I love how the religious are celebrating this as some sort of victory because he had to take a while to consider a question and choose this moment, and choosing now as the time to fill the comments section with childish insults of 'idiot' and other comments questioning his intelligence, when they COMPLETELY ignore the times he's utterly destroyed religious arguments without hesitation. Cherry picking at its finest, although I'd expect nothing less from the proponents of ignorance...
BUAHAHAHAH, Its not only the stump that made this joker look like a moron , its the fact that he said fish grew legs milions of years ago , but only if you had been there that time you could have seen it pffhahahahahahahah! Fish of today is a modern animal just as we are , yeah right , cos the fairy tale has to be undetected !
This moron has an agenda , he loses his job if he said evolution from one specie to another is crap plus it gives people more chance to believe in God ! Liars
@eleutheromaniac If that question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the theory and processes of evolution, then yes, it is highly deceptive (read: propaganda). The clip shows the point in the interview when Dawkins realized he was being interviewed by Creationists with an agenda. The question tries to imply that the theory revolves around the principle of increasing information in the genome, which it doesn't.
@lxUn1c0 Perhaps, but the information in the genome does increase by various means. Be sure to google the "nylonase enzyme" for a definite example of new information in the world's genome. HINT: nylon is a very recently developed man-made polymer which does not exist in nature.
Idiot! If you think a 53 second video with crappy editing and graphics will rescue that imbecile you are wrong. Dawkins is an idiot, let me ask you a question. Have you really read any of his books completely cover to cover.
And for the idiot bellow MrCooIUS, "creationists don't ask questions" what the hell do you think the interviewer was asking? Boy are you stupid.
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
Papacy cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM til Bible's destroyed folks
"Creationists happily seized on the video as "smoking gun" proving evolution was a hoax; one of its key proponents stumped on a simple question! Dawkins has since gone on record explaining that this pause was because he suddenly realized he had been tricked into an interview with creationists - something he doesn't do as policy"
I'll be more than happy to give them evidence, that is, if they are able to provide legitimate evidence for their sack of shit! Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Equivalent exchange peeps.
Charles Darwin didn't believe in chance evolution - as he said, "it is unscientific to postulate such a theory, as chance never moves in a single direction." If the very founder of the theory of evolution didn't believe in it, why should anyone else?
So, you played some rock music and added some text on the screen. Is this to debunk the clear fact that he went on to claim that all evolutionary processes have stopped at some undetermined point in the past? FelixCulpa81, you believe evolution not because of empirical evidence, but because someone else tells you it is so. That is the epitome of delusion.
@savana906 You're saying 99% of scientists believe the most absurd and stupid thing man ever came up with. You know more about the history of the earth than 99% of scientsits and know more about the origin of the universe than 70% of scientists.
He didn't answer the question. Flashing books that he has authored proves nothing. His pause allowed him time to offer a mealy mouthed response. The question floored him and his disciples can't handle it. Poor things.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Klinefelter's syndrome: The average human genome contains 46 Chromosomes while an individual with Klinefelter's syndrome has 47 due to the XXY trippling at the end rather than the XY or XX coupling normaly seen. Result, 1 full gene's worth of "increase the information"
@fashklash The question was "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolulationary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
1) It did not ask for PRODUCTIVE increase in information
2) Klinefelter's syndrome ISN"T mental retardation you moron, how hard is it to copy and paste something into google...It is a variation on Hermaphrodism.
@whiteowl1415 1) You know, I am sure, that you are talking about a replication of already existing information. In order for your answer to have any real pertinence you would have to show that new, never-before witnessed information can be produced.On a related point though, I always find it amusing how atheists say"well new information can be created through replication of old information,without subjecting that view to falsification,
2)Retardation = physical/mental/emotional: get a dictionary
@whiteowl1415 Actually, in all honesty that's one heck of a poor argument, but if you're willing to accept it as a decent answer I guess that's your prerogative. You can always get the basketball in the hoop if you enlarge it to the size of the darn basketball court, but that's missing the whole point! No, DNA is much like a computer program, and new information must be produced somehow. Copying information only works when there is information to copy from.
I provide evidence of an entire gene pairing being added to DNA, I cite retro virus' adding and altering DNA information, I point out that our DNA is built off 5 molecules that are NATURALY attracted to one another.
And the best you have is tha its a "heck of a poor argument"
Hope you Enjoy Egypt, because you are seriously in Denial
@whiteowl1415 I'm glad you're satisfied with your argument. As for the emergence of new genetic information- you haven't even touched on the subject. You might as well cite the splitting of the cell. Its so nebulous and impertinent, I'm surprised you haven't died of embarrassment...
@whiteowl1415 What's this about rock candy? No no no, lets not get onto piggibacking crystals yet. The point is your idea of information being generated is no different to what happens when cells replicate themselves: Its not an "increase" in information unless you are seriously intent on widening the goal-posts to hereditary DNA, which is not an increase in information at all. Information does not generate itself; its really very simple.
You are obviously clueless about the idea of how chemical bonds are formed. There is no way I can simplify it any further.
The components in DNA are NATURALY attracted to each other. Thus a susspension of those components over time would result in NEW DNA and RNA strands as they bond.
@whiteowl1415 And now back to the question: has the emergence of new genetic information (not inherited information) been observed in the genome or is this all strictly the subject of hypothesis?
Has a creator been observed or is it stricktly the subject of an archaic book?
A hypothesis isn't much, but at least its based on observable data, and willing to change as more data becomes available.
Creationism only exists in the narrow cracks of knowledge that science is still looking to fill and is quickly running out of places to seek refuge against the truth.
It isn't a "no" its an "I'm giving up on your concious choice to remain ignorant despite the information being handed to you"
The best you have is that noone has seen a process that took millions if not billions of years repeat itself in the last 142 Years since DNA was discovered?
@whiteowl1415 Well, I'm glad you're content with your answer, I'm not. I have no qualms at all, you're the one who seems to be getting flustered. Just be happy man.
@whiteowl1415 That's not the way I remember it. I asked a question- you spurned it. End of story. So get on with your life. You don't want to engage in a reasonable discussion, so let's leave it at that. I'm quite content with my understanding of the matter. I suppose we can agree to disagree.
Question from Vid "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolulationary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" Did that
1st Change "In order for your answer to have any real pertinence you would have to show that NEW, NEVER-BEFORE WITNESSED information CAN be produced." Did That
2nd"Has the emergence of new genetic information (not inherited information) BEEN OBSERVED" No
How you remember it dosn't matter, You kept changing the question
@fashklash "has the emergence of new genetic information (not inherited information) been observed in the genome" => yes, go to google, type pubmed. This will direct you to a database of scientific literatures maintained by NCBI. Then in the search term under pubmed, search for pubmed ID PMID: 8756703. This will lead you to a paper that demonstrates a novel (not inherited) function of genetic material.
@whiteowl1415 Okay, what are you suggesting? Should we just accept your example of the Klinefelters baby? I honestly don't mind. I am simply saying its an inane example. If you think Dawkins would reply that retarded offspring are an example without getting laughed at, and without being reminded that that's the same "increase" that happens in reproduction or cells splitting... Argh never mind, We'll stick with your example if that's what rocks your little atheist boat.
It is safe to say that the vast majority of mutations are negative, this dosn't mean possitives can't happen. Children are occationaly born with webbed fingers/toes that are "fixed" to make them "normal".
What if they wern't "fixed"?
What if those people became champion swimmers?
Chance of NEW information being made is tiny, but not zero.
You seek obervation from the last 60ish years of something that took Billions to happen in the first place.
@whiteowl1415 When you say that something "could"happen and list the ways that it "could" happen, but don't acknowledge any obsticles, then one's ideas become unfalsifiable. Something can only be proven scientifically if it is subjected to falsifiability. So I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying, why not take an agnostic approach- why root for one argument because it fits your conception of information science?Why not use information science to weigh up the pros and cons?
@fashklash "When you say that something "could"happen and list the ways that it "could" happen, but don't acknowledge any obsticles, then one's ideas become unfalsifiable"
Now take that same logic and allpy it to the idea of a creator, except religon isn't even willing to provide ways in which it "Could" happen. Religon just says "It happened, so there"
I do use science to weigh the pros and cons..Scince has alot more Pro (evidence) than religon's Cons (Lack of any evidence)
@fashklash I think you will also find that most Atheists are realy Agnostics that just have strong Atheistic leanings, they just use the Atheist term to avoid explaining to the Ignorant who don't have the word Agnostic in thier vocabulary the difference.
The fact that you cited the difference in the terms shows that you aren't ignorant to thier meaning, but I hope you will understand the convienance of not usualy nitpicking the term from my end.
For al those people on the bubble, dont always believe people who claim science has all the answers because its simply not true, i would challenge all of you to do as lee stroble did , a diehard atheist with intentions of proving god doent exist by doing his own research . These ignorant liars who try to belitle you by saying your controlled or your not a free thinker just because you may believe even just a little, figure it out on your own, its a choice
I am sure he is trying to find a very simple and undrestandable answer to this question for poeple who have no basic knowledge about evolution or biology and has nothing to do with anything els..
@tusi1390 common richard dawkins is an asshole he would have answered regardless if you dont know anything about evolution or biology he would rub that in your face and say die creationist.He got stumped happens to both sides who cares
WELL i have to give dawkins some credit, he definitely is familiar with the word delusional , i feel sorry for the man and all the delusional people who bought into his book of opinions, they got bamboozled
I see, so being the good christians you are, and following the 9th commandment, you would never edit a youtube video in a sublimely lame attempt to discredit an extremely intelligent guy while he thinks of an answer to a question.
I suppose a preacher who would give an answer right away would have a much much more valid point.
@Andyroo2319 i think his final conclusion is based on opinion, for him to place GOD as nothing more than a delusion is all opinion based and unprovable. sorry if you think otherwise.Perhaps you have some scientifc proof that tells us otherwise ? if so lets see it
Neurobiology provides the proof. What it has revealed about the brain precludes the existence of a soul. Souls are necessary for Christian, Jewish and Muslim theology as well as nearly every other currently practiced religion. No souls means no afterlife, no scheme for salvation, etc. You do accept that you think with your brain, right? That it's responsible for emotions, memory, personality, etc? There's nothing left for the concept of the soul to explain. We are out brains.
@Zamboro to think empirically and discontinue any other thought process or idea of that thought process is to deny discovery ,that which science cannot prove or disprove is not out of bounds for mankind to discover.The creation theory seems much more logical than abiogenisis. Most claim that that has absolutley nothing to do with evolution , on the contrary everything has a begining .before apes evolved they had to come from somewhere
Our criteria for determining what is fact isn't simply deciding what seems more logical, but actually investigating the matter via experiment. Repeated experiments simulating early earth conditions have given rise to complex organic molecules from inorganic ones. We have also reproduced the natural formation of bi-lpid membranes around bubbles, better known as cellular membranes, and observed the abiogenic formation of self replicating peptides (simply google that term.)
@prime440 Foolishness? It doesn't get much more foolish than some cosmic Jewish zombie that can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil source from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
@Andyroo2319 how is my belief in a god worse than your belief that man evolved from an ape ? yet the primal species still lives on? for you to think apes produced humans is foolishness apes can only produce apes and humans can oly produce humans no evidence has proven otherwise manind didnot leap into existance from animals sorry if you think that, its simply not true and unproven.
@prime440 And mankind didn't pop up out of nowhere. You give me one bit of factual evidence that suggests otherwise, and I might reconsider that statement.
@Andyroo2319 i never said mankind pop out of nowhere, im saying that man was created by GOD , in the book of genisis 2 verse 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
@Andyroo2319 anyone who tries to tell you that mankind evolved from animals are simply lieing to you and refuse to admit the logical explanation that the holy bibles version of creation is true.HUMANS ONLY PRODUCE HUMANS AND APES ONLY PRODUCE APES there is no proof that contradicts this a being false.
@prime440 There's NOTHING logical about the biblical story of creation. It's an enormous fairy tale, nothing more. The only 'proof'' that you can come up with is, "The Bible says so."
your logic is without substance how can life come about out of nothing and then claim to evolve without reason . and you call that logical? what happens to a baby infant when left alone without its parents to norish them ? simple it diesGOD created man from the dust and breathed life into him creating a living being genisis 2:7. your version is that some promordial goop was struck by lighting and some animal was born without parents and grew on its own then over time evolved lmaoooooo
@prime440 Notice I haven't once mentioned evolution. I'm not trying to argue for evolution, I'm arguing against the notion of a magical being speaking things into existence. It's foolishness, and you'd have to be blinded or misguided to not to see that.
@Andyroo2319 so basically you dont have any idea about the origin of man and how he came into existance you just dont want to believe in a GOD,wich again is a choice you decide to make for yourself but it doesnt have to be the same choice for everyone else.Just be honest with yourself and say your an atheist and stop trying to make up excuses for why you dont want to believe in a god.
@prime440 I believed in the christian god for 7 years, and with great fervor. But throughout that time, there was not one bit of evidence that the god I was worshiping ever existed. It's just one big circus.
@Andyroo2319 Well im sorry u think that way cause thats exactly how our society wants you to think, lose all hope and become a living being with no sense of purpose , all you will become is maggot food with nothing more ? im sorry but i cant think like that because i have experience things that most people never see and it has given me great comfort to know that a living GOD does exsists.Look with your heart not with your eyes, the darkness cannot over come the light,
@TruthWar If you study the progress of genetic engineering, you would know that viruses and bacteria are regularly used to implant new genetic information into existing cells. That is how viruses work: they implant their DNA into our cells, forcing the cells to produce more of them. HIV is not the result of a progressive LOSS of information, that notion is outrageous.
@ItsTotallyAwsome Dawkins sucks? Well, I bet the best-selling books and scientific articles that you published totally proove that. Oh wait... you don't have any. Looser.
for one, the question is poorly constructed and makes little sense. A genetic mutation can be an INCREASE or DECREASE or a single base pair change in the genome. This change will cause a different phenotype to be exhibited. A build up of these changes will result in evolution. If interviewer wants an example, look simply at our DNA and Chimps DNA. Over 98% similarity. Regardless if there's and increase or decrease in the genome, it causes a observable change in appearance of humans and chimps.
The apparent obsession that some people have with seeing Richard Dawkins stumped reminds me of boxing fans who can't wait to see a wily old boxer get KO'd
If you don't believe that existence always existed, then you have to conceive - assuming you have normal brain function, that at some point in time - something (matter, entity or whatever) created itself. END OF DEBATE. Now, wasn't that simple people?
@exposingbuffoons Yes, there always had to be something or someone otherwise it would be a case of phenomena that doesn't exist yet developing itself which obviously makes no sense. Most people who think consciousness is synonymous with brain function and most people who think there is an interdependence between brain function and consciousness agree that everything and everyone requires a cause. I'm not sure what point you're making.
@exposingbuffoons Are you talking about how some people claim God is the initial cause of everything but don't offer any explanation for how God came into being or how he came to be the way he allegedly is? I'm just hoping that you will provide more of a context for the point you have made.
I'm Done here. I've said what I wanted to say and I got my message across. This little game of 4 on 1 is over. It is clear that none of you will change your views just like I won't So let me say one last thing. God loves all of you and he will show himself to you and certainly give you the opprotunity to repent for your sins. god connects to people on a spiritual level and that is how he choses to have a personal relationship.
PS Keep debating christains. One of them may be able to inspire you
"An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods." I am an agnostic atheist. Wikipedia is a good site to research this. Atheism means "the belief in no God" HOWEVER this does not mean that all Atheists claim that they KNOW that there is no God.
@brian2189114 Frankly I am baffled. Christians believe that God has a plan, and that plan requires him to step in from time to time and slaughter millions, and suspend the laws of physics temporarily. I dont doubt that there is something beyond our limited understanding, but I KNOW that it isnt what a book written by uneducated primitives say it is. Noahs ark for instance, is implausible. look up a video by binaryspider about the math of noah's flood. it simply does not add up
@howlingwolf8 Now I'm baffled. You said that there are most likley things beyond our understanding then you basically asked why you can't understand stuff. God is above us and we can't even begin to understand him and his ways. You like others I've heard basically blame God for all the bad stuff which is the result of our actions but when something Good happens you never mention God. The Bible has massive amount of wisdom and contains morals that YOU live by. What do you mean primatives.
@agentorange20 "Apparently you’ve never heard of tornadoes, rainbows, hurricanes or snowflakes. They’re quite complex & they form naturally all the time" Those things are what I'm talking about those things forming are the system nd the system didn't come from nowhere. You dind't answer my Q. I asked what You think explains lifes origins I never said that evolution explains lifes origins. It's funy that you mention rainbows.
this has been exposed for a long time as edited. he didn't pause, it's just edited to look that way. he said that it's not yet possible to witness such a phenomenon, but the evidence for its having taken place is present throughout the fossil record.
well first off before you guys comment you should first try to answer the question yourselves. In reality the question makes No Sense. How can you give an example of an evolutionary process when the process itself takes Millions of years. How can you observe an Evolutionary Process? Its impossible, The best you can do is compare 2 similiar animals with like genome. Such as the stingray and skates fish. Im not supporting Evolution and really have no opinion, Im just putting myself in his shoes.
The question posed by the interviewer is on the verge of being simply not answerable and he could have just said "your question is non-sensical", but he searches for a good answer for a few seconds. So what. He is a brilliant and articulate scientist, more than can be said for most people writing comments here.
@brian2189114 part 6. " Besides You didn't mention Why you think time and matter are eternal which makes no sense. Where did it come from?"
Oh? And and an eternal God who created everything out of nothing makes sense? Where did God come from? Again I say, since you didn't understand the first time, if you can believe God is eternal, there's no reason it's not possible for time and matter to be eternal.
@brian2189114 "Dude. Just think about it. When you ask a question who created him, well then who created that, it will keep going forever"... Yeah, that's exactly what I meant when I said "classic ad infinitum fallacy." Do you understand why it's a logical fallacy that something complex needs a creator? Because if it stops with God, it can stop with anything. Such as time and matter. So by YOUR OWN admission, if it can stop with God, then something complex DOESN'T need a creator.
@GrowMasterGeneral Actually by what I said you can conclude that something that is alive doesn't need a creator and you and I both agree that humans and animals and life for that matter didn't always exist. Like I said the only two conclusions are something is eternal or the creation chain keeps going forever. Now that eternal thing (or should I say being) can't be what you say because science says something can't come from nothing. Either conclusion sound illogical right? Thats what I meant....
@brian2189114 "Now that eternal thing (or should I say being) can't be what you say because science says something can't come from nothing".... How do you bible-thumping morons not realize that same argument applies to your God. You believe God came from nothing, and created everything from nothing. "science says..." You're debating science when you have absolutely no knowledge of it whatsoever. Science says what is already here can't be destroyed, nor anything new be created.
@brian2189114 And since science ACTUALLY says nothing can be destroyed, nor anything new created (instead of: something can't come from nothing) it leads me to believe time and matter are eternal. And once again, if you can believe God is eternal, time and matter can be as well. There's no need to invent another excuse beyond that and say it must be the supernatural. The big bang is fact. But, the big bang may just be an infinite series of big bangs. The universe recycles itself thru black holes
@GrowMasterGeneral You can't possibly beleive time and matter are eternal when there is no evidence to it. You just backed youself in a corner. Science says what you are saying is impossible and you are the one who thinks science is the only logic not me. Once again the big bang THOERY. You claim it is a fact. God transends time and science says something had to. You think matter is eternal. that is impossible
@joe1234567890i First of all that question is a SCIENTIFIC question, without the mention of GOD at all so how is it stupid?! Second if any Middle School kid could answer that question then WHY COULDN'T DAWKINS DO IT? Lasly if Dakwins thought it was a stupid question why didn't he just say that rather than look like a buffoon then afterwards try to give a SERIOUS response.
@PsychoticSnake Are you alright, because you really seem convinced that Dawkins wasn't stumped by the question. How is what she said Gibberish? Also how Do you know what the interviewer wanted; do you have the ability to discern someone's ulterior motives? She asked a Legitimite Scientific Question and he gave an irrelevant response. If you think that Dawkins wasn't dumbfounded by the question then you chose a good name for yourself because you are Psychotic.
@brian2189114 My name actually best describes you. Do some reasearch. The interviewers were revealed to be creationists with that question. Richard Dawkins has stated that he realised this during his pause, and because he dosen't talk with creationists for obvious reasons, he was actually making a decision on what to do now, and that was to stop the interview.
Even if it was a legit question, he can take his time to think it through, so he'd have good delivery and accuracy. Unlike christians.
@PsychoticSnake if he made the decision to stop the interview why did he just continue it later. And personally I think it's stupid how Dawkins won't talk to creationists. If it was the other way around you'd be calling us cowards and say we are to scared the debate. And what do you mean unlike Christains? Do you just Catorgarize all Christians in your narrow minded, steryotypical assumptions.
@PsychoticSnake That's a terrible excuse not to debate with creationists. And WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT when you say Christains resort to the "I'm right you're wrong" thing Atheists do that too when they're losing a debate. Actually everyone does that when they are losing a debate, much like you avoiding the questions I ask in my responses. And what is wrong with making explainations on the spot when their good answers. P.S. look up the Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview
@PsychoticSnake Ok 1. you never told me why he stopped the interveiw just to continue it later 2. If you really thought Debating Creationists was a waste of time you wouldn't be debating me now 3. It sounded like you were aplying it exclusivley to Creationists because you said thats what they "usually" do 4. It's just your opinion that "on-the-spot explainations" aren't good and I'm Certainly sure that you don't think that when Dawkins Gives an on-the-spot-explaination.
@brian2189114 1. Dawkins realised that they were lying to him - they said they were scientific researchers or something similar.
2. This debate may devolve into a waste of time - when it's nothing but a flame war. I am here, trying to correct your mistakes. It's increasingly futilem, however.
3. Saying "usually" does not imply that it is exclusive to them. If i had said "only", then it would have.
4. They are baseless answers. How is that good? Dawkins uses his knowledge for answers.
@PsychoticSnake 1. You still haven't told me Dawkins reason for continueing the interview
2. Tell me what mistakes I've made. The only reason you say this is futile is because you know you can't refute what I'm saying.
3.The fact that you said usually angers me. You talk as If you Debated every Christian in the Country but you probbrbly only did it 2 or 3 times out of millions.
4. The thing is you think they are baseless. I bet you wouldn't think that Dakins doesn't give baseless answers.
@brian2189114 1. He didn't continue the interview! What the fuck's wrong with you?!
2. I have been pointing out every time you have gone wrong with every reply I've made.
3. I have seen and heard a lot of creationists demonstrate their close-mindedness.
4. A baseless explanation is one that has no evidence to support it, and has no method to demonstrate it. And that second sentence is a bit incoherent.
Your current trollish attitude is devolving this debate. We're done here.
@PsychoticSnake 1. he did you nitwit. I see you're so CLOSE MINDED you wouldn't look up the video not in Dawkin's favor (Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)) 2. I don't know wat you're smoking, you still can't answer my questions you just respond with insults. 3. You continue to show more of your CLOSE MINDEDNESS with another stupid generilzation based on nothing. have you met every christian in the world?4. If Creationist claims were baseless......
You are delusional fuck. There, now I've insulted you. And guess what? That is not baseless; it's an astute observation from all your most recent comments here.
@PsychoticSnake Make up your mind, you already said we were done. I was hoping you meant it. And unless you haven't noticed your insults are exactly what I was talking about when you implied I do it a lot. Looks like you resorted to the old fingers in ears you're wrong I'm right La la la la la tactic. Now I'm curios. Will you actually not repond like you say or will you go back on your word, again and attack with pathetic insults, agian?
@PsychoticSnake .....this wouldn't be such a huge controversy. You continue to just shoot insults and make generilzations because of your bias. And you say I have a trollish attitude; why don't you look at yourself for once. For once I agree with you we are done here; you seem incapable of making sense. Neither of us will budge but if you're still a fan of Dawkins (which you are) then look up Ben Stein's Interview with him and have a laugh at that.
@brian2189114 obviously, you know nothing at all about evolution or you wouldn't be defending such a dumb question. Let me put it to you simply in layman's terms so you can understand since you don't know anything about genetics, bacteria develop resistance to drugs right? They develop this because one of them has a gene that randomly mutates into some form of defense and it reproduces. Is resistance to the antibiotic something that wasn't there to begin with? If so, that's NEW INFORMATION
@joe1234567890i WHY DIDN'T DAWKINS JUST SAY THAT! And besides it's not like you're any closer in your futile attempts to prove evolution. Look up the Law of Biogenesis which states that living things must come from other living things. Since that is in fact a Law, explain to me why you think life came randomly from the Non-living.
@brian2189114 look, I'm nowhere near as brilliantly smart as Dawkins. And even to me, the question posed was just moronic. In case you missed it, the tone of my explanation was very condescending, and I only explained in that manner because I'm a huge asshole. If this were not on the internet, I be civilized and would not publicly humilate the person asking. Dawkins is a reasonable man - he knows when to restrain himself.
@joe1234567890i (cont.) also, just because I don't have an explanation to how life came about doesn't mean I need to latch on to some unsubstantiated claim. Have you even looked in a biology textbook in the last few decades? look up the "miller-urey experiment," the conclusion is that it is indeed possible for life to arise from nonlife. Also, evolution doesn't go that far back to the very beginning, it is a method of describing the mechanism for which populations of organisms change over time.
@joe1234567890i By the Way I was talking about Atheism in General inregards to the explaination of lifes origin which goes hand in hand a lot with Evolution. And God's existence isn't an unsubstantial claim just because Dawkins or some other scientists say so. And if you look deeper into the Miller Urey Experiment you'll find that it was later proved that most of the gases he used to simulate the time period were inacurrate to begin with, but for some stupid reason that's not in the text books
@brian2189114 you're absolutely right, and I completely agree with the statement that "God's existence isn't an unsubstantial claim just because Dawkins or some other scientists say so." Argument from authority is the most egregious logical fallacy, IMHO. However, it still is an UNSUBSTANTIATED (I never said it was unsubstantial) claim because there is no hard evidence that backs it up. Also, I'd like to see a link to your claim that the gases were inaccurate...
@joe1234567890i Look up the Miller urey experiment case of the creator and go to the Philo wiki link. And in a book called the end of reason by Ravi Zacharias he tells how Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe calculated that the chances of a single enzyme forming from amino acids being 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Or 100 Quintillion or 10 to the power of 20 (10^20). and thats just one enzyme. The chances of it all forming together is 100 quintillion to the power of 40,000.
@brian2189114 as a prospective math major, I am skeptical to most of these statistical claims without seeing the derivation. But even given that these statistics are true (which I need further evidence to accept especially because these two are not mathematicians but astronomers), so what? Just because the chances of winning the lottery is 1 to 100 million doesn't mean that noone can win it. In statistics, for a continuous graph, the probability of picking a specific point is 0. So what?
@joe1234567890i Somehow I knew you would just refuse to beleive those calculatltions. And What do you mean so what? You and I both Know that The only reason you would believe such odds is the fact you refuse to believe in God. Your Lottery analogy is completly off. First the chances of random life are way, way slimmer than 1 to a million. Also even if the chances were one to a million if you bought a lottery ticket for the first time there is no way you would expect to win and you know it.
@brian2189114 Your point is completely moot. 1 to a million, 1 to 100 quintillion. We're talking concepts here, not specific numbers for the time being. Somehow, I knew you wouldn't understand my statistics example, even though I understood the concept as a scrawny 15 year old high school freshman. Ok, the simplest way to elaborate is this: pick a real number, between 0 to 1. Now, what is the probability that I pick the same? It's extremely small, nearing 0, but it's not impossible.
@joe1234567890i I see you are resulting to petty personal insults since your argument is crumbling away. And You're the one that's not getting what I'm saying. I never said that it wasn't possible I said that It's so unlikely no one who was thinking straight would take to one opposed to the 100 Quintillion. The only time you would is in the case for evolution which means you are obviosly willing to give up your normally sensible logic to believe what is not even true.
@brian2189114 No, I'm RESORTING to (not resulting to) petty insults because I'm frustrated that you don't get it. I've answered all of your complaints, and all you've given me are some half-assed attempts at a retort. Natural selection describes a mechanism of how organisms change. Your entire flawed argument only supports the idea that god created life, not that evolution is false. Evolution only provides a framework for how organisms change, it doesn't claim what happened in the beginning.
@brian2189114 I looked up the calculations and though the math is right, the underlying assumption is wrong, meaning the conclusion is also wrong. According to those guys "A twenty-amino-acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme." While true, the following derivation is a simple proportion between one polypeptide and the whole set of polypeptides. This implies complete randomness in the formation of polypeptide = WRONG bc of natural selection
@joe1234567890i Wat is the underlying assumption? You still know that the chances are extremly slim but you don't wanna think about that. And you said you were a math major not a biologist. and besides you still can't explain the existence of the elements of the amino acid in the firts place. And how does it imply randomness; whether it does or not the odds are still (you said it yourself) and you have yet to answer me why you chose to beleive in such ulikley things.
@brian2189114 Ok, the method that the astronauts used in order to reach that number was finding the total number of possible 20 chain polypeptides, then taking the inverse (I verified the calculations, and they're pretty much correct unless I'm making a mistake and therefore I said the math is right). However, by equating this to the chances of that polypeptide existing, they are implying that there is an equal chance to reach any of the combinations of amino acids. Get it now?
@joe1234567890i Astronomers you fool (since you feel the need to correct my grammar). So you're saying that the extreme unlikleyhood of random life means nothing to you. It's not just about the polypeptides; It's about life randomly existing period. Whether you're right or wrong you have to realize that there are so many questions that go unanswered and ignored. And I didn't even begin to talk to you on the issue of morality.
@brian2189114 no, I'm saying that the extreme unlikelyhood of life is not as exaggerated as the claims launched by the astronomers (haha, you got me for that one, I clearly misread) AND that yes, it means nothing to me because unlikelihood doesn't mean it didn't already happen. Look, the fact that life is unlikely is indicated by the lack of evidence for developed alien life forms. And look, you're the one bringing up all of these points that you want me to address...soo....yeah.
I love how the religious are celebrating this as some sort of victory because he had to take a while to consider a question and choose this moment, and choosing now as the time to fill the comments section with childish insults of 'idiot' and other comments questioning his intelligence, when they COMPLETELY ignore the times he's utterly destroyed religious arguments without hesitation. Cherry picking at its finest, although I'd expect nothing less from the proponents of ignorance...
videogamenostalgia 1 week ago
@videogamenostalgia Haha, I was gonna leave a comment like this, but you're just spot on so I'm not gonna bother :) Have a nice day.
simmo93 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BUAHAHAHAH, Its not only the stump that made this joker look like a moron , its the fact that he said fish grew legs milions of years ago , but only if you had been there that time you could have seen it pffhahahahahahahah! Fish of today is a modern animal just as we are , yeah right , cos the fairy tale has to be undetected !
This moron has an agenda , he loses his job if he said evolution from one specie to another is crap plus it gives people more chance to believe in God ! Liars
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
lolwut? asking a question is 'creationist propaganda'??? wanna run that by me again?
honestly, this vid only serves to make dawkins look worse than he did in the original.
eleutheromaniac 1 month ago
@eleutheromaniac Lemme ask a question, its not propaganda at all so don't worry:
Why has Glenn Beck never denied that he raped and murdered a girl in August of 1990?
Now to the point, If you think that a question can't be a source of propaganda, why do you think lawyers are paid?
jackthesavant 1 month ago
Comment removed
lxUn1c0 1 month ago
@eleutheromaniac If that question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the theory and processes of evolution, then yes, it is highly deceptive (read: propaganda). The clip shows the point in the interview when Dawkins realized he was being interviewed by Creationists with an agenda. The question tries to imply that the theory revolves around the principle of increasing information in the genome, which it doesn't.
lxUn1c0 1 month ago
@lxUn1c0 Perhaps, but the information in the genome does increase by various means. Be sure to google the "nylonase enzyme" for a definite example of new information in the world's genome. HINT: nylon is a very recently developed man-made polymer which does not exist in nature.
Quakeboy02 3 weeks ago
Idiot! If you think a 53 second video with crappy editing and graphics will rescue that imbecile you are wrong. Dawkins is an idiot, let me ask you a question. Have you really read any of his books completely cover to cover.
And for the idiot bellow MrCooIUS, "creationists don't ask questions" what the hell do you think the interviewer was asking? Boy are you stupid.
Have a nice day :)
TruthDefenders 1 month 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
Papacy cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM til Bible's destroyed folks
SpencerBenedict2nd 2 months ago
if it was in his book wouldnt he have said something besides being quite?? like "oh yeah i have a chapter devoted to this, blah blah lblah>>>
elfy99803 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE END OF WORLD IS COMING VERY SOON !!!
BELIEVE ONLY IN JESUS BEFORE TOO LATE OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER !!!
fuckmania07 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with here in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.needgod.com
standingontruth1 3 months ago
"Creationists happily seized on the video as "smoking gun" proving evolution was a hoax; one of its key proponents stumped on a simple question! Dawkins has since gone on record explaining that this pause was because he suddenly realized he had been tricked into an interview with creationists - something he doesn't do as policy"
codeythesilent 3 months ago
@codeythesilent Yea watch out the creationist will ask for evidence !!!!!
standingontruth1 3 months ago
@standingontruth1
I'll be more than happy to give them evidence, that is, if they are able to provide legitimate evidence for their sack of shit! Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Equivalent exchange peeps.
codeythesilent 3 months ago
@standingontruth1 Give me a break, creationists don't ask questions. Religion is the blind following of a dogma. Where is the questioning in that?
MrCoolUS 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCoolUS athesim is a relgion by defention btw
2nd defention of relgion- a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
92xtaylor 2 months ago
Charles Darwin didn't believe in chance evolution - as he said, "it is unscientific to postulate such a theory, as chance never moves in a single direction." If the very founder of the theory of evolution didn't believe in it, why should anyone else?
iain399 3 months ago
@dbviewer5 Evolution is supported by lots of evidence. Any unbiased person agrees with evolution. You claim to be unbiased but you're not.
AtheismIsCorrect 3 months ago
So, you played some rock music and added some text on the screen. Is this to debunk the clear fact that he went on to claim that all evolutionary processes have stopped at some undetermined point in the past? FelixCulpa81, you believe evolution not because of empirical evidence, but because someone else tells you it is so. That is the epitome of delusion.
netmahoubin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't know whether God will laugh at this man on judgment day or what.
savana906 3 months ago
@savana906 Hey, these deluded blinkered atheists are flagging your comments as spam. Go figure- desperate people do desperate things I guess...
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash Something cannot be created from nothing. And as for evolution it is the most absurd stupid thing man has EVER come up with!
savana906 3 months ago
@savana906 You're saying 99% of scientists believe the most absurd and stupid thing man ever came up with. You know more about the history of the earth than 99% of scientsits and know more about the origin of the universe than 70% of scientists.
AtheismIsCorrect 3 months ago
What a deluded man! lol
savana906 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes or No. Is it possible Dawkins is a chronic masturbator, pedophile, and homosexual fisting connoisseur?
Entropy56 3 months ago
He didn't answer the question. Flashing books that he has authored proves nothing. His pause allowed him time to offer a mealy mouthed response. The question floored him and his disciples can't handle it. Poor things.
muzzster1970 3 months ago
@muzzster1970 The original question was kind of stupid.
aradioactivedonut 3 months ago
for does who are laughing at him, ok then answer the question if you even understood it!
zagros24 3 months ago
hahaha Gets powned. He will meet his maker and creator soon, so sad. turn from your evil ways richard
coolboysoldier1 3 months ago
/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo&feature=related
IsaIMember 3 months ago
dawkins gets owned yet again
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 you are an idiot
drums4b 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drums4b You are weak….very weak indeed and have no idea that your emotions do not substitute as science or fact. Grow a brain.
Seigu007 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 to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
To adress the actual question:
Klinefelter's syndrome: The average human genome contains 46 Chromosomes while an individual with Klinefelter's syndrome has 47 due to the XXY trippling at the end rather than the XY or XX coupling normaly seen. Result, 1 full gene's worth of "increase the information"
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 And a retarded baby! Well done, that'll fare well as a species.
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash The question was "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolulationary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
1) It did not ask for PRODUCTIVE increase in information
2) Klinefelter's syndrome ISN"T mental retardation you moron, how hard is it to copy and paste something into google...It is a variation on Hermaphrodism.
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 1) You know, I am sure, that you are talking about a replication of already existing information. In order for your answer to have any real pertinence you would have to show that new, never-before witnessed information can be produced.On a related point though, I always find it amusing how atheists say"well new information can be created through replication of old information,without subjecting that view to falsification,
2)Retardation = physical/mental/emotional: get a dictionary
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash
"In order for your answer to have any real pertinence you would have to show that new, never-before witnessed information can be produced"
You are changing the question. It only asked for INCREASE of information, not NEVER BEFORE SEEN in the organism
For that you have to look into Retro Viruses.
Since all of our DNA is composed of only 5 molucules in varying patterns "New" becomes subjects to serious levels of subjectivity.
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 Actually, in all honesty that's one heck of a poor argument, but if you're willing to accept it as a decent answer I guess that's your prerogative. You can always get the basketball in the hoop if you enlarge it to the size of the darn basketball court, but that's missing the whole point! No, DNA is much like a computer program, and new information must be produced somehow. Copying information only works when there is information to copy from.
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash
I provide evidence of an entire gene pairing being added to DNA, I cite retro virus' adding and altering DNA information, I point out that our DNA is built off 5 molecules that are NATURALY attracted to one another.
And the best you have is tha its a "heck of a poor argument"
Hope you Enjoy Egypt, because you are seriously in Denial
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 I'm glad you're satisfied with your argument. As for the emergence of new genetic information- you haven't even touched on the subject. You might as well cite the splitting of the cell. Its so nebulous and impertinent, I'm surprised you haven't died of embarrassment...
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash You want supprt of abiogenesis now? You wonder why people can't answer well, every time we do you change the question.
Picture making Rock candy (Im making it simple so your mind can grasp it)
All the molecules are in a heated liquid.
Moclocules attach to form the candy based on thier own tendency to bond with each other.
The 5 molecules that make DNA tend to bond with each other.
Deep in the ocean are volcanic fissures.
Happy now or you gonna change the question yet again?
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 What's this about rock candy? No no no, lets not get onto piggibacking crystals yet. The point is your idea of information being generated is no different to what happens when cells replicate themselves: Its not an "increase" in information unless you are seriously intent on widening the goal-posts to hereditary DNA, which is not an increase in information at all. Information does not generate itself; its really very simple.
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash
You are obviously clueless about the idea of how chemical bonds are formed. There is no way I can simplify it any further.
The components in DNA are NATURALY attracted to each other. Thus a susspension of those components over time would result in NEW DNA and RNA strands as they bond.
Thats it, simple concept really.
Sorry you can't seem to grasp it.
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 And now back to the question: has the emergence of new genetic information (not inherited information) been observed in the genome or is this all strictly the subject of hypothesis?
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash
Has a creator been observed or is it stricktly the subject of an archaic book?
A hypothesis isn't much, but at least its based on observable data, and willing to change as more data becomes available.
Creationism only exists in the narrow cracks of knowledge that science is still looking to fill and is quickly running out of places to seek refuge against the truth.
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 I'll take that as a no.
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash
I've explained it to you over and over and over.
You refuse to deal with the actuality of it.
It isn't a "no" its an "I'm giving up on your concious choice to remain ignorant despite the information being handed to you"
The best you have is that noone has seen a process that took millions if not billions of years repeat itself in the last 142 Years since DNA was discovered?
You are willfuly delusional
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 Well, I'm glad you're content with your answer, I'm not. I have no qualms at all, you're the one who seems to be getting flustered. Just be happy man.
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash
The only thing getting me "flustered" is your blatant ingoring of the information provided.
You ask, I answer.
You change the question, I answer again.
You change the question, I answer yet again.
You choose to ignore the analogy I gave
You choose to ignore scientific information.
In short, you asked, but you never actualy wre willing to accept any answer that didn't match your preconcieved nothins.
I believe the word for that is "Troll"
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 That's not the way I remember it. I asked a question- you spurned it. End of story. So get on with your life. You don't want to engage in a reasonable discussion, so let's leave it at that. I'm quite content with my understanding of the matter. I suppose we can agree to disagree.
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash
Question from Vid "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolulationary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" Did that
1st Change "In order for your answer to have any real pertinence you would have to show that NEW, NEVER-BEFORE WITNESSED information CAN be produced." Did That
2nd"Has the emergence of new genetic information (not inherited information) BEEN OBSERVED" No
How you remember it dosn't matter, You kept changing the question
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fashklash "has the emergence of new genetic information (not inherited information) been observed in the genome" => yes, go to google, type pubmed. This will direct you to a database of scientific literatures maintained by NCBI. Then in the search term under pubmed, search for pubmed ID PMID: 8756703. This will lead you to a paper that demonstrates a novel (not inherited) function of genetic material.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 Okay, what are you suggesting? Should we just accept your example of the Klinefelters baby? I honestly don't mind. I am simply saying its an inane example. If you think Dawkins would reply that retarded offspring are an example without getting laughed at, and without being reminded that that's the same "increase" that happens in reproduction or cells splitting... Argh never mind, We'll stick with your example if that's what rocks your little atheist boat.
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash
Is Kleinfelts Improvement - No
It is safe to say that the vast majority of mutations are negative, this dosn't mean possitives can't happen. Children are occationaly born with webbed fingers/toes that are "fixed" to make them "normal".
What if they wern't "fixed"?
What if those people became champion swimmers?
Chance of NEW information being made is tiny, but not zero.
You seek obervation from the last 60ish years of something that took Billions to happen in the first place.
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
Comment removed
fashklash 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 When you say that something "could"happen and list the ways that it "could" happen, but don't acknowledge any obsticles, then one's ideas become unfalsifiable. Something can only be proven scientifically if it is subjected to falsifiability. So I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying, why not take an agnostic approach- why root for one argument because it fits your conception of information science?Why not use information science to weigh up the pros and cons?
fashklash 3 months ago
@fashklash "When you say that something "could"happen and list the ways that it "could" happen, but don't acknowledge any obsticles, then one's ideas become unfalsifiable"
Now take that same logic and allpy it to the idea of a creator, except religon isn't even willing to provide ways in which it "Could" happen. Religon just says "It happened, so there"
I do use science to weigh the pros and cons..Scince has alot more Pro (evidence) than religon's Cons (Lack of any evidence)
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@fashklash I think you will also find that most Atheists are realy Agnostics that just have strong Atheistic leanings, they just use the Atheist term to avoid explaining to the Ignorant who don't have the word Agnostic in thier vocabulary the difference.
The fact that you cited the difference in the terms shows that you aren't ignorant to thier meaning, but I hope you will understand the convienance of not usualy nitpicking the term from my end.
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fashklash To anyone claiming the information Science dosn't have is proof of God, do this exercise....
1) Find a hole in your wall
2) If there is no hole, open a window, thus creating a temporary hole
3) Explain to me how that hole is the sole support for your celing
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
I love how thinking before answering somehow = "pwned" in their minds. Are they actually encouraging lack of thought?
Moppy1988 4 months ago
For al those people on the bubble, dont always believe people who claim science has all the answers because its simply not true, i would challenge all of you to do as lee stroble did , a diehard atheist with intentions of proving god doent exist by doing his own research . These ignorant liars who try to belitle you by saying your controlled or your not a free thinker just because you may believe even just a little, figure it out on your own, its a choice
prime440 4 months ago
Fucking moron can't even answer a simple question. This video proves that evoution is a hoax.
shawn3975 4 months ago
@shawn3975 How ignorant.
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 A rubber stamp comment.
shawn3975 4 months ago
Dawkins was unable to answer the question. He failed to even address the issue.
Mutations are not able to order anything. They can only change a design that is already in place and working.
watch?v=qZev7hb40uk
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon lol
shagoosty 4 months ago
DAMN...
You would probably take a bullet for him... lol...
sfyr 4 months ago
I am sure he is trying to find a very simple and undrestandable answer to this question for poeple who have no basic knowledge about evolution or biology and has nothing to do with anything els..
tusi1390 4 months ago
@tusi1390 common richard dawkins is an asshole he would have answered regardless if you dont know anything about evolution or biology he would rub that in your face and say die creationist.He got stumped happens to both sides who cares
dankojones707 4 months ago
WELL i have to give dawkins some credit, he definitely is familiar with the word delusional , i feel sorry for the man and all the delusional people who bought into his book of opinions, they got bamboozled
prime440 4 months ago
I see, so being the good christians you are, and following the 9th commandment, you would never edit a youtube video in a sublimely lame attempt to discredit an extremely intelligent guy while he thinks of an answer to a question.
I suppose a preacher who would give an answer right away would have a much much more valid point.
losghost 4 months ago
@prime440 And people believing in a beard man in the sky aren't delusional at all. At least his arguments are backed up with facts.
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 facts and opinions are not the same , sorry you better look else where to sell that foolishness
prime440 4 months ago
@prime440 You think everything he says is based on opinion? How ignorant...
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 i think his final conclusion is based on opinion, for him to place GOD as nothing more than a delusion is all opinion based and unprovable. sorry if you think otherwise.Perhaps you have some scientifc proof that tells us otherwise ? if so lets see it
prime440 4 months ago
@prime440
Neurobiology provides the proof. What it has revealed about the brain precludes the existence of a soul. Souls are necessary for Christian, Jewish and Muslim theology as well as nearly every other currently practiced religion. No souls means no afterlife, no scheme for salvation, etc. You do accept that you think with your brain, right? That it's responsible for emotions, memory, personality, etc? There's nothing left for the concept of the soul to explain. We are out brains.
Zamboro 4 months ago
@Zamboro to think empirically and discontinue any other thought process or idea of that thought process is to deny discovery ,that which science cannot prove or disprove is not out of bounds for mankind to discover.The creation theory seems much more logical than abiogenisis. Most claim that that has absolutley nothing to do with evolution , on the contrary everything has a begining .before apes evolved they had to come from somewhere
prime440 4 months ago
@prime440
Our criteria for determining what is fact isn't simply deciding what seems more logical, but actually investigating the matter via experiment. Repeated experiments simulating early earth conditions have given rise to complex organic molecules from inorganic ones. We have also reproduced the natural formation of bi-lpid membranes around bubbles, better known as cellular membranes, and observed the abiogenic formation of self replicating peptides (simply google that term.)
Zamboro 4 months ago
@prime440 Foolishness? It doesn't get much more foolish than some cosmic Jewish zombie that can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil source from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 how is my belief in a god worse than your belief that man evolved from an ape ? yet the primal species still lives on? for you to think apes produced humans is foolishness apes can only produce apes and humans can oly produce humans no evidence has proven otherwise manind didnot leap into existance from animals sorry if you think that, its simply not true and unproven.
prime440 4 months ago
@prime440 And mankind didn't pop up out of nowhere. You give me one bit of factual evidence that suggests otherwise, and I might reconsider that statement.
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 i never said mankind pop out of nowhere, im saying that man was created by GOD , in the book of genisis 2 verse 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
prime440 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 anyone who tries to tell you that mankind evolved from animals are simply lieing to you and refuse to admit the logical explanation that the holy bibles version of creation is true.HUMANS ONLY PRODUCE HUMANS AND APES ONLY PRODUCE APES there is no proof that contradicts this a being false.
prime440 4 months ago
@prime440 There's NOTHING logical about the biblical story of creation. It's an enormous fairy tale, nothing more. The only 'proof'' that you can come up with is, "The Bible says so."
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
your logic is without substance how can life come about out of nothing and then claim to evolve without reason . and you call that logical? what happens to a baby infant when left alone without its parents to norish them ? simple it diesGOD created man from the dust and breathed life into him creating a living being genisis 2:7. your version is that some promordial goop was struck by lighting and some animal was born without parents and grew on its own then over time evolved lmaoooooo
prime440 4 months ago
@prime440 Notice I haven't once mentioned evolution. I'm not trying to argue for evolution, I'm arguing against the notion of a magical being speaking things into existence. It's foolishness, and you'd have to be blinded or misguided to not to see that.
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 so basically you dont have any idea about the origin of man and how he came into existance you just dont want to believe in a GOD,wich again is a choice you decide to make for yourself but it doesnt have to be the same choice for everyone else.Just be honest with yourself and say your an atheist and stop trying to make up excuses for why you dont want to believe in a god.
prime440 4 months ago
@prime440 I believed in the christian god for 7 years, and with great fervor. But throughout that time, there was not one bit of evidence that the god I was worshiping ever existed. It's just one big circus.
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 Well im sorry u think that way cause thats exactly how our society wants you to think, lose all hope and become a living being with no sense of purpose , all you will become is maggot food with nothing more ? im sorry but i cant think like that because i have experience things that most people never see and it has given me great comfort to know that a living GOD does exsists.Look with your heart not with your eyes, the darkness cannot over come the light,
prime440 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 i will pray for you that god will make himself visable to your heart.I rebuke satan in the name of jesus christ !
prime440 4 months ago
@Andyroo2319 Beard man?
alexandervanwyk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexandervanwyk Bearded*
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
Comment removed
Andyroo2319 4 months ago
@TruthWar If you study the progress of genetic engineering, you would know that viruses and bacteria are regularly used to implant new genetic information into existing cells. That is how viruses work: they implant their DNA into our cells, forcing the cells to produce more of them. HIV is not the result of a progressive LOSS of information, that notion is outrageous.
TeeGeeRoo 4 months ago
HAHAHHAHA. DAWKINS SUCKS!!
ItsTotallyAwsome 4 months ago
@ItsTotallyAwsome Dawkins sucks? Well, I bet the best-selling books and scientific articles that you published totally proove that. Oh wait... you don't have any. Looser.
Anarchist48 4 months ago
for one, the question is poorly constructed and makes little sense. A genetic mutation can be an INCREASE or DECREASE or a single base pair change in the genome. This change will cause a different phenotype to be exhibited. A build up of these changes will result in evolution. If interviewer wants an example, look simply at our DNA and Chimps DNA. Over 98% similarity. Regardless if there's and increase or decrease in the genome, it causes a observable change in appearance of humans and chimps.
delic619 4 months ago
not 11 BUT 18
afaijtima3iya 4 months ago
The apparent obsession that some people have with seeing Richard Dawkins stumped reminds me of boxing fans who can't wait to see a wily old boxer get KO'd
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 4 months ago
RELIGIENCE LOGIC!
If you don't believe that existence always existed, then you have to conceive - assuming you have normal brain function, that at some point in time - something (matter, entity or whatever) created itself. END OF DEBATE. Now, wasn't that simple people?
exposingbuffoons 5 months ago
@exposingbuffoons Yes, there always had to be something or someone otherwise it would be a case of phenomena that doesn't exist yet developing itself which obviously makes no sense. Most people who think consciousness is synonymous with brain function and most people who think there is an interdependence between brain function and consciousness agree that everything and everyone requires a cause. I'm not sure what point you're making.
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 4 months ago
@exposingbuffoons Are you talking about how some people claim God is the initial cause of everything but don't offer any explanation for how God came into being or how he came to be the way he allegedly is? I'm just hoping that you will provide more of a context for the point you have made.
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@exposingbuffoons
Religience? Are you making up your own words now? Gratz
globalwarmnotmanmade 4 months ago
I'm Done here. I've said what I wanted to say and I got my message across. This little game of 4 on 1 is over. It is clear that none of you will change your views just like I won't So let me say one last thing. God loves all of you and he will show himself to you and certainly give you the opprotunity to repent for your sins. god connects to people on a spiritual level and that is how he choses to have a personal relationship.
PS Keep debating christains. One of them may be able to inspire you
brian2189114 5 months ago
"An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods." I am an agnostic atheist. Wikipedia is a good site to research this. Atheism means "the belief in no God" HOWEVER this does not mean that all Atheists claim that they KNOW that there is no God.
commenterofsorts 5 months ago
the answer is pokemon you stupid!
papercut272 5 months ago
@brian2189114 Frankly I am baffled. Christians believe that God has a plan, and that plan requires him to step in from time to time and slaughter millions, and suspend the laws of physics temporarily. I dont doubt that there is something beyond our limited understanding, but I KNOW that it isnt what a book written by uneducated primitives say it is. Noahs ark for instance, is implausible. look up a video by binaryspider about the math of noah's flood. it simply does not add up
howlingwolf8 5 months ago
@howlingwolf8 Now I'm baffled. You said that there are most likley things beyond our understanding then you basically asked why you can't understand stuff. God is above us and we can't even begin to understand him and his ways. You like others I've heard basically blame God for all the bad stuff which is the result of our actions but when something Good happens you never mention God. The Bible has massive amount of wisdom and contains morals that YOU live by. What do you mean primatives.
brian2189114 5 months ago
Wow it looks like It' me vs all. And I thought I was being teamed up on before. Well I have to start somwhere.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 ‘an organized system can't develop itself. ‘
Apparently you’ve never heard of tornadoes, rainbows, hurricanes or snowflakes. They’re quite complex & they form naturally all the time.
‘Evolution can't explain it then what do you think does?’
It explains biodiversity, how species are related, NOT how life originated.
agentorange20 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@agentorange20 "Apparently you’ve never heard of tornadoes, rainbows, hurricanes or snowflakes. They’re quite complex & they form naturally all the time" Those things are what I'm talking about those things forming are the system nd the system didn't come from nowhere. You dind't answer my Q. I asked what You think explains lifes origins I never said that evolution explains lifes origins. It's funy that you mention rainbows.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 'those things forming are the system nd the system didn't come from nowhere'
No one says it formed from no-where, recall I stated the singularity was something.
;'lifes origins'
Abiogenesis.
agentorange20 5 months ago
Wow christians lying to save their god...I'd honestly like to say I'm surprised but as an ex-Catholic I expect it.
BushidoRei 5 months ago
this has been exposed for a long time as edited. he didn't pause, it's just edited to look that way. he said that it's not yet possible to witness such a phenomenon, but the evidence for its having taken place is present throughout the fossil record.
michaelwuzthere 5 months ago
well first off before you guys comment you should first try to answer the question yourselves. In reality the question makes No Sense. How can you give an example of an evolutionary process when the process itself takes Millions of years. How can you observe an Evolutionary Process? Its impossible, The best you can do is compare 2 similiar animals with like genome. Such as the stingray and skates fish. Im not supporting Evolution and really have no opinion, Im just putting myself in his shoes.
kevo795 5 months ago
The question posed by the interviewer is on the verge of being simply not answerable and he could have just said "your question is non-sensical", but he searches for a good answer for a few seconds. So what. He is a brilliant and articulate scientist, more than can be said for most people writing comments here.
8015574170 5 months ago
felix fwhy fyou hef nofing up there?
boazmoss 5 months ago
Gee, I hope FelixCulpa81 is okay with us using the comments off his vid as the battleground for a Debate War.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 part 6. " Besides You didn't mention Why you think time and matter are eternal which makes no sense. Where did it come from?"
Oh? And and an eternal God who created everything out of nothing makes sense? Where did God come from? Again I say, since you didn't understand the first time, if you can believe God is eternal, there's no reason it's not possible for time and matter to be eternal.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@brian2189114 "Dude. Just think about it. When you ask a question who created him, well then who created that, it will keep going forever"... Yeah, that's exactly what I meant when I said "classic ad infinitum fallacy." Do you understand why it's a logical fallacy that something complex needs a creator? Because if it stops with God, it can stop with anything. Such as time and matter. So by YOUR OWN admission, if it can stop with God, then something complex DOESN'T need a creator.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Actually by what I said you can conclude that something that is alive doesn't need a creator and you and I both agree that humans and animals and life for that matter didn't always exist. Like I said the only two conclusions are something is eternal or the creation chain keeps going forever. Now that eternal thing (or should I say being) can't be what you say because science says something can't come from nothing. Either conclusion sound illogical right? Thats what I meant....
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 ....when I said that humans can't possibly understand everything.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 "Now that eternal thing (or should I say being) can't be what you say because science says something can't come from nothing".... How do you bible-thumping morons not realize that same argument applies to your God. You believe God came from nothing, and created everything from nothing. "science says..." You're debating science when you have absolutely no knowledge of it whatsoever. Science says what is already here can't be destroyed, nor anything new be created.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@brian2189114 And since science ACTUALLY says nothing can be destroyed, nor anything new created (instead of: something can't come from nothing) it leads me to believe time and matter are eternal. And once again, if you can believe God is eternal, time and matter can be as well. There's no need to invent another excuse beyond that and say it must be the supernatural. The big bang is fact. But, the big bang may just be an infinite series of big bangs. The universe recycles itself thru black holes
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral You can't possibly beleive time and matter are eternal when there is no evidence to it. You just backed youself in a corner. Science says what you are saying is impossible and you are the one who thinks science is the only logic not me. Once again the big bang THOERY. You claim it is a fact. God transends time and science says something had to. You think matter is eternal. that is impossible
brian2189114 5 months ago
BEST VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.
fukinblowme 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i First of all that question is a SCIENTIFIC question, without the mention of GOD at all so how is it stupid?! Second if any Middle School kid could answer that question then WHY COULDN'T DAWKINS DO IT? Lasly if Dakwins thought it was a stupid question why didn't he just say that rather than look like a buffoon then afterwards try to give a SERIOUS response.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 It's gibberish, and in any case, the interviewer wasn't looking for an answer; they wanted propaganda.
Go on; pose that question to your middle school kids.
Dawkins was realising the deception and was thing how best to deal with the situation.
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago
@PsychoticSnake Are you alright, because you really seem convinced that Dawkins wasn't stumped by the question. How is what she said Gibberish? Also how Do you know what the interviewer wanted; do you have the ability to discern someone's ulterior motives? She asked a Legitimite Scientific Question and he gave an irrelevant response. If you think that Dawkins wasn't dumbfounded by the question then you chose a good name for yourself because you are Psychotic.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 My name actually best describes you. Do some reasearch. The interviewers were revealed to be creationists with that question. Richard Dawkins has stated that he realised this during his pause, and because he dosen't talk with creationists for obvious reasons, he was actually making a decision on what to do now, and that was to stop the interview.
Even if it was a legit question, he can take his time to think it through, so he'd have good delivery and accuracy. Unlike christians.
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago 2
@PsychoticSnake if he made the decision to stop the interview why did he just continue it later. And personally I think it's stupid how Dawkins won't talk to creationists. If it was the other way around you'd be calling us cowards and say we are to scared the debate. And what do you mean unlike Christains? Do you just Catorgarize all Christians in your narrow minded, steryotypical assumptions.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 I thought the interview ended on this question. You'll have to show that.
Dawkins won't debate with creationists because nothing gets solved. I may be generalising - he stopped the interview because he was being deceived.
When one debates with creationists, they usually resort to "you're wrong, I'm right, fingers in ears, la la la la". We regard that as cowardly.
Chrisitans - from all over the vocal spectrum - tend to make explanations on the spot.
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago
@PsychoticSnake That's a terrible excuse not to debate with creationists. And WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT when you say Christains resort to the "I'm right you're wrong" thing Atheists do that too when they're losing a debate. Actually everyone does that when they are losing a debate, much like you avoiding the questions I ask in my responses. And what is wrong with making explainations on the spot when their good answers. P.S. look up the Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 I am very clearly responding to your points. There are no questions in your responses.
Why is it a terrible excuse? Doing something that is utterly pointless is a waste of time, and money.
I said that CREATIONISTS resort to the whole fingers-in-ears deal, and I never said that it was exclusive to them.
The problem is on-the-spot-explainations is that they have no basis and no evidence. They're not good.
And it's "they're" not "their".
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago
@PsychoticSnake Ok 1. you never told me why he stopped the interveiw just to continue it later 2. If you really thought Debating Creationists was a waste of time you wouldn't be debating me now 3. It sounded like you were aplying it exclusivley to Creationists because you said thats what they "usually" do 4. It's just your opinion that "on-the-spot explainations" aren't good and I'm Certainly sure that you don't think that when Dawkins Gives an on-the-spot-explaination.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 1. Dawkins realised that they were lying to him - they said they were scientific researchers or something similar.
2. This debate may devolve into a waste of time - when it's nothing but a flame war. I am here, trying to correct your mistakes. It's increasingly futilem, however.
3. Saying "usually" does not imply that it is exclusive to them. If i had said "only", then it would have.
4. They are baseless answers. How is that good? Dawkins uses his knowledge for answers.
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago
@PsychoticSnake 1. You still haven't told me Dawkins reason for continueing the interview
2. Tell me what mistakes I've made. The only reason you say this is futile is because you know you can't refute what I'm saying.
3.The fact that you said usually angers me. You talk as If you Debated every Christian in the Country but you probbrbly only did it 2 or 3 times out of millions.
4. The thing is you think they are baseless. I bet you wouldn't think that Dakins doesn't give baseless answers.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 1. He didn't continue the interview! What the fuck's wrong with you?!
2. I have been pointing out every time you have gone wrong with every reply I've made.
3. I have seen and heard a lot of creationists demonstrate their close-mindedness.
4. A baseless explanation is one that has no evidence to support it, and has no method to demonstrate it. And that second sentence is a bit incoherent.
Your current trollish attitude is devolving this debate. We're done here.
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago
@PsychoticSnake 1. he did you nitwit. I see you're so CLOSE MINDED you wouldn't look up the video not in Dawkin's favor (Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)) 2. I don't know wat you're smoking, you still can't answer my questions you just respond with insults. 3. You continue to show more of your CLOSE MINDEDNESS with another stupid generilzation based on nothing. have you met every christian in the world?4. If Creationist claims were baseless......
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 Alright then, you're not a troll.
You are delusional fuck. There, now I've insulted you. And guess what? That is not baseless; it's an astute observation from all your most recent comments here.
Do not contact me again.
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago
@PsychoticSnake Make up your mind, you already said we were done. I was hoping you meant it. And unless you haven't noticed your insults are exactly what I was talking about when you implied I do it a lot. Looks like you resorted to the old fingers in ears you're wrong I'm right La la la la la tactic. Now I'm curios. Will you actually not repond like you say or will you go back on your word, again and attack with pathetic insults, agian?
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 I will go back on my word once, and once only, just to give you a word of advice: stop projecting.
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago
@PsychoticSnake You first and make sure you look up the real video of richard Dawkin's interview.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@PsychoticSnake .....this wouldn't be such a huge controversy. You continue to just shoot insults and make generilzations because of your bias. And you say I have a trollish attitude; why don't you look at yourself for once. For once I agree with you we are done here; you seem incapable of making sense. Neither of us will budge but if you're still a fan of Dawkins (which you are) then look up Ben Stein's Interview with him and have a laugh at that.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 I was fine with continuting this debate, but if you are going to to be continually dishonest, then we are done here.
PsychoticSnake 5 months ago
@brian2189114 obviously, you know nothing at all about evolution or you wouldn't be defending such a dumb question. Let me put it to you simply in layman's terms so you can understand since you don't know anything about genetics, bacteria develop resistance to drugs right? They develop this because one of them has a gene that randomly mutates into some form of defense and it reproduces. Is resistance to the antibiotic something that wasn't there to begin with? If so, that's NEW INFORMATION
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i WHY DIDN'T DAWKINS JUST SAY THAT! And besides it's not like you're any closer in your futile attempts to prove evolution. Look up the Law of Biogenesis which states that living things must come from other living things. Since that is in fact a Law, explain to me why you think life came randomly from the Non-living.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 look, I'm nowhere near as brilliantly smart as Dawkins. And even to me, the question posed was just moronic. In case you missed it, the tone of my explanation was very condescending, and I only explained in that manner because I'm a huge asshole. If this were not on the internet, I be civilized and would not publicly humilate the person asking. Dawkins is a reasonable man - he knows when to restrain himself.
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i (cont.) also, just because I don't have an explanation to how life came about doesn't mean I need to latch on to some unsubstantiated claim. Have you even looked in a biology textbook in the last few decades? look up the "miller-urey experiment," the conclusion is that it is indeed possible for life to arise from nonlife. Also, evolution doesn't go that far back to the very beginning, it is a method of describing the mechanism for which populations of organisms change over time.
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i By the Way I was talking about Atheism in General inregards to the explaination of lifes origin which goes hand in hand a lot with Evolution. And God's existence isn't an unsubstantial claim just because Dawkins or some other scientists say so. And if you look deeper into the Miller Urey Experiment you'll find that it was later proved that most of the gases he used to simulate the time period were inacurrate to begin with, but for some stupid reason that's not in the text books
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 you're absolutely right, and I completely agree with the statement that "God's existence isn't an unsubstantial claim just because Dawkins or some other scientists say so." Argument from authority is the most egregious logical fallacy, IMHO. However, it still is an UNSUBSTANTIATED (I never said it was unsubstantial) claim because there is no hard evidence that backs it up. Also, I'd like to see a link to your claim that the gases were inaccurate...
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i Look up the Miller urey experiment case of the creator and go to the Philo wiki link. And in a book called the end of reason by Ravi Zacharias he tells how Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe calculated that the chances of a single enzyme forming from amino acids being 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Or 100 Quintillion or 10 to the power of 20 (10^20). and thats just one enzyme. The chances of it all forming together is 100 quintillion to the power of 40,000.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 as a prospective math major, I am skeptical to most of these statistical claims without seeing the derivation. But even given that these statistics are true (which I need further evidence to accept especially because these two are not mathematicians but astronomers), so what? Just because the chances of winning the lottery is 1 to 100 million doesn't mean that noone can win it. In statistics, for a continuous graph, the probability of picking a specific point is 0. So what?
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i Somehow I knew you would just refuse to beleive those calculatltions. And What do you mean so what? You and I both Know that The only reason you would believe such odds is the fact you refuse to believe in God. Your Lottery analogy is completly off. First the chances of random life are way, way slimmer than 1 to a million. Also even if the chances were one to a million if you bought a lottery ticket for the first time there is no way you would expect to win and you know it.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 Your point is completely moot. 1 to a million, 1 to 100 quintillion. We're talking concepts here, not specific numbers for the time being. Somehow, I knew you wouldn't understand my statistics example, even though I understood the concept as a scrawny 15 year old high school freshman. Ok, the simplest way to elaborate is this: pick a real number, between 0 to 1. Now, what is the probability that I pick the same? It's extremely small, nearing 0, but it's not impossible.
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i I see you are resulting to petty personal insults since your argument is crumbling away. And You're the one that's not getting what I'm saying. I never said that it wasn't possible I said that It's so unlikely no one who was thinking straight would take to one opposed to the 100 Quintillion. The only time you would is in the case for evolution which means you are obviosly willing to give up your normally sensible logic to believe what is not even true.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 No, I'm RESORTING to (not resulting to) petty insults because I'm frustrated that you don't get it. I've answered all of your complaints, and all you've given me are some half-assed attempts at a retort. Natural selection describes a mechanism of how organisms change. Your entire flawed argument only supports the idea that god created life, not that evolution is false. Evolution only provides a framework for how organisms change, it doesn't claim what happened in the beginning.
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i And be honest. If didn't think I was bringing up valid points you would not waste time doing this right?
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 I looked up the calculations and though the math is right, the underlying assumption is wrong, meaning the conclusion is also wrong. According to those guys "A twenty-amino-acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme." While true, the following derivation is a simple proportion between one polypeptide and the whole set of polypeptides. This implies complete randomness in the formation of polypeptide = WRONG bc of natural selection
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i Wat is the underlying assumption? You still know that the chances are extremly slim but you don't wanna think about that. And you said you were a math major not a biologist. and besides you still can't explain the existence of the elements of the amino acid in the firts place. And how does it imply randomness; whether it does or not the odds are still (you said it yourself) and you have yet to answer me why you chose to beleive in such ulikley things.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 Ok, the method that the astronauts used in order to reach that number was finding the total number of possible 20 chain polypeptides, then taking the inverse (I verified the calculations, and they're pretty much correct unless I'm making a mistake and therefore I said the math is right). However, by equating this to the chances of that polypeptide existing, they are implying that there is an equal chance to reach any of the combinations of amino acids. Get it now?
joe1234567890i 5 months ago
@joe1234567890i Astronomers you fool (since you feel the need to correct my grammar). So you're saying that the extreme unlikleyhood of random life means nothing to you. It's not just about the polypeptides; It's about life randomly existing period. Whether you're right or wrong you have to realize that there are so many questions that go unanswered and ignored. And I didn't even begin to talk to you on the issue of morality.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 no, I'm saying that the extreme unlikelyhood of life is not as exaggerated as the claims launched by the astronomers (haha, you got me for that one, I clearly misread) AND that yes, it means nothing to me because unlikelihood doesn't mean it didn't already happen. Look, the fact that life is unlikely is indicated by the lack of evidence for developed alien life forms. And look, you're the one bringing up all of these points that you want me to address...soo....yeah.
joe1234567890i 5 months ago