The MAJORITY of biologists know that evolutionism is a well crafted HOAX and that Dawkins in a fraud.
PPSimmons made an excellent video interview with a Molecular Biologist exposing the hypocrisy and academic persecution of those that speak out against the MYTH of evolution.
Look at all the brainwashed people who follow Dawkins. What he teaches is just wrong. If someone really dose not believe in god then do u really think we came from a rock. Hopefully they all find the truth.
@GodisGreat44125 I am with you on this my fellow human, we have been warned about the false teachers. Richard Dawkins is imparting a knowledge not in conformity with fact. multitudes are lost. so, Dawkins takes advanteges as long as multitudes do not find the truth.
@Gust46 That's right! Dawkins is not conformity with fact and the fact is that God did it! If he doesn't teach that God did it! He is plumb unfactual!
"If someone really dose not believe in god then do u really think we came from a rock"
That's like a polytheist coming up to you saying that if you don't believe in godS, then you believe we came from rocks. Put that in context and you'll realise it's nonsense- false dichotomy.
@GodisGreat44125 I'm sorry, but I have to ask- Are you brain damaged? Your spelling is atrocious, your grammar nonexistent, and your last few posts read like flat gibberish. They sort of read like as if a spambot wrote them, and if a spambot is proselytizing then all of civilization is Doomed.
All joking aside, no one will take you seriously if you can't properly express yourself. You can sit in on college classes for free, and a bit of English and Biology 101 will Not hurt you.
@guitardrummer321 He's said that numerous times. It's based on the logical idea that you can't prove negative. You can't disprove something that is not falsifiable. It's the basis of all science, and why science trumps religion. Science changes with evidence; Religion sticks fingers in the ears of its followers.
@Bernardatious Yes. With testing. I don't mean "prove" as in "100% THIS! TOTALLY!" I mean "prove" as "provide evidence for."
And I'm using the loose form of "negative," the kind that most mean in this context, being "a claim of nonexistence." In the strictest sense, yes, you can prove a negative, but not all negatives, and especially not nonexistence.
This is just crazy. And all those stupid people clapping and shouting to cheer him on at one part. I am from Oklahoma and nut cases like this guy are everywhere. They have all the access to studies and research of how things really are, yet they choose to ignore it, cover their ear and scream as loud as they can then run away. It is just pathetic, unprofessional and shameful that in this important time for our advancement we still have ppl believing in fairy tales with no basis.
What I'd like to know is: What exactly IS Richard Dawkins a fraud of? Is he fraudulent in his research? His knowledge? All of this is up for peer review at all times!
Or is he a fraud in his religious studies?
I mean it's not like Richard Dawkins is a faith healer or a rattlesnake handler... he doesn't blame Haitian earthquakes and the 2004 Tsunami on the wickedness of homosexuals and abortionists...
And to top it off. Jesus hated religion more than Mr. Dawkins. He never made money off of bashing it. Infact, he died bashing it. And only spoke facts :)
@wayneakrid Yes, he walked with the escorts. If he was really devout he would have stuck around and created a big scene until they carried him out. It was a stunt.
The kid is right Richard Dawkins is awesome. I actually read a few of Richard Dawkins books; but, not all of them. I was particularly interested in his book "The Selfish Gene" which really opened me up to a new perspective on Darwin and that really in the end it's not the strongest who survives. Richard Dawkins is a man of my times and I will be glad to look back upon this era and say that I grew up in a time of the world's foremost evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins!!!!
so if a lack of belief in ANY deity (not just the christian god) is a religion then lack of hair (or bald) is a hair style. An lack of money is a state of wealth. And non stamp collecting is a hobby.
I know. It's terrible. We UFOlogists have something similar, see, the astronomers don't take us seriously either. Pompous asses. I have some fairyologist friends who have a tough time as well. Damn rational thinkers!
I love that just because people can infer something as simple as "God does not make sense" nowadays, they are considered to be a rational thinker... That takes a lot of intelligence...
Of course it does. Gravity is theory, too. Theory just means a system that allows the evidence to fit together. You are confusing the word HYPOTHESIS for the word THEORY. Creation cannot be taught as a theory, because it has no evidence.
@QuickdrawMcShaw i am not confusing hypothesis with theory. gravity cannot be disproven. therefore it is a fact. ppl hav tested and observed gravity long enough for it to have a concrete definition. evolution however still has a lot of missing links such as "how did that 1st organism that started the whole evolution come to be?" now if u look at it this way, regardless of the 1st organism being a single-celled organism, or a fully functioning animal, or even human, (cont'd)
@QuickdrawMcShaw SOMETHING must have initiated dat spark to bring it into exsistance. that alone is a very convincing evidence for creationism to be a theory.
Once again, you are getting confused. You aren't talking about evolution now, you are talking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises from lifelessness. There are already a number of theories concerning how this occurs. Evolution is not concerned with how it STARTED, evolution is concerned with how it PROGRESSES.
Anyone is welcome to come and disprove evolution, but they HAVE TO HAVE A BETTER THEORY. Until then, evolution is curriculum.
@QuickdrawMcShaw srry i did not make myself clear before. i do believe in evolution. micro-evolution. the evolution that i was referring to below was macro-evolution which coincides with abiogenesis. even if abiogenesis occured and is somehow able to sustain itself for a period of time, how would it learn how to feed itself? how would it know how to replicate itself? how would it learn to adapt?
Did Ray Comfort tell you to believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution?
Abiogenesis isn't a creature that needs to learn to adapt. Abiogenesis is a biological process, as is evolution. Life adapts and advances on its own though the process of evolution. Life BEGINS through the process of abiogenesis. If we agree that life began billions of years ago, and that micro-evolution exists, doesn't it make sense that billions of years of micro-evolution MEANS macro-evolution?
@QuickdrawMcShaw not true. and no. im not some brainwashed lil kid. i actually looked into this matter quite deeply. not just any single-celled organism just adapts on its own. dats like sayin u shook a box of metal scraps for a million years and it turned into a fully functioning miniature plane and it learned how to work itself on its own, except with abiogenesis is much much more improbable than dat. (contd)
@QuickdrawMcShaw micro-evolution and macro-evolution are 2 very different things. micro-evolution involves an outside factor(whether it be another organism or the climate,etc)which makes the organism to adapt in order for it to function more efficiently. macro-evolution involves series of drastic beneficial mutations that require no external aid. the whole process of those series of beneficial mutation is merely impossible for it to happen within a planet's lifetime.
I'm sorry, but pretty much every single one of the claims you made against evolution is false.
First of all, micro-evolution and macro evolution involve exactly the same processes, the latter simply being drawn out over vast periods of time.
Geologists and cosmologists have calculated the Earth to be roughly 4.54 billions years old. That is an inconceivably long amount of time, especially when compared to the relatively short lifespan of a human life.
@freshhh1994 every single one of my claims is false? 1st of all i never said evolution is completely false. i do believe it to an extent. and NO. macro-evolution isnt the same thing as macro-evolution. sure they might involve similar processes but their level of change differ substantially. such as the change in genes. sigh... i can go on for hours with this. like i said, i looked in to this quite deeply. i use to be an evolutionist. dont get me wrong. i know my facts.
Comparing micro-evolution and macro-evolution is like comparing sprinting and cross-country running.
Since you obviously HAVEN'T researched it as thoroughly as you say you have, let me put it to you this way: In a nutshell, micro-evolution is to macro-evolution as a short walk is to a long walk. They both use the EXACT same process, but one takes longer and goes farther. That's why the changes differ so substantially. You're fighting an uphill battle, buddy.
@QuickdrawMcShaw like i said, they may involve similar process, but they still havnt proved how they were able to sustain their improbable beneficial mutations. its not like a short walk to a long walk. its NOT DAT SIMPLE. it looks to me as tho u r the one over simplifying things. PLEASEEEEEEE i BEG u look deeper into it.
The benefits were sustained because they increase a creature's odds of survival. That's why they're called "beneficial". If the trait makes it easier for you to survive, and it gets passed on, after a while it becomes prevalent in the species. Those with the benefit survive, those without it die. I'm telling you, it makes sense. If it didn't make sense, scientists wouldn't use it. Come on, man. I'm no biologist, but I understand how it works.
@QuickdrawMcShaw sigh.... again. i dont think u understand my arguement to the fullest. sustaining meaning passed on to its offsprings. and again, u r over simplifying things. do u have any idea of the probability in the mutations itself being beneficial? and the probability of them being passed on to its offsprings successfully? go find that out and THEN write your next argument. that would be ur step 1.
While it is true that the probability of beneficial mutations occurring is comparatively quite low, natural selection will ensure that these traits will survive and spread across the gene pool.
Over time, these processes will develop new and improved structures. Every piece of scientific evidence supports this conclusion.
@freshhh1994 comparatively quite low? if u knew the ratio, that was a very poor choice of words on your part. the words u shouldve used r somewhere on the lines of "near impossible." and with dat improbable beneficial mutation, the probabilty of its mutated genes being passed on to its generations to come is also quite improbable. and this all has to occur after the whole abiogenesis, growing instincts out of nowhwere to replicate itself, and the whole shebang where evolution "simply takes over"
If a creature is born with a beneficial genetic mutation, the odds that it is passed down are actually GOOD. Since it's HEREDITARY, all it has to do is have babies. Then they've got the trait, too.
Let's say a beneficial mutation happens maybe once every 1000 years. Now extrapolate that over 4 BILLION years. That's a shit-ton of beneficial mutations. Seriously, dude, talk to a scientist about it. They can put it a lot more eloquently than you will find in youtube comments.
@QuickdrawMcShaw ive talked to a few professors from columbia and harvard. all evolutionists. they explained all the pros and cons of evolution. the odds of beneficial mutation is even less than that. in addition, abiogenesis in itself is even still more improbable. and u hav to understand that the harmful mutation almost always lead to death. even if there were abiogenesis happening every million years or so, the chances of it getting to even the 2nd beneficial mutation is close to none.
Yeah, harmful mutations always lead to death, so they are weeded out. BENEFICIAL mutations lead to better survival, and become part of the species. Harmful mutations have no impact on evolution.
And about abiogenesis, it only needs to happen ONCE. We don't mark evolution by how many times abiogenesis occurs. Only by the changes in the species that are already here.
You did make one good point in your post, though. All of those HARVARD AND COLUMBIA PROFESSORS are evolutionists.
@QuickdrawMcShaw sure harmful mutations dont have impact on evolution but they do a whole lot for extinction. the professors all differed in the opinion of the amount of abiogenesis taking place but they all agreed that it had to have happened at least 100 thousand times for the minimal chance of success in evolution.
ive been wondering, if evolution is so probable as u subject, and if abiogenesis is more probable than what i think, (contd)
So instead of asking the professors why they believe in evolution, you just searched for an answer that would make you disbelieve it more? I'm sure the professors would be happy to tell you that evolution is the only logical, verifiable explanation for the state of life on Earth. Ask them.
If there were, indeed, life on Mars at some point, it is long dead because the planet is dead. The surface has been fried by radiation due to the reduced magnetosphere. Let's stay on track, okay?
@QuickdrawMcShaw who says "life" has to be a certain temperature? if in fact wat u were saying was true, couldnt there be abiogenesis based on wat mars considers "normal"? or could have adapted to the heat?
y u keep making me repeat myself over and over? i told u already. evolution IS the most logical way to explaining life on earth without deity.
Of course it wasn't LITERALLY fried. It was irradiated. Unlivable. The actual surface temperature of mars is something like ~60F below zero. I just used the term "fried" as colloquialism. Come on, man, seriously.
Yeah, evolution is the best way of explaining life without a deity, so evolution is the best way of explaining life. As soon as you have hard evidence for a deity, then you can put creation in the textbooks. Until then, I'm sticking with science.
Judging from your use of the word 'theory', no, you obviously do NOT know your facts at all.
Before you embarrass yourself further, I suggest you properly educate yourself on evolutionary theory. Go to the library, and pick up some books. Then we'll talk.
Before attempting to debate I suggest that you educate yourself about evolutionary theory. Your retorts are so ridiculous and ignorance-driven that I find them almost painful to read.
Macro-evolution is the change that occurs at or above the level of the species. Abiogenesis is the field of biology regarding the origin of life.
They have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Once the first self-replicating organic molecules arose, then evolution would simply take over.
@freshhh1994 lol really? "evolution would simply take over"? so things just HAPPEN then? without cause and effect? seems like your level of ignorance is far surpassed mine. i dont think u understand how improbable evolution is. people believe in evolution because it is the most logical way to explain the exsistance of the human being without deity.
@EMPERORMIKI lol i go to a music school. i study music THEORY and dat is wat our world's music system is based on. yes i am well aware of wat THEORY is.
@EMPERORMIKI sigh... i dont wanna repeat myself over and over again. just read my convo with other ppl down below. this is my point of view. u hav urs. lets agree to disagree. hmm?
Again, "gravity is a fact. evolution does not have enough evidence to be called a fact. dats y its still called the evolution THEORY. thank u" is not so much a point of view than a blatant display of ignorance.
I asked you if you understood what the term THEORY in that context means ... if you're sticking by your earlier post you don't ... clearly.
There is a difference between HYPOTHESIS and THEORY.
@EMPERORMIKI sigh..... i guess imma hav to repeat myself again. facts cannot be disproven. THEORY, however, can be. i wasnt being ignorant. i was simply stating my side of the argument. like music theory. although countless ideas and facts came out of it, it still can be disproven.
Okay whatever forget that ... you're obviously not going to bother at least trying to understand what you're trying to discuss in terms of science ... and the obvious distinction between a theory and hypothesis (which you seem to think theory is in that context).
Let's see. This guy calls himself a biologist and still thinks the following are true;
talking snakes, virginal births, folks living past 900 yrs, incestuous start to mankind x2, global floods with a boat carrying ALL the species of every living thing just a few thousand yrs ago, a sky daddy who whipped up the universe in a few days, folks living in a whale for 3 days, resurrection and ascension into the sky, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and so many more. Sure, he's a biologist. :(
We need to get in touch with Joseph's family. He might have been ripped off for supporting this child, Jeebus, if he didn't donate his half of the chromosomes. Think of the compounded interest from that money from 2009 yrs ago. Could be a nice chunk of change. What was his last name again? Or can we trust the holy babble to be accurate in this respect. Maybe there is a lawyer out there who would like to look into this travesty.
@BrokHomz Faith comes without evidence. I prefer to stay with reality. As far as this line, "You believe we came from a rock." , where did I say that and please reference your rectally extracted assertion.
Let me ask you how you can believe in a massive flood killing everything a few thousand yrs ago and then providing the biodiversity we see today. So many ridiculous notions from your holy book, I could request thousands more questions that require insanity to accept as true.
Well if you prefer REALITY, why do you accept evolution. It only exists in minds of men. It really only is a narrative, there is no proof whatsoever for it. Yes we have ADAPTATION, but you never seen a dog produce a nondog.
Ultimate evolution believes we came from a rock. When it rained down on the earth and created the primordial soup. But actually you believe we came from Nothing!
Massive flood explains, the so called "fossil record". Things could divesify in 3000+ years.
@BrokHomz How did you get through high school, or are you not finished yet? The only explanation for your ignorance of the issue, if you graduated already, is that you remain willfully ignorant of the facts. Please pick up ANY Biology/Geology/Ecology/Physics/Anatomy textbook and read it. All of these sciences have information that will cure your ignorance. I would start with Geology, as this subject will get you started on radiometric dating techniques. You have much work ahead of you.
You believe in a book, written by man? I thought that is your excuse for why the bible is not worthy to believe in.
What makes you think the scientific community is not corrupt? If churches used their power in the middle ages to control people, why wouldn't scientist use their power and authority in today's times to indoctrinate people like you and control you.
@robskim101 - a woman can be artificially impregnated while still having an intact hymen (ergo, she is a virgin) and have a baby. BUT a sperm and an ovum had to fuse to make the foetus.
This kind of virgin birth that over 40 divine figures are said to have had (including Mr. Christ) try to give us the impression that no sperm was involved. That is laughable bullshit.
For one, I doubt Joseph of Aramathea didn't get it on with Mary on their wedding night.
@kitchenaut I ran out of room in my comment box. Of course,holy books are ripe with many wonderous 'things' that don't make ANY sense. Good thing I don't dwell on the darn thing too much because I would be typing into the wee hrs of the night with a massive list of contradictions, fallacies, extreme violence and stuff that a 10 yr old would find laughable. Plus, I enjoy reading nonfiction instead, especially when it comes to explanations for natural processes.
I hope the cops tazed that guy! He deserves it. How dare he question Richard Dawkins. As for those who knew this was going to happen.... how do you know he wasn't a plant from Dawkins himself?
Talk about making a fool of ones self! I am glad that not all religious people are like that, Why would he even be there? Richard Dawkins, what did he honestly think?
lol "Slam my God! ... infront of... God!" ... is it too arrogant of me to believe he has not gone to post-secondary? Biologist huh? He seems to hate evolution, and yet... took on a career in the field that was born and completely based off of evolution? lol
- I wonder, those "so-called christians" trying to take down evolution, as if it's just an idea or a satanic faith... are they really christians? or just masquerade as christians, but really are just cultists? you know... like intelligent design likes to masquerade as a science :P
It's more of an indirect problem, I think that most (if not all) religions are a good screen for various forms of insanity. For some it's just wishful thinking to be religious, for others it's all-out delusion. So, I don't think religion is the direct problem, but certainly a enabler of mental disorders. You say people should be secure in their beliefs, I'm afraid of those who are secure in their delusions :p
- well, if you believe in evolution... being a descendant of the great ape branch, it makes sense to see why we act the way we do when we are at our most ignorant... we rely on our primal instincts to make our decisions... so we act like, well... chimpanzees :P
Humans have the capacity to do better though, much better... critical thinking skills are what truly make us human, most religions don't teach that though :P critical thinking, is a lack of faith.
Took him to prison for that, in Oklahoma?Are you an Idiot? I am a resident of Oklahoma (I was at the lecture too) In this state you are in more danger for being an atheist than a Sunday Morning groveller.
Did you not see the security guards leading him away?
The secular agenda begins on college campuses all over the Western world. The University of OK is a giant atheistic echo chamber. That is why they invited Dawkkkins, so all the sheeple could engage in group-think. When one man shakes up their world with new ideas, he is laughed at and led away.
I was there down on the floor when he was escorted out, Not taken to jail.
OU didn't affect me at all when I went there, I was an atheist when I showed up. I became an atheist when I found no evidence for God's existence. I certainly didn't see any in the lives of the so called Christians around me.
Speaking of Sheeple, There are plenty on campus. They are there on campus attempting to witness everyone who walks by,during "Jesus Week"
I once witnessed group think, it was called church.
I agree completely, but I still think that says far more about the individual's state of mind, (i.e.; religious indoctrination, the things we are sheltered from, told are bad, never see). I knew a guy, who would watch autopsies while eating, I couldn't, nor would I ever want to, but he always told me, it's all in your head.
Agreed. I'd say the #1 misconception about Atheism is that it is the belief that there is no God. Dawkins put it best when he named a chapter in The God Delusion "Why there almost certainly is no god."
I love how the jesus freaks always help Dawkins in the end, they only make fools of themselvs and Dawkins makes fun of them, it's really funny :P but sad at the same time.
The reason why I got the fuck out of Oklahoma afer 26 years. Nothing but a bunch of ignorant religious assholes with no grasp of science or reality.
Now I live in Hollywood,hang out with rock stars, and happily enjoy my perfectly legal prescription for medical marijuana. I think I made the right decision. :)
It is so sad when faced with overwhelming evidence, one still cannot give up their imaginary friend. I thought Richard Dawkins was fantastic, as usual.
Man I love Richard Dawkins!
DarkPrince1785 1 month ago in playlist More videos from aliasfan16
The MAJORITY of biologists know that evolutionism is a well crafted HOAX and that Dawkins in a fraud.
PPSimmons made an excellent video interview with a Molecular Biologist exposing the hypocrisy and academic persecution of those that speak out against the MYTH of evolution.
DisprovingEvolution 3 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution "PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid whose most prominent representative is Pastor Carl Gallups" From rationalwiki.
TomFynn 1 month ago
"I knew this was gonna happen..." hahaha
GiveCourage 3 months ago
I'M A BIOLOGIST
WHO HAS NO ARGUMENT
I JUST WANT TO YELL
Emanresu56 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is based on TRUTH and religion is based on magic!
OrganNLou 6 months ago
@Gust46 thankyou and god bless you
GodisGreat44125 6 months ago
Look at all the brainwashed people who follow Dawkins. What he teaches is just wrong. If someone really dose not believe in god then do u really think we came from a rock. Hopefully they all find the truth.
GodisGreat44125 6 months ago
@GodisGreat44125 I am with you on this my fellow human, we have been warned about the false teachers. Richard Dawkins is imparting a knowledge not in conformity with fact. multitudes are lost. so, Dawkins takes advanteges as long as multitudes do not find the truth.
Gust46 6 months ago
@Gust46 That's right! Dawkins is not conformity with fact and the fact is that God did it! If he doesn't teach that God did it! He is plumb unfactual!
moronfifty 4 months ago
@GodisGreat44125 Who the hell says we came from a rock other than you?
AgowTisro 6 months ago
@AgowTisro if you look at which u actly believe it all goes back to use coming from a rock
GodisGreat44125 6 months ago
@GodisGreat44125 No, it "actually" doesn't. If you think that's what evolution is, you are very, very sadly misguided.
AgowTisro 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgowTisro ok let me ask you a question. were did we come from
GodisGreat44125 6 months ago
@GodisGreat44125 god all of use diffrent creation of him
GodisGreat44125 5 months ago
@GodisGreat44125
"If someone really dose not believe in god then do u really think we came from a rock"
That's like a polytheist coming up to you saying that if you don't believe in godS, then you believe we came from rocks. Put that in context and you'll realise it's nonsense- false dichotomy.
TurboDally 5 months ago
@TurboDally if you look at it that is what you really believ in
GodisGreat44125 5 months ago
@GodisGreat44125 I'm sorry, but I have to ask- Are you brain damaged? Your spelling is atrocious, your grammar nonexistent, and your last few posts read like flat gibberish. They sort of read like as if a spambot wrote them, and if a spambot is proselytizing then all of civilization is Doomed.
All joking aside, no one will take you seriously if you can't properly express yourself. You can sit in on college classes for free, and a bit of English and Biology 101 will Not hurt you.
TheReliquarian 4 months ago
@TheReliquarian lol. its ok i forgive you. you try to hurt me but your not its as simply as that. godbless you fellow brother.
GodisGreat44125 4 months ago
TROLL.
MusicalMigraine 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So uh, what exactly was that guy trying to demonstrate?
Emanresu56 8 months ago
Evolution is not a scientific principle, it`s a scientific theory.
renathenho 8 months ago
I wonder why he decided to go to this lecture if he knew he'd get so angry.
queerpriestess 10 months ago
I'M A BIOLOGIST. HURRRR
I'm a biochemist. But I'm smart enough not to be a complete douchebag heckler and try to gain attention for myself and invoke my beliefs. Idiot.
imposibru 10 months ago 2
Nothing is more fun to watch the religious fanatics getting pissed and screaming.
lostinxlation 1 year ago
I liked the last part when dawkins said he wasn't sure there isn't a God. That's the only good thing that's ever come out of his mouth.
guitardrummer321 1 year ago
@guitardrummer321 He's said that numerous times. It's based on the logical idea that you can't prove negative. You can't disprove something that is not falsifiable. It's the basis of all science, and why science trumps religion. Science changes with evidence; Religion sticks fingers in the ears of its followers.
MagicActor1987 1 year ago
@MagicActor1987 you can't prove negative? can you prove positive either?
Bernardatious 11 months ago
@Bernardatious Yes. With testing. I don't mean "prove" as in "100% THIS! TOTALLY!" I mean "prove" as "provide evidence for."
And I'm using the loose form of "negative," the kind that most mean in this context, being "a claim of nonexistence." In the strictest sense, yes, you can prove a negative, but not all negatives, and especially not nonexistence.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
This is just crazy. And all those stupid people clapping and shouting to cheer him on at one part. I am from Oklahoma and nut cases like this guy are everywhere. They have all the access to studies and research of how things really are, yet they choose to ignore it, cover their ear and scream as loud as they can then run away. It is just pathetic, unprofessional and shameful that in this important time for our advancement we still have ppl believing in fairy tales with no basis.
PeaceOfTruth 1 year ago
Looks to me like we have 23 William Dumbskiyists in here
lurconis666 1 year ago
What I'd like to know is: What exactly IS Richard Dawkins a fraud of? Is he fraudulent in his research? His knowledge? All of this is up for peer review at all times!
Or is he a fraud in his religious studies?
I mean it's not like Richard Dawkins is a faith healer or a rattlesnake handler... he doesn't blame Haitian earthquakes and the 2004 Tsunami on the wickedness of homosexuals and abortionists...
I mean - where is the fraud?!
freakystyley4000 1 year ago
And to top it off. Jesus hated religion more than Mr. Dawkins. He never made money off of bashing it. Infact, he died bashing it. And only spoke facts :)
SupremeAmerican 1 year ago
o, he kinda failed there. what he meant to say was. "you are a bologist, im a fraud".
gulbirk 1 year ago
Gee, another Christian ASSHOLE. It shows that Christians are on the RUN. Note that he did NOT stick around. They say their SHIT and run.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler he was escorted out dumbass or r u blind
wayneakrid 1 year ago
@wayneakrid Yes, he walked with the escorts. If he was really devout he would have stuck around and created a big scene until they carried him out. It was a stunt.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
"You are WRONG!".
Classic knock-down argument from the god-bothering loon, there.
jjdecani 1 year ago
The kid is right Richard Dawkins is awesome. I actually read a few of Richard Dawkins books; but, not all of them. I was particularly interested in his book "The Selfish Gene" which really opened me up to a new perspective on Darwin and that really in the end it's not the strongest who survives. Richard Dawkins is a man of my times and I will be glad to look back upon this era and say that I grew up in a time of the world's foremost evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins!!!!
apollomiami83 1 year ago
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
— Christopher Hitchens
An appropriate quote to those who secure their blindfolds in the face of evidence (creationists).
THE0103 1 year ago 5
This guy rocks! He is the only one who doesn't have his mouth open to lick on Douchekin's balls.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Ahahah I may be wrong, but I thought i heard a "Don't taze me bro!!" in the crowd at 0:39
Garasane 1 year ago 2
If evolution is true, then how come there is so much proof that it is? Huh? HUH?!
mistermoen 1 year ago 2
"I have a master's degree... in science!"
bliss4jules 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins, I would like to say your awsome woooow. That kid was an idiot. He must have not read any of Dawkins books.
db10001110101 1 year ago
@db10001110101
I've read some of his books and they suck.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I dont think his books suck I just thought that the kids response was stupid like yours.
db10001110101 1 year ago
LMFAO! did i just hear someone yell "dont taze me bro" at around :42? LMFAO
wtfisthatsmell 1 year ago
Haha, I bet Richard Dawkins just eats this up. lol
chris7777777777777 1 year ago
what is he even saying at the start?
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
I was there....I can't believe a year has passed....I still laugh about that heckler....
ChuckyJesus666 1 year ago
so if a lack of belief in ANY deity (not just the christian god) is a religion then lack of hair (or bald) is a hair style. An lack of money is a state of wealth. And non stamp collecting is a hobby.
PhantomSanity0 1 year ago
Good analogy, I like it!
TheMagicrob08 1 year ago
Damn, I wanted to hear his answer.
sfurner 1 year ago
I hate how pompous the pro-religous groups have always been. How about that?
tkeeling2 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i just hate how pompous the anti-religious groups have now become.
pacers3115 2 years ago
@pacers3115
I know. It's terrible. We UFOlogists have something similar, see, the astronomers don't take us seriously either. Pompous asses. I have some fairyologist friends who have a tough time as well. Damn rational thinkers!
ctvwr 2 years ago 5
I love that just because people can infer something as simple as "God does not make sense" nowadays, they are considered to be a rational thinker... That takes a lot of intelligence...
pacers3115 2 years ago
@pacers3115
lolwut?
ctvwr 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ah the high priest of the evolution religion
SonofJaphet 2 years ago
Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific principle.
freshhh1994 2 years ago 45
@freshhh1994 not true. it is a belief in "natural selection". it is a religion.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Is gravity a religion also?
freshhh1994 1 year ago
@freshhh1994 gravity is a fact. evolution does not have enough evidence to be called a fact. dats y its still called the evolution THEORY. thank u.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Of course it does. Gravity is theory, too. Theory just means a system that allows the evidence to fit together. You are confusing the word HYPOTHESIS for the word THEORY. Creation cannot be taught as a theory, because it has no evidence.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw i am not confusing hypothesis with theory. gravity cannot be disproven. therefore it is a fact. ppl hav tested and observed gravity long enough for it to have a concrete definition. evolution however still has a lot of missing links such as "how did that 1st organism that started the whole evolution come to be?" now if u look at it this way, regardless of the 1st organism being a single-celled organism, or a fully functioning animal, or even human, (cont'd)
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw SOMETHING must have initiated dat spark to bring it into exsistance. that alone is a very convincing evidence for creationism to be a theory.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Once again, you are getting confused. You aren't talking about evolution now, you are talking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises from lifelessness. There are already a number of theories concerning how this occurs. Evolution is not concerned with how it STARTED, evolution is concerned with how it PROGRESSES.
Anyone is welcome to come and disprove evolution, but they HAVE TO HAVE A BETTER THEORY. Until then, evolution is curriculum.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw srry i did not make myself clear before. i do believe in evolution. micro-evolution. the evolution that i was referring to below was macro-evolution which coincides with abiogenesis. even if abiogenesis occured and is somehow able to sustain itself for a period of time, how would it learn how to feed itself? how would it know how to replicate itself? how would it learn to adapt?
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Did Ray Comfort tell you to believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution?
Abiogenesis isn't a creature that needs to learn to adapt. Abiogenesis is a biological process, as is evolution. Life adapts and advances on its own though the process of evolution. Life BEGINS through the process of abiogenesis. If we agree that life began billions of years ago, and that micro-evolution exists, doesn't it make sense that billions of years of micro-evolution MEANS macro-evolution?
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw not true. and no. im not some brainwashed lil kid. i actually looked into this matter quite deeply. not just any single-celled organism just adapts on its own. dats like sayin u shook a box of metal scraps for a million years and it turned into a fully functioning miniature plane and it learned how to work itself on its own, except with abiogenesis is much much more improbable than dat. (contd)
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
Comment removed
freshhh1994 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw micro-evolution and macro-evolution are 2 very different things. micro-evolution involves an outside factor(whether it be another organism or the climate,etc)which makes the organism to adapt in order for it to function more efficiently. macro-evolution involves series of drastic beneficial mutations that require no external aid. the whole process of those series of beneficial mutation is merely impossible for it to happen within a planet's lifetime.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
I'm sorry, but pretty much every single one of the claims you made against evolution is false.
First of all, micro-evolution and macro evolution involve exactly the same processes, the latter simply being drawn out over vast periods of time.
Geologists and cosmologists have calculated the Earth to be roughly 4.54 billions years old. That is an inconceivably long amount of time, especially when compared to the relatively short lifespan of a human life.
freshhh1994 1 year ago
@freshhh1994 every single one of my claims is false? 1st of all i never said evolution is completely false. i do believe it to an extent. and NO. macro-evolution isnt the same thing as macro-evolution. sure they might involve similar processes but their level of change differ substantially. such as the change in genes. sigh... i can go on for hours with this. like i said, i looked in to this quite deeply. i use to be an evolutionist. dont get me wrong. i know my facts.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Comparing micro-evolution and macro-evolution is like comparing sprinting and cross-country running.
Since you obviously HAVEN'T researched it as thoroughly as you say you have, let me put it to you this way: In a nutshell, micro-evolution is to macro-evolution as a short walk is to a long walk. They both use the EXACT same process, but one takes longer and goes farther. That's why the changes differ so substantially. You're fighting an uphill battle, buddy.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw like i said, they may involve similar process, but they still havnt proved how they were able to sustain their improbable beneficial mutations. its not like a short walk to a long walk. its NOT DAT SIMPLE. it looks to me as tho u r the one over simplifying things. PLEASEEEEEEE i BEG u look deeper into it.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
The benefits were sustained because they increase a creature's odds of survival. That's why they're called "beneficial". If the trait makes it easier for you to survive, and it gets passed on, after a while it becomes prevalent in the species. Those with the benefit survive, those without it die. I'm telling you, it makes sense. If it didn't make sense, scientists wouldn't use it. Come on, man. I'm no biologist, but I understand how it works.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw sigh.... again. i dont think u understand my arguement to the fullest. sustaining meaning passed on to its offsprings. and again, u r over simplifying things. do u have any idea of the probability in the mutations itself being beneficial? and the probability of them being passed on to its offsprings successfully? go find that out and THEN write your next argument. that would be ur step 1.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
While it is true that the probability of beneficial mutations occurring is comparatively quite low, natural selection will ensure that these traits will survive and spread across the gene pool.
Over time, these processes will develop new and improved structures. Every piece of scientific evidence supports this conclusion.
freshhh1994 1 year ago
@freshhh1994 comparatively quite low? if u knew the ratio, that was a very poor choice of words on your part. the words u shouldve used r somewhere on the lines of "near impossible." and with dat improbable beneficial mutation, the probabilty of its mutated genes being passed on to its generations to come is also quite improbable. and this all has to occur after the whole abiogenesis, growing instincts out of nowhwere to replicate itself, and the whole shebang where evolution "simply takes over"
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
If a creature is born with a beneficial genetic mutation, the odds that it is passed down are actually GOOD. Since it's HEREDITARY, all it has to do is have babies. Then they've got the trait, too.
Let's say a beneficial mutation happens maybe once every 1000 years. Now extrapolate that over 4 BILLION years. That's a shit-ton of beneficial mutations. Seriously, dude, talk to a scientist about it. They can put it a lot more eloquently than you will find in youtube comments.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw ive talked to a few professors from columbia and harvard. all evolutionists. they explained all the pros and cons of evolution. the odds of beneficial mutation is even less than that. in addition, abiogenesis in itself is even still more improbable. and u hav to understand that the harmful mutation almost always lead to death. even if there were abiogenesis happening every million years or so, the chances of it getting to even the 2nd beneficial mutation is close to none.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Yeah, harmful mutations always lead to death, so they are weeded out. BENEFICIAL mutations lead to better survival, and become part of the species. Harmful mutations have no impact on evolution.
And about abiogenesis, it only needs to happen ONCE. We don't mark evolution by how many times abiogenesis occurs. Only by the changes in the species that are already here.
You did make one good point in your post, though. All of those HARVARD AND COLUMBIA PROFESSORS are evolutionists.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw sure harmful mutations dont have impact on evolution but they do a whole lot for extinction. the professors all differed in the opinion of the amount of abiogenesis taking place but they all agreed that it had to have happened at least 100 thousand times for the minimal chance of success in evolution.
ive been wondering, if evolution is so probable as u subject, and if abiogenesis is more probable than what i think, (contd)
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw if mars is older than the earth, wat happened to the abiogenesis and the evolution on that planet?
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
So instead of asking the professors why they believe in evolution, you just searched for an answer that would make you disbelieve it more? I'm sure the professors would be happy to tell you that evolution is the only logical, verifiable explanation for the state of life on Earth. Ask them.
If there were, indeed, life on Mars at some point, it is long dead because the planet is dead. The surface has been fried by radiation due to the reduced magnetosphere. Let's stay on track, okay?
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw who says "life" has to be a certain temperature? if in fact wat u were saying was true, couldnt there be abiogenesis based on wat mars considers "normal"? or could have adapted to the heat?
y u keep making me repeat myself over and over? i told u already. evolution IS the most logical way to explaining life on earth without deity.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Of course it wasn't LITERALLY fried. It was irradiated. Unlivable. The actual surface temperature of mars is something like ~60F below zero. I just used the term "fried" as colloquialism. Come on, man, seriously.
Yeah, evolution is the best way of explaining life without a deity, so evolution is the best way of explaining life. As soon as you have hard evidence for a deity, then you can put creation in the textbooks. Until then, I'm sticking with science.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
It's called natural selection, and it's the basis for evolution to occur.
So basically what happens is:
1: an organism is born with a beneficial genetic mutation that will allow it to survive and propagate more efficiently
2: in this way, we can ensure that the beneficial genes will survive and dominate the gene pool.
freshhh1994 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Judging from your use of the word 'theory', no, you obviously do NOT know your facts at all.
Before you embarrass yourself further, I suggest you properly educate yourself on evolutionary theory. Go to the library, and pick up some books. Then we'll talk.
freshhh1994 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho
Before attempting to debate I suggest that you educate yourself about evolutionary theory. Your retorts are so ridiculous and ignorance-driven that I find them almost painful to read.
Macro-evolution is the change that occurs at or above the level of the species. Abiogenesis is the field of biology regarding the origin of life.
They have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Once the first self-replicating organic molecules arose, then evolution would simply take over.
freshhh1994 1 year ago
@freshhh1994 lol really? "evolution would simply take over"? so things just HAPPEN then? without cause and effect? seems like your level of ignorance is far surpassed mine. i dont think u understand how improbable evolution is. people believe in evolution because it is the most logical way to explain the exsistance of the human being without deity.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
The special THEORY of relativity explains gravity actually ...
Do you know what theory means in this context?
EMPERORMIKI 1 year ago
@EMPERORMIKI lol i go to a music school. i study music THEORY and dat is wat our world's music system is based on. yes i am well aware of wat THEORY is.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
"gravity is a fact. evolution does not have enough evidence to be called a fact. dats y its still called the evolution THEORY. thank u." —TimChoFsho
Apparently you do not.
EMPERORMIKI 1 year ago
@EMPERORMIKI sigh... i dont wanna repeat myself over and over again. just read my convo with other ppl down below. this is my point of view. u hav urs. lets agree to disagree. hmm?
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
Again, "gravity is a fact. evolution does not have enough evidence to be called a fact. dats y its still called the evolution THEORY. thank u" is not so much a point of view than a blatant display of ignorance.
I asked you if you understood what the term THEORY in that context means ... if you're sticking by your earlier post you don't ... clearly.
There is a difference between HYPOTHESIS and THEORY.
FYI.
EMPERORMIKI 1 year ago
@EMPERORMIKI sigh..... i guess imma hav to repeat myself again. facts cannot be disproven. THEORY, however, can be. i wasnt being ignorant. i was simply stating my side of the argument. like music theory. although countless ideas and facts came out of it, it still can be disproven.
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@TimChoFsho ...
Okay whatever forget that ... you're obviously not going to bother at least trying to understand what you're trying to discuss in terms of science ... and the obvious distinction between a theory and hypothesis (which you seem to think theory is in that context).
What do you think of Glenn Gould's Bach ?
EMPERORMIKI 1 year ago
@EMPERORMIKI which bach did u hav in mind?
TimChoFsho 1 year ago
@freshhh1994
a really bad one at that. no, its a religion.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
dontcha just love richard :)
IlluminusQ 2 years ago
I call Poe's law.
sean14916 2 years ago
Let's see. This guy calls himself a biologist and still thinks the following are true;
talking snakes, virginal births, folks living past 900 yrs, incestuous start to mankind x2, global floods with a boat carrying ALL the species of every living thing just a few thousand yrs ago, a sky daddy who whipped up the universe in a few days, folks living in a whale for 3 days, resurrection and ascension into the sky, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and so many more. Sure, he's a biologist. :(
saxmanchiro 2 years ago 53
You have to hand it to Mary. She really pulled it off with the whole virgin birth thing.
floooky1 2 years ago 3
We need to get in touch with Joseph's family. He might have been ripped off for supporting this child, Jeebus, if he didn't donate his half of the chromosomes. Think of the compounded interest from that money from 2009 yrs ago. Could be a nice chunk of change. What was his last name again? Or can we trust the holy babble to be accurate in this respect. Maybe there is a lawyer out there who would like to look into this travesty.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
@saxmanchiro
if you can get past Genesis 1:1, nothing is impossible.
You believe we came from a rock. Your the REAL person of faith, bud.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Faith comes without evidence. I prefer to stay with reality. As far as this line, "You believe we came from a rock." , where did I say that and please reference your rectally extracted assertion.
Let me ask you how you can believe in a massive flood killing everything a few thousand yrs ago and then providing the biodiversity we see today. So many ridiculous notions from your holy book, I could request thousands more questions that require insanity to accept as true.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro
Well if you prefer REALITY, why do you accept evolution. It only exists in minds of men. It really only is a narrative, there is no proof whatsoever for it. Yes we have ADAPTATION, but you never seen a dog produce a nondog.
Ultimate evolution believes we came from a rock. When it rained down on the earth and created the primordial soup. But actually you believe we came from Nothing!
Massive flood explains, the so called "fossil record". Things could divesify in 3000+ years.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz How did you get through high school, or are you not finished yet? The only explanation for your ignorance of the issue, if you graduated already, is that you remain willfully ignorant of the facts. Please pick up ANY Biology/Geology/Ecology/Physics/Anatomy textbook and read it. All of these sciences have information that will cure your ignorance. I would start with Geology, as this subject will get you started on radiometric dating techniques. You have much work ahead of you.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro
You believe in a book, written by man? I thought that is your excuse for why the bible is not worthy to believe in.
What makes you think the scientific community is not corrupt? If churches used their power in the middle ages to control people, why wouldn't scientist use their power and authority in today's times to indoctrinate people like you and control you.
Think for yourself. Don't follow a textbook.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Really? That's your answer to Saxmanchiro? Jesus I'm glad I'm not on your side hahahaha! Way to go Champ *Pat's BrokHomz on the head*
IRDANIMAL 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro virginal births are possible
robskim101 1 year ago
@robskim101 - a woman can be artificially impregnated while still having an intact hymen (ergo, she is a virgin) and have a baby. BUT a sperm and an ovum had to fuse to make the foetus.
This kind of virgin birth that over 40 divine figures are said to have had (including Mr. Christ) try to give us the impression that no sperm was involved. That is laughable bullshit.
For one, I doubt Joseph of Aramathea didn't get it on with Mary on their wedding night.
freakystyley4000 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro
You forgot bats being included with birds and grasshoppers having four legs
kitchenaut 1 year ago
@kitchenaut I ran out of room in my comment box. Of course,holy books are ripe with many wonderous 'things' that don't make ANY sense. Good thing I don't dwell on the darn thing too much because I would be typing into the wee hrs of the night with a massive list of contradictions, fallacies, extreme violence and stuff that a 10 yr old would find laughable. Plus, I enjoy reading nonfiction instead, especially when it comes to explanations for natural processes.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hope the cops tazed that guy! He deserves it. How dare he question Richard Dawkins. As for those who knew this was going to happen.... how do you know he wasn't a plant from Dawkins himself?
tbabyyeah 2 years ago
That guy is pure win.
HToothrot 2 years ago
kool
datrueboii14 2 years ago
Talk about making a fool of ones self! I am glad that not all religious people are like that, Why would he even be there? Richard Dawkins, what did he honestly think?
anyways589 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
lol "Slam my God! ... infront of... God!" ... is it too arrogant of me to believe he has not gone to post-secondary? Biologist huh? He seems to hate evolution, and yet... took on a career in the field that was born and completely based off of evolution? lol
Riiiight.
HypnoPants 2 years ago
I love this! I've seen three different videos of this... it's great seeing it from different angles, lol.
HypnoPants 2 years ago
Sad to see a christian behaving so unchristianlike.
But I guess we who do not believe in a god should say thanx. He probably gave Dawkins lecture a deacent boost acting like this.
If people are secure in their bilieves it should not be this easy to rock their boat.
soskid 2 years ago
Lol youre surprised a christian behaved unchristianlike?
radlations 2 years ago 3
Well, no not really surprised.
But I think its a sad fact that the people claiming monopoly on morals and ethics almost always exhibit the worst behaviour.
By doing that they actually support the atheist idea that morality comes from us and not some imaginary devinity.
So to all religious nuts outthere.
Keep it up.
And btw. If I should feel like taking up religion I wouldnt choose some old middle eastern crossdresser.
I would go for the god of my ancesters. Thor and oden. LOL
soskid 2 years ago 5
@radlations
- I wonder, those "so-called christians" trying to take down evolution, as if it's just an idea or a satanic faith... are they really christians? or just masquerade as christians, but really are just cultists? you know... like intelligent design likes to masquerade as a science :P
HypnoPants 2 years ago
It's more of an indirect problem, I think that most (if not all) religions are a good screen for various forms of insanity. For some it's just wishful thinking to be religious, for others it's all-out delusion. So, I don't think religion is the direct problem, but certainly a enabler of mental disorders. You say people should be secure in their beliefs, I'm afraid of those who are secure in their delusions :p
JanisChambers 2 years ago
All people, not just the religious, who are dead certain about their views or believes are potentially very dangerous.
In their delusion they beleve it gives them mandate to persuade everybody else.
All too often without any limits at all, as to what means used.
The sorry result can be watched on the news every day.
War, death, torture, murder, kill.
Are we a sick F....... race or what?
soskid 2 years ago
@soskid
- well, if you believe in evolution... being a descendant of the great ape branch, it makes sense to see why we act the way we do when we are at our most ignorant... we rely on our primal instincts to make our decisions... so we act like, well... chimpanzees :P
Humans have the capacity to do better though, much better... critical thinking skills are what truly make us human, most religions don't teach that though :P critical thinking, is a lack of faith.
HypnoPants 2 years ago
He's a Christian, it's like mandatory for him to act unchristian
orgixvi3 2 years ago
HA HA
Sad but, alas very true.
soskid 2 years ago
Watch the Q & A session on my channel.
Sapien6x 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is decieved!
SAUNDERSacts2618 2 years ago
Dawkins is a brilliant man.
NinjaMatie 2 years ago
"bleh... fuuuu... GOD!" *finger point* LOL!
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I bet they took him to prison for exposing the truth. While all the sheep sat in the auditorium and listened to Dawkkkins shill lies.
bob7399162 2 years ago
Supernatural truth?
EntinludeX 2 years ago 2
lol... you are an idiot.... or you are kidding. if you are kidding, then that is hilarious.
00joe 2 years ago
Took him to prison for that, in Oklahoma?Are you an Idiot? I am a resident of Oklahoma (I was at the lecture too) In this state you are in more danger for being an atheist than a Sunday Morning groveller.
dirtysancheeze 2 years ago
Did you not see the security guards leading him away?
The secular agenda begins on college campuses all over the Western world. The University of OK is a giant atheistic echo chamber. That is why they invited Dawkkkins, so all the sheeple could engage in group-think. When one man shakes up their world with new ideas, he is laughed at and led away.
bob7399162 2 years ago
I was there down on the floor when he was escorted out, Not taken to jail.
OU didn't affect me at all when I went there, I was an atheist when I showed up. I became an atheist when I found no evidence for God's existence. I certainly didn't see any in the lives of the so called Christians around me.
Speaking of Sheeple, There are plenty on campus. They are there on campus attempting to witness everyone who walks by,during "Jesus Week"
I once witnessed group think, it was called church.
dirtysancheeze 2 years ago
I agree completely, but I still think that says far more about the individual's state of mind, (i.e.; religious indoctrination, the things we are sheltered from, told are bad, never see). I knew a guy, who would watch autopsies while eating, I couldn't, nor would I ever want to, but he always told me, it's all in your head.
bob7399162 2 years ago
I went to OU, it was the most conservative school I've ever been to lol..I call bullshit on this.
ghostofxmaspast 2 years ago
Thank you Mr. Dawkins , please come back soon .
1947Chief 2 years ago
"I'm not." Glad you included that part.
mandminjapan 2 years ago 2
Agreed. I'd say the #1 misconception about Atheism is that it is the belief that there is no God. Dawkins put it best when he named a chapter in The God Delusion "Why there almost certainly is no god."
airandfingers 2 years ago 2
lol he just made himself look like an idiot
Kward107 2 years ago
this guy could have at least just said something or asked a good question without getting explosive, how embarassing. *looks down and shakes head*
fruitbag3455 2 years ago 3
I loved when the camera switched to Dawkins, and he was just standing their calmly.
MGNSketchpad 2 years ago 2
The person just ranted and didn't make a single argument. Reason is not agreeing to your viewpoint.
sgmarshall 2 years ago
That wanker is a biologist like Tom Parker was a colonel. What a dick!
Jelperman 2 years ago 6
"I'M A BIOLOGIST!"
"You're acting like a damn child"
Fucking great
2ndtoJohn 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this, I didn't get to hear all of what the guy said
andromedasucks 2 years ago
Where's that holy lightning when you need it?
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
Hilarious - what a plank.
roblines69 2 years ago
He is an ignorant fool is what he is
Galoredk 2 years ago
If the questioner at the end had read The God Delusion then he wouldnt have had to ask the question.
goodwitwood 2 years ago 6
I love how the jesus freaks always help Dawkins in the end, they only make fools of themselvs and Dawkins makes fun of them, it's really funny :P but sad at the same time.
Bennyliz 2 years ago
Christianity is a sad religion...
adwaith2neo 2 years ago
That guy was funny, probably the only entertaining part of the lecture by that boring Dawkins guy
ytmndman 2 years ago
at least he has the biologist's balls!!!
spareaxe 2 years ago 2
I don't need a microphone, I'm a BIOLOGIST.
ficklefiend 2 years ago 3
of course coz he's a bioligist
D:
elfootman 2 years ago
Biology of tha Devil!
doctorspankluv 2 years ago
The reason why I got the fuck out of Oklahoma afer 26 years. Nothing but a bunch of ignorant religious assholes with no grasp of science or reality.
Now I live in Hollywood,hang out with rock stars, and happily enjoy my perfectly legal prescription for medical marijuana. I think I made the right decision. :)
cholofawkes 2 years ago 4
It is so sad when faced with overwhelming evidence, one still cannot give up their imaginary friend. I thought Richard Dawkins was fantastic, as usual.
RhondaH 2 years ago 5
That guy's voice sounds like a south park character.
87Incher 2 years ago
That's what I thought as soon as I heard it.
masterstghm 2 years ago
If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.
plimbuff 2 years ago 3
Holy crap, I briefly saw my mug in this video.
JosephShelton 2 years ago
...What was he yelling? I couldn't make it out over the ambient noise. And did anything in particular provoke the flipout?
yeahchris 2 years ago