Alright, let's try to be fair to Dr Dawkins. To this date, I have seen no evolutionist give an answer this question. If anyone has seen an answer, please feel free to leave a comment. Richard Dawkins stumped by Creationist question - YouTube
Friday, September 23, 2011
Richard Dawkins stumped by Creationist question - YouTube
Alright, let's try to be fair to Dr Dawkins. To this date, I have seen no evolutionist give an answer this question. If anyone has seen an answer, please feel free to leave a comment. Richard Dawkins stumped by Creationist question - YouTube
It would be nice if you vetted some of this crap.
ReplyDeleteDawkins' response
It would be nice if you would finally make a cogent argument.
ReplyDeleteI've seen his response. I wasn't impressed. I'm well aware of his attempt to save face and he can play at that the news crew was unfair but as yet still hasn't answered the question that was ask. Claiming that the question is nonsensical without explaining it is flawed is the same as claiming the "Who made God?" is a stumper.
ReplyDeleteIf by unfair, you mean used deceptive editing, then ok.
ReplyDeleteOk. So what is the answer to the question?
ReplyDeleteI think Ryan needs further research:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#Interview_with_Richard_Dawkins
I have no idea how that link supports your position that deceptive editing was not used.
ReplyDeleteDo you just paste links and consider it "research"?
The Australian Skeptics claim the film was carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to adequately answer the question and that the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset).[108] Dawkins reported to the Australian Skeptics that the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions.[108] Dawkins and Barry Williams also said that the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.[108][109]
AIG? Really? Try harder...
So You do have selective reading disorder. There is another whole paragraph. Did you read it? Maybe you didn't understand it. Here let me help:
ReplyDeleteGillian Brown, AiG producer of the segment, responded in the 1998 Prayer News article: Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?[110] Brown claimed Dawkins had been made aware of the interviewer's creationist sympathies.[110] AiG also claim that the raw footage shows that Dawkins, after pausing for 11 seconds, asks that the recording company stop recording the video.[110] On the AiG video, the question is asked by a person who was not present at the recording. According to Brown, this was not deceit, but "Because my question was off-camera and off-mike (though clearly audible on the tape), it could not be used in the finished production. That is why the presenter was recorded later, repeating my question as I had asked it."[110]
See how that answers the charges? You probably don't blind as you are. Well, I'll post something fuller on this later. In the meantime, I still can't find a place where Dawkins, or anyone, answers the question. In this day and age, Dawkins could post a video as long as he wants if it takes longer than a "sound-byte", instead of whining about being deceived (which I'm not so sure he was - just embarassed).
Right I noticed that, which makes it a "he said she said". One can't really make any positive claims in that case, and yet you do, but that's par for the course, you always assert as certain that for which you have no idea...
ReplyDeleteRight I noticed that, which makes it a "he said she said". One can't really make any positive claims in that case, and yet you do, but that's par for the course, you always assert as certain that for which you have no idea...
ReplyDeleteBut you are making a positive case that Dawkins was a victim of "deceptive editing." How do you know?
And you still didn't answer the question that Dawkins didn't answer in the "edited" clip.
You really don't understand what a positive case is do you?
ReplyDeleteAnd I have no idea what the answer to the question is, and don't care, although I suspect the question is bogus.
You are the one who said that Dawkins' interview was purposely edited to make Dawkins seem like he could answer a legitimate scientific question...and you can't prove that.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have no idea what the answer to the question is, and don't care, although I suspect the question is bogus.
Don't feel bad, Dawkins doesn't know how to answer it either.
You are the one who said that Dawkins' interview was purposely edited to make Dawkins seem like he could answer a legitimate scientific question...and you can't prove that.
ReplyDeleteYou really are dumb aren't you. See 1:54 on the link I posted.
You admit you can't prove that Gillian Brown is wrong and that it's her word against Dawkings. Basically you have only said you have chosen to believe Dawkins. You have no reason to back it up. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteYou know what I think is funny, with your standard of evidence for most things, you can't even prove Jesus existed. Hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteI think it's amazing that you would bring up such a comparison as if most educated professionals agree that Jesus did exist. Apples and oranges. Desperate much? It's okay to admit that you don't know what you are talking about. I can't think any less of you than I already do. Good thing Jesus loves you.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead...demonstrate that Jesus did not exist.
ReplyDeleteMarcus; you have an amazing ability to completely miss a point. I honestly don't care if Jesus existed or not and my point was not that he didn't but rather my point was that if you consistently used a specific one of your many and varied epistemological standards, you also couldn't prove he existed.
ReplyDeleteYou see, you vacillate between a weak standard and a strong one depending on what is needed for the particular argument you are trying to win ("You can't prove African Hominids lived in caves!" or "You can't prove Noah didn't live on Pangaea!" or "you can't prove that Gillian Brown is wrong [despite video evidence]". I would consider this very dishonest if I thought you were self aware enough to even recognize what you are doing), but if you consistently applied your strong standard to everything, you personally would not be able to rationally claim that Jesus existed.
That is all, over and out.
Marcus; you have an amazing ability to completely miss a point. I honestly don't care if Jesus existed or not and my point was not that he didn't but rather my point was that if you consistently used a specific one of your many and varied epistemological standards, you also couldn't prove he existed.
ReplyDeleteMy contention was (especially since you missed it) That comparing Jesus' existence to the controversy of who should be believed Dawkins or Gillian Brown is stupid because even non-believers agree that Jesus was a living person and you yourself said that it was one's word against the other when it comes to Dawkins vs Brown.
You see, you vacillate between a weak standard and a strong one depending on what is needed for the particular argument you are trying to win ("You can't prove African Hominids lived in caves!" or "You can't prove Noah didn't live on Pangaea!" or "you can't prove that Gillian Brown is wrong [despite video evidence]".
I see a pattern forming. You missed the whole point and did not explain how TGBaker's imagined scenario was in the least plausible. You just asserted that it was. You also can't prove or demonstrate that my scenario about Pangea is any less viable than TGBaker's. And you think Dawkins' video evidence is so convincing? It's because you want to believe him. Where is you skepticism now?
I've been saving the following link. http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html
The fact that Dawkins did not answer the question about mutation and information seems lost on you. Sad.
I would consider this very dishonest if I thought you were self aware enough to even recognize what you are doing), but if you consistently applied your strong standard to everything, you personally would not be able to rationally claim that Jesus existed.
I disagree. There is plenty of strong evidence for Jesus' existence. Way more that evidence that supports TGBaker's scenario for the origin of the concept of Spirit or Richard Dawkins claiming that he was unfairly filmed and tricked by tricky and purposeful film editing. (As far as I can tell he can't answer the question, bottom line. If he did, point out the source). I don't think you are dishonest, you are just blind without God.