Talk:Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
 Post comment,or browse for more talk. |
Re: "It is not explained how asking for examples of the mutations necessary for evolution reveals the questioner to be a creationist"
It doesn't, but no-one has ever claimed it did, so this comment is a red herring. It was asking about an increase in genetic information that probably tipped Dawkins off, since this is a non-issue for evolution, but frequently used by creationists. Roy 22:29, 2 Apr 2005 (GMT)
- I consider that to be splitting hairs. The "the mutations necessary for evolution" is equivalent to the source of an "increase in genetic information", as that is what evolution requires. As for your second point, you are correct, but that is the whole point. Why don't evolutionists ask for evidence to support their fable? Why is evidence a non-issue for them? Because the idea is held by faith without evidence? Philip J. Rayment 11:55, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
Worth mentioning?
Is it worth mentioning the following points about this debacle?
- Gillian Brown was accused of deceptively editing the video to include a different questioner, something which is done in many documentaries.
- Barry Williams has responded to Gillian Brown's response but has entirely ignored the second camera. No one seems to have been interested in this important factor in the dispute.
- Dawkins is still using this incident as proof that creationists are deceptive. He has entirely changed the event in his own mind to make himself look victimised.
Fritleyfrisp 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I've gone ahead with this edit, I hope no one minds. Fritleyfrisp 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
