Dawkins' Debate Rejections

[Cephus]

I understand his standpoint. There are some debates not worth having. I think, all these debates are overrated anyway. They don't change anyone's mind and they're the equivalent of preeching to the quire for each participant.

Perhaps the biggest problem though is that serious scientific questions are not solved in a debate setting.  Creationists learned back in the 80s that the way to "win" a debate was to engage in the Gish gallop, throw as many ridiculous things out at the beginning and since these assertions take time to answer, time that doesn't exist in a debate setting, the creationist can always declare victory because the scientist supposedly "can't answer the questions".  I don't blame Dawkins for not debating them. I refuse to even talk to them anymore, they're all blatantly dishonest.