IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags creationism , evolution , richard dawkins

Reply
Old 9th November 2007, 05:20 PM   #1
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 44,024
Has Dawkins lost credibility?

I was looking for different videos of Richard Dawkins and I stumbled upon this one. If you haven't seen it, you really should:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


And then I read this:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3867




What are your opinions on this? How does this affect Dawkins' credibility?
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 05:22 PM   #2
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
This stupid thing again?
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 05:32 PM   #3
Dr. Imago
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,620
But, I loved this post in the comments under the video...

Quote:
Even kids understand that their Christmas/birthday gifts did not materialise out of thin air, but were PLACED THERE BY SOMEONE, though they did not see them.

We all know that the existence of every Tangible Product can be traced to a Responsible Maker/Agent. (Eg, buildings, cars, ships, roads, computers, crime, whatever).

The hypocrisy of atheists is the belief in the above principle, but the blatant denial of the same principle where earth/humans are concerned.
WOW! What insight! What a revelation! How can anyone argue against such watertight reasoning?

-Dr. Imago
Dr. Imago is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 05:46 PM   #4
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 44,024
Oooook?

Maybe we could try dealing with the question raised in the topic so that you guys don't start loosing credibility also?
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 05:52 PM   #5
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
So let me see if I have this right:

1. Dawkins is asked a "simple" question pertaining to evolutionary biology.
2. He takes a minute to consider his answer.
3. Because he paused before giving an answer, Dawkins has no credibility.
4. Since Dawkins no longer has any credibility, neither does the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Do I have that more or less right?
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 05:56 PM   #6
cafink
Thinker
 
cafink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 140
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html
cafink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 05:57 PM   #7
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 44,024
Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
So let me see if I have this right:

1. Dawkins is asked a "simple" question pertaining to evolutionary biology.
2. He takes a minute to consider his answer.
3. Because he paused before giving an answer, Dawkins has no credibility.
4. Since Dawkins no longer has any credibility, neither does the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Do I have that more or less right?


I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 06:08 PM   #8
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?
I invite you to review the links above your last post and decide for yourself if his rebuttal is sufficient.
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 06:14 PM   #9
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 44,024
Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
I invite you to review the links above your last post and decide for yourself if his rebuttal is sufficient.


I've revised the links and I have to say I agree

This part makes it especially clearer:

"…Then the documentary shows a question put to the highly fluent evolutionist Dawkins, which is really the crucial question: can he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neoDarwinism around the world, would know of it!) This is actually the dramatic high point of the whole presentation."
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 06:21 PM   #10
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 27,449
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?
Yes. cafink linked to the answer:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 06:21 PM   #11
cyborg
deus ex machina
 
cyborg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,981
Dawkins was dumbfounded by the stupid canard of "information adding".

It's a stupid question that doesn't even understand what it asks.

Loss of credibility? Not from Dawkins' end that's for damn sure.
__________________
The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...
cyborg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 06:28 PM   #12
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
The question he was asked didn't make much sense. How do you define "the information in the genome"?

I can think of a few (not necessarily very good) ways, and with those definitions some mutations will increase the information, and some will decrease it.

So?
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 06:49 PM   #13
dsmith
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
This stupid thing again?
Unfortunately, yes. There's a lot of views for this video.
Ron, Read the God Delusion. It would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.
dsmith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 07:22 PM   #14
Dr. Imago
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,620
Originally Posted by dsmith View Post
t would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.
In the words of Dale Carnegie, "No one kicks a dead dog."

-Dr. Imago
Dr. Imago is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 08:17 PM   #15
articulett
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,404
I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty. Dawkins addresses this and other canards at his AA speech available at his sight for download. Eugenie Scott is great too. When the fact aren't on your side, what have you got except misinformation, spin, obfuscation, and sycophants lying for Jesus?
articulett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 08:33 PM   #16
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by articulett View Post
I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty. Dawkins addresses this and other canards at his AA speech available at his sight for download. Eugenie Scott is great too. When the fact aren't on your side, what have you got except misinformation, spin, obfuscation, and sycophants lying for Jesus?
Just out of curious - aside from the sad incompetents who actually believe their spews - when did the IDers ever have any credibility?

Last edited by fuelair; 9th November 2007 at 08:34 PM. Reason: I for T
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 08:48 PM   #17
articulett
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,404
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Just out of curious - aside from the sad incompetents who actually believe their spews - when did the IDers ever have any credibility?
Although it does exist primarily in their minds... like their intelligent designer... I think that the uninformed masses may assume credibility or controversy where none exists.

That whole "adding info." canard is such an idiocy. Humans have much smaller genomes than amphibians and even rice. What the hell does "add info." mean? genes? regulation? function? DNA? Do they think "more" is better??... the question itself shows such cluelessness while inferring something dishonest-- which is the whole technique of this smarmy group. And once they think they have a good question... a million of them repeat it as though they came up with it themselves-- and a biologists thinks-- "crap, one of these bozos again"--

Creationists are always so incurious as to new developments in science and so impervious to the answers to the questions they ask-- much less why the question is wrong and gives their intent away.
articulett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 09:12 PM   #18
m_huber
Muse
 
m_huber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 828
Oh, look at the truth! They must be right! They have their own video gallery!

answersingenesis .com / video / ondemand
m_huber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 09:30 PM   #19
EatatJoes
Fundamental Atheist
 
EatatJoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 339
OK, I do believe that Dawkins addressed this issue on Penn Radio at least a year ago. He knew that the question was loaded and was taken completely off guard by it. He paused because he wasn't sure how to proceed. I do believe he stated that when the question was asked he was no longer interested in the discussion because the whole basis of the interview was a deception. He knew that he was dealing w/ fundies and no longer wanted to engage them. I think this link will direct you to an mp3 of that show.
__________________
"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." - John Benfield

"The only consequence of truth is liberation" - Unknown
EatatJoes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 10:49 PM   #20
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,969
Originally Posted by dsmith View Post
Unfortunately, yes. There's a lot of views for this video.
Ron, Read the God Delusion. It would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.
The God Delusion is about atheism. The "stumped Dawkins" myth is from the area of Creationism and evolution. A better suggestion would be Ancestors Tale, River out of Eden or any of his other books dealing with biology.
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2007, 11:44 PM   #21
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
No.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 02:50 AM   #22
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Dawkins explained this episode in The Devil's Chaplain. He had been asked to give an interview on Evolution. At this point in the interview he realised that the film crew were creationist/IDs. The reason for the pause was that he was considering terminating the interview. They eventually persuaded him to continue when he answered the very complex question on development of information.

The Creationist/ID's case is so weak they have to resort to these cheap tricks.

Because of this and other situations, Dawkins decided to avoid debating with these people and constructed a memorandum with Stephen Gould explaining why, unfortunately Gould died before he could sign it.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 04:15 AM   #23
T'ai Chi
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,219
A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
T'ai Chi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 04:29 AM   #24
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
 
Hawk one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Right below The Hat.
Posts: 13,685
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
Well, should a world-famous geologist publically debate the Flat Earth society?
__________________
Boynott everything!

If only health care was like video games. Then the ones who could pay for it would get it, and the ones who couldn't would die, like nature intended for people without money. A perfect system, right? RIGHT?
Hawk one is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 04:45 AM   #25
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
One of the reasons for not publicly debating them is that a cool considered reply to a difficult question scores less than a quick sound bite. The general public is more likely to respond to a charismatic speaker than the cold facts.

I see that Dawkins is quite prepared to take on religious figures such as John Lennox. The concepts are easier to put across. The interview with Lennox also shows the difficulties that can be found from the format of these events.

Hawk One's comment is also true, why give them the publicity.

Stephen Novella is one of the most articulate skeptics I'm aware of but even he says such discussion often comes down to who has the better rhetoric.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 05:09 AM   #26
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
I suspect that the world-renowned Darwinist would relish debate.

I think the point is that 'debate' is not a reasonable descriptor for the aforementioned activities.

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 05:10 AM   #27
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,969
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
Why in front of a live audience? How about a written debate? As Acleron noted, it's too easy for C/IDers to spout soundbites that require lengthy scientific explanations in a live venue. A written exchange would require them to substantiate their claims, not just parrot them.
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 05:35 AM   #28
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner View Post
Why in front of a live audience? How about a written debate? As Acleron noted, it's too easy for C/IDers to spout soundbites that require lengthy scientific explanations in a live venue. A written exchange would require them to substantiate their claims, not just parrot them.
There are plenty of examples of this, see ERV.

The debate always seems to follow this scenario.

ID/Creationist makes silly scientific style comment.
Scientist corrects it.
ID/Creationist makes silly gratuitous insults, calls the scientist unscientific and close minded.

BTW, the ID/Creationist always responds on his own website so the deconstruction of his idiocy is not seen by his own followers.

Any debate can only succeed when both sides are constrained to follow rules of logic and truth, when this happened in the Dover trial, the ID/Creationists lost.

The Skepticality podcast labelled 'Flock of Dodos' has a good discussion with Randy Olsen on this topic.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 05:41 AM   #29
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,858
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
I thought you were an advocate for 'proper scientific methods', T'ai. I mean, isn't that usually your criticism of the $1m challenge, that it doesn't follow proper scientific channels? Why would you expect a debate in front of a live audience to be a more useful method?
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 05:55 AM   #30
This Guy
Master Poster
 
This Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,140
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I've revised the links and I have to say I agree

This part makes it especially clearer:

"…Then the documentary shows a question put to the highly fluent evolutionist Dawkins, which is really the crucial question: can he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neoDarwinism around the world, would know of it!) This is actually the dramatic high point of the whole presentation."
Problem is that your side (I assume you back the views of these charlatans) have to cheat and distort the facts. You should try to look at the issue from multiple angles.

Of course, if your comfortable without considering all the facts, that's cool too, just don't expect us to join you there
__________________
I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!
This Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 06:07 AM   #31
T'ai Chi
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,219
You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.
T'ai Chi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 06:38 AM   #32
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
One of the problems is the breadth of knowledge required. In a live debate id/creationist could easily ambush you on some obscure piece of biology e.g. a particular sequence in DNA and leaving you look foolish when you have to admit your ignorance. Whereas scientists spend most of their time trying to get the science right, id/creationists spend their time practising debating points like this.

When debating specific points, they will always lose if the TofE is correct. ERV regularly excoriates Behe whenever he ventures on to her turf.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 06:52 AM   #33
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

Yeah. Dawkins doesn't like being ambushed by asshats. Makes you wonder if there isn't something fishy about this whole Darwinism enterprise afterall.

hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 07:05 AM   #34
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
I love the word "darwinist". Just like anyone who believes in gravity is a "Newtonist". *Nods*
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 07:10 AM   #35
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
Science is done by public spectacle?

I thought you didn't think science was done this way?

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.
Yet, you have no problems with how the Creationists behaved.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 07:21 AM   #36
This Guy
Master Poster
 
This Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,140
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Science is done by public spectacle?

I thought you didn't think science was done this way?



Yet, you have no problems with how the Creationists behaved.
Obviously it's OK for creationist/ID'ers to mislead, lie and tell half truths. We should still respect them, and welcome them to the debate table.

After all, debating them wouldn't add any credibility to their stance would it?

And just because they have to mislead and take things out of context to be convincing, that doesn't mean their arguments can't stand on their own merit!


I know if I ran across a sales person that used the same tactics these folks use I'd not buy anything they were selling.

I guess some people have different standards for honesty and truthfulness.
__________________
I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!
This Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 07:26 AM   #37
T'ai Chi
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,219
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Yeah. Dawkins doesn't like being ambushed by asshats.
Well he's so brilliant, I'm sure he could put them in their place, even the ones he invited into his house (ie. what you call 'ambushed').
T'ai Chi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 07:31 AM   #38
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Is this really the best argument creationists can find against evolution - that Richard Dawkins paused before answering a nonsensical question?

How pathetic.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 08:30 AM   #39
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
Well he's so brilliant, I'm sure he could put them in their place, even the ones he invited into his house (ie. what you call 'ambushed').

Are you, in your faux folksy sarcastic manner, trying to imply that Dawkins is not as "brilliant" as he's purported to be? Personally, I couldn't care less how brilliant you think Dawkins is. If you are trying to say something about the plain facts of Biological science, what you refer to as "Darwinism," then there are probably better avenues of discussion than whom Dawkins chooses to spend his time jabbering with.

As for ambush, I trust you have at least a scant aquaintance with metaphor. This film crew pretended to be something they weren't, thus gaining entrance to Dawkins' home. Then they sprang their trap in the form of woo gibberish about information gained from mutations.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 08:35 AM   #40
T'ai Chi
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,219
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Are you, in your faux folksy sarcastic manner, trying to imply that Dawkins is not as "brilliant" as he's purported to be?
I don't 'get' your ultra-glib tone. If I literally say Dawkins is brilliant you have some strong need bordering on the paranormal to believe I am saying the opposite, for some reason.

Quote:
Personally, I couldn't care less how brilliant you think Dawkins is.
Luckily "impressing hgc" is not high on my 'to do' list.

Quote:
If you are trying to say something about the plain facts of Biological science, what you refer to as "Darwinism,"
Well, actually Dawkins himself uses that word on occasion.

Quote:
then there are probably better avenues of discussion than whom Dawkins chooses to spend his time jabbering with.
That may be, but he could use his genious to discuss it with holders of opposite viewpoints in a public venue. What better why to spread it to the confused public?

Quote:
As for ambush, I trust you have at least a scant aquaintance with metaphor. This film crew pretended to be something they weren't, thus gaining entrance to Dawkins' home.
But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

Last edited by T'ai Chi; 10th November 2007 at 08:36 AM.
T'ai Chi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.