[_ Old Earth _] Dawkins flummoxed by lack of CHEERLeaders

[BobRyan]

On the Thread linked blow -- L.K asks this question.

L.K.
Nowhere in your preceding post that you refer to can I see a cogent explanation for the mechanism causing variation within a species

Hint: No NEW Genetic information.

Activating genes already present -and normal genetic recombination of parents within a species yielding predictable and verifiable distributions of dominant/recesive traits is not the rocket science you seem to hope for.

Are you suggesting that there is no mutation within genes? Are you suggesting that such mutation can never add new information?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p395990

Hint: that is the VERY "truculant" question (Dawkins' term) being asked of Dawkins in the link below -

Dawkins; 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

No wonder he is flummoxed by it!!

No wonder the unbiased objective reader is so happy to spend the 45 seconds to watch it!!

No wonder atheist darwinist devotees prefer not to see the video EVEN to the 45 second level!!

And as L.K points out -- Dawkins explains the 11 second flummoxed response he gives above by charging that the person asking the question was not the kool-aid drinking cheerleader that he expected!!

How "instructive".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From the video and the response of Dawkins it is clear that it is what he calls "the truculant question" that has him flummoxed.

But in his own defense of this incident he PREFERS to claim that it is the LACK of cheerleaders that really had him flummoxed.

Let the reader decide which is WORSE!

Dawkins

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome."
From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

Here the QUESTION is merely what L.K prompts HIMSELF to ask!!

Are you suggesting that there is no mutation within genes? Are you suggesting that such mutation can never add new information?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p395990

Indeed a question on NEW INFORMATION germain to the topic - so intuitively NECESSARY!

But Here in Dawkins own words the only ERROR that we see is the Darwinist error that NONE but CHEERLEADERS should be allowed to ask questions -- and that a question of the form that L.K just asked ME is "truculent" if NOT being asked uncritically by a Dawkins Darwinist CHEERLEADER!

I am amazed that darwinist devotees are so happy to expose this glaring flaw in their own methods by referring to this laps in judgment on Dawkin's part AS IF it were an ANSWER!!

What a PRIME example of what THEY consider to be "academic FREEDOM" !!

Dawkins

It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way
From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

And yet - L.K JUST ASKED IT!!

Dawkins
, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera.
From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

How "enlightened" of Dawkins to limit question so that only uncritical Darwinist "cheerleadeers" should be allowed in the door!!!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Richard Dawkins' comments immediately following on from those quoted above unsurprisingly shed a somewhat different light on the circumstances and alleged 'flummox' from those cherry-picked by Bob:

However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later [1], I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content [2]. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth - I have a horror of blinding people with science - and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of "information". Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated - not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer's memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the "Information Challenge", at adequate length - the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.
......
[1] The producers never deigned to send me a copy: I completely forgot about it until an American colleague called it to my attention.

[2] See Barry Williams (1998): "Creationist Deception Exposed", The Skeptic 18, 3, pp 7-10, for an account of how my long pause (trying to decide whether to throw them out) was made to look like hesitant inability to answer the question, followed by an apparently evasive answer to a completely different question.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Dawkins -

I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content [2]. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds.

It seems that after ADMITTING that the 11 second flummoxed response to the question is CORRECT -- Dawkins then can not help "digging the hole deeper" by then charging that some edit took place -- though failing to actually SHOW the missing EVENT that such an edit would presumably have deleted -- and then says there was no actual action that was deceitful on the part of the film crew!!

How convoluted -- !! How "transparent" to the unbiased objective reader.

And this is why I was so delighted to QUOTE Dawkins in my first two posts. Nobody digs holes deep for Dawkins -- like Dawkins!

How "Reassuring" it would be for Dawkins to learn that L.K has repeated that same question labled by Dawkins as "truculent" on this very board!!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

And so, Bob, you demonstrate yet again your complete inability to acknowledge any explanation that does not agree wholly with your own blinkered interpretation. For my part I am scarcely pleased that you remain so delighted in your own indifference to reasoned argument and so obviously unable to concede the possibilty that any understanding but your own might be correct. Perhaps you would like to respond to each of the points that Richard Dawkins made and explain why you have so much trouble recognizing that they render your understanding at least potentially incorrect.

By the way, here are some definitions of edit to help you realize that the word as used by Richard Dawkins doesn't necessarily mean what you immediately think it means:

1 a: to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation
b: to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging
c: to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose <carefully edited the speech> <edit a data file>
2: to direct the publication of <edits the daily newspaper
3: delete â€â€usually used with out

Source: http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/edit

But of course, just as you are able to view a piece of VT footage and determine what the person is thinking on that footage better than that person himself, so you can also read what they have written and understand what they intend better than they do themselves.

 

[BobRyan]

And so, Bob, you demonstrate yet again your complete inability to acknowledge any explanation that does not agree wholly with your own blinkered interpretation.

On the contrary - you are free to imagine that his calling your question "truculent" is a good thing -- all day long.

And you are free to imagine that only I would see the problem with that.

You are also free to imagine you see no problem in that 11 second flummoxed response of Dawkins to what HE calls "the truculent question".

You keep imagining that only I see the problem there -- please continue.

If you are going to call that kind of imagination 'reason and argument' I am not going to complain a bit -- it makes life all the easier for me.

For my part I am scarcely pleased that you remain so delighted in your own indifference to reasoned argument and so obviously unable to concede the possibilty that any understanding but your own might be correct.

I choose to think that I am welcomed to my opinion.

And you?

Perhaps you would like to respond to each of the points that Richard Dawkins made and explain why you have so much trouble recognizing that they render your understanding at least potentially incorrect.

How so?

Is my view ANY the less established as we observe Dawkins DIGGING the hole DEEPER by whining that these guys are not cheerleaders and that he only allows himsefl to be question by cheerleaders? That less-than-enlightened position so boldly put forward by Dawkins in YOUR link is very helpful in making my point. And once again - I thank you for providing it. (Though to be honest - I had it before ... but it is no fun having me provide the source of all of Dawkins' blunders. I much prefer when you and others provide those examples as well.)

If you magine that such digging on Dawkins part damages my POV in the least -- then you are not following the argument as carefully as I would have hoped.

If you imagine that Dawkins' own decision to lable the question -- (which is also YOUR question) -- as "truculent" then again - your glossing over of key details is not serving you quite as well as you seem to imagine.

Your attempts to imagine that only I see the problem for Dawkins in that video continues to be a weakness in your argument.

bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, Bob, who else here sees the situation in respect of the Richard Dawkins' 'pause' as only understandable in the way that you understand it? Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that your interpretation is not the only one that has any plausibility? Is it your position that Richard Dawkins' explanation is a lie? Why do you avoid addressing the points he has raised? Your disingenuous 'How so?' is itself significant. Your point of view is already damaged by its position of undeviating intransigence in the face of equally valid but differing viewpoints.

 

[The Bible Thumper]

For anyone who cares, I signed up on the richard dawkins forum. While there, I exposed the fraud of Atheism for all it was worth. Because I was showing the posters there that Atheism is a delusion (the same basic delusion Dawkins thinks of theism), they banned my IP.
Lol, and those hypocrites over there said it's virtually impossible to get banned, "unless you start breaking the forum rules." Does breaking forum rules also include shining light on folly?
This is a thread I made, followed by a barrage of half-witted responses from the Atheist peanut gallery there. I'm poster Neo & Trinity:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/vie ... 20&t=59475
Banned, and not a single forum rule violated! :-D

 

[John]

For anyone who cares, I signed up on the richard dawkins forum. While there, I exposed the fraud of Atheism for all it was worth. Because I was showing the posters there that Atheism is a delusion (the same basic delusion Dawkins thinks of theism), they banned my IP.
Lol, and those hypocrites over there said it's virtually impossible to get banned, "unless you start breaking the forum rules." Does breaking forum rules also include shining light on folly?
This is a thread I made, followed by a barrage of half-witted responses from the Atheist peanut gallery there. I'm poster Neo & Trinity:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/vie ... 20&t=59475
Banned, and not a single forum rule violated! :-D

I also had my IP banned there for going against there views, its censorship, the admins there are not fit.

 

[The Bible Thumper]

For anyone who cares, I signed up on the richard dawkins forum. While there, I exposed the fraud of Atheism for all it was worth. Because I was showing the posters there that Atheism is a delusion (the same basic delusion Dawkins thinks of theism), they banned my IP.
Lol, and those hypocrites over there said it's virtually impossible to get banned, "unless you start breaking the forum rules." Does breaking forum rules also include shining light on folly?
This is a thread I made, followed by a barrage of half-witted responses from the Atheist peanut gallery there. I'm poster Neo & Trinity:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/vie ... 20&t=59475
Banned, and not a single forum rule violated! :-D

I also had my IP banned there for going against there views, its censorship, the admins there are not fit.

It's not the Admin's fault; I think they realize the losing proposition Atheism really is, and thus will vigorously persue anyone who comes up with an idea(s) that blow Atheist concepts out of the water.
Like that absurd "four circles of belief" they posted in that one thread. I nit-picked it left and right, and the best thing the Atheists could do was return a bunch of explicatives and "why don't you get otta here with that Xion G-d of yours" nonsense.
That's how they debate. They use the potty-mouth approach.

 

[platos_cave]

For anyone who cares, I signed up on the richard dawkins forum. While there, I exposed the fraud of Atheism for all it was worth. Because I was showing the posters there that Atheism is a delusion (the same basic delusion Dawkins thinks of theism), they banned my IP.
Lol, and those hypocrites over there said it's virtually impossible to get banned, "unless you start breaking the forum rules." Does breaking forum rules also include shining light on folly?
This is a thread I made, followed by a barrage of half-witted responses from the Atheist peanut gallery there. I'm poster Neo & Trinity:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/vie ... 20&t=59475
Banned, and not a single forum rule violated! :-D

I think trolling the forums is a bannable offense.

 

[platos_cave]

I also had my IP banned there for going against there views, its censorship, the admins there are not fit.

Hmmm...I wonder what would happen were I to promote Objectivism or perhaps the non-existence of God on these forums?

 

[lordkalvan]

Trolling and sockpuppeting tend to be bannable offences in most forums. You guys could always try Rants 'n' Raves, though persistent sockpuppetry will ultimately get you banned even there....

http://www.rantsnraves.org/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rules1

 

[The Bible Thumper]

I wasn't "sockpuppeting" (whatever that means), nor was I trolling. I provided a link to that dawkins site, giving everyone here the opportunity to see if I was trolling for yourselves.
The 'dawks' will claim trolling, but in fact its actually revealing the truth.
I was banned for revealing the truth, as my posts will reveal.
If I was banned for trolling, can you guys go there and find the trolling post I made there?
Didn't think so...

 

[Orion]

I also had my IP banned there for going against there views, its censorship, the admins there are not fit.

Hmmm...I wonder what would happen were I to promote Objectivism or perhaps the non-existence of God on these forums?

Excellent way to cause a person to do some thinking.

 

[lordkalvan]

I wasn't "sockpuppeting" (whatever that means), nor was I trolling. I provided a link to that dawkins site, giving everyone here the opportunity to see if I was trolling for yourselves.
The 'dawks' will claim trolling, but in fact its actually revealing the truth.
I was banned for revealing the truth, as my posts will reveal.
If I was banned for trolling, can you guys go there and find the trolling post I made there?
Didn't think so...

From Wiki:

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."

The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt" which is short for alternate, as in alternate identity) is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

Looks like Neo & Trinity was banned for being a sockpuppet of The Bible Thumper.

 

[platos_cave]

I wasn't "sockpuppeting" (whatever that means), nor was I trolling. I provided a link to that dawkins site, giving everyone here the opportunity to see if I was trolling for yourselves.
The 'dawks' will claim trolling, but in fact its actually revealing the truth.
I was banned for revealing the truth, as my posts will reveal.
If I was banned for trolling, can you guys go there and find the trolling post I made there?
Didn't think so...

Yes, I did find posts where you were sockpuppeting, but I don't think it's appropriate for the discussion.

 

[platos_cave]

I also had my IP banned there for going against there views, its censorship, the admins there are not fit.

Hmmm...I wonder what would happen were I to promote Objectivism or perhaps the non-existence of God on these forums?

Excellent way to cause a person to do some thinking.

Or get banned.

 

[Free]

Does anyone have anything of relevance in response to the OP? :-?

 

[platos_cave]

Does anyone have anything of relevance in response to the OP? :-?

Is there any relevance in the OP?