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

[lordkalvan]

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

Sorry, distracted by TBT and JM's posts : .

For my part, I think I have made my argument clear.

Whether or not Richard Dawkins' attitude towards giving interviews to creationists is commendable, whether or not he is reasonable to regard certain questions as 'truculent' when asked in a particular form, whether or not I ask a question of a creationist that is similar to the question the creationist interviewers asked Richard Dawkins, it remains the case that the alleged 11 second pause has been fully explained by Richard Dawkins and examined in depth by Barry Williams, amongst others.

The evidence from that explanation and that examination indicates that the pause that certain parties identify as a 'flummox' is subject to an equally - some would argue more - plausible interpretation.

If I had been Professor Dawkins under similar circumstances, i.e. faced with interviewers who had gained access to my private residence under false pretenses, I would have immediately shown them the door and refused permission to use any filmed footage whatsoever. To this extent at least, Richard Dawkins was far more accommodating and polite than I would have been.

Does anyone seriously believe that if Professor Dawkins had been 'flummoxed' by the question as implied by the edited footage and argued by Bob here and elsewhere, he would for one moment have extended his permission for the interview to be used under any circumstances at all? I would be interested in seeing arguments attempting to give credibility to such a belief.

 

[platos_cave]

Does anyone seriously believe that if Professor Dawkins had been 'flummoxed' by the question as implied by the edited footage and argued by Bob here and elsewhere, he would for one moment have extended his permission for the interview to be used under any circumstances at all? I would be interested in seeing arguments attempting to give credibility to such a belief.

The fact that they were dishonest in representing what they were about is quite sad as well. Is lying for Jesus ok?

 

[Gabe]

Does anyone seriously believe that if Professor Dawkins had been 'flummoxed' by the question as implied by the edited footage and argued by Bob here and elsewhere, he would for one moment have extended his permission for the interview to be used under any circumstances at all? I would be interested in seeing arguments attempting to give credibility to such a belief.

The fact that they were dishonest in representing what they were about is quite sad as well. Is lying for Jesus ok?

No its definitely not, but i doubt Bob or anyone else who finds this video somehow "instructive" realy cares, which from my own Christian point-of-view is extremely sad.

 

[lordkalvan]

Does anyone seriously believe that if Professor Dawkins had been 'flummoxed' by the question as implied by the edited footage and argued by Bob here and elsewhere, he would for one moment have extended his permission for the interview to be used under any circumstances at all? I would be interested in seeing arguments attempting to give credibility to such a belief.

The fact that they were dishonest in representing what they were about is quite sad as well. Is lying for Jesus ok?

Yes, Barry Wlliams quotes Gillian Brown's fax to Richard Dawkins' secretary in full to show that she nowhere mentions who had contracted herself and Keziah Productions to produce the programme - namely Answers in Genesis Australia. The fax also promises that the interview would be conducted by BBC producer Geoffrey Smith who, in fact, never turned up at all and was replaced by 'geologist and antique dealer' Philip Hohnen.

Source: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

 

[The Bible Thumper]

[quote="The Bible Thumper":3ol6a24g]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.[/quote:3ol6a24g]

I'm doing the same thing here that I was doing over there. Nothing I posted there would remotely be regarded as inappropriate for this forum. In fact, it all supports what I post here.
Knowing that, can you please go back and retrieve the post(s) you thought inappropriate and post them here?
Someone said I was the bible thumper there. Where?