Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)

[chloe]

zaKryi3605g


:eek:

[PostmodernProphet]

how about a modern animal that shows a significant trend toward being a future animal......

[HogTrash]

The only thing we know for certain is how little we know.

[OldMercsRule]

Notice how he didn't answer the question and then lectured the unbelievers, (in evolution), on how stoooooooopid they are.

[avatar4321]

Im sure there are alot of things that stump Mr. Dawkins.

I don't know why anyone cares about anything he says.

[LuvRPgrl]

zakryi3605g


:eek:

wow !!! Classic !!! Thanks so much for that.

[chloe]

wow !!! Classic !!! Thanks so much for that.

Yeah it was amusing, I still have no clue what his answer meant.

[chloe]

I guess that video was a hoax:eek:

xwkRESq-V2Q

[Missileman]

I guess that video was a hoax:eek:

xwkRESq-V2Q

It's a sign of how desperate creationists have become. They can't bring any truths to the table so they have to resort to lies.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah it was amusing, I still have no clue what his answer meant.

neither does he

[LuvRPgrl]

It's a sign of how desperate creationists have become. They can't bring any truths to the table so they have to resort to lies.

Because you say so???

[PostmodernProphet]

I guess that video was a hoax:eek:



what was his answer when the question was asked the first time?.....so two people made videos mocking his lack of an answer......it doesn't change the fact he was stumped the first time it was asked, does it?.....

[chloe]

neither does he


:laugh2: yeah it did seem that way.

[chloe]

what was his answer when the question was asked the first time?.....so two people made videos mocking his lack of an answer......it doesn't change the fact he was stumped the first time it was asked, does it?.....

No I guess it doesn't, but since someone sent me that in a PM I thought I should post it.

[Gaffer]

what was his answer when the question was asked the first time?.....so two people made videos mocking his lack of an answer......it doesn't change the fact he was stumped the first time it was asked, does it?.....

A dubbed in question was asked. He responded to a real question by stopping to think about his answer before giving it. And the answer makes no sense because he was answering a completely different question. Creationism is continually evolving.

[revelarts]

It's a sign of how desperate creationists have become. They can't bring any truths to the table so they have to resort to lies.

Missileman c'mon, All of those "lying" videos where obviously video jokes except for the version where the woman's asking the question. Dawkins replies to the original "increased information" video question in writing on a site where he doesn't say that the he was "answering completely different question" but that he should have answered the questioned differently and should have never let those darn creationist film him. He then goes on to give an even more convoluted and discombobulated answer than the one he gives in the video.

the fact is that there is no known process of additive beneficial change in the dna coding. The code works when it is copied correctly it usually brings extremely bad mutation when its copied incorrectly. The only info passed on is what was there before, the only changes that are made where already available within the code. no eyes in the code you don't get eyes. no feet in the code you don't get feet. No lungs in the code and you don't get lungs period.
you can call it evolution if you want to but you may as well call it magic. Because there's no experimental hard science that can show new info. NONE.

[PostmodernProphet]

A dubbed in question was asked. He responded to a real question by stopping to think about his answer before giving it. And the answer makes no sense because he was answering a completely different question. Creationism is continually evolving.

I've listened to it three times now....seems to be the same question, though not the same person asking it....

[revelarts]

Here's Another open but little advertised factiod concerning evolution.

Most people have heard of "our ancestor" Lucy or Australopithecus afarensis, she's suppose to be around 3 MILLION years old found in Africa right?
OK
Have you ever heard of the Laetoli Footprints , also about 3 MILLION years old also found in Africa. Amazingly preserved in soft wet cool volcanic ash which quickly hardened like cement. The funny thing about these footprints is that they look like normal human foot prints. But becuase man "was not there 3 MILLION years ago" of cousre these where of some one in Lucy's family right?
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Australopithecus afarensis... anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints in many ways favour the latter interpretation. The curvature of the finger and toe bones (Phalanges) approaches that of modern-day apes, and is most likely reflective of their ability to efficiently grasp branches and climb...http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Little_Foot_01.jpg/220px-Little_Foot_01.jpg
Soo the footprints look like that right .. with curved toes ?
NOPE!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_03.html

...The prints, say experts on hominid body structure, are strikingly different from those of a chimpanzee, and in fact are hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans....
Many experts say they are completely indistinguishable from modern humans.
Seems to me any scientist would have to conclude, from the evidence, that Modern Humans lived 3MILLION years ago.


http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~raichlen/3Dprint.jpg
http://www.liv.ac.uk/premog/images/G-trail-1.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/quicktime/l_071_03.html

and one of the next logical questions is, IF there where already modern humans 3 million years ago then when did modern humans really appear on earth?
to start...

[Missileman]

Here's Another open but little advertised factiod concerning evolution.

Most people have heard of "our ancestor" Lucy or Australopithecus afarensis, she's suppose to be around 3 MILLION years old found in Africa right?
OK
Have you ever heard of the Laetoli Footprints , also about 3 MILLION years old also found in Africa. Amazingly preserved in soft wet cool volcanic ash which quickly hardened like cement. The funny thing about these footprints is that they look like normal human foot prints. But becuase man "was not there 3 MILLION years ago" of cousre these where of some one in Lucy's family right?
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Little_Foot_01.jpg/220px-Little_Foot_01.jpg
Soo the footprints look like that right .. with curved toes ?
NOPE!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_03.html

Many experts say they are completely indistinguishable from modern humans.
Seems to me any scientist would have to conclude, from the evidence, that Modern Humans lived 3MILLION years ago.


http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~raichlen/3Dprint.jpg
http://www.liv.ac.uk/premog/images/G-trail-1.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/quicktime/l_071_03.html

and one of the next logical questions is, IF there where already modern humans 3 million years ago then when did modern humans really appear on earth?
to start...

1. I didn't see any suggestion(except by you) that the footprints are completely indistinguishable from modern humans.

2. I haven't seen anyone(except for you) suggest that modern humans walked the earth 3 million years ago.

3. I didn't see any claim(except for yours) that the prints in the ash were made by anything other than Australopithecus afarensis.

[revelarts]

1. I didn't see any suggestion(except by you) that the footprints are completely indistinguishable from modern humans.

2. I haven't seen anyone(except for you) suggest that modern humans walked the earth 3 million years ago.

3. I didn't see any claim(except for yours) that the prints in the ash were made by anything other than Australopithecus afarensis.

Did you watch the Video on the PBS page? At about 2:55 the expert says that the footprint is "virtually indistinguishable from a modern human footprint" before that he compares it to a chimpanzee print and point out the vast difference. the chimpanzee footprint looks like the Lucy foot Missle. No Arch and long thumb for a big toe.

Other experts footprint expert, Louise Robbins of university of North Carolina call to the original Laetoli team. R.H Tuttle another expert. And Even Mary Leakey who regarded Laetoli as representing humans rather than apes.

Science is suppose to change when new facts are presented but in this case it seems the footprints are umm "the subject of some debate".
Missle be a scientist don't conform to the status quo. follow the facts where they lead dude.

[Mr. P]

Who the hell is Richard Dawkins?

[PostmodernProphet]

Who the hell is Richard Dawkins?

High Priest of Atheism.......

[Missileman]

Did you watch the Video on the PBS page? At about 2:55 the expert says that the footprint is "virtually indistinguishable from a modern human footprint" before that he compares it to a chimpanzee print and point out the vast difference. the chimpanzee footprint looks like the Lucy foot Missle. No Arch and long thumb for a big toe.

Other experts footprint expert, Louise Robbins of university of North Carolina call to the original Laetoli team. R.H Tuttle another expert. And Even Mary Leakey who regarded Laetoli as representing humans rather than apes.

Science is suppose to change when new facts are presented but in this case it seems the footprints are umm "the subject of some debate".
Missle be a scientist don't conform to the status quo. follow the facts where they lead dude.

Again, YOU are the only one I see suggesting that modern humans made those prints. Everything I've read holds those prints were likely made by Australopithecus afarensis.

[revelarts]

Again, YOU are the only one I see suggesting that modern humans made those prints. Everything I've read holds those prints were likely made by Australopithecus afarensis.

Then your only reading what agrees with your current ideas and not at what I've point out. We can't really debate it if we won't honestly look at each others info dude?

But lets start here again, did you watch the video?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_03.html
the forensic expert clearly says "virtually indistinguishable from a modern human footprint"

Here's an audio excerpt from the book Forbidden Archeology. With Quotes from Leaky, Robbins, Tuttle an White.
http://mynetbox.info/audio/Laetoli-Footprints-3mil.mp3

You could download and listen to the book here Audible.com Forbidden Archeology (http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=BK_ALIT_000096&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes)
the book at amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1276357998/ref=a9_sc_1?ie=UTF8&search-alias=aps&field-keywords=forbidden%20archeology)


Russell H. Tuttle Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago:

"A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them. . . . In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans."
New Scientist, Vol. 98, 1983, p. 373.
and

"In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo. . . . In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis."
Russell H. Tuttle, Natural History, March 1990, pp. 61-64



Tim White, who asserts that they are afarensis also says

"Make no mistake about it, . . . They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to ell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you."
D. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.

[Missileman]

Then your only reading what agrees with your current ideas and not at what I've point out. We can't really debate it if we won't honestly look at each others info dude?

But lets start here again, did you watch the video?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_03.html
the forensic expert clearly says "virtually indistinguishable from a modern human footprint"

Here's an audio excerpt from the book Forbidden Archeology. With Quotes from Leaky, Robbins, Tuttle an White.
http://mynetbox.info/audio/Laetoli-Footprints-3mil.mp3

You could download and listen to the book here Audible.com Forbidden Archeology (http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=BK_ALIT_000096&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes)
the book at amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1276357998/ref=a9_sc_1?ie=UTF8&search-alias=aps&field-keywords=forbidden%20archeology)


Russell H. Tuttle Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago:

and




Tim White, who asserts that they are afarensis also says

I did look at your info and it lacks what you are claiming. You're reading into those links what you want to see...something that discredits evolution. These scientists are saying that the footprints resemble modern human footprints, not that they were made by modern humans.

Tuttle isn't saying he believes a small barefoot homo sapiens made the prints...he's acknowledging the bi-pedal foot structure is similar between then and now.

You are also mistaken when you claim Australopithecus afarensis feet resemble chimpanzee feet...they do not. The chimp has very much greater perpendicular angle to the rest of the toes than Australopithecus afarensis.

[revelarts]

..

Tuttle isn't saying he believes a small barefoot homo sapiens made the prints...he's acknowledging the bi-pedal foot structure is similar between then and now.

...


Oo Kkkkk
um
not exactly what he said but.
O.K. lets go with that, he isn't saying they are human... but just that they look exactly like human... but they're not.

And it's jumping to wild conclusions to say that they are.
and it's not jumping to conclusions to say that they came from a foot of a creature that has none of the features of the footprint.

alright if you say so MissileM.
i guess we'll just disagree here.

[Gaffer]

Oo Kkkkk
um
not exactly what he said but.
O.K. lets go with that, he isn't saying they are human... but just that they look exactly like human... but they're not.

And it's jumping to wild conclusions to say that they are.
and it's not jumping to conclusions to say that they came from a foot of a creature that has none of the features of the footprint.

alright if you say so MissileM.
i guess we'll just disagree here.

Looked like bigfoot to me.

[PostmodernProphet]

Looked like bigfoot to me.

then you aren't paying attention.....it's Smallfoot....


A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them