Interesting yourself in SCIENCE rather than RELIGION brings you more creativity, intelligence, it's proven facts, you can use it in the class room and even get into university. What does religion bring you? ALLAH AKBAR *blows up*.
@Macrophaser Religion is the stunt of human progression. Islam was the center of it all until religion came about. Look at them today. Still in the swamp religion took them into.
Wow, Dawkins is just so articulate and just sounds so smart! I think I could believe him if he said "I have scientific evidence that unicorns exist." Obviously logical and reasonable people believe him because of his work not his voice, but that my friends is a gift.
@drawesome145 I've always thought the same thing. Just given the way he speaks he could say "Beep boopity flip flappity gumbo chops" and it would be over my head.
Response to the top comment. It is because quite simply, perception is more important than reality. Shampoo has no need to foam. We just feel better that it does. They make it do that. If it didnt even the best of us would somehow feel it was not doing the job. Even though it is exactly the same. Many people simply cannot identify with truly intelligent people in fact it can be a curse. Have you never heard "well your always right arnt you" like a derrogatory thing? Dumb people dont like it
@KowBoySpace Well said. I get the 'why do you always have to be right?' or 'you have an answer for everything' comments all the time. Even when people ignore my advice, until they end up doing exactly as I suggested at the start.
But yes, the masses don't want people in power to aspire to, they want some one to relate to. This is why so many celebs are brain dead morons and still make millions with out actually knowing anything, and why religion still persists.
@pinkallott33 The temperature of the earth is still below average....we are still coming out of an ice age..... The whole planet has been hotter than this for millions of years....for example, the dinosaurs lived in a tropical climate..... Unless u think the world is only 6thousand years old and the devil has put the fossils there to trick us?...... Why don't you do ur research and look @ the evidence.... Then bother poasting religious preaching crap over a Richard Dawkins video......
How can we compare the Creator of the universe to a fairy . Look at the heavens and the earth . the moon and the greatness of the sun . could you look Upon God with Just your human eyes ? You say there is no evidence that God exist . But you wake up in the morning seeing the rise of the sun . And millions and millions of evidence that he exist . The bible says in the last days the earth will be scorching hot . And now we have Global warming . How could this fairy book be right ?
@motorheadbanger90 Penn has some, in my opinion, strange political views (such as not needing a police force) so don't judge a person entirely on one subject.
@hungryman211 ive never heard that. alot of his political views are logical and reasonable. based on the shows i see and interviews and books i've read about him.
@motorheadbanger90 That's easy: because your life gets inundated with idiocy from the media, you have to pander to the lowest common denominator of your constituents and the bureaucracy is so entrenched in pointless procedure and glad-handing that no one at the intellectual level would ever subject themselves to that. The US will probably never again see a president whose intellect gets close to Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln or Roosevelt (Teddy).
@motorheadbanger90 because there isn't enough intelligent informed people sponsoring and voting for their rise to power unlike religous factions and hordes of followers that the current leaders have
@motorheadbanger90 Clinton and Obama are both incredibly intelligent and almost undoubtedly atheists (though you would never hear them admit that.) They have to dumb themselves down so that they don't put off the other half of the country even more than they already do.
@counterclockwise123 I don't get the "beauty in the universe" crap honestly, poetry in biology? How can anyone see beauty in a self-replicating organism that inflicts pain and suffering on itself and cannibalizes itself? (The biosphere)
It seems insanity, it seems as full of wishfull thinking as religion and it seems the sort of mindset that can only arise in a comfortable, ignorant western life where the realities of death and suffering are more distant than say, Africa.
@BeardedBill86 Most archaological studies show we only became pain-inflicting and destructive when we adopted the lazy lifestyle of agriculture/started domesticating animals&farming (settled vs hunting+gathering).We had more children to sow&till more soil, then to feed more children we expanded our land. The problem=we can only become 15-20%(max) more productive in a generation whereas we can double the population easily, so we CREATED divisive religions to justify inhumane wars.
Tell me more about the uranium-238 or potassium-40/lead-206 or argon-40 dating methods. Based on what assumptions do said dating methods rely (ie: rate of decay) without observation?
@psmithebay Uranium lead, like any other radiometric dating technique, relies on the ratio between the two elements. The ratio of lead to uranium along with the half life of the uranium used (Uranium 235 is also used) will allow you to calculate the time for the ratio of the two to reach the ratio they had been at when found. The same goes for Potassium argon. Also, if you want a comprehensive explanation: hfttp://geolfogy.abofut.cofm/ofd/geotimfe_datinfg/fa/uranfiumlead.htfm
@Zeus0Moose Interesting, but what would happen if a contaminant was introduced in the sample? How do they know the environmental conditions when the sample was formed? And, what about the introduction of heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields? Are any of these common attributes accounted for? That's the point (in regard to "two paths to take"). I cannot keep refuting claims to be led down a path that requires I put my own faith aside and replace it with your worldview.
@psmithebay Zircon. Zircon will in the majority allow almost absolutely NO contamination OR escape due to how tough it is. It's trapping temperature, density and toughness prevents almost all disturbances. The rare affected pieces can sometimes be easily noticed, leaving the few that cannot be determined to be disturbed or not. The concordia diagram can help us with the latter, allowing us to see when it was affected. We're not so naive to think everything is perfect.
@psmithebay Then of course many zircon samples are dated to determine whether or not the data is adequate or not and to find consistencies, which are often found, which is why zircon dating is such a useful and renowned method of dating.
@Zeus0Moose@Zeus0Moose What consistencies? Found a good article for you to read in context of our pseudo-debate: It's on the Answers in Genesis site -> /articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research . Let me know your thoughts.
@psmithebay Your article is not loading. Also, if it says that between carbon dating and uranium lead dating there are inconsistencies, duh. Carbon dating is not for rocks or things billions of years old. Also, the inconsistent C14 levels in the atmosphere are addressed by calibration curves.
@Zeus0Moose I'll have to read your article at home (leaving work in about 1hr and have to make sure the servers are happy). I'm re-posting the article I sent you (remove the 'F's): httFp://wFww.answeFrsingenFesis.oFrg/aFrticles/aFm/vF1/nF1/creFation-research
@fastwritename I've thought about that too, it's kind of odd. There's probably some people who think it's immoral in some way by taking some parts of whatever they believe in too seriously, but I think the main reason is because the youth is less religious than adults, who are not inclined towards the internet and such. Personally I feel that with the flow of information we now have, religion cannot stay as prominent as it is forever, and will soon diminish.
"It makes me want to throw up." Hahaha, Dawkins doesn't mince words does he? I LOVE it. So refreshing to hear someone actually speak their mind and not be a spineless, politically correct coward in the public eye.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I'll disagree 100% with the idea that it is the liberals throwing up a wall separating reality from religion. I have had may great discussions with people who agree that the bible is merely a book with some good ideas and I never find that among the fundamentals.
@TheBoxingCannabyte It does indeed, what the hell are you arguing about below though? I simply can't be bothered reading the whole debate so if you wouldn't mind filling me in it'd be appreciated :)
Religion has a special wall of respect around it thus not allowed to criticize it?
Go look in your mirror There is not one Darwinian evolutionists that I know of that is in favor of "teaching the controversy" . Both Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller are on record saying they do not approve of "confusing the students" with this
Yet every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Why is this theory completely off limits to the rigors of falsification?
@toobsucker "Yet every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Why is this theory completely off limits to the rigors of falsification?"
@toobsucker Are you referring to evolution when you say "why is this theory completely off limits to the rigors of falsification?" It's not. That's what peer review is designed for. The scientific community is constantly attempting to disprove its own claims, that's how you weed out the false information.
@CaptainScumbag "why is this theory completely off limits to the rigors of falsification?"
"It's not. That's what peer review is designed for. The scientific community is constantly attempting to disprove its own claims, that's how you weed out the false information."
Every prediction evolution has made has been falsified and yet science holds on to it. Both Eugenie Scott & Ken Miller have said their not in favor of "teaching the controversy". They wont let it be falsified
@toobsucker Well it's quite clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the scientific method works. Until you can provide proof that "every prediction evolution has made has been falsified" (which is bullshit), then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. Cheers.
@CaptainScumbag " Until you can provide proof that "every prediction evolution has made has been falsified" (which is bullshit), then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. Cheers'
You don't study the problems in the theory because your not prepared for evolution to be wrong. If evolution is wrong I.D. is your only other alternative and you know this. This is why "teaching the controversy" is not allowed.
I have substantial evidence every prediction has been falsified.
It is quite lengthy and will not fit in 500 characters. Ill send it to your inbox if you want to see it.
Cambrian falsifies "the few evolving into the many". There is greater genetic diversity in Cambrian than post Cambrian. This is because Cambrian is not an explosion of life but a mass graveyard caused by rapid burial. The tree of life has been completely destroyed, the genotypes & phenotypes do not match, homology has been falsified, the list goes on & on
Do you trust the words of your own evolutionary scientists?, because that is where all of my information comes from. Understand creationists have a plethora of information taken right from evolutionary science itself. You have yet to realize the UCE falsifies the theory. Your theory requires 100% system evolution. Yet all species have UCE that can't evolve, this is why stasis is the predominate feature in the fossil record. Because stasis is the predominate feature in DNA
@toobsucker You are obviously not a biologist and have never seriously studied cambrian fossils. Richard Dawkins has a fantastic section on it the Ancestor's Tale, in fact! According to practically everyone with credentials, the Cambrian era provides actually quite strong evidence on account of the intermediate fossils and relatively rapid evolution. Stasis is not the dominant feature in the fossil record, look at the Cambrian explosion you pretend to know about. You also don't understand UCE.
@toobsucker You are obviously not a biologist and have never seriously studied cambrian fossils. Richard Dawkins has a fantastic section on it the Ancestor's Tale, in fact! According to practically everyone with credentials, the Cambrian era provides actually quite strong evidence on account of the intermediate fossils and relatively rapid evolution. Stasis is not the dominant feature in the fossil record, look at the Cambrian explosion you pretend to know about. You also don't understand UCE.
@toobsucker You are obviously not a biologist and have never seriously studied cambrian fossils. Richard Dawkins has a fantastic section on it the Ancestor's Tale, in fact! According to practically everyone with credentials, the Cambrian era provides actually quite strong evidence on account of the intermediate fossils and relatively rapid evolution. Stasis is not the dominant feature in the fossil record, look at the Cambrian explosion you pretend to know about. You also don't understand UCE.
@toobsucker You are obviously not a biologist and have never seriously studied cambrian fossils. Richard Dawkins has a fantastic section on it the Ancestor's Tale, in fact! According to practically everyone with credentials, the Cambrian era provides actually quite strong evidence on account of the intermediate fossils and relatively rapid evolution. Stasis is not the dominant feature in the fossil record, look at the Cambrian explosion you pretend to know about. You also don't understand UCE.
@toobsucker Actually, no evolutionary scientist, including Dawkins has ever said to "take his word for it". He would tell you to go to your local natural science museum and go look at the evidence yourself.
You don't even have to do that. Just go to the zoo and look at the apes. Watch them and you will see for yourself they are extremely similar in behavior to humans.
Stasis ? That is a outright lie. If that were the case, everyone would look identical with the same color hair, eyes, skin
@losghost "Stasis ? That is a outright lie. If that were the case, everyone would look identical with the same color hair, eyes, skin"
Good one. The fossil record does no show color of hair or eyes. The many variations in humans are changes in allele frequencies. there are no novel features produced. Evolution must create new functional protein folds as a species morphs. This is not observed because proteins are highly conserved
@toobsucker Do you have any concept of what you are arguing against? You see evolution already. Do you take antibiotics? Where do you think that comes from?
Ever seen a 6 legged pig or two headed snake? That is called "mutation" Myoo-tay-shun. Some mutations help, instead of hamper. Some mutations excel and outperform their predecessors, ergo they burn out or become extinct.
Go learn something before trying to throw out some psuedo-scientific babble, you are embarrassing yourself.
@toobsucker "And it clear you have no idea every prediction Darwinian evolution has made, has been repeatedly falsified . and you say I believe in pseudo science "
Falsified by whom? Since when has evolution made a prediction? Stop talking out of your rear end. I thought it was very un-christian to bear false witness, right?
If you say evolution is a lie, then simply show us. Prove that it is, and do so without a book or telling us to believe the voices in your head. Pseudo science, lol.
@losghost "Falsified by whom? Since when has evolution made a prediction? Stop talking out of your rear end"
You should not debate this issue if you don't study it. All valid theories must provide accurate predictions. Evolution predicted the fossil record would look like a tree, starting with a single cell and evolving in numbers and branching off into greater variations. This is falsified with the Cambrian explosion.
EVO also predicts the phenotypes & genotypes will match. Also falsified
@toobsucker Ok, so lets take your wild assertion. What does the theory of gravity predict exactly? That we won't float off the earth?
Evolution does not make predictions and you are being gloriously ignorant or purposefully attempting to obfuscate. Sounds like you read a book on how to argue with an atheist with pseudo scientific sounding babel and came to youtube. You completely discount phenotypic plasticity and the cambrian explosion is a matter of great debate, not conclusion.
@losghost "Evolution does not make predictions and you are being gloriously ignorant or purposefully attempting to obfuscate"
I'M not wasting my time one you. Your understanding of what a theory is, is not even at a high school level. Did it ever occur to you to Google the terms "theory definition" and read before you post.
ALL theories must make testable valid predictions otherwise they are unsubstantiated speculations not theories. Study before you post
@toobsucker, actually a scientific theory is based on a myriad of other facts, the theory of evolution has more evidence for it than the theory of gravity, for example.
@losghost Do you have any concept of what you are arguing against? You see evolution already. Do you take antibiotics? Where do you think that comes from?"
Yes you do, your problem is you do not recognize the clear limitations and mechanism involved. ALL species appear fully developed and distinct in the fossil record. Morphology creating novel features is never observed. We have hundreds of millions of generational years of mutational effects on fruit flies, and NOT ONE novel feature.
@toobsucker Really? So you are saying, no, you've never seen a two headed pig. How can you say the fossil record is complete enough to suggest such a thing?
You sound like some nutter christian that watched some "how to argue with atheists" video but have no concept of what it is you are arguing.
And you are wrong about the flies. In fact, I believe there was an oxford breakthrough finding a "novel feature" on fruit flies that led to a major cancer breakthrough.
@toobsucker Ok, then how about a fish with feet? is that "novel" enough? Ok, google "fruit fly" and "Cancer". Look for the oxford links. I won't do your work for you nor can I squeeze into 500 chars.
@losghost "Ok, then how about a fish with feet? is that "novel" enough?"
Claims without sources are meaningless
"Genetic Switch for Limbs and Digits Found in Primitive Fish: Before Animals First Walked On Land, Fish Carried Gene Program for Limbs..There previously was the idea that these switches had to be generated from scratch de novo, but no, they already existed, they were already there," said Marcelo Nobrega, MD,
@toobsucker So I was thinking about what you have been saying, Why don't you do us both a favor and define "novel feature" because to me, it sounds like more circular logic and allows you to sit back and say "nope, not it" while I somehow have to guess.
So what is a "novel feature" and why isn't a flipper a "novel feature compared" to a hand?
This is not Darwinian evolution, the gene that causes the cancer can halt the cancer if mutated. This has nothing to do with beneficial new protein folds and morphology
@losghost "So I was thinking about what you have been saying, Why don't you do us both a favor and define "novel feature"
Wings, tails, new eye designs, new organs, etc.. , they all appear appear fully developed in the fossil record and are never seen to arise de novo in experiments
Fruit fly mutations do not produce any different features, they produce more of the same features, like multiple useless wings or eyes
@toobsucker New as opposed to what? New discoveries? Novel as defined by you is what, what exists in the biology books? Do you not see the fallacy in what you are saying? That novelty DOES exist, is a hand the same as a flipper? Lateral lines in fish the same as an ear? They do not, there are plenty of cases of transition.
That you are saying there is nothing new in the fossil record now somehow invalidates everything? Not knowing does not equate to god, it equates to not knowing.
@losghost "Do you not see the fallacy in what you are saying? That novelty DOES exist, is a hand the same as a flipper?"
Of course novelty exists, but it always appears fully developed in the fossil record with all the signature features appearing abruptly and fully formed. You do understand the "transition" is the only verification for the a theory that predicts an evolutionary transition
This transition is not observable the the fossil record and molecular biology is also refuting it
@toobsucker ok, I give up, in your other statement you say there is no novelty, now you say there is. You are just fucking with me and have no coherent argument or constructive thing to say.
Keep trolling this video, I'm sure you will convince people.
@toobsucker, that is completely untrue, toobsucker. Have you not heard of transitional fossils? Technically, we are ALL transitional, as evolution never stops. Name me 3 molecular biologists and 5 paleontologists that agree with what you say and I'd be very impressed.
@TheBoxingCannabyte "Have you not heard of transitional fossils? Technically, we are ALL transitional, as evolution never stops"
Your not understanding the definition of the key word in your theory, "transition"al.
All living fossil (many in Cambrian) were considered transitionals until their counterparts were discovered. The "transition" must be observed to be able to take place. The conserved protein folds in one species must change (evolve) into another stable set proving the transition
@TheBoxingCannabyte "actually a scientific theory is based on a myriad of other facts, the theory of evolution has more evidence for it than the theory of gravity, for example"
Yes is does, no one disputes evolution takes place. What is disputed by I.D. is its mechanisms and its scope. Its mechanisms are highly complex information systems that controls evolution (adaptation) via environmental cues. Its scope are only slight variations for adaptation purposes and no radical changes ever occur
@toobsucker A lot of people believe evolution doesn't take place. It's kind of sad. I'm an evolutionist/atheist and my girlfriend is christian and doesn't believe atheism happens. Fortunately, our beliefs on such things don't matter to our relationship.
Evolution is observable, however the evolution observed is the selection of information already on file / switching genes on & off, The selection of the luckiest randomness has nothing to do with evolution.
This is an adaptation mechanism that selects slight variations as the environment changes. This has nothing to so with Darwinian evolution that requires evidence of randomness & selection creating new functional genes. The Altenberg 16 understand this dilemma for evolution
@Getlowend1812 evolution has tremendous gaps and none of you supporters can explain those gaps or lack of transitional fossils etc... you people are all condescending assholes
@bnsaints I"m a condescending asshole because I said that my girlfriend has a different opinion than myself and I respect her opinion and it doesn't change anything in our relationship. Nice. Also, I never claimed I could. If I could, why would I waste my time spouting it to someone who's mind is already made up anyway? I don't shove my beliefs down anyone's throat, unlike what religious peoples have done for centuries.
@toobsucker Oh, and by the way. Simply stating the lie that homology has been falsified does not make it true. Everything you've stated in this past paragraph is the same rhetoric they put in my "science" textbook at the private Christian school I attended in 8th grade. It's deliberately false and misleading and incredibly ill-informed. Do some honest research and find some information published by someone who knows what they're talking about.
Funny, at 6:24 Penn makes a point that atheists are seen as cold and not creative and Richard goes "Oh God, yeah!" LOL Funny from a guy that debunked the God theory , shows you how much all of us are part of the God squad by no personal choice.
I get that , but we all use it regardless if you are an atheist or not. It just shows you that certain things are not a result of choice, it's one's upbringing. No atheist uses phrase "Oh my nothing!".Funny. Imagine raising a kid who never hears the word God, what would that kid say in place of "Oh God!" ?
@bigheavyshoe evolution is full of inconsistencies and wholes, there are dozens of problems with it that all evolutionist proponents cavalierly dismiss when they can not answer. Oh and by the way ass hat, I am not purporting to advocate creationism or intelligent design, I am merely saying that evolution is a bullshit notion that arrogant, condescending elitist scum like Dawkins zealously hold to in the face of all the problems the theory has.
@bnsaints At least you are a objective thinker. Unfortunately, you are a rare breed. I, personally, believe in Creation, but am not offended by the approach of the Scientific Method towards arguing worldview.
@bnsaints Considering how the Earth is billions of years old and the potential severity of natural disasters, there will always be fossil gaps. But for now we have been able to trace humans back to the homo genus back to early hominids and such, with the bones and fossils to strongly support it. The same goes for other animals. Also, Dawkins himself proposes that "gaps" are evidence of migratory events.
@Zeus0Moose Besides the fallacy of Carbon Dating and the Geological Column, how exactly could you prove to me ( a unbeliever ) how the earth is ( factually ) "billions of years old" as you so pridefully stated?
@psmithebay There's more than one type of radiometric dating, you know. Besides Carbon dating, there is Uranium-lead dating and Potassium argon dating. These also support an Earth FAR older than the creation myth says it is. Potassium Argon dating is used for samples older than 100,000 years mostly and Uranium lead has a range of millions to even billions at its best. Uranium lead dating is renowned for its great accuracy, with an estimated 1% error. And it shows Earth is billions of years old.
@Zeus0Moose You have made some substantial claims in one mere paragraph. Color me impressed? Despite your arrogance and ignorance in the subject, there are two paths I can take with someone like you: 1-> Continuously refute your claims and put Christ on the back-burner OR 2-> Take your stance and be stubborn and keep stating the obvious (ie: you believe in God just as I do). Nonetheless, I will (this once) entertain your query...
@psmithebay The fallacy of radiometric dating and geological uniformatarianism? Please sir, tell me, what archaeological classes/geological classes have you taken? Hell, do you have an education? If you do not accept the FACT of Deep Time, then you reject all science, because every single class of science whether it be physiology, psychology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. all are propagated around this institution.
@psmithebay You don't need to come in here on your high horse saying you'll "pray for us" you know. It means nothing to us, and I don't give a damn if your god WOULDN'T believe in me, because I do not believe in any god. And by coming in here and saying you'll pray for us and lecturing people on your (false) beliefs is EXACTLY what you don't like Dawkins for. Really, deliberately going to something you disagree with and asserting your beliefs over us and insulting the speaker? Hypocrite.
@Zeus0Moose By comparison, your reply to my comment is a lecture. Sorry to point out the obvious my friend, but I too am human. Nonetheless, if we are writing books, I will reply to your adult (by rating not by content) statement. By "coming in here" do you mean that I have intruded on your discussion about me and others like myself? Insomuch, how have I insulted Mr. Dawkins? If you didn't believe in God, why would you become so animate to defend your disbelief?
We ourselves are all Stardust..and we inhabit a planet orbiting a star, a star that is merely one of hundreds of billions in our galaxy I might add.. and The Universe is full of billions upon billions of other Galaxies each with hundreds of billions of other stars, With that humbling fact how could you not feel apart of something big?..The Universe is far more awe inspiring and grande than any Mythology.
@23Tev That is some truth my brother, we are part of it. One problem I have with religion is the idea that everything was made for us, and that we were then placed on earth. The truth is that we are nature, part of the picture. These people are longing for the end of the world, its pretty morbid
order of creation:plants fish land animals humans order of evolution: plants fish land animals humans.the bible got it right long before science the only differents the bible has it plants fish birds then land animals and human. but the evolutionary order is basically the same as the bibles six day creation and no giant turtles.
@extol1980 bacteria? fungi? Viruses? Im not sure what point your trying to make but the bible doesn't have any sort of evolutionary knowledge. Not to metion it says god created plants before SUNLIGHT.
@poopongi so are you saying plants didn't come before fish an fish before land animals and land animals before humans.I'm not talking about bacteria or viruses your missing the point and also God created could mean he prophesied spoke utter life and death is in the power of the tongue.created can mean many things evolution is a type of creative process.but for evolution to work you need a external force God to manipulate dna.environment changes alone can't do it,all you would get is mud
Fascinating discussion. I'm really enjoying this a lot.
skinnylugnuts 2 days ago
This was better than I'd thought it'd be. Lots of great 'aha' moments.
Johnf85 1 week ago
I have a lot of tolerance. It's all for drugs, though. Not other stuff.
Snakepliskinist 1 week ago
Penn restores my faith in the USA. Penn for President. Richard and Penn are two giants.
park3r7 3 weeks ago
@park3r7 i don't get why he doesn't run
CareFreeWherever 2 weeks ago
Interesting yourself in SCIENCE rather than RELIGION brings you more creativity, intelligence, it's proven facts, you can use it in the class room and even get into university. What does religion bring you? ALLAH AKBAR *blows up*.
xBlackEditionx 1 month ago
@xBlackEditionx "Science without religion is lame, religion without scince is blind" (Albert Einstein)
Macrophaser 4 weeks ago
@Macrophaser Religion is the stunt of human progression. Islam was the center of it all until religion came about. Look at them today. Still in the swamp religion took them into.
xBlackEditionx 4 weeks ago
"666 likes"
hehe
uwait 1 month ago
Wow, Dawkins is just so articulate and just sounds so smart! I think I could believe him if he said "I have scientific evidence that unicorns exist." Obviously logical and reasonable people believe him because of his work not his voice, but that my friends is a gift.
drawesome145 2 months ago
@drawesome145 I've always thought the same thing. Just given the way he speaks he could say "Beep boopity flip flappity gumbo chops" and it would be over my head.
hbknutjack 1 month ago
Very interesting interview!! Thanks for uploading.
Paggee 2 months ago
Response to the top comment. It is because quite simply, perception is more important than reality. Shampoo has no need to foam. We just feel better that it does. They make it do that. If it didnt even the best of us would somehow feel it was not doing the job. Even though it is exactly the same. Many people simply cannot identify with truly intelligent people in fact it can be a curse. Have you never heard "well your always right arnt you" like a derrogatory thing? Dumb people dont like it
KowBoySpace 2 months ago
@KowBoySpace Well said. I get the 'why do you always have to be right?' or 'you have an answer for everything' comments all the time. Even when people ignore my advice, until they end up doing exactly as I suggested at the start.
But yes, the masses don't want people in power to aspire to, they want some one to relate to. This is why so many celebs are brain dead morons and still make millions with out actually knowing anything, and why religion still persists.
1973Razorback 1 month ago in playlist More videos from UTbone04
I AM CREASY?
bartekSecondLife 2 months ago
ty ser rd
bartekSecondLife 2 months ago
@pinkallott33 The temperature of the earth is still below average....we are still coming out of an ice age..... The whole planet has been hotter than this for millions of years....for example, the dinosaurs lived in a tropical climate..... Unless u think the world is only 6thousand years old and the devil has put the fossils there to trick us?...... Why don't you do ur research and look @ the evidence.... Then bother poasting religious preaching crap over a Richard Dawkins video......
ADDISON396 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a fool.
Nimzowitz 2 months ago
@Nimzowitz ahhh let me guess, you read that in your 2000 year old storybook ? ;) Or skydaddy sms'ed ya ? :P
kanejacob 2 months ago 2
Whoah, he said Richard Dawkins said: "Ooh God yes" ;)
(no you fundamentalists, this isn't what you are looking for :))
dominice112 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can we compare the Creator of the universe to a fairy . Look at the heavens and the earth . the moon and the greatness of the sun . could you look Upon God with Just your human eyes ? You say there is no evidence that God exist . But you wake up in the morning seeing the rise of the sun . And millions and millions of evidence that he exist . The bible says in the last days the earth will be scorching hot . And now we have Global warming . How could this fairy book be right ?
thinkalott33 3 months ago
Richard Dawkins saying "it pisses me off" and "oh God, yes" in the same video. Quality stuff.
joavim 3 months ago
Woah he said: "That really pisses me off."
mellowcowism 3 months ago 51
@mellowcowism he said " Science is interesting, and if you don't think so, you can go fuck off" at a table discussion in front of an audience:D
xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mellowcowism he said " Science is interesting, and if you don't think so, you can go fuck off" at a table discussion in front of an audience:D
xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx 2 months ago
@mellowcowism you should see the video where he says "fuck off" lol
lzo210 2 months ago
@mellowcowism He even said "Oh God".
pipapopov 1 month ago
@mellowcowism 6:15 he also says "Oh God"
ridered300 1 month ago
Why are logical reasonable intelligent people like Penn Jillete and RIchard Dawkins not world leaders?
motorheadbanger90 3 months ago 103
@motorheadbanger90 Penn has some, in my opinion, strange political views (such as not needing a police force) so don't judge a person entirely on one subject.
hungryman211 3 months ago
@hungryman211 ive never heard that. alot of his political views are logical and reasonable. based on the shows i see and interviews and books i've read about him.
motorheadbanger90 3 months ago
@motorheadbanger90 That's easy: because your life gets inundated with idiocy from the media, you have to pander to the lowest common denominator of your constituents and the bureaucracy is so entrenched in pointless procedure and glad-handing that no one at the intellectual level would ever subject themselves to that. The US will probably never again see a president whose intellect gets close to Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln or Roosevelt (Teddy).
rsr789 3 months ago
@motorheadbanger90 because there isn't enough intelligent informed people sponsoring and voting for their rise to power unlike religous factions and hordes of followers that the current leaders have
TheHammerforge 3 months ago 3
@motorheadbanger90
Because the real "World Leaders" are behind the curtains with a very malevolent agenda.
cssaddict17 3 months ago
@cssaddict17 This.
BradBallanger 3 months ago
@motorheadbanger90 Because unreasonable unintelligent people are doing the voting.
TheKab112 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 2
@motorheadbanger90 Because politics do not involve any of those qualities. :P
LamaPaj 1 month ago 6
@motorheadbanger90 YOU SHUT YOUR FUCKING WHORE MOUTH!!!
caponsky 1 month ago
@caponsky nothing intelligent to say?
motorheadbanger90 1 month ago
@motorheadbanger90 because the masses aren't logical, reasonable, and intelligent.
doaftheloaf 1 month ago
@motorheadbanger90 because most politicians manipulate, lie and jockey for control over others lives. Penn and Dawkins actually respect people.
Relativisticism 2 weeks ago
@motorheadbanger90
Because politics attracts assholes who want to rule.
leftovers0 2 weeks ago
@motorheadbanger90 Because unfortunately, uneducated, illogical, sub-human, moronic cunts, are the majority.
oBLACKIECHANoo 2 weeks ago
@motorheadbanger90
Because world leaders, in all of Earth's history, have never been -that- bright.
:)
RpgDestiny 2 weeks ago
@motorheadbanger90
Stupidity is easy and easy is popular.
Wofaze 2 weeks ago
@motorheadbanger90 Because their knowledge humbles them and diminishes their need for political power.
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 week ago
@motorheadbanger90 Clinton and Obama are both incredibly intelligent and almost undoubtedly atheists (though you would never hear them admit that.) They have to dumb themselves down so that they don't put off the other half of the country even more than they already do.
dman519 1 week ago
Wow, what a great interview... the point made about liberals and their PC bullshit is dead on.
baihbalm 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
"And indeed my own subject of evolution is so much more imaginative, so much more poetic, and it has the enormous advantage of also being true."
loved that line
counterclockwise123 4 months ago
@counterclockwise123 I don't get the "beauty in the universe" crap honestly, poetry in biology? How can anyone see beauty in a self-replicating organism that inflicts pain and suffering on itself and cannibalizes itself? (The biosphere)
It seems insanity, it seems as full of wishfull thinking as religion and it seems the sort of mindset that can only arise in a comfortable, ignorant western life where the realities of death and suffering are more distant than say, Africa.
BeardedBill86 3 months ago
@BeardedBill86 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
counterclockwise123 3 months ago
@counterclockwise123 Poetic, but not really very objective.
BeardedBill86 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeardedBill86 All of nature is insane.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
@BeardedBill86 Most archaological studies show we only became pain-inflicting and destructive when we adopted the lazy lifestyle of agriculture/started domesticating animals&farming (settled vs hunting+gathering).We had more children to sow&till more soil, then to feed more children we expanded our land. The problem=we can only become 15-20%(max) more productive in a generation whereas we can double the population easily, so we CREATED divisive religions to justify inhumane wars.
122172639 2 months ago
Tell me more about the uranium-238 or potassium-40/lead-206 or argon-40 dating methods. Based on what assumptions do said dating methods rely (ie: rate of decay) without observation?
psmithebay 4 months ago
@psmithebay Uranium lead, like any other radiometric dating technique, relies on the ratio between the two elements. The ratio of lead to uranium along with the half life of the uranium used (Uranium 235 is also used) will allow you to calculate the time for the ratio of the two to reach the ratio they had been at when found. The same goes for Potassium argon. Also, if you want a comprehensive explanation: hfttp://geolfogy.abofut.cofm/ofd/geotimfe_datinfg/fa/uranfiumlead.htfm
Remove random f's.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
@Zeus0Moose Interesting, but what would happen if a contaminant was introduced in the sample? How do they know the environmental conditions when the sample was formed? And, what about the introduction of heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields? Are any of these common attributes accounted for? That's the point (in regard to "two paths to take"). I cannot keep refuting claims to be led down a path that requires I put my own faith aside and replace it with your worldview.
psmithebay 4 months ago
@psmithebay Zircon. Zircon will in the majority allow almost absolutely NO contamination OR escape due to how tough it is. It's trapping temperature, density and toughness prevents almost all disturbances. The rare affected pieces can sometimes be easily noticed, leaving the few that cannot be determined to be disturbed or not. The concordia diagram can help us with the latter, allowing us to see when it was affected. We're not so naive to think everything is perfect.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
@psmithebay Then of course many zircon samples are dated to determine whether or not the data is adequate or not and to find consistencies, which are often found, which is why zircon dating is such a useful and renowned method of dating.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
@Zeus0Moose @Zeus0Moose What consistencies? Found a good article for you to read in context of our pseudo-debate: It's on the Answers in Genesis site -> /articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research . Let me know your thoughts.
psmithebay 4 months ago
@psmithebay Your article is not loading. Also, if it says that between carbon dating and uranium lead dating there are inconsistencies, duh. Carbon dating is not for rocks or things billions of years old. Also, the inconsistent C14 levels in the atmosphere are addressed by calibration curves.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
@psmithebay Also: hfttp://beFrkeley.eFdu/neFws/meFdia/releasFes/2004/09/16_uranFium.shtmFl
Remove the F's again.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
@Zeus0Moose I'll have to read your article at home (leaving work in about 1hr and have to make sure the servers are happy). I'm re-posting the article I sent you (remove the 'F's): httFp://wFww.answeFrsingenFesis.oFrg/aFrticles/aFm/vF1/nF1/creFation-research
psmithebay 4 months ago
@psmithebay Same problem, no article shows up.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
Can someone explain to me how the internet is such an atheist friendly community reddit/youtube when the belief in a god is such a prominent idea?
fastwritename 4 months ago
@fastwritename Because God created us to worship Him. In fact, God doesn't believe in atheists.
psmithebay 4 months ago in playlist More videos from UTbone04
@fastwritename I've thought about that too, it's kind of odd. There's probably some people who think it's immoral in some way by taking some parts of whatever they believe in too seriously, but I think the main reason is because the youth is less religious than adults, who are not inclined towards the internet and such. Personally I feel that with the flow of information we now have, religion cannot stay as prominent as it is forever, and will soon diminish.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
Why is it so hilarious to hear Dawkins say "What really pisses me off..."?
Braxtonmccoy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins is a Hero to ignorant people everywhere.
AtheistSpanker 4 months ago
I just love Richard. The author of my favourite book :)
TotallyBlueBerry 4 months ago
"It makes me want to throw up." Hahaha, Dawkins doesn't mince words does he? I LOVE it. So refreshing to hear someone actually speak their mind and not be a spineless, politically correct coward in the public eye.
ZachRose88 4 months ago
@lightandbeautiful Go peddle your hate elsewhere.
M00nGlitz 4 months ago
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
not a petty puny God they worship today
Razz000 5 months ago
I'll disagree 100% with the idea that it is the liberals throwing up a wall separating reality from religion. I have had may great discussions with people who agree that the bible is merely a book with some good ideas and I never find that among the fundamentals.
Sorcoral 5 months ago
humanities man made god can suck my ass........
thank god for atheism.
SoothSayer79 5 months ago
"That pisses me off" Wow, did not expect to hear that from Dawkins, I kind of like it in short doses ;)
scaryninja1693 5 months ago 2
@scaryninja1693, I know, right? It sounds so great coming from him!
TheBoxingCannabyte 5 months ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte It does indeed, what the hell are you arguing about below though? I simply can't be bothered reading the whole debate so if you wouldn't mind filling me in it'd be appreciated :)
scaryninja1693 5 months ago
Dawkins deserves a Nobel peace prize.
sudiptamodak 5 months ago in playlist More videos from UTbone04
@toobsucker I'm curious about which predictions you are referring to.
phamsean 5 months ago
Who's this god bloke there on about? lol
ProjectLonely 5 months ago
Religion has a special wall of respect around it thus not allowed to criticize it?
Go look in your mirror There is not one Darwinian evolutionists that I know of that is in favor of "teaching the controversy" . Both Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller are on record saying they do not approve of "confusing the students" with this
Yet every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Why is this theory completely off limits to the rigors of falsification?
toobsucker 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Yet every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Why is this theory completely off limits to the rigors of falsification?"
Are you joking?
ThisOneGoes211 5 months ago
@toobsucker Are you referring to evolution when you say "why is this theory completely off limits to the rigors of falsification?" It's not. That's what peer review is designed for. The scientific community is constantly attempting to disprove its own claims, that's how you weed out the false information.
CaptainScumbag 5 months ago
@CaptainScumbag "why is this theory completely off limits to the rigors of falsification?"
"It's not. That's what peer review is designed for. The scientific community is constantly attempting to disprove its own claims, that's how you weed out the false information."
Every prediction evolution has made has been falsified and yet science holds on to it. Both Eugenie Scott & Ken Miller have said their not in favor of "teaching the controversy". They wont let it be falsified
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Well it's quite clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the scientific method works. Until you can provide proof that "every prediction evolution has made has been falsified" (which is bullshit), then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. Cheers.
CaptainScumbag 5 months ago
@CaptainScumbag " Until you can provide proof that "every prediction evolution has made has been falsified" (which is bullshit), then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. Cheers'
You don't study the problems in the theory because your not prepared for evolution to be wrong. If evolution is wrong I.D. is your only other alternative and you know this. This is why "teaching the controversy" is not allowed.
I have substantial evidence every prediction has been falsified.
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Proof or GTFO.
CaptainScumbag 5 months ago
@CaptainScumbag "Proof or GTFO'
It is quite lengthy and will not fit in 500 characters. Ill send it to your inbox if you want to see it.
Cambrian falsifies "the few evolving into the many". There is greater genetic diversity in Cambrian than post Cambrian. This is because Cambrian is not an explosion of life but a mass graveyard caused by rapid burial. The tree of life has been completely destroyed, the genotypes & phenotypes do not match, homology has been falsified, the list goes on & on
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker My inbox is waiting.
CaptainScumbag 5 months ago
@CaptainScumbag
Do you trust the words of your own evolutionary scientists?, because that is where all of my information comes from. Understand creationists have a plethora of information taken right from evolutionary science itself. You have yet to realize the UCE falsifies the theory. Your theory requires 100% system evolution. Yet all species have UCE that can't evolve, this is why stasis is the predominate feature in the fossil record. Because stasis is the predominate feature in DNA
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker You are obviously not a biologist and have never seriously studied cambrian fossils. Richard Dawkins has a fantastic section on it the Ancestor's Tale, in fact! According to practically everyone with credentials, the Cambrian era provides actually quite strong evidence on account of the intermediate fossils and relatively rapid evolution. Stasis is not the dominant feature in the fossil record, look at the Cambrian explosion you pretend to know about. You also don't understand UCE.
chessmeister 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker You are obviously not a biologist and have never seriously studied cambrian fossils. Richard Dawkins has a fantastic section on it the Ancestor's Tale, in fact! According to practically everyone with credentials, the Cambrian era provides actually quite strong evidence on account of the intermediate fossils and relatively rapid evolution. Stasis is not the dominant feature in the fossil record, look at the Cambrian explosion you pretend to know about. You also don't understand UCE.
chessmeister 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker You are obviously not a biologist and have never seriously studied cambrian fossils. Richard Dawkins has a fantastic section on it the Ancestor's Tale, in fact! According to practically everyone with credentials, the Cambrian era provides actually quite strong evidence on account of the intermediate fossils and relatively rapid evolution. Stasis is not the dominant feature in the fossil record, look at the Cambrian explosion you pretend to know about. You also don't understand UCE.
chessmeister 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker You are obviously not a biologist and have never seriously studied cambrian fossils. Richard Dawkins has a fantastic section on it the Ancestor's Tale, in fact! According to practically everyone with credentials, the Cambrian era provides actually quite strong evidence on account of the intermediate fossils and relatively rapid evolution. Stasis is not the dominant feature in the fossil record, look at the Cambrian explosion you pretend to know about. You also don't understand UCE.
chessmeister 5 months ago
@toobsucker Actually, no evolutionary scientist, including Dawkins has ever said to "take his word for it". He would tell you to go to your local natural science museum and go look at the evidence yourself.
You don't even have to do that. Just go to the zoo and look at the apes. Watch them and you will see for yourself they are extremely similar in behavior to humans.
Stasis ? That is a outright lie. If that were the case, everyone would look identical with the same color hair, eyes, skin
losghost 5 months ago
@losghost "He would tell you to go to your local natural science museum and go look at the evidence yourself"
Your not aware the fossils in the museum are reconstructions made from limited fragments and preconceived notions of the paleontologists.
"Just go to the zoo and look at the apes. Watch them and you will see for yourself they are extremely similar in behavior to humans"
Similarities do not equate a transition. Molecular biology is the ONLY thing that can prove EVO, Study it
toobsucker 5 months ago
@losghost "Stasis ? That is a outright lie. If that were the case, everyone would look identical with the same color hair, eyes, skin"
Good one. The fossil record does no show color of hair or eyes. The many variations in humans are changes in allele frequencies. there are no novel features produced. Evolution must create new functional protein folds as a species morphs. This is not observed because proteins are highly conserved
You don't study the problems in your theory
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Do you have any concept of what you are arguing against? You see evolution already. Do you take antibiotics? Where do you think that comes from?
Ever seen a 6 legged pig or two headed snake? That is called "mutation" Myoo-tay-shun. Some mutations help, instead of hamper. Some mutations excel and outperform their predecessors, ergo they burn out or become extinct.
Go learn something before trying to throw out some psuedo-scientific babble, you are embarrassing yourself.
losghost 5 months ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 5 months ago
@losghost
And it clear you have no idea every prediction Darwinian evolution has made, has been repeatedly falsified . and you say I believe in pseudo science
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker "And it clear you have no idea every prediction Darwinian evolution has made, has been repeatedly falsified . and you say I believe in pseudo science "
Falsified by whom? Since when has evolution made a prediction? Stop talking out of your rear end. I thought it was very un-christian to bear false witness, right?
If you say evolution is a lie, then simply show us. Prove that it is, and do so without a book or telling us to believe the voices in your head. Pseudo science, lol.
losghost 5 months ago
@losghost "Falsified by whom? Since when has evolution made a prediction? Stop talking out of your rear end"
You should not debate this issue if you don't study it. All valid theories must provide accurate predictions. Evolution predicted the fossil record would look like a tree, starting with a single cell and evolving in numbers and branching off into greater variations. This is falsified with the Cambrian explosion.
EVO also predicts the phenotypes & genotypes will match. Also falsified
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Ok, so lets take your wild assertion. What does the theory of gravity predict exactly? That we won't float off the earth?
Evolution does not make predictions and you are being gloriously ignorant or purposefully attempting to obfuscate. Sounds like you read a book on how to argue with an atheist with pseudo scientific sounding babel and came to youtube. You completely discount phenotypic plasticity and the cambrian explosion is a matter of great debate, not conclusion.
losghost 5 months ago
@losghost "Evolution does not make predictions and you are being gloriously ignorant or purposefully attempting to obfuscate"
I'M not wasting my time one you. Your understanding of what a theory is, is not even at a high school level. Did it ever occur to you to Google the terms "theory definition" and read before you post.
ALL theories must make testable valid predictions otherwise they are unsubstantiated speculations not theories. Study before you post
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker, actually a scientific theory is based on a myriad of other facts, the theory of evolution has more evidence for it than the theory of gravity, for example.
TheBoxingCannabyte 5 months ago
@losghost Do you have any concept of what you are arguing against? You see evolution already. Do you take antibiotics? Where do you think that comes from?"
Yes you do, your problem is you do not recognize the clear limitations and mechanism involved. ALL species appear fully developed and distinct in the fossil record. Morphology creating novel features is never observed. We have hundreds of millions of generational years of mutational effects on fruit flies, and NOT ONE novel feature.
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Really? So you are saying, no, you've never seen a two headed pig. How can you say the fossil record is complete enough to suggest such a thing?
You sound like some nutter christian that watched some "how to argue with atheists" video but have no concept of what it is you are arguing.
And you are wrong about the flies. In fact, I believe there was an oxford breakthrough finding a "novel feature" on fruit flies that led to a major cancer breakthrough.
losghost 5 months ago
@losghost "So you are saying, no, you've never seen a two headed pig. How can you say the fossil record is complete enough to suggest such a thing?"
No I have not seen a two headed pig, however If I had that is not a novel feature, its the same feature repeated twice.
"In fact, I believe there was an oxford breakthrough finding a "novel feature" on fruit flies that led to a major cancer breakthrough."
That's meaningless without sources. All the data suggests shuffling of existing features
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Ok, then how about a fish with feet? is that "novel" enough? Ok, google "fruit fly" and "Cancer". Look for the oxford links. I won't do your work for you nor can I squeeze into 500 chars.
losghost 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@losghost "Ok, then how about a fish with feet? is that "novel" enough?"
Claims without sources are meaningless
"Genetic Switch for Limbs and Digits Found in Primitive Fish: Before Animals First Walked On Land, Fish Carried Gene Program for Limbs..There previously was the idea that these switches had to be generated from scratch de novo, but no, they already existed, they were already there," said Marcelo Nobrega, MD,
PhD,
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker So I was thinking about what you have been saying, Why don't you do us both a favor and define "novel feature" because to me, it sounds like more circular logic and allows you to sit back and say "nope, not it" while I somehow have to guess.
So what is a "novel feature" and why isn't a flipper a "novel feature compared" to a hand?
losghost 5 months ago
@losghost " Ok, google "fruit fly" and "Cancer"
This is not Darwinian evolution, the gene that causes the cancer can halt the cancer if mutated. This has nothing to do with beneficial new protein folds and morphology
toobsucker 5 months ago
@losghost "So I was thinking about what you have been saying, Why don't you do us both a favor and define "novel feature"
Wings, tails, new eye designs, new organs, etc.. , they all appear appear fully developed in the fossil record and are never seen to arise de novo in experiments
Fruit fly mutations do not produce any different features, they produce more of the same features, like multiple useless wings or eyes
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker New as opposed to what? New discoveries? Novel as defined by you is what, what exists in the biology books? Do you not see the fallacy in what you are saying? That novelty DOES exist, is a hand the same as a flipper? Lateral lines in fish the same as an ear? They do not, there are plenty of cases of transition.
That you are saying there is nothing new in the fossil record now somehow invalidates everything? Not knowing does not equate to god, it equates to not knowing.
losghost 5 months ago
@losghost "Do you not see the fallacy in what you are saying? That novelty DOES exist, is a hand the same as a flipper?"
Of course novelty exists, but it always appears fully developed in the fossil record with all the signature features appearing abruptly and fully formed. You do understand the "transition" is the only verification for the a theory that predicts an evolutionary transition
This transition is not observable the the fossil record and molecular biology is also refuting it
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker ok, I give up, in your other statement you say there is no novelty, now you say there is. You are just fucking with me and have no coherent argument or constructive thing to say.
Keep trolling this video, I'm sure you will convince people.
losghost 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@losghost "ok, I give up, in your other statement you say there is no novelty, now you say there is"
No i said there is no novelty in mutation experiments, I never said that abut the fossil record
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker, that is completely untrue, toobsucker. Have you not heard of transitional fossils? Technically, we are ALL transitional, as evolution never stops. Name me 3 molecular biologists and 5 paleontologists that agree with what you say and I'd be very impressed.
TheBoxingCannabyte 5 months ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte "Have you not heard of transitional fossils? Technically, we are ALL transitional, as evolution never stops"
Your not understanding the definition of the key word in your theory, "transition"al.
All living fossil (many in Cambrian) were considered transitionals until their counterparts were discovered. The "transition" must be observed to be able to take place. The conserved protein folds in one species must change (evolve) into another stable set proving the transition
toobsucker 5 months ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte "actually a scientific theory is based on a myriad of other facts, the theory of evolution has more evidence for it than the theory of gravity, for example"
Yes is does, no one disputes evolution takes place. What is disputed by I.D. is its mechanisms and its scope. Its mechanisms are highly complex information systems that controls evolution (adaptation) via environmental cues. Its scope are only slight variations for adaptation purposes and no radical changes ever occur
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker A lot of people believe evolution doesn't take place. It's kind of sad. I'm an evolutionist/atheist and my girlfriend is christian and doesn't believe atheism happens. Fortunately, our beliefs on such things don't matter to our relationship.
Getlowend1812 4 months ago
@Getlowend1812
Evolution is observable, however the evolution observed is the selection of information already on file / switching genes on & off, The selection of the luckiest randomness has nothing to do with evolution.
This is an adaptation mechanism that selects slight variations as the environment changes. This has nothing to so with Darwinian evolution that requires evidence of randomness & selection creating new functional genes. The Altenberg 16 understand this dilemma for evolution
toobsucker 4 months ago
@Getlowend1812 evolution has tremendous gaps and none of you supporters can explain those gaps or lack of transitional fossils etc... you people are all condescending assholes
bnsaints 4 months ago
@bnsaints I"m a condescending asshole because I said that my girlfriend has a different opinion than myself and I respect her opinion and it doesn't change anything in our relationship. Nice. Also, I never claimed I could. If I could, why would I waste my time spouting it to someone who's mind is already made up anyway? I don't shove my beliefs down anyone's throat, unlike what religious peoples have done for centuries.
Getlowend1812 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaptainScumbag "My inbox is waiting"
Ill send you just a few right now, tomorrow Ill have more time
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Oh, and by the way. Simply stating the lie that homology has been falsified does not make it true. Everything you've stated in this past paragraph is the same rhetoric they put in my "science" textbook at the private Christian school I attended in 8th grade. It's deliberately false and misleading and incredibly ill-informed. Do some honest research and find some information published by someone who knows what they're talking about.
CaptainScumbag 5 months ago
Funny, at 6:24 Penn makes a point that atheists are seen as cold and not creative and Richard goes "Oh God, yeah!" LOL Funny from a guy that debunked the God theory , shows you how much all of us are part of the God squad by no personal choice.
besicmusik 5 months ago
@besicmusik lol, its a phrase
SonicKoolLiam1 5 months ago
@SonicKoolLiam1
I get that , but we all use it regardless if you are an atheist or not. It just shows you that certain things are not a result of choice, it's one's upbringing. No atheist uses phrase "Oh my nothing!".Funny. Imagine raising a kid who never hears the word God, what would that kid say in place of "Oh God!" ?
besicmusik 2 months ago
@besicmusik "oh FUCK!" ?
wardzer 2 months ago
Comment removed
valund 5 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a Hero to intelligent people everywhere
MundyArtStudio 6 months ago 48
@MundyArtStudio Dawkins: A hero to the intelligent, a huge target to the reverent, and a villain to the ignorant.
- Me.
losghost 5 months ago 2
@MundyArtStudio he is a smarmy ignorant ass you can't ever intelligently explain the tremendous GAPS in the theory of evolution
bnsaints 4 months ago
@bnsaints Please help yourself to a Anthropology book because you're looking like a misinformed idiot.
bigheavyshoe 4 months ago
@bigheavyshoe evolution is full of inconsistencies and wholes, there are dozens of problems with it that all evolutionist proponents cavalierly dismiss when they can not answer. Oh and by the way ass hat, I am not purporting to advocate creationism or intelligent design, I am merely saying that evolution is a bullshit notion that arrogant, condescending elitist scum like Dawkins zealously hold to in the face of all the problems the theory has.
bnsaints 4 months ago
@bnsaints At least you are a objective thinker. Unfortunately, you are a rare breed. I, personally, believe in Creation, but am not offended by the approach of the Scientific Method towards arguing worldview.
psmithebay 4 months ago in playlist More videos from UTbone04
@bnsaints Considering how the Earth is billions of years old and the potential severity of natural disasters, there will always be fossil gaps. But for now we have been able to trace humans back to the homo genus back to early hominids and such, with the bones and fossils to strongly support it. The same goes for other animals. Also, Dawkins himself proposes that "gaps" are evidence of migratory events.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
@Zeus0Moose Besides the fallacy of Carbon Dating and the Geological Column, how exactly could you prove to me ( a unbeliever ) how the earth is ( factually ) "billions of years old" as you so pridefully stated?
psmithebay 4 months ago
@psmithebay There's more than one type of radiometric dating, you know. Besides Carbon dating, there is Uranium-lead dating and Potassium argon dating. These also support an Earth FAR older than the creation myth says it is. Potassium Argon dating is used for samples older than 100,000 years mostly and Uranium lead has a range of millions to even billions at its best. Uranium lead dating is renowned for its great accuracy, with an estimated 1% error. And it shows Earth is billions of years old.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
@Zeus0Moose You have made some substantial claims in one mere paragraph. Color me impressed? Despite your arrogance and ignorance in the subject, there are two paths I can take with someone like you: 1-> Continuously refute your claims and put Christ on the back-burner OR 2-> Take your stance and be stubborn and keep stating the obvious (ie: you believe in God just as I do). Nonetheless, I will (this once) entertain your query...
psmithebay 4 months ago
@psmithebay The fallacy of radiometric dating and geological uniformatarianism? Please sir, tell me, what archaeological classes/geological classes have you taken? Hell, do you have an education? If you do not accept the FACT of Deep Time, then you reject all science, because every single class of science whether it be physiology, psychology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. all are propagated around this institution.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@bigheavyshoe And a name-calling idiot is better somehow?
psmithebay 4 months ago in playlist More videos from UTbone04
@MundyArtStudio Dawkins is a bit arrogant, but I'll still pray for him and everyone of his indoctrinated followers to his fundementalist beliefs.
psmithebay 4 months ago in playlist More videos from UTbone04
@psmithebay You don't need to come in here on your high horse saying you'll "pray for us" you know. It means nothing to us, and I don't give a damn if your god WOULDN'T believe in me, because I do not believe in any god. And by coming in here and saying you'll pray for us and lecturing people on your (false) beliefs is EXACTLY what you don't like Dawkins for. Really, deliberately going to something you disagree with and asserting your beliefs over us and insulting the speaker? Hypocrite.
Zeus0Moose 4 months ago
@Zeus0Moose By comparison, your reply to my comment is a lecture. Sorry to point out the obvious my friend, but I too am human. Nonetheless, if we are writing books, I will reply to your adult (by rating not by content) statement. By "coming in here" do you mean that I have intruded on your discussion about me and others like myself? Insomuch, how have I insulted Mr. Dawkins? If you didn't believe in God, why would you become so animate to defend your disbelief?
psmithebay 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins - intelligent - hero = Richard Dawkins
psmithebay 4 months ago in playlist More videos from UTbone04
Dawkins goes to grammar schools and lectures/debates children on there being no Santa Claus!
Only difference between the two is your parents eventually come clean.
SEAWEEDRAVEN 6 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
foxnews(.)com/opinion/2011/07/27/does-cross-belong-at-11-memorial-site Vote!
Reaperlastfm 6 months ago
What if Dawkins did throw up, and the puddle looked like Jesus?
Oooooooooooooo.
SpaceDogGreen2 7 months ago 33
@SpaceDogGreen2 looool
colony665 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpaceDogGreen2 "What if Dawkins did throw up, and the puddle looked like Jesus?"
Nah, when Dawkins throws up the puddle looks like Darwin. ;OP
fishypaw 4 months ago
@SpaceDogGreen2 then u will have some jesus shaped vomit
aaronsdavis 4 months ago
Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth
dustindo 7 months ago 2
"it makes me want to throw up" couldn't have said it better myself richard.
nickosharp 7 months ago 6
We ourselves are all Stardust..and we inhabit a planet orbiting a star, a star that is merely one of hundreds of billions in our galaxy I might add.. and The Universe is full of billions upon billions of other Galaxies each with hundreds of billions of other stars, With that humbling fact how could you not feel apart of something big?..The Universe is far more awe inspiring and grande than any Mythology.
23Tev 7 months ago 2
@23Tev That is some truth my brother, we are part of it. One problem I have with religion is the idea that everything was made for us, and that we were then placed on earth. The truth is that we are nature, part of the picture. These people are longing for the end of the world, its pretty morbid
mehico33 7 months ago
order of creation:plants fish land animals humans order of evolution: plants fish land animals humans.the bible got it right long before science the only differents the bible has it plants fish birds then land animals and human. but the evolutionary order is basically the same as the bibles six day creation and no giant turtles.
extol1980 7 months ago
@extol1980 bacteria? fungi? Viruses? Im not sure what point your trying to make but the bible doesn't have any sort of evolutionary knowledge. Not to metion it says god created plants before SUNLIGHT.
poopongi 7 months ago
@poopongi so are you saying plants didn't come before fish an fish before land animals and land animals before humans.I'm not talking about bacteria or viruses your missing the point and also God created could mean he prophesied spoke utter life and death is in the power of the tongue.created can mean many things evolution is a type of creative process.but for evolution to work you need a external force God to manipulate dna.environment changes alone can't do it,all you would get is mud
extol1980 7 months ago