Originally Posted by kdbrich
Ray Comfort has challenged Dawkins to a debate. At this point Dawkins has tucked his tail between his legs and run home to mommy. He seems scared.
If Comfort is as much an idiot as you people seem to think he is it should be the easiest $20k Dawkins ever made.
What? Afraid? I looked at this silly Ben Stein video and I was instantly able to see the logical flaws that are peppered throughout it. Here's just a couple that apparently the theists missed. On purpose, one must assume:
1. Dawkins never said
that he believes in an alien IDr. He said, right there on that video, that such an initiator MIGHT well be out there, as one logical explanation. He also never said that such a being came here and "insta-poofed" everything, as Creationists insist had to have happened. Dawkins' lectures (easily ffound on the 'net, if you'd care to hear the truth, but I know; it's terrifying...) make it excrutiatingly CLEAR to an open-minded and honest listener that, if
it happened that way, this alien IDr only seeded our planet with the initial building locks of life (as in: amino acids or early DNA precursors). Nothing else. No interspace Ark, unloading 100 million animals. That's silly on it's face, just like Creationism's ideas.
On the other hand, subsequent Evolution
of those possibly "planted" seed molecules is precisely the proven means by which our planet's organistic diversity occured.
And then, Stein stupidly conflates his quote-mined (you notice how they mute out the parts they don't want you to hear, and then bring up the volume following a careful editing process? Notice that?)
bit about Dawkins apparently stating and accepting that there WAS an IDr, with his rejection of (with a suitable echo in the audio...) "God"?
That was never said, Ben.
Whassa matter, you run out of good stuff?
Dawkins has already debated, and won, in several hundred
live, face-to-face debates. He knows the VERY LIMITED number of arguments that even clever Creationists can possibly bring to such an event, and, from whenever I've seen him, he's the one that can terrify illogical kindrgarten thoughts.
If I were him now, I'd just laugh and take a pass. Unless, since they are so sure of themselves, they bet their entire proprty and financial assets of their church. Why not? If you're right, you're right, right?
Only thing is, this would have to be fairly adjudicated by an impartial outside group of 3 judges, none of them Christian, or having ever heard of Christianity, nor any of science's latest conculsuions. Just a presentation of Creationist theory, and their "proofs" [Why, because we're here! That's all the proof I need!]
coupled with a presentation of how science asks and answers, plus, oh let's say, 3 examples of the disproving of some of those Xtian Creationist ideas, as well as irrefutible [to rationl men at least] proofs of various cornerstones of Evolution.
You notice how, in the old Westerns, the new gunfighter kid always shows up to challenge the top gun? And most often ends up dead. But even if he wins, it's temporary, because eventually along comes another and puts him down.
And besides, if our guy in the white hat, Dawkins, were
to go to a streetfight against yet another interloping "Xtian-Kid" gun for hire, Dawkins would whip out that which science hath brought him: to wit: a heat-seaking LAWS rocket, backed up with an electrically spun laser-sighted GE Mini-Gatling gun (See the original "Predator" movie).
By comparison, using a weapon of equivalent metaphorical modernity as Creationism, our cross-earing all-in-black Christian gun-slinger would only have a single-shot smooth-bore and well rusted muzzle loader. And his powder would probably be wet....
Hardly a fair fight, wouldn't you agree? It's not ethical so slay unprepared, ill-defended bleeting sheeple...