Interview with Richard Dawkins

[mooniekate]

People are offended by the truth. Boo-fucking-hoo. I'm offended by the notion that I have to believe in fairy tales to be a good person.

[british123able]

5:38

[MrJJmac32]

He constantly says that people are religious because of their up bringing. He himself only thinks the way he dose because of Charles Darwin. Take away his precious Darwin and he has not a leg to stand on. Darwin is his god. Darwinism is his religion. To believe that you understand what happened 3 billion years ago takes a lot of faith. Something that Dawkins constantly speaks against.

[tatrahdu]

"To believe that you understand what happened 3 billion years ago takes a lot of faith."

That understanding is made using the scientific model, which of course leaves room for mistakes, but in no way does that make it equal to the faith religous people have.

And Evolution would be a fact, Darwin or no Darwin.

[MrJJmac32]

Evolution is not a fact. Furthermore, Darwin is the father of evolution. Yes, you can say someone else would have thought it up. Looking at the history of science, you will see theories proved wrong over and over. People in history would kill in defense of their ideals and theories. ideals and theories that have since been proven wrong. Evolution is just another one of those theories. The cycle of life dose not give a species a chance to evolve. You survive or you die.

[tatrahdu]

"Evolution is not a fact."

Its as much of a fact as gravitation, Biology does not make any sense without Evolution, the THEORY of evolution may not be perfect, as new evidence as new turns up, in fact Darwin was wrong about several things.

"Looking at the history of science, you will see theories proved wrong over and over."

"Evolution is just another one of those theories."

Well.. that COULD happend, but its about as likely as that the Theory of Gravitation will be proven wrong.

[MrJJmac32]

Gravitation can not be proven wrong because it can be observed. Actually, evolution can not be proven wrong either. This is only because it can not be observed. The only reason people believe in evolution is because they chose to. As I stated before, populations would have had to been huge. There would have had to been millions of each species. Nature can simply not support that much life. Drain the oceans one drop at a time and the life it supports will slowly disappear not evolve.

[tatrahdu]

"As I stated before, populations would have had to been huge. There would have had to been millions of each species."

No, it would not, want me to give you examples?

[MrJJmac32]

The theory goes that the forest in Africa disappeared and the primates were forced to evolve to survive. Destroy a animals habitat and it will die. Gorillas are loosing their forest. Therefore, they are going extinct. Yes, I know it took "millions of years", and that it is a very slow process. However, that is where the problem lies. Change spread out over that amount of time is irrelevant. Because plant life can rebound very quickly. So these environmental changes would have happened rapidly.

[tatrahdu]

I never heard anyone claim the primates evolved because African forests dissapeard, would you care to back that up?

[tatrahdu]

Also, I would like to think what YOUR explanation of the origin of life is.

[tatrahdu]

like to know*

[MrJJmac32]

I don't have the delusions of grandeur needed to explain the origins of life. The theory of the forest disappearing comes from a show on the discovery channel. I am not exactly sure. Maybe they have imagined a new idea by now. There has to be a reason right. Or are we leaving it up to chance. Oh yea, evolution is the result of random mistakes in the form of genetic mutations. What are your examples that dispute there having to be millions of each species.

[tatrahdu]

Well, you find some of the best known examples at the galapagos islands, where there are different bird spieces on each Island, which still has alot of simmilarities, how would that make any sense if they didnt originate from a common ancestor?

[MrJJmac32]

There is nothing in this world beyond your imagination that supports evolution. You use similarities between two birds as your proof that a human being evolved from a single celled organism. Mice have been used the same way. Mice that are visually identical are considered to be two different species. However, it is still a mouse and will always be a mouse. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. Life consumes life. There is no way that the complexity of nature is an accident.

[tatrahdu]

"There is nothing in this world beyond your imagination that supports evolution. "

LOL, I already gave you clear examples, you did not ask spesifically about humans either, you told me that spiecetions was impossible, I proved you wrong.

[tatrahdu]

"You use similarities between two birds as your proof that a human being evolved from a single celled organism. "

You are putting words in my mouth, I said that these birds are evidence for SPIECETION, I said nothing about origins of humans in that comment.

[tatrahdu]

"Nothing will ever convince me otherwise."

Alright, if thats your mindset there is no point arguing with you, but if thats your way of thinking, dont come here and claim that people like Dawkins are the close minded ones...

[tatrahdu]

You can find simpler, but better documented cases, as for example experiments done with the fruit fly, you can read about it on wikipedia,

/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_sp­eciation

[MrJJmac32]

And sense these changes must have happened rapidly. How dose this allow the time needed for monkey to evolve to man. It dose not. Evolution ignores the world around us and the things we know to be true. Life is a cycle that repeats its self over and over.

[tatrahdu]

And even if evolution would turn out to be false, it would give NO credibility to primitive bronze age myths.

[fistepot]

I agree with dawkins on every point, exept that he claims that god dosnt exist. i dont belive that god exist either, but to claim that there is no god, is as eriksen said, to claim that you know everything in the universe ;) I think the right term would be, i dont THINK god exist. whitch i agree..

[crazykb]

Dawkins doesn't claim that 'God doesn't exist'. He just states that the changes of God existing, in his opinion, are slim.

[MrJJmac32]

Dawkins absolutely dose claim that god doesn't exist. The man writes novels based on the ignorance of those who do believe. Dawkins dose not believe in the lest little bit that god exist. The only reason evolution has survived is because it is taught to college students as fact. There are a few truly objective scientist out there who seek the truth instead of taking a professor's word for it. Populations would have had to been huge to allow for " random mutations" to evolve brand new species.

[Freddybobo]

Richard is good, Eriksen is smallminded.

[9ggrtz1]

haha, elendig argument av hylland eriksen. Richard Dawkins er da ikke absolutt når han sier det ikke er noen gud

[freeri87]

Hylland Eriksen is a Nobody.

[spookyr]

Presenting that retard as one of Norway's greatest intellectuals?? The shame the shame!

[QuirksMode]

I know. It's a disgrace. Hylland Eriksen is an intellectual wannabe -- a postmodernistic anthropologist and a media clown who gets far more attention than he really deserves. Of course Dawkins isn't particularly impressed. Look up "Postmodernism Disrobed" in Google and you'll see what I mean.

[thesunofjuda]

"Intellectual Wannabe" is a pretty lame term. I think you should reconsider.

[QuirksMode]

Why?

[thesunofjuda]

Try want to be. I don't know.

[BaileysBeads]

Don't worry mate, we don't understand a single word of what he said.

[Thelavendel]

Yes we do?

[nastykermit]

Hylland Eriksen is a tool. Dawkins dwarfed him.

[gummybrain]

what a cute interviewer!

[tw1ggz]

english subs please!

[gregstaddon]

Wow! Norwegian - what a lovely language!

It has the same cadences as Welsh.

[nastykermit]

Go go welsh people !