Block, SkipCaptcha
195
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 502:
Line 502: − +
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 23:35, December 8, 2008
, 23:35, December 8, 2008→Why does it matter?
*That link goes to a video that supplies no information about the topic. It merely says questions to Dawkins are hoaxes by Creationists, yet doesn't provide one example or proof. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 00:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)
*That link goes to a video that supplies no information about the topic. It merely says questions to Dawkins are hoaxes by Creationists, yet doesn't provide one example or proof. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 00:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:The interview made Dawkins look a fool. Of course he has attempted to explain it away. The CMI website provides plenty of info about this, it even has a timeline showing how much time Dawkins had to come up with something, so even ignoring all of the above "on the spot" is still wildly inaccurate. It was more a case of Dawkins "realising" he might be talking to creationists because evolutionists would have accepted the elephant-hurling without challenge. Also, the interview was ''11 years'' ago and he ''still'' hasn't provided the examples as asked, so the "on the spot" objection is invalid on that account alone.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:28, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:The interview made Dawkins look a fool. Of course he has attempted to explain it away. The CMI website provides plenty of info about this, it even has a timeline showing how much time Dawkins had to come up with something, so even ignoring all of the above "on the spot" is still wildly inaccurate. It was more a case of Dawkins "realising" he might be talking to creationists because evolutionists would have accepted the elephant-hurling without challenge. Also, the interview was ''11 years'' ago and he ''still'' hasn't provided the examples as asked {<small>With the possible exception of Lenski's experiment, which he ''may'' have mentioned. But the [in]validity of that is the subject at hand here in the first place. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)</small>}, so the "on the spot" objection is invalid on that account alone.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:28, 8 December 2008 (EST)