The Empty Chair

Originally posted by Agerg
You ridicule the caricature as though it is orders of magnitude less believable than the unobserved god magically made Adam from dust theory.



Why?

yes, exactly. why do you ridicule the creation account when it too is based upon unobserved phenomena?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, exactly. why do you ridicule the creation account when it too is based upon unobserved phenomena?

I never said I believe life came from non-life...you introduced it as a crappy debating tactic (a textbook example of why Richard Dawkins is correct to stay away from debating creationists) - Now answer my question please.


You ridicule the caricature as though it is orders of magnitude less believable than the unobserved god magically made Adam from dust theory.



Why?

Originally posted by Agerg
I never said I believe life came from non-life...you introduced it as a crappy debating tactic (a textbook example of why Richard Dawkins is correct to stay away from debating creationists) - Now answer my question please.


You ridicule the caricature as though it is orders of magnitude less believable than the unobserved god magically made Adam from dust theory.



Why?

no, i think ill stay away from crappy materialistic arguments, if you dont mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, i think ill stay away from crappy materialistic arguments, if you dont mind.

As I suspected, when pressed on the issue you've got nothing! Just shooting from the hip hoping I'll lose my concentration ;]

The same goes with every other creationist; they'll play the same games and evasionary tactics as you do. That's why Richard Dawkins shouldn't entertain them in a live debate - they are all about fudging the truth, misdirection, and playing to the crowd

Originally posted by Agerg
You introduced the standard fundie attack on evolution: life from non-life.

Please explain how making humans from dirt works.

You apparently don't know much about science either.
Even they concede that man's body is made from all the
elements of the earth. They are only puzzled as to how
God made it live.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently don't know much about science either.
Even they concede that man's body is made from all the
elements of the earth. They are only puzzled as to how
God made it live.

Not surprisingly my little simian friend, you missed the point - I was challenging RC's ridicule of his caricature of our beliefs given that he believes in life from non-life anway (albeit by magic); this of course moots his diversionary point immediately (though it took me a few posts to finally get to the point where he scarpers). This is too complicated for you btw.

Originally posted by Agerg
As I suspected, when pressed on the issue you've got nothing! Just shooting from the hip hoping I'll lose my concentration ;]

The same goes with every other creationist; they'll play the same games and evasionary tactics as you do. [b]That's why Richard Dawkins shouldn't entertain them in a live debate - they are all about fudging the truth, misdirection, and playing to the crowd[/b]

Richard Dawkins doesn't want to be stumped by another question
like this simple one on creation vs. evolution:

YouTube&NR=1

Originally posted by Agerg
Not surprisingly my little simian friend, you missed the point - I was challenging RC's ridicule of his caricature of our beliefs given that he believes in life from non-life anway (albeit by magic); this of course moots his diversionary point immediately (though it took me a few posts to finally get to the point where he scarpers). This is too complicated for you btw.

i dont believe in life from non life, i believe in life from spiritual life you pure straw man of a thousand straw men. I am not the one who has placed limits and asserted that there is no evidence of intelligence and design, you materialists have. I dont care what you say whether i scarper or not, i simply cannot be brothered to humour your one dimensional arguments, its Sunday, i am mellow and i would rather enjoy my chess book to be honest. All materialist are slapheads! and should be on public display so that anyone could walk past and slap them on the back of the head!

Holy blade of grass, everything Holy!😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
Richard Dawkins doesn't want to be stumped by another question
like this simple one on creation vs. evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zal1XW88HQQ&NR=1

In that video Dawkins looks like a child caught in a lie and
has to think hard too come up with another lie to cover for
the first lie. What he thinks is 'whose going to prove me a
liar if this all happened millions or billions of years ago and
I tell them it doesn't happen any more. Yes, that's it.
Whew, got out of that one.'

Originally posted by RJHinds
Richard Dawkins doesn't want to be stumped by another question
like this simple one on creation vs. evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zal1XW88HQQ&NR=1

Richard Dawkins' response to that:

“In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew [from the then Answers in Genesis] into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.”

Richard Dawkins (1998) - http://thinkerspodium.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/creationist-crankery-flashback-richard-dawkins-stumped/

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont believe in life from non life, i believe in life from spiritual life you pure straw man of a thousand straw men. I am not the one who has placed limits and asserted that there is no evidence of intelligence and design, you materialists have. I dont care what you say whether i scarper or not, i simply cannot be brothered to humour your one dim ...[text shortened]... ould walk past and slap them on the back of the head!

Holy blade of grass, everything Holy!😵

So you suggest dirt *is* or is comprised mainly of spiritual life now.


explain...

Originally posted by Agerg
Richard Dawkins' response to that:

“In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew [from the then Answers in Genesis] into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evol ...[text shortened]... kerspodium.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/creationist-crankery-flashback-richard-dawkins-stumped/[/i]

Another lie to appease his admirers. And I suppose you actually
believe this one too. How gullible can you atheist be? Well at
least they got him to say that there will be no more apes that
evolve into men, since that is not the way evolution works in these
modern times. A very convenient development.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Another lie to appease his admirers. And I suppose you actually
believe this one too. How gullible can you atheist be? Well at
least they got him to say that there will be no more apes that
evolve into men, since that is not the way evolution works in these
modern times. A very convenient development.

Well at least they got him to say that there will be no more apes that
evolve into men, since that is not the way evolution works in these
modern times. A very convenient development.

He didn't say that, he said we didn't evolve from modern monkeys. Trying to explain the distinction to you is a waste of my time.

Originally posted by Agerg
Richard Dawkins' response to that:

“In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew [from the then Answers in Genesis] into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evol ...[text shortened]... kerspodium.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/creationist-crankery-flashback-richard-dawkins-stumped/[/i]

Mr Dawkins should be more careful to check interview agendas when allowing random film crews into his home.

I wonder if there has been an example of a dna mutation which has increased the genetic information.

Originally posted by Agerg
Theoligical apologetics is more pursuasive to layfolk and fellow theists than scientific arguments because the former appeals to emotive arguments, faulty reasoning, deception, and every other p!ss poor debating tactic available them. As formal televised or filmed debates are more an act of showmanship than of correctness, the crowds love them for it. The `top argument w.r.t their faith so long as they have have a hole in their arse and so why bother!?

You have more bile than sense, Agerg. I can see why you'd prefer brainwashing (i.e. "education" ) and ridicule over rational debate. If the truth of atheism is as painfully obvious as you claim, then it should be a cinch to defend, right? Well, it's not. Whether atheism is true or not, it should at least be clear to you that nothing is settled one way or the other regarding God's existence; at any rate, not as settled as you clearly believe it is. There are too many vital questions left unanswered by science and naturalistic metaphysics to be ridiculing anybody.