I didn't realize how Crazy creationists were...

I came here to post Dawkins own refutation of the "stumped" video (In short, he was deceived about the nature of the interview, and paused to decide if it was even worth continuing).

But then I saw the bit about how someone that isn't a theist can't logistically show what is good and bad, and was completely side-tracked. What? Srsly? No wonder creations are so afraid of a world without god.

Actually I quite enjoy this screed. It's really quite enjoyable to see the mental backflips the author did to justify his points. The idea that God is rational, therefore believers in god are rational. Where does the initial premise come from? Rational is not defined as being of God. Here is a pretty succinct definition: 'having its source in or being guided by the intellect (as distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational analysis" ' If anything, it is the opposite of Religion which operates off of faith, an unprovable (irrational) dogma.

But I digress, entertaining screed or not. If anyone is interested in not only what actually happened in the interview, but the answer to the supposedly unanswerable question, you can find that information here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

in reference to:

"If evolution were true, it would not be possible to show logically that lying is ‘bad’. Rather ‘good’ and ‘bad’ would just be matters of opinion, not matters of objective reality. Evolutionary beliefs provide no objective basis to justify traits like honesty. In contrast, to lie would be acting inconsistently with the teachings of the Bible, which says to speak the truth"
- Was Dawkins Stumped? Frog to a Prince critics refuted again (view on Google Sidewiki)

test