Watch and consider V (hillarious)

[pshun2404]

Origins of life - Richard Dawkins admits our DNA has a designer ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a dishonestly edited video where the "question" asked is not the one that he answered.

When you have to rely on liars to support your case you make your case look weaker than ever.

 

[Shemjaza]

Exodus 20:16

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Isn't this from the film Expelled, the same film that wouldn't let Dawkins or any of the other scientists who were interviewed in it in to the screenings?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Origins of life - Richard Dawkins admits our DNA has a designer ?

Duplication. This has recently been discussed and debunked already in another thread.

 

[pshun2404]

The point is world class scientists KNOW they do not really KNOW, but at least are honest enough to admit it, yet people in forum discussions believe they do (and that goes for both extremes)...I just think it is hillarious...you all of course are entitled to your opinions (and that is all they are).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point is world class scientists KNOW they do not really KNOW, but at least are honest enough to admit it, yet people in forum discussions believe they do (and that goes for both extremes)...I just think it is hillarious...you all of course are entitled to your opinions (and that is all they are).

Except that's not what's being shown. What you've shown us is that creationists are willing to lie and manipulate genuine interviews to try and give their claims credence.

 

[pitabread]

It speaks to the desperation of the creationist/ID movement in that they a) had to effectively trick Dawkins to even be in the film, and b) the selective editing to try to get his response to seemingly play into their narrative.

 

[pshun2404]

It speaks to the desperation of the creationist/ID movement in that they a) had to effectively trick Dawkins to even be in the film, and b) the selective editing to try to get his response to seemingly play into their narrative.

Maybe this is true. Can you demonstrate these claims actually occurred?

 

[pitabread]

Maybe this is true. Can you demonstrate these claims actually occurred?

Reportedly Dawkins and others on the pro-evolution side were originally led to believe they were participating in interviews for a film called Crossroads and were under the impression it was going to be a more balanced look at the debate on creationism/ID versus evolution. Instead, they wound up in a film called Expelled with a decidedly pro-ID slant.

Dawkins rails at 'creationist front' for duping him into film role

There is also an excerpt from Dawkin's original review of the film where he talks about how his interview answers were distorted: Richard Dawkins Reviews Ben Stein’s Evolutionarily Ignorant “Expelled!”

 

[bhsmte]

It speaks to the desperation of the creationist/ID movement in that they a) had to effectively trick Dawkins to even be in the film, and b) the selective editing to try to get his response to seemingly play into their narrative.

Desperate people, do desperate things.

 

[pshun2404]

Reportedly Dawkins and others on the pro-evolution side were originally led to believe they were participating in interviews for a film called Crossroads and were under the impression it was going to be a more balanced look at the debate on creationism/ID versus evolution. Instead, they wound up in a film called Expelled with a decidedly pro-ID slant.

Dawkins rails at 'creationist front' for duping him into film role

There is also an excerpt from Dawkin's original review of the film where he talks about how his interview answers were distorted: Richard Dawkins Reviews Ben Stein’s Evolutionarily Ignorant “Expelled!”

The film company were the one's who changed the name of the film (not a deception by Stein), and the law requires permissions to show anyone and site what they say before the film is released, and accordingly these were acquired. The only group that is not covered by this law are News outlets (sadly) but please note these same reasons are why Moore's 911 mockumentary was discredited. For example associating G dubya with Hitler and repeating "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a Republican lie (and believe me I am not defending G dubya) totally avoiding the actual truth that it was the accusation of the Democratic party since 1998 and the official intelligence the new president had received from them.

For example, Moore understanding how to use the powerful propaganda technique that manipulates which is called “Controlling the Narrative”! Here is the truth that I hope will wake some up…please take the time to read these…do it for the future, for the babies…Ready?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction… "
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton Administration’s National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Administration’s Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Now who was it that lied?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The film company were the one's who changed the name of the film (not a deception by Stein), and the law requires permissions to show anyone and site what they say before the film is released, and accordingly these were acquired. The only group that is not covered by this law are News outlets (sadly) but please note these same reasons are why Moore's 911 mockumentary was discredited. For example associating G dubya with Hitler and repeating "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a Republican lie (and believe me I am not defending G dubya) totally avoiding the actual truth that it was the accusation of the Democratic party since 1998 and the official intelligence the new president had received from them.

The film company was dishonest in their purpose, they were dishonest in their editing as in the video that you linked Why do you trust and follow obvious liars?

For example, Moore understanding how to use the powerful propaganda technique that manipulates which is called “Controlling the Narrative”! Here is the truth that I hope will wake some up…please take the time to read these…do it for the future, for the babies…Ready?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction… "
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton Administration’s National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Administration’s Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Now who was it that lied?

Oh there is no doubt that the "Bush lied" claim is largely false. What does that have to do with your relying on a dishonest source?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh there is no doubt that the "Bush lied" claim is largely false. What does that have to do with your relying on a dishonest source?

An attempt at muddying the waters.

 

[pshun2404]

An attempt at muddying the waters.

No just making it clear that such illusion producing techniques are common among human kind. They all like to appear to be correct. There are even examples from scientific thought. For example, I am a big proponent of the directions we see in the theory of Chemical Evolution. I believe it is the best explanation for the possible assemblage of the FORMS (and some of the interactive and inter-dependent functions) of living creatures but in most presentations they try to equate this with these forms being "alive" hence defining the realities of "life" with mere chemical interactions which are by far quite different.

They project these inadequate non-scientifically demonstrated definitions right after they get to the #1 assumption which is that organic molecules of RNA self assemble into more complex biological forms (such a functional proteins and DNA which lead to the formation of living cells) for which no evidence has ever been found to indicate the assumption may be correct, yet this phenomena (though never demonstrated or observed) MUST BE what happened if all that follows is to be assumed true, but even that only speaks to assemblage of forms.

As related to the video, there is equal reason to accept the responsibility taken by the film company itself as true and not blame Ben Stein personally, especially since Dawkins has made it clear in other places that he really does not know (thus presenting what are believed to be the most commonly accepted theoretical positions of those in his camp...the self assembling genetic molecules idea, the on the back of Crystals idea, the panspermia idea, and so on)...these all likewise really only addressing the non-demonstrated assumptions regarding the assemblage of the "forms" or material structures that life may activate or become a part of or use to express itself.

The point is that it is possible that such specifically encoded plans that are capable of leading to such an array of "aware" interactive inter-dependent organs and systems may have come from a conscious intelligence (note I said "may have") just as possibly as may not have come from such a source and even some researchers and theorists in information science and quantum physics (also serious scientists) are teetering on the edge of such a possibility as we speak.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Everybody lies". -Dr. Gregory House

 

[essentialsaltes]

Now who was it that lied?

Sticking to the topic of this thread, the answer is the creationists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No just making it clear that such illusion producing techniques are common among human kind. They all like to appear to be correct. There are even examples from scientific thought. For example, I am a big proponent of the directions we see in the theory of Chemical Evolution. I believe it is the best explanation for the possible assemblage of the FORMS (and some of the interactive and inter-dependent functions) of living creatures but in most presentations they try to equate this with these forms being "alive" hence defining the realities of "life" with mere chemical interactions which are by far quite different.

They project these inadequate non-scientifically demonstrated definitions right after they get to the #1 assumption which is that organic molecules of RNA self assemble into more complex biological forms (such a functional proteins and DNA which lead to the formation of living cells) for which no evidence has ever been found to indicate the assumption may be correct, yet this phenomena (though never demonstrated or observed) MUST BE what happened if all that follows is to be assumed true, but even that only speaks to assemblage of forms.

As related to the video, there is equal reason to accept the responsibility taken by the film company itself as true and not blame Ben Stein personally, especially since Dawkins has made it clear in other places that he really does not know (thus presenting what are believed to be the most commonly accepted theoretical positions of those in his camp...the self assembling genetic molecules idea, the on the back of Crystals idea, the panspermia idea, and so on)...these all likewise really only addressing the non-demonstrated assumptions regarding the assemblage of the "forms" or material structures that life may activate or become a part of or use to express itself.

The point is that it is possible that such specifically encoded plans that are capable of leading to such an array of "aware" interactive inter-dependent organs and systems may have come from a conscious intelligence (note I said "may have") just as possibly as may not have come from such a source and even some researchers and theorists in information science and quantum physics (also serious scientists) are teetering on the edge of such a possibility as we speak.

No, it was a clear attempt at muddying the waters by you tacitly and clearly ignoring the fact that the creators of Expelled lied to Dawkins about the purpose of the interview and also edited his responses to the interview to say something he isn't saying.
AKA, they lied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Everybody lies". -Dr. Gregory House

No, only creationists have to lie to defend their beliefs. Ray Comfort is far worse than most.

You do realize that Comfort is a liar, and an idiot, don't you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, only creationists have to lie to defend their beliefs. Ray Comfort is far worse than most.

You do realize that Comfort is a liar, and an idiot, don't you?

Every cause has those that make it look bad. ID is an obvious fact regardless.