Here I will throw on a few others issues I have had rattling around for a while since were at it:
Entropy runs contrary to naturally organizing lifeforms
"Primordial soup" that naturally occurring origins of life story we were all taught has been debunked
sea floor spreading doesn't create any cracks in hard rock that spreads out over thousands of miles
the earth's mantle is solid and prevents "subduction" of the plates
I received the impression that the issues in your earlier list were from the Lennox/Dawkins debates, but now you seem to be moving on to other issues from the creation/evolution debate that you're interested in but that they didn't discuss. PaulK made it pretty clear in the OP that the topic was one of the Lennox/Dawkins debates. If Lennox and Dawkins discussed these issues then the next step should be to describe what they said, and if they didn't discuss them but you would like to discuss them here then threads for them can be proposed, or you can seek out existing threads.
Sounds like a good plan with which to build this topic. Do you basically agree with my point that each side interprets relevance and importance differently? As an example, jar often brings up SOURCE vs CONTENT as an approach towards thinking. Secular science would tend to focus on CONTENT more than they would SOURCE as to them, SOURCE would be nothing more than materialistic and objective. Am I right or wrong?
I have the same reaction as PaulK - this sounds pretty weird. Are you maybe thinking of argument from authority versus argument from evidence?
I think I see where the thread is going so I will try to summarize / predict the overall outcome:
Dawkins fails to convince the faithful. Lennox fails to convince the unfaithful.
The above two points must surely be taken for granted.
If by "must surely be taken for granted" you mean must be assumed true then I have to disagree, due to ambiguity for now, and undoubtedly for other reasons once you remove the ambiguity. I'm referring to the terms "faithful" and "unfaithful." Does faithful refer to fundamenatlist Christians? All Christians? All members of Judeo-Christian faiths? All believers in God? And does unfaithful refer to atheists? Non-Christians? Judeo-Christians? Non-fundamentalist Christians?
I'm also not completely certain of the debate's topic, but from what I've heard so far I gather they were debating whether God exists.
With that in mind can someone please explain to me why on earth I would ever listen to the arguments of some random unqualified poster on a forum like this? I maintain it is completely pointless to debate such concepts in a forum like this.
How are people here different from anyone you might meet at church, work, social events, etc?
These types of low-level debates add nothing to the larger discussion, thus only serve to create division and discord between both sides. We are not Dawkins and Lennox level thinkers.
I don't know that Dawkins or Lennox are the quality thinkers you think they are. I'm not familiar with Lennox, but I've seen lots of bullshit from Dawkins, especially in The God Delusion, which is why I stopped reading it.
Discussions here are only "low-level" in that no one here is well known. Discussion here is often highly informed.
It's time to get realistic about that and stop arguing with each other.
If the arguments and evidence for Lennox's point of view are so strong (I think you used the word "destroy" at one point) then I don't understand why you don't believe their weight will carry the day once presented here.
My overall impression is that they may as well have been debating the stork. It isn't worth debating anyone who honestly takes up the pro side, and anyone silly enough to think it worth challenging the point isn't worth much, either.
The only things worth saying to Lennox and 90% of the world are all dismissive, like that they're all wrong, mostly for sheer silliness, including that they can't all be right. They often respond that the differences are minor, but classical physics crumbled due to small anomalies like black body radiation. Upon such tiny points is true reality built. There's no reconciliation between Mormonism, Moonies, Heaven's Gate, Jonesboro (to mention a couple cults), Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and all the rest. They all prove only one thing: most human beings have a need to believe in a power greater than ourselves.
What can you really say to people like Mike the Whiz and RobertLeva and Phat, especially Phat whose intensity of belief and inarticulation only increase with increased torture at the hands of his savior? Mike the Whiz does hit and runs (he posted to his There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose thread six times the day he started it and not once in the month since), so you can't even have a discussion with him. RobertLeva was unsubstantive over five days and then did the "insult everyone and leave" dance we've seen so many times.
If believers said only "I believe" and nothing more they would be far more credible. But to claim evidence for belief and then either become silly or leave the room, well, it doesn't even climb the first stair of persuasion, plus we've seen it too many times.
Dawkins only dignifies Lennox and deprecates himself by serious participation in such debates. Until believers get serious and rigorous in their evidence and argument only a mocking tone and incredulous expression are called for.
I was so naive when I started this website. I thought intelligent and informed discussion between the two sides was possible in the right environment. All that was proved, to paint it in as positive a light as possible, is the degree of self deception engaged in by the religious.
But I left out the flip side before. Sometimes you're forced to respond because, for example, they publish thinly disguised creationism as a textbook called Of Pandas and People and attempt to introduce it into public school curriculums.
Briefly looking back on Dover, I don't think any minds were changed by the lawsuit's outcome, and to creationists discredit you can't find anyone who feels any shame at the attempt to transform a creationist textbook called Creation Biology into a "scientific" intelligent design textbook called Of Pandas and People through simple text substitutions. Many who are not creationists probably still smile when reminded of "cdesign proponentsists". Creationists probably still call it an innocent typo, but that kind of dissembling is on the same level as the child who denies raiding the cookie jar through crumb encrusted lips.
The creation/evolution debate is nowhere near as active and visible as it once was. I think the reasons are varied. Ones I can think of: There was Dover. Behe was exposed in the ruling and is repudiated by his own university. Intelligent design lost considerable momentum after Dover. Dembski is officially retired from intelligent design. Henry Morris is dead. Duane Gish is dead. CRS became moribund after its move to Texas. Strategically creationism decided they could be more effective working at the teacher and school board level than by creating their own faux science.
Even though the current creationists may realize defeat, undoubtedly the next generation of creationists, not knowing about that defeat since nobody will tell them about it, will try to pick up the fight again.
I don't think current creationists recognize defeat so much as that they're just not in the same league as the previous generation of creationists. There were a large number of very active and very effective creationists at the national level twenty years ago. If we were still dealing with the equivalent of Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Andrew Snelling, John Baumgardner, Kent Hovind, Kurt Wise, Walt Brown and so forth in their prime I think things would be very different.
Since this is PaulK's thread about the Dawkins/Lennox debates I think if I responded at any length it would be too much off-topic discussion. If you truly want to discuss the quality of creationist contributions over the years then it would be better to propose a new thread, probably for the Is It Science? forum.