Posted: Jun 07, 2014 10:53 pm
by hackenslash
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Speaking of cackling. Interestingly (at least to me) Oldskeptic, is that in his trailer for his book, Dawkins admitted something about his previous books and thereby confirmed an assessment of them that I had made on television back in 1997. Conservatively estimating, what would you say, 99.97% of evolutionists would have disagreed with my assessment back then? And even now, when Dawkins himself admits that his previous books were not presenting evidence for evolution, but only assumed evolution to be true, I find that, given their zero concession policy, many evolutionists still cackle over even this, mock me, and insist even still to this day that we creationists were wrong in our assessment of Dawkins' previous books.

I really love the dishonest way this is phrased. What Dawkins was actually saying was that those books operated on the basis that evolution is a fact. This isn't an assumption, because it's demonstrable that evolution is a fact. What he was actually saying was that this book was different, in that the previous books had explained how evolution works, while TGSoE presented the reasons that we know it's true.

You can always count on a creationist to breach the 9th.