Boy, you all have such a lack of respect for John Mackay. Why don't you show him the same amount of respect you do for Dawkins? They're both well educated on the subject and have really good points, what more do you want?
@cassindia1987 Well is kind of a big guy, and God would have protected him with 12 foot angels. And that would not have proven the evolution theory right. It is a religion. No one has ever seen a fish changing into a land animal! Why because it neved happened! God made the world 6000 years ago! God loves you and wants you to go to Heaven, repent and search for God who says that if you seek Him He will make Himself manifest unto you! bible-tube(dot)com
@Casshyr Yeah and thousands of teachers teach evolution yet billiosn of people don't buy into the lie and go to stadium filled churches around the world! Ok except Europe which has been more indoctrinated that other places!
@fabienmaga LOL billions of people?? Dude, there are only 6 billions people in this world, how many billions are you talking about? Don't exaggerate. You creationists are a very minority in this world, and dwindling with every generation. Enjoy it while it lasts lol
There is just about always a consistent pattern with creationists and or the religious; they are aggressive. To me this is one of many indicators as to how insecure they are and prefer to attempt to intimidate their opponent rather than to produce real counter arguments that make sense... and the reason is because they can't.
Creationist do believe in evolution, we just recognize that mutations have biological bounaries and are limited in scope, and actually leads to degeneration and genetic entropy over time. Speciation is programmed in to the self replicating error correcting nanotech mini computers that we call cells, in order to sustain life. We find sequential information, digital coding, structure and design. All of this testifies of intelligence and prior conscious activity by an external causal agent... God!
No. It does not. You are inviting a question of infinite regression. Your sad argument is just a rehashing of the ontological argument in the guise of irreducible complexity. Those of us that are more well-read than you, and/or more intelligent do tire of you rehashing the same old demolished arguments.
@supowit The only thing that is regressing is our genome through degeneration and genetic entropy. We only evolve through added information, and information is a mind product and testifies of prior conscious activity, since we never have concluded otherwise. You believe that we are evolved stardust and that life arose from non life and mutated from the slime of the earth. All through random coincidences. I do admire your faith because the evidence is against you!
Information isn't a mind product! What are you talking about!?
The problem with you people is that you assert an unfalsifiable claim, that GOD designed things. You can't disprove that assertion, so it's a nonsense assertion.
Scientists don't claim there was no god... it's just a non-issue. God isn't relevant to the pursuit of science. Why can't you get that through your stupid head?
@supowit It all comes down to it if you put your faith in randomness and in the alchemical transmuation myth of abiogenesis or that you believe in intelligence behind it all. The first premise leads to fractal wrongness and causes you to always be looking, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Real science and true documented history prove God, but most scientist come to wrong conclusion because they have built their model on wrong assumptions. That's the problem!
@Ramohog there is no scientific evidence that such biological boundaries exist. Novel genes do form by de novo mutations. There is no degeneration over time across generations. Such claim is unsupported by any peer-reviewed literature.
@Casshyr Yes there is biological evidence. Everything does reproduce after their kind. Speciation after their kind is pre-programmed in to the nanotech cells in order to sustain life, but is still winding down through radiation, chemical imbalance and copying errors, causing degeneration over time and excludes new organs and higher life forms, and have never been observed. We actually see high diversity to lower diversity and plant and animal life going from large to small.
@Ramohog repeating your claims don't make it true lol. You need to back it up with peer-reviewed scientific literature. Either show it or shut up lmao.
I am Australian. This is the first time I have heard a creationist speaking with an Australian accent, and I am mortified! I was hoping these kind of narrow views were contained to the USA.
After watching both videos I would be surprised if Mackay even knew what he was talking about by the time it ended. And Dawkins had the best exit line , "that's ridiculous, thank you."
My opinion is that neither side will ever prove their belief. We got the 1950-2012 generation trying to prove what has happened in the past, so we got people 50-60 years old today telling us what happened 1,2,3,4000+..years ago , logically it cannot be proven but more likely assumed , to me it makes sense that the first assumption is belief . I personally find it plausible that we are a creation because to me evolution seems illogical when it comes to the human brain , the human eye. my 2 cents
@jamescicio There is mathematical proof that evolution true. There is a specific rate in which DNA spontaneously mutates (i.e. A base pair is mistakenly substituted for another, left out of a sequence, or added beyond what is needed by DNA polymerase during DNA replication of diploid cellular replication). Using this rate it can be determined how many years ago certain species broke off from one another. Ergo your "belief" is completely arbitrary in face of what any educated person calls fact.
@jamescicio That's pretty much Mackey's point. Very luckily science offers different approaches than just "believe" and luckily there's more ways to truth than just making up an explanation what happened X years ago. Learn a bit about science and maybe realize that there is indeed proof for evolution, the age of the earth and universe. Reality is just more complicated than what you're supposed "logic" can offer.
@ocarina2boy If you mean Dawkin's was interviewing him and letting him babble belligerently about nonsense then yes. I guess it wouldn't have been much of an interview if he stopped and fact checked every sentence. I see that successful creationists are very charismatic, smooth with words, fast on the reply and quick witted. Doesn't make them anymore logical or correct when they are just lying but it fools people that don't know any better :(
@ocarina2boy MacKay basically attacks at anything that is not directly observable by eye to be a "belief" and equate that to "well that's your opinion, but my view is...". If someone does this, there's no point in carrying onward cuz that person is no longer rational. As an analogy: imagine i only believe in things i see with my own eye, and i challenge you to convince me that a seed can grow into a 60m tall tree. Go ahead, i dare you.
It seems to me that the premise of this interview and the scope of the general evolution vs. creationism "debate" is beyond your intellectual capacity. And, in turn, that it was YOU that was severly "outwitted" (no hyphen) by Dawkins before even tuning into the YouTube homepage in the first place.
I don't think I would have posted this video. Dawkins is very weak and ineffective in his attempt to corner this man (to whom he is supposed to be intellectually and professionally superior). Notice that when he sputters on the topic of scientific evidence he, in his desperation, tries to get him on 'contributions'. Then he flounders on that topic, too.. Mackay handled himself very well against Dawkins. No wonder he's terrified of William Lane Craig. He cant even refute this guy. LOL! PATHETIC!!
@MadHighway Science shows that microevolution occurs. Science has NEVER proven macroevolution; that life evolved from a single-cell organism over many millions of years into what we are today. This kind of "evolution" is mere propaganda, published in all of the mainstream scientific journals and in school textbooks. Opposing viewpoints (and not all of them are 'religious'.) are discredited and suppressed by the mainstream establishment. Thus the general public is made to believe that ANYONE who
@MadHighway disagrees with the theory is some type of blithering religious idiot who is stuck in the dark ages. But on the other hand, the mainstream scientific establishment, for the most part, refuses to publicly dialogue with scientists who disagree with the theory. So, you see, this type of 'evolution' that Dawkins is poorly trying to espouse is nothing but propaganda. The general public, as usual, is mainly getting one side of the story. If this were about the ecology, wall street, ufo's,
3@MadHighway voting fraud, your life savings, health care, or some other type of issue that is relevant to most of these people's existence here on this earth they'd be furious at the powers that be for only giving us a part of the story. But when it comes to this brand of evolution, they don't mind being force fed only part of the story. I think it's sheer hypocrisy. i really do. But hey, to each his own. I prefer the truth. The whole truth.
What's your theory, then, of how all those fossils got into the ground from 3+ billion years ago onward?
Just because you don't like the accepted theory and its pervasiveness (because the theory accounts for all known data) doesn't mean that the current theory is invalid.
@MadHighway 1) Even the best dating methods have been shown to be accurate up to only a few thousand years, so "3+ billion years ago onward" is mere speculation. Not real science. Once, a test was done on rocks from a volcano that geologists KNEW happened only a hundred years prior, but they were dated at millions of years ago. 2) There are so many anomalies in the fossil record, and so many fossils found in strata that, according to the theory, don't belong. Also, the glaring absence of
2@MadHighway transitional fossils. I believe in creation, naturally, but I'm not what you'd consider a staunch creationist(one who believes in a 6,000 year old universe, or one who thinks ID should be taught in school as science). It's not a matter of whether or not I personally LIKE this theory. I look at the evidence, or the lack thereof, and I just don't believe it. I look at how the mainstream goes about using slander and propaganda to debunk opposing views, instead of confronting them
3@MadHighway publicly via healthy debate and debunking them fair and square, and it makes me feel even stronger that there is something they're trying to hide. It's just like when the Roman Catholic Church of the dark ages tried to stunt progress by silencing opposing views to it's own dogmatic views about the universe, which came from the scientific community of that day. It was a travesty then, and it is a travesty today, and that's EXACTLY why I seek to separate myself from the mainstream.
4@MadHighway. Not just mainstream science, but mainstream media AND mainstream Christianity. Mainstream anything is based on what is popular. What is generally accepted. Acquiring truth is NEVER that simple. To know the truth one has to dig and search and question. That's the problem with society, we want other people to do the digging and searching for us so THEY can tell us what is true or not, then we get upset when we've found we've been lied to. I don't know the whole truth, but I am truly
5@MadHighway convinced that life and the universe are products of design from a higher mind. A higher intelligence. And that human history has been shaped and influenced by beings with advanced knowledge. Even Dawkins, himself, has speculated as much. This is where ALL of the evidence points.
No, you're just stating Creationism and Genesis using different words. Whether aliens or God, you're reinforcing obsolete anthropocentric dogma straight from the Dark Ages.
@MadHighway LOL! You're showing just how conditioned your mind is. You can't relate to what I'm telling you because it goes against everything you've been programmed to believe about the typical believer and his beliefs. So you HAVE to frame the discussion within the context of evolution vs. creationism. That's the ONLY way you can generate an opinion and have something to say. With all due respect, MadHighway, I'm not gonna go there with you. Like I said, to each his own. No hard feelings, bro.
See? I predicted that you would employ an elitist superiority to evade argument, and there you go doing it.
Also, you avoided answering a few direct questions with the general evasion of "I'm not gonna go there."
To sum up: you profess to be superior, you believe in creationism (you said that, not I), and you won't tell us how you think all those fossils got in the ground.
You realize "mainstream" science---physics and chemistry--brought about Colecovision, don't you?
Again, you're reasserting Creationism and Genesis using different words, reinforcing obsolete anthropocentric dogma. Aristarchus, Copernicus, and Kepler would shake their heads ruefully at you.
Once more, we all wanna know: what's your theory of how all those fossils got into the ground? Because it seems like you would rather they just not be mentioned.
@MadHighway There was a flood 2400 years before Jesus dude and put everything into the ground The fossil collection around the world is 100000 millions, yet none show any transition between creatures? Why would that be? The proof is not there yet? Then bury the evolution theory until you have the proof!
Whups, I just found out you're one of those Bible-thumping, Book-of-Revelation swallowers.
Nice attempt at cloaking yourself with reasonable argument and 'public debate', but you're in David Rives' fundamentalist Christian, anti-intellectual, anti-human camp.
@revlooshin That you use a term like "mainstream science" shows a lack of understandfing as well.
Your manifesto of "why I seek to separate myself from the mainstream ... mainstream science, but mainstream media AND mainstream Christianity. Mainstream anything is based on what is popular. What is generally accepted"
That is the most telling--you seek to define yourself regardless of the "mainstream" possibly being correct, because you see anything "generally accepted" as "a travesty."
@revlooshin: "It's just like when the Roman Catholic Church of the dark ages tried to stunt progress by silencing opposing views to it's own dogmatic views"
It isn't like that at all. Religion is dogma. Science is NOT dogma; taking the stance that it is is another common and fallacious comprehension of science.
There WAS NO "scientific community" in the dark ages! Science is a RECENT invention.
Really, from where did you get all of this surprising misunderstanding?
Yes, you Young-earthers fail to grasp that individual fossils are a 'snapshot' in time, a 'freeze frame' of a species. Thus ALL fossils are transitional fossils! The species either went on to change, or went extinct.
But there ARE dino fossils with feathers, and modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
You need to re-think your understanding of evolution.
The arguments you present are willful misconceptions. No paleontologist says the things you do
@revlooshin: "Once, a test was done on rocks from a volcano that geologists KNEW happened only a hundred years prior, but they were dated at millions of years ago."
If a volcano burps out some kinds of rocks that were millions of years old, then we find rocks that age, natch. Lava that solidfied a hundred years ago would date to a hundred years ago, natch.
Why does a volcano have to burp out only one age of rocks?
@revlooshin " they don't mind being force fed only part of the story."
To what end? There's not much money to be made in field studies of paleontology. Also, ALL the competing notions don't account for all the data.
Your viewpoint seems more like a means to delineate YOURSELF from the "mainstream" rather than offer a countering notion to a reasonable and accepted explanation of the presence of fossils in geologic rock strata.
Dawkins is so weak, he is resorting to absolute crap to insult this man, what a twit DARKINS is...He has been owned again by this man who does have credibility to speak and comment. Dawkins makes me sick!
Say there where 10,000 baby animals. It would take more than 4,000 years for the micro changes needed to combat incest let alone the micro changes needed make all the diversity of life from those 10,000 base "kinds". There is also no fossil evidence supporting all best where vegetarians before the flood so the predators will eat the vegetarian pairs into extinction after puberty hits.
How does this man know that historical records from 6000 years ago are accurate? He wasn't there when they were written, he is making the same kind of "assumption" he accuses the evolutionists of. The truth is, that John Mackay is just ignoring the kinds of evidence that disagree with his holy scriptures.
And what the hell kind of approach to science is Mackay's? How are we to make scientific progress if everything we discover is instantly invalidated because it is quite necessarily retrospection? Oh, ahem, excuse me...invalidated because it disagrees with the Bible. I'm quite sure Mackay would be willing to accept modern scientific methods if any of them supported his insane assertions at all.
...experiments, or the one that blatantly contradicts everything we know from modern science upon the say-so of the Bible? It is absolutely ASININE that this is an actual topic of discussion for real scientists. It is ASININE that young-earth creationism is so pervasive that a renowned scholar like Dawkins actually feels compelled to debate clowns like Mackay.
Can we talk about Mackay's beliefs, please? He openly admits to refuting the whole of modern scientific evidence on the basis of, "it's faith if you weren't there yourself," in favor of what evidence, exactly? Oh, right, a 2600 year-old account of creation written by an ignorant scribe during the Babylonian captivity. Even if you're willing to call both positions "faith-based," which is (vastly) more reasonable? The one which has been corroborated by thousands of modern scientific...
@Casshyr I'm no young-earther, but if the gold standard of truth in science is acceptance by peer review, let me ask: Was heliocentrism not science in Copernicus' lifetime? Or can only the mass of past people have been ignorant?
@NihilNominis Did peer-review system work as well back in Copernicus time? No, i seriously even doubt such a system even exists yet. Besides, with internet bringing scientists from around the globe, we expand the ability to cross-check each other's work. And thirdly, I highly doubt the scientific method was even fully established at that time. Find me an example within the less 100 years where majority of scientists are proven wrong, and somehow religious got ti right. Just one!
@NihilNominis I should also say I don't say evolution theory is 100% correct either. It is simply the BEST explanation we can have so far based on the evidence we have, without resorting to supernatural explanations (you can combine evolution with God, but evolution is not dependent on God). I don't deny the possibility, although very slim imo, for evolution theory to be wrong in the future when new evidence comes in.
@Casshyr Evolution in some sense is not dependent on God as a continuously active efficient cause, but it is a process of caused changed a mutation which, to the mind of many religious philosophers, still requires some uncaused kickstart.
As I say, I am no young-earther; I am willing to admit improvement in the peer-review system. But I take difference with your assertion that what is not accepted by peer review is not science, as if consent of scientists could make valid science.
@NihilNominis But you cannot give me even one example, in the past 100 years, where something that is not part of peer-review as proven everybody else wrong! Peer-review is a very important process, one that makes science why so credible compared to any other fields. You are, if I my extrapolate a bit, essentially suggesting that peer-review is not crucial and can be exempted. I'm going to make a guess and say you have never gone through peer-review process, am i right?
@NihilNominis yet you remain a creationist? Despite all the peer-reviewed evidence for evolution? And despite that none of creationist's evidence ever made it into peer-review?
@NihilNominis Actually I do say whatever is not peer-reviewed is not science. Because if you believe in the otherwise, then anybody can easily bypass peer-review and post anything and claim it as science! Peer-review, if you ever have gone through it, is PAINFUL. Your article is almost 100% rejected on the first try, and you may need to submit it 4 or 5 times before you get a submission. And even up to 50% of the articles don't get accepted in the end, after years of work.
@NihilNominis This is one reason why peer-review is so important, because it catches errors and logical flaws that otherwise would be missed. If you claim "article X is still science even though this is not peer-reviewed", this then introduces a flaw in the whole field of science because people would then choose to bypass peer-review instead of going through it. In fact, first day of my grad school teaches "if you haven't publish it in peer-reviewed journal, you haven't prove it"
Mackay has surely practiced his pat responses. He tries his best not to let Dawkins speak. Mackay is a mind racer -- people who think so fast and talk so fast without listening to anyone. They take up so much time to make a point, if one, that to those not paying attention to the details, seem brilliant. These people tend to be intelligent as far as vocabulary and rationalizing go, but they also tend to say unintelligent things while looking good doing it.
if you don`t see it happen it`s not science, 7:25 According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice,"
1:55 - Dawkins asks Mackay about where Darwain got his inspiration for evolution, and Mackay insinuates that Darwin was inspired by his anger towards god for the death of his favorite daughter, in turn, he turned his back on theology. When Dawkins retorts that Darwin produced a full sketch of his theory long before the death of his daughter, Mackay appeals to the fact that Darwain didn't PUBLISH it until after the death of his daughter.
Dawkins: "so why don't we see fossil dinosaurs and humans buried together?"
Mackay: "well why would you?" "If there was a world-wide flood today would you expect to see kangaroos buried with brits?"
*facepalm*
Brits are not the only humans that exist, asshole! If there was a world wide flood today you would expect to see kangaroos buried with HUMANS! The nationality of those humans is completely irrelevant to the point.
@MrKeenoRossi Most likely the fossils of the humans that walked with dinosaurs don't exist as the dinosaurs ate them all and then God had to cook up a new batch and kill off the dinosaurs before trying his latest creation out for size. (Not really, I'm just taking the piss out of that prat Mackay.lol)
I am surprised that at no point Dawkins pointed out that Mackays continual re-iteration of "we see the world through the glasses that lyall gave us", trying to imply that we make the evidence fit our pre-supposition, is exactly what he does. The difference being that when science finds something different it is willing to change its story, Mackay just warps evidence to fit his idea.
two fucked-up priests fighting on shit: Dawkins - the priest of evolution / science. Mackay - the priest of god and creationism. Both are the product of the same system.
Logic: 1 + 1 = 2 unless you can demonstrate otherwise...
Faith: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 = 1 & Christ was born in a stable, died on a cross for all the baby sinners & this boob I have tells me the truth & if you say different then that just means that I am right. Praise Jesus! Amen!
It is no wonder Dawkins does not debate retards like this any more. He has better things to do with his time than argue ridiculous bullshit with people like this.
@TeeGeeFan Is anyone who disagree's with Dawkin's automatically an embarassment? Don't be duped and brainwashed, keep an open mind. Dawkins' is beginning to be considered an intellectual joke when it comes to arguments and debates by many academics.
@lightbrownpoop - Who are these academics that consider Dawkins to be an intellectual joke? Point us to them, don't just assert it. Dawkins may not be a skilled and tactical debator, but that doesn't make his arguments any less tenable. People don't believe Dawkins simply because it's coming from Dawkins. The merits of the arguments stand on their own, independent of who it is that is making them.
Ok, just to recap.. Most religiously devout wouldn't make the effort to investigate the scientific and historical data that opposes their religious standpoint. It is much easier to just exclaim "God Did It" than engage in a critical thinking exercise pertaining to data that is not only difficult to understand, but could, IF understood, undermine their belief system. Atheist are more prone to the notion of research, data. Hence, as you mockingly phrased it "Atheist are full of Questions". Correct
@Pimpjit85 Nah, I'm just a schmuck trying to be funny. Different tastes, different senses of humor. Hopefully my next joke/vid will be more your taste. Good on ya! :-)
It's contradictory that Mackay will only give validity to things that are observable in the present and in the same breath he claims to believe in the Biblical writings, that of which were written in the unobservable past. He is well spoken but if he applied his own logic then his conclusion SHOULD read " we can't actually observe the Bible being written so how can we say with any certainty that it was written by an unbiased and credible author?" His own logic completely discredits his assertion
@newbeats4 Wrong. First of all he said in the first half that he takes his position of the Biblical account by faith. Secondly Mackay doesn't say that he will only give validity to things that are observable in the present; what he says is that the moment you step out of the present, you're connected to a theory for interpreting the past (since the past exists no longer). He asserts the opposite of your strawman argument: the present is not the key to understanding the past; that was Lyells idea
@Hydragurum Ok, he says that the present is not the key to the past. So what he means is that the properties of physics that we observe today, are not necessarily the same properties applied in the past. Correct? Ok, now this statement is based on what foundation of reasoning?NONE Because what this statement says is that the laws of physics and mathematics have or can vary.If you understand the rock solid foundation that Mathematics gives us you'll see that it can't vary. 3 will always equal 3.
@newbeats4 - "Ok, he says that the present is not the key to the past." - Mackay says no such thing. He says, just because we make certain observations today, does not mean that is the way is has always been. Evolution may change, laws of physics may change etc etc...he;s right. Science has been around for a short period of time so that methodology of collecting evidence is recent.
@BeatleEDs Can you kindly explain how saying 'the present is not the key to the past' is ANY different than saying "certain observations today does not mean thats how they have always been" in this context. you're using semantics. Also your claiming 'Laws of physics may have changed'? If so please support that statement. Additionally, if your saying 'Evolution may change', then you are making a contradictory counter argument to Mr.Mackay's point…that evolution never happened. So what's up?
@newbeats4 - "kindly explain" - Well, it may be semantics, I was a few drinks in. I think what I was trying to say was that Mackay seems to be pointing out that observations change.
Creationism.- Its the process implied in deforming reality to support your bronze age misconceptions about our real world and state yourself as an idiot
Creationism Process.- 1 Make an Hypotesis .2.- Find some Crap in the bible or any large fairytale that support the Hypotesis 3.- Defend your arguments with shitty circular logic. 4.- Congratulations you are now a CREATIONIST (IGNORANT ASSHOLE)
50% of the viewers of the first video didn't come to watch the other half because that guy is INSANE !!!?!?!
SnowboarddLifestyle 1 day ago
Boy, you all have such a lack of respect for John Mackay. Why don't you show him the same amount of respect you do for Dawkins? They're both well educated on the subject and have really good points, what more do you want?
link0zeldarulz89 2 days ago
I probably would have grabbed Mackay by the collar and shook him until he saw sense. Dawkins is showing grand restraint.
cassindia1987 5 days ago
@cassindia1987 Well is kind of a big guy, and God would have protected him with 12 foot angels. And that would not have proven the evolution theory right. It is a religion. No one has ever seen a fish changing into a land animal! Why because it neved happened! God made the world 6000 years ago! God loves you and wants you to go to Heaven, repent and search for God who says that if you seek Him He will make Himself manifest unto you! bible-tube(dot)com
fabienmaga 3 days ago
@fabienmaga So do you feel a omnipotent, omnisient entity created everything?
rembrant1vanryn 2 days ago
Richard Dawkins is always so civilized and so determined to remain rational in the face of the irrational. His patience is extraordinary.
Hypatiarhetoric 6 days ago 2
John Mackay came to my university once..only 50 people showed up to hear him LOL
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Yeah and thousands of teachers teach evolution yet billiosn of people don't buy into the lie and go to stadium filled churches around the world! Ok except Europe which has been more indoctrinated that other places!
fabienmaga 3 days ago
@fabienmaga LOL billions of people?? Dude, there are only 6 billions people in this world, how many billions are you talking about? Don't exaggerate. You creationists are a very minority in this world, and dwindling with every generation. Enjoy it while it lasts lol
Casshyr 3 days ago
A rabbit must eat it's own shit...design...QED
Bhamlunker 1 week ago
lol, John Mackay, what a nutter
xalkin 1 week ago
There is just about always a consistent pattern with creationists and or the religious; they are aggressive. To me this is one of many indicators as to how insecure they are and prefer to attempt to intimidate their opponent rather than to produce real counter arguments that make sense... and the reason is because they can't.
trident3b 1 week ago
Wow, Mackay is Whakay!
stickjock1066 1 week ago
John Mackay is a prime example of ignorance teaching ignorance.
kuhrd 1 week ago
it pisses me off when people don't realize how brilliant Dawkins is
bobby3321 2 weeks ago
Sad that there are still people like this out there :/
ilovelani69 2 weeks ago
@supowit Science supports degeneration and speciation after their kind. science is knowledge and information based which testifies of intelligence!
Ramohog 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creationists - please give YOUR scientific-method-based theory for the diversity of species today. Let's hear YOUR theory, so we can tear it apart.
mphello 2 weeks ago
Creationist do believe in evolution, we just recognize that mutations have biological bounaries and are limited in scope, and actually leads to degeneration and genetic entropy over time. Speciation is programmed in to the self replicating error correcting nanotech mini computers that we call cells, in order to sustain life. We find sequential information, digital coding, structure and design. All of this testifies of intelligence and prior conscious activity by an external causal agent... God!
Ramohog 3 weeks ago
@Ramohog
No. It does not. You are inviting a question of infinite regression. Your sad argument is just a rehashing of the ontological argument in the guise of irreducible complexity. Those of us that are more well-read than you, and/or more intelligent do tire of you rehashing the same old demolished arguments.
supowit 2 weeks ago
@supowit The only thing that is regressing is our genome through degeneration and genetic entropy. We only evolve through added information, and information is a mind product and testifies of prior conscious activity, since we never have concluded otherwise. You believe that we are evolved stardust and that life arose from non life and mutated from the slime of the earth. All through random coincidences. I do admire your faith because the evidence is against you!
Ramohog 2 weeks ago
@Ramohog
Information isn't a mind product! What are you talking about!?
The problem with you people is that you assert an unfalsifiable claim, that GOD designed things. You can't disprove that assertion, so it's a nonsense assertion.
Scientists don't claim there was no god... it's just a non-issue. God isn't relevant to the pursuit of science. Why can't you get that through your stupid head?
supowit 2 weeks ago
@supowit It all comes down to it if you put your faith in randomness and in the alchemical transmuation myth of abiogenesis or that you believe in intelligence behind it all. The first premise leads to fractal wrongness and causes you to always be looking, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Real science and true documented history prove God, but most scientist come to wrong conclusion because they have built their model on wrong assumptions. That's the problem!
Ramohog 2 weeks ago
@Ramohog
I think we can conclude this charade. You have absolutely no idea what science is.
supowit 2 weeks ago
@Ramohog there is no scientific evidence that such biological boundaries exist. Novel genes do form by de novo mutations. There is no degeneration over time across generations. Such claim is unsupported by any peer-reviewed literature.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Yes there is biological evidence. Everything does reproduce after their kind. Speciation after their kind is pre-programmed in to the nanotech cells in order to sustain life, but is still winding down through radiation, chemical imbalance and copying errors, causing degeneration over time and excludes new organs and higher life forms, and have never been observed. We actually see high diversity to lower diversity and plant and animal life going from large to small.
Ramohog 2 weeks ago
@Ramohog repeating your claims don't make it true lol. You need to back it up with peer-reviewed scientific literature. Either show it or shut up lmao.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
you know what I'm a Muslim and I'm completely against evolution, but I like the way Richard Dawkins listen to people, we've got learn a bit from him
byankaree91 4 weeks ago
John Mackay actually did really good there.
12Ominous 1 month ago
What a sad man.
trebange 1 month ago
@trebange Yes, disgraces to mankind such as John Mackay are very sad indeed. I think every creationist is.
20BCeltics 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
lazersoupe 1 month ago
I am even more convinced now that Christians are full of shit.
Flipper79able 1 month ago 2
Mackay argues like an undergrad who has been snorting too much cocaine.
StevieWackledean 1 month ago
"That's ridiculous, but thank you anyway."
RedLine353 1 month ago
I am Australian. This is the first time I have heard a creationist speaking with an Australian accent, and I am mortified! I was hoping these kind of narrow views were contained to the USA.
marccarc 1 month ago
richard dawkins has already won this arguement HAHA you idiot
jlaff18 1 month ago 2
After watching both videos I would be surprised if Mackay even knew what he was talking about by the time it ended. And Dawkins had the best exit line , "that's ridiculous, thank you."
EtchedInOak 1 month ago
2:43, LOL the idiot only knew when the Darwin published his book, not when Darwin created it. LOL
TheFaceOfJohnPants 1 month ago
My opinion is that neither side will ever prove their belief. We got the 1950-2012 generation trying to prove what has happened in the past, so we got people 50-60 years old today telling us what happened 1,2,3,4000+..years ago , logically it cannot be proven but more likely assumed , to me it makes sense that the first assumption is belief . I personally find it plausible that we are a creation because to me evolution seems illogical when it comes to the human brain , the human eye. my 2 cents
jamescicio 1 month ago
@jamescicio 2 cents is double what its worth
tbonehertz 1 month ago
@jamescicio There is mathematical proof that evolution true. There is a specific rate in which DNA spontaneously mutates (i.e. A base pair is mistakenly substituted for another, left out of a sequence, or added beyond what is needed by DNA polymerase during DNA replication of diploid cellular replication). Using this rate it can be determined how many years ago certain species broke off from one another. Ergo your "belief" is completely arbitrary in face of what any educated person calls fact.
raiderlax5 1 month ago
@jamescicio That's pretty much Mackey's point. Very luckily science offers different approaches than just "believe" and luckily there's more ways to truth than just making up an explanation what happened X years ago. Learn a bit about science and maybe realize that there is indeed proof for evolution, the age of the earth and universe. Reality is just more complicated than what you're supposed "logic" can offer.
Chris197980CH 1 month ago
@jamescicio
Where did the fossils come from?
MadHighway 1 week ago
The creationist is an endangered species.
TheBrockster88 1 month ago
Hmm... So did McKay see God create the universe 6 000 years ago?
Compulsful 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
tensorbundle 1 month ago
Comment removed
tensorbundle 1 month ago
Comment removed
tensorbundle 1 month ago
Comment removed
tensorbundle 1 month ago
It seems to me that Dawkins was out-witted in this conversation.
ocarina2boy 1 month ago
@ocarina2boy it seems to me that the comment "Thats rediculous" applys to you aswell, but thankyou very much
MrBrew4321 1 month ago
@ocarina2boy If you mean Dawkin's was interviewing him and letting him babble belligerently about nonsense then yes. I guess it wouldn't have been much of an interview if he stopped and fact checked every sentence. I see that successful creationists are very charismatic, smooth with words, fast on the reply and quick witted. Doesn't make them anymore logical or correct when they are just lying but it fools people that don't know any better :(
chicarbiomed 1 month ago
@ocarina2boy MacKay basically attacks at anything that is not directly observable by eye to be a "belief" and equate that to "well that's your opinion, but my view is...". If someone does this, there's no point in carrying onward cuz that person is no longer rational. As an analogy: imagine i only believe in things i see with my own eye, and i challenge you to convince me that a seed can grow into a 60m tall tree. Go ahead, i dare you.
Casshyr 1 month ago
It seems to me that the premise of this interview and the scope of the general evolution vs. creationism "debate" is beyond your intellectual capacity. And, in turn, that it was YOU that was severly "outwitted" (no hyphen) by Dawkins before even tuning into the YouTube homepage in the first place.
slados1 1 month ago
This man is an idiot!
wilbermoremonticore 1 month ago
so my grandma is not older then me
CliftonCarlBarbara 1 month ago
if i was richard dawkins i would of hit that old wrinkly man and there would not be a 2nd part!!!!
shave23 1 month ago
I don't think I would have posted this video. Dawkins is very weak and ineffective in his attempt to corner this man (to whom he is supposed to be intellectually and professionally superior). Notice that when he sputters on the topic of scientific evidence he, in his desperation, tries to get him on 'contributions'. Then he flounders on that topic, too.. Mackay handled himself very well against Dawkins. No wonder he's terrified of William Lane Craig. He cant even refute this guy. LOL! PATHETIC!!
revlooshin 1 month ago
@revlooshin
So what's your view on evolution, then?
MadHighway 1 week ago
@MadHighway Science shows that microevolution occurs. Science has NEVER proven macroevolution; that life evolved from a single-cell organism over many millions of years into what we are today. This kind of "evolution" is mere propaganda, published in all of the mainstream scientific journals and in school textbooks. Opposing viewpoints (and not all of them are 'religious'.) are discredited and suppressed by the mainstream establishment. Thus the general public is made to believe that ANYONE who
revlooshin 1 week ago
@MadHighway disagrees with the theory is some type of blithering religious idiot who is stuck in the dark ages. But on the other hand, the mainstream scientific establishment, for the most part, refuses to publicly dialogue with scientists who disagree with the theory. So, you see, this type of 'evolution' that Dawkins is poorly trying to espouse is nothing but propaganda. The general public, as usual, is mainly getting one side of the story. If this were about the ecology, wall street, ufo's,
revlooshin 1 week ago
3@MadHighway voting fraud, your life savings, health care, or some other type of issue that is relevant to most of these people's existence here on this earth they'd be furious at the powers that be for only giving us a part of the story. But when it comes to this brand of evolution, they don't mind being force fed only part of the story. I think it's sheer hypocrisy. i really do. But hey, to each his own. I prefer the truth. The whole truth.
revlooshin 1 week ago
@revlooshin
I'll clarify my question.
What's your theory, then, of how all those fossils got into the ground from 3+ billion years ago onward?
Just because you don't like the accepted theory and its pervasiveness (because the theory accounts for all known data) doesn't mean that the current theory is invalid.
MadHighway 1 week ago
@MadHighway 1) Even the best dating methods have been shown to be accurate up to only a few thousand years, so "3+ billion years ago onward" is mere speculation. Not real science. Once, a test was done on rocks from a volcano that geologists KNEW happened only a hundred years prior, but they were dated at millions of years ago. 2) There are so many anomalies in the fossil record, and so many fossils found in strata that, according to the theory, don't belong. Also, the glaring absence of
revlooshin 1 week ago
@revlooshin: "so "3+ billion years ago onward" is mere speculation"; "so many fossils found in strata that, according to the theory, don't belong."
No. These are misconceptions on your part.
MadHighway 1 week ago
2@MadHighway transitional fossils. I believe in creation, naturally, but I'm not what you'd consider a staunch creationist(one who believes in a 6,000 year old universe, or one who thinks ID should be taught in school as science). It's not a matter of whether or not I personally LIKE this theory. I look at the evidence, or the lack thereof, and I just don't believe it. I look at how the mainstream goes about using slander and propaganda to debunk opposing views, instead of confronting them
revlooshin 1 week ago
3@MadHighway publicly via healthy debate and debunking them fair and square, and it makes me feel even stronger that there is something they're trying to hide. It's just like when the Roman Catholic Church of the dark ages tried to stunt progress by silencing opposing views to it's own dogmatic views about the universe, which came from the scientific community of that day. It was a travesty then, and it is a travesty today, and that's EXACTLY why I seek to separate myself from the mainstream.
revlooshin 1 week ago
4@MadHighway. Not just mainstream science, but mainstream media AND mainstream Christianity. Mainstream anything is based on what is popular. What is generally accepted. Acquiring truth is NEVER that simple. To know the truth one has to dig and search and question. That's the problem with society, we want other people to do the digging and searching for us so THEY can tell us what is true or not, then we get upset when we've found we've been lied to. I don't know the whole truth, but I am truly
revlooshin 1 week ago
5@MadHighway convinced that life and the universe are products of design from a higher mind. A higher intelligence. And that human history has been shaped and influenced by beings with advanced knowledge. Even Dawkins, himself, has speculated as much. This is where ALL of the evidence points.
revlooshin 1 week ago
@revlooshin
No, you're just stating Creationism and Genesis using different words. Whether aliens or God, you're reinforcing obsolete anthropocentric dogma straight from the Dark Ages.
MadHighway 1 week ago
@MadHighway LOL! You're showing just how conditioned your mind is. You can't relate to what I'm telling you because it goes against everything you've been programmed to believe about the typical believer and his beliefs. So you HAVE to frame the discussion within the context of evolution vs. creationism. That's the ONLY way you can generate an opinion and have something to say. With all due respect, MadHighway, I'm not gonna go there with you. Like I said, to each his own. No hard feelings, bro.
revlooshin 1 week ago
@revlooshin
See? I predicted that you would employ an elitist superiority to evade argument, and there you go doing it.
Also, you avoided answering a few direct questions with the general evasion of "I'm not gonna go there."
To sum up: you profess to be superior, you believe in creationism (you said that, not I), and you won't tell us how you think all those fossils got in the ground.
You realize "mainstream" science---physics and chemistry--brought about Colecovision, don't you?
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin
Again, you're reasserting Creationism and Genesis using different words, reinforcing obsolete anthropocentric dogma. Aristarchus, Copernicus, and Kepler would shake their heads ruefully at you.
Once more, we all wanna know: what's your theory of how all those fossils got into the ground? Because it seems like you would rather they just not be mentioned.
MadHighway 1 week ago
@MadHighway There was a flood 2400 years before Jesus dude and put everything into the ground The fossil collection around the world is 100000 millions, yet none show any transition between creatures? Why would that be? The proof is not there yet? Then bury the evolution theory until you have the proof!
fabienmaga 3 days ago
@revlooshin: "I believe in creation, naturally,... convinced that life and the universe are products of design from a higher mind"
Bro, you subscribe to creationist dogma. Don't evade--it's silly.
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin
Whups, I just found out you're one of those Bible-thumping, Book-of-Revelation swallowers.
Nice attempt at cloaking yourself with reasonable argument and 'public debate', but you're in David Rives' fundamentalist Christian, anti-intellectual, anti-human camp.
So you lied. Way to go.
MadHighway 1 week ago
@MadHighway Well both are faith based, but the Church of Evolution should be taken out of the schools soon!
fabienmaga 3 days ago
@fabienmaga
There is no "church," nobody 'worships' a scientific theory, and you've really got it all wrong.
MadHighway 1 day ago
@revlooshin
What's your theory, then, of how all those fossils got into the ground?
MadHighway 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@revlooshin That you use a term like "mainstream science" shows a lack of understandfing as well.
Your manifesto of "why I seek to separate myself from the mainstream ... mainstream science, but mainstream media AND mainstream Christianity. Mainstream anything is based on what is popular. What is generally accepted"
That is the most telling--you seek to define yourself regardless of the "mainstream" possibly being correct, because you see anything "generally accepted" as "a travesty."
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin: "It's just like when the Roman Catholic Church of the dark ages tried to stunt progress by silencing opposing views to it's own dogmatic views"
It isn't like that at all. Religion is dogma. Science is NOT dogma; taking the stance that it is is another common and fallacious comprehension of science.
There WAS NO "scientific community" in the dark ages! Science is a RECENT invention.
Really, from where did you get all of this surprising misunderstanding?
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin
Yes, you Young-earthers fail to grasp that individual fossils are a 'snapshot' in time, a 'freeze frame' of a species. Thus ALL fossils are transitional fossils! The species either went on to change, or went extinct.
But there ARE dino fossils with feathers, and modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
You need to re-think your understanding of evolution.
The arguments you present are willful misconceptions. No paleontologist says the things you do
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin
You're saying we don't know the half-lives of radioactive elements? Baloney.
You're saying scientific evolution theory ignores some fossial specimens? That would be unscientific.
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin
I'll clarify my question YET MORE.
What's your theory, then, of how all those fossils got into the ground?
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin
And what are these "anomalies in the fossil record"? Name few specific cases.
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin: "Once, a test was done on rocks from a volcano that geologists KNEW happened only a hundred years prior, but they were dated at millions of years ago."
If a volcano burps out some kinds of rocks that were millions of years old, then we find rocks that age, natch. Lava that solidfied a hundred years ago would date to a hundred years ago, natch.
Why does a volcano have to burp out only one age of rocks?
MadHighway 1 week ago
@revlooshin " they don't mind being force fed only part of the story."
To what end? There's not much money to be made in field studies of paleontology. Also, ALL the competing notions don't account for all the data.
Your viewpoint seems more like a means to delineate YOURSELF from the "mainstream" rather than offer a countering notion to a reasonable and accepted explanation of the presence of fossils in geologic rock strata.
MadHighway 1 week ago
How did John get his degree?
closet0madness 1 month ago
Wait i thought Australians weren't like Americans?
thelewa7 1 month ago
Dawkins is so weak, he is resorting to absolute crap to insult this man, what a twit DARKINS is...He has been owned again by this man who does have credibility to speak and comment. Dawkins makes me sick!
alpha2470 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alpha2470
So what's your view on evolution, then?
MadHighway 1 week ago
THE RETARD ESCAPED!
iluvaus555 2 months ago
Say there where 10,000 baby animals. It would take more than 4,000 years for the micro changes needed to combat incest let alone the micro changes needed make all the diversity of life from those 10,000 base "kinds". There is also no fossil evidence supporting all best where vegetarians before the flood so the predators will eat the vegetarian pairs into extinction after puberty hits.
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
I really don't believe there are still such ignorant people around.
kyproset 2 months ago
@kyproset ironically, you have the evidence right in front of you.
Purojannu 1 month ago
How does this man know that historical records from 6000 years ago are accurate? He wasn't there when they were written, he is making the same kind of "assumption" he accuses the evolutionists of. The truth is, that John Mackay is just ignoring the kinds of evidence that disagree with his holy scriptures.
Fobia985 2 months ago
his time is up!
007gumshoe 2 months ago
And what the hell kind of approach to science is Mackay's? How are we to make scientific progress if everything we discover is instantly invalidated because it is quite necessarily retrospection? Oh, ahem, excuse me...invalidated because it disagrees with the Bible. I'm quite sure Mackay would be willing to accept modern scientific methods if any of them supported his insane assertions at all.
jee5678 2 months ago
...experiments, or the one that blatantly contradicts everything we know from modern science upon the say-so of the Bible? It is absolutely ASININE that this is an actual topic of discussion for real scientists. It is ASININE that young-earth creationism is so pervasive that a renowned scholar like Dawkins actually feels compelled to debate clowns like Mackay.
jee5678 2 months ago
Can we talk about Mackay's beliefs, please? He openly admits to refuting the whole of modern scientific evidence on the basis of, "it's faith if you weren't there yourself," in favor of what evidence, exactly? Oh, right, a 2600 year-old account of creation written by an ignorant scribe during the Babylonian captivity. Even if you're willing to call both positions "faith-based," which is (vastly) more reasonable? The one which has been corroborated by thousands of modern scientific...
jee5678 2 months ago
Hey John, guess what? If your so-called "science" isn't accepted into peer-reviewed journals, it's not science!
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr I'm no young-earther, but if the gold standard of truth in science is acceptance by peer review, let me ask: Was heliocentrism not science in Copernicus' lifetime? Or can only the mass of past people have been ignorant?
NihilNominis 1 month ago
@NihilNominis Did peer-review system work as well back in Copernicus time? No, i seriously even doubt such a system even exists yet. Besides, with internet bringing scientists from around the globe, we expand the ability to cross-check each other's work. And thirdly, I highly doubt the scientific method was even fully established at that time. Find me an example within the less 100 years where majority of scientists are proven wrong, and somehow religious got ti right. Just one!
Casshyr 1 month ago
@NihilNominis I should also say I don't say evolution theory is 100% correct either. It is simply the BEST explanation we can have so far based on the evidence we have, without resorting to supernatural explanations (you can combine evolution with God, but evolution is not dependent on God). I don't deny the possibility, although very slim imo, for evolution theory to be wrong in the future when new evidence comes in.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr Evolution in some sense is not dependent on God as a continuously active efficient cause, but it is a process of caused changed a mutation which, to the mind of many religious philosophers, still requires some uncaused kickstart.
As I say, I am no young-earther; I am willing to admit improvement in the peer-review system. But I take difference with your assertion that what is not accepted by peer review is not science, as if consent of scientists could make valid science.
NihilNominis 1 month ago
@NihilNominis caused change and mutation*
NihilNominis 1 month ago
@NihilNominis But you cannot give me even one example, in the past 100 years, where something that is not part of peer-review as proven everybody else wrong! Peer-review is a very important process, one that makes science why so credible compared to any other fields. You are, if I my extrapolate a bit, essentially suggesting that peer-review is not crucial and can be exempted. I'm going to make a guess and say you have never gone through peer-review process, am i right?
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr Aha! Actually I think we agree...
I had interpreted your initial post to mean something like: "Whatever is peer-reviewed is science," "Whatever is not peer-reviewed is not science."
Whereas you mean to say, "Peer-review seems a necessary constituent of science." I can buy that.
NihilNominis 1 month ago
@NihilNominis yet you remain a creationist? Despite all the peer-reviewed evidence for evolution? And despite that none of creationist's evidence ever made it into peer-review?
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr ! I am not a Creationist! Wow, sorry...that might explain a lot.
NihilNominis 1 month ago
@NihilNominis AH. Sorry for the spam then. I apologize. Ignore my rant. Donno how our posts got mixed up
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr :-D No worries!
NihilNominis 1 month ago
@NihilNominis Actually I do say whatever is not peer-reviewed is not science. Because if you believe in the otherwise, then anybody can easily bypass peer-review and post anything and claim it as science! Peer-review, if you ever have gone through it, is PAINFUL. Your article is almost 100% rejected on the first try, and you may need to submit it 4 or 5 times before you get a submission. And even up to 50% of the articles don't get accepted in the end, after years of work.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@NihilNominis This is one reason why peer-review is so important, because it catches errors and logical flaws that otherwise would be missed. If you claim "article X is still science even though this is not peer-reviewed", this then introduces a flaw in the whole field of science because people would then choose to bypass peer-review instead of going through it. In fact, first day of my grad school teaches "if you haven't publish it in peer-reviewed journal, you haven't prove it"
Casshyr 1 month ago
@NihilNominis typo, should say "not part of peer-review has proven everybody else wrong"
Casshyr 1 month ago
Does anyone know which program this is from?
moomleberry 2 months ago
Mackay has surely practiced his pat responses. He tries his best not to let Dawkins speak. Mackay is a mind racer -- people who think so fast and talk so fast without listening to anyone. They take up so much time to make a point, if one, that to those not paying attention to the details, seem brilliant. These people tend to be intelligent as far as vocabulary and rationalizing go, but they also tend to say unintelligent things while looking good doing it.
LloydChristmas777 2 months ago 19
@LloydChristmas777 very nice explanation and I think we all know one or two of these.
Chris197980CH 1 month ago
Richard Dawkins should be allowed to carry and use a gun.
zzytrewq 2 months ago 16
This guy teaches kids!?
W1llhelm 3 months ago 2
Damn this was horrible. Religion is poison.
bary1234 3 months ago 3
Did you know I can see the future? Without even looking down, I know there are people scientifically going for the jugular...
ReturnOfTheSkyRaider 3 months ago
that's ridiculous but thank you very much ...... priceless.
edwood777 3 months ago
if you don`t see it happen it`s not science, 7:25 According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice,"
rickgarcia1980 3 months ago
The first two seconds the creationist says "if there was a world wide flood today..." I stopped listening.
zfan2591 3 months ago
this is so disturbing
CookieWalka 3 months ago
1:55 - Dawkins asks Mackay about where Darwain got his inspiration for evolution, and Mackay insinuates that Darwin was inspired by his anger towards god for the death of his favorite daughter, in turn, he turned his back on theology. When Dawkins retorts that Darwin produced a full sketch of his theory long before the death of his daughter, Mackay appeals to the fact that Darwain didn't PUBLISH it until after the death of his daughter.
Creationists....., gotta love 'em.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi gotta love 'em and then slap them really hard until they see sense. lol.
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
Dawkins: "so why don't we see fossil dinosaurs and humans buried together?"
Mackay: "well why would you?" "If there was a world-wide flood today would you expect to see kangaroos buried with brits?"
*facepalm*
Brits are not the only humans that exist, asshole! If there was a world wide flood today you would expect to see kangaroos buried with HUMANS! The nationality of those humans is completely irrelevant to the point.
Talking reason with creationists is hell.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi Most likely the fossils of the humans that walked with dinosaurs don't exist as the dinosaurs ate them all and then God had to cook up a new batch and kill off the dinosaurs before trying his latest creation out for size. (Not really, I'm just taking the piss out of that prat Mackay.lol)
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
Well it is nice to see that the USA doesn't own all the religious nut jobs
Xatasha6611 3 months ago 4
I am surprised that at no point Dawkins pointed out that Mackays continual re-iteration of "we see the world through the glasses that lyall gave us", trying to imply that we make the evidence fit our pre-supposition, is exactly what he does. The difference being that when science finds something different it is willing to change its story, Mackay just warps evidence to fit his idea.
dmmchn 3 months ago
two fucked-up priests fighting on shit: Dawkins - the priest of evolution / science. Mackay - the priest of god and creationism. Both are the product of the same system.
1977Taake1977 3 months ago
@1977Taake1977
Then don't watch go watch some porn.
Fattboy26 3 months ago
@1977Taake1977 ? explain
ladev91 3 months ago
@1977Taake1977 What system are you talking about ?
Kokainuser 2 months ago
Logic: 1 + 1 = 2 unless you can demonstrate otherwise...
Faith: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 = 1 & Christ was born in a stable, died on a cross for all the baby sinners & this boob I have tells me the truth & if you say different then that just means that I am right. Praise Jesus! Amen!
Strictlypointless 3 months ago 2
It is no wonder Dawkins does not debate retards like this any more. He has better things to do with his time than argue ridiculous bullshit with people like this.
shimwah 3 months ago 3
"Orthodox geology"? What the fuck is that, John?
dpowens 4 months ago
Why did they cut at 1:55?
BEASTMASTERTOAD 4 months ago
John Mackay is an embarrassment to Australia.
TeeGeeFan 4 months ago 62
@TeeGeeFan Is anyone who disagree's with Dawkin's automatically an embarassment? Don't be duped and brainwashed, keep an open mind. Dawkins' is beginning to be considered an intellectual joke when it comes to arguments and debates by many academics.
lightbrownpoop 3 months ago
@lightbrownpoop - Who are these academics that consider Dawkins to be an intellectual joke? Point us to them, don't just assert it. Dawkins may not be a skilled and tactical debator, but that doesn't make his arguments any less tenable. People don't believe Dawkins simply because it's coming from Dawkins. The merits of the arguments stand on their own, independent of who it is that is making them.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@lightbrownpoop Who are these "many" academics ?
Kokainuser 2 months ago
@TeeGeeFan thank goodness he's not there.
halflifeproductionz 2 months ago
@TeeGeeFan It could be worse... Ray Comfort comes from NZ
gp0d 1 month ago
"That's ridiculous, but, anyway, thank you very much." Hilarious ending.
wdnantz 4 months ago 46
@wdnantz lulz, best ending ever
koreflex 2 months ago
@wdnantz LOL I think that pretty much sums up the whole interview right there. "That's ridiculous but thanks for your time" hahaha.
MarsManatee 1 month ago
Ok, just to recap.. Most religiously devout wouldn't make the effort to investigate the scientific and historical data that opposes their religious standpoint. It is much easier to just exclaim "God Did It" than engage in a critical thinking exercise pertaining to data that is not only difficult to understand, but could, IF understood, undermine their belief system. Atheist are more prone to the notion of research, data. Hence, as you mockingly phrased it "Atheist are full of Questions". Correct
newbeats4 4 months ago
Dawkins == FAIL. Major PWNAGE. I see why he doesn't debate YEC's heha.com 8)
Hydragurum 4 months ago
@Pimpjit85 Nah, I'm just a schmuck trying to be funny. Different tastes, different senses of humor. Hopefully my next joke/vid will be more your taste. Good on ya! :-)
Robalexwalter 4 months ago
It's contradictory that Mackay will only give validity to things that are observable in the present and in the same breath he claims to believe in the Biblical writings, that of which were written in the unobservable past. He is well spoken but if he applied his own logic then his conclusion SHOULD read " we can't actually observe the Bible being written so how can we say with any certainty that it was written by an unbiased and credible author?" His own logic completely discredits his assertion
newbeats4 4 months ago
@newbeats4 Wrong. First of all he said in the first half that he takes his position of the Biblical account by faith. Secondly Mackay doesn't say that he will only give validity to things that are observable in the present; what he says is that the moment you step out of the present, you're connected to a theory for interpreting the past (since the past exists no longer). He asserts the opposite of your strawman argument: the present is not the key to understanding the past; that was Lyells idea
Hydragurum 4 months ago
@Hydragurum Ok, he says that the present is not the key to the past. So what he means is that the properties of physics that we observe today, are not necessarily the same properties applied in the past. Correct? Ok, now this statement is based on what foundation of reasoning?NONE Because what this statement says is that the laws of physics and mathematics have or can vary.If you understand the rock solid foundation that Mathematics gives us you'll see that it can't vary. 3 will always equal 3.
newbeats4 4 months ago
@newbeats4 - "Ok, he says that the present is not the key to the past." - Mackay says no such thing. He says, just because we make certain observations today, does not mean that is the way is has always been. Evolution may change, laws of physics may change etc etc...he;s right. Science has been around for a short period of time so that methodology of collecting evidence is recent.
BeatleEDs 4 months ago
@BeatleEDs Can you kindly explain how saying 'the present is not the key to the past' is ANY different than saying "certain observations today does not mean thats how they have always been" in this context. you're using semantics. Also your claiming 'Laws of physics may have changed'? If so please support that statement. Additionally, if your saying 'Evolution may change', then you are making a contradictory counter argument to Mr.Mackay's point…that evolution never happened. So what's up?
newbeats4 4 months ago
@newbeats4 - "kindly explain" - Well, it may be semantics, I was a few drinks in. I think what I was trying to say was that Mackay seems to be pointing out that observations change.
BeatleEDs 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mackay makes excellent points - unfortunately many people get their back up without really listening.
joanne7510 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mackay makes excellent points - unfortunately many people get their back up without really listening.
joanne7510 4 months ago
Mackay makes excellent points - unfortunately many people get their back up without really listening
joanne7510 4 months ago
@joanne7510 What excellent points are you talking about.
Kokainuser 2 months ago
Creationism.- Its the process implied in deforming reality to support your bronze age misconceptions about our real world and state yourself as an idiot
Creationism Process.- 1 Make an Hypotesis .2.- Find some Crap in the bible or any large fairytale that support the Hypotesis 3.- Defend your arguments with shitty circular logic. 4.- Congratulations you are now a CREATIONIST (IGNORANT ASSHOLE)
vizardstorm 4 months ago
dawkins wins again!
alexy360 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Flat Earth Creationists are the most revolting douchebags on the planet.
odinata 4 months ago