Video debates and Interviews

[betsy]

That's true. Like most atheists, I don't spend my time worrying about what I can't know, so I don't follow the debates like you do.

I would say you're a lot more interested in knowing more about atheism than I am.

Hmmm....

Well, I thought you've got to know something about what you're arguing about. That's only sensible....unless of course you intend to make up facts or invent your way through the whole discussion. Er....fill-in-the-gaps method, so they say.

Dawkins was slammed for not understanding Christianity or other religions well enough!

Actually I don't follow the debates. I got hooked on a few only after Dre gave the link to Dawkins vs Wright from the other thread. You could say Dre got me into it!

The rest of videos and other stuffs I'm giving out now are just products of various articles I've been stumbling on after reading the original article on "The Church of the Non-believers."

The bigotry of Dawkins and the founding of his New Atheism is what got me quite interested in him. Since I've never really bothered with popular science books, I never imagined he was like this! It's like opening Pandora's box for me.

If this focus is called obsession....then I must be obsessed. I myself thought that it's uselessly juvenile to reason with emotions alone in mature discussions. That personal opinions don't carry too much weight in topics such as this since most of them are inaccurate ramblings and distorted versions of what they don't actually know.

I thought it's only sensible and credible argument and rebuttal to support what I claim, foolish me.

name='BubberMiley' date='17 April 2011 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1303050633' post='656715']

But I'm not arguing about anything. I'm just enjoying the freak show, and watching the crippled christian try and get back on track.

I didn't mean you. I was explaining to you. But since you say you're not arguing about anything and just enjoying the show....then I won't disrupt your enjoyment by replying to you.

At least you're having fun. That's good.

Edited April 17, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Dawkins initially denied this debate against Rabbi Shmuley Boteach ever happened.

This particular debate ignited the following sequence of events.

Boteach debates dawkins

Excerpts from the Letter by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to Dawkins

May 4, 2008

Dr. Richard Dawkins

University of Oxford

United Kingdom

Dear Richard,

I am in receipt of your open letter of May 2.

As to your point that the video of the Oxford debate, which you denied ever happened and which your atheism side lost, is not on my website, please look on the left-hand column of my home page. Significant portions of the debate have also been posted on YouTube.

Now, to respond to your other allegations point by point, you say that you were not assailing me in your posting. And then, a line later, you say that I was never affiliated with Oxford University and that I misled attendees at one of my lectures when I claimed to have debated you. You were attacking and attempting to discredit me, Richard, so let's not play games.

The organization I ran for 11 years at Oxford, the L'Chaim Society, was one of the largest student organizations in the University's history, which is why you agreed to participate in approximately five of our large debates.

In 2003, Paul Humber had email exchanges with Richard Dawkins reagrding the controversy surrounding that debate. The exchanges offer an insightful profile of Richard Dawkins, a glimpse of his personal side that hides behind the facade of his profession.

Excerpts. This actual article is a very long read.

Debating Dawkins

Paul G. Humber, M.S.

July / August 2003

The title of this article is somewhat

of a double-entendre. It describes

e-mail correspondence I had recently

with Dr. Richard Dawkins, one of

the worlds leading evolutionists. A primary

topic of this correspondence was the

February 1986 Oxford Union Debate between

evolutionists and creationists.

Dr. Dawkins, currently a professor at Oxford and

the author of many articles and books, and

Professor John Maynard Smith debated

Professors A.E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar

Andrews at Oxford University on February

14th, 1986

The recent exchanges, involving eight

e-mail messages, reveal at least one deception

in an account of the debate, affirmed

even by Dr. Dawkins himself.

As there seems to be little actual record

of this event, suggesting a possible coverup,

I sent an e-mail to Dr. Dawkins on May

28, 2003 asking if he had memory of it.

He responded that he did, adding: And

the date (which of course I do not remember)

is attested by the following article by

Questioning this tally, I wrote back:

Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith mentions

in his 1993 book, The Time

Dimension, that the Creationists

side received 114 votes out of

approximately 300 cast. I asked,

Is it possible that Durants figure

cited above (15) should be

115? The total (313) would then

be much closer to 300 than

Durants 213 total. In other

words, do you think there may be

a typo in Durants figures?

Dr. Dawkins responded:

I have no idea. It is obviously

possible. I do recall, however,

that there was something fishy

about Wilder-Smiths credentials.

Wilder-Smith I remember as a

genial old buffoon, who had no

understanding that Maynard

Smith was running rings round

him. Edgar Andrews cut an altogether

less jovial figure. In his

speech he tried to come across as

a sophisticated scientist and philosopher,

NOT as a bible-bashing

fundamentalist creationist. But I

had a copy of one of his books,

and during my speech I started to

read passages aloud in order to

demonstrate that, in spite of his

speech, he was really an old-style,

6-day Genesis, Adam-and-Eve

creationist. Naturally that would

not appeal to an educated Oxford

audience. And Edgar Andrews

tried DESPERATELY hard to

stop me reading. He stood up to

interrupt me repeatedly, probably

four or five times, and tried to

persuade the President to stop me

reading. She repeatedly refused

to stop me and I proceeded to

read, whereupon Andrews finally

gave up and sat with his head in

his hands, looking for all the

world like a broken man. Bizarre,

when you think that all I was

doing was reading whole paragraphs

(not out of context, therefore)

from his own book.

Further down in Dawkins letter, he

wrote, Wilder-Smiths account lies somewhere

between fantasy, lies, and paranoid

delusion. Regarding Dr. Wilder-Smiths

statement that there was a cover-up of the

debate having actually occurred, Dr.

Dawkins wrote:

Cover-up? WHAT cover-up? I

have agreed that John Durants

figures have been tampered with.

But that is nothing to do with the

Oxford Union or with Oxford

University. That is not a coverup,

that is a dishonest individual,

some kind of hacker perhaps, with

access to a particular non-official

web-site.

Regarding the matter of an impassioned

plea to the audience, Dawkins wrote:

I may well have said something

of the kind, in the course of my

speech. It is the sort of thing one

July / August 2003

Creation Matters a CRS publication 5

does say when asking people to

vote in a debate. I do think every

single vote in favour of creationism

would be a disgrace to Oxford,

or indeed to any university.

I say so frequently and I shall

continue to do so.

As to Dr. Wilder-Smiths statement

that Professor Andrews brought up the

point of order, that no religious considerations

should play any role Dawkins responded:

If this is a reference to Andrewss

pathetic and undignified attempts

to stop me reading from his own

book, it was ME the president

supported, and ANDREWS who

sat down (eventually, after several

attempts to stop me speaking). I

told you that before. My memory

is extremely clear on the matter.

I do not remember what he actually

said when trying to get the

President to stop me, but I remember

very clearly that it was he who

eventually sat down (with his

head in his hands).

I would like to interject an editorial

comment here. Dr. Wilder-Smiths book

was written about six years after the event.

Dr. Dawkins, who initially reported the

debate result as 198 to 15, eventually affirmed

that he did not remember such a

landslide. If his memory was so fuzzy

about the debate outcome, how can one be

sure of his extremely clear memory of a

lesser aspect? In our email exchange he

is writing, not six years after, but seventeen

years after the event!

In response to Dr. Wilder-Smiths recollection

of Professor Maynard Smiths

words (Regarding Professor Maynard

Smith, Wilder-Smith said that he then

stood up and said he was glad that I had

stuck to pure science in the debate, science

which was impeccable, but said that I

believed in a small tribal God, which was

not acceptable today), Dawkins wrote:

I dont remember, but it is plausible

that Maynard Smith might

have said something like this in

passing, before getting on to the

main part of his speech. It is not

an attack but a highly justified

point. I would gladly m

In summary, an Oxford Union Debate

occurred on February 14, 1986. The Oxford

Union has little if any institutional

record of it. Despite Dr. Dawkins plea,

there were apparently 115 votes for the

creation position (more than 37%). This

was done near Darwins turf. Imagine

flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing

over 37% of the scientists there that the

earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not

as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr.

Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry

article4). If unwilling to receive what I

offered him in support of creation science,

perhaps he should listen more closely to

what knowledgeable creation scientists are

saying.

Paul G. Humber is Executive Director of Skilton

House Ministries, Inc. and a faculty member of

the University of Phoenix (Philadelphia Campus

http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08%2004.PDF

[betsy]

As is well-known, Dawkins refused to have any debates with William Lane Craig.

The two had a chance meeting prior to their "square-off."

Craig and Dawkins square off on stage later today! Yesterday I received this Facebook note from William Lane Craig.

Dr. Craig describes their first meeting...

As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the

question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well. to my surprise, I just

found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins!

It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my

hand and introduced myself and said, Ï´m surspised to see that you´re on the

panel.

He replied, "And why not?"

I said, ¨Well, you´ve always refused to debate me."

His tone suddenly became icy cold. "I don´t consider this to be a debate with

you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.¨ At that, he

turned away.

¨Well, I hope we have a good discussion,¨ I said.

"I very much doubt it,¨ he said and walked off.

So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning,

should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get

back.

The six-man debate panel is set to discuss the question, "Does the Universe have a Purpose?"

Affirmative Position: Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett

Negative Position: Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins

http://apologeticjunkie.blogspot.com/2010/11/william-lane-craig-vs-richard-dawkins.html

Unfortunatley, it wasn't a one-on-one. It's three-on-three.

Safer in numbers, I suppose....

Edited April 22, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Saving-experience happened on Dawkin's website!!!

Excerpt from

Former Dawkins Atheist Richard Morgan Continues to Praise God

Nominal Christian, Mormon missionary, atheist, and now a born-again Christian, Richard Morgan recently spoke to Apologetics315 about his life-changing, or saving, experience on none other than Richard Dawkins infamous website.

Blindly searching still for something to hold on to, Morgan shared in his interview, I was aware that probably much more than seeking God I was seeking a social context where I would be accepted. I think basically all of us deep down, were all looking to be accepted in some way or another.

Having grown out of the need for that kind of moral support however as he aged, Morgan one day began to read Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker which revolutionized his life and made sense of everything he had been experiencing.

This was a real epiphany experience… to realize of course all those years of searching for something spiritual or God-like were bound to be completely frustrating because God didnt exist."

I didnt feel like I became an atheist, the feeling was more that I realized I always had been, expressed Morgan. I had a feeling that I never actually believed in God but I was looking for some unhealthy psychological reason [to believe]… coming out as an atheist was really a hallelujah experience for me.

More than the religious debate, it was his interest in evolution that led him to follow Richard Dawkins. Upon finding the authors actual website, Morgan was excited to communicate with scientists and philosophers who could offer more insight into evolution.

But rather than discussing the nature of evolution in the oasis of clear thinking, Morgan was horrified to discover in his first forum that more than half of the people devoted their time saying rude things about believers using extremely foul language. I dont know if youve seen The Social Network but theres one point where a girl says to the main character Just stay in your dark room and make snide remarks because thats what the angry do these days.

After witnessing the discussions firsthand, the newly minted evolutionist agreed that the Internet was more a place where people could hide behind their anonymity and say rude things as a kind of therapy.

Still searching for answers however, Morgan continued to be a part of the community, drawn particularly to a discussion on David Robertsons open letter replying to Dawkins first chapter of The God Delusion.

Prompted to write a response to each of Dawkins chapters in the book, the Scottish pastor eventually compiled all the letters into a book called The Dawkins Letters.

Criticizing the book in the forums, members began to attack the letters until one day Robertson himself appeared in the discussions and began defending the points he made.

For several days the attacks continued, until one day someone replied that David Robertson was a liar. But Morgan throughout all of the threads had not noticed this and asked where the pastor had lied, bringing him a bout of criticisms as well.

I was probably too unintelligent to see where he was a liar, remembered Morgan.

As time went on, he began to see more and more the brutality and harshness of the chats, recalling one shocking post where the site administrator had published an article about an extremist Russian prophet who tried to commit suicide when his prediction for the date of the end of the world failed to come true.

A couple of posters in response to the story regretted that the fallen prophet had failed in his attempt to put an end to his life. Stunned by the level of inhumanity, Morgan wondered how any civilized person could say they wanted to see anybody die. Writing a protestation to some form of humanity in the forums about his shock and disappointment in the members, one respected member on the site simply replied to his post with an LOL laugh out loud.

Printing out over fifty pages of Robertsons posts, Morgan read through all the posts again and found no lies. What he discovered instead was humility, intelligence, sensitivity, and several references to the Bible.

In his confused state, without God or a community of atheists to turn to, Morgan started to post on The Free Church of Scotlands forum, which the Scottish pastor was a part of.

Writing to Robertson about how he appreciated his responses and comments, Morgan shared how he couldnt believe in God. Im not an atheist because I want to be an atheist. Im not a happy atheist. Im an atheist because I cant believe in God."

In response to Morgans post, Robertson, the resident fruitcake at the Dawkins forums, asked him two questions which subsequently changed his life: 1) Why dont you believe in God? 2) What could make you believe in God?

In his renewed experience with God, he went back on the Dawkins site and posted about his newfound faith to which many replied with vile insults and commented, You need counseling and This is a temporary brain infraction.

But now, three years later, the temporary brain infraction Morgan was affected with continues to persist. Morgan is still amazed and feels the love of God even more now every day, being plugged into a church, which Robertson referred him to.

Advising believers to speak to people in their language and maintain open lines of communication as Robertson had before in the forums, Morgan noted, Theres no point speaking the truth if you are speaking a language that the person in front of you cant understand.

Its important to understand where atheists are coming from in their modern day arguments and how many valid refutations there are in the Christian message to all these criticisms.

Speaking to atheists, Morgan said, Science and philosophy do not have the answer to everything. If you are willing to listen with an open mind and an open heart and just say perhaps I do not possess all the truth, that is an act of humility and I know that God never rejects or ignores acts of humility.

Referring to Revelation 3 where Jesus spoke, I stand at the door and knock, Morgan concluded, Jesus hasnt invited you to come and knock on his door. He says, I am here, I am standing at the door, and knock. All you have to do is open the door and invite [Him] in.

Morgans testimony is now a part of the revamped edition of The Dawkins Letters, by David Robertson.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/former-dawkins-atheist-richard-morgan-continues-to-praise-god-49558/

Edited April 23, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Holy tl,dr, batman.

[betsy]

The responses of Dawkins' flock to the letter and the appearance of Pastor Robertson on the Dawkins' website forum eventually led to the conversion of atheist Richard Morgan to Christianity. (refer to post #154 for details)

The Dawkins Letters: challenging atheist myths

This is an edited version of the first of ten letters dealing with the various atheist myths which Richard Dawkins perpetuates in his book The God Delusion. This letter was published on the Dawkins website and got a substantial response. The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths is published by Christian Focus Publications at £4.99.

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

I hope you will forgive me writing to you, but I have just finished reading your book and it was very frustrating. There was so much in it that I could identify with and yet so much that was to my mind simply wrong.

You argue that those who share your views have been raised to a greater level of consciousness. You write to make atheists loud and proud that they have had their consciousness raised, whilst also seeking to raise the consciousness of those of us who have been left behind. I think your notion that atheists are those who have had their consciousness raised and that they are de facto more intelligent, rational and honest than other human beings is a myth on a par with the Emperors New Clothes.

Top intellectual

Well, I have read your book. I did expect to be challenged. You are, after all, one of the worlds top three intellectuals (as the book jacket reminds us). Of course, The God Delusion was well written, very entertaining and passionate. But at an intellectual and logical level it really misses the mark. Most of the arguments are of sixth form schoolboy variety and shot through with a passionate anti-religious vehemence. What is disturbing is that your fundamentalist atheism will actually be taken seriously by some and will be used to reinforce their already prejudged anti-religion and anti-Christian stance.

Your arguments will be repeated ad nauseam in newspaper letters, columns, opinion pages, pubs and dinner tables throughout the land. You will forgive me saying this, but it seems remarkably similar to the kind of thing that intellectuals were putting out in 1930s Germany about the Jews and Judaism. Just as they claimed the Jews were responsible for all the ills in Weimar Germany, so, according to your book, religious people are responsible for the majority of ills in todays society.

Imagine

Along with John Lennon you want us to imagine a world with no religion and no God. A world that you claim would have no suicide bombers (despite the fact that the most suicide attacks have been by the secular Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers), no crusades, no 9/11, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, etc. By the way, John Lennon was one of my heroes and I loved Imagine. Then I grew up and realised that it took a great deal of imagination to take seriously a song which spoke of imagining a world with no possessions too, written by a man who lived in a mansion and had an abundance of possessions, whilst there were millions dying from lack of resources. It seems to me that your vision/imagination is almost as unrealistic as Lennons.

I want to write a letter in response to each of your chapters. As you correctly point out each of them deals with issues that are fundamental to our existence, meaning and wellbeing as humans. But let me finish off this first letter by looking at a couple of other things you state in your own introduction.

Wanting out?

You claim that your book is for those who have been brought up in a particular religious faith and now either no longer believe it, or are unhappy in it and want out. You want to raise the consciousness of such people to the extent that they can realise that they can get out. Do most people not already know that it is perfectly possible to leave a religion and not suffer any significant consequences? Of course, if you are in an Islamic society, that is not true (but your book is not really directed at Islam) and I realise that for some in the US admitting you are an atheist is political suicide, but overall most people are free to change their beliefs.

I was brought up in a religious home and knew from a very young age that not only was it possible to leave, but that for many people it would be considered normal. I fought my own battles so that I could be free to think for myself. But it was not just, nor even primarily, against the religious teachings of my parents or others (and I did fight against them), but also the patronising expectations of teachers, media and others who just assumed that the only reason anyone would be religious was because of parental influence, brainwashing and a weak mind. You know the real relief came when I realised I could be a Christian and think for myself and seek to make a difference in the world; and that I did not have to buy into all the quirks and cultural nuances of religious groups, nor the fundamentalism of the secularists who just knew that they were right.

Pre-suppositions

Of course there are those who belong to cults that exercise a form of mind control tantamount to brainwashing, but surely even you would not argue that every religious person is in that category? You seem to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of consciousness and needs to be set free by becoming an atheist. Of course you offer no empirical evidence for this. Like much of the book, it is a presupposition (even a prejudice) that does not appear to be founded on anything other than that you would like it to be so. Have you ever thought that there might be many others who are in the opposite position brought up in an atheistic secular society and discovering that they can actually believe in God? Would you give them the freedom to do so? What would you do if your daughter turned out to be a Bible-believing Christian? Would you disown her? Would you even allow her that choice? Or have you done your best to inoculate her against the virus of religion? I remember one young man, highly intelligent, who came to a Christianity Explored group. When he was asked his religious position he said, Im an atheist, but Im beginning to have my doubts. I laughed. A backslidden atheist! I thought that was quite neat. Maybe there are a lot more of them than you think. You ought to be careful about the raising of consciousness maybe people will become tired of your modernist certainties and instead find refuge in the clear fresh air of Jesus Christ!

No reply

You were given the immense privilege of having editorial control of your own TV series The Root of all Evil. Can you tell me when an evangelical Christian was last given the opportunity by a national TV channel to produce a film demonstrating the evils of atheism? Do you not think that in an open and democratic society when you are allowed to make a documentary attacking whole groups of people that they should at least be allowed some right of reply? Of course, that is not going to happen, because, as you well know, those who are primarily in charge of our media outlets are those who share many of your presuppositions and prefer to make programmes which present Christians as either weak, ineffective Anglican vicars or tub-thumping American Right Wing Evangelists who want to hang gays. It is propaganda not truth, not reason, not debate and most certainly not fair.

Desperate

Your book comes across as a desperate attempt to shore up atheisms crumbling defences. Ironically it reminds me of some in the Church who, faced with what seem to be overwhelming odds and staring defeat in the face, issue evangelistic tracts, articles and books which are designed to shore up the faith of the faithful rather than being aimed at the conversion of unbelievers. The God Delusion fits nicely into that category. I am sure you will delight your disciples, establishing what they already believe, but I very much doubt you will make any impact on others who are less fixed in their opinions and who really are seekers after truth. What I do appreciate is that, unlike the irrational and the lazy who want to deny its existence, you admit that there is such a thing as truth. You may laugh at the idea that the truth is ultimately found in Jesus Christ. But I remain an optimist. I believe not only in truth but also in the power of God and his Holy Spirit to bring enlightenment to even the darkest mind. So there is still hope for us both.

Yours, etc.

David

David Robertson

© Evangelicals Now - May 2007

Edited April 28, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Excerpt...

Christopher Hitchensblind to salamander reality

A well-known atheists eureka moment shows the desperation of evolutionists

26 July 2008

Christopher Hitchens is a British-born American journalist and author, recently best known for his antitheistic book God Is Not Great. He is also an avid debater, although he seemed to come off second best against Dinesh D Souza (b. 1961), author of What’s So Great About Christianity?1 In a bizarre recent article, Losing Sight of Progress: How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists claims,2 Hitchens thinks he has clinched the case for his antitheistic faith. He begins:

It is extremely seldom that one has the opportunity to think a new thought about a familiar subject, let alone an original thought on a contested subject, so when I had a moment of eureka a few nights ago, my very first instinct was to distrust my very first instinct. To phrase it briefly, I was watching the astonishing TV series Planet Earth (which, by the way, contains photography of the natural world of a sort that redefines the art) and had come to the segment that deals with life underground. The subterranean caverns and rivers of our world are one of the last unexplored frontiers, and the sheer extent of the discoveries, in Mexico and Indonesia particularly, is quite enough to stagger the mind. Various creatures were found doing their thing far away from the light, and as they were caught by the camera, I noticed—in particular of the salamanders—that they had typical faces. In other words, they had mouths and muzzles and eyes arranged in the same way as most animals. Except that the eyes were denoted only by little concavities or indentations.

This is indeed a continuation of Darwinian ideas. Yet there are a number of problems with this as well as the next point. For example, the usual simulations start with the nerve behind the light-sensitive spot. The vertebrate eye has the nerves in front of the photoreceptors, while the evolutionary just-so story provides no transitions from behind to in front, with all the other complex coordinated changes that would have to occur as well. See also Fibre optics in eye demolish atheistic bad design argument.

Hold it right there, says Ann Coulter in her ridiculous book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. “The interesting question is not: How did a primitive eye become a complex eye? The interesting question is: How did the ‘light-sensitive cells’ come to exist in the first place?”

Coulter’s book actually nails the ‘Darwiniacs’, as she calls them, on this and in many other places. Indeed, the photochemistry involved in even the simplest light-detecting cells is enormously complex. So although evolutionists claim to be climbing a gentle slope up ‘Mt Improbable’, they are really starting from a sheer ledge near the top. See At the bottom of Mount Improbable? Eye evolution, a case study.

So Hitchens thinks that eyeless salamanders are a ‘moment of eureka’. He later explains why:

If you follow the continuing argument between the advocates of Darwin’s natural selectiontheory and the partisans of creationism or “intelligent design”, you will instantly see what I am driving at. The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent) invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones. How, they demand to know, can such a sophisticated organ have gone through clumsy evolutionary stages in order to reach its current magnificence and versatility?

The salamanders of Planet Earth appear to this layman to furnish a possibly devastating answer to that question. Humans are almost programmed to think in terms of progress and of gradual yet upward curves, even when confronted with evidence that the past includes as many great dyings out of species as it does examples of the burgeoning of them. Thus even Shermer subconsciously talks of a pathway that implicitly stretches ahead. But what of the creatures who turned around and headed back in the opposite direction, from complex to primitive in point of eyesight, and ended up losing even the eyes they did have?

Well, what about them? This is the crux of Hitchens argument. Yet this is his own blind spot. Proving that someone can fall down the mountain (Improbable or otherwise) is hardly proof that he could have climbed up there in the first place. Thats the general problem with many alleged proofs of evolution: its not that the changes are too small, but that they are going in the wrong direction see The evolution trains a-comin (Sorry, a-goin in the wrong direction).

This is easily explainable: there are many ways to break something, but not many ways to make something in the first place. So its not surprising that it would be relatively easy for a mutation, or copying mistake in the genes, to ruin the eyes. In the light, natural selection would eliminate such mutations, since blind creatures could see neither prey nor predators.

But in a pitch-black cave, there would be no natural selection against blind creatures, so they could proliferate. They might even have an advantage, because a shrivelled eye is less likely to be damaged. Creationists have explained this long agosee New eyes for blind cave fish? A remarkable experiment leads to much evolutionary misinterpretation.

Indeed, creationists proposed natural selection as a conservative force well before Darwin, which hinders the downward slide of a population by eliminating the less fit. The blind fish are one of the best proofs of this: natural selection conserves sight in most populations by eliminating sightless mutants; when this selective pressure is removed, blind mutants proliferate, so the population goes informationally downhill.

I wrote to professor Richard Dawkins to ask if I had stumbled on the outlines of a point, and he replied as follows:

Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from themhad eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that dont work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors? Maybe your point is a little different from this, in which case I dont think I have seen it written down before.

Of course, creationists deny God created blind salamanders, and agree that this is one genuine example of a vestigial organ. But even genuine vestigial organs prove merely devolution, not evolution. What would be impressive would be a nascent organ, one growing where none existed before in the creatures ancestry. Dawkins must be willingly ignorant of what creationists teach, or is deceitfully knocking down a straw man. After all, why should his ethics be trusted under his own belief system when Dawkins has agreed that ultimately evolution leads to a moral vacuum … in which [peoples] best impulses have no basis in nature, and scoffed at the idea of righteous indignation and retribution against child murderers and other vile criminals?

As shown, there is a big difference in the forward and reverse directions: as one of Australias leading molecular biologists, Dr Ian Macreadie, pointed out:

Evolution would argue for things improving, whereas I see everything falling to pieces. Genes being corrupted, mutations [mistakes as DNA is copied each generation] causing an increasing community burden of inherited diseases. All things were well designed initially.

For example, to the old theistic question, Why is there something rather than nothing?

Which we note Hitchens has not actually answered. Atheists must believe by faith that nothing exploded and became everything.

More...

http://creation.com/christopher-hitchens-blind-to-salamander-reality

Edited May 5, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Post after post of you cutting and pasting huge passages of biased nonsense. Thanks. I would rather waste my time punching myself in the face. I've seen bots on forums make more substantial posts than this.

Edited May 6, 2011 by cybercoma

[Black Dog]

Post after post of you cutting and pasting huge passages of biased nonsense. Thanks. I would rather waste my time punching myself in the face. I've seen bots on forums make more substantial posts than this.

betsy's not a bot? Yeah right. Next you'll tell me bush_cheney2204 or Shady are peoples.

[WIP]

Post after post of you cutting and pasting huge passages of biased nonsense. Thanks. I would rather waste my time punching myself in the face. I've seen bots on forums make more substantial posts than this.

When I get a link, I like to go to the site's homepage and wander around a bit, if I have the time. More often than not, creationist and other rightwing Christian sites are stacked with poorly sourced, but concise little articles to spoonfeed their fundamentalist guests that are desperately looking for information to maintain their faith, and to spam forums and blogs with, to make it appear that there are actually scientific arguments for a divine creation 6000 years ago. At the CARM website, they're not even subtle about it - all the fundamentalist drone has to do is go to the subheading: Cut and Paste Information and spam away across the internet!

[WIP]

The Evolution section claims to have answers to refute all the evidence from the physical sciences that contradict young-earth creationism. It would be hilarious if it wasn't for all the people who actually accept it as the final word on the subject...enjoy:

How would you suggest we control the population in the near future?

The Second Law of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution

Why is the biblical creation myth right?

What did Charles Darwin say about the human eye?

What about the 'creeping' things and Noah's Ark?

Why are there still simple life forms if life evolves from simple to complex?

Why did Neanderthal Man die out?

From the evolutionary standpoint, how could the human brain evolve?

Why should evolution be taught in school?

Was Noah's Ark possible?

What about the evolution of the horse?

Are scientists actually observing macroevolution in bacteria?

Why would the dolphin evolve on land and then return to the sea?

On what grounds is the statement "mutations are not beneficial" made?

What is the Gap Theory?

Did men and dinosaurs live together?

Is carbon dating reliable?

What about the species procreating after Noah's Ark?

Can you explain the biogeographical distribution of species?

Why are there so few human fossils from the flood?

Are evolution and adaptation different?

[betsy]

Creation: Science confirms the Bible is True - Part 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Uc6rpxEKA

Jason Lisle

An astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Dr. Lisle is now helping AiG (and the creation movement as a whole) refute the evolutionary account of origins—using his strong science background. He has designed several exciting planetarium programs for the Stargazer’s Room at the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky (near Cincinnati, Ohio). Among these programs is our very popular “Created Cosmos” – an examination of the amazing size of God’s universe.

In graduate school, Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics. His areas of interest in creation studies are in developing models of cosmology and stellar aging. Creationist thinking in these areas is still very preliminary.

Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.” Among other things, he discovered a previously unknown polar alignment of supergranules (solar convection cells), and discovered evidence of solar giant cells. He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.

Dr. Lisle has authored a number of books and articles. His books include: Taking Back Astronomy, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, and Old-Earth Creationism on Trial. He is also a contributing author for the Answers Books volumes I and II. Dr. Lisle’s articles include the Logical Fallacy Series, Contradictions (introduction), Evolution: The Anti-Science, Atheism: an Irrational Worldview, and many others including our popular web feedbacks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_lisle.asp

[cybercoma]

there she goes again.

thanks wip. i wasn't aware of those sites

[betsy]

Post after post of you cutting and pasting huge passages of biased nonsense. Thanks. I would rather waste my time punching myself in the face. I've seen bots on forums make more substantial posts than this.

there she goes again.

Well, for crying out loud Cyber....are you lost? Check out what the title of the thread is!

I can't stop laughing....back-to-back with the federal politics and this.....Bwa-ha-ha-ha

Edited May 8, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

You know cutting and pasting without adding any kind of argument or discussion in your posts is actually against the rules, right? It's obnoxious and shows nothing other than the fact that you can't think for yourself or synthesize information.

[betsy]

You know cutting and pasting without adding any kind of argument or discussion in your posts is actually against the rules, right?

Read the title of this thread!

It's obnoxious and shows nothing other than the fact that you can't think for yourself or synthesize information.

Well I can't help it if you don't get the point that I'm putting across!

Edited May 8, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

You're not putting across any point. You're cutting and pasting other people's points.

[betsy]

You're not putting across any point. You're cutting and pasting other people's points.

What can I say? If you can't get it....you don't get it.

[cybercoma]

How profound.

[WIP]

there she goes again.

thanks wip. i wasn't aware of those sites

You're welcome! There are dozens of them out there, but what really burns me about groups like CARM and Answersingenesis, is that they make no bones about promoting the cut and paste method of debate. They are not interested in educating their audience beyond familiarizing them with locating pre-packaged rebuttals and flimsy creationist arguments. Talkorigins has responses to creationist and I.D. arguments, but there are sources directing the reader to find more in-depth information, so that the reader can have more than a rebuttal to bad creationist arguments, but may develop a greater degree of scientific literacy....something that is really badly needed these days.

[GostHacked]

You're welcome! There are dozens of them out there, but what really burns me about groups like CARM and Answersingenesis, is that they make no bones about promoting the cut and paste method of debate. They are not interested in educating their audience beyond familiarizing them with locating pre-packaged rebuttals and flimsy creationist arguments. Talkorigins has responses to creationist and I.D. arguments, but there are sources directing the reader to find more in-depth information, so that the reader can have more than a rebuttal to bad creationist arguments, but may develop a greater degree of scientific literacy....something that is really badly needed these days.

She can't think for herslef, this is why she does these large quotes. Surprised she had not broken out Ray 'The Banana Man' Comfort, or Kent 'Tax evader' Hovind. Why not Jack Van Impe? Or Pat Robertson? Or .. or ....

[cybercoma]

I haven't heard of any of these sites. I should spend more time looking around the interwebz.

[betsy]

You're welcome! There are dozens of them out there, but what really burns me about groups like CARM and Answersingenesis, is that they make no bones about promoting the cut and paste method of debate.

What's wrong about the cut-and-paste method? If it can rebutt or if it can answer a question, what's wrong about that? Talk Origin have no qualms about the cut-and-paste method. The last time I look, there's nothing there that says you cannot use any of the sources they provide as a tool for argument or rebutt! The onus is on the user (the "cutter") to ensure that what he is "cutting" is accurate and credible!

At least, most, if not all "cutters" I've seen on this forum have been honest enough to admit they did a cut-and-paste, and gave credit to the sites they've got their quotes! They provide the site's link. Have you?

Anyway, if we make a claim, it better be supported by something...otherwise it's nothing more than just a personal opinion! Have you supported your claims?

In the other thread "The Bible," you made a casual comment about Hebrew cosmology being similar with Sumerian beliefs, with nothing to back it up! I asked you to be more specific...so far, I'm still waiting!

They are not interested in educating their audience beyond familiarizing them with locating pre-packaged rebuttals and flimsy creationist arguments.

The onus is on the user to determine the accuracy of what he's copying! He takes a risk if he uses a "dud" in a debate since it could as easily rip his/her credibility!

Talkorigins has responses to creationist

Did you by any chance use any of TalkOrigin's rebutt in the other thread, "The Bible?"

...there are sources directing the reader to find more in-depth information,

So does most of the Creationist sites!

I can say the same thing. There are sources directing the reader to find more in-depth information,

so that the reader can have more than a rebuttal to bad creationist arguments, but may develop a greater degree of scientific literacy....something that is really badly needed these days.

so that the reader can have more than a rebuttal to evolutionists' spin, and may develop a greater degree of Bible understanding, scientific literacy, and logical reasoning....something that is really, really, very badly needed these days.

Edited May 15, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

She can't think for herslef, this is why she does these large quotes. Surprised she had not broken out Ray 'The Banana Man' Comfort, or Kent 'Tax evader' Hovind. Why not Jack Van Impe? Or Pat Robertson? Or .. or ....

Jack Van Impe rules! I enjoy watching him and his creepy, sycophantic little wife expressing the "possibiity" that President Obama is an agent of the antiChrist.

Edited May 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[betsy]

Oh boy! The pressure is certainly mounting! They're now calling him chicken!

Dawkins continues to duck….afraid to face William Craig!

Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor

9:58AM BST 14 May 2011

But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

The accusation of "cowardice" in that story came not from a Christian, but an atheist Philosophy Professor, Dr Daniel Came from Worcester College, Oxford.

This exchange took place in February this year without any prompting from our commitee, as he was at the time unaware of our existence or the plans for a forthcoming tour.

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topics/full-text-of-dr-daniel-cames