While he may sound like Al Gore, he looks like Emma Watson.
Posted on 12/09/2009 10:58:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
William Lane Craig is not only one of the world’s 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. It’s 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
Dawkins says he won’t debate William Lane Craig because his only claim to fame is that he’s a professional debater – and he says that people he debates have “got to have something more than that”. Dawkins says “I’m Busy”.
Figures. Libs really do not like to debate folks who can debate back. However, it’s amazing that he wouldn’t try and stand up to someone defending an untestable hypothesis.
(Yup, it is untestable. And yup, I’m still a Christian.)
If you don’t mind, please ping me to your posts so we don’t duplicate, and so I can ping the list :o)
Ping!
Here’s William Lane Craig’s previous comment on why Richard Dawkins won’t debate him :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ1pbeXN8qo
This is Dawkin’s exact words :
“I have always said that when invited to do debates that I will be happy to debate a Bishop, a Cardinal, a Pope, an Archbishop; indeed I have done both. But I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They’ve gotta have something more than that; I’m busy”.
Because Richard Dawkins is a spineless pansy who knows that once he gets outside his circle of acquaintances and acolytes, any real debating opposition would stomp him flat.
I read this piece of critique of Dawkin’s response from this website :
TITLE : Too Busy for the Best
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3668
CUT AND PASTE EXCERPT :
Recall that Dawkins’ original comment was: “... and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They gotta have something more than that, I’m busy.” (Whether his busy schedule was due to grammar or finishing school was not specified.) I myself have similar standards, thus:
1. I do not race people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional runners;
2. I do not play chess against people whose only claim to fame is that they are chess masters;
3. I do not play one-on-one with people whose only claim to fame is that they are basketball stars;
4. I do not set my car against people whose only claim to fame is that they have a fast car; and
5. I do not attempt to match the accomplishments of folks whose only claim to fame is that they are in the Guinness Book of World Records ®.
After all, they have to have something more than that, I’m busy.
In fact, I vastly prefer to race people who are famous for eating, to play chess against people who are famous for boxing, to play one-on-one basketball with people who are famous for chess, and to try to match the accomplishments of people who generally aren’t outstanding in the particular field of endeavor in which I’m engaged.
So I can understand why Dawkins would prefer to debate men who have ecclesiastical rank that is unrelated to debating skill (bishops, archbishops, and especially cardinals) rather than someone who is actually famous for debate. After all, who has time for sure defeat? We’re busy!
Dawkins a coward. He peddles trash like Obama and HATES God.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
(Paperback - Jan 16, 2008)
God is No Delusion:
A Refutation of Richard Dawkins (Paperback)
By Thomas Crean
I propose that Al Gore & Richard Dawkins debate each other twice. In the first debate, Gore can defend Theism. In the second debate, Dawkins can make the case against AGW.
Considering the fact that when Dr Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright she looked quite foolish by asking for the material evidence and then ignoring that evidence when it was presented to her. She then attempted to change the subject. That seems to be a common creationist/i.d tactic ignore the questions you cannot answer.
Just like GGG has been dodging this question for a few weeks now:
Please explain why we find no trilobites above the Permian strata, and why we find no dinosaurs above the cretaceous strata, or no mammals in the Cambrian strata?”
“Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll just get dirty and only the pig will enjoy it”
And I thought GGG, editor-surveyor, and Wendy1946 were loons. Makes them seem like Rhodes Scholars.
Any hobgoblin in a moral storm, it seems...
Seems creationism is making a big comeback with the taliban, too...
While he may sound like Al Gore, he looks like Emma Watson.
The resemblance is... well, uncanny.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.