• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dawkins put on spot.

andycal

Critical Thinker
A
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
382
I've been told today by a good Christian friend that (ahem) there's a tape of Richard Dawkins being put on the spot by a creationist. Mr Dawkins apparenlty paused for 20 minutes then asked for the tape not to be aired.

I sit with this guy at work and bat off creationsim vs evolution questions all day. The latest one was "if evolution was true, there would be cat dogs etc". After I stopped laughing I answered, then I got the Dawkins sidewinder above.

I've already given an answer of "Just because someone has to think about a question, doesn't mean they're wrong or the others are right - it just means they want to think about a question" but I'd like to know even if the tape exists, because a) I doubt it does and b) it's probably been described to me wrong.
 
I'd be more interested in hearing the question. Ask your friend what the argument was. I'm pretty shure we can crack it among us. Dawkins or not.

Hans
 
andycal said:
I've been told today by a good Christian friend that (ahem) there's a tape of Richard Dawkins being put on the spot by a creationist. Mr Dawkins apparenlty paused for 20 minutes then asked for the tape not to be aired.

I sit with this guy at work and bat off creationsim vs evolution questions all day. The latest one was "if evolution was true, there would be cat dogs etc". After I stopped laughing I answered, then I got the Dawkins sidewinder above.

I've already given an answer of "Just because someone has to think about a question, doesn't mean they're wrong or the others are right - it just means they want to think about a question" but I'd like to know even if the tape exists, because a) I doubt it does and b) it's probably been described to me wrong.
Click to expand...

I have heard about this before, IIRC, its a case of VERY selective editing. I'll try and dig out some details.
P
 
Found it.
The full story can be found here http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html
It was an 11 second pause not 20 Mins (? i take it you meant seconds :) )
as a snippet, and to answer your immediate question, Dawkins says:
As a preamble, I should explain that, following the advice of my colleague Stephen Jay Gould, I have a policy of not granting interviews to creationists or flat earthers. This is not because I cannot answer their arguments, but because I have better things to do with my time and I do not want to give them the oxygen of publicity.
<snip>
Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences — in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did.

P
 
Bizarre how the details of these stories grow.

Obviously the creationist did not think seriously about the story . . . man the irony of that! He supposes this guy stands there for 20 minutes and then freaks.

What? He could not figure out he had a problem at 5 minutes.

I had a clown claim he "stumped" Susan Blackmore on a question on Near Death Experiences . . . well, it is possible to contact her. According to her, in her question-answer session she merely gave the, "well that is interesting" answer because it is useless to get into debates on anecdotal reports in public.

It is a bit like me posting: "Hey, Randi, my great-grandma was cured of her gonorrhea by my Q-Ray! Explain that!"

So, this guy did the equivalent of giving an ending to a story without the details.

--J.D.
 
Fantastic. You lot are priceless and I owe you a beer.

As it was recounted to me, it was 20 minutes, so 11 seconds is brilliant.

I'll pass on the link.

By the way, the debunking of evolution by the cat/dog theory was apparently given by a 'scientist' at this guy's church. After I gave an explination of why cat/dogs don't exist and a bit of gumph about DNA and chromosomes, he put this back to his 'scientist' friend.

She replied "I'm not a biologist and so can't comment".

i.e. "ooo, someone other than the normal brain-aches, better run to the hills".

This debunking is fun.
 
People like that are simply gentle warm-ups for most of the regular hard-core skeptics here, or nice-n-easy training cases for the newbie skeptics.
 
Zep said:
People like that are simply gentle warm-ups for most of the regular hard-core skeptics here, or nice-n-easy training cases for the newbie skeptics.
Click to expand...

Drop, and give me 20 fallacies!!! :D
 
CFLarsen said:


Drop, and give me 20 fallacies!!! :D Sir!
Click to expand...
SIR! YES SIR!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
Uri Geller!
20 FALLACIES SIR!
 
andycal said:
... After I gave an explination of why cat/dogs don't exist and a bit of gumph about DNA and chromosomes, he put this back to his 'scientist' friend...
Click to expand...
Perhaps you'd better do a little research!

catc.gif
 
This shows the fallacy of self referencing and not checking sources. Someone heras another someone say that Dawkin was stumped and then that next someone becomes a credible source, and then it becomes authority.

But they won't care, they will continue to use the cat/dog argument because they don't have a clue. I would like to say something funny about god/devil but it escapes me...

It seems that the cat/dog argument is the variation of the 'transitional' species argument.
 
Dancing David said:
This shows the fallacy of self referencing and not checking sources. Someone heras another someone say that Dawkin was stumped and then that next someone becomes a credible source, and then it becomes authority.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why we need to counter those claims with hardcore evidence. No matter where those claims arise. No matter how often they arise.

Dancing David said:
But they won't care, they will continue to use the cat/dog argument because they don't have a clue. I would like to say something funny about god/devil but it escapes me...
Click to expand...

They won't care, but then, we still have one less argument to deal with.... ;)
 
CFLarsen said:
andycal,

Let us know what your friend said.
Click to expand...

He kinda just smiled. And then he decided we should begin a debate on how the eye fits in with evolution... oh boy...

Any pointers welcome... I beleive this was a Darwin thing.

It's a bit unfair you know. They've got just one book to read, I'm going to have to burn through all my Dawkins books to bone up on everything!
 
andycal said:


He kinda just smiled. And then he decided we should begin a debate on how the eye fits in with evolution... oh boy...

Any pointers welcome... I beleive this was a Darwin thing.

It's a bit unfair you know. They've got just one book to read, I'm going to have to burn through all my Dawkins books to bone up on everything!
Click to expand...

Eye yie eye! ;)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html

Check out quote #2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom