FR

Chargement…

Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists question ? LIARS

155 928 vues

Chargement…

Chargement…

Transcription

Impossible de charger la transcription interactive.

Chargement…

Pour évaluer une vidéo, vous devez la louer.
Cette fonctionnalité n'est pas disponible pour le moment. Veuillez réessayer ultérieurement.
Ajoutée le 12 juin 2007

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/d...


http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/d...


http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/19...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t9-lyZE...
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/viewt...

'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=zaKryi... ), 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/dawki...

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/a...

Chargement…

Lorsque cette fonctionnalité est activée, une vidéo issue des suggestions est automatiquement lancée à la suite de la lecture en cours.

À suivre


pour ajouter cette vidéo à la liste "À regarder plus tard".

Ajouter à

Chargement des playlists...