# Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question



## JM (Feb 23, 2008)

Enjoy. 

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related]YouTube - Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)[/ame]


----------



## Zenas (Feb 23, 2008)

He didn't ever answer the question and I know that I, myself, have never thought that evolution was as he described the misunderstanding to be. I have a percetly sufficient elementary understanding of it and do not now, nor have I ever, attempted to paint the theory as one that explains origins of "modern" animals out of other "modern" animals, to use his terminology. 

It's sad that there's so little substance to him, that such a basic question can't be answered.


----------



## danmpem (Feb 23, 2008)

I think he did try to answer the question. It appears he didn't, because he didn't use the same vocabulary as she did.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 23, 2008)

danmpem said:


> I think he did try to answer the question. It appears he didn't, because he didn't use the same vocabulary as she did.



He, at best, evaded it. He didn't really answer the question. The question was whether or not we have any examples (emperical evidence) of Evolution adding information to the genome in successive mutations.

Instead of answering that question he only stated that, basically, what we have now is what we have.

In other words, he may be correct in asserting that we should not be looking at the current fish genome, comparing it to the current lizard genome, and assuming that the lizard genome is an addition to the current fish genome.

But, all he did was overawe the scientifically illiterate here. "Oh, Richard, you're _sooo_ smart. Can you use more words for me...."

The very basis for his assertion that there is no God is rooted in emperical observation. Yet, at the very starting point of his argument _for_ evolution he cannot base this in empericism. 

An honest, emperical answer would be: "No, we have no examples of this...."

Because, at the basic point of substantiating their claim, Evolutionists depart from a Naturalistic worldview that insists that all assertions must be emperically verifiable. His theory, on its most basic level, is simply offered on point of bare assertion: "We have no examples of information being added to the genome in successive generations but, trust us, this happened billions of years ago. Just look: we have a fish genome and a lizard genome. For there to be these "cousins", there _must_ have been a time in the past where a genome evolved from a simple state to a more complex state. This must be true because Evolution is true."


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Feb 23, 2008)

I am sure that Windows Vista and Windows XP must have evolved from an unobservable, unverifiable common ancestor through random mutation too. How do I know? Look at the Window's logo, they look the same!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 23, 2008)

This is from 'From a frog to a prince' video. Highly amusing no doubt, but this was obtained by deception as any evolutionist will quickly point out. Dawkins was not aware who he was talking to or what their agenda was.

But it is very, very funny. And it is a question that cannot be answered without sophistry.


----------



## Richard King (Feb 23, 2008)

I think I just saw Dawkins evolve into a deer in the headlights.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 23, 2008)

His imagination is more developed (evolutionarily speaking) than mine. He pictures fish coming out of the water and becoming amphibians. I picture fish coming out of the water and suffocating. How can such a smart man believe such (In my humble opinion) nonsense?


----------



## Herald (Feb 23, 2008)

Richard King said:


> I think I just saw Dawkins evolve into a deer in the headlights.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 23, 2008)

I think he did give an honest answer to the question that, unfortunately, deceives the ignorant into thinking there is empirical evidence for evolution when in fact his answer denies the fact that there is such evidence nor that there ever can be. What he is doing is essentially answering 'no', but this simple 'no' is wrapped up in the answer as to why we will not ever be able to demonstrate the critical evidence in question. 

This is exactly why evolution will always remain a theory. If he could answer the question in a clear affirmative and provide proof, evolution would be on its way to becoming a 'law'.

Since such proofs will always be elusive, evolution will remain in the category of faith. The thing is, the Christian worldview provides answers to the fundamental questions whereas evolution is a 'leap of faith' from the very beginning. It does not honestly deal with the world as it truly is whereas the Bible does. This is one of the fundamental truths that lead to my conversion over 15 years ago.


----------



## Gloria (Feb 23, 2008)

blhowes said:


> His imagination is more developed (evolutionarily speaking) than mine. He pictures fish coming out of the water and becoming amphibians. I picture fish coming out of the water and suffocating. How can such a smart man believe such (In my humble opinion) nonsense?



LOL.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 23, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> This is from 'From a frog to a prince' video. Highly amusing no doubt, but this was obtained by deception as any evolutionist will quickly point out. Dawkins was not aware who he was talking to or what their agenda was.
> 
> But it is very, very funny. And it is a question that cannot be answered without sophistry.



I heard this as well. A "fast one" was pulled and is being used in deception to discredit his position. In all fairness (I guess) he was blind sided. Nevertheless, it was interesting seeing him look at the ceiling for so long. He must have blinked a hundred times in that short span.




Richard King said:


> I think I just saw Dawkins evolve into a deer in the headlights.





This is hilarious!


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 23, 2008)

Why would this be blindsiding? Sounds like a legitimate question to me. If, as evolutionists submit, there are "new" oraganisms evolving from old, would that not mean there would be an addition to and increase in the genomic data? And if it happened "long,long ago", why isn't it happening demonstrably now?


----------



## Craig (Feb 23, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> This is from 'From a frog to a prince' video. Highly amusing no doubt, but this was obtained by deception as any evolutionist will quickly point out. Dawkins was not aware who he was talking to or what their agenda was.



Would the truth of his answer change depending on the one asking the question? 

I'm sorry, but exposing this God-hater's intellectual nudity was not blindsiding...if the "facts" are there, as Dawkin's says...and if Christians are as stupid as he says we are, a simple "elementary fact" necessary for evolution ought to have some evidence he can point to.


----------



## HaigLaw (Mar 10, 2008)

*what deception?*



Craig said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > This is from 'From a frog to a prince' video. Highly amusing no doubt, but this was obtained by deception as any evolutionist will quickly point out. Dawkins was not aware who he was talking to or what their agenda was.
> ...



I must have missed something. Where did the idea come from that he was blind-sided or deceived?


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Mar 10, 2008)

I must echo Haig. Why is this question unfair in any sense? I don't know where I heard this quote from (might have been Bahnsen) but it hits the nail on the head: "Atheists don't need evidence, they need repentance." And our prayers.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 11, 2008)

HaigLaw said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> > JonathanHunt said:
> ...



From what I understand, Dawkins refuses to grant interviews to creationists. When he heard this question, he suspected that the interviewer was a creationist which is why he asked to stop the tape. He apparently questioned the group about their affiliations and decided to continue with the interview.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 11, 2008)

SRoper said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> > Craig said:
> ...



That's interesting. While I can understand not wanting to have interviews with religious-folk who are just going to want to fight and make jerks of themselves, I wonder why he won't have interviews with creationists altogether.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 11, 2008)

danmpem said:


> That's interesting. While I can understand not wanting to have interviews with religious-folk who are just going to want to fight and make jerks of themselves, *I wonder why he won't have interviews with creationists altogether*.




I think you just saw why. There are intelligent creationists who can ask questions that will point out the holes in the evolutionary theory. They do not wish to be embarrassed themselves; they merely wish to do the embarrassing so as to keep the origins monopoly intact.


----------

