Richard Dawkins Stumped by Creationist Question?

[Dubio]

Is saw this on youtube recently. There is something fake about it. Agree?

Is it me or does it seem that Creationists pump out a lot of propaganda?


[youtube]zaKryi3605g[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE) - YouTube

 

[Reptillian]

Is it just me, or does Richard Dawkins blink a lot?

 

[painted wolf]

First things first... this clearly isn't "raw" footage.

Second, that isn't Dawkins inability to answer the question, it was him trying to decide whether or not to throw them out of his house for lying to him to get their interview. That is where it get's cut off, at him telling them to leave and them begging him not to chuck them out on their ears for intentional dishonestly.

My guess would be that the blinking was from the rather intense lighting they were using. Just look at the hotspots and glare, I'm sure the annoyance at having been lied to didn't help.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

yep overbown creationist propaganda also in the movie "Expelled" and has been completely debunked


as painted wolf points out

 

[freethinker44]

He isn't stumped by the question, he is taken aback by interviewer because they said they were interviewing him for something else andbut had a creationist agenda. Dawkins doesn't give interviews to creationists so they had to lie to get one. He didnt' stop them so he could think about the question, he stopped them because he was stopping the interview realizing what they were really there for.

[youtube]SOLMTnjJEzI[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins allegedly stumped by a silly Creationist question - YouTube

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hm, why is it that the One True Religion backed by the One True God essentially needs to be propped up by generational legions of liars? Seems kinda odd to me.

 

[Alceste]

Putting aside the fact that this is not a complete clip, and the context is not honestly presented, what difference would it make if Dawkins was or was not stumped by a creationist question? The TOE is either an accurate description of the mechanism governing the speciation of life or it isn't. The only way to determine the truth of any claim is to look at the evidence supporting it. If I had a dollar for every time I "stumped' a creationist by asking a question they couldn't answer, didn't expect, or couldn't relate to, I could buy myself a particle accelerator. Does that mean they must be wrong? No. The evidence makes it perfectly clear that they are wrong, regardless of whether or not they can answer my questions.

 

[silenceinmotion]

Well, Dawkins does speak the truth. I was rather impressed by how well he replied to the question without consequence (he explained it perfectly, which just shows the creationist denial *and if it was shopped, it just shows how stupid creationists are*).

Evolution is virtually certain. To deny it is quite franklly absurd. Like 7 Day Adventists, for example. They are the ones that came up with the creationist ideology. It does not exist in orthodoxy, as the 1st bit of the Pentateuch was never meant to be taken literally by either the reader or the author.
If you believe the story of Creation is literal, then you are simply asinine.

 

[freethinker44]

Well, Dawkins does speak the truth. I was rather impressed by how well he replied to the question without consequence (he explained it perfectly, which just shows the creationist denial *and if it was shopped, it just shows how stupid creationists are*).

He didn't reply to the question. He stopped the interview. His reply in the video was to a different question, they just edited it to make it seem like he needed time find the answer to their question.

 

[Iti oj]

really? that question is not really that hard. genes split.

 

[silenceinmotion]

He didn't reply to the question. He stopped the interview. His reply in the video was to a different question, they just edited it to make it seem like he needed time find the answer to their question.

Exactly, that's creationist idiocy for you *because the answer still squashed the question* lol

 

[niccolom]

He isn't stumped. He was ambushed and he is unprepared and in addition wondering who these people really are. If you catch somebody on camera and begin asking them questions they weren't expecting you can make anybody hesitate about anything unless they are extremely good at immediate responses about such things. Hitchens was good on such matters most of the time but Dawkins responds more like a scientist than a debater with an element of quizzical. It is taking him out of context. And blinking doesn't mean you are lying. It means you are carefully weighing your responses.

 

[Thistle]

It seems quite clear to me that Dawkins is simply listening to something, most probably the remainder of the question of which the audio was cut out (you can actually hear the background hum dying off), and then asks the reporter to "stop right there" so he can jump in and clarify things. This is a clear case of manipulation and an attempt to deceive.

 

[dust1n]

Well, one of the answers to the questions would be jumping genes.

Even if (and it's not, it's obviously doctored as shown already) the question did stump Dawkins, it didn't actually stump evolution. I don't know why people would think out of the thousands and thousands of evolutionary biologist that Dawkins is somehow the leading authority on the subject, and if he can't answer a question, then obviously no one can.

 

[dust1n]

What's worse is that the comments on the video are moderated, so obviously nothing that is defending Dawkins is there because they are all moderated off immediately. This is also obvious, because ever single comment is an idiot saying nothing.

 

[dust1n]

Also, anyone else notice that every video that claims 'Dawkins' getting stumped or beaten are 1-3 minutes long? I suspect this is the attention span of an average creationist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Another example of 'quote mining", video ambush style.

Pathetic

 

[LongGe123]

I've seen the clip in question. It looks like it was edited by Michael Moore's apprentice or something. It's ridiculous. Plus, why would they even try and make a video like this? I mean, we've all seen Richard Dawkins interviewed before - have you EVER seen him have any trouble answering people's questions. Even the seemingly ridiculous ones he can provide intelligent answers to. Did anyone ever see the one where some girl stood up in the audience and asked him "What if you're wrong?" - his answer was brilliant. Something like "Well, what do you mean what if I'M wrong, what if YOU'RE wrong and every day you worship God you're making the big Joo-Joo in the sky more and more angry?" haha.