Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists question ? LIARS

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm


http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htmhttp://www.infidels.org/librar...


http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t9-lyZEgqlI
http://physorg.com/news103469691.html

IMPORTANT NOTICE.The creationists edited this video to make it look as if professor Dawkins was stumped in answering one of their questions. These Creationists are nothing but brainless brainwashing low life scum bags whose real aim it is to extort money out of gullible people. These low life creationist cretins will only allow comments by other creationists on their uploaded video. It just goes to show how desperate the creationist scum bag preachers are becoming. They are losing the battle in attempting to indoctrinate people with their shit. There is no such censorship on my uploaded video. Let us see them remove their censorship. They haven't got the balls to do this because they are filthy dirty low life indoctrinators who present pathetic arguments. Please note my attack is not against all religion but against creationist scum bags who argue that the earth is only a 6000 years old etc. For instance the RC Church accepts evolutionary theory and the big bang as being correct and this is the RC churches official teaching. Creationist preachers are nothing but scum bags, they're a different breed all together. They don't even believe their own shit. I'll say it again they use their scum bag tactics to extort money out of gullible people. They are con men and con women. They have no right on this earth to think they ought to be respected. I'm not on about their easily duped followers who might be very nice people. I'm on about the scum bag preachers who prey on them.

A Letter from professor Dawkins at

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14255&start=0

'Some of our regulars may be aware of the Australian hoax film in which I am shown apparently flummoxed and unable to answer a question about 'information content' increasing in evolution. Somebody has just pointed me to a new version of the clip on YouTube
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 ), which is interestingly different from the published version.


A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic.

http://skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

I don't have the reference with me (I'm in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil's Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject.

In the original film, 'From a Frog to a Prince', the 'information content' question is put to me by a MAN. We see him in a bare room, very obviously not the well-furnished room in which I am shown (not) answering the question. The new version on YouTube is different in at least two respects. First, the question is put to me by a WOMAN (we don't see her). And while she is speaking I am obviously not listening to anybody asking questions (I would be looking straight at the questioner if so) but I am clearly lost in thought, the same long train of thought that persists for a long time after the question ends (intended to look embarrassingly long, as if I am incapable of answering the question).

There is another difference. In this new version of the film, I ask them to stop the camera (and this really happened, for the reason given above). Then there is the cut to me answering the completely different question, as if trying to change the subject. In the original film, my request to stop the camera is missing.

I've got to go and board the plane, but it might be quite interesting for somebody to post both versions of the film together on our website, so they can be compared directly.

Must rush
Richard

Spot the difference between intelligent Design and creationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellig...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070618/ap_on_sc/earliest_panda

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Dawkins

[13firedancer]

Just thought it was interesting that luckyhubby was banned by the poster but not before sending an email to him filled with not fact but curses. guess he didn't have anything interesting to say.

[DrMontague]

@13firedancer I messaged luckyhubby an athoratative video on the subject of human evolution because he clearly had not done research into the subject. This was a BBC Horizon documentary called 'Are we still evolving'. He messaged me back more or less telling me to stick it. I send Fucktards like luckyhubby packing with the abuse they deserve. If you want to debate with the pig headed ignorant shit you are free to do so on HIS channel. I don't entertain fucktards.

[chodaboy51500]

This is called, thinking before answering. Something Creationists are not familiar with.

[phuphroo]

@luckyhubbie actually adaptation means:any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. you dont seem to realize that adaptation is a form of evolution that occurs over a much shorter period of time. people can indeed adapt to become taller through the course of natural selection, but as for living longer thats because of modern medicine.

[luckyhubbie]

@phuphroo Your argueing both sides. Humans don't evolve any more but loosing K9 teeth is a product of evolution. Which is it? You pretend to know more than you do. Adaptation is about changing behavior. Evolution is about natural selection to alter DNA and physical atributes. Longer life and Humans growing taller is a physical atribute. You cannot adapt to grow taller or live longer those are not physical atributes.

Creation vs evolution is apples and oranges.

[phuphroo]

@luckyhubbie oh and by the way, I didn't directly talk about the K9 teeth disappearing because you said it yourself that it did not happen over night. Which is funny because you are proving my point by saying so! It indeed did not happen over night, it happened over an extremely long period of time and now we have finally reached that point where the evolution has slowed down because enough time has progressed for us to reach a point where we don't need to evolve anymore.

[phuphroo]

@luckyhubbie again you completely miss the point of adaptation vs evolution! did you skip biology class when you went to high school? because you don't seem to realize the definition of either one even when i explained it in my previous comment! humans are not going to evolve anymore simply because of the fact that we do not need to; we have reached our optimum body structure. however, we may have to adapt to rapid changes in our environment due to the new hazards created by technology.