Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think he did try to answer the question. It appears he didn't, because he didn't use the same vocabulary as she did.
I think I just saw Dawkins evolve into a deer in the headlights.
His imagination is more developed (evolutionarily speaking) than mine. He pictures fish coming out of the water and becoming amphibians. I picture fish coming out of the water and suffocating. How can such a smart man believe such (In my humble opinion) nonsense?
This is from 'From a frog to a prince' video. Highly amusing no doubt, but this was obtained by deception as any evolutionist will quickly point out. Dawkins was not aware who he was talking to or what their agenda was.
But it is very, very funny. And it is a question that cannot be answered without sophistry.
I think I just saw Dawkins evolve into a deer in the headlights.
This is from 'From a frog to a prince' video. Highly amusing no doubt, but this was obtained by deception as any evolutionist will quickly point out. Dawkins was not aware who he was talking to or what their agenda was.
This is from 'From a frog to a prince' video. Highly amusing no doubt, but this was obtained by deception as any evolutionist will quickly point out. Dawkins was not aware who he was talking to or what their agenda was.
Would the truth of his answer change depending on the one asking the question?
I'm sorry, but exposing this God-hater's intellectual nudity was not blindsiding...if the "facts" are there, as Dawkin's says...and if Christians are as stupid as he says we are, a simple "elementary fact" necessary for evolution ought to have some evidence he can point to.
This is from 'From a frog to a prince' video. Highly amusing no doubt, but this was obtained by deception as any evolutionist will quickly point out. Dawkins was not aware who he was talking to or what their agenda was.
Would the truth of his answer change depending on the one asking the question?
I'm sorry, but exposing this God-hater's intellectual nudity was not blindsiding...if the "facts" are there, as Dawkin's says...and if Christians are as stupid as he says we are, a simple "elementary fact" necessary for evolution ought to have some evidence he can point to.
I must have missed something. Where did the idea come from that he was blind-sided or deceived?
Would the truth of his answer change depending on the one asking the question?
I'm sorry, but exposing this God-hater's intellectual nudity was not blindsiding...if the "facts" are there, as Dawkin's says...and if Christians are as stupid as he says we are, a simple "elementary fact" necessary for evolution ought to have some evidence he can point to.
I must have missed something. Where did the idea come from that he was blind-sided or deceived?
From what I understand, Dawkins refuses to grant interviews to creationists. When he heard this question, he suspected that the interviewer was a creationist which is why he asked to stop the tape. He apparently questioned the group about their affiliations and decided to continue with the interview.
That's interesting. While I can understand not wanting to have interviews with religious-folk who are just going to want to fight and make jerks of themselves, I wonder why he won't have interviews with creationists altogether.