Skip to comments.Why Richard Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig
Posted on 12/09/2009 10:58:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
William Lane Craig is not only one of the worlds leading Christian apologists but he has actually made outstanding original contributions to philosophy. Yes, Craig publishes popular-level books. Unlike Dawkins, however, who in 20-years plus has been purely a popularizer (of Darwinian evolution, materialist science, and atheism), Craig continues to publish at the highest levels of the academy addressing scholars of the highest caliber (and gaining their respect). Dawkins, by contrast, increasingly appeals to the lowest common denominator. Its in this light that Dawkins glib dismissal of Craig should be viewed:
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE SHORT VIDEO OF DAWKIN's RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION
What a resemblance.
Dawkins is a “girly-man”.
He's a hopeless, arrogant fool. Deep down, Dawkins knows it and why he is so defensive.
Evidently he is more than just a master debater.
When I get the time I will begin with the articles referenced at Encyclopedia Of Philosophy and follow the links where they lead.
I imagine it will lead to hours of philosophical enlightenment.
Then again I could spend more time dragging my eyes through these so-called "Philosophy" threads on FR and gaining nothing more than heightened frustration and lowered expectations with regard to the average Freepers ability to engage in philosophical discussion.
Trilobites are ocean bottom dwelling creatures that did not find a suitable environment following the Noahic cataclysm. This is unsurprising given the total resurfacing of the ocean during this event. Not surprisingly they are found near the bottom of the fossil record.
Likewise, dinosaurs were not able to re-establish themselves, for reasons that one one has a solid handle on (suggestions, yes, but I don't think creationists or evolutionists have a solid answer on their demise).
As for mammals in the Cambrian, the Cambrian is marine strata reflective of a pre-flood oceanic environment. Terrestrial fossils in general are absent from this strata, right? And any marine mammals would necessarily have lived at/near the surface, thus rendering their burial in ocean-bottom deposits during deposition of these layers unlikely.
Evolution doesn't 'predict' any of these fossil distributions, by the way. It simply accepts the distribution of the fossils and assumes an evolutionary lineage after the fact. The failure to do so coherently as more evidence has been compiled, as reflected in the collapse of the 'evolutionary tree' concept, shows how unfriendly the fossil record is to monophyletic evolution.