Well not really...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gHi...nist-stumps-richard-dawkins-t6399.html#140499
Lie for Jesus!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gHi...nist-stumps-richard-dawkins-t6399.html#140499
Lie for Jesus!
"Dawkins stumped by creations!"
- Thread starter Isambard
- Start date
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The question is : who was trying to discredit who ? If I am an evolutionist and want to discredit creationists, what do I do ? Well, I cut, paste and edit video fragments including Richard Dawkins such as to make him look bad, e.g. by showing him unable to answer an essential question about evolution. People will of course assume that a deceitful creationist made that video and that it is typical behaviour for all creationists. Mission accomplished.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]There are several related videos regarding creationist tactics, but so far I have seen none explaining what is supposed to really have happened. For example, I would like to know who was the real interviewer. I have the impression it was the woman, but I am not sure. One of the interviewers confirmed that Dawkins couldn't answer the question.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]There are several related videos regarding creationist tactics, but so far I have seen none explaining what is supposed to really have happened. For example, I would like to know who was the real interviewer. I have the impression it was the woman, but I am not sure. One of the interviewers confirmed that Dawkins couldn't answer the question.[/FONT]
Upvote
0
Apparently Dawkins was unaware that he was being interviewed by young-earth creationists or something, so was stumped as to why they would ask him that question. I've also heard the video was tampered with, or that he didn't know they were filming.
In any case, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether Dawkins was or was not stumped. Whether or not Dawkins could explain how mutation adds information to the genome has nothing to do with the truth of the matter.
That's like me asking a priest "recite Genesis 1:23" right now. Whether or not he can do it does not mean that it does or does not exist as a passage in the book.
In any case, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether Dawkins was or was not stumped. Whether or not Dawkins could explain how mutation adds information to the genome has nothing to do with the truth of the matter.
That's like me asking a priest "recite Genesis 1:23" right now. Whether or not he can do it does not mean that it does or does not exist as a passage in the book.
Upvote
0
Possibly, but because creationists do enough harm to themselves as it is there's no reason for an evolutionist to manufacture any. Moreover, even it was put up by evolutionists, it still stands as a fairly accurate representation of creationist tactics.
Upvote
0
Meh at least he's honest enough to actually GET stumped. Most hardcore creationists would just rant with a diatribe of semi-coherent garbage. "Godddidit you're going to hell flood geology god sinners britney spears is the devil go to church burn gays at the stake jesus has returned pass the ammo amen."
Upvote
0
consol
Well-Known Member
Can not answer one question, well that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that creationism is true.
The sickness that is creationism, triumphs again, well we always knew it would, didn't we,
because from what we have seen, it takes so very little to convince a creationist.
I think we should start calling creationism, The American sickness.
The sickness that is creationism, triumphs again, well we always knew it would, didn't we,
because from what we have seen, it takes so very little to convince a creationist.
I think we should start calling creationism, The American sickness.
Upvote
0
One thing I found odd, is that I was familiar with the Dawkins AiG interview thing, and I read his rebuttal of that interview but one thing I don't recall him accusing them of is editing the footage of him being stumped, and that his what appeared to be a poor reply was the result of misleading editing. This is the first time I've heard him accuse AiG of doing this, I could be wrong, but for now it smells fishy.
I thought his poor reply was the result of answering an inappropriately worded question.
Upvote
0
He didn't say Answers in Genesis was doing this in this fragment, but creationists. You see the same footage being edited three times in different ways.
The footage was, according to him, acquired in a dishonest way, where he was asked questions by interviewers who hadn't been honest about their motives. In this talk, he gives the way how several dishonest creationists have dishonestly edited the already dishonestly acquired footage.
Upvote
0
[quote=Dawkins]
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.
With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth - I have a horror of blinding people with science - and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of "information". Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated - not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer's memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the "Information Challenge", at adequate length - the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article. [/quote]
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dawkinschallenge.htm
Norm
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.
With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth - I have a horror of blinding people with science - and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of "information". Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated - not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer's memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the "Information Challenge", at adequate length - the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article. [/quote]
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dawkinschallenge.htm
Norm
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Ok, Here is how the interview went down.
1 they asked him questions and lied about who they were
2 half way through he caught on, and called them on it. Thats were he said stop the tape. (and I assume he chewed them out making the rest of the tape unusable)
3 In the video we see theirs a cut, and then it shows him "thinking" when really thats just a recording in between questions before he asked them to stop the tape
4 The audio of the actual question was removed and replaced with the womens voice and a answer from Dawkins is used answering a question that was removed.
1 they asked him questions and lied about who they were
2 half way through he caught on, and called them on it. Thats were he said stop the tape. (and I assume he chewed them out making the rest of the tape unusable)
3 In the video we see theirs a cut, and then it shows him "thinking" when really thats just a recording in between questions before he asked them to stop the tape
4 The audio of the actual question was removed and replaced with the womens voice and a answer from Dawkins is used answering a question that was removed.
Upvote
0
necroforest
Regular Member
- Jul 29, 2007
- 446
- 47
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Green
Upvote
0
MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Probably disown Christianity. something like...
Jezz guys, if your not going to follow me and honer what I believe, stop using my name.
Upvote
0
Stellar Vision
Regular Member
- Mar 17, 2004
- 711
- 141
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Excellent link! Best read I've had in a while and incredibly informative, as Dawkins delves into a thorough answer.
Apparently he was trying to decide whether or not to through them out during his long pause. I can't help but be amused by that.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]He also linked to a long answer by Royal Truman to his essay : www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Truman claims Dawkins already knew he was dealing with creationsists before he was asked the question about mutations that add information : As shown on the video [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]A Frog to a Prince[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif],[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][15][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] he was unable to answer the question. The Australian Skeptics made some typically lame excuses for Dawkins and scurrilous accusations against the producers of the video and creationists in general,[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][16][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] which were thoroughly refuted.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][17][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]His essay is not about the incident though. He challenges that it is possible to add information through mutations and natural selection. The crux of his argument appears to be, although he does not state it explicitly, that since detrimental mutations are far more numerous than beneficial ones, the good mutations are almost always accompanied by bad ones, making it very difficult for natural selection to weed out the bad ones and as a consequence our genome deteriorates due to accumulation of detrimental mutations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]A link to Kevin O'Brien's short response is also given : www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/response_truman_o'brien.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]He does not address the objection I mentioned.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Dawkins links to more detailed explanation of what supposedly happened : www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creationistdeceptionexposed.htm[/FONT]fromdownunder said:
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]He also linked to a long answer by Royal Truman to his essay : www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Truman claims Dawkins already knew he was dealing with creationsists before he was asked the question about mutations that add information : As shown on the video [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]A Frog to a Prince[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif],[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][15][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] he was unable to answer the question. The Australian Skeptics made some typically lame excuses for Dawkins and scurrilous accusations against the producers of the video and creationists in general,[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][16][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] which were thoroughly refuted.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][17][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]His essay is not about the incident though. He challenges that it is possible to add information through mutations and natural selection. The crux of his argument appears to be, although he does not state it explicitly, that since detrimental mutations are far more numerous than beneficial ones, the good mutations are almost always accompanied by bad ones, making it very difficult for natural selection to weed out the bad ones and as a consequence our genome deteriorates due to accumulation of detrimental mutations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]A link to Kevin O'Brien's short response is also given : www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/response_truman_o'brien.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]He does not address the objection I mentioned.[/FONT]
Upvote
0
Similar threads
