betsy

My point is not whether the claim is accurate or not. It's your man Dawkins, getting stumped. That's the point. Obviously it's not a "BS" question at all - as you claimed in your knee-jerk attempt to save your man - after all, there is a ready defense from TalkOrigin, right? They offered an answer. As to whether what they say is a "BS" answer is another question. If Dawkins couldn't explain it in words....he could've written it in his letter. He should've done a cut-and-paste from TalkOrigin. Anyway, that question was asked because of what he asserted. In other words, he was full of air and he got caught with his pants down.

Why ask me? I'm not a scientist. Ask your man Dawkins! He's the one who got stumped. He should've ran to TalkOrigins - like you did - to get his evolution-apologetic answer! See, you're smarter than him.

Are those the choices???? Why couldn't you just simplify your example by saying: "If I talked about directions and say "right", then the choices had decreased to "left", "forward" and "backward." You no longer have 4 choices to consider. It's been reduced to 3...thus have received information. Anyway, here's their simplified explanation.

Yet in Feb 2010, he went after Creationist Wendy Wright. Oh yeah, he called it an "interview," the liar. He must've thought she's just a blonde bimbo. Well guess who got flustered first! http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

In 2006, Dawkins explains why he doesn't want to debate creationists.

"Professor 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?" He got stumped. He cannot answer. He has no answer!

Let's start with this video. http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html The question was so simple. It's right up his alley. "Professor 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?"

Of course it is the basics! Go back to your science books - or google. I think there's even one that's titled: The Science of Space, Time and Matter. Anyway, you're starting to hyperventilate.....spiralling down to pure ranting. So typical of the New Atheism flock. So very Dawkins' flock-esque. What Dawkins didn't tell you guys, it's hard to maneuver in a little, dark box. If you really wanna know....you gotta be prepared to knock down walls....think and look outside that box. If you wanna see some light, at least open a window.

Then why is it that Dawkins dismisses the possibilities?

Dre, why would you even ask such a dopey question? Do you know that most, if not all scientific theories and experiments where motivated by questions? Gee, you'd think there's a trap or the bogeyman....or worse, God, lurking around the corner. What's so scary about the question? C'mon, take a little step outside that box. Afraid to even take a guess?

Yep. The Liberals are starting to use the American- card, and the Republican-card The president of the Liberal Party used those words today at Power and Politics. Will they try to dig up the Bush-card, I wonder?

I'm not asking about the purpose of science....or how science conducts its business. The question is clear. Since you commented on it, why don't you answer the simple question. Does science fully understand the human brain?

This is a must-see video! http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html The question was so simple. It's right up his alley. "Professor 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?"

You're agnostic? I thought you're atheist.

You only thought and wished you debunked it. I answered Bonam. Like I said: I thought the correction will be about space, time and matter. It was giving the basics! You ignored what I said and bashed me for stating a simple fact that you cannot refute. Look in the mirror! As for the taunting - which is really just teasing on my part - well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I try not to get to the New Atheists' mean-spirited way of discussing, which is actually more bashing than discussing. I'm so used to children throwing fits.

So you claim. EXPLAIN what you mean that this article doesn't get the basics? Whether you're a fan of Dawkins or not doesn't matter. Obviously, you believe in his doctrine. Edited: Removed statement which I consider in poor taste and disrespectful. Sorry.

That's your defense, isn't it? Yet you got stumped when I gave you a source from your own camp, supporting some of my arguments! Then answer this: Does science fully understand the capability of the human brain?

Just curious... How can you believe in someone you believe is a liar?

But I don't have faith in you. And in your religion. And in your fanatical close-minded, terrified, paralyzed demi-gods. Your demi-gods are just johnny-come-lately with their understanding of the universe. The time, space and matter science discovered is right there on the first 10 words of Genesis....in its right context! Oh Bonam....

EHHH? What are you saying here? Is this a coded question or what??? When you guys get stumped, you get all flustered and babbly and rant-ive and sputtery and bash-ive and....ha-ha-ha....and sense flies out the window! So typical. So very Dawkins-flockesque.

You always give your "authoritative" opinion and yet when asked to explain or support your position....you disappear for a while, and then come back when you feel it's safe enough to get into the foray. You've done that tactic in several threads. I ask you again: explain how Space, Time and Matter doesn't have anything to do with the basics. You're good at bashing. That's your "reason." That's how you defend your position. So typical. So very Dawkins-flockesque. Simple. Support your claim. Cite. EXPLAIN.

Nope. You're a copycat. Living in the present time. Have gone to scool....took science class. Got taught about Einstein....furthermore you're an atheist, and must've devoured hundreds of books on cosmology, physics, biology etc., anything that explains about the universe. Besides....your submission above won't get you published. Not in non-fiction....or fiction genre. So there goes your aspiration to be a god.

Speaking of Genesis! This reminds me about Adam's rib. Another interesting info.... Do you know that the rib is the only bone that can regenerate? So God must really know what He was doing when He took one from Adam.

Wow! I thought the correction will be about space, time and matter. What's the three classical states? Solid, liquid, gas. Anyway The Bible isn't an in-depth science book! It was giving the basics. In the first 10 words of The Bible.

Dawkins thinks there's a possibility of a God.... but he doesn't want to be called Agnostic? I'm telling you guys, Dawkins has really gone bonkers! Seriously.