Dawkins, your fearless leader stumbles and falls, redux.
Nashton
read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
for yourselves.
The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
other group I've participated in.
The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
order to attempt to belittle me.
And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
moral or otherwise.
Frank J
The issue was discussed ad nauseum ~10 years ago, when the hoax
occurred. Bringing it up now just shows how desperate anti-evolution
activists have become in the absence of a promising theory of their
own.
None of us care what Dawkins or the Pope personally *think*, only what
they *say*, because they influence many people who are either too busy
or too lazy to think for themselves.
Boikat
"Nashton" <na...@na.na> wrote in message
news:Us%qi.106126$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> for yourselves.
> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> other group I've participated in.
>
> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing.
Not as astounding as the fact that you bring it up after it's been debunked
for several years already.
> Not only do you refuse to
> discuss the issue
It was discussed, pipsqueak, years ago.
> and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> the YouTube video is a hoax,
Like all true fanatics, you never let facts get in the way. Of course, you
hypocritically think that presenting a video is "proof", without question.
> but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> order to attempt to belittle me.
Belittleing you does not require ad homs, dreadful or otherwise. You do
that to yourself, you little squinking whiner.
>
> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
> moral or otherwise.
I don't, personally. Besides, who are you to tell anyone who to listen to
or not? Did you crown yourself King, or something?
Boikat
--
"Krrrrriptonite!"
Lex Luthor
Nashton
> On Jul 29, 8:10 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>> for yourselves.
>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>> other group I've participated in.
>>
>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
>> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
>> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
>> order to attempt to belittle me.
>>
>> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
>> moral or otherwise.
>
> The issue was discussed ad nauseum ~10 years ago, when the hoax
> occurred. Bringing it up now just shows how desperate anti-evolution
> activists have become in the absence of a promising theory of their
> own.
So, because it was discussed, that ends the discussion and the controversy?
>
> None of us care what Dawkins or the Pope personally *think*, only what
> they *say*, because they influence many people who are either too busy
> or too lazy to think for themselves.
OK, let's split hairs.
>
Nashton
> "Nashton" <na...@na.na> wrote in message
> news:Us%qi.106126$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>> for yourselves.
>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>> other group I've participated in.
>>
>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing.
>
> Not as astounding as the fact that you bring it up after it's been debunked
> for several years already.
It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
>> Not only do you refuse to
>> discuss the issue
>
> It was discussed, pipsqueak, years ago.
Many issues resurface. Who do you think you are to tll me what and what
not to do.? Did you crown yourself King or something?
>
>> and expose the facts that you believe can show that
>> the YouTube video is a hoax,
>
> Like all true fanatics, you never let facts get in the way.
Do you really think you said something here?
Of course, you
> hypocritically think that presenting a video is "proof", without question.
Better than the excuses about Dawkins wanting to kick the interviewer
out, as if he would have hesitated *one* instant.
>
>> but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
>> order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> Belittleing you does not require ad homs, dreadful or otherwise. You do
> that to yourself, you little squinking whiner.
And yet, you insist on using them. Why are you contradicting yourself?
>
>> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
>> moral or otherwise.
>
> I don't, personally. Besides, who are you to tell anyone who to listen to
> or not? Did you crown yourself King, or something?
That was my opinion, people obviously don't have to do what I say.
>
> Boikat
> --
> "Krrrrriptonite!"
> Lex Luthor
Grow up, child.
;)
>
stew dean
> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> for yourselves.
Who you talking to? Who is 'you'?
> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> other group I've participated in.
You experience differs from mine. I see a bunch of disparate
individuals with different experiences, tollerance levels and
education levels. You must be assuming there is a collective group
with the same common beliefs. That's not my experience.
> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> order to attempt to belittle me.
What YouTube video? Can you add context? To me it looks like that's
your prefered mode of operation. You appear to want to lump everyone
into one group then build a straw man that Dawkins is a reliigous type
reader Who are you talking to, evolutionists, athiests, who?
> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
> moral or otherwise.
Who me? Pope is an outdated politics/religious figure in my view.
Others will differ.
Looks like you've got yourself a bad case of paranoia there.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> Boikat wrote:
> > "Nashton" <n...@na.na> wrote in message
> >news:Us%qi.106126$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
> >> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> >> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> >> for yourselves.
> >> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> >> other group I've participated in.
>
> >> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> >> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing.
>
> > Not as astounding as the fact that you bring it up after it's been debunked
> > for several years already.
>
> It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
Just looked into this - are you talking about the 'stumped' video? If
so that has been covered many times. Dawkins became aware by the
nature of the question where the debate was going and the nature of
the questioning. He was debating wether to deny an interview, this has
been well covered. He was essentally mislead into being interviewed by
a creationist.
Stew Dean
Inez
I'd be a bit interested in details of how Dawkin's in my fearless
leader. Has he been especially fearless about something? When did he
lead me? He didn't invent the ToE and I haven't read any of his books
and evolution isn't a personality cult, unlike many styles of
Christianity.
Rolf
You a mind reader too? Dawkins being a brute, not hestitating to throw
someone out? Just depending on if he wants to or not?
And BTW, who are " looking to the Pope for guidance and justification,
scientific, moral or otherwise"? That remark alone makes me wonder, in what
universe do you live? Further, this matter did not just surface - you
brought it up. You brought it up, and that reflects rather unflattering on
yourself. If that is an example of what you have as arguments against
evolutionary theory, you really are in bad trouble, ...
Nashton
> On 29 Jul, 14:25, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>> Boikat wrote:
>>> "Nashton" <n...@na.na> wrote in message
>>> news:Us%qi.106126$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
>>>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>>>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>>>> for yourselves.
>>>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>>>> other group I've participated in.
>>>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>>>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing.
>>> Not as astounding as the fact that you bring it up after it's been debunked
>>> for several years already.
>> It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
>
> Just looked into this - are you talking about the 'stumped' video?
Yes.
If
> so that has been covered many times.
Really? Point please?
Dawkins became aware by the
> nature of the question where the debate was going and the nature of
> the questioning.
Dawkins was asked a question that any legitimate interviewer may have
asked.
He was debating wether to deny an interview,
LOL
this has
> been well covered.
You mean well covered up?
He was essentally mislead into being interviewed by
> a creationist.
More hearsay, I see.
>
> Stew Dean
>
>
>
>
wf...@comcast.net
>Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>for yourselves.
says the religious fanatic christianist who thinks 14th century
religion is a better explanation of nature than science is.
>The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>other group I've participated in.
>
>The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing
of course, there ARE those of us who dont care what dawkins
thinks...we dont have authority figures like, say, creationists do.
Nashton
> On 29 Jul, 13:10, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>> for yourselves.
>
> Who you talking to? Who is 'you'?
>
>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>> other group I've participated in.
>
> You experience differs from mine. I see a bunch of disparate
> individuals with different experiences, tollerance levels and
> education levels. You must be assuming there is a collective group
> with the same common beliefs. That's not my experience.
>
>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
>> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
>> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
>> order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> What YouTube video?
Get with it, will you?
Desertphile
> Frank J wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 8:10 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
> >> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> >> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> >> for yourselves.
> >> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> >> other group I've participated in.
> >>
> >> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> >> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
> >> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> >> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> >> order to attempt to belittle me.
> >>
> >> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
> >> moral or otherwise.
> >
> > The issue was discussed ad nauseum ~10 years ago, when the hoax
> > occurred. Bringing it up now just shows how desperate anti-evolution
> > activists have become in the absence of a promising theory of their
> > own.
> So, because it was discussed, that ends the discussion and the controversy?
Er, what "controversy?" The video is a hoax, a sham, a deception.
You'll just have to adjust.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
"leader?" When did this all happen?
> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> for yourselves.
> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> other group I've participated in.
3+3=3 then of course everyone objects. The same is true in
talk.origins
> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
when you do that?
> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
was not "stumped." You know this, of course, because you have been
told this a few dozen times already.
> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
> moral or otherwise.
Boikat
> Boikat wrote:
> > "Nashton" <na...@na.na> wrote in message
> > news:Us%qi.106126$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
> >> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> >> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of
thinking
> >> for yourselves.
> >> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> >> other group I've participated in.
> >>
> >> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> >> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing.
> >
> > Not as astounding as the fact that you bring it up after it's been
debunked
> > for several years already.
>
> It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
I believe I read it on his web page, and besides, only a mindless fool would
not be able to recognize that the segment was edited.
>
> >> Not only do you refuse to
> >> discuss the issue
> >
> > It was discussed, pipsqueak, years ago.
>
> Many issues resurface. Who do you think you are to tll me what and what
> not to do.?
Where did I ever say you could not bring up the corpse of any dead horse you
want flogged again?
> Did you crown yourself King or something?
Wow! Now that's original! Can i use that, on occasion? Oh, wait, i
already did, you mindless little troll.
>
> >
> >> and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> >> the YouTube video is a hoax,
> >
> > Like all true fanatics, you never let facts get in the way.
>
> Do you really think you said something here?
>
Nothing that you would understand.
> Of course, you
> > hypocritically think that presenting a video is "proof", without
question.
>
> Better than the excuses about Dawkins wanting to kick the interviewer
> out, as if he would have hesitated *one* instant.
Maybe he was trying to be polite. I know that's an alien concept, that is
far beyond your comprehencion, being the odious little squeaking troll that
you are.
>
> >
> >> but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> >> order to attempt to belittle me.
> >
> > Belittleing you does not require ad homs, dreadful or otherwise. You do
> > that to yourself, you little squinking whiner.
>
> And yet, you insist on using them. Why are you contradicting yourself?
I'm not contradicting myself. If you could read and understand, grasp the
written word, you'd see that I said, "belittling you does not *require* ad
homs..." It's optional. Besides, pointing out that you are a stupid,
obnoxious little troll is not an ad hom, since it *discribes* your
character, and is not a personal attack.
>
> >
> >> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification,
scientific,
> >> moral or otherwise.
> >
> > I don't, personally. Besides, who are you to tell anyone who to listen
to
> > or not? Did you crown yourself King, or something?
>
> That was my opinion, people obviously don't have to do what I say.
Yet you want to tell them what to do.
>
> >
> > Boikat
> > --
> > "Krrrrriptonite!"
> > Lex Luthor
>
> Grow up, child.
Piss off, illeterate runt.
Boikat
"stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185715953.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jul, 13:10, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
> > Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> > read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> > for yourselves.
>
> Who you talking to? Who is 'you'?
He's channeling nando. "Spooky atction at a distance".
Boikat
"Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:1bcpa3ddek4hlng3u...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:10:17 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.na> wrote:
>
> Dawkins is a "leader?" People who read talk.origins have a
> "leader?" When did this all happen?
We took a vote. Everyone voted for themselves, so it was decided that
leadership woulf be divided equally, I'm the leader now, but given the
number of posters, well, my time is already up. I don't remember who's in
charge now. I think we went alphabetical.
Ron O
> "Desertphile" <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1bcpa3ddek4hlng3u...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:10:17 -0300, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>
> > Dawkins is a "leader?" People who read talk.origins have a
> > "leader?" When did this all happen?
>
> We took a vote. Everyone voted for themselves, so it was decided that
> leadership woulf be divided equally, I'm the leader now, but given the
> number of posters, well, my time is already up. I don't remember who's in
> charge now. I think we went alphabetical.
Who agreed on the alphabetical progression?
I didn't vote for myself. I voted for the guy that claimed that he
could do long division using Roman numerals.
Ron Okimoto
gregwrld
This is just a bunch of rhetorical nonsense. Get over yourself and
learn
something for once.
Why, you might end up supplying some actual content here...
gregwrld
Ash
> Frank J wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 8:10 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>>> for yourselves.
>>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>>> other group I've participated in.
>>>
>>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
>>> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
>>> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
>>> order to attempt to belittle me.
>>>
>>> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
>>> moral or otherwise.
>>
>> The issue was discussed ad nauseum ~10 years ago, when the hoax
>> occurred. Bringing it up now just shows how desperate anti-evolution
>> activists have become in the absence of a promising theory of their
>> own.
>
> So, because it was discussed, that ends the discussion and the controversy?
>
alwaysaskingquestions
>> It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
>
> I believe I read it on his web page, and besides, only a mindless
> fool would not be able to recognize that the segment was edited.
QED
alwaysaskingquestions
------------------------------
a) Nashton is so stupid that he didn't realise that video is from 1997 and
thought he'd found something new.
b) Nashton knew it was from 1997 but he's so stupid that he thought people
here wouldn't know that.
c) Nashton knew about the discusion here before but he's so stupid that he
forgot all about it.
d) Same old story, Nashton going back over old arguments he's lost countless
times before, hoping that sheer perseverance will overcome his stupidity.
Josh Miles
> Boikat wrote:
>> "Nashton" <na...@na.na> wrote in message
>> news:Us%qi.106126$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
>>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>>> for yourselves.
>>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>>> other group I've participated in.
>>>
>>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing.
>> Not as astounding as the fact that you bring it up after it's been debunked
>> for several years already.
>
> It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
I don't know if this has been posted already, but here it is anyway:
Josh Miles
> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> other group I've participated in.
Don't you go to church?
Mark Isaak
> It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
CB102.1
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark VandeWettering
> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> for yourselves.
This argument is frequently made by rather dull people who can't think
for themselves. It's called "projection".
> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> other group I've participated in.
>
> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> order to attempt to belittle me.
Lessee... People informed you that the video was edited from a longer
interview, that he was not stumped, that the interviewers were not honest
either in seeking nor in their representation of the interview.
None of these are ad hominems. They simply facts.
Of course you remain a hopeless, hapless, unimaginative buffoon without
anything to say, but that's just an observation, not part of my argument.
> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
> moral or otherwise.
Well, I don't. But lots of Catholics do.
Mark
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <5h3upgF...@mid.individual.net>):
> Cast your votes here
> ------------------------------
>
> a) Nashton is so stupid that he didn't realise that video is from 1997 and
> thought he'd found something new.
I pick this one.
>
> b) Nashton knew it was from 1997 but he's so stupid that he thought people
> here wouldn't know that.
>
> c) Nashton knew about the discusion here before but he's so stupid that he
> forgot all about it.
>
> d) Same old story, Nashton going back over old arguments he's lost countless
> times before, hoping that sheer perseverance will overcome his stupidity.
>
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Boikat
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5h3upgF...@mid.individual.net...
Allof the above. What did I win?
Boikat
>
>
Gerry Murphy
"Boikat" <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:KE2ri.16278$MW6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
What I want to know is when we get issued the hoods that Ray mentioned some
months back?
I never got mine.
Boikat
"Gerry Murphy" <gerry...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7OydnZLqrv8BQzHb...@comcast.com...
They were sent back to the manufacturer. For some reason they only had one
eye hole in the center of the forehead.
Gerry Murphy
Sigh! <Clops away forlornly>
Augray
wrote in <KE2ri.16278$MW6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net> :
Hey, my "nom de guerre" comes before yours, so why wasn't I informed
when my tenure started?
>Boikat
Tom McDonald
> Cast your votes here
> ------------------------------
>
> a) Nashton is so stupid that he didn't realise that video is from 1997 and
> thought he'd found something new.
Yes.
> b) Nashton knew it was from 1997 but he's so stupid that he thought people
> here wouldn't know that.
Yes.
> c) Nashton knew about the discusion here before but he's so stupid that he
> forgot all about it.
Yes.
> d) Same old story, Nashton going back over old arguments he's lost countless
> times before, hoping that sheer perseverance will overcome his stupidity.
Yes.
I dislike false quadrachotomies. In this case, they belie the
target's proven capacity to believe several conflicting ideas at
the same time.
Nashton
> Cast your votes here
> ------------------------------
>
> a) Nashton is so stupid that he didn't realise that video is from 1997 and
> thought he'd found something new.
There has to be a statutory clause somewhere that states that when
people were stumped more than 5 years ago, that it doesn't count.
>
> b) Nashton knew it was from 1997 but he's so stupid that he thought people
> here wouldn't know that.
LOL
>
> c) Nashton knew about the discusion here before but he's so stupid that he
> forgot all about it.
LOL
>
> d) Same old story, Nashton going back over old arguments he's lost countless
> times before, hoping that sheer perseverance will overcome his stupidity.
Some content in your posts would be a change in pace.
Do you *ever* at least *try* to say something of substance in your posts?
Nashton
> On 2007-07-29, Nashton <na...@na.na> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>> for yourselves.
>
> This argument is frequently made by rather dull people who can't think
> for themselves. It's called "projection".
Oh, thank you Einstein!
>
>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>> other group I've participated in.
>>
>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
>> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
>> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
>> order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> Lessee... People informed you that the video was edited from a longer
> interview,
People *informed* me? Too funny. Is that enough for you when you're
investigating something? Do other people "inform" you of the truth?
All the deadbeats of t-o managed to do was demonstrate their everlasting
affection towards their spiritual leader.
that he was not stumped, that the interviewers were not honest
> either in seeking nor in their representation of the interview.
He was stumped. I dare you to prove otherwise.
>
> None of these are ad hominems. They simply facts.
Could you be kind enough to humor me and expose these "facts." Thanks in
advance.
>
> Of course you remain a hopeless, hapless, unimaginative buffoon without
> anything to say, but that's just an observation, not part of my argument.
Would this qualify as an ad hom? I ask for information only.
>
>> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
>> moral or otherwise.
>
> Well, I don't. But lots of Catholics do.
No kidding, Sherlock.
>
> Mark
>
Gerry Murphy
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gspammail.com> wrote in message
news:wD5ri.19$e3...@newsfe04.lga...
Wouldn't that be a 'tetrachotomy'? ( Or is that some sort of pasta? )
8-}
If 'a' and 'b' didn't exclude each other I'd also vote "all-of-the-above".
Ernest Major
<kil...@gspammail.com> writes
>I dislike false quadrachotomies
Point of pedantry - tetrachotomies. (If one is a prescriptivist,
dichotomy is borrowed from Greek. If one is a descriptivist Google
reports 456 uses for tetrachotomy, and 13 for quadrachotomy (and 27 for
quadrichotomy and 1 for tetrichotomy).)
--
alias Ernest Major
alwaysaskingquestions
> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>> Cast your votes here
>> ------------------------------
> Some content in your posts would be a change in pace.
> Do you *ever* at least *try* to say something of substance in your
> posts?
Plenty of content in my posts - problem is that you don't know the
difference between content and crap.
Like ... a 10 year old video hammered to death long ago is content ?
Dan Luke
"Nashton" wrote:
> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well read
> the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking for
> yourselves.
LOL
You wouldn't recognize independent thinking if it had searchlights and a
siren.
What a pratt you are, Nashie.
--
Dan
"Don't make me nervous when I'm carryin' a baseball bat."
- Big Joe Turner
Tom McDonald
> stew dean wrote:
<snip>
> He was essentally mislead into being interviewed by
>> a creationist.
>
> More hearsay, I see.
If by hear-say you mean 'first-hand account'.
Were you there? Dawkins was. By the standards of creationists,
this puts him in the catbird seat wrt knowing what happened.
You've already seen this and dismissed it, but here it is again
for those who care to read what happened:
'Creationist Deception Exposed'
"The Skeptic", Vol 18 No 3
by Barry Williams
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm
But in fact, Dawkins was not alone in the room, and at least one
of the others, the producer, Gillian Brown*, had this response to
William's article:
[excerpt]
"GB: After he asked for the camera to be switched off, Dawkins
asked that his answers to the first few questions would not be
used (and they have not been used). He then agreed to make a
statement, but refused to take more questions from Philip. We
resumed recording, then after he finished his statement I asked
for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be
seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause
seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked
me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did. After
some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on again and
his final answer was recorded, the answer which appears in the
video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question.
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. Your concern is that the
pause was fabricated. No, the pause followed by an irrelevant
answer was in response to that exact question, a question which
Dr. Dawkins could not answer and would have preferred not to even
discuss. “Ludicrous” perhaps, but the question was indeed evaded.
If you would care to view the unedited tape you will be able to
confirm my account."
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp
There is more, including a note from Glen Morton saying:
“I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview
100% supports Gillian Brown's contention that Dawkins couldn't
answer the question."
Here is one key part of Barry William's response to Gillian
Brown's complaints:
"The real point at issue is not what the question was,
but that the question appeared in the tape at all. The
tape consists of three other scientists (apart from Richard
Dawkins) speaking about their views on the topic
of information and evolution. In each case, the scientists
make statements of their views, with no sign of an
interviewer. Interspersed with the statements are some
nice pictures of animals and iterations of the party line
by the narrator, Chris Nicholls and Don Batten, a biologist
who works for AiG. (To any knowledgeable
viewer, these latter add nothing of substance to the tape,
serving as little more than commercials.)
But anyone who has ever taken part in interviews
for documentaries will know that there is always an
interviewer present to feed in questions and to keep
the speaker on topic. Nothing wrong with that, it is normal
practice for documentary makers. The same technique
applied in the first three statements by Dawkins.
Then came a critical moment - Richard Dawkins,
having had it confirmed that he had been played for a
sucker, lost his temper. Any balanced documentary
maker, responsible journalist, or other genuine seeker
after knowledge, would have paused at this point,
sought to find out what had upset the subject and tried
to find a way the interview could continue so that information
could be imparted. But for a propagandist
it must have seemed like a “gift from God”; a way to
make the “enemy” look bad. Opportunism, pure and
simple, and an opportunity that was not rejected"
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/4_response.pdf
Now it seems clear that Dawkins did not answer the question he
was so pointedly asked (in a way that none of Brown's pets were).
It is equally clear that Dawkins was competent to answer the
question, having just written a book in which genetic information
played a key role.
But either he forgot the question, or he was so put off by the
sheer chutzpa of Brown's duplicity that he just spit-balled a
truism.
In any case, the impression left by the film is that this leading
evolutionary light was stumped by a simple question from an
ignorant shill for AIG. In fact, this is how Brown ended her
reply to Williams:
"I just have one final question: Could you give any
example of an evolutionary process or mechanism which
can be seen to create new functional information at
the genetic level?"
Some months after her ambush of Dawkins, she still thought this
was an unanswerable question for evolutionary folks. IOW, she
didn't do her due diligence, and was still out to make propaganda
points for her side.
------------------------------------
BTW, while I haven't been able to find 'From a frog to a prince'
on the ICR web site, I did find it on both the AIG and the
(former AIG) Creation Ministries International web sites.
Ham's American AIG site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/From-a-Frog-to-a-Prince,4729,229.aspx
Or:
Oz's CMI site:
https://store.creationontheweb.com/us/product_info.php?cPath=23_32&products_id=764&osCsid=c689c2faf5cadcc950814fb52cb2878c
Or:
A quick Google using the key words (include double quotation
marks in the search box) '"from a frog to a prince" video' shows
that the fraud is still being presented for sale (or as proof of
one problem with evolution) by a number of Christian sites.
-----------------------------------------------
[* I'm not sure whether Gillian Brown is also Gillian Norman, but
I suspect so. See:
"Upstream Media, (formerly Keziah MultiMedia), is directed by
Trevor and Gillian Norman, with 20 years experience in production
of documentaries that focus on controversial issues of human
rights, the environment and religious faith.
"During the 1980s-90s, Gillian Norman reported news and produced
current affairs reports and political documentaries on regional
conflicts in Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile
and Ecuador."
http://www.upstreammedia.com.au/index.htm
If Brown is indeed now Norman, then it is interesting that this
blurb calls her 'Norman' as though that was her name during the
1980's and the 1990's. A small point, true; but still a bit of a
cock-up on the accuracy front.
Interestingly, some of Upstream Media's work appears to be good,
or at least on the hard side of some difficult issues.]
geo...@hotmail.com
> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> for yourselves.
> other group I've participated in.
>
> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> moral or otherwise.
LOL. You really are a crap troll, Nashy, making such obvious lies in
the title of the thread itself. Dawkins isn't my leader. He's some guy
who says a lot of accurate and cool stuff about evolution. He's also
an outspoken atheist, which is fine if you're into that. And let's
face it, your video all depends on whether creationists can be trusted
or not. Can they, Nashy? Would you place your trust in these chaps?
Mark VandeWettering
Well, I don't see how I could prove whether he was stumped or not. If you'd
like to tell me just what evidence you would accept as proof, then perhaps
I could tell you whether I could prove it or not.
It is untrue that there is no such thing as a stupid question. Dawkins
was faced with trying to present a reasonable answer to an unreasonable
question. It takes a certain degree of finesse and care when providing
answers to such questions, particularly when one is viewed as a symbol
of science by the public, and such responses are recorded.
Dawkins has written of the incident:
The interview began. I have considerable experience
of television work, and I was initially surprised at
the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I
carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview
proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the
questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was,
in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my
house under false pretences.
The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce
an example of an evolutionary process which increases the
information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody
except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an
easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection
increases the information content of the genome all the time
— that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from
an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to
put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts
that evolution happened.
Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these
people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences
— in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am
a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and
these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for
a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and,
I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I
decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a
polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop
the tape, which they did.
The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and
asked them to leave my house. Gillian Brown pleaded with me,
saying that she had flown all the way from Australia especially
to interview me. She begged me not to send her home empty
handed, after they had travelled such a long way. She assured me
that they were not creationists, but were taking a balanced view
of all sides in the debate. Like a fool, I took pity on her,
and agreed to continue. I remember that, having had quite an
acrimonious argument with her, when I finally agreed to resume
the interview I made a conscious effort to be extra polite and
friendly.
I see nothing in the video tape which causes me to doubt this explanation
of his behavior: it seems entirely reasonable and appropriate. On the
other hand, one thing is clear: Brown was misrepresenting herself. She
was a creationist, and she was not trying to create a balanced view of
all sides of the debate.
>> None of these are ad hominems. They simply facts.
>
> Could you be kind enough to humor me and expose these "facts." Thanks in
> advance.
We have Dawkins description of the events above. Brown has made some
comments which contradict Dawkins depiction. Given that she obviously
misrepresented herself to get the interview in the first place, I'm somewhat
disinclined to accept her view over Dawkins, but perhaps I'm being unfair.
If you think that Brown's depiction reveals something interesting about
the incident, feel free to bring it to my attention and I'll try to address
it.
>> Of course you remain a hopeless, hapless, unimaginative buffoon without
>> anything to say, but that's just an observation, not part of my argument.
>
> Would this qualify as an ad hom? I ask for information only.
Since I am merely stating a fact, rather than an argument, the answer
would appear to be "no".
>
>>
>>> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
>>> moral or otherwise.
>>
>> Well, I don't. But lots of Catholics do.
>
> No kidding, Sherlock.
I've never gone by that pseudonym, nor Einstein.
Mark
>
>>
>> Mark
Nashton
Could you please be more succinct and point out why you think Dawkins
wasn't stumped by the question? Honestly, I read all your references and
used the links, but all I'm getting is Dawkins making excuses for not
having answered the question.
I can't see why he was upset at the question and I can't, for the love
of me, understand why he wouldn't have answered it unless he didn't know
the answer.
The rest, IMV, is obfuscation and there is nothing I can discern that
would make me change my mind.
Mark VandeWettering
e) All of the above.
(This would appear to be a logical impossibility, given that a) and b) seem
to be mutually contradictory, but I would submit that Nashton frequently
espouses mutually contradictory opinions, and as such, they both are
consistent with his behavior.)
Mark
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> there is nothing I can discern that
> would make me change my mind.
There, now I've made your post honest.
Steven J.
problem. Creationists themselves cite Dawkins as speaking of the
genome containing "information," yet Dawkins is most noted as an
advocate of the power of random mutation and natural selection to
modify genomes and the bodies built by genomes. Note that the point
at hand is why Dawkins paused -- not why his answer didn't strike his
questioners or you as satisfactory, but why he seemed not to think he
had an answer at all. Considering that he's written several books
answering just that question, it seems vastly unlikely that he should
be thinking "my God! why didn't that problem ever occur to me
before?" Far more likely is Dawkins own account of the incident: that
he just then realized that he was giving an interview to creationists,
determined to misunderstand and misrepresent him (as they did, of
course), and despaired of coming up with an answer that they couldn't
edit and distort.
>
> I can't see why he was upset at the question and I can't, for the love
> of me, understand why he wouldn't have answered it unless he didn't know
> the answer.
>
reliable, unbiased account of the subjects of his films. After all,
if you can't understand how careful editing can distort and turn facts
into lies, how could you think that anything Moore shows in his films
might not be the plain and simple truth?
>
> The rest, IMV, is obfuscation and there is nothing I can discern that
> would make me change my mind.
>
-- Steven J.
Mark VandeWettering
He said he wasn't stumped. The fact that he can in fact answer the
question should be some indication.
> I can't see why he was upset at the question and I can't, for the love
> of me, understand why he wouldn't have answered it unless he didn't know
> the answer.
Yes, well, you aren't exactly the sharpest pencil in the box, nor are you
being particularly honest, so perhaps that doesn't count all that much.
> The rest, IMV, is obfuscation and there is nothing I can discern that
> would make me change my mind.
Since nothing will make you change your mind, what does it matter what
the evidence says or does not say?
Mark
Desertphile
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cast your votes here
> ------------------------------
>
> a) Nashton is so stupid that he didn't realise that video is from 1997 and
> thought he'd found something new.
>
> b) Nashton knew it was from 1997 but he's so stupid that he thought people
> here wouldn't know that.
>
> c) Nashton knew about the discusion here before but he's so stupid that he
> forgot all about it.
>
> d) Same old story, Nashton going back over old arguments he's lost countless
> times before, hoping that sheer perseverance will overcome his stupidity.
Considering all of the evidence that suggests Naff-off has a
learning disability, I suspect he forgot the video has been
debunked and proven a hoax for a decade.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
mc...@sunset.net
> On Jul 29, 8:10 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> > read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> > for yourselves.
> > other group I've participated in.
>
> > The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> > Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
> > the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> > order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> > moral or otherwise.
>
> occurred. Bringing it up now just shows how desperate anti-evolution
> activists have become in the absence of a promising theory of their
> own.
Interesting that you consider this a hoax, because down on this thread
another claims it really happened but offers another excuse. So it is
quite evident that the evolutionists are contradicting themselves in
answer to this question. Not surprizing.
JM
mc...@sunset.net
> On 29 Jul, 14:25, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Boikat wrote:
> > > "Nashton" <n...@na.na> wrote in message
> > >news:Us%qi.106126$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
> > >> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> > >> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> > >> for yourselves.
> > >> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> > >> other group I've participated in.
>
> > >> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> > >> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing.
>
> > > for several years already.
>
> > It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
>
> so that has been covered many times. Dawkins became aware by the
> nature of the question where the debate was going and the nature of
> the questioning. He was debating wether to deny an interview, this has
> been well covered. He was essentally mislead into being interviewed by
> a creationist.
>
> Stew Dean
Interesting. Frank J claims it was a hoax, and you claim that it was
not a hoax, but that Dawkins was mislead and debated whether or not to
deny an interview.
That's funny! For one, he evidently decided not to deny the
interview and after the camcorder came back on he decided to answer
anyway, but changed the subject!
So, evidently that proves your contention to be incorrect.
JM
Kermit
> "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@gspammail.com> wrote in message
Isn't a tetrachotomy when the medic has to slit your windpipe open
after an accident, so you can breathe?
Kermit
Mark VandeWettering
Shhh. Adults are talking.
Mark
mc...@sunset.net
> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> for yourselves.
> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> other group I've participated in.
>
> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
> moral or otherwise.
Apparently none of your critics have actually refuted your
contention.
Evolutionist Frank J claims it to be a hoax. But is contradicted by
evolutionist Tom McDonald who says that Dawkins was deciding on
whether or not to debate the creationist.
So it looks like it's evolutionist versus evolutionist. Who is right?
Who is telling the truth?
Evidently Dawkins did decide to debate the creationist after the
camcorder was turned off. But Dawkins did not answer properly and
changed the subject. So this seems to suggest that he really was
stumped.
JM
Steven J.
modified and put together deceptively. Why should not a hoaxed video
use real footage, edited misleadingly?
>
> JM
Ye Old One
McClueless, the simple fact that YOU think it is real is enough
evidence for most people that it was a hoax.
Now, any chance of cites for those "millions" of school textbooks that
used Piltdown Man to convince kids that evolution was real? Or are you
really aiming at avoiding your blatant lie for a full two years?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
When you manage to get a brain that is able to tell the difference
between blatant hoaxes (this video, Noah's Ark, the bible) and reality
then, and only then, will your views be considered seriously.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
>Cast your votes here
>------------------------------
>
>a) Nashton is so stupid that he didn't realise that video is from 1997 and
>thought he'd found something new.
My vote is for the above.
>
>b) Nashton knew it was from 1997 but he's so stupid that he thought people
>here wouldn't know that.
>
>c) Nashton knew about the discusion here before but he's so stupid that he
>forgot all about it.
>
>d) Same old story, Nashton going back over old arguments he's lost countless
>times before, hoping that sheer perseverance will overcome his stupidity.
While he does that sometimes, he is nowhere near the "Master Level" of
McClueless in this area.
--
Bob.
stew dean
> stew dean wrote:
> > On 29 Jul, 14:25, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
> >> Boikat wrote:
> >>> "Nashton" <n...@na.na> wrote in message
> > Dawkins became aware by the
> > nature of the question where the debate was going and the nature of
> > the questioning.
>
> Dawkins was asked a question that any legitimate interviewer may have
> asked.
Actualy the question was very much a creationist question. I know that
many folks no longer debate with creationists because of a history of
misrepresentation - this does support that.
> He was debating wether to deny an interview,
>
> LOL
No seriously - he was ambushed by a creationist.
> > this has been well covered.
>
> You mean well covered up?
Go to youtube and explore the follow up videos. You'll find others
talking about this.
Stew Dean
John Wilkins
> "Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:1bcpa3ddek4hlng3u...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:10:17 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.na> wrote:
> >
> > Dawkins is a "leader?" People who read talk.origins have a
> > "leader?" When did this all happen?
>
> We took a vote. Everyone voted for themselves, so it was decided that
> leadership woulf be divided equally, I'm the leader now, but given the
> number of posters, well, my time is already up. I don't remember who's in
> charge now. I think we went alphabetical.
Bugger, that means I have to wait *ages*. Still, I beat Ed and Sloan
Wilson.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Steven J.
> On Jul 29, 5:10 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> > read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> > for yourselves.
> > The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> > other group I've participated in.
>
> > The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> > Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
> > discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> > the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> > order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> > And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
> > moral or otherwise.
>
> Apparently none of your critics have actually refuted your
> contention.
>
> Evolutionist Frank J claims it to be a hoax. But is contradicted by
> evolutionist Tom McDonald who says that Dawkins was deciding on
> whether or not to debate the creationist.
>
in which Dawkins is shown answering a different question as though it
were an answer to the question "how does new information enter the
genome?" Presenting an answer to one question as though it were the
answer offered to another question is, surely, worthy of the term
"hoax." Tom McDonald was addressing the question of why Dawkins
paused so long in the first place.
>
> So it looks like it's evolutionist versus evolutionist. Who is right?
> Who is telling the truth?
>
>
> Evidently Dawkins did decide to debate the creationist after the
> camcorder was turned off. But Dawkins did not answer properly and
> changed the subject. So this seems to suggest that he really was
> stumped.
>
Dawkins is famous for his books insisting that the genome contains
"information" and that mutation and natural selection can add
information to the genome. Why should he regard himself as "stumped"
by the question he's spent his writing career answering? On the other
hand, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that he didn't see much
point in explaining things to people determined to misunderstand, or
much hope that the video would be edited honestly.
>
> JM
-- Steven J.
Ernest Major
<mccoy-118577355...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
mc...@sunset.net writes
>On Jul 29, 5:10 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>> for yourselves.
>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>> other group I've participated in.
>>
>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
>> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
>> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
>> order to attempt to belittle me.
>>
>> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
>> moral or otherwise.
>
>
>Apparently none of your critics have actually refuted your
>contention.
>
>
>Evolutionist Frank J claims it to be a hoax. But is contradicted by
>evolutionist Tom McDonald who says that Dawkins was deciding on
>whether or not to debate the creationist.
There is no contradiction. (I think fraud is a better choice of words
than hoax, but as has already been pointed out a hoax can be created
from real elements.)
>
>So it looks like it's evolutionist versus evolutionist. Who is right?
>Who is telling the truth?
Both.
>
>Evidently Dawkins did decide to debate the creationist after the
>camcorder was turned off. But Dawkins did not answer properly and
>changed the subject. So this seems to suggest that he really was
>stumped.
It wasn't a debate; it was an interview.
>
>JM
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Gerry Murphy
<mc...@sunset.net>, despite being warned not to interrupt the adults, wrote
in message
news:mccoy-118577355...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
....nothing meaningful. Isn't that a surprise?
<snip>
McLaughingstock,
It's now day 404 of the McPiltdown Death March.
Where's that citation to back up your claim that Piltdown man made it into
millions of textbooks in support of evolution?
<We now return you to your regularly scheduled McCrap>
Gerry Murphy
"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185771804....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I have a statue of myself, a terra-cotta Me. 8-}
Frank J
I meant to say "when the *scam* occurred." If there are competing
hypotheses among "evoltuionists," at least there's a healthy debate,
and not a cover-up, like anti-evolution activists increasingly do with
the fatal differences in the mutually-contradictory creationisms.
The way I heard it years ago is that Dawkins just realized that he had
been set up by anti-science activists, so anything serious that he
would say from then on would be met by a Gish gallop, and/or edited to
quote him out of context. Also, I recall that they specifically asked
if "natural selection" not "mutation" produces more "information."
Phrasing it that way, undoubtedly deliberately by the scammers, makes
it harder to answer in a way that the audience would understand.
Nevertheless, I was surprised that he didn't have a quicker comeback.
Of course that in no way means that the scammers had anything to stump
evolution, much less any promising alternative.
Rolf
"Nashton" <na...@na.na> wrote in message
news:UV5ri.17690$5y....@newsfe18.lga...
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > On 2007-07-29, Nashton <na...@na.na> wrote:
> >
> >> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
> >> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of
thinking
> >> for yourselves.
> >
> > for themselves. It's called "projection".
>
> Oh, thank you Einstein!
>
> >
> >> other group I've participated in.
> >>
> >> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> >> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
> >> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> >> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs
in
> >> order to attempt to belittle me.
> >
> > interview,
>
> People *informed* me? Too funny. Is that enough for you when you're
> investigating something? Do other people "inform" you of the truth?
>
> All the deadbeats of t-o managed to do was demonstrate their everlasting
> affection towards their spiritual leader.
>
> that he was not stumped, that the interviewers were not honest
> > either in seeking nor in their representation of the interview.
>
> He was stumped. I dare you to prove otherwise.
>
> >
>
> Could you be kind enough to humor me and expose these "facts." Thanks in
> advance.
>
> >
> > anything to say, but that's just an observation, not part of my
argument.
>
> Would this qualify as an ad hom? I ask for information only.
>
> >
scientific,
> >> moral or otherwise.
> >
>
> No kidding, Sherlock.
>
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
gregwrld
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cast your votes here
> ------------------------------
>
> a) Nashton is so stupid that he didn't realise that video is from 1997 and
> thought he'd found something new.
>
> here wouldn't know that.
>
> forgot all about it.
>
> times before, hoping that sheer perseverance will overcome his stupidity.
d) Nashie-poo just doesn't have much of a life. He's not a msseur,
he's a garbage-man.
gregwrld
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Nope. These days, with all the modern machinery they have to use,
NashtOff would not qualify for the job.
>
>gregwrld
--
Bob.
Desertphile
What is evidenent is that your reading comprehension is very poor.
The video is a hoax: it has been known to be a hoax for at least
ten years.
Nashton
> On Jul 29, 5:10 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote:
>> Doesn't matter how acutely bright, academically accomplished and well
>> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
>> for yourselves.
>> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
>> other group I've participated in.
>>
>> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
>> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing. Not only do you refuse to
>> discuss the issue and expose the facts that you believe can show that
>> the YouTube video is a hoax, but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
>> order to attempt to belittle me.
>>
>> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
>> moral or otherwise.
>
>
> Apparently none of your critics have actually refuted your
> contention.
Not one. Many managed to put in a few insults and add their vitriol;)
>
>
> Evolutionist Frank J claims it to be a hoax. But is contradicted by
> evolutionist Tom McDonald who says that Dawkins was deciding on
> whether or not to debate the creationist.
>
> So it looks like it's evolutionist versus evolutionist. Who is right?
> Who is telling the truth?
Very well put.
>
> Evidently Dawkins did decide to debate the creationist after the
> camcorder was turned off. But Dawkins did not answer properly and
> changed the subject. So this seems to suggest that he really was
> stumped.
This is the crux of the whole matter. It just doesn't make sense in the
light of the fact that if he was predisposed to give an interview, he
could have at least answered the question. Which he didn't. The man was
stumped.
I wonder if anyone else would take a shot at answering this apparently
*easy* question, that Dawkins apparently didn't even have to break a
sweat to answer;)
>
> JM
>
>
Nashton
Bla, bla, bla. Nothing more to add, why post?
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>why post?
We ask that of every post you make.
--
Bob.
Frank J
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
I am going to do what no anti-evolution activist would be caught dead
doing, and that is seek additional evidence that could possibly change
my mind:
The last I read of this, ~9 years ago, I recall was that Dawkins was
set up, and the delay was real, fueled by his sudden realization that
he was scammed by anti-evolution activists. Because he expected to be
misquoted and/or expected a Gish gallop instead of honest questions,
he paused to find the best answer.
Is that still the most common explanation, or has some evidence
surfaced since then that warrants a different explanation?
Ernest Major
writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Frank J
Nice try, but as I said before, I meant the latter, not hoax in
whatever sense you mean. I certainly never thought that Dawkins was in
on it, if that's what you inferred. If there's evidence for that, I'll
certainly consider it, and not only because I'm not a fan of Dawkins.
Evidence is evidence. But you wouldn't understand.
>
> That's funny! For one, he evidently decided not to deny the
> interview and after the camcorder came back on he decided to answer
> anyway, but changed the subject!
>
> So, evidently that proves your contention to be incorrect.
>
> JM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
alwaysaskingquestions
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1185826753.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I am going to do what no anti-evolution activist would be caught dead
> doing, and that is seek additional evidence that could possibly change
> my mind:
>
> The last I read of this, ~9 years ago, I recall was that Dawkins was
> set up, and the delay was real, fueled by his sudden realization that
> he was scammed by anti-evolution activists. Because he expected to be
> misquoted and/or expected a Gish gallop instead of honest questions,
> he paused to find the best answer.
According to Dawkins, he was trying to decide whether he sould retain his
natural English reserve and be polite to them or whether he should just say
fukit and throw them out of the house.
Look at this version of the tape, I suspect it's nearer the truth - Dawkins
has given it his official approval :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_MN_O9ICzY
AC
Nothing. Just more immoral liars for Jesus like Nashton trying to get
mileage out of this old story. Nothing like watching a Jesus freak
violate their own alleged morals to get a dig in against a scientist.
And people wonder why Dawkins so despises all things religious.
Perhaps when our religious cohorts make more complaints about Dawkins,
they should ponder how deeply immoral and lacking in honor some of the
coreligionists are, and how utterly it falsifies any notion that
religion can enforce good behavior.
--
Aaron Clausen
mc...@sunset.net
Interesting, but your answer is not satisfactory. In fact, the more
you answer the more your contention seems unreasonable. Because Tom
McDonald, when he claimed that Dawkins was deciding on whether to
grant the creationist a debate indicated a couple of admissions:
number one, it was a creationist forum to which the Dawkins was
participating. This implies that if there was a hoax then it was
limited to this forum and not to pirated footage from elsewhere. This
indicates that the question that was asked was the one that was
actually given according to the video. But the evolutionist provided
refutation video suggested that a different question was actually
asked, by overlapping footage of a man asking the question over the
woman who asked the actual question. This implied that a tougher
question could have been asked, one that justified the fact that
Dawkins was reasonably stumped. But apparently this is the situation
that you claim did not happen.
The hoax, you imply, occurred in positioning Dawkins answer after the
camera was turned back on.
Secondly, what makes your answer unsatisfactory is that when the
camera was turned back on it was quite apparent that by Dawkin's
reaction the camera was being turned back on. In this case, if this
is still a hoax, then the camera must have been turned off twice. And
the wrong footage was then juxtaposed to make Dawkins look as if he
were answering incorrectly.
There is one last reason as to why it appears that you are incorrect.
For one, no evolutionist here, has taken the time to actually get some
real facts in support of his contention. We are told that it is a
hoax and no evidence is offered. Nobody actually brought Dawkin's
opinion of this matter to bare, and second, nobody is actually
telling us what the real context of the footage consists of. What
really did happen? And lastly nobody knows what the reaction is,
coming from the producer's of this video, to your claims.
The over all impression that I have is that you're upset. That's a
given. Dawkins is your hero. And of course evolutionists aren't
supposed to lose. I can understand that.
Additionally, what reinforces my idea that this video is authentic is
the fact that I have often heard or read creationists asking this very
question, and I have never read or heard any evolutionist answer it.
So if there is an answer in print somewhere, please provide the book
or magazine citation. Maybe that would help you in some regard. But
it still wouldn't clear the fact that your answers come across as
speculatory. You haven't gathered the facts. You haven't provided an
alternative context.
JM
Mark VandeWettering
> Bla, bla, bla. Nothing more to add, why post?
Talking to yourself?
Mark
alwaysaskingquestions
"AC" <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185828706.5...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> And people wonder why Dawkins so despises all things religious.
Please don't judge all Christians by the likes of Nashton and Martinez, they
are in a class of their own.
alwaysaskingquestions
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-118582960...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 1:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 12:32 am, mc...@sunset.net wrote:
[snip convoluted crap>
> Nobody actually brought Dawkin's
> opinion of this matter to bare
Dawkins' version has been posted here several times over the last few days.
Have you no shame whatsoever in telling bare faced lies which are go
glaringly obvious? Is that compatible with *your* form of Christianity?
mc...@sunset.net
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>
> news:mccoy-118582960...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 30, 1:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 30, 12:32 am, mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>
> [snip convoluted crap>
>
> > Nobody actually brought Dawkin's
> > opinion of this matter to bare
>
> Dawkins' version has been posted here several times over the last few days.
If you are answering Dawkin's version then that's how you should
attribute all answers. All answers as from coming from Dawkins.
>
> Have you no shame whatsoever in telling bare faced lies which are go
> glaringly obvious? Is that compatible with *your* form of Christianity?
I don't need to apologise from something I haven't done. I've merely
put forth the fact that:
1. The video clearly indicates that when the camcorder was turned back
on that Dawkins acknowledged it was turned back on. And proceeded to
answer with an irrelevant answer. If I am lying surely you could point
it out from the youtube.video that is still posted. Nothings changed
as far as I'm aware of.
2. An evolutionist claimed that Dawkins was deciding whether or not to
debate, but I ask, to what question? What question was asked that
Dawkins wanted to debate or not? So then, the evolutionists admit
that the question asked was the question that Dawkins heard. And
that's when Dawkins stalled. We are told that Dawkins was not thinking
about answering that question, but rather to debate or not. This
implies that he was tricked into being on this forum. He didn't know
that creationist questions were going to be asked. Nonetheless, the
camera was turned off per Dawkin's request. And when the camera was
turned back on, (and as I said above it appears that Dawkins
acknowledges that it's being turned back on). This implies that if
there was a hoax then the camera must have been turned off twice. And
the wrong juxtapositioning was in place to make it look like Dawkins
was changing the subject. But I find it hard to believe that the
camera was turned off twice, and no one claims that it had been.
3. Lastly, no one has brought froth any evidence. For instance, what
is the alternative context for the footage? No one has provided. And
so far I haven't seen anyone state or quote what Dawkins actually
said.
JM
mc...@sunset.net
> <mc...@sunset.net>, despite being warned not to interrupt the adults, wrote
>
> ....nothing meaningful. Isn't that a surprise?
>
> <snip>
>
> McLaughingstock,
>
> It's now day 404 of the McPiltdown Death March.
> Where's that citation to back up your claim that Piltdown man made it into
> millions of textbooks in support of evolution?
I know. you're still on your Piltdown Death march, pretending that I
didn't provide to you any evidence. When you get to the cliff please
send us a card.
JM
Gerry Murphy
<mc...@sunset.net>, Star of "Left Behind in the Dust", "Back to the Bronze
Age" and "Raiders of the Nonexistent Ark" wrote in message
news:mccoy-118582960...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> So if there is an answer in print somewhere, please provide the book
> or magazine citation.
<snip>
Sure, McLaughingstock,
Just as soon as you provide that citation to back up your claim that
Piltdown man made it into millions of textbooks in support of evolution?
It's still day 404 of the McPiltdown Death March.
Carry on, McLaughingstock.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>I don't need to apologise from something I haven't done.
McClueless, you have a hell of a lot to apologize for, for both doing
and not doing.
--
Bob.
Boikat
"Gerry Murphy" <gerry...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r5udnc9D5fQYfTHb...@comcast.com...
>
> "Boikat" <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:sb5ri.16361$MW6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Gerry Murphy" <gerry...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:7OydnZLqrv8BQzHb...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Boikat" <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:KE2ri.16278$MW6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:1bcpa3ddek4hlng3u...@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:10:17 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.na> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dawkins is a "leader?" People who read talk.origins have a
> > > > > "leader?" When did this all happen?
> > > >
> > > > We took a vote. Everyone voted for themselves, so it was decided
that
> > > > leadership woulf be divided equally, I'm the leader now, but given
the
> > > > number of posters, well, my time is already up. I don't remember
> who's
> > in
> > > > charge now. I think we went alphabetical.
> > >
> > > What I want to know is when we get issued the hoods that Ray mentioned
> > some
> > > months back?
> > > I never got mine.
> >
> > They were sent back to the manufacturer. For some reason they only had
> one
> > eye hole in the center of the forehead.
>
> Sigh! <Clops away forlornly>
Ouch! :)
Boikat
>
>
Boikat
"Augray" <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:k3opa3lj4g8etr630...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:47:59 -0500, "Boikat" <bul...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote in <KE2ri.16278$MW6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net> :
>
> >"Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> wrote in message
> >news:1bcpa3ddek4hlng3u...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:10:17 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.na> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dawkins is a "leader?" People who read talk.origins have a
> >> "leader?" When did this all happen?
> >
> >We took a vote. Everyone voted for themselves, so it was decided that
> >leadership woulf be divided equally, I'm the leader now, but given the
> >number of posters, well, my time is already up. I don't remember who's
in
> >charge now. I think we went alphabetical.
>
> when my tenure started?
About ten minutes before mine did. What? You didn't get the menu?
Boikat
alwaysaskingquestions
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-118583311...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 2:40 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:mccoy-118582960...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 30, 1:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 30, 12:32 am, mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>>
>> [snip convoluted crap>
>>
>> > Nobody actually brought Dawkin's
>> > opinion of this matter to bare
>>
>> Dawkins' version has been posted here several times over the last few
>> days.
>
> If you are answering Dawkin's version then that's how you should
> attribute all answers. All answers as from coming from Dawkins.
Care to translate that into something I can understand?
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 30, 3:15 am, "Gerry Murphy" <gerrymur...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> <mc...@sunset.net>, despite being warned not to interrupt the adults, wrote
>> in messagenews:mccoy-118577355...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> ....nothing meaningful. Isn't that a surprise?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> McLaughingstock,
>>
>> It's now day 404 of the McPiltdown Death March.
>> Where's that citation to back up your claim that Piltdown man made it into
>> millions of textbooks in support of evolution?
>
>
>I know. you're still on your Piltdown Death march, pretending that I
>didn't provide to you any evidence.
Well you haven't.
>When you get to the cliff please
>send us a card.
What cliff is that McClueless?
>
>JM
>
>
>>
>> <We now return you to your regularly scheduled McCrap>
>
Funny sig there moron.
--
Bob.
mc...@sunset.net
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cast your votes here
> ------------------------------
>
> a) Nashton is so stupid that he didn't realise that video is from 1997 and
> thought he'd found something new.
It was new to me. It's not like I or most people are interested in
looking up Dawkins on youtube. Most of us would like to stick to
books. That doesn't make anyone stupid.
>
> b) Nashton knew it was from 1997 but he's so stupid that he thought people
> here wouldn't know that.
Knowing the date of a video certainly has nothing to do with the more
salient questions that are dealt with on this group.
>
> c) Nashton knew about the discusion here before but he's so stupid that he
> forgot all about it.
It's always a good idea not to call someone stupid and in the same
line use "discusion" rather than "discussion". Two s' not one. Of
course we all make mistakes when we are in a hurry. I've made plenty,
but that's the nature of the beast. But don't make a mistake when you
call someone stupid!
JM
Gerry Murphy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-118583319...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Boy, you really are McClueless, aren't you? It's YOU that's on the
McPiltdown ( please note the correct terminology ) Death march, McBozo.
Starting to get under your skin, eh?
You haven't provided any credible evidence, just the usual lying McCrap and
that tortured 'McLogic' we've come to know so well.
Anybody can check through the archived messages to satisfy themselves that
you're lying.
Tell you what, do you want to put it to a vote of the group's participants
whether you've backed up your claim?
If the vote goes your way I'll humbly apologize.
If it goes against you you'll issue a retraction.
Got the stomach for that, McLaughingstock?
I say you haven't, but that you'll come back with some specious rationale
for not putting it to a vote.
Come on, McGutless.
Tiktaalik
> On Jul 30, 3:15 am, "Gerry Murphy" <gerrymur...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > <mc...@sunset.net>, despite being warned not to interrupt the adults, wrote
> > in messagenews:mccoy-118577355...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > ....nothing meaningful. Isn't that a surprise?
>
> > <snip>
>
> > McLaughingstock,
>
> > It's now day 404 of the McPiltdown Death March.
> > Where's that citation to back up your claim that Piltdown man made it into
> > millions of textbooks in support of evolution?
>
> I know. you're still on your Piltdown Death march, pretending that I
> didn't provide to you any evidence.
The only evidence you have ever provided is evidence that you are
functionally braindead.
> When you get to the cliff please
> send us a card.
>
> JM
>
>
>
>
>
> > <We now return you to your regularly scheduled McCrap>
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
Boikat
"Nashton" <na...@na.na> wrote in message
news:MXari.109758$LE1....@newsfe13.lga...
> Tom McDonald wrote:
> > Nashton wrote:
> >> stew dean wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> He was essentally mislead into being interviewed by
> >>> a creationist.
> >>
> >
> > If by hear-say you mean 'first-hand account'.
> >
> > Were you there? Dawkins was. By the standards of creationists, this puts
> > him in the catbird seat wrt knowing what happened.
> >
> > You've already seen this and dismissed it, but here it is again for
> > those who care to read what happened:
> >
> > 'Creationist Deception Exposed'
> > "The Skeptic", Vol 18 No 3
> >
> > by Barry Williams
> >
> > http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm
<snip>
>
> Could you please be more succinct and point out why you think Dawkins
> wasn't stumped by the question? Honestly, I read all your references and
> used the links, but all I'm getting is Dawkins making excuses for not
> having answered the question.
>
> I can't see why he was upset at the question and I can't, for the love
> of me, understand why he wouldn't have answered it unless he didn't know
> the answer.
>
> The rest, IMV, is obfuscation and there is nothing I can discern that
> would make me change my mind.
You're wearing you Ignorantium Helmet to block the Reality Rays again,
aren't you?
Boikat
--
"Krrrrriptonite!"
Lex Luthor
Boikat
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5h73rbF...@mid.individual.net...
And they ride the "Special" bus to school, too.
Boikat
"Nashton" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:Myqri.18419$rH6....@newsfe22.lga...
<snip>
>
> Bla, bla, bla. Nothing more to add, why post?
There went another irony meter.
Boikat
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1i21c3n.1xpjaid9tew6gN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
> Boikat <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> wrote in message
> > news:1bcpa3ddek4hlng3u...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:10:17 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.na> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dawkins is a "leader?" People who read talk.origins have a
> > > "leader?" When did this all happen?
> >
> > We took a vote. Everyone voted for themselves, so it was decided that
> > leadership woulf be divided equally, I'm the leader now, but given the
> > number of posters, well, my time is already up. I don't remember who's
in
> > charge now. I think we went alphabetical.
>
> Wilson.
Only about another ten minutes or so... Oz Time, of course, so that
probably means you were in charge 23 hours and 50 minutes ago.
Huh?
Shane
And your reason for assuming that either of them is a Christian is
what, exactly? Their behaviour? Their claims? Their--all things to all
men--approach? Their refusal to judge others? Their turning the other
cheek, going the extra mile and willingness to give reasons for the
hope they find within themselves? Their humility, etc. etc. etc.
Please do elaborate.
Steven J.
> On Jul 30, 1:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 12:32 am, mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>
>
> > > Apparently none of your critics have actually refuted your
> > > contention.
>
> > > Evolutionist Frank J claims it to be a hoax. But is contradicted by
> > > evolutionist Tom McDonald who says that Dawkins was deciding on
> > > whether or not to debate the creationist.
>
> > Frank J was referring to the cut, which occurs after several seconds,
> > in which Dawkins is shown answering a different question as though it
> > were an answer to the question "how does new information enter the
> > genome?" Presenting an answer to one question as though it were the
> > answer offered to another question is, surely, worthy of the term
> > "hoax." Tom McDonald was addressing the question of why Dawkins
> > paused so long in the first place.
>
> Interesting, but your answer is not satisfactory. In fact, the more
> you answer the more your contention seems unreasonable. Because Tom
> McDonald, when he claimed that Dawkins was deciding on whether to
> grant the creationist a debate indicated a couple of admissions:
> number one, it was a creationist forum to which the Dawkins was
> participating.
>
interview by a _soi-dissant_ "journalist" in his own home. He did not
realize, when he granted the interview, that the "journalist" was a
representative from a creationist ministry, dedicated to
misrepresenting evolutionary theory and the evidence pertaining to
it. When he realized that the "journalist" was actually a
professional anti-science propagandist, he was faced with the decision
whether to try to educate someone sworn to ineducability on this
issue, or whether to simply break off the interview and expel the fake
journalist. He was not deciding on a "debate" strictly speaking, but
an attempt to answer the question would have involved arguing with a
hostile interviewer determined that there could be no permissible
answer to that question, and dealing with the same problem --
condensing complex arguments and evidence into soundbites, and pitting
them against lies and half-truths that fit much more easily into
soundbites -- that occurs in debates with creationists.
>
> This implies that if there was a hoax then it was
> limited to this forum and not to pirated footage from elsewhere. This
> indicates that the question that was asked was the one that was
> actually given according to the video. But the evolutionist provided
> refutation video suggested that a different question was actually
> asked, by overlapping footage of a man asking the question over the
> woman who asked the actual question. This implied that a tougher
> question could have been asked, one that justified the fact that
> Dawkins was reasonably stumped. But apparently this is the situation
> that you claim did not happen.
>
a legitimate journalist with no axe to grind against evolutionary
theory, and later when editing the tape. The answer that Dawkins was
shown giving was offered to an earlier question, that was not shown in
the tape. You do understand that tapes can be cut up and put back
together showing events in a different order from that in which the
events actually occurred, do you not? The interviewer asked some
questions that were not shown in the edited version (this is normal),
and used Dawkins answer to this question as though it were his answer
to the question on "genetic information" (it was not -- he decided to
throw the interviewer and camera crew out of his house without
bothering to answer a question they obviously did not want an answer
to). This is not normal practice, except for liars.
>
> The hoax, you imply, occurred in positioning Dawkins answer after the
> camera was turned back on.
>
offers a seemingly irrelevant answer was filmed *before* the question,
and edited look as though it his answer was given in response to the
question on genetic information.
>
> Secondly, what makes your answer unsatisfactory is that when the
> camera was turned back on it was quite apparent that by Dawkin's
> reaction the camera was being turned back on. In this case, if this
> is still a hoax, then the camera must have been turned off twice. And
> the wrong footage was then juxtaposed to make Dawkins look as if he
> were answering incorrectly.
>
>
> There is one last reason as to why it appears that you are incorrect.
> For one, no evolutionist here, has taken the time to actually get some
> real facts in support of his contention. We are told that it is a
> hoax and no evidence is offered. Nobody actually brought Dawkin's
> opinion of this matter to bare, and second, nobody is actually
> telling us what the real context of the footage consists of. What
> really did happen? And lastly nobody knows what the reaction is,
> coming from the producer's of this video, to your claims.
>
Dawkins's opinion has been posted several times in this thread, in
case you are interested.
>
> The over all impression that I have is that you're upset. That's a
> given. Dawkins is your hero. And of course evolutionists aren't
> supposed to lose. I can understand that.
>
> Additionally, what reinforces my idea that this video is authentic is
> the fact that I have often heard or read creationists asking this very
> question, and I have never read or heard any evolutionist answer it.
>
Mutation and natural selection. Consider: known, observed sorts of
mutations include single-nucleotide substitutions, deletions of one or
more nucleotides, insertion of one or more nucleotides, duplication of
sections of the genome up to the entire genome, translocations of
sections of the genome, and reversals of sections of the genome. Now,
it is obvious that a sequence of known sorts of mutations can
transform any genome into any other genome. Therefore, logically,
either creationists are mistaken in supposing that evolution requires
"increases in genetic information," or they are mistaken in supposing
that no mutation can increase "genetic information."
>
> So if there is an answer in print somewhere, please provide the book
> or magazine citation. Maybe that would help you in some regard. But
> it still wouldn't clear the fact that your answers come across as
> speculatory. You haven't gathered the facts. You haven't provided an
> alternative context.
>
> JM
-- Steven J.
agrawaltr...@gmail.com
> Boikat wrote:
> > "Nashton" <n...@na.na> wrote in message
> >news:Us%qi.106126$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
> >> read the majority of you are. You're still utterly incapable of thinking
> >> for yourselves.
> >> The mob mentality seems to be even more pervasive in t-o than in any
> >> other group I've participated in.
>
> >> The manner in which you reacted to my mentioning that your demi-God
> >> Dawkins was stumped is simply astonishing.
>
> > for several years already.
>
> It has been debunked? Where did you read that?
>
> >> discuss the issue
>
>
> Many issues resurface. Who do you think you are to tll me what and what
> not to do.? Did you crown yourself King or something?
>
>
>
> >> and expose the facts that you believe can show that
> >> the YouTube video is a hoax,
>
>
> Do you really think you said something here?
>
> Of course, you
>
> > hypocritically think that presenting a video is "proof", without question.
>
> Better than the excuses about Dawkins wanting to kick the interviewer
> out, as if he would have hesitated *one* instant.
>
>
>
> >> but as usual, resort to dreadful ad homs in
> >> order to attempt to belittle me.
>
> > that to yourself, you little squinking whiner.
>
> And yet, you insist on using them. Why are you contradicting yourself?
>
>
>
> >> And stop looking to the Pope for guidance and justification, scientific,
> >> moral or otherwise.
>
> > or not? Did you crown yourself King, or something?
>
> That was my opinion, people obviously don't have to do what I say.
>
>
>
> > Boikat
> > --
> > "Krrrrriptonite!"
> > Lex Luthor
>
>
> ;)
Ye Old One
Remember that he did provide two cites quite early on. Problem for him
was: one actually pointed out there were doubts about the authenticity
and the other was a mere footnote. So, as yet, nothing to back up his
claims.
In addition, I've taken him step by step through the simple basic
facts of the textbook publishing world during a period of two world
wars and the biggest economic depression of the 20th century. But of
course, McClueless does a McClueless and tries to hide from reality.
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
<remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> writes
to be a Christian is a Christian. Ray claims that he a Christian (at
least some of the time); Nicola/s claims, at least implicitly, to be a
Christian. Ray appears to be sincere in his Creationism, so I take as a
working hypothesis that he is sincere in claiming to be a Christian. I
am not so certain that Nicola/s is not an (atheist) troll, but perhaps
he/she should be given the benefit of the doubt.
--
alias Ernest Major