CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Albert Einstein said: "Great minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." You seem to be getting more and more violent. Relax. Believe what you want but you should STOP calling the rest of us stupid. Stupid.
Calling you stupid is being violent? It's you who is turning to violence.....if you can't take being called stupid when your arguments are stupid, that's not my problem. If you feel violence is coming in, that's only because your heart is hateful against God and you are fighting against Him.........and only a fool fights against God.
In any case, why would you assume that any scientist holds 100% of the answers, even in their field? Science is about discovery. Part of it is admitting that we know almost nothing.
yeah, right, he answered with 5000 words. You are the hoaxer. Dawkins had no answer for the question asked and still has no answer, trying to obscure the question with puppets like you helping.
MR DAWKINS, CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A GENETIC MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS WHICH CAN BE SEEN TO INCREASE THE INFORMATION
IN THE GENOME.
Dawkins has admitted the video was not doctored and have never answered this yes or no question because he knows he cannot provide anything which can be SEEN to increase the information in the genome. Dawkins was caught off guard by the question which points out the difference between belief in evolution and true science. The honest answer would be "NO, there is no documented event showing that information increased in the genome of any animal". Dawkins was stumped because he was trying to avoid the question....and he's still avoiding it because it shows his belief is based on belief and not science.
MR DAWKINS, CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A GENETIC MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS WHICH CAN BE SEEN TO INCREASE THE INFORMATION IN THE GENOME.
This is the question which left Dawkins in shock unable to answer. It is a simple question asking for scientific evidence of evolution which can actually be seen, studied, and shown to be real. Dawkins in the article quoted calls it "fundamentalist propaganda". Really? It's a simple question asking for scientific data which would prove evolution occurs. All Dawkins want's to do is talk about his beliefs.
Richard Dawkins' own words: In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
Thank you for proving the video was not a hoax, and for proving my whole point in this debate. Dawkins still is trying to leave the question ignored and buried, still avoiding the simple yes or no question because it shows there is no real science in believing evolution.
I asked a half dozen questions about religion last week and you simply insulted me and answered none of them. Dawkins does better with questions of science then you do with questions of religion.
All you do is whine about being banned and you don't ask questions, you make stupid rhetorical statements disguised as questions. I can't help it if your brains are scrambled so you can't hear the answer.
He explains in his first paragraph of the text I showed you when you asked for the cameras to be shut off. He has defended his views live many many times and his work is open to scrutiny, as is the nature of any scientific research,.
yeah, his work is open to scrutiny but ask him a fairly simple question of science and his brain short circuits because he can't answer with a simple "NO" which is the only honest answer to the question.
"the only honest answer". Mate look you wont even read what he has to say on the subject. You have so much pride in yourself that you think you know it all. Get over yourself. Dawkins doesnt have all the answers. His honest answer is "I will have to look it up to give you a complete answer". The answer is not "no".
Why are you so incapable of understand any answer that isnt "God". I mean its not even a question of disagree or agreeing it is just the mere understanding that yuo are unwilling to strive for.
Thanks, I know I'm doing good when some fool makes up a screenname to be the evil twin of me. When somebody does that, I like to think their is hope that they will hear the gospel and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved from Hell.
It's a yes or no question. If he can't answer with a yes or a no, he's being deceptive. If the answer is yes, then he can show us where mutation or evolutionary process added to the information in the genome. If the answer is no, he can tell us all about how he thinks it happened without showing us any instance where it actually happened. The simple yes or no question stumped Dawkins because he needed time to come up with a long excuse for dodging the question and not anwering with a yes or a no. The question was not "can you give us a five thousand word essay on how you think evolution happened". The question was a specific question of science asking if DNA can ever be seen to be increasing it's amount of information in the genome of any animal and the answer is no, it cannot be seen, never has, never will. ....... seeking scientific evidence and there is none with which to answer the question so Dawkins dodged it, and before he dodged it his brain short circuited in a mental meltdown.
There is an answer to the question. Gene duplication and mutation leads to more information. It is very simple, but religious people hate simple answers, so people like Dawkins have to make it sound so complicated that religious people ignore it. You hate complicated and simple answers. What can Dawkins possibly say to help you? Nothing because you already have the wrong answer in your head.
Thank you for proving that Dawkins asked for the camera to be turned off and the video was not doctored in any way. Dawkins was caught off guard with a fairly simple question of science for which the only honest answer is "NO". Dawkins hates to admit the honest answer is no, so now he adds a long printed excuse and lecture totally ignoring the question and the obvious only honest answer which is "NO".
Evolution is not science, and when asked a simple question of science Dawkins falls apart because he cant' answer the question honestly so He ignores the question and goes into a long speech about evolution. Typical atheist, avoid admitting you cannot answer a question which must be answered if your belief is true.
He didnt. Are you really so incapable of learning? Is this what it means to be Christian?? No thankfully I know many Christians that are very bright and willing to read and able to learn. It is just you I guess that has the problem.
Just read is reply. Come on. I dare you. Try and learn something new.
I see no problem in saying that the answer is complex was better answered at length using different theories. If I ask you to tell me why my car doesnt work. Are you going to tell me that the answer doesnt exist. Its just silly. Come on.
It's a yes or no question. Dawkins avoided answering yes or no, ignored the question......it stumped him and I don't know what that bothers you. Are you afraid of the truth? You need to learn some manners or you will quickly join the club of people I automatically ban when I see their screenname in my debates.
The answer to the question Dawkins was asked is yes. And since it was yes, he would have to provide the explanation they were asking about. And, as you have pointed out, people like you aren't interested in hearing the explanation. That wasn't actually a yes or no question.
If the answer to the question was "YES", why didn't Dawkins say "YES". He has never said "YES" in answer to that question because he knows if he says yes he would have to actually show proof, so he goes off in a long dissertation of evolutionary belief, doing all he can to leave the original question buried, forgotten, ignored, and unanswered.
If you say the answer is "YES", then post the question verbatim, answer it "YES", and then answer the follow up which is going to be "SHOW ME".
Even though for once you answered without making stupid comments and were somewhat focused in your reply, you still have annoyed me sufficiently many times over to be banned from all of my discussions. If in your posts, which get in before I can ban you, you continue to show you will discuss respectfully and reasonably, I might stop banning you but don't count on it....you have annoyed me and I gave you far more time then you deserve.
Why do you ban everyone who responds to you? perhaps that's your problem in life where your not open to suggestion or opinion, you have become so transfixed on god you refuse to listen to anyone else? try opening your mind and taking on board what people say, you don't have go along with it but you also don't have to discredit in a derogative manor.
6 days ago Side: evolution is a lie
Support Dispute Clarify Report
↓ Show Replies
Saintnow(1687) Disputed
1 point
Dawkins' own words showing the video was not a hoax.
Richard Dawkins' own words: In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
You would not be banned if you were not so foul mouthed.
MR DAWKINS, CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A GENETIC MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS WHICH CAN BE SEEN TO INCREASE THE INFORMATION
IN THE GENOME.
Dawkins has admitted the video was not doctored and have never answered this yes or no question because he knows he cannot provide anything which can be SEEN to increase the information in the genome. Dawkins was caught off guard by the question which points out the difference between belief in evolution and true science. The honest answer would be "NO, there is no documented event showing that information increased in the genome of any animal". Dawkins was stumped because he was trying to avoid the question....and he's still avoiding it because it shows his belief is based on belief and not science.
Why do you ban everyone who responds to you? perhaps that's your problem in life where your not open to suggestion or opinion, you have become so transfixed on god you refuse to listen to anyone else? try opening your mind and taking on board what people say, you don't have go along with it but you also don't have to discredit in a derogative manor.
This debate discussion was created to talk about how Dawkins was stumped by a question of science. It would be right for me to ban you now for not discussing the topic. Usually I ban you for being foul mouth, profane, abusive in speech. It's too bad the only time you can speak reasonably in a civil tone is when you complain and criticize me.
Culture is rapidly changing to where people use bullying tactics to suppress freedom of speech. People hate me here for one reason......because I tell them they deserve to burn in Hell the same as me for their sin. I get called all kinds of names with the dirtiest of language, and this is common manners among atheists and they don't even see how rude and crude they are but rather think they are excused.
I'm here for one reason.....looking for sinners who want to be saved from Hell so I can tell them of the Savior who came to save them. If people ere just going to attack and insult me and disrupt my debates and discussion without acknowledging the points I'm trying to make, I'll ban them and not feel bad....they do it to themselves. I won't ban people who are disagreeing as long as they are not being profane and are being respectful. I do not ban everyone....I do ban most because most do not want to listen to my points and they are only disrupting. If they don't want to listen, they don't need to be in my discussion, they can make their own debates and discussions and say whatever they want to. They don't need to come trying to stomp on me.....
and when I ban them, I pray they see that it is similar to how God bans people from life and leaves them in Hell. They are gone and not heard from anymore, but they remain who they are, cast away on the outside of the discussion which is for those who will abide by the rules.
You can't earn Heaven by abiding by rules, but you have to be willing to agree with God on His right to punish sin however He sees fit. In Heaven, people will be like the angels, holy, and never break any of God's rules. In Hell, people will be like they are here, arguing against God. Where are you going?
If you want to talk, I would be honored if you will be honest with me. One thing I liked about Slap Shot, he was for real and had the backbone to be honest. Quite an abrasive chap, but the only person here with the guts to actually reveal who he really is......and he earned my respect enough that I tolerated some profanity from him because I knew he was listening.....and I think I earned his attention by being real myself and not backing down. Most of these people here are just putting on a show, hiding in the shadows, not admitting who they really are. You can't hide from God, He loves you and wants you to trust Him and not avoid Him or fight against Him and that's the same for me and everybody else.
Saintnow, there's an old saying "speak to someone how you expect to be spoken to" I will only respond to you in a negative manor if you speak to me in a negative manor which you have done many times that's why I have spoken to you in the same tone, you have your faith and beliefs no one can take that from you but no one wants that thrust upon them, the reason so many people hate you is because of your needless insults, it shows a lack of substance to your argument and dilutes any good things you say, I will never share your stance on god and I wouldn't want you to share mine, life would be a boring place if we all thought the same.
Like when Gandhi sent Hitler a letter he started it with "Dear Friend" try lowering barriers rather than trying to break them with force.
If you are not saved from dying, you are lost to Hell and dead in your sins. If you feel like that is being thrust upon you, maybe it's because it's true and you can't handle the truth.
I know why people hate me here, it's because they hate the truth. They hated Jesus for telling them the truth, and Jesus said that if I follow Him they will hate me the same as they hated Him and He is always right, you are not always right. I follow Him, I don't follow you. If you feel my truthfulness is "negative", that's not my problem. Enough of your lecturing, discuss the topic of the debate or keep your comments to yourself so I won't have to ban you.
They hated Jesus because he was a dick! who shouted his mouth off! so they did the right thing and killed him! where was his daddy GOD then??? nowhere because that's where he exists nowhere! where is this o mighty creator now??? he one lazy shit! he done all that work in one week creating us then thought sod this I'm taking a holiday 5000 years later???? has anyone got his number? maybe we can give him a call? see where he's at? what's he up to now? how was your holiday? did you take any pictures? oh you've been off creating other planets, black holes and new suns!! core blimy you are a busy boy god! what chemical structure did you use for these planets this time? did you manage to put a planet near the sun for life to evolve? hahaha the more I think about it the more a laugh that people like you actually believe god made the earth!! hahahahahahah and that there is a superior being up there hahahahaha again Saintnow you never fail to put a smile on my face! keep the faith you loony!
Jesus said haters like you would hate me the same as they hated him, so you are proving Him correct. Thank you, go cry me a river when I ban you from my debates.
Oh yeah, Ghandi did a lot of good by addressing Hitler as "dear friend". I don't follow Ghandi, Ghandi was a lost sinner dying on is probably burning in Hell now....if he's alive, I'm not a fan of Ghandi, never was, never will be. You can follow Ghandi to Hell if you want to, I'll follow Jesus carrying my cross to go the way He went as He is the Way and made the way for me to have eternal life.
You might as well go back to your foul mouth tirades. This whiny game you are playing is not going to keep you out of Hell, I think you have more fun being rude and crude and if you are going to end up in Hell, which apparently you are, you might as well have all the fun you can while you can.
you just cant do it can you! you are one thick religious nutjob! I don't know why you think your so saintly and going somewhere special! I cant wait for you to die and realize it was all for nothing! and everything you thought was real was nothing but a load of made up bullshit to manipulate small brains and so appease those who are scared of death! you can stick you god and your heaven and hell up where the sun don't shine! hahaha good luck when your dead!!!
Whatever you are trying to say, I'm sure by now you have reverted to your animalistic/demonic hatred which is your way. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya, you're outta here, boy
Dawkins' own words showing the video was not a hoax.
Richard Dawkins' own words: In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
How can you read that, paste it here, and not realize you were wrong?
They misrepresented themselves in order to get a kind of interview he generally refuses to give. They came INTO HIS HOUSE under this pretense.
And the question itself shows a lack of understanding of genetics.
"Information" does not actually mean anything in genetics. It isn't an applicable term, and creationists rarely attempt to define it in a way that actually applies to genetics. So right from the beginning its like asking a mechanic "how can the engine run if it doesn't have a toaster?"
Anyway, if we assume information equates genetic materiel (and that's one of the only ways that question could make sense) than the question is super easy to answer. You only need one way, but I'll provide a few.
Gene replication
Genome replication
Point mutations
Plasmid transfers (in prokaryotes)
Frame shifts
and a few rarer things.
If you need any help with these concepts let me know.
BUT ALSO, let's say that Dawkins did happen to brain fart or be stumped. So what? That doesn't remove a single word from all of the evidence compiled. I mean, if I asked you what the Bible says about a certain topic, and you couldn't remember on the spot for whatever reason, that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't have an answer to my question.
Dawkins' own words showing the video was not a hoax.
Richard Dawkins' own words: In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
Dawkins admits the video was not a hoax, and he dodges the question calling it "creationist propaganda". There is nothing wrong with the question, it is precise and scientific asking for scientific data showing evolution in DNA. Dawkins went ballistic after having a brain fart because he knows the only correct answer to the question is "NO", and he didn't want to answer honestly. He needed time to think in order to spin a replay pretending to answer the question when in reality he is doing everything he can to ignore the question and not answer it.
Information is what DNA is, it's coded information programmed to do certain tasks. When you say "information" does not mean anything in genetics, all you are doing is making yourself sound stupid.
You're an idiot. Information in the genome is never seen to increase through mutation or any process of evolution. Comparing the question to a toaster in a car engine is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Dawkins obviously brain farted and was stumped, he admitted it himself. Trying to argue other wise is just plain goofy, as is your whole attempt to ignore the question which stumped Dawkins.
Because of your method of evading the question which caused Dawkins to brain fart, your behavior here is farty and too dumb, frustrating arguing with a guy who is irrational so tootey oo.
it was a simple yes or no question, and there is no reason Dawkins had to lose his composure and refuse to answer the question, other than he does not want to admit the answer to the question is "No, we have never observed new information being added to the genome of any animal." He could have answered the question honestly and then proceeded to tell his tales of evolution in which he believes all animals descended from a fish-like swimming thing which had descended from a living cell which had mutated into a multi celled animal, and so forth. Dawkins hates real scientific questioning because it exposes the reality that evolution is a belief system not based on science.
Dawkins admitted the video was not a hoax (have to give him some credit, at least he does appear to have a good standard for honesty...which is probably what helped him rise to popularity in educational circles).
The question that made him meltdown in shock was a simple question of science, MR DAWKINS, CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A GENETIC MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS WHICH CAN BE SEEN TO INCREASE THE INFORMATION
IN THE GENOME.
This is why Dawkins normally will not discuss with Creationists, he does not want to be asked to provide real science in support of evolution.
MR DAWKINS, CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A GENETIC MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS WHICH CAN BE SEEN TO INCREASE THE INFORMATION
IN THE GENOME.
Dawkins has admitted the video was not doctored and have never answered this yes or no question because he knows he cannot provide anything which can be SEEN to increase the information in the genome. Dawkins was caught off guard by the question which points out the difference between belief in evolution and true science. The honest answer would be "NO, there is no documented event showing that information increased in the genome of any animal". Dawkins was stumped because he was trying to avoid the question....and he's still avoiding it because it shows his belief is based on belief and not science.
