The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Er no, like nearly everything associated with the Creationism industry, it was a dispute about money.

AiG America wanted to stop selling the Australian groups magazine to subscribers and start selling them their own.

Why you ask my innocent friend? Because then they get all the MONEY!!

The Austrian group were particularly miffed about this because they wanted all the MONEY

Money money money, its really all Creationism is about when you scratch the surface. Money making the guise of faith. Pretty sad when one thinks about it.

Money certainly generated the dispute. One lot consider themselves to be the legitimate heirs of the work, and object that the others took away some of their financial resources. Seems a legitmate objection, if the initial assumption is correct. Would you not feel aggrieved if your erstwhile colleagues did the same? Or do you think an organisation should be above considering its finances?

I agree that one has to be wary of money-makers in the religious world. It is an ancient vice, and sincere believers are prone to think the best of their fellows and so fall for the insincere exploiter. But I know leading Creationists who live sacrificially for God - so it is unjust to characterise Creationism with the wickedness of any who might exploit it. Let each case be tested on its merits.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If you stumbled upon a scene where you found a woman, stabbed to death. The knife is left at the scene with fingerprints that match a local madman. A smashed clock states the time is 3.15pm. A panicked phonecall to emergency services was made from her phone at 3.15pm. The killer took various pictures at different stages of him murdering her and left them strewn around the scene.

If someone came to you and asked what your conclusion (what happened and when) was, would you say: 'I don't know, I didn't see the event happen in continuous time, therefore any conclusion is pure speculation and hence, invalid.'?

No. There would be great forensic evidence in support of the case against the murderer. But there is no such forensic support for evolution: different bits of the evidence can be used to support both creation and evolution.

Both CSI teams come up with their own scenarios based on the evidence.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. There would be great forensic evidence in support of the case against the murderer. But there is no such forensic support for evolution: different bits of the evidence can be used to support both creation and evolution.

Both CSI teams come up with their own scenarios based on the evidence.

But the probability of the murderer being the culprit is quite high, so you are right there. What we need to do is look at the evidence we have for the nature of life and test it. Every test we run weighs heavily in favour of evolutionary theory. If the creationists have a model to provide to explain th evidence we see, they are more than entitled to provide it, so it can be tested statistically. Same of the murder scene. But we have yet to see a model provided for creationism. I would be quite excited to see one, but no such model exists to date. I wonder why?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

I'm all for using one's brain. But what they do is use their whims. They have no logical/rational/hermeneutical basis for picking and choosing what is allegory or not - if the apparently historical narrative of Genesis is really allegorical. For example, why must the resurrection of Christ be a literal historical event and not an allegory?

Well, I'm fairly certain that one of the above is the central tenet of your religion, and the other is not. One is (somewhat) evidenced, the other contradicts all available evidence. In terms of actual, practical Christianity, one matters, and the other does not. Christ's resurrection can be explained as a miracle, but creationism - as it contradicts not only history and virtually every science but also everything we witness today - cannot.

When I say they use their brains, I mean that they hold to be true whatever is not obviously false.

In the same sense that Adam and Eve were, if Genesis was allegorical:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

But you seem to agree that such an allegorical relationship is nonsense.

Usually I make a point of not reading text that is blue, but this time I'll make an exception.

*reads*

I see no issue with an allegorical reading of Genesis there - in order to explain his morality at that stage, an allegory would have been particularly useful to Christ.

I've seen no such 'fact'. Have you seen, for example, a dog evolve into a non-dog? I've read speculation about what dogs may have evolved from, but seen no facts.

Well, it's taken a while, but we have successfully come full circle.

Evolution theory does not state that this will happen.

I'm not sure why this needs to be said to you over and over, as you seem by creationist standards to be pretty intelligent, but there you go.

I'm not going to try to explain it to you, as I'm not a scientist and would doubtless make a mistake. Besides, it's been explained often enough already.

The Mad Hatter

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But the probability of the murderer being the culprit is quite high, so you are right there. What we need to do is look at the evidence we have for the nature of life and test it. Every test we run weighs heavily in favour of evolutionary theory. If the creationists have a model to provide to explain th evidence we see, they are more than entitled to provide it, so it can be tested statistically. Same of the murder scene. But we have yet to see a model provided. I would be quite excited to see one, but no such model exists to date. I wonder why?

Intelligent Stabbing?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

I can't comment on this, but I can say that AIG conducted a video interview (under false pretences initially) with Richard Dawkins some years ago which they subsequently heavily edited in order to make it appear as if Dawkins is confounded by a question they put to him.

Note: The Australian Skeptics complained bitterly that Dawkins had been ‘misrepresented’ in the interview. The implication was that the answer Dawkins gave in his video was another one to another question, which had been ‘doctored in’. However, this is not the case. Dawkins asked for the camera to be switched off to give him time to think, as a tape recording of the interview demonstrated, and the answer he came back with was the one shown in the documentary. The website of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association collates much relevant documentation—see ‘Richard Dawkins and the 11 Second Pause’. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the Australian Skeptics gave Dawkins three whole pages in their magazine to ‘set the record straight’—yet despite Dawkins’ bitter attacks on creationists, the requested example (of an uphill evolutionary change) was conspicuous by its absence.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp

Richard Dawkins And The 11 Second Pausehttp://tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

Note: The Australian Skeptics complained bitterly that Dawkins had been ‘misrepresented’ in the interview. The implication was that the answer Dawkins gave in his video was another one to another question, which had been ‘doctored in’. However, this is not the case. Dawkins asked for the camera to be switched off to give him time to think, as a tape recording of the interview demonstrated, and the answer he came back with was the one shown in the documentary. The website of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association collates much relevant documentation—see ‘Richard Dawkins and the 11 Second Pause’. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the Australian Skeptics gave Dawkins three whole pages in their magazine to ‘set the record straight’—yet despite Dawkins’ bitter attacks on creationists, the requested example (of an uphill evolutionary change) was conspicuous by its absence.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp

Richard Dawkins And The 11 Second Pausehttp://tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

Creationists caught breaking the 9th commandment ONCE AGAIN:

Are you sure that I'm the one that is going to hell, Wolfy. I would be more worried about your fate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXzF9zDy_k

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dawkinschallenge.htm




See you in hell, Wolfy...

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

I'm all for using one's brain. But what they do is use their whims. They have no logical/rational/hermeneutical basis for picking and choosing what is allegory or not - if the apparently historical narrative of Genesis is really allegorical. For example, why must the resurrection of Christ be a literal historical event and not an allegory?
Well, I'm fairly certain that one of the above is the central tenet of your religion, and the other is not. One is (somewhat) evidenced, the other contradicts all available evidence. In terms of actual, practical Christianity, one matters, and the other does not. Christ's resurrection can be explained as a miracle, but creationism - as it contradicts not only history and virtually every science but also everything we witness today - cannot.

Again we dispute that creationism contradicts history or science.

But to the point of allegory or not - regardless of how important a doctrine might be, what is the force of evidence to suggest it be interpreted allegorically or not? There must be a literary principle applied, not convenience. You are suggesting one can legitimately interpret any apparently historical narrative as such, if it is not contradicted by science. That misses the point - if that is the case, we cannot know anything of the Bible account as history. Any of it may be allegory. Those who insist Jesus died allegorically, or rose again allegorically, or is coming again allegorically - who can say they are wrong? Is His kingdom really not of this world? Did He mean this metaphorically? Or is it OK for His people to wage war to establish His knigdom here and now?

When I say they use their brains, I mean that they hold to be true whatever is not obviously false.

What you actually say is that they may hold to be historical whatever is not obviously false - you fail to show how they can determine if it is allegorical or not.

I see no issue with an allegorical reading of Genesis there - in order to explain his morality at that stage, an allegory would have been particularly useful to Christ.

Hmm, so you think it a valid argument that one should not divorce one's wife because that's how is was in an allegory? Or that a wife should be in submission to her husband because Adam was created first, then Eve, in an allegory?

Quote:
I've seen no such 'fact'. Have you seen, for example, a dog evolve into a non-dog? I've read speculation about what dogs may have evolved from, but seen no facts.
Well, it's taken a while, but we have successfully come full circle.

Evolution theory does not state that this will happen.

Yes, that's fine. I'm asking you what is the fact of evolution you have seen. The only fact I can think of is seeing one type of organism evolve into another. It doesn't happen - bacteria remain bacteria, dogs dogs, man man. We alter a bit, but do not evolve.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

bacteria remain bacteria, dogs dogs, man man. We alter a bit, and thus evolve.

Fixed.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Creationists caught breaking the 9th commandment ONCE AGAIN:

Are you sure that I'm the one that is going to hell, Wolfy. I would be more worried about your fate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXzF9zDy_k

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dawkinschallenge.htm




See you in hell, Wolfy...

How do those videos contradict what the interviewers said occurred?

How are they hoaxes?

I must be very dim, so talk me through it step by step. Did the pause occur at this place? Was it for the 11 sec. they allege? Or did they make it appear there was a pause? Was it a tea-break? What is your case?

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Fixed.

Ah, I see. I'm futher along the evolutionary stage of humanity than my dad was. This is the evolution you believe in. I don't have any trouble with that. I see it happen all around me. It fits well with the Genesis account of a recent creation and the diversification that happened since.

The evolution I thought you referred to was that which sees fish changing into mammals over millions of years.

Good to have you on board.:D

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, I see. I'm futher along the evolutionary stage of humanity than my dad was. This is the evolution you believe in. I don't have any trouble with that. I see it happen all around me. It fits well with the Genesis account of a recent creation and the diversification that happened since.

The evolution I thought you referred to was that which sees fish changing into mammals over millions of years.

Good to have you on board.:D

You're so close to being right here it's almost painful to watch.

Here it is: They are the same thing. Why would evolution stop?

If you combine enough small changes, they start to look like large changes.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the Genesis creation account is an allegory, then any other part of the Bible that presents itself in similar apparently historical narrative fashion may also be allegory. That means in effect that every part of the Bible may be so treated. The historical accounts of the Old and New Testaments, including the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ - all are up for grabs.

You seem to feel that you're poised on a slippery slope. Accept Genesis as metaphor and the whole thing is thrown into flux. But how so? Literal creation is falsified by simple observation. Yet other parts of the bible are supported as literal truth by the same means. Those parts that are ambiguous in terms of evidence are a mixture of the plausible,dubious and the unverifiable- so I can see why it is tempting to take the whole thing as literal and true for the sake of simplicity. But why should the word of a being beyond our comprehension and imagining be simple? Why should it have only one meaning?

More to the point, why be so fearful of that ambiguity? Are you really so concerned that you might misinterpret the Word and be lead astray? Have you so little faith in your own reason?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. There would be great forensic evidence in support of the case against the murderer. But there is no such forensic support for evolution: different bits of the evidence can be used to support both creation and evolution.

How does the evidence that a fossil is 300 million years old support the YEC model? Being as generous as possible with most fossil dates, you're talking about an error of a few tens of millions of years. Yet the margin of error on these dates is "interpreted" by creationists to mean exactly what they want to believe. A margin of error of 10% becomes a justification of 99%, and the data is fit to the model yet again.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

Note: The Australian Skeptics complained bitterly that Dawkins had been ‘misrepresented’ in the interview. The implication was that the answer Dawkins gave in his video was another one to another question, which had been ‘doctored in’. However, this is not the case. Dawkins asked for the camera to be switched off to give him time to think, as a tape recording of the interview demonstrated, and the answer he came back with was the one shown in the documentary. The website of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association collates much relevant documentation—see ‘Richard Dawkins and the 11 Second Pause’. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the Australian Skeptics gave Dawkins three whole pages in their magazine to ‘set the record straight’—yet despite Dawkins’ bitter attacks on creationists, the requested example (of an uphill evolutionary change) was conspicuous by its absence.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp

Yeah, because the answer to a question that makes no sense in evolutionary biology or biology in general is the actual issue. Dawkins gave an answer as best he could at the time, no doubt struggling with his frustration at the senselessness of the question, and caught on the hop having not realised he was talking to creationists (they hadn't told him what the interview was for). He contemplated rescinding his release for the interview, but the crew gave him a sob story about having travelled across the world to talk to him and he relented. It turns out he shouldn't have bothered.

wolfsbane wrote: »

How do those videos contradict what the interviewers said occurred?

How are they hoaxes?

I must be very dim, so talk me through it step by step. Did the pause occur at this place? Was it for the 11 sec. they allege? Or did they make it appear there was a pause? Was it a tea-break? What is your case?

The case Wolfie, is that the creationist edit is presented as such:

Male interviewer asks Dawkins a question.
This is followed by the "pause sequence".
Then the reply.

The story we are lead to believe here is that Dawkins paused because he couldn't answer the question. Then after a pause he answered it.

The raw video shows:

Female interview asks Dawkins the question during the "pause sequence".
Dawkins pauses and then asks the crew to stop filming.
Audio tape recordings show that Dawkins at that point had realised what the interview was about (creationist promotional material) and the crew attempted to convince him to continue.
The pause shown the in video was in fact his realisation that he was dealing with a creationist film crew and, most importantly, the pause did not directly precede his answering of the question as shown in the final cut.
When filming resumes (the crew gave him their sob story), Dawkins answers without hesitation.

So their assertion that the question content caused Dawkins to pause is untrue. It is a misrepresentation of what actually occurred.

The article that linked the video has since clarified, but only because the raw video and audio demonstrated exactly what they'd done.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists have no bother reconciling Genesis with the world they see around them - but they do have in reconciling it with the Theory of Evolution. We do not see that theory in operation around us.

Don't be silly Wolfsbane. It is not simply a case that YEC has trouble with Evolution. Young Earth Creationism contradicts with practically all of modern science, from biology to chemistry to physics.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No problem with that quote. When scientific scrutiny shows Creationism to be false, you will have something to talk about.

Well you have two options. Either YEC is correct and the vast majority of modern science, from atomic theory to electromagnetic theory to archeology to astronomy, is wrong. Or Creationism is wrong

One could completely ignore evolution and still have Creationism blow out of the water by theory after theory after theory from all fields of scientific research.

So the idea that scientific scrutiny doesn't show Creationism to be false is just a flat out lie, fitting for the industry of the Serpent.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists too have a model, and both have their cases apparently supported by some of the evidence and contradicted by other parts.

Yes but the Creationism "model" is that everything we know in science is wrong. That isn't very believable.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the Serpent continues to claim that God was lying.

I couldn't have put it better myself. The Creationism Industry continues to put forward the idea that God, through the creation of the universe, deceived us in so many areas, from the speed of star light, to the geological layers of the Earth, to the fossil record of life, to the decay of atomic particles.

Creationism's central hypothesis is that God lies, repeatably, to us through nature, and only told the truth in a poem at the start of the Bible.

Flamed Diving

Wolfsbane and JC. Thou shalt not ignore the 9th commandment. For thou shalt be cast into the fires of hell for all eternity. Listen not, to the lies of the serpant. Repent, and join us in the bliss of heaven.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yeah, because the answer to a question that makes no sense in evolutionary biology or biology in general is the actual issue. Dawkins gave an answer as best he could at the time, no doubt struggling with his frustration at the senselessness of the question, and caught on the hop having not realised he was talking to creationists (they hadn't told him what the interview was for). He contemplated rescinding his release for the interview, but the crew gave him a sob story about having travelled across the world to talk to him and he relented. It turns out he shouldn't have bothered.



The case Wolfie, is that the creationist edit is presented as such:

Male interviewer asks Dawkins a question.
This is followed by the "pause sequence".
Then the reply.

The story we are lead to believe here is that Dawkins paused because he couldn't answer the question. Then after a pause he answered it.

The raw video shows:

Female interview asks Dawkins the question during the "pause sequence".
Dawkins pauses and then asks the crew to stop filming.
Audio tape recordings show that Dawkins at that point had realised what the interview was about (creationist promotional material) and the crew attempted to convince him to continue.
The pause shown the in video was in fact his realisation that he was dealing with a creationist film crew and, most importantly, the pause did not directly precede his answering of the question as shown in the final cut.
When filming resumes (the crew gave him their sob story), Dawkins answers without hesitation.

So their assertion that the question content caused Dawkins to pause is untrue. It is a misrepresentation of what actually occurred.

The article that linked the video has since clarified, but only because the raw video and audio demonstrated exactly what they'd done.

I've watched the video several times, and the bottom line, it seems to me, is an interviewer asks Dawkins the question, he thinks for some 11 seconds and then asks the camera to be switched off.

Here's a more detailed account:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3867

From it I learnt the reason for the question being posed by different interviewers:
We resumed recording, then after he finished his statement I asked for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did.

After some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on again and his final answer was recorded, the answer which appears in the video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question. Because my question was off-camera and off-mike (though clearly audible on the tape), it could not be used in the finished production. That is why the presenter was recorded later, repeating my question as I had asked it.

And concerning the length of the pause:
Your concern is that the pause was fabricated. No, the pause followed by an irrelevant answer was in response to that exact question, a question which Dr Dawkins could not answer and would have preferred not to even discuss. ‘Ludicrous’ perhaps, but the question was indeed evaded. If you would care to view the unedited tape you will be able to confirm my account....
The question, asked by myself (not Geoffrey Smith) was off camera, and that’s why the question was re-recorded by the narrator, the pause and the answer which follows is exactly the response from Prof. Dawkins.

The actual pause was in fact shortened from 19 seconds to 11 seconds, and Dawkins’ request to switch off the camera so that he could think was also cut out. So, there was no malicious intent whatsoever, what is seen is Dawkins’ exact response, with a shortened pause, and the (merciful not malicious) removal of his request for time to think.

And this from a leading Theistic Evolutionist critic of creationism:
Another skeptic of creation, Glenn Morton, made similar charges on the internet. He asked Richard Dawkins about it and Dawkins denied recollection of the interview. Finally, after listening to an audio tape of the interview, Dr Morton posted the following apology:

‘… I had originally questioned whether there was some doctoring going on in the tape because of certain technical details that were amiss. The shadows on the narrator were not the shadows from the room in which Dawkins sat. And the room appeared to be different. I wrote Dawkins and asked him about this. He denied having any recollection of this event. I suspected a video hatchet job. After Gillian established contact with me in June, I found that my suspicions were correct that the narrator was not in the same room as Dawkins. Gillian admitted that she had the narrator re-dub the question but contended that she had asked exactly that question and that Dawkins was shown exactly as he performed at the filming [a practice that Williams stated was acceptable — Ed.]. Gillian sent a copy of the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of mine. He sent the tape to me.

‘I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown’s contention that Dawkins couldn’t answer the question.’

No hoax - just Dawkins taking a lot of time to answer the question (for whatever reason). The only hoax here is that by those trying to smear creationists.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Wolfsbane and JC. Thou shalt not ignore the 9th commandment. For thou shalt be cast into the fires of hell for all eternity. Listen not, to the lies of the serpant. Repent, and join us in the bliss of heaven.

Now that the facts are known, we will be happy to accept your apologies anytime. We know you said it honestly, but had been lied to.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You're so close to being right here it's almost painful to watch.

Here it is: They are the same thing. Why would evolution stop?

If you combine enough small changes, they start to look like large changes.

I'm just trying to get you to accept that your 'fact' is only speculation: you have not observed any large changes. The small changes equally fit the Creation model, so can I claim Creation can be seen to be a fact?

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now that the facts are known, we will be happy to accept your apologies anytime. We know you said it honestly, but had been lied to.

Apologise for what, exactly?

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've seen no such 'fact'. Have you seen, for example, a dog evolve into a non-dog? I've read speculation about what dogs may have evolved from, but seen no facts.

It is a bit of a puzzle alright, with 4000 odd years of post flood super evolution there should be literally hundreds of thousands of examples of the dog kind in the fossil record, rapidly diversifying into wolves, coyotes, hyenas, dogs etc.


As much as I hate to post a wiki link, here is the alternative version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've watched the video several times, and the bottom line, it seems to me, is an interviewer asks Dawkins the question, he thinks for some 11 seconds and then asks the camera to be switched off.

Which creates some ambiguity as to the reason for the pause, does it not? According to Dawkins, he attempted to terminate the interview at this point as he realised he'd been mislead. The film crew accept that there was some doubt at that point as to whether the interview would continue though they're sketchy on the details.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's a more detailed account:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3867

From it I learnt the reason for the question being posed by different interviewers:

That's not really an issue, on the original tape the question is indistinct and off-camera. So having the question asked clearly by a re-recorded interviewer is fine. The edit looks amateurish, but I don't think anyone asserts this was dishonest.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We resumed recording, then after he finished his statement I asked for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did.

This contradicts Dawkins' account I think. He claims he became aware of the nature of the interview at that moment. Only a creationist would ask such a question, as it has no actual meaning in biology. In any normal and unbiased interview, such an event would have resulted in a re-take of the question and answer, assuming the interviewee were satisfied to continue. That or the lead-up to the halting of filming would have been disregarded as the context became uncertain. Was Dawkins confused? Was he upset? Angry? And what was the source of that? The question itself or the realisation of what the interview was? The cut makes this entirely unclear.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And concerning the length of the pause:
Your concern is that the pause was fabricated. No, the pause followed by an irrelevant answer was in response to that exact question, a question which Dr Dawkins could not answer and would have preferred not to even discuss. ‘Ludicrous’ perhaps, but

The question, asked by myself (not Geoffrey Smith) was off camera, and that’s why the question was re-recorded by the narrator, the pause and the answer which follows is exactly the response from Prof. Dawkins.

The actual pause was in fact shortened from 19 seconds to 11 seconds, and Dawkins’ request to switch off the camera so that he could think was also cut out. So, there was no malicious intent whatsoever, what is seen is Dawkins’ exact response, with a shortened pause, and the (merciful not malicious) removal of his request for time to think.

And this from a leading Theistic Evolutionist critic of creationism:
Another skeptic of creation, Glenn Morton, made similar charges on the internet. He asked Richard Dawkins about it and Dawkins denied recollection of the interview. Finally, after listening to an audio tape of the interview, Dr Morton posted the following apology:

‘… I had originally questioned whether there was some doctoring going on in the tape because of certain technical details that were amiss. The shadows on the narrator were not the shadows from the room in which Dawkins sat. And the room appeared to be different. I wrote Dawkins and asked him about this. He denied having any recollection of this event. I suspected a video hatchet job. After Gillian established contact with me in June, I found that my suspicions were correct that the narrator was not in the same room as Dawkins. Gillian admitted that she had the narrator re-dub the question but contended that she had asked exactly that question and that Dawkins was shown exactly as he performed at the filming [a practice that Williams stated was acceptable — Ed.]. Gillian sent a copy of the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of mine. He sent the tape to me.

‘I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown’s contention that Dawkins couldn’t answer the question.’

No hoax - just Dawkins taking a lot of time to answer the question (for whatever reason). The only hoax here is that by those trying to smear creationists.

There is ambiguity as to what the pause meant, the creationists assert that it was due to the content of the question, but this is not clear from the raw recording and is contested by Dawkins.

Given the material AIG had, they could have edited this together in a number of ways:

1. Question asked, 11 second pause, Dawkins asks for camera to be shut off, question answered. Full disclosure, though perhaps awkward for the format intended

2. Question asked, question answered. The most logical edit, and the one that would have been done by an unbiased editor. This would have fit the format perfectly without creating bias.

3. Question asked, 11 second pause, question answered. The edit we got.

Given the circumstances, the interview under false pretences, the meaningless question and the cut following the pause, options 1 and 2 would be the most honest edits. Show the pause in its full and proper context (thus allowing the audience to make of it what they will) or do not show it at all (allowing them to focus on the content of the answer). By stitching the pause and answer together directly, the creationists imply that the two are directly connected when they were not clearly so.

This was not an out and out lie. But it displays a bias. It was sneaky. It was dishonest and misleading. It was unfair upon the interviewee. Perhaps there is nothing "technically" incorrect in what was done, but morally and especially following Christian morals, I think they displayed some behaviour they cannot be proud of.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm just trying to get you to accept that your 'fact' is only speculation: you have not observed any large changes.

We haven't observed them directly, you mean. We predict they should take far longer than the time we've been observing, so should we directly observe whatever you define as a "large change", it will mean our understanding of evolution is incorrect.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The small changes equally fit the Creation model, so can I claim Creation can be seen to be a fact?

Direct observation alone is not enough to call evolution a fact. We do not assert that it is enough. It does support the theory, as the theory demands that such small changes should be observable at a certain frequency. Creation however, does not demand this. You may say that small changes support Creation, but nothing about the creation of life by a supernatural being demands that it be mutable in any manner. Nothing about that demands that we should see incremental changes directly. You've built it into your model because it is an irrefutable observation. Because it is tangible, obvious and too difficult to undermine. It is not an implication of Creation. It is not required by the Creation model at all. It does not support the model or refute it. It is not relevant to the model.

However it is very much demanded by the evolutionary model and thus the data supports it.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now that the facts are known, we will be happy to accept your apologies anytime. We know you said it honestly, but had been lied to.

Hovind is in prison. Correct.
AIG are engaged in a legal dispute and are accused of dishonesty. Correct.
AIG presented a piece of video of Richard Dawkins pausing for an ambiguous reason that cannot now be verified and claimed it was due to his inability to answer a question. Correct.

What would you like us to apologise for?

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Hovind is in prison. Correct.
AIG are engaged in a legal dispute and are accused of dishonesty. Correct.
AIG presented a piece of video of Richard Dawkins pausing for an ambiguous reason that cannot now be verified and claimed it was due to his inability to answer a question. Correct.

What would you like us to apologise for?

I reckon he doesn't like being given a taste of his own medicine, with respect to being threatened with the prospect of an infinite experience of spiritual oblivion. Perhaps he should take the time to reflect on what it feels like to receive such threats, and be more careful in his delivery on this matter, in future discussion.

My 0.02c

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I reckon he doesn't like being given a taste of his own medicine, with respect to being threatened with the prospect of an infinite experience of spiritual oblivion. Perhaps he should take the time to reflect on what it feels like to receive such threats, and be more careful in his delivery on this matter, in future discussion.

My 0.02c

Yes it does wear a little thin having that thrown casually in our direction as if it had any place in a debate.

robindch

marco_polo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

Sound of creationist putting fingers in ears and going "La, la, la, can't hear ya..."

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Sound of creationist putting fingers in ears and going "La, la, la, can't hear ya..."

Two words: 'Dog kind'

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

Two words: 'Dog kind'

Meh, dogs kinds are pretty impressive, but not as impressive as the 'Moth Kind'

There are 11,000 species of butterflies and moths in North America, 148,000 worldwide. I don't know whether Hovind considers these to be two separate kinds - the creationists have no scientific basis for their "kinds." Let's count them together. They are more similar than some of the varieties Hovind listed as being in the same dog "kind," for example, although this is purely a subjective view. On the other hand, subjective is the only 'kind' of view creationism has, since there is no science there.

What this all means is that those two things from the ark - let's call them motherflies - in addition to not dying out, had to generate over 30 new species per year in the 4,400 years since the flood. That's almost three new species every single month, every single year since Noah. Why do we not see this rate of 'variation' today? How come it has never been seen? Remember that this does not include any extinct species.

Creationists are going nuts and frothing at the moth - sorry - mouth because they claim science cannot show evolution going on today. Next time they mention this, ask them where is this super-rate evolution going on today - the evolution of Hovind's two generic motherflies into 148,000 distinct, non-interbreeding species? If they say it has stopped, ask them when, and how and why. Ask them how this myriad variation came about - was it through mutation? How is this possible if, as they claim, mutation is consistently harmful.

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/F.html

It is a much more succesful story than the sad tale of the elephant kind who after disembarking the ark 'degenerated' into aproximately 160 different species, 158 of which promptly became extinct.

I leave the floor for the super evolutionists to give their scientific explaination.