Pogledaj jedan post
Old 01.10.2009., 08:32   #263
Quote:
Niflheim kaže: Pogledaj post
Već davno razotkriveni youtube hoax o kojem se puno puta govorilo na ovom forumu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g (žena)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-WFIVIQiTo (muškarac)

Some of our regulars may be aware of the Australian hoax film in which I am shown apparently flummoxed and unable to answer a question about 'information content' increasing in evolution. Somebody has just pointed me to a new version of the clip on YouTube
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 ), which is interestingly different from the published version.

A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic. I don't have the reference with me (I'm in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil's Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject.

In the original film, 'From a Frog to a Prince', the 'information content' question is put to me by a MAN. We see him in a bare room, very obviously not the well-furnished room in which I am shown (not) answering the question. The new version on YouTube is different in at least two respects. First, the question is put to me by a WOMAN (we don't see her). And while she is speaking I am obviously not listening to anybody asking questions (I would be looking straight at the questioner if so) but I am clearly lost in thought, the same long train of thought that persists for a long time after the question ends (intended to look embarrassingly long, as if I am incapable of answering the question).

There is another difference. In this new version of the film, I ask them to stop the camera (and this really happened, for the reason given above). Then there is the cut to me answering the completely different question, as if trying to change the subject. In the original film, my request to stop the camera is missing.

I've got to go and board the plane, but it might be quite interesting for somebody to post both versions of the film together on our website, so they can be compared directly.

Must rush
Richard


Najjače i jedino kreacionističko oružje je bilo i ostalo laganje.
Naime, stvarno je fascinantno slušati neku osobu kako hvali svoju religiju i kako ga je ona učinila poštenim, a kada se potegne pitanje evolucije i prezentiraju svi ti dokazi koji se kose s dogmatičnim svjetonazorom laganje, izvrtanje i prevara su uvjek na dohvat ruke, a ideali o poštenju i iskrenosti brzo se zaborave.
Da bi se ovdje utvrdilo da je to prevara i neki oblik fotomontaže treba opet biti stručnjak na tom polju pa to lijepo dokazati.To mi ne možemo na ovom forumu.

Ostaje nam da vjerujemo tom navodnom pismu Dawkinsa i njegovom opravdanju,ok.

Ja ne tvrdim ništa u ovom slučaju,šta ja prava istina a šta laž,ali me interesuje da li je Dawkins igdje onda nakon ove afere dao odgovor na ovo pitanje?

Mislim.čisto me zanima,da li je on igdje pokušao da odgovori na ovo pitanje prije ovog slučaja(ako mu se isto postavljalo nekada) ili pak nakon?

Što se tiče Piltdownskog čovjeka o njemu je dovoljno već rečeno ranije.Bio je podvala ,trajao 40 godina,i to je samo jedan od razloga (ima ih još jako puno) zbog čega ja ne vjerujem znanstvenicima TE.Evo i slučaj Ide ako si čitao jedan od znanstvenika jasno proglašava kao 'napuhavanje medija' što može lako u konačnici da ispadne ponovo smjehurija.Ja im ne vjerujem i to je moje potpuno pravo.
BigJason is offline  
Odgovori s citatom