• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] This one's for you, Bob.

1. Patterson's frank observations go to the very core of the atheist darwinist argument. Though some Darwinists may wish to avoid this obvious point -- it hardly makes sense for the rest of us to pretend we don't see the problem for darwinists.

2. The thread itself starts out to address this very point - Patterson's observations and how they either help or hurt darwinist mythology. I propose that they expose the atheist "belief" and faith-based core of Darwinism (it's weakness) whereas the author of the OP suggests that I am missing some detail in Patterson's remarks such that it is really a strength for Darwinism.

It does no good to simply ignore inconvenient details in an effort to stop them from getting in the way of a good story.

This left me free to address the flaw in the Darwinist argument from fossils -- which you seem to prefer to avoid.

This also left me free to address the flaw in the Darwinist argument from genetics (breeding of dogs... dogs vs bananas... claims the Darwinists were SHOWN to make in that regard IN The videos!) - which again you seem to prefer to avoid.

Given that you aready chose to select for the fallacy of equivocation between variation within a genetic species (breeding of dogs for example) and macro-evolution stories (Darwinism) "about how one thing came from another" such as birds-from-reptiles -- I believe me focus on the comparison holds up so far. Your argument that they are the same thing - means that looking at dog breeding to SEE the salient argument of Darwinism is valid.

And that is precisely where we see Darwinism failing -- dogs don't produce birds and neither would the same artificial selection and manipulation in the breeding of reptiles. Leaving Darwinism exposed as a "by faith alone" argument.

Do you think it significant for our understanding of evolutionary theory that inserting the gene that controls mammalian eye development from a mouse to a fly-embryo will cause the fly to develop an eye with typical fly structure wherever the gene lands?

It may mean that polymorphism was designed into that architecture so that the gene is not the entire software library for building eye - rather the gene is more like the command to the subsystem to do whatever it's predefined context for eye determines. so a fly with compound eyes as the context for eye simply looks for a command to "execute" the build function for "eye". Certainly that shows a very high level of engineered complexity in the architecutre -- but as I always point out -- Chemistry is applied physics and microbiology is applied chemistry where the architect doing the application design is God.

So as we see in this case - the master designer has the "execute" command PAX-6 that engages 2000 other genes in the "Context build function" for Eye where the context is "fly".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 44_01.html

I dare anyone to take the periodic chart and "repeat the exercise"! No matter how "intelligent" the human designer!! It is simply an example of technology far beyond what any human can do with that periodic chart.

Speaking of which -- get out your periodic charts readers -- Now try this as an exercise in testing your chemistry expertise...

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266

Is it any wonder that Darwinist become frustrated when we point out their "innability to perform" the above experiment (which is what they claim "Lightning and mud" will easily master by themselves given enough time)?

Bob
 
^ So that's another 'No', then, Bob? There seems to be a lot of 'story-telling' in your reply, not much evidence-based argument, a failure to attempt an explanation of the mechanisms that bring about variation within a species, an avoidance of where (and why) the watershed is between micro- and macro-evolution, an obvious reluctance to address those arguments that attest to the persuasiveness of evolutionary theory, and no discussion at all of some of the other points I raised.

As far as Dr Patterson's oft-quoted remarks are concerned, numerous posters have pointed out the misunderstandings inherent in your interpretations and assertions about what can be taken from them. That you refuse to accept that these are misunderstandings, no matter how often and patiently they are explained to you, makes any effort at re-addressing them again entirely fruitless. I am reminded of horses and water.
 
lordkalvan said:
^ So that's another 'No', then, Bob? There seems to be a lot of 'story-telling' in your reply, not much evidence-based argument,

Try clicking on the links and also replying to the details in the post.

It works better and is more convincing to the reader.

Click and follow the points -- and the supporting links.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=395868#p395815

a failure to attempt an explanation of the mechanisms that bring about variation within a species, an avoidance of where (and why) the watershed is between micro- and macro-evolution,

More "hand waiving"???

Why not simply address the points in my previous post where both macro evolution (darwinianism) and variation-within-a-species are addressed? ( See the link just entered above or simply scroll up to my previous unnanswered post)

As far as Dr Patterson's oft-quoted remarks are concerned, numerous posters have pointed out the misunderstandings inherent in your interpretations and assertions about what can be taken from them.

That is yet another fallacy in trying to rescue your failed argument -- it is the claim "someone else some place else did my home work" -- it is a variation of dog-ate-my-homework for Darwinists.

Why not simply MAKE whatever point you suppose to be there - instead of arguing that it musta-been-made some place else by somebody else at some time?

What we have in this case is an unnanswerable point from Patterson for which your ownly defense is to dance around it with the "somebody else hopefully solved the problem" kind of response.

That is not as compelling an argument as you seem to imagine L.K. Try simply responding to the points instead of inventing more excuses as to why you must avoid them.

Bob
 
^ If I could follow your points I would respond to them, Bob. Nowhere in your preceding post that you refer to can I see a cogent explanation for the mechanism causing variation within a species, nor can I see an explanation of how that mechanism is prevented from crossing the watershed between micro- and macroevolution. I have yet to see you define what you believe constitutes that watershed. For example, you have not addressed the phenomena of ring species at all.

Indeed, I have seen you define very little while asserting a great deal

My point regarding your conclusions from Dr Patterson's remarks stands. You misunderstand their intent as he clearly explained them, you misrepresent their specific context as he also explained them, and you wave away his continued stated certainty concerning the principles of evolutionary theory as of no relevance. You may be interested to learn that Richard Dawkins regards the fossil record similarly to Dr Patterson, in that no fossil specimen can be confidently regarded as directly ancestral to a modern animal. Does this mean that Professor Dawkins regards the fossil record as contributing nothing to our understanding of evolutionary theory? Of course not, and neither did Dr Patterson.
 
Bob said -
Try clicking on the links and also replying to the details in the post.

It works better and is more convincing to the reader.

Click and follow the points -- and the supporting links.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=395923#p395815

...

Why not simply address the points in my previous post where both macro evolution (darwinianism) and variation-within-a-species are addressed? ( See the link just entered above or simply scroll up to my previous unnanswered post)

lordkalvan said:
^ If I could follow your points I would respond to them, Bob.

Ok fine -- how may I help you?

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.

What else?

, nor can I see an explanation of how that mechanism is prevented from crossing the watershed between micro- and macroevolution.

Then you don't understand the salient points of your own argument.

Hint: the question being asked of Dawkins is key to the discussion -

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


Bob
 
BobRyan said:
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? Are you arguing that it is impossible for new genes to arise as a result of imperfect duplication? Are you arguing that this imperfect duplication has no implications for the evolution of species? What is your evidence for any of this?

[quote:1y5f1yl4], nor can I see an explanation of how that mechanism is prevented from crossing the watershed between micro- and macroevolution.

Then you don't understand the salient points of your own argument.

Hint: the question being asked of Dawkins is key to the discussion -[/quote:1y5f1yl4]

Still no attempt to define the watershed. Still no consideration of the significance of ring species. Still no consideration of the multiple lines of independent evidence that support evolutionary theory. Still promoting creative creationist editing in support of your assertions:

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." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, 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. 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, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content.

From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1
 
lordkalvan said:
BobRyan said:
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?


Hint: that is the VERY question being asked of Dawkins -

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

No wonder he is flummoxed by it!!

Bob
 
lordkalvan said:
Still promoting creative creationist editing in support of your assertions:

Still making empty accusation after empty accusation?

notice that your quote below shows NO EDITING ERRORS AT ALL!


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!!

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

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 YOU JUST ASKED Me is "truculent" if NOT being asked by a Dawkin's CHEERLEADER!

I am amazed that darwinist devotees are so happy to expose this glaring flaw in their own methods AS IF it were an ANSWER!!

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

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!!

, 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!!!

As I said -- I can't believe that his devotees are soooo happy to expose this blunder!

THIS was the VERY time to sweep something under a rug my friend!

(BTW I have this in my files - but like the Patterson letter to Theunnisen I love to have Darwinist devotees shoot themselves in the foot by bringing it up!! And they never dissappoint!! Who said this board can not be fun!! :-D )

Bob
 
Bob, your response is no more than a piece of empty triumphalism. When Dr Patterson's words are misused by creationists and he explains why and how they are misused, when an interview with Professor Dawkins is contrived and creatively edited and he explains how it was so contrived and creatively edited, your only responses are to trumpet how correct your interpretations are, all else notwithstanding.

Did you simply miss or deliberately choose to ignore these words of Professor Dawkins:

When I eventually saw the film a year later, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content.

But then I guess Professor Dawkins would just be lying about this, wouldn't he?

You might ponder the thought that, if Professor Dawkins was so entirely flummoxed by the question that was posed (as the snip implies), was aware that on the record he was so entirely flummoxed by the question that was posed (as the snip implies), was also aware that the film would be widely shown in public and so demonstrating the extent of his inability to answer the question (as the snip implies), why he would then have decided it would have been

...ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

So putting your biases, preferences and prejudices to one side for the moment and looking at the matter as a simple exercise in reasoned thought, which do you think is the most likely explanation?

• That Professor Dawkins knowingly agreed to let himself be portrayed as confused and flummoxed by a question posed by a film crew with a specific agenda when he had the opportunity to prevent that portrayal being shown at all?

• Or that the film was creatively edited to give this impression of flummoxed confusion?
 
lordkalvan said:
Bob, your response is no more than a piece of empty triumphalism.

You have so many excuses for not responding to the arguments - and glossing over details that expose flaws in your own arguments.

I find your ability to dance around the problelms exposed in your own posts to be truly creative.

Did you simply miss or deliberately choose to ignore these words of Professor Dawkins:

[quote:3ldq9kbi]When I eventually saw the film a year later, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content.
[/quote:3ldq9kbi]

And the "SUBSTANCE" to that wild claim was SHOWN to be what??

Answer: NOTHING! Dawkins did not raise ONE SINGLE DETAIL about the interview that was MISSING from the tape -- that would supposedly have redeemed his poor performance.

IN FACT Dawkins ADMITS To telling THEM to TURN OFF THE TAPE!

You have once again unwittingly re-affirmed Patterson's argument about evolutionISM and "anti-knowledge" as you seem so hard pressed to follow Dawkin's own argument with "attention to detail".

I tell you this is the most shocking revelation about Darwinists - and yet it keeps showing up!!

Here is the problem you have with BOTH Dawkins and Patterson -- they give responses with a heading AS IF they are going to SOLVE the problem -- at that point you seem to "turn off critical thinking and attention to detail" -- you simply blindly quote them AS IF "some place in there is a solution ...I I just know it!".

I on the other hand READ with "attention to detail" highlighting both the argument and the evidence they provide in their own responses. Your reaction is to simply come up with excuses as to why you don't have to "notice details" or that once again you shot your own argument in the foot with yet another "Darwinist can of worms".

Bob
 
lordkalvan said:
When Dr Patterson's words are misused by creationists and he explains why and how they are misused,

Never happened --

But how refreshing the CHANGE should you ever be able to come up with "HERE IS WHERE the quote was turned" from Patterson INSTEAD of Patterson ADMITTING "The QUOTE WAS ACCURATE as far as it went" -- (hint a quote that is ALWAYS given IN FULL in ALL my arguments about Sunderland's use of Patterson's statements).

Here are "some details" for you to ignore.

1. Sunderland is never accused of claiming that Patterson is a creationist
2. Sunderland is accused of having HIS OWN opinion that there are no transitional forms.
3. Sunderland IS said to ACCURATELY quote Patterson AND The portion of the quote that Patterson tells us to notice "The quote CONTINUES" IS ALSO in Sunderland's quote of Patterson!!

i.e NOTHING MISSING!

Each time it is the DETAILS that you completely ignore EVEN in Patterson's own response to the situation!

How amazing!!

when an interview with Professor Dawkins is contrived and creatively edited and he explains how it was so contrived and creatively edited,

Again -- never happened!

NO "EXPLAINS HOW or WHAT was contrived" in that SEE-it-for-yourself VIDEO

No "Explains HOW or WHAT was edited out" by Dawkins -- no not even ONCE!!

Again you argue for what you EXPECTED to find in those reponses from Dawkins and Patterson not for what you DID find!

The PROOF is seen in the QUOTES you give from THEM vs the CLAIMS you JUST MADE about what they needed to have had IN their responses!!

Surely you can not possibly be content to pretend to not notice!!

You might ponder the thought that, if Professor Dawkins was so entirely flummoxed by the question that was posed (as the snip implies),

The question -- with NO BREAK
the flummox -- with NO BREAK
the request from Dawkins to turn off the tape -- WITH NO BREAK.

i.e -- REALITY!!

Is the thing you are trying to address as "contrived".

was aware that on the record he was so entirely flummoxed by the question that was posed (as the snip implies), was also aware that the film would be widely shown in public and so demonstrating the extent of his inability to answer the question (as the snip implies),

Hint: it is the SAME question YOU JUST ASKED about genetics and evolutionISM!

then follows an UNBROKEN video of HIS flummoxed response and HIS insistence that the tape be turned off!!

THEN follows HIS OWN long-written reponse whining that these people were not the mindless dawkins-cheerleaders he EXPECTED AS WELL as arguing that he let them into his home so they were honor bound to BE cheerleaders!!

why he would then have decided it would have been

[quote:27g1qb9k]...ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
[/quote:27g1qb9k]

Indeed -- and why post that written RESPONSE AS IF whining about the film crew NOT being limited to CHEERLEADERS solved the problem!!

"So putting your biases, preferences and prejudices to one side for the moment and looking at the matter as a simple exercise in reasoned thought, which do you think is the most likely explanation?"

I would love to see you answer that with "attention to inconvenient details".

Bob
 
The link to the Richard Dawkins snippet that I viewed as a result of your link showed Richard Dawkins on-camera apparently flummoxed by a question off-camera. Are you certain that both the question and the filmed footage are taking place at the same time? What is reality, Bob? whatever you wish it to be? It appears that Professor Dawkins and Dr Patterson could stand in front of you and explain in detail exactly how they were misrepresented and misunderstood, and you would still choose to believe your own interpretation.

I notice you failed entirely to respond to this part of my post:

So putting your biases, preferences and prejudices to one side for the moment and looking at the matter as a simple exercise in reasoned thought, which do you think is the most likely explanation?

• That Professor Dawkins knowingly agreed to let himself be portrayed as confused and flummoxed by a question posed by a film crew with a specific agenda when he had the opportunity to prevent that portrayal being shown at all?

• Or that the film was creatively edited to give this impression of flummoxed confusion?
 
lordkalvan said:
The link to the Richard Dawkins snippet that I viewed as a result of your link showed Richard Dawkins on-camera apparently flummoxed by a question off-camera. Are you certain that both the question and the filmed footage are taking place at the same time?

Yes and I am even MORE confident that as transparently flawed as Dawkins is -- he had enough common sense to NOTE such a problem in his own long rambling review of the affair IF such a thing had happened. Notice that HE HIMSELF admits in HIS OWN REVIEW of the incident exactly what the question was - Hint: and it is the SAME ONE we SEE in the video!

having BOTH the video AND Dawkins OWN report of the incident completely AGREE - you "still imagine an alternate history"???!!!

hint -- imagining that it happened and that Dawkins was too incompetent to mention it is beyond even my level of accusation against him. (though I keep forgetting the Darwinist "if you can imagine it then it happened that way" principle -- I admit).

It appears that Professor Dawkins and Dr Patterson could stand in front of you and explain in detail exactly how they were misrepresented and misunderstood, and you would still choose to believe your own interpretation.

A+ on imagination L.K - as always

F- on attention to detail.

You made the wild claim that both of them show exactly WHERE the problem is -- and yet to this very day you are either too timid to mention that detail -- too busy to notice and post it -- or you simply admit to yourself that you still can't actuall FIND it while pretending "not to notice the problem" on these boards!


I notice you failed entirely to respond to this part of my post:

[quote:29x6cmh9]So putting your biases, preferences and prejudices to one side for the moment and looking at the matter as a simple exercise in reasoned thought, which do you think is the most likely explanation?
[/quote:29x6cmh9]

Actually I QUOTED you on that -- and asked you the question -- since you have YET to come up with one single FACT from Dawkins where HE shows (as you claim) just WHERE the editing was done and as Patterson shows (AS YOU claim) just WHERE he was NOT quoted correctly.

As for WHY Dawkins would publically humiliate himself by whining in public that the film crew "failed" to be darwinist cheerleaders - or WHY Dawkins would leap off into 11 second flummox land then ask that the camera be shut off....

Well you are the one imagining revisionist history -- tell us all a story!!

Imagine a physics professor being flummoxed by the question "can you give us an example of gravity where an object in space is pulled toward the earth"!! You can be sure that in the realm of REAL science not only would such a "softball question" NOT flummox the scientist -- he would WELCOME it and would not even take 5 seconds to state the answer let alone spending 11 seconds in off-world-flummox-land.

Bob
 
lordkalvan said:
Still promoting creative creationist editing in support of your assertions:

Still making empty accusation after empty accusation?

notice that your quote below shows NO EDITING ERRORS AT ALL!


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!!

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

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 YOU JUST ASKED Me is "truculent" if NOT being asked by a Dawkin's CHEERLEADER!


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." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, 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

[/quote]

hmmm - "only a creationist would ASK" such a question --

and yet --

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

Oh well - -we will just "pretend not to notice the problem" eh L.K??

I am amazed that darwinist devotees are so happy to expose this glaring flaw in their own methods AS IF it were an ANSWER!!

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

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!!

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

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!!!

As I said -- I can't believe that his devotees are soooo happy to expose this blunder!

THIS was the VERY time to sweep something under a rug my friend!

(BTW I have this in my files - but like the Patterson letter to Theunnisen I love to have Darwinist devotees shoot themselves in the foot by bringing it up!! And they never dissappoint!! Who said this board can not be fun!! :-D )

Bob[/quote]
 
lordkalvan said:
Bob, further to your favourite piece of Richard Dawkins' YouTube footage, you may be interested in this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt0oYixj1g4&feature=related

And your question is ???

--- "How did I know which one was the real deal"?? Notice that in Dawkins "proof of editing" he charges all but the first one for being frauds since the actual questioner is a woman in the first case in men in the other two cases-- ie. the EXACT video link I USED is never questioned regarding that question and 11 seconf flummox response followed by demanding that the camera be turned off.

Hint: I had seen both of the other obvious faked versions as well. So that too was not "rocket science"

Also notice that HE admits to asking to have the cameras turned OFF after his 11 second flummox to the question she asked (question and flummox held together in video AS THEY HAPPENED in real life). Notice that HE admits to the question that was asked that resulted in his 11 second flumox. Notice that HIS only complaint left is that HIS rather rambling discussion that finally took place after the camera was turned on -- did not have a question placed ahead of it.

Why does Dawkins need HELP with that question -- does he think we can not HEAR what he is saying if the lady interviewer does not first ask another question???

Hint: Notice that in your OWN link Dawkins ADMITS that he never answered the question in that interview!!

Dawkins -
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),
From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1
[/quote]

But in fact we never asked the producer to give us a statement about how he remembered events at the Dawkins residence. So that is more bluster and handwaiving.

Hint: very little complaining takes place about his rambling discussion after the 11 second flummox when he finally allows the cameras to be turned back on... the main issue is that 11 second dawkins-flees-to-outerspace issue after being the asked the VERY QUESTION you just asked here!

Dawkins HIMSELF zeros in on "the truculant question" and the 11 second flummox as THE issue in the video that he needed to solve since question-AND-Answer are BOTH there in REAL time!!

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

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!!

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

Well L.K --That was the "truculant" question resulting in Dawkins 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


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!!!

As I said -- I can't believe that his devotees are soooo happy to expose this blunder!

Bob
 
BobRyan said:
lordkalvan said:
Bob, further to your favourite piece of Richard Dawkins' YouTube footage, you may be interested in this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt0oYixj1g4&feature=related

And your question is ???

Just interested in your reaction.

--- "How did I know which one was the real deal"?? Notice that in Dawkins "proof of editing" he charges all but the first one for being frauds since the actual questioner is a woman in the first case in men in the other two cases-- ie. the EXACT video link I USED is never questioned regarding that question and 11 seconf flummox response followed by demanding that the camera be turned off.

Why would Richard Dawkins contest the question? It is the question which he says caused him to consider whether or not to go on with the interview as he believed he had been misled by the film-crew. What Professor Dawkins says is misrepresentation is presenting the pause as suggesting an inability to answer the question and then adding a response by himself to an entirely different question.

Hint: Notice that in your OWN link Dawkins ADMITS that he never answered the question in that interview!!

Then why do the film-makers present the answer as if it is in response to the question that you agree Richard Dawkins in fact never answered? What editorial integrity underlies this decision? Do you not regard this as deceptive editing?

Why do the editors present the pause as if it was due to an inability to answer the question when Richard Dawkins says it represents a pause while he considered whether or not to terminate the interview as it had been obtained under what he believed to be false pretenses? What remains on the cutting-room floor that we do not see? What was the question that was asked that Richard Dawkins does in fact answer? What preceded the asking of that question? Does whatever preceded the question have any relevance to the conclusions that the film-makers are intent on leading their audience towards by their editing?

You accept clearly edited footage as subject to but one possible interpretation without seeming to reflect on the possible motives of those engaged in presenting the footage. Cui bono? Do you accept just about anything that appears to support your argument as uncritically and without reflection?
 
lordkalvan said:
BobRyan said:
And your question is ???

Just interested in your reaction.

Bob said
--- "How did I know which one was the real deal"??

1. Notice that in Dawkins "proof of editing" he charges all but the first video for being frauds since the actual questioner is a woman in the first case in men in the other two cases-- ie. the EXACT video link I USED is never questioned regarding that question and 11 seconf flummox response followed by demanding that the camera be turned off.

Why would Richard Dawkins contest the question?

You mean the 11 second flummox question that he himself admits he never got around to answering?

You mean the question that is in fact YOUR question quoted here as well?

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

Well L.K --That was the "truculant" question resulting in Dawkins 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

You mean the question that he calls "truculant" for even being asked??

THAT Question?

L.K
It is the question which he says caused him to consider whether or not to go on with the interview

Indeed -- because in his own words it was "truculant" to ask YOUR question if the one asking is NOT a Darwinist-kool-aid-drinking cheerleader.

Did you miss that part?

L.K
as he believed he had been misled by the film-crew.

Mislead into thinking they were "cheerleaders" instead of critical thinkers whom he admits he NEVER would have allowed to question him!

You seem very happy to bring out that piece of dark-ages reasoning promoted by Dawkins as if WE in the light of day would think it "a good thing".

(That is an example of what "passes for Academic freedom" with Darwinists apparently).


L.K
What Professor Dawkins says is misrepresentation is presenting the pause as suggesting an inability to answer

Hint the pause happens in REAL TIME! You see that in the video of the EVENT.

Hint the 11 second flummox is HIS IDEA -- not theirs! Nobody scripted that FOR him to make him look bad and then FORCED him to do it!!

He himself ADMITS the reason behind his 11 second flummoxed PAUSE then he also admits he decided not to answer the "softball" question!!

Hint: Notice that in your OWN link Dawkins ADMITS that he never answered the question in that interview!!

L.K
Then why do the film-makers present the answer as if it is in response to the question that you agree Richard Dawkins in fact never answered? What editorial integrity underlies this decision? Do you not regard this as deceptive editing?

You call simply SHOWING the contiguous REAL time events from "question" to "11 second flummox and demand for film to be stopped" without Editing OUT the flummoxed response and HIDING the event from the viewer -- a decept practice on the part of the film maker.

It has come to the point where Darwinists EXPECT a doctored-propagandist-Darwinist presentation and when simply given the straight truth of the event -- they object!!

All they present is WHAT DAWKINS said as HE PERMITTED after HE told them to turn OFF the tape then telling them to TURN IT BACK ON. (Hint notice the FIRST WORDS spoken when tape is turned on again???)

You seem to object that Dawkins is allowed to SPEAK and that what he said is then SHOWN!

L.K
Why do the editors present the pause as if it was due to an inability to answer

lordkalvan said:
• That Professor Dawkins knowingly agreed to let himself be portrayed as confused and flummoxed by a question posed by a film crew with a specific agenda when he had the opportunity to prevent that portrayal being shown at all?

• Or that the film was creatively edited to give this impression of flummoxed confusion?

The authors SHOW the 11 second flummoxed pause as his immediate response to the question in contiguous question-to-flummox to his-own-stop-demand. --

Hint: they do not MAKE him Pause AS IF to invent some response FOR HIm that makes him look silly! HE decides to Pause ALL ON HIS OWN! They simply choose not to EDIT OUT his flummoxed pause.

Get it?

Nothing of any problem here since Dawkins HIMSELF admits he TOLD them to TURN off the tape AND THEN later to TURN IT ON!

Exercise for the objective reader:
WHat is the FIRST word spoken when the recording is turned back on? did you notice?

Comment to L.K
(Please don't tell us you did not even allow yourself to watch Dawkins on that video for 40 seconds!!)

This unedited contiguous-events concept is actually a simple one -- not sure why you feel the need to struggle with it or to demand that Dawkins' real reactions be edited out so to make him look better.

Bob
 
There is a "trend" here in the case of the Dawkins VIDEO and the Osborne QUOTES and the Patterson QUOTES -- you seem to bring up points assuming that there is some substance to be had if only you had taken the time to write down the details -- but you claim it as victory "anyway".

Then as we look at each example in detail you are left with nothing but a handful of sand and wishful thinking as the "inconvenient details" oppose your argument in all 3 cases.

Do you ever tire having being in the position of being left with no argument after reviewing the details other than arguments of the form "somebody some place might know of a new detail that will help me and someday I might discover what that is".

You come out with an empty accusation -- I point out the inconvenient details... you gloss over them and then fall on your sword pretending that you don't notice yourself not providing actual details to back up your wild claims.

Notice that when you came out claiming that both Patterson and Dawkins provide the exact detail that was taken as a misquote or that was misleading -- you end up with nothing.

lordkalvan said:
When Dr Patterson's words are misused by creationists and he explains why and how they are misused,

when an interview with Professor Dawkins is contrived and creatively edited and he explains how it was so contrived and creatively edited,
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=396344#p396170

1. The 11 second flummox stands as a complete intact segment from question to Dawkins calling for "stop tape". No breaks at all UNTIL Dawkins gives the OK and the film crew say "TAPING"! You are left with the rather hollow complaint that they fail to edit OUT Dawkins' 11 second flummox to MAKE HIM look better!

Or are you still engaged in "imagining" what was said while the tape was OFF -- Tape turned OFF at Dawkins own command!!??

Why do the editors present the pause as if it was due to an inability to answer the question when Richard Dawkins says it represents a pause while he considered whether or not to terminate the interview as it had been obtained under what he believed to be false pretenses? What remains on the cutting-room floor that we do not see? What was the question that was asked that Richard Dawkins does in fact answer? What preceded the asking of that question? Does whatever preceded the question have any relevance to the conclusions that the film-makers are intent on leading their audience towards by their editing?

Notice that your defense is "what you imagine on the cutting room floor" EVEN though the video SHOWS Dawkins asked the question -- then flummoxed -- then his demand to stop tape ... a sequence he NEVER challenged.

And the next sequence STARTS by informing Dawkins that they are now resuming the Taping and his response? "OK".

Which leaves you stuck with imaginary fictional events not in evidence in tape or in Dawkin's rebuttals!! How "pleasant" that must be for you.

2. The Patterson letters are ALWAYS given with the complete "the quote CONTINUES" section in both Sunderland's version AND in Theunnisen's -- so you are just left "imagining".

3. The Osborn quotes are fully published so that EVEN your own talkorigins CHARGES him with the words "there is NO WAY Osborne could not have known"!!

Time after time you are having to fall on your sword over a failed argument. That can not be as pleasant as you would have us believe.

Bob
 
^ Bob, your argument in respect of the Richard Dawkins' interview appears to reduce to your preference to believe what the film-makers wish you to be led to believe over what Professor Dawkins himself says the interview has been edited to imply. You will believe what you wish to believe, regardless of anything else, because it supports the argument you want to make. The footage as it stands, taken together with Richard Dawkins' comments, can be considered as, at best, equivocal. Either Professor Dawkins is lying or the film-makers are engaging in deceptive editing. You have no way of knowing which is the more likely other than your own preference.
 
Back
Top