nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 502:
Line 502: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 23:39, December 8, 2008
, 23:39, 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 {<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)
: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)
::*I'm confused here. Everyone should know by now Dawkins is a fraud. As they should all know my opinion of him. That video didn't seem a bit different from the two times I have observed lectures by him, and he wondered off his prepared remarks. Results were the same as for Obama. Poor. (not Ed) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 18:39, 8 December 2008 (EST)