betsy

Btw, somebody here talked about Dawkins' meme. Well, here's what Ruse thinks about that meme. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ruse-dennett-briefwechsel-the-clash-between-evolution-and-evolutionism/ That's what I call no beating around the bush.

You guys can't keep to the topic. It's all the same....nothing new...so predictable! You go on every website and you see a radical atheist going through the same gyrations as all the other radicals. So typical among the New Atheists! When they have nothing to rebutt, they deflect....or they start spitting snd spewing! I'm reminded of the kind of kids one is tempted to tease....just to see the expected reaction. It's comical. So very Dawkins Flock-esque.

"DAWKINS peddling pseudo-science; vulgarizes Darwinism!" http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9711/articles/johnson.html Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the notion of using techniques from molecular biology such as gel electrophoresis to apply to questions of genetic variation and evolution. In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics, Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution. In 1979 he and Stephen Jay Gould introduced the term "spandrel" into evolutionary theory. (from Wikipedia)

Yeah you got that right, 100 years and counting! After a century, we're still waiting! Where's the clear evidence? Where's the bloody link? Give us one. Just one. A single one! Of course there's no link. The whole chain is missing!

Exchanges between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett

It's surprising and disappointing seeing a few members - one in particular - whom I thought to be sensible based on some of his intelligent posts I've read in the past, to bring himself to the level of just purely "neener-neener" rebuttal. It's hard to imagine that this bitter hatred - yes I sense a tinge of bitterness - is caused only by what he read in the Bible.

ha-ha-ha. Unbelieveable. <shaking head> You could've at least set aside your extremism and explained to your child about religion - what the "Prince of Egypt" is based on.....then inject your own personal opinion. So, have you both watched the fairy tale, "Frog Prince" yet? Lo, watch your child....she could be kissing every frog she meets.

Furthermore I ask you Dre, would you just make light and "tune-out" bigotry?

Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done. Dawkins (and the other 3 or 4 founders of New Atheism) have a very specific goal: to go out of their way to attack religion - specifically the Christian religion. They also put emphasis on dis-respect for religious belief (zero tolerance) - which is outright bigotry. This is an outright declaration of war. He's lucky he's just getting all these challenges from Christians to face the Creationist scientists in a debate. Or oppositions showing him as a fraud, a charlatan, a sleaze bag just out to make money out of fundamentalist atheists - most of whom are former-Christians-turned-atheists with an ax to grind or in need of assurance. Being one of the most influential poster-boy for New Atheism, of course everyone will be focusing on him. I intend to focus on him. The focus btw, doesn't come from the religious side alone. There's been rebukes about him from the legitimate science field as well.

That could be very true. The new generation of children are being raised by parents whose religious beliefs have been muddled by secularism. Not a few Christian parents - and preachers - have unwittingly embraced relativism and/or compromised their belief. If left unchecked, the next generations will be gone. I recall you posting somewhere (can't remember where) that Christianity's biggest problem is within (not the atheists)....and I agree with you on that. We have not learned from the numerous mistakes of (Old Testament) Israel. Parents have the Christian duty - a very important responsibility - to ensure that their children are raised knowing and understanding their religion. The foundation of Christian values should come from the parents.

I am wondering if 380 studies is enough? Granted that there is no clear evidence, does it mean there is no possibility at all? True, there's no one who'd come forward to prove and claim the million dollar reward, that I too actually think that no one, so far, have that ability. Maybe there is no such thing, but then again who knows....perhaps the "right conditions" have yet to be met for someone to be able to do such feat. We know of people who'd exhibited almost super-human physical strength under certain circumstances...why can't the mind? Not all paranormal activities are likely to be fact, nor can all be proved or disproved by science....but then, who am I to say. The mind still holds a lot of mystery....for it still remains largely untapped. We cannot give a definite conclusion about something we don't fully understand. One such example that holds promise is the use of positive thinking in self-healing.

I couldn't care less either what others chose to believe. Obviously Dawkins didn't think that way. He wrote books. He co-founded the New Atheist Movement. He declared war. You see, that's what we Christians are complaining about. This mythological frog prince being foisted on the young as fact! Evolutionists keep harping about the missing link. Heck, what missing link? The whole chain is missing!

Evolution has always been disproved! The vudeo of Dawkins' getting stumped....plus his cowardly refusal to face his challengers - scientists creationist - in a debate proves that Dawkins is just full of bravado! He writes POPULAR SCIENCE! Riding on the backs of fundamentalist atheists who have deep-seated hatred for religion and God. He caters to their need of assurance, and "pay-back" mentality. Most of these fundamentalist atheists are usually former Christians.

Furthermore, it only underlines what happened to him in that first video in the introduction.... He got STUMPED!

Action speaks louder than words. Of course he is afraid. He's afraid he'll be exposed as a fraud! There goes the gravy train...and the demi-god status he enjoys... That's your own reason. You don't have the same status as Dawkins. If you write a book being purposefully offensive and insulting, admitting that your goal is to bust someone's belief/doctrine, and declare war....well the least you could do is defend your position when the seiging begins! Obviously he cannot.

If you write books attacking, smearing and maligning someone or something....don't be too sure no one's gonna challenge and try to prove you wrong. If you know you are right, and you've got facts to back you up....why wouldn't face your challengers? What more when you're a scientist? And what more if you've got sceintific evidences. Surely you can prove them wrong. Now if you're just full of baloney.....that's another story.

But you're not Dawkins, are you? You're not Dawkins- who's getting high-profile publicity selling books spouting mumbo-jumbo, maligning Christianity. Why is he afraid? For all his bravado, he ends up cowering. We all know why....it's because he can't stand confident on his own argument! He is no longer a credible scientist.

Support your claim. Cite a credible reference.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_public_refusal_to_debate_creationists

So Dawkins thinks Intelligent Design is legitimate. His beef is only what type of Designer. Interview with Stein: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk

What do you mean "in a few days?" Haven't you noticed? I've been saying it all the time! All the discussions I'm involved with in Religion - my arguments/rebuttals, not to mention the topics I've started point to the fact that there's no evidence for evolution!

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/science_finally_tackles_hypnosis/ There's still much to explore! Science shouldn't be perverted by the likes of Dawkins who's only more willing to endorse close-mindedness to suit his fanatical belief against God or gods.

Nope. There is still much to explore. Just like the ID-proponents in creation/evolution, there are other scientists who support the possibilities of the paranormal....positive-thinking used in healing, another example. This close-minded approach that Dawkins and his ilk are trying to pass off as "science," which is acctually very unscientific. Guessworks! That's what it is if you make conclusions without fully doing exhaustive research.

That doesn't answer the question. Why is Dawkins making what's tantamount to a conclusion in his dismissal of telekinesis and other possibilities of the paranormal...when the human brain isn't fully understood by science. There's still much to explore. This supports my contention that Dawkins is not credible. If he can be as sloppy as this - and that's being generously kind and the least to say , then he can be sloppy in his own so-called "scientific works" as well.

Of course this touches the politics! Very much so! What do you think these debates and interviews are for? Just to hear and see themselves talk? It's campaigning! Doesn't Dawkins and the New Atheism have an agenda - or platform" - to push? This "political scene" even have its own version of flip-floppers, distortioners and liars - like Dawkins, fitting all that's mentioned characteristics of a sleazy politician! All sides even have their own "war rooms!" We're pundits - the featherweights - in this scenario. But yes I understand your annoyance and what you mean by "not the vain pursuit of trying to prove a myth." I agree, this is not the thread to get into the nitty-gritty of the myth of the Frog Prince. And this part doesn't belong here too.