| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:52 pm Post subject: The Four Horsemen |
 |
|
Here is a set of interviews with Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkings and Daniel Dennet. Titled The Four Horsemen, it is the 4 leading infidels in the West today. It is an excellent, couple of videos. 2 hours in duration.
http://www.buildupthatwall.com/nv139.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oooh nice. I love listening to Dawkins and Hitchens speak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| oooh nice. I love listening to Dawkins speak. |
Especially when he stutters, unable to answer a simple question 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related
Dorkins has an easier time brainwashing his poor group of 10 year olds.
Hahahahahahaha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the flawed human couldn't answer a question. His whole body of work is therefor invalidated.
Which books of his have you read?
You religious types will cling to anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Yes, the flawed human couldn't answer a question. |
You and I both know he should have been able to answer it easily, if evolution were true.
But of course it isn't..so there could be no answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe the cheesy Madrile�o accent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha! That's funny that you're trying to use that. It's already been shown that that was not the actual question that was asked in that interview, and was dubbed on afterwards.
Do get some sort of thrill out of being called a moron or something? Is it like a sick masochistic sexual thing for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've always regarded that vid as suspicious, because the question the woman supposedly asks has a straightforward answer highly unlikely to stump an Oxford professor if a guy (me) who peddles TEFL for a living can answer it.
Physical characteristics can be (and are) influenced and passed on in response to environmental adaptation. Straightforward example: the way melanin in skin typically responds to ultraviolet radiation. Humans probably evolved in the tropics, where they were exposed to high UV levels. The majority of dark pigmented people live within 20� of the equator. Most of the lighter pigmented people live in the northern hemisphere north of 20� latitude (northern Europe is 50-60�). One of the reasons Eskimos are dark (unlike northern Europeans) is that they have not lived in the region very long. More importantly, their traditional diet is rich in fish and other seafood, high in vitamin D, the "sunshine vitamin", so they haven't undergone the same reduction in pigmentation that would otherwise occur at such high latitudes. There. Increased information in the genome example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dawkins didn't know the program makers were creationists when she asked the question it dawned on him he was duped. He realised that he was being used and found he couldn't come with an answer or continue to speak without feeling his word would be quoted out of context.
From origins
| Quote: |
Claim CB102.1:
In an interview in 1997, Richard Dawkins was asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." Apparently unable to answer, he paused a long time and finally responded by changing the subject.
Source:
AIG, 1998. Skeptics choke on Frog: was Dawkins caught on the hop? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp
Keziah Films, "From a Frog to a Prince" (video)
Response:
1. According to Dawkins, he paused because the question revealed that the interviewers were creationists, that he had been duped about their motives. He paused to think about how to handle them, and the change of subject occurred due to the several minutes when he confronted them being omitted from the video (Dawkins 2003).
2. The question is equivalent to asking how complexity could evolve, which Dawkins has covered in at least four books (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and A Devil's Chaplain). He has answered the question at great length.
3. The ability of a single person to answer a question is largely irrelevant. The scientific literature is rife with examples of information increasing. |
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Ha! That's funny that you're trying to use that. It's already been shown that that was not the actual question that was asked in that interview, and was dubbed on afterwards.
Do get some sort of thrill out of being called a moron or something? Is it like a sick masochistic sexual thing for you? |
He does have a fondness for creationist frauds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eyeball wrote: |
| It's already been shown that that was not the actual question that was asked in that interview, and was dubbed on afterwards. |
| Ed209 wrote: |
| Dawkins didn't know the program makers were creationists when she asked the question it dawned on him he was duped. |
You both seem confused.So which is it?
Is your definition of "duped" being asked a question by people who don't automatically believe all you say?
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| a straightforward answer highly unlikely to stump an Oxford professor |
Exactly. Why would he be stumped? because evolutionism actually has no real answer. Its an elaborate lie built on mountains of meaningless confused and contradictory long-winded explanations that lead to a dead end.
Which is why a simple question tends to blow the whole thing out the water.
| Quote: |
| Physical characteristics can be (and are) influenced and passed on in response to environmental adaptation. Straightforward example: the way melanin in skin typically responds to ultraviolet radiation. |
All within the range of natural variation.
Get back to me when people are born with horns or entirely new novel features- not just different shuffles of inherent skin pigmentation levels.
Your whacky story involves blue whales descending from a single cell by accidental mutation. Or bacteria supposedly becoming complex marine fish overnight in the cambrian explosion.
We're not talking a simple adjusting of photoshop color levels. But a wholescale dramatic cut and paste insertion of wings onto a foot. Entirely different ballpark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| eyeball wrote: |
| It's already been shown that that was not the actual question that was asked in that interview, and was dubbed on afterwards. |
| Ed209 wrote: |
| Dawkins didn't know the program makers were creationists when she asked the question it dawned on him he was duped. |
You both seem confused.So which is it?
Is your definition of "duped" being asked a question by people who don't automatically believe all you say?
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| a straightforward answer highly unlikely to stump an Oxford professor |
Exactly. Why would he be stumped? because evolutionism actually has no real answer. Its an elaborate lie built on mountains of meaningless confused and contradictory long-winded explanations that lead to a dead end.
Which is why a simple question tends to blow the whole thing out the water.
| Quote: |
| Physical characteristics can be (and are) influenced and passed on in response to environmental adaptation. Straightforward example: the way melanin in skin typically responds to ultraviolet radiation. |
All within the range of natural variation.
Get back to me when people are born with horns or entirely new novel features- not just different shuffles of inherent skin pigmentation levels.
Your whacky story involves blue whales descending from a single cell by accidental mutation. Or bacteria supposedly becoming complex marine fish overnight in the cambrian explosion.
We're not talking a simple adjusting of photoshop color levels. But a wholescale dramatic cut and paste insertion of wings onto a foot. Entirely different ballpark. |
Do you masturbate? (as this has been *beeped* by a fucked-up swear filter, I shall reiterate it as 'engage in Onan's sin'/'practice ipsation'/'indulge your cheiromania'.
I'm genuinely interested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Exactly. Why would he be stumped? because evolutionism actually has no real answer. |
He's written books dealing with it in depth. Claim already debunked (by ED)
| Quote: |
| Its an elaborate lie built on mountains of meaningless confused and contradictory long-winded explanations that lead to a dead end. |
Dawkins is a professor at Oxford University. You work in a hagwon.
| Quote: |
| Which is why a simple question tends to blow the whole thing out the water. |
You mean like the question "where does God come from?"
That particular simple question, the genome question, doesn't blow the whole thing out of the water in any case. It's remarkably easy to answer, hence the mass of literature on it.
| Quote: |
| All within the range of natural variation. |
That's circular. Human skin naturally varies within natural variation.
What ever, you and your stupid creationists asked for an example of an evolutionary process increasing information in the genome and one was provided.
| Quote: |
| Get back to me when people are born with horns or entirely new novel features- not just different shuffles of inherent skin pigmentation levels. |
And if people are born with horns or entirely new novel features, what conclusion do you suggest one draw and how will this support your position?
| Quote: |
| Your whacky story involves blue whales descending from a single cell by accidental mutation. Or bacteria supposedly becoming complex marine fish overnight in the cambrian explosion. |
Once again you display your babyish understanding of the subject. Organisms descending with modifications from common ancestors is as fully a fact as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun.
| Quote: |
| We're not talking a simple adjusting of photoshop color levels. But a wholescale dramatic cut and paste insertion of wings onto a foot. Entirely different ballpark. |
Shock me, say something intelligent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| eyeball wrote: |
| It's already been shown that that was not the actual question that was asked in that interview, and was dubbed on afterwards. |
| Ed209 wrote: |
| Dawkins didn't know the program makers were creationists when she asked the question it dawned on him he was duped. |
You both seem confused.So which is it?
Is your definition of "duped" being asked a question by people who don't automatically believe all you say?
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| a straightforward answer highly unlikely to stump an Oxford professor |
Exactly. Why would he be stumped? because evolutionism actually has no real answer. Its an elaborate lie built on mountains of meaningless confused and contradictory long-winded explanations that lead to a dead end.
Which is why a simple question tends to blow the whole thing out the water.
| Quote: |
| Physical characteristics can be (and are) influenced and passed on in response to environmental adaptation. Straightforward example: the way melanin in skin typically responds to ultraviolet radiation. |
All within the range of natural variation.
Get back to me when people are born with horns or entirely new novel features- not just different shuffles of inherent skin pigmentation levels.
Your whacky story involves blue whales descending from a single cell by accidental mutation. Or bacteria supposedly becoming complex marine fish overnight in the cambrian explosion.
We're not talking a simple adjusting of photoshop color levels. But a wholescale dramatic cut and paste insertion of wings onto a foot. Entirely different ballpark. |
We're also talking about hundreds of millions of years of cumulative evolution. We're not talking about X-Men. Evolution takes place over periods of time you do not seem to be able to grasp.
Peace
Last edited by seoulunitarian on Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
