Creationists

[daws101]

Ok now for the question. If things appear to be designed for a purpose how would dawkinks know they were not designed for a purpose ?

really? since there is no evidence of a designer there is no reason to think there is.
ever heard the term form follows fuction?

So you know more then dawkins ? he already admitted they appear to have been created,is that not reason to question his presuppositions ? But it is funny you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence for design.

first you're making false statements.
1. I never said I knew more then dawkins..SO YOUR PSEUDO QUESTION IS MEANINGLESS.
2. THE WORD "APPEAR" IS THE OPERATIVE ONE,it does not in any way indicate evidence of supernatural design .
what's I find funny, is you seem to forget I'm in the business of illusion .
on any given day I make things that "appear" to be one thing but in reality are something else all together.
3. presuppositions.. do you really know what this word means.
it seems not. if Dawkins supposed anything it would have been if a designer were involved there would be evidence, not the appearance of evidence where none existed.
it seems that in your desperate obsessive quest to prove what but definition is not provable is to falsely fill in the inexplicable gaps in existence with opinions of assholes riding motorcycles

btw I can not admit to evidence where there is none.

 

[daws101]

You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?

Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s). Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

bullshit! what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
By Ian
Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.

Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, it’s probably that he’s an atheist. Maybe it’s a sign of old age (he’s pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he can’t be certain that there is no God.
The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:

Slow down there, we’re not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was “6.9 out of seven” certain of his atheism. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low,” he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” to which Dawkins answered that he did.
Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not “the first time” for any such admission.

In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):

…I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
It’s like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasn’t a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresa’s personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that they’re in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.

Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:



Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religion’s dominant place in society

.agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins


This just in: Dawkins is consistent

 

[daws101]

how has math ever pointed to god? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

what would be the mathematical symbol for god?

The alpha and omega.

being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not at all. To purposely misrepresent, skew and falsifying the science that describes Darwin's methodology and to use such terms as "Darwinism", is to denigrate the biology, anthropology and physical sciences that confirm his theory.

Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDTcv4zYKU&feature=plcp]The Genesis Debate - YouTube[/ame]

I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.

Whether an "evilutionist" is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.

So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.

He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses. They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation. The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species. Theories are meant to be questioned. Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.

Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.

Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.

Come on now konradv, assumptions are used in the final tally in all dating methods and sometimes in the beginnig of dating methods.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design

What about the multi-verses?

I thought you quit responding last week!

Not to you, Hollie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.

Wow, you really don't get this. They are confirmed by experimentation for the known ages of the items they were experimented on. Do you have any clue what 3.7 billion years looks like? Let's draw a timeline on the ground and assume human history is roughly 10,000 years. Let's let 10,000 years be represented by one foot. Now get in your car and drive 70 miles to the beginning of the earth. Are you telling me the things you observe in that one foot can be taken to be absolutely accurate for the whole 70 miles?? What if after a million years, something starts to change with regards to the half life of carbon. Experiements confirm a linear relationship for an extremely small part of the line we are looking at. Science as it relates to the distant past is a best guess based on what we can confirm in human history's "microscopic" time period based on the history of the earth. But just for the record, I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in the 3.7 billion year old earth.

But even more preposterous is you are telling me you believe things that no human has ever witnessed. I guess you have more faith than you think.

When you do good science one foot can represent 10,000 miles.

We have to assume the half-life doesn't change. It doesn't for shorter-lived species, why should we assume it does so for longer ones?

I believe in evolution because, if I didn't, I'd have to say God lies to us. How did the fossils get there? We have remarkable brains. I think God expects us to use them.

BTW, the earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, calling into even more doubt your knowledge of the subject.

You want to believe something remains constant when it suits you even though real scientist admit the universe is drifting towards chaos and entropy ,not order. So now you want us to believe the atmoshere and this planet has remained constant for the entire existence of this planet. Do you see a problem with your reasoning

 

[Hollie]

Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.

The Genesis Debate - YouTube

I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.

Whether an "evilutionist" is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.

So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.

He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?

Identify for us why your YouTube video should convince anyone that it features the "top evilutionist"? What body, group or association has assigned the title "top evilutionist"?

Nothing in the YouTube video speaks to confirming supernaturalism or miracles. Do you believe that the processes of heat and pressure acting on carbon is somehow miraculous or supernatural?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s). Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

bullshit! what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
By Ian
Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.

Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, it’s probably that he’s an atheist. Maybe it’s a sign of old age (he’s pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he can’t be certain that there is no God.
The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:

Slow down there, we’re not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was “6.9 out of seven” certain of his atheism. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low,” he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” to which Dawkins answered that he did.
Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not “the first time” for any such admission.

In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):

…I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
It’s like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasn’t a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresa’s personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that they’re in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.

Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:



Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religion’s dominant place in society

.agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins


This just in: Dawkins is consistent

Those comments were in his book and he is no longer an atheist. Go on to your spin sites if you must but he is on record in video and his book.

 

[Youwerecreated]

what would be the mathematical symbol for god?

The alpha and omega.

being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance

How can they not be ? one represents the beginning and the other the end. This is the time for the beginning of creation til the judgment of man.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.

Whether an "evilutionist" is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.

So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.

He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?

Identify for us why your YouTube video should convince anyone that it features the "top evilutionist"? What body, group or association has assigned the title "top evilutionist"?

Nothing in the YouTube video speaks to confirming supernaturalism or miracles. Do you believe that the processes of heat and pressure acting on carbon is somehow miraculous or supernatural?

I will do like ultimatereality,if you can't watch a video and see it for yourself you have no business trying to debate it. This is my last post to you.

 

[daws101]

Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.

The Genesis Debate - YouTube

I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.

Whether an "evilutionist" is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.

So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.

He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?

well lets see?
Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)

Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past

because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!

 

[daws101]

The alpha and omega.

being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance

How can they not be ? one represents the beginning and the other the end. This is the time for the beginning of creation til the judgment of man.

what an asshole.
you cannot add subtract multiply or divided them.
and you don't proselytize! also they are the first and last letters of the greek alphabet

 

[Hollie]

He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?

Identify for us why your YouTube video should convince anyone that it features the "top evilutionist"? What body, group or association has assigned the title "top evilutionist"?

Nothing in the YouTube video speaks to confirming supernaturalism or miracles. Do you believe that the processes of heat and pressure acting on carbon is somehow miraculous or supernatural?

I will do like ultimatereality,if you can't watch a video and see it for yourself you have no business trying to debate it. This is my last post to you.

Why do you think I'm tasked with debating a YouTube video? It's ludicrous for anyone to believe that you are to be taken seriously when you post YouTube videos in place of an argument you are unprepared to defend.

In spite of your behavior that rivals a petulant child, I'll be pleased to critique your claims to supernaturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.

Whether an "evilutionist" is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.

So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.

He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?

well lets see?
Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)

Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past

because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!

Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.

Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.

Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061

 

[Youwerecreated]

being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance

How can they not be ? one represents the beginning and the other the end. This is the time for the beginning of creation til the judgment of man.

what an asshole.
you cannot add subtract multiply or divided them.
and you don't proselytize!

We can't calculate time ?

 

[Hollie]

He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?

well lets see?
Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)

Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past

because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!

Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.

Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.

Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061

Ocean dwelling creatures would be largely protected from the extremes of the surface environment.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s). Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

bullshit! what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
By Ian
Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.

Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, it’s probably that he’s an atheist. Maybe it’s a sign of old age (he’s pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he can’t be certain that there is no God.
The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:

Slow down there, we’re not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was “6.9 out of seven” certain of his atheism. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low,” he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” to which Dawkins answered that he did.
Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not “the first time” for any such admission.

In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):

…I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
It’s like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasn’t a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresa’s personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that they’re in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.

Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:



Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religion’s dominant place in society

.agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins


This just in: Dawkins is consistent

Is dawkins an athiest ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wNE9aXaUG4&feature=watch_response]Is Dawkins still an atheist? - YouTube[/ame]

Now watch your hero get schooled ,complete debate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw]Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?

well lets see?
Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)

Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past

because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!

Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.

Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.

Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061

There actually is evidence of an enormous meteor impact crater. Your pals at the ICR may have kept that from you.

 

[Hollie]

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

bullshit! what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
By Ian
Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.

Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, it’s probably that he’s an atheist. Maybe it’s a sign of old age (he’s pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he can’t be certain that there is no God.
The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:

Slow down there, we’re not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was “6.9 out of seven” certain of his atheism. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low,” he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” to which Dawkins answered that he did.
Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not “the first time” for any such admission.

In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):

…I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
It’s like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasn’t a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresa’s personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that they’re in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.

Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:



Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religion’s dominant place in society

.agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins


This just in: Dawkins is consistent

Is dawkins an athiest ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wNE9aXaUG4&feature=watch_response]Is Dawkins still an atheist? - YouTube[/ame]

Now watch your hero get schooled ,complete debate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw]Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube[/ame]

If Dawkins is not an atheist, that would absolutely prove your gods.