Dawkins put on spot.

[andycal]

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.

[MRC_Hans]

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

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by andycal
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 have heard about this before, IIRC, its a case of VERY selective editing. I'll try and dig out some details.
P

[Peter Jenkins]

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

[Doctor X]

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.

[andycal]

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.

[MRC_Hans]

Well done, Peter! Case closed ;).

Hans

[CFLarsen]

andycal,

Let us know what your friend said.

[Zep]

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.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Zep
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.

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

[Zep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Drop, and give me 20 fallacies!!! :D Sir! 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!

[CFLarsen]

You know, I actually counted them..... ;)

[Zep]

Oh good. My word-processor works.

[hgc]

Originally posted by andycal
... 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...
Perhaps you'd better do a little research!

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/toonroom/catdog/images/catc.gif

[Dancing David]

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.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Dancing David
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.

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.

Originally posted by Dancing David
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...

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

[andycal]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
andycal,

Let us know what your friend 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!

[Chanileslie]

Never mind. I should learn to read the whole thread before posting.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by andycal


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!

Eye yie eye! ;)

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

Check out quote #2.8

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Eye yie eye! ;)

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

Check out quote #2.8

I should note that talkorigins also covers the original topic, as well

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html

[MRC_Hans]

I suppose we should compose a FAQ. (CFL?)

Anyhow, just for the heck of it:

Debunking the "impossible eye evolution" argument.

Eyes, being delicate and perishable structures, are not well represented in the fossil record, so it is really not possible to document the evolution of this organ that way, but we don't need that to falsify the claim:

"The eye, with its many interdependent functions could not have come to existence through the essentially random process that evolution is claimed to be."

The claim presumes that an eye is only useful if it is complete with lids, lens, iris, retina, focus and light compensation and directional control. Thus, it is claimed that only if such a complete organ were to appear in one mutation, would it have been beneficial to the life-for aquireing it, and be selected in evolution.

Consequently, the claim can be falsified by showing that individual components of sight organs can appear and be beneficial, and for this we do not need to refer to the fossil record:

The most primitive sight organs we observe on extant life-forms are single light sensitive cells in the skin of certain flat-worms and other primitive non-vertebrates. These simple organs enable the creatures to distinguish between night and day, to determine if they are out in the open (and thus open to predators) and perhaps even to detect sudden changes on light that may indicate the presense of a predator. In other words, such an organ is beneficial.

Studying extant creatures, we can follow the entire development from these proto-eyes, over patches of sight-cells, cell-groups with primitive fixed lenses, lidless eyes, unmoving eyes, all the way to the complex sight organ of mammals and other highly evolved vertebrates.

On every single step, we can show how a single factor is added to an existing organ and is beneficial by improving it.

Hans

[andycal]

That's fab. Cut and pasted and added to my arsenal.

[Ratman_tf]

Many YEC's will, when confronted by the examples in nature of partial eyes, retreat to the argument that "These are eyes that already exist! That isn't a demonstration of how our eyes came to be!"
Which of course, is a slightly different argument. One involving a lack of fossilized eyes. Best in that case to remind our hypothetical YEC that the original argument was that a partial eye is impossible, which is demonstratably false.

(Ratman jumping ahead in the argument...:D )

[Dancing David]

The eye also has some flaws in it as far as intelligent design goes.

The blood vessels that serve the retina are between the retina and the pupil. So there are all these like arteries and viens in front of the retina, that block ans spoil the view. In fact you can learn how to see all this crap that is in your visual field. So it is a contingent design instead of an intelligent design.
The eye gets structured by the folding memebranes of the developing human. The folding of the external membrane of the fetus causes the placement of the blood vessels. Surely god could have changed that so the blood vessels would be behind the retina.
And while gods was at it he could have given us UV protection for our eyes so we don't get cataracts and a better immune systems. Say why did god make disease and bacteria and viruses?

[SGT]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The eye also has some flaws in it as far as intelligent design goes.

The blood vessels that serve the retina are between the retina and the pupil. So there are all these like arteries and viens in front of the retina, that block ans spoil the view. In fact you can learn how to see all this crap that is in your visual field. So it is a contingent design instead of an intelligent design.
The eye gets structured by the folding memebranes of the developing human. The folding of the external membrane of the fetus causes the placement of the blood vessels. Surely god could have changed that so the blood vessels would be behind the retina.
And while gods was at it he could have given us UV protection for our eyes so we don't get cataracts and a better immune systems. Say why did god make disease and bacteria and viruses?

Not only the blood vessels, but the nerves that carry the information from the sensitive cells to the brain, are in front of those cells, partially blocking the light. Worse, since those nerves must go out of the eye, they are united and leave the eye by the same spot, creating a blind region.
It's interesting to notice that octopusses have eyes without those drawbacks. I wonder why did god provide a mollusc with better designed eyes than those of the top of his creation.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dancing David
... So Say why did god make disease and bacteria and viruses?


Plenty of non- answers from Radrook on that over here..

Why did God create the tree of knowledge? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42530)

Discounting the quotation of Bible verses..

[dmarker]

Originally posted by SGT


Not only the blood vessels, but the nerves that carry the information from the sensitive cells to the brain, are in front of those cells, partially blocking the light. Worse, since those nerves must go out of the eye, they are united and leave the eye by the same spot, creating a blind region.
It's interesting to notice that octopusses have eyes without those drawbacks. I wonder why did god provide a mollusc with better designed eyes than those of the top of his creation.

I've asked those young earth creationists that on chat and their reply is invariably: "I don't know! You can ask God when you meet him!!!"

Then the subject mysteriously changes and I introduce the speculation that the whole Jesus thing was a prank played by Loki and won't Odin be PO'd that so many fell for it. :D

[CFLarsen]

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

Oh boy indeed. Defeat is never easy to admit...

Originally posted by andycal
Any pointers welcome... I beleive this was a Darwin thing.

We can hope that he will go the way of the Dodo... :)

Originally posted by andycal
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!

Yes, you are right: It is unfair. However, you have the advantage of the huge body of factual evidence. Sure, it takes some time digging up the right retorts. But you can sleep comfortable, knowing that they are there.

Or, ask here...

[wildflower1]

Silence in the face of some of these questions is perceived as "inability to answer."

But in my experience it's more a matter of buying time when the only response running through one's head is "Are you really THAT effing stupid?"

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by SGT

It's interesting to notice that octopusses have eyes without those drawbacks. I wonder why did god provide a mollusc with better designed eyes than those of the top of his creation.

The eight legged ones lack spinhe but they are the Chosen Ones!

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Dancing David


The eight legged ones lack spinhe but they are the Chosen Ones!

Yes, they are:


http://www.cyberdespot.com/home.html?thoughts/squid.html&frames/left.html&frames/top.html

[dmarker]

If your friend insists that partial vision is useless, bring up this guy:

http://www.slu.edu/readstory/homepage/1233

He has electrodes floating over his brain, cables coming from his head Matrix style and has to wear a pack on his waist. Not only that but the electrodes gave him seizures when he turned them up so high. And this is what he gets:

"Patients don't have "normal" vision." Instead, they see white flashes of light that resemble stars on a black background, and learn to interpret the patterns so they can gain mobility.

"By putting an array of electrodes in the brain, patients see a pattern of white spots that they could learn to interpret well enough to get some useful vision," Smith said. "

I'd say about 10% of normal human vision, but it makes all the difference to the people who have it. Others are going to Portugal for the same treatment.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Zep
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.
yes, but can a "hard-core skeptic" be cool? ...11s...30s...20"...

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Riddick

yes, but can a "hard-core skeptic" be cool? ...11s...30s...20"...

Define cool.