# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 45
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/881 "2010-09-13T03:23:33Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I’ll listen and respond to legitimate answers when they are provided. > > Don’t you see how this is a problem if you’re too ignorant to judge what’s legitimate and what isn’t? No one can satisfy your standards because you know so little that your standards make no sense. Perhaps you can raise your sights to the level where you can use the issues to expose this ‘ignorance’ you allege? Or perhaps not. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/882 "2010-09-13T03:26:02Z")
Please don’t forget Waldo, I am not questioning or doubting the general theory of relativity. I am simply making the point that even commonly accepted scientific theories rely on assumptions of one kind or another. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/883 "2010-09-13T03:48:31Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 3\> Actually the position I put forward about the assumption to spped of light has been put by William Lane Craig to a number of scientists wwho have NOT refuted it. Uhhh, yeah. And you believe what WLC says? My impression with him is that he’s either clueless or dishonest. > [@aigonz](#): > > The general theory of relativity is widely accepted, and it is based on the assumption as to the constancy of the speed of light. This is a reasonable assumption, but an assumption none the less. It cannot be proven. You know that science doesn’t deal in proofs, right? Our ideas of physics were giving wrong answers when we _didn’t_ assume that the SoL was constant for all observers. Einstein came along with the idea that it was constant, which brought along a bunch of counter-intuitive side-effects, and every one of those predicted effects has been observed to be accurate. This is well beyond an assumption - it’s an idea that people have tried to falsify for 100 years, and it still stands. I think you’re taking the fact that you’ve heard that science can’t prove things, and are then equating things we know from science, as assumptions with no evidence. That’s either clueless or that d- word I used earlier. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/884 "2010-09-13T04:01:03Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Your adoption example STILL refers to a genetic linkage. My question specifically called for an explanation of non-family, like species, or inter species adoption where NO genetic benefit is achieved, and where a diversion of resources away from genetic relatives is required. Evolution is not merely neutral on this, it is specifically antagomistic to it. Let me try again, again. I’m telling you to postulate a trait that’s somewhat _ **indiscriminate.** _ I’m saying it sometimes benefits another species but more often benefits your own kin. I’m claiming it doesn’t matter whether said trait occasionally produces a behavior that diverts resources for no genetic benefit, so long as said trait usually produces a behavior that nets a big genetic benefit. Let’s say, for example, that the trait is “willingness to adopt cute little orphaned babies”. It’s a _ **single** _ trait. If that trait prompts one lioness out of a hundred to adopt a baby oryx while prompting ninety-nine other lionesses to adopt their own kin, the trait will keep enduring; the oryx adoption _ **was** _ worse than neutral and that lioness maybe dies without ever helping propagate her genes and said trait – but the other ninety-nine adoptions were better than neutral, and such lionesses propagated their genes along with that _ **same** _ trait. Sure, you get hits and misses if you have a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt. An approach that never misses would be _ **better,** _ but we don’t need better; we only need “good enough”. So long as the harm of being somewhat indiscriminate doesn’t outweigh the benefit, it can easily persist. > [@](#): > > _2\> There are so few examples of beneficial mutations as to be irrelevant._ Not in the time-frame under discussion. > [@](#): > > _3\> Altruism vs. tooth and claw…these are still only assumptions. Can you name an evolutionary motivation for the very earliest form of altruism?_ You don’t see an evolutionary benefit in helping your offspring survive and reproduce? In doing likewise for the offspring of your brothers, sisters, cousins, whatever? I should think it would be obvious: organisms that share your genes are more likely to pass along those genes if you’re helpful. > [@](#): > > _You speak of the speed of light in a vacuum. But if you measure the speed of light in an accelerating reference frame, the answer will, in general, differ from that commonly accepted._ Cite? > [@](#): > > _And in a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity, the speed of light can differ from that accepted, because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers._ Cite? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/885 "2010-09-13T04:03:35Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 3\> Actually the position I put forward about the assumption to spped of light has been put by William Lane Craig to a number of scientists wwho have NOT refuted it. > > Uhhh, yeah. And you believe what WLC says? My impression with him is that he’s either clueless or dishonest. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The general theory of relativity is widely accepted, and it is based on the assumption as to the constancy of the speed of light. This is a reasonable assumption, but an assumption none the less. It cannot be proven. > > You know that science doesn’t deal in proofs, right? > > Our ideas of physics were giving wrong answers when we _didn’t_ assume that the SoL was constant for all observers. Einstein came along with the idea that it was constant, which brought along a bunch of counter-intuitive side-effects, and every one of those predicted effects has been observed to be accurate. > > This is well beyond an assumption - it’s an idea that people have tried to falsify for 100 years, and it still stands. I think you’re taking the fact that you’ve heard that science can’t prove things, and are then equating things we know from science, as assumptions with no evidence. That’s either clueless or that d- word I used earlier. 1\> I recommend watching even one of Craigs debates on you tube. You will find he is neither. You will also not find any debates between Craig and Richard Dawkins. because Dawkins refuses. 2\> “You know that science doesn’t deal in proofs, right?” What kind of nonsense is this? I’m sure you know the word science means ‘knowledge’. We can’t ‘know’ something without ‘proof’. You really are a very confused puppy. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/886 "2010-09-13T04:11:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Your adoption example STILL refers to a genetic linkage. My question specifically called for an explanation of non-family, like species, or inter species adoption where NO genetic benefit is achieved, and where a diversion of resources away from genetic relatives is required. Evolution is not merely neutral on this, it is specifically antagomistic to it. > > Let me try again, again. > > I’m telling you to postulate a trait that’s somewhat _ **indiscriminate.** _ I’m saying it sometimes benefits another species but more often benefits your own kin. I’m claiming it doesn’t matter whether said trait occasionally produces a behavior that diverts resources for no genetic benefit, so long as said trait usually produces a behavior that nets a big genetic benefit. > > Let’s say, for example, that the trait is “willingness to adopt cute little orphaned babies”. It’s a _ **single** _ trait. If that trait prompts one lioness out of a hundred to adopt a baby oryx while prompting ninety-nine other lionesses to adopt their own kin, the trait will keep enduring; the oryx adoption _ **was** _ worse than neutral and that lioness maybe dies without ever helping propagate her genes and said trait – but the other ninety-nine adoptions were better than neutral, and such lionesses propagated their genes along with that _ **same** _ trait. > > Sure, you get hits and misses if you have a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt. An approach that never misses would be _ **better,** _ but we don’t need better; we only need “good enough”. So long as the harm of being somewhat indiscriminate doesn’t outweigh the benefit, it can easily persist. > > Not in the time-frame under discussion. > > You don’t see an evolutionary benefit in helping your offspring survive and reproduce? In doing likewise for the offspring of your brothers, sisters, cousins, whatever? I should think it would be obvious: organisms that share your genes are more likely to pass along those genes if you’re helpful. > > Cite? > > > [@](#): > > > > _And in a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity, the speed of light can differ from that accepted, because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers._ > > Cite? 1\> Again your position makes wide assumptions. You assume the lioness will not discern the difference between a baby oryx and a baby lion. You also have not spoken to the reality that many of the lion cubs adopted will be non-genetically related. 2\> There are so few mutations that are beneficial, period! All you are doing is appealing to the ‘anything can hapen over time’ hypothesis, for which we have no observable data. 3\> and 4\> [Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?](http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html), also [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm](http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm), and many other physics texts and forums. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/887 "2010-09-13T04:14:02Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> I recommend watching even one of Craigs debates on you tube. You will find he is neither. You will also not find any debates between Craig and Richard Dawkins. because Dawkins refuses. He refuses because debating with people who are profoundly uneducated and purposefully ignorant is of little value. You know, sort of like this entire thread. > [@](#): > > 2\> “You know that science doesn’t deal in proofs, right?” What kind of nonsense is this? I’m sure you know the word science means ‘knowledge’. We can’t ‘know’ something without ‘proof’. You really are a very confused puppy. Lol, you’re so ignorant you don’t know how silly you sound. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/888 "2010-09-13T04:23:59Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > “You know that science doesn’t deal in proofs, right?” What kind of nonsense is this? You got some learnin’ to do. [http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm](http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm) [http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:58WYdhshtB4J:www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e%26be\_notes/E%26BE\_04\_Sci\_Meth%26Philo.pdf+science+proof&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESird51g19HujxeFkeA6uGLXgKoLGPEFZDBjPNnRi4BulNGx9bK-JfSUicjbnqaJjqz9-R8qL5ZuCOYjvt21JUYOx2I3MMrgJDNIIzr1kD2GOh1WEuQpONbN7spoVA3E0FbwsiLD&sig=AHIEtbQnrfkqGRj8Qx7YMhuwXJ-\_XPbIgA](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:58WYdhshtB4J:www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e%26be_notes/E%26BE_04_Sci_Meth%26Philo.pdf+science+proof&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESird51g19HujxeFkeA6uGLXgKoLGPEFZDBjPNnRi4BulNGx9bK-JfSUicjbnqaJjqz9-R8qL5ZuCOYjvt21JUYOx2I3MMrgJDNIIzr1kD2GOh1WEuQpONbN7spoVA3E0FbwsiLD&sig=AHIEtbQnrfkqGRj8Qx7YMhuwXJ-_XPbIgA) > **[Scientific evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence)** > > Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analys A per... ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/889 "2010-09-13T04:31:44Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> I recommend watching even one of Craigs debates on you tube. You will find he is neither. I’ve seen/heard several of WLC’s debates. He’s either stupid or dishonest. My impression is that he’s dishonest - he is skilled at the art of bullshit, I’ll admit, but there’s no substance to what he says. When I heard him debating Bart Ehrman I just about came unglued with frustration, because he just says the stupidest things with complete confidence. > [@](#): > > You will also not find any debates between Craig and Richard Dawkins. because Dawkins refuses. Dawkins is right to refuse to climb into WLC’s pig pen. > [@](#): > > What kind of nonsense is this? I’m sure you know the word science means ‘knowledge’. We can’t ‘know’ something without ‘proof’. You really are a very confused puppy. Frequently in error, but never unsure of yourself. I like it when you say things like this because every other person on the board just laughs at you. I’ll explain it slowly. Science can’t prove _anything_. Scientists can only present an idea and then everyone tries to _disprove_ it. If something survives repeated attempts to disprove it, that idea gets to be more solidly accepted. So if WLC says that the constancy of the speed of light hasn’t been proven, he’s right only in a trivial, dishonest sense. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/890 "2010-09-13T04:39:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Again your position makes wide assumptions. You assume the lioness will not discern the difference between a baby oryx and a baby lion. You also have not spoken to the reality that many of the lion cubs adopted will be non-genetically related. Again, it doesn’t matter that “many” of the lion cubs adopted won’t be genetically related; evolutionarily, it’s doing good enough so long as it averages more hits than misses. (That said, there’s also a tricky bit about reciprocal effects that can _ **further** _ help along altruism: even if various lionesses do their kin no favors by adopting unrelated lion cubs, it’s cool so long as unrelated lionesses are likewise busily adopting the kin of those first lionesses. Of course, they’d still adopt plenty of kin, too, so the trait maybe does okay all by itself; I’m just saying there might be yet more to it, since the harmful effects cancel out to the extent that they’re on both sides.) As for assumptions about the psychology of the rare lioness who adopts a baby oryx – again, I’m easy; why do _ **you** _ think she does it? > [@](#): > > _2\> There are so few mutations that are beneficial, period!_ Again, some folks like to eliminate the impossible and figure that whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. You’re arguing that, since the phenomenon strikes you as possible but improbable, therefore, God. Like the man said, I have no need of that hypothesis. > [@](#): > > _3\> and 4\> [Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?](http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html), also [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm](http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm), and many other physics texts and forums._ I’m not entirely sure those say what you think they do. Can you copy-and-paste the actual sentence, or sentences, from either that strike you as being on point? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/891 "2010-09-13T04:42:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> I recommend watching even one of Craigs debates on you tube. You will find he is neither. You will also not find any debates between Craig and Richard Dawkins. because Dawkins refuses. > > He refuses because debating with people who are profoundly uneducated and purposefully ignorant is of little value. You know, sort of like this entire thread. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> “You know that science doesn’t deal in proofs, right?” What kind of nonsense is this? I’m sure you know the word science means ‘knowledge’. We can’t ‘know’ something without ‘proof’. You really are a very confused puppy. > > Lol, you’re so ignorant you don’t know how silly you sound. Actually you have no idea what you are talking about. Dawkins excuse is that he des not debate ‘professional debaters’, however the real reason is that he is unwilling to have his beliefs publicly refuted. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/892 "2010-09-13T04:53:58Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Actually you have no idea what you are talking about. Dawkins excuse is that he des not debate ‘professional debaters’ That’s not what he said. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JFamS4RGE_A/hqdefault.jpg "Richard Dawkins says he won't debate William Lane Craig") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A) ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/893 "2010-09-13T04:54:57Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> I recommend watching even one of Craigs debates on you tube. You will find he is neither. > > I’ve seen/heard several of WLC’s debates. He’s either stupid or dishonest. My impression is that he’s dishonest - he is skilled at the art of bullshit, I’ll admit, but there’s no substance to what he says. When I heard him debating Bart Ehrman I just about came unglued with frustration, because he just says the stupidest things with complete confidence. > Dawkins is right to refuse to climb into WLC’s pig pen. > > > [@](#): > > > > What kind of nonsense is this? I’m sure you know the word science means ‘knowledge’. We can’t ‘know’ something without ‘proof’. You really are a very confused puppy. > > Frequently in error, but never unsure of yourself. > > I like it when you say things like this because every other person on the board just laughs at you. > > I’ll explain it slowly. Science can’t prove _anything_. Scientists can only present an idea and then everyone tries to _disprove_ it. If something survives repeated attempts to disprove it, that idea gets to be more solidly accepted. > > So if WLC says that the constancy of the speed of light hasn’t been proven, he’s right only in a trivial, dishonest sense. 1\> Your frustration at WLC is more likely related to his ability to intelligently articulate a world view you disagree with. He, and others, debate widely across the globe, and find willing participants amongst the intelligentsia of atheism, who have none of the concerns Dawkins claims to have. 2\> ‘Science can’t prove anything’ is among the sillier things stated here. The mehod of science can prove many things true. The theory of gravity is one such thing. 3\> WLC agrees with Einstein. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/894 "2010-09-13T05:02:03Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Actually you have no idea what you are talking about. Dawkins excuse is that he des not debate ‘professional debaters’ > > That’s not what he said. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE\_A](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A) Listen to what he says. He says he will not debate people whose only claim to fame is that they are ‘professional debaters’. WLC has a BA, two MA’s and a Phd. Dawkins has the time alright, just not the intestinal fortutude. Dawkins will not debate Plantinga either, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/895 "2010-09-13T05:08:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Listen to what he says. He says he will not debate people whose only claim to fame is that they are ‘professional debaters’. He says he doesn’t take on creationists and he doesn’t take on those whose only claim to fame is that the are professional debaters. He did not say that he does not debate professional debaters, which is what you claimed he said. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/896 "2010-09-13T05:15:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Again your position makes wide assumptions. You assume the lioness will not discern the difference between a baby oryx and a baby lion. You also have not spoken to the reality that many of the lion cubs adopted will be non-genetically related. > > Again, it doesn’t matter that “many” of the lion cubs adopted won’t be genetically related; evolutionarily, it’s doing good enough so long as it averages more hits than misses. > > (That said, there’s also a tricky bit about reciprocal effects that can _ **further** _ help along altruism: even if various lionesses do their kin no favors by adopting unrelated lion cubs, it’s cool so long as unrelated lionesses are likewise busily adopting the kin of those first lionesses. Of course, they’d still adopt plenty of kin, too, so the trait maybe does okay all by itself; I’m just saying there might be yet more to it, since the harmful effects cancel out to the extent that they’re on both sides.) > > As for assumptions about the psychology of the rare lioness who adopts a baby oryx – again, I’m easy; why do _ **you** _ think she does it? > > Again, some folks like to eliminate the impossible and figure that whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. You’re arguing that, since the phenomenon strikes you as possible but improbable, therefore, God. > > Like the man said, I have no need of that hypothesis. > > > [@](#): > > > > _3\> and 4\> [Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?](http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html), also [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm](http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm), and many other physics texts and forums._ > > I’m not entirely sure those say what you think they do. Can you copy-and-paste the actual sentence, or sentences, from either that strike you as being on point? 1\> You are addressing the ‘why’ of a genetic adoption. I am asking for the ‘why’ of a non-genetic one. 2\> You can’t simply argue that whatever remains must be the truth. ‘That is science of the gaps’. At the end of the day, this comes down to a decision on the improbabilities. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare. Beneficial mutations that result in non-physical benefits such as benevolence are so speculative as to be little above science fiction. Unless an intelligent agent is proposed, benevolence evolved, yet I posit this is so unlikely as to be close to impossible. 3\> In the first link, go to “Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant?” You will find my comments there. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/897 "2010-09-13T05:16:47Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Listen to what he says. He says he will not debate people whose only claim to fame is that they are ‘professional debaters’. > > He says he doesn’t take on creationists and he doesn’t take on those whose only claim to fame is that the are professional debaters. He did not say that he does not debate professional debaters, which is what you claimed he said. He did. He labelled WLC a professional debater. Listen to it. Also, Dawkins lied. He does and has taken on creationists. Unlike Hitchens and others, Dawkins is running. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/898 "2010-09-13T05:21:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > He did. He labelled WLC a professional debater. Listen to it. Nice try. I know he did. Where did I say otherwise? He didn’t say what you claimed he did and I already showed why. > [@](#): > > Also, Dawkins lied. He does and has taken on creationists. No, he doesn’t. I recall him saying he no longer debates creationists. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/899 "2010-09-13T06:05:59Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > He did. He labelled WLC a professional debater. Listen to it. > > Nice try. I know he did. Where did I say otherwise? He didn’t say what you claimed he did and I already showed why. > > > [@](#): > > > > Also, Dawkins lied. He does and has taken on creationists. > > No, he doesn’t. I recall him saying he no longer debates creationists. 1\> Dawkins was asked why he would not debate Craig. He then made the comment about preoessional debaters. You just hadn’t listened. 2\> In this video, Dawkins states that ‘I don’t take on creationists’, not I ‘won’t’, or ‘now longer’. He has. He just won’t debate ones he is afraid if. Like Craig and Plantinga. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/900 "2010-09-13T06:34:11Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Dawkins was asked why he would not debate Craig. He then made the comment about preoessional debaters. You just hadn’t listened. I heard what he said. It’s not what you claimed. How much more do you want to bullshit about this? > [@](#): > > 2\> In this video, Dawkins states that ‘I don’t take on creationists’, not I ‘won’t’, or ‘now longer’. He has. Do you know what “don’t” means? If I say I don’t drink, it doesn’t mean I never have. He doesn’t have to say “no longer”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=46)