As many of us know, Dawkins, a few years back, was left speechless by a simple question that asked him to provide one unambiguous example of an observable mutation adding new information to the genome. The I-could-hear-a-pin-drop silence is truly a spectacle. Peter, our now very much absent atheist friend, had earlier tried to explain away Dawkins' fatuous confusion by claiming....ohh, I can't remember what Peter's excuse was but it amply demonstrated, once again, how keen evolutionists are to assist their spiritual high priest out of his tongue-tied moments.
Well, anyway, here's what the film-maker had to say after Big Bad Baz Williams, our very own Aussie-bred arch-sceptic and all-round atheist bother boy, fulminated and cast down fire and brimstone against us creationists, charging us with deceit and all sorts of other nasties. Baz tried to come to Dawkins' rescue but, alas, he didn't get his facts right so he kind of came off second best.
The point of this question is clear to anyone who isn't a knucklehead. If evolution is truly happening, it requires trillions of zillions of novel information adding mutation events to occur. If amoebas have become man, so to speak, it takes an awful lot of new information to get from there to here. Photocopying 'Mary had a little lamb" a billion times will not give you Bleak House. Similarly, "photocopying" an amoeba a billion times will not give you a grasshopper, a redwood or a cow. Furthermore, evolution has obtained the status of law and so must be an on-going "fact". It must be happening as we speak. Any evolutionist should be able to point to quite a large number of these potentially observable phenomena.
If you haven't seen the video it's well worth the watch and has become a classic.
http://www.trueorigin.org//ca_gb_01.asp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
FYI I remember doing a post on this topic a while ago too.
http://home.people.net.au/~DuanesMind/wpblog/?p=40
Thanks, Duane. Will check it out.
The youtube version has had over 900,000 hits so far. Some comments are vitriolic from atheists but then, you'd get a similar reaction stomping on an ants' nest.
Neil
I has a look at the http://www.trueorigin.org//ca_gb_01.asp Interesting. Dawkins was caught fibbing and unable to answer what should be a simple question, if evolution from microbe to man were a fact.
Didn't Peter X call me a fibber when I told him this, not so long ago?
Typical of antiChristians they believe anything one of their religious running-mates tells them.
Remember Plimer's book 'Telling Lies for God.' The antiGod crowd uncritically accepted this tripe and did not check it out. I was involved in checking out some of the details and found Plimer had fibbed. He said he had talked to Halvorsens (once boat builders) about whether Noah was capable of building the ark. Plimer claims the unnamed person with whom he spoke said it was not possible, or words to that effect. I chased this story through the whole organization, and also spoke to retired members of the Halvorsen family. The upshot 1) Halvorsen's haven't built boats for a long time. 2) No one in the present company has been involved in boat building and therefore could not answer such a question. 3) No one recalls anyone phoning with such a question. A question, so strange it would have been remembered.
Further I spoke with a younger Halvorsen, living on the North Coast, if I remember correctly. He also chased the story through the organization and the family. Result? No truth in it! The same with many other claims Plimer made. But the antiGod faithful swallowed it whole, without checking.
Why am I not surprized?
Yes, Warwick, the anti-God faithful, including that ex-Anglo archbishop, ex-GG Hollingworth, who forwarded Plimer's book, giving it glowing praises. I suppose the one thing that can be said for him is at least he's somewhat open about his heresy. He bats for the liberals and wears their jersey. Peter Jensen and clan, however, bat for the liberals while masquerading as conservatives.
BTW Warwick, is your "I has a look at" a 2 and half glass Rutherford red evening after effect that under a morning post would have read "I had a look at"?
John, you nitpicker. You know English isn't my first language.
I did indeed have about 2.4 glasses of red last night. Not Rutherford but a Cabernet-Shiraz blend which a friend produces for his own consumption. Very nice.
Oh dear, you all are still talking smack about me here, but when I show up you ran away from the discussion. John, you did not even bother to check what my argument was but decided to attack an invisible strawman. How cares about the facts as the attack is always more important... but I guess that counts for Christian Apologetics.
Thanks for calling me "atheist friend" but I wonder why SAH crew keeps throwing personal insults everytime they talk to me. I guess who needs enemies when you have Christian friend ;-). Well hopefully I then get an invite next time you meet up with red wine, theology and science with your friends...
Peter,
You're brilliant! I'd never thought it possible that one could complain about a person's ad hominem by including an ad hominem in the complaint.
As for wine, t & s, Warwick and I occasionally do meet to experience that glorious trifecta. It's a rather complex and problematic situation for me at this time - many here understand the situation - but Warwick, I'm sure, would extend a welcome. It's just whether or not I can be there on the day.
John said: "It's a rather complex and problematic situation for me at this time ..."
On the 'wagon'?
Neil
Sorry, just poking fun. I hope it heals up real quick.
Neil
Peter has aroused my interest in Richard Dawkins so I was interested to read that Prof. Anthony Flew ( ex-atheist and ex-professor of philosophy, Reading University) has been very critical of Dawkins. He wrote 'The fault of Dawkins as an academic, was his scandalous and apparently delibertate refusal to present the doctrine, which he appears to think he refuted, in its strongest form.' Hey is he saying Dawkins cheats?
www.telegraph.co.uk/science and technology/science/sciencenews/3348563/Richard-Dawkins-branded-%27secularist-bigot%27-by-veteran-philosopher.html phew.
I thought I had to include the link or Peter would say I was fibbing, wouldn't you Peter?
Flew describes Dawkins as a 'secularist bigot.' This is news? And this from a man who was once described as 'the worlds most notorious atheist.'
Of course, this is Tony Flew who once served at the altar where Dawkins now sits enthroned i.e. the high priest of atheism. Once Flew became a deist the atheists attacked him with exceptional caustic vigour, calling him senile and prone to dementia.
Warwick, Flew's words you've quoted show that his brain is still capable of recognising claptrap, despite being, I think, in his 90's.
Yes, John and Warwick, it is disturbing to see that many clergy just loved Plimer's book … Lies …. That discredited Hollingsworth never even read the book before writing the glowing foreword.
It's good to see that Plimer is doing something more useful now, fighting global warming alarmism, which he rightly says is a quasi-religious cult. But given his track record, we should be wary of relying on him in this area too, even if we're incline to agree with him this time.
Post a Comment