• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has Dawkins lost credibility?

But, I loved this post in the comments under the video...

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.
Click to expand...

WOW! What insight! What a revelation! How can anyone argue against such watertight reasoning?

-Dr. Imago
 
Oooook?

Maybe we could try dealing with the question raised in the topic so that you guys don't start loosing credibility also? :D
 
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...



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

Did he?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?
Click to expand...

I invite you to review the links above your last post and decide for yourself if his rebuttal is sufficient.
 
ravdin said:
I invite you to review the links above your last post and decide for yourself if his rebuttal is sufficient.
Click to expand...



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."
 
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 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?
 
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Just out of curious - aside from the sad incompetents who actually believe their spews - when did the IDers ever have any credibility?:confused:
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Just out of curious - aside from the sad incompetents who actually believe their spews - when did the IDers ever have any credibility?:confused:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oh, look at the truth! They must be right! They have their own video gallery!

answersingenesis .com / video / ondemand
 
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.
 
dsmith said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom