Evolution

why....

 

The question posed in the video was whether or not he was stumped. The video clip you linked me to is also provided in the video of my link. As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkin's would have access to the latest information on the subject of evolution. The question should have been straightforward for a man in his position. He is considered one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the field. But even if that isn't the case, he still asked the interviewer to stop filming, probably because he needed more time to think. In the video that I linked to, it uses Dawkin's own testimony - his own words, and they dissected his argument that he himself provided.

So in the end, the question posed, "Was he stumped?" Yes, he was stumped. He still gave his argument in the end (the video provided the link to it), but he still stumbled, which is why they stopped filming in the middle.

What was a hoax was whether or not he eventually gave an answer, and some creationists were saying that he left that out. They made it appear as though he left the scene after the fact, but that wasn't the case.

 

Again, if you read the information box in the link I posted (I will post it here for ease) Dawkins explains his pause. He realized he had been duped because he realized that the interviewee was a creationist. If you also look, there are two different versions of the video (one with a female voice and one with a male sitting in a chair). In the one with the female voice, Dawkins isn't even looking at anyone (as he would with an interview). The point being that the video you posted is a hoax. They spliced audio and video together to make it look like he was stumped and then tried to dodge the question by changing the subject.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14255&start=0 I got the link from the video I directed you to.

 

Honestly, I didn't know much about his background or the rest of his theories. I just enjoyed the video and the debates that he had. I mostly liked the statements he made about common designer and whether or not the same number of chromosomes means anything. I liked how the evolutionists in the video contradicted themselves. I guess it may be 'creationist entertainment', or whatever we like to call it. Despite not having any real training, it seemed interesting.

Just want to know, are you saying that taking the Bible literally is not the way to go because it can present the problems that you raise?

Maybe firmament is meant something else, possibly something we have not yet discovered or yet to under... just like how in the past we didn't understand what light in genesis meant (How can there be light before the sun?).

I am not sure that I agree with Kent or any scientist really. Ultimately, to me, the least biased and most objective the information is, the better (Laminin is a good example). Everything else is conjecture and worldview driven. In the end, the Bible and objective evidence go hand in hand but eventually, the Bible has the final say. Science catches up to the Bible not the other way around, and I think that you agree with this judging by your responses.

 

You do realize that microevolution and adaptation through mutation is undeniable fact, right?

 

I don't believe anything is undeniable. Newtonian physics was probably considered undeniable back then.

 

Let's put it this way.

It occurs.

 

I don't understand how you can be duped by being interviewed with a creationist. Why does he refuse to debate with creationists?

Sigh, I really hate hoaxes. Thanks for pointing that out. Makes sense now.

 

When you say that it occurs that is assuming that it is occurring along the lines of the proposed theory. It can still end up being wrong.

What appears to be occurring could be something entirely different than what we think is occurring.

Also, whether or not microevolution has anything to do with creating new species. I still believe that animals do have the ability to adapt, though, otherwise how could we get new breeds of dogs, or create hybrids, et al.

I do believe that animals have a set principals built in by the creator that allows them to adapt to their environment.

 

i voted yes, but my official stance is: i think evolution is the most logical answer today's science has. who knows what scientists'll say in 200 years though.

 

(deleted post)

 

i am saying that the "science" in Genesis 1-11 is not really science, nor should it be treated as such. It is clearly poetic to anyone who has looked at the text. Genesis 1-2:1a is by one set of authors, Genesis 2 (and a bit after) is by another set of authors. Read them--they are concerned with the say story, but write about it differently. God is called Elohim in one and YHWH in another. The Flood Story is a bit more complicated because a redactor intermingled the two accounts. With time, you can pick them apart. Again, one set is concerned with Elohim and another with YHWH. Different commands are given in each. YHWH is very human (he feels sorry for creating humans for example). Elohim is very cosmic and poetic. If it is poetry, read it like poetry. It can still be true, just not science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament both Biblical and extra-biblical Hebrew sources indicate that the raqiya (firmament) is a hard thing that even needs to be poked with a spear to get through it...

 

I believe in evolution.

Look at the inner workings of how the world works together, evolution is clear.

Organisms living in caves and deep sections of the sees have no eyes because they do not need them.

Organisms living in cold climates have thick coats of blubber/fur to keep them warm.

Organisms requiring a certain skill to survive develop that skill beyond anything else in their toolbox.

 

Here's a good example of evolution. Two new species out of one because they have become unable to breed naturally.

 

If you need more please look up the reproductive history of mules.

 

......ahhh, but you think it's possible.

Before
​

After
​

 

A genetic mutation by NO MEANS is equivalent to a full-blown shift in species and an inability to mate. Not even remotely.

 

But it is still a dog. Anti-evolutionists will ask you to show them an example of a land mammal that became a whale. Or to breed a dog into a cat. They will be stuck in the Biblical "kinds" paradigm.

Then when you can't they laugh and claim victory.

 

Yeah, but then I will challenge them to try and get those two to mate. LOL.

 

I want to comment about the lack of fossils. Ya, fossils are rare because of so many factors, but why is it that we always look to using fossils and not the bones of modern animals? You'd think something would be found there.

We have a wealth of modern animals to look at...

As for the dog comment I made, dogs and humans understand pointing while Chimpanzee's do not. Also this: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/26/dog-human-behavior.html