This simply isn't true. In 2009 he put out a new book about evolution that went straight to the Times bestseller list, beating all its rivals. A google search of videos of Dawkins in the last year returns dozens of mainstream media interviews and dozens of invited talks at prominent universities.

He reached the height of his fame in 2006 & 2007 as he promoted the God Delusion and its aftermath - it was a huge bestseller. The level of fame and media attention doesn't continue for authors forever.

expelled is ben stein's dilligent attempt at providing evidence for intelligent design and God through scientific approach. he interviews several people with careers in scientific departments in that movie.

by the way, there are tons of scientists who actively attempt a pursuit of destroying truth. there are so many scientific lies. truth is very important to me, in both science and theology. in truth, i've come to find that you can't trust the theology of much science. It is baroque loquacity sheathed in pedantic eloquence.

Oh yeah? Well, Jesus is in the bestseller in the world!

Well fine, then.

That you can use the word diligent to sum up that deceitful, clownish documentary is amazing to me, especially since you are intelligent. It proves that intelligent people will swallow anything if it fits their notions. This review in NYT said it better than I ever could:
That kind of shameless deceit is right through the movie...it is amazing that you call it diligent, considering that you say:

in a documentary on the life of JFK, aired on HBO within the past year, JFK claims the salinity of human blood is equivalent to that of the ocean, and that therefore we once evolved from fish. Guess what, our blood salinity is completely unlike the measures of the ocean. HE WAS WRONG/LYING. things such as salinity are much more easily measurable in today's age than JFK's, so you don't hear that nonsense anymore. scientists make up sht like that constantly, convincing people of some stupid evolutionary theory, and people believe it because "it's science." guess what, its not. its a stupid theory spoken in scientific language and it's not even upheld by the scientifc theory. if it was, JFK would never have claimed that our blood salinity is equivalent to the ocean's, because it would have been tested true. but its false. shocking, a scientific fact that fails the scientific theory!! instead, a so called scientific "truth" (really a lie) gets pawned off as fact when in reality its just ANOTHER ******* THEORY.

by the way, HBO closed the documentary with this LIE. science proves that this statement is incorrect, but they still air it to convince people that evolution is true, and people believe it because they don't know how to use a search engine. science is BS. theyre constantly making sht up and stating it as if its fact.

they call guys like einstein scientists when his most famous bodies of work are just unprovable THEORIES.

JFK, the world's most famous scientist.

What were JFK's science credentials again?

No they aren't.
Of course you do, from non scientists like JFK. On both sides of the debate.

Your example doesn't demonstrate that

You're agitating, right? You had me going for a while...gg sir

But he doesn't claim to have proof that there is no god, does he?

This is an extremely dishonest interpretation of what he said in the video you linked.

As batair said, evolution says NOTHING about how the materials that make up life came into existence in the first place.

Do you understand this?

how do you know this to be true, and not just a false explanation of the SNM to prevent a lawsuit for firing an individual over his religious beliefs?

then why do i recall being lectured about the single celled amoeba as the start of all advanced life in high school biology? i then opened the discussion about intelligent design only to be silenced by my teacher. we then proceeded learned this THEORY known as so called science. i don't see how you can believe that there is any true consensus as to what evolutionist theory really is. there are certainly some evolutionists who believe that life began as a rapidly excellerating particle as dawkins says "WE KNOW" in the interview i linked to... and then admits to KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IMMEDIATELY AFTER.

Listen, I know you're just having some fun with RGT, but for other readers...

It's incredibly easy to show documents proving employment, not the least of which is payments into your bank account. Wikipedia says on the controversy:

Case closed. He was not an employee. He was not "fired" for his position on ID. The movie was deceitful.

Evolution does not say anything about where the matter came from that formed those single celled organisms


Gravity is also a THEORY. Theory in science speak isn't the same as me telling someone I have a theory about why Steve doesn't like Matt.

Continuing to use the fact that evolution is a theory as some sort of point against its credibility is only serving to make you look less credible.

facepalm.jpg

Again, evolution does not have anything to say about where matter came from, which is what he was referring to in the Stein video.

At this point I suspect you might just be stopping by for some late night trolling.

I lol'd.

It's those atheist dues that comes every month that I have to pay.

Listen chubby, I can't tell if you are trolling or not. But if you're not, you could pick up a decent foundation in some of these fascinating subjects by starting at places like www.talkorigins.org.

As to Dawkins in particular, the idea that his career has been destroyed is simply delusional. He is an accomplished evolutionary biologist, and a an accomplished popular author, and an interesting guy who apparently comes off as a jerk to a lot of people, even though I think he is charming.

A+ trolling ITT.

+1 to jesus all time best seller

john 3:16

atheism is equally a faith based position.

science makes loads of claims you cant prove like string theory and anti-matter

string theory has testable hypotheses. We are able to create antimatter in labs and have witnessed it being created naturally.

Ahaha, wow.

Ben Stein would ask Neil deGrasse Tyson how many percent of the Universe is made of stars/planets/atoms, etc.... Tyson would answer "circa 5%"..........Stein would answer "then I guess you only understand 5% of God's creation.........you are ignorant". "Do you know what gravity is?".........."no, we don't know exactly what it is and where it comes from".............."guess what, scientist!!! I know God did it!" lol

"Ben Stein ending Dawkins' career" by asking these questions and some clever cutting is an achievement on the level of outrunning Stephen Hawkins and thus claiming he doesn't know crap about physics.

Or asking a kid playing a computer game if he understands how CPUs work.........."you can't build a CPU yourself? I don't know how to do it either, but I know who can and who did it: God!"

"In the end, I don't know what I'm talking about and what it is that I claim to know the origins of. I don't care how it happens, but I know God did it!".
The best way to know it all, is to not know anything at all. Just appeal to some invisible authority as an answer for anything and everything and you instantly "win".

And yeah, scientists make up **** like plate tectonics, electricity and anti-matter. They do it, because they worship Satan, just like them Atheists.

RE: This Hitchens-Craig debate. I have heard rumblings that Craig outshines hitchens in this debate... can some of you who think this kindly articulate why? Or, if this exists in an older thread, point me to it?

I'm only a little more than an hour in, but this is the worst Craig has looked in a debate, IMO.

The Probability argument?

Athiests have to believe in evolution because there is no better explanation?

It's okay that Jesus got here when he did because (If we go by his figures) only 2,000,000,000 people were on earth (in toal) before this time?

Whenever I find what I consider to be these pretty simple flaws in Craig's arguments, I usually conclude that I'm missing something. I have seen the man touted as such the strong man for the Christian apologetic that I figure the mistake must be mine... but I mean... the probability argument? really?

Hitchens loses technically, by virtue of not having done his homework and tailored his presentation to Craig's game.

Some discussion of it and the Harris debate here.