Top 6 Embarrassing Atheist Moments | Richard Dawkins, Greg Bahnsen, James White, Jeff Durbin, Friel

You're kind of describing to a degree natural selection, if we went to a car factory and we took out all the kinks, all the bad things in the car assembly line, after we got everything that was wrong with the car assembly, how many runs would we have to wait until finally they produced an airplane?

You can't turn a car into an airplane. Yes, you can. You can't turn one thing into another. Yes, you can turn a car into an airplane. Already? Through natural selection, a car could turn into an airplane.

Yes, it could. Why is that funny? That's science. The mathematical probability that random mutation produced complex living organisms from simpler chemical forms is, in fact, infinitesimally small.

Well, then, who did create the heavens and the earth? Why do you use the word who? You see, you immediately beg the question by using the word who.

Well, then, how did it get created? Well, by a very slow process.

Well, how did it start? Nobody knows how it started. We know the kind of event that it must have been.

We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. What was that? It was the origin of the first self -replicating molecule.

Right. How did that happen? I told you, we don't know. So you have no idea how it started?

No, no. Nor has anybody. Nor has anybody. What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet.

Now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility.

And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that. If you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Secondly, what's the origin of life? If they ask the atheist world, where'd life come from?

According to the atheist theory, the reigning dogma or prejudice in our day, as you know, life came from non -life.

That ought to be enough right there to make any rational person snicker. Excuse me?

Life came from non -life? In fact, I thought it was one of the established principles of biology. This spontaneous generation is not true.

I am going to give them the opportunity to show that they're wrong. And so that will be my rejoinder to so what?

It will be, show me, dude. Don't just flap the lips. Show me.

Here it is, folks. Here it is. Show me. Anybody.

Anybody. Bueller. Go ahead. You laugh. You laugh. You're laughing at yourselves because there's not a single one of you who has the decency to admit that that's nonsense or the decency to actually show what you believe.

Every single one of you knows that it is nonsense. And if you don't, show me.

Don't just sat there going, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. Show me. Show me. Show me. Show me. Show me.

Show me. Anybody, show us. Show us. Show me. You've seen the oracles.

Show me. Show me. Show me. What you got, dude? What you got? What you got? You are the most angry man

I've ever met. I feel for you. I really feel sorry for you. The work you're doing is great, but there's such a heart of hatred and anger.

Show me. Show me. Show me. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it.

Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Don't you worry about it. Can I suggest something? Show me. You are so ignorant.

It is astonishing. Show me. As a man of knowledge, if that's all you can do, you are proving my point for me right now.

There is no interaction from the other side with anything that we have said in regards to the coherence of world views.

Now, in my opening, I can only respond to what Dan himself has published before.

I found it fascinating that almost none of the sources that Dan just used, he used in his book, Godless.

So in this first, I'll be responding to his published work, then the rebuttal will go to what he has presented this morning.

Can I make a point of order here? We're not debating my book. We're debating my book. I may have changed my mind in the book.

I may not have thought it was important, so we are not debating my book. Can I respond to that? When you're in a scholarly debate and you've published a book, what you've published in the public realm is fair game.

It is what you yourself have presented. Now, if you want to stay, if you want to say, after I'm done here,

I repudiate the book that's for sale in the back, that would be fine. But as a scholar, he has...

I don't see anything wrong with quoting your book, Dr. Barker, or Mr. Barker.

Do you have an objection to him? I object because we're not debating my book today. We're debating...

Mr. Barker, I have never engaged anyone in a debate who objected to their own published materials being what was cited.

I would love if people would quote my books in my debates because that's what I have presented to people.

I cannot believe that there would ever be an objection to my citation of your own book.

I can't imagine... Did you address this subject in your book? Is there not an entire section on this subject?

Yes, but you don't know that I may have changed my mind in the meantime on that, so it's unfair. I may have changed my mind about Mithra, for example.

Is your book for sale in the back? Yes, it is. But we're not debating my book tonight. How can we have a debate?

Let's debate the issues. Let's not debate my book. Let's debate the issues. Mr. Barker, I have, on the screen, quotations from you.

I am going to be dealing with the sources that you use and the arguments that you've used. That is the form of scholarly debate.

But we're not... I cannot believe... I'm sorry, but we're not debating my book tonight. And I think... And for the record,

I think it's inappropriate. I didn't quote anything you wrote. I've stuck to the actual... That's the point. That's the problem.

But something can't come from nothing. That was his view. Something can come from nothing, and that's what physicists are now telling us.

What Lawrence Krauss is now suggesting is that if you start with nothing, the process can go into reverse and produce matter and antimatter.

The theory is still being worked out. Well, there are many troubles with Richard's teachings, but a fundamental one is that he dumbs down God and he soups up nothing.

You can quickly respond to that. You can dispute exactly what's meant by nothing, but whatever it is, it's very, very simple.

Why is that funny? Well, I think it's a bit funny to be trying to define nothing.

I heard you mention logical binds and logical self -contradictions in your speech.

You did say that. I said... I used that phrase, yes. Do you believe there are laws of logic, then?

Absolutely. Are they universal? They're agreed upon by human beings.

They aren't laws that exist out in nature. They are... Are they simply conventions, then? They're conventions, but they're conventions that are self -verifying.

Are they sociological laws or laws of thought? They are laws of thought which are interpreted by men.

They're permeated by men. Are they material in nature? How can a law be material?

That's the question I'm going to ask you. I would say no.

Dr. Bonson, would you call God material or immaterial?

Immaterial. What is something that's immaterial? Something not extended in space.