about the existence of their dieties - whether they exists or not. But it does gives us a glimpse about what gods/dieties they worship, and/or how they go about their worship during those days. Therefore, yes they are historical records.

http://thegreatdebatencsu.com/ Craig won. By a long shot.

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG vs LAWRENCE KRAUSS Debate Audio March 30, 2011 NC State IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD? http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss.html Here is the actual debate that's discussed in the two preceding posts.

May 2011 Podcast "William Lane Craig on Lawrence M. Krauss" Craig responds and gives insights about the debate with Krauss.

deleted.

You reason like TalkOrigin! http://creationwiki.org/The_Bible_must_be_accurate_because_archaeology_supports_it_(Talk.Origins)I might as well give the Creationist rebutt to TalkOrigin. http://creationwiki.org/The_Bible_must_be_accurate_because_archaeology_supports_it_(Talk.Origins)Going back to your reply, Who sez anything about confirmation of God or any gods anyway? My fact says:....DOES NOT CONTRADICT! It doesn't say, "it confirms!" Big difference! Furthermore, just because something has not been discovered doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist!

Going back to Dawkins. How long is he going to resist the pressure to face Craig? Does he realize that all these pressures - which are turning into outright mockings of him - will make him look stupid? After all, it was him who wrote The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins is, according to Gary Wolf, from his article in Wired.com, Topic: Church of the Non-Believers http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18436&st=0 Well, Craig is a reputable Philosopher with a bevy of achievements under his belt. He is a Christian. An Apologeticist. Being a philosopher, he can certainly give an intellectual argument. And what a better way to take a logical step in renouncing a "supernatural crutch" by indulging in a logical public debate. You get to renounce the supernatural crutch publicly! As for being relentless, the relentlessness in this scenario comes from the relentless clamor for this one-on-one to happen....matched only by the relentless scurrying away by Dawkins! The New Atheism movement is supposed to be an in-your-face-offense tactic against religion/faith. Well, practically everyone - including atheists - are pushing Dawkins to get into an in-your-face with Craig....but Dawkins just won't! Big words. Talking about aggressive offense when he can't even do any defense! The optics are not good for those fence-sitters, or those who got swayed by Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. This must be a big let-down. If Dawkins cannot bring himself to stand by his own book, that says a lot about the rubbish that's in that book! It must mean, he knows Craig will easily tear his book apart!

Thank you American Woman and Sir Bandelot. I found it.

I would like to browse page 2 and 3 of "Moral and Ethical Issues." How do I get to those pages? Thanks.

What is getting ridiculous is the way some posters are passing off just about anything for facts! The rules and guidelines says: I find it not only disruptively inconsiderate, but also downright deceptive. Since there are a few names here who persistently indulge in unfair insults and deceptive and/or irresponsible ways of "debating," it is only fair therefore to point out those posts that are baloney and/or revealing and ironic.