Richard Dawkins Stumped By Creationists' Question

[zebul0n7]

Dawkins your stumped take a walk

[TheLeadershipCorner]

it's funny Dawkins pronounces it "evilution" coincidence?

[Savvygirl22]

vERY GOOD question

[catbakkorrel]

vote rating

[Hexethemex]

If there were a god he'd smite me, then solve world hunger. To say that a magical man in the sky's existence is more plausible than that of undiscovered fossils is ludicrous. This video is irrelevant.

[SalvationEternity777]

@Hexethemex Why should God do as you please?

God created you, what right do you have to demand that everything be done in YOUR way?

[ChadwickSesame]

When I look into his eyes I can't help but feel that he doesn't even believe what he's saying.

[Noisegator]

Ah -I see. Evidence is futile. Only SE777's deductions count for anything.

Good luck with that.

[SalvationEternity777]

Again, you've misunderstood the nature of proof and evidence. And please no rudeness on this channel, didn't you read the channel disclaimer?

[58jf59]

@Noisegator Ha that made me laugh, well said. Apologies you made this comment 6 months ago.

[Noisegator]

The "evidence" supporting a deduction is contained in the premise.

If the premise is true the deduction MIGHT be valid (or it might not). If the premise is false, the deduction CANNOT be valid, regardless of how well it uses the premise.

You are mistaking a prejudice for a premise.

This video is still a hoax. Your deductions about Dawkins' competence are therefore invalid.

[SalvationEternity777]

You are misunderstanding the nature of evidence and proof, and especially the correlation of that with an analytical proof by deduction. There is no evidence, evidence is only something that indicates by your own interpretation. Logical deductions require no evidence, as only the proof is presented, something that you cannot argue whether you "like" the conclusion or no

You've not demonstrated any claims about the video, my assertions about Dawkins remain justified.

[MrCo312]

is this supposed to prove something? i think the reason salvationeternity777 disabled the ratings is he/she knows this means less than nothing, what a waste of two minutes

[SalvationEternity777]

This shows Richard Dawkins is not as well versed in the topic he claims to be knowledgeable of.

It's obvious.

[SalvationEternity777]

Claiming I disabled ratings is not a form of a scientific argument.

[MrCo312]

@SalvationEternity777 ............. show me where i said it was?! i said "I THINK you disabled the ratings because he/she knows this means less than nothing" and your response to that is to tell me "that is not a form of scientific argument" actually??? seriously??? what are you going to say next? "proving me to be off-topic and ignorant is not a form of scientific argument"???? you actually wonder why people are attacking you on here?

[SalvationEternity777]

I didn't say that you said it was? Anyways, Jesus bless you!

acrm(.)webs(.)com

[MrCo312]

you implied it. and god doesn't exist, thanks anyways though, and according to your religion if he does, he made me the way i am, which is an atheist, who are you to question his judgement?

[SalvationEternity777]

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. "

(Romans 1:20)

[daBLESSEDon3]

@MrCo312 no.you chose to be an athiest u chose to turn your back Him never once in His word does He say he made one atheist.His word says to believe in him so that you can have everlasting life but if you chose not to believe then you are condemed already,

[MrCo312]

@daBLESSEDon3 Go away, this is not a christian website, what would jesus say to you if he knew you used this website, this place of sin, i don't think he'd be too impressed

[blueicemint22]

@MrCo312 yeah, you are an atheist... but who do you deny? facts still remains that He exists and you deny Him. Get to know Him first then that's the time you deny Him... you can't deny something you don't know. You are an atheist because you deny Him. Define ATHEIST and think it over.

[MrCo312]

@blueicemint22 uh that's pretty much the dumbest comment i've ever seen... is that supposed to make me see the light and convert or something? seriously?

[ThePimV]

@blueicemint22

athiest = someone who does not belive in god

[huguinho1010]

@blueicemint22 First of all, i'd like to see the reference to those "facts (...) that he exists", and please don't quote the bible because it may not have been proven and therefore cannot be considered as facts. Secondly, of course you can't deny something that you don't know! But that is a fallacy. For example, you can't say that flying cows don't exist just because you never seen one, but that also doesn't mean they do exist!

[vrghiks]

Intellect is evolving into stupitity!

This is the only evolution that exist.

[Noisegator]

How can one possible deduce anything with an axiomatic presumption? That's a contradiction.

Axiomatic means the truth is self evident. If you have already decided that some arbitrary story is the self evident truth you don't need to deduce anything because you don't need evidence.

You need evidence to form a deduction and without need for evidence, your deductions become pointless and worthless.

That sounds more like a vague notion unsupported by evidence theory than a scientific theory.

[SalvationEternity777]

The nature of axioms is not fully expressed from a quick search on google. Axioms are the basis of theorems and the building blocks of an argument, they themselves need no proof. See mathematical axioms as an example.

Logical deduction needs no empiricism, otherwise it is no longer deduction from logic, but rather interpretation.

You've confused deduction with induction, induction is the application of logic through empirical evidence. Theism is a logically sound deductive position.

[SalvationEternity777]

You need to see axiomatic reasoning outside the perspective of googling the word since you are not familiar with it. Axioms are the basic facts in the context of reasoning. The things you deduce and prove come from axioms, NOT from observations.

Take a look at the Pythagorean Theorem in mathematics, or the Pigeonhole theory, or anything else related to logic.

Provide me evidence that providing evidence is needed to form a deduction.

Get my point? :)

[Noisegator]

My analogy was an illustration of the power of selection to bring order out of chaos.

In Mastermind there are 6 colours and 4 positions = 1296 possible combinations. If each guess was random (mutation) the likelihood of winning in the given 12 turns is miniscule.

Using a particular algorithm (selection), the target code can be guessed in only five turns. That's three orders of magnitude more efficient than random guesses.

Selection takes us from virtually impossible to entirely doable.

[Noisegator]

Natural selection AND mutation, acting in concert, create new information. Not one. Not the other. BOTH. You seem to keep forgetting that I have told you this several times.

Could you define what you mean by information? We may have rather different ideas about what that means.

[SalvationEternity777]

Information is the gene itself for a specific trait. The information say for a certain immunity, can only be conjured through mutation. But it can only be multiplied through natural selection.

[Noisegator]

SE777 - By theoretical do you mean a vague notion unsupported by evidence, as in creationist theory, or in the scientific sense, being the best testable explanation supported by evidence?

The word theory, in science, is not a derogatory term. It means the best present description or explanation, not a whim.

[SalvationEternity777]

Theoretical means neither. Rather it means a prediction based on observations and calculation from a created scenario situation.

Creationist worldview argues from an axiomatic pointview using deduction, rather than empiricism. To regard that it is a vague notion unsupported by evidence, is to be ignorant of the nature of a worldview.

[Noisegator]

SE777 - Remember the board game, Mastermind? Guessing your opponents four colour code in 12 turns would be impossible by just randomly selecting four pegs each turn.

But by retaining correct answers (selection) with each guess, the impossible becomes entirely possible.

Viable complexity arising only from mutation alone is indeed astronomically unlikely. With selection the odds quickly become much more manageable.

[SalvationEternity777]

With your last statement, I disagree.

With selection the odds quickly become more manageable?

Once again, does natural selection create new information in the genome, or does it merely reproduce already existing information? The latter.

Your analogy fails to show the concept of mutation. A much better illustration is of randomly typing words unto a keyboard. Mutation is what produces real words and selection is what orders the words. Words must exist, but that's all mutation.

[Noisegator]

Once again - it takes BOTH mutation AND natural selection to create viable changes to the genome (and increased complexity) .

Not one - not the other - BOTH.

The viable complexity does NOT come from the mutation.

The viable complexity does NOT come from the selection.

The viable complexity comes from the INTERACTION of mutation and selection.

The raw material for novel additions and changes to the raw possibilities is undirected, random mutation. Selection is the filter that refines it.

[SalvationEternity777]

The raw material is what is accountable for the complexity, because selection only reproduces the raw material.

Selection also does not empirically always refine it, it is only a theoretical idea that it does, which is why it is the theory of evolution.

You need to show the mathematical probability of the continual refining and addition of mutations from selection and mutation is not astronomical, which cannot be done.

[Noisegator]

How about any one of the myriad of mutations which led to homo sapiens? Most of them were beneficial, moreofYOU.

How about bacteria that have mutated to eat nylon, a man made material? New information about a synthetic material, entered bacterial dna. That's a beneficial mutation adding information to the genome.

[Noisegator]

SE777 - I was replying to moreofYOU's previous post, where he claimed exactly that.

The complexity does not come from pure chance, only the mutations do. It is the interaction of the random (mutations) and the selection that imports the information about the environment into the genome. The increasing complexity comes from this interface, not an external creator.

Mutation ALONE does not create viable complexity. No scientists claims it does.

[SalvationEternity777]

Think about it, natural selection only benefits the evolutionary model when? When additional complexity is ALREADY present.

For higher complexity to occur, there needs be mutations, but you and I agree these are random!

Therefore, the source of higher complexity in the end originates from random mutations, and the the idea of increasing complexity hinges on probability.

Natural selection does not create viable complexity, hence it only multiplies the complexity already present.

[Noisegator]

PS: You should enable the ratings for this video.

[Noisegator]

Natural selection does exactly that, SE777.

Mutation creates genetic variation and selection filters for beneficial ones. That is how information about the environment enters the genome.

The act of selection (natural or artificial) increases the information in the genome. That's a mechanism, not an opinion.

It is not an argument against probability since mutation does NOT act alone - a point that creationists repeatedly and seem to deliberately ignore. Selection removes detrimental mutations.

[moreofYOU]

the big problem with your statement is that it is a proven fact that there is no such thing as a good or beneficial mutation. FACT= mutations are never hereditary.

[Noisegator]

moreof YOU - your assertion that there are no beneficial mutations is completely false. Most mutations are neutral or detrimental but a small and significant number are beneficial.

Please provide proof of your assertion.

And saying "mutations are never hereditary" makes no sense. What do you mean? Are you saying that mutations are not passed to offspring and are not inherited? This would also be completely incorrect.

0 for 2 so far. Keep swinging.

[SalvationEternity777]

I never said there are no beneficial mutations. Please do not falsely accuse.

[moreofYOU]

look at the four winged fruit fly... its mutation is a hinderance and cannot fly... the extra set of wings are never passed on and the fly dies. There's your example but better yet lets hear of an example of a beneficial mutation???

[SalvationEternity777]

The mutation then must be the source of higher complexity as asserted.

But mutations are random, while natural selection selects inferior organisms out of a specific environment. The source of complexity would be in fact from random chance.

Complexity as we see in your world view would be by random chance (mutation), this is absurdity.

[SalvationEternity777]

Told you to be respectable, you are blocked now.

please visit this site, I hope it enlightens you.

acrm(.)webs(.)com

[tobyobrie]

People like SalvationEternity777 still exist in 2009? Scary stuff.

[SalvationEternity777]

Please be respectful, to me, the channel host

[SouthFacedWindows]

There is n doubt that Dawkins and his followers are from Monkey.

[Noisegator]

This video is a proven hoax and this clip obtained under false pretenses by Ben Stein for his bogus "docummentary", Expelled.

What you see here is a person THINKING. First he is thinking of how to frame the answer in a simple way that the obviously spoon-fed interviewer would understand - then he is realising that it's a setup and these people are liars trying to trap him.

The answers to the question are contained in his books. Read them.

And turn on the ratings! What are you hiding?

[SalvationEternity777]

His response had nothing to do with the question.

He requested the recording to be stopped cause he was "thinking."

I mean honestly, if it was a creationist on this video questioned by an evolutionist, would you defend him the same way you defend Dawkins?

Let's see how fair your standards are.

[glassywaves]

Assuming Mr. Noisegator has read Dr. Dawkins books, I would like for him to provide one example of how the amount of information has been increased in the genome by mutation. I can save him some time: there aren't any.

[Noisegator]

Depends on what you mean by information, glassywaves.

Mutation can: increase genetic variations in a population - increase the genetic material (e.g. through duplication) - alter functions - create novel genetic material. Sources of raw information.

The refining of new and altered information, generated by mutation, is done by selection. Selection imports the "information" about the environment to the genetic material.

Function is the designer.

[SalvationEternity777]

Natural selection does no such thing. Natural selection only permits that organisms more suited to their environment survive, while the organisms not physically or genetically adapted die.

It does not import any information in the genetic material, but only by nature, the dominant organisms themselves reproduce..

The vast majority of mutations or detrimental to life, and to use that as an argument would be an attempt to argue against probability.

acrm(.)webs(.)com

[SalvationEternity777]

I asked you to be respectable, and be able to handle a civil conversation.

You've provided only insults. You are blocked.

acrm(.)webs(.)com

[tgwood1]

haha how can you use this as evidence against him?

if you ask someone a question like that, they're unlikely to give you an answer on the spot off the top of their head.

If i asked you creationist filth what was the 61st hot meal you had after your 12th birthday, even if you knew the answer, you'd still have to think about it.

So by the fact he has to think for the answer doesn't show he doesn't know it, and does not mean that he's wrong or fake or anything else.

[SalvationEternity777]

FIrst of all, his response had little to do with the question. Secondly, the question was one in his field, he should be an expert, so use fair standards.

If a theist was in his place, you would obviously not defend him, please have fair standards.

Also, please be respectful, this is my channel. Any more comments like "creationist filth", and you will be blocked, this is your warning.

[firthio2]

'FIrst of all, his response had little to do with the question' But we don't know what question he was answering because of the gap in filming.

'Secondly, the question was one in his field, he should be an expert, so use fair standards' He has answered this question over and over but it must be frustrating (as you can see from the look on his face) that people still treat this as a real argument against the theory of evolution.

[SalvationEternity777]

No one has treated this as an argument.

Explain how his response had anything to do with the question. My thesis is that there is absolutely none and this is a self-evident fact.

[firthio2]

'Explain how his response had anything to do with the question'. The response shown in this clip has nothing to do with that question shown in the cut before. But the point is that we don't know what question he was answering because the of the cut in filming. We also don't know when the question was asked because there's no continuous shot from the interviewer to him. I've seen so many different versions, sometimes its a male voice and sometimes female so its fair to say the editing is dubious.

[SalvationEternity777]

What do you evidence do you bring that the clip has nothing to do with the question?

Do realize the fact that Dawkins was stumped to the point of requesting the recording to be turned off.

[Luftwaffels]

His rapid blinking suggests he's nervous and has no answer.

[apemanblunder]

Theory and conjector. Spin and fairy tales.

But I do so enjoy to watch the puppets dance! lol

and, as in this case (along with every other) they end up flat on their faces because their religion cannot stand. Evolution is bogus and micro-biology proves that. Why dosn't just one of these guys have the decency to admit it and just confess that they rather not want to have to answer to their creator. It won't get them out of it, but at least they can be honest with themselves AND us 4 once

[marth193]

dawkins is absolutely absurd

his answer is bogus

and he's just afraid to be a man

and accept the facts

[Ravrahn]

Genetic "information" is not a defined term. This question is practically impossible to answer, and doesn't merit as evidence against evolution anyway if it WAS answerable with "no".

[ooDuckey01]

He dodged the question. The question presented was " Is there a process to increase the information in a genome." He dodges this question by pointing back to an earlier ancestor but does not explain where that ancestor received its current genome from(if it evolved from a one cell organism it had to have had its genome increased somehow and he runs from this answer)

[ihatemylifelol]

actualy there is still evolution going on like an axolotl if takenn out of the water this amphibius creature turns into a salaman da which makes its gills seal up and turns inti a land creature but is still a great swimmer same with tadpoles and babys evolution is smack right infront of your face instead you prefer to answer all your questions with "GOD" that is the answer to any question so where does thunder come from hmm this is REALLY HARD!! wait is it GOD!? !!!CORRECT!!!

[danwazhere7]

dosnt matter if this video was faked it dosnt make a difference because the theory of evolution is fake anyway

[ihatemylifelol]

lool and god isent HES THE BIGGEST FAKE OF THEM ALL

[danwazhere7]

haha the evolution theory is falling apart....

turn to God ..repent or you will perish

[billymatronics]

haha - this video was faked.... hahahah ... weener

[lovejoypeace7777]

Jesus Christ is LORD and Saviour

[dudewat212]

I agree. Jesus is the Way, The Truth, and The Life. It's time for America to go back to its roots as a Country led by God.

[willyfromnz]

Aaah another of this video...

You do know that this was a set up?

[SalvationEternity777]

Sure, an atheist said that, so I'm sure it's true.

Yeah those atheists i'm sure are reliable!

[billymatronics]

watch the original recording.... moron

[SalvationEternity777]

The original is right here. You're blocked for trolling.

Visit this site.

acrm(.)webs(.)com

remove brackets covering dots.

[ihatemylifelol]

and for peopl who belive in angels with white wings and white robes and a white jesus and paradise in the clowds ohh thats realy belivable it sounds rediculous honestly im damn right skippie sure if i told you that i am budist and belive in reincarnation as an animal because my bible says so you would say no becoz yur bible is wrong mine isent follow god not buddah yeah because the fact of you getting reincarnated into an animal soounds silly so does turning into a bloody white robed winged guy.

[GUTCHUCKER]

I was offering rebuttal to seraph313.

Actually, I was wrong back there: speciation has been observed multiple times. Just google it.

[valambiguous]

HAhaaa...I LOVE IT!

[seraph313]

There is a finite amount of genetic information required for a functioning cell, and interdependency within a cell, such that there is no way to simplify a cell beyond a point, at which it still has DNA and parts that cannot exist without each other. No documented mutations leading to a viable, separate species exist, and cross-breeds and sub-species don't count, because the DNA for that body type already existed in the genome, but WHERE DID THE DIGITAL GENETIC INFORMATION COME FROM!

[GUTCHUCKER]

This video is somewhat of a hoax.

You may want to look up:

*11 second Pause Dawkins 'stumped' hoax videos exposed again!

*Richard Dawkins and the 11 Second Pause

And some related videos.

The point about time is: over time there are billions of mutations, some beneficial, generally gradual; like a millimeter of increased length of a nematode per decade due to an allowing abundance of nutrient over an uninterrupted 100 million years would result in a close to 10-meter-long animal.

[GUTCHUCKER]

You also don't seem to realize that mutations leading to separate species have not been documented as it is generally takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years for a significant change to occur; and it is taxonomy, not nature, which decides what is a species and what is a subspecies.

You may want to look up the symbiotic relationship known as the eukaryotic cell. Note that mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome, the Ribosome is constructed of RNA and protein molecules.

[GUTCHUCKER]

My point is that it seems almost obvious that the eukaryotic cell itself evolved. It is very easy to compare the cell's dependency on its organelles to your dependency on, say, your brain or liver. There is, really, no way to simplify a cell beyond a point - a prokaryotic cell, that is. But it would appear that your dependent eukaryotic cells depend on modified prokaryotic cells and their constructions and genetic material to sustain them.

[SalvationEternity777]

Does that have anything to do with theism vs atheism?

[GUTCHUCKER]

Now go fully research archaeobacteria and you might find something interesting.

Also note that prokaryotes do not have membrane-bound organelles.

[jjakeg1]

In the beginning, God created the Heavans and The Earh, around 6000 yaers ago

JESUS IS LORD!!!!!

[eggsandwich8885]

The evidence should be easily found, given SO much time has passed. The human brain is far too complex to be created by genetic muation. Mutation hurts MOST OF THE TIME, having three arms would be regarded as a step back, would'nt it? So how could the human brain being so complex be created. Oh, that's right..time. Well mutation hurts more often than it helps, you could have forever and that wouldn't be enought for the complexity of Humanity. Thus, a GUIDED or Intelligent desing is probable.

[eggsandwich8885]

Martin57:

I agree, and evolutionist also replace God with "time." Given enough evolution could occur, but I say this where is the evidence of all these intermeiary species that should be found in MULTITUDES. We've searched for Gold, Oil, Coal, etc. yet there's a handful of evidence by comparison to Mr. Dawkins assertion of "time" being the necessary lubricant for evolution to progress. Not intelligent or guided design.

[brcbrtn]

There were times when my cousin could be a monkey. LOL

[Martino57]

Spontaneous generation. Every scientist knows this can never occur. Yet for evolution to be true, spontaneous generation would have had to occur at some point. So evolutionists accept that spontaneous generation happenend WITHOUT proof. That is called FAITH. So Evolution is a religion

[fjackson90]

no its not...

[maciekur]

Dawkins is smart when he talk about nature, but he's so silly when it comes to his atemps to dis-proof God...

[bonnienettles]

How can a man that sexy be wrong?

[metalpsalm]

so.... ok, he didn't answer the question

[samthed]

Evolution is a fraud. It was invented by Erasmus Darwin (Charles grandpa) who was a top freemason and jacobin FM according to their own website. THuxley and the rest of his "bulldogs were also documented ILLUMINATI members(i.e. satanists). The founders of the smithsonian institute + the Nat'l Geographic society were also all ILLUMINATI members and controlled ALL archaeolgical digs for the last century. It's a documented fact that they have destroyed MANY,MANY artifacts that don't fit their lie!

[carzzzb]

We are all compelled to believe the truth because the truth has that power to compell. I believe in evolution because it is more convincing than creationism, as in, it appeals to my sense of reason.

[spaceyariel]

can someone translate that question into plain english for those of us who arent walking dictionaries?

[imigrant00]

And before you cop out with the ridiculous premise that, "god has always existed", or something similar, why not replace "god" with "life" or just wait and be patient until we reach the level of intelligence that allows us to see the truth about our origins.

Big banged, multi-dimensional, quantum mechanical, black hole ridden, vastness, with a little blue speck of dust with a companion, and its little inhabitants, baked by a nuclear furnace... even god can't come up with something this crazy.

[SalvationEternity777]

The terms "God" and "life" are not synonyms. You're crackpot argumentation shows that you are an embarrassment to science.

[imigrant00]

You're an embarrassment to your English teacher. It's "Your crackpot arguments show" not "You're crackpot argumentation".

I didn't say they were synonyms, but that when the word "god" is replaced with "life", the "god has always existed" argument falls apart. In fact, anything with unknown origins could replace "god" in that sentence.

Anyways, on your next reply, remember to answer my questions.

[SalvationEternity777]

Diverting the attention away from the original topic.

Typical fundamentalism.

You also failed to comprehend what my entire point was.

[imigrant00]

Can you give me, an example, of your miracle performing god (in lower case), healing a cripple, namely a human being missing a limb?

When you're done with that one I have another one.

What's more likely to occur, a), energy striking organic molecules in such a way that it makes them begin a process of replicating themselves, or b), energy is spontaneously assembled in a stupendous, super-complex, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent, being that subsequently creates... say... you?

[Martino57]

Yeah so a lightning bolt hits a soup swamp of molecules and ABRACADDABRA! We get complex human life forms with microscopic DNA. Please, evolution is a fairy tale that you got duped with. When you really start to analyze it, it sounds like a bad sci-fi comic book. He ducked the question because he knows he cant answer it.

[Thricememe]

Yes evolution is such a fairy tell that it is accepted by biologist, zoologist, geologist,and cosmology and probably many other fields i havnt mentioned.

So god at one time made every living species that has ever been on this earth at the same time?

Sounds like a big disaster, evolutions a fact look it up and educate yourself.

It never takes god out of the equation though actually most scientist are still theist and accept evolution.

[Believing1Thomas]

Interesting vid - more interesting is the fact that he didn't actually answer the question which was "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" All he said is that people are mistaken in assuming humans are evolved from modern animals such as fish or monkeys. I'm curious about why he didn't really answer?

[spaceyariel]

becuase he didnt have one!!!

[Thricememe]

I can see you hold this video up much like a bug zapper waiting for the evil atheist to defend there hero.

[Thricememe]

This is worse than quote mining.

Show the whole thing.

[SalvationEternity777]

It is the whole thing.

I understand your embarrassment of your belief, so I admire your attempts.

[Thricememe]

Well for one you dont know my beliefs.I respect Richard Dawkins but dont agree with him on everything and to do so is dogmatic i come to my own decisions.So dont judge me and dont try to down atheist by hanging on to this one and only trinket you have.

Makes facts not small slander it might make you look better.

Time to think salvation theres a wonderful world out there full of Buddha,Shiva,Mohammad,and many other possibilities.

[SalvationEternity777]

The facts against your aberrational beliefs are clearly seen. If you don't open your eyes, then none of this will be intuitive, which unfortunately goes for the majority of fundamental atheists.

[Thricememe]

......Please state facts im always open to other ideas.Also i have opened my eyes, the only problem i have with religion is when it steps in the realm of government and science. Godless countries are better countries its a fact and if you want them i have them.

So please make a better video bashing Mr Dawkins i dont even think you have even read any of his work.

Do you say you dont like broccoli but have never tried it?

[Martino57]

Godless countries are better countries??!! Go live in China for a week and tell me that. Go see the human rights violations that go on there and tell me it is better than the United States. People risk thier lives to come here for a better life, who the fuck is trying to get into China?

[Agen0]

I can answer the question btw: Dawn syndrome. Suck on that !

[SalvationEternity777]

"I can answer the question btw: Dawn syndrome. Suck on that ! "

Lol. You are embarrassing science and atheism.

It's hard to decide if it's worth leaving your comment up.

You are blocked for ad hominem now anyway.

[Agen0]

Is that even a valid argument ??

[stonedcommander]

ask anyone who believes in evolution this...how come the hammerhead shark has that strange shaped head...if evolution was true wouldent all creatures of the sea,with the same needs,wouldent they evolve the same way.people refuse to see grand design because they think that they are the center of it all.

[bnprenaissance]

Humans ancestors began eating fish which contains protein.Theres one example.

[RyuSei00555]

Truth hurts! wake up people!!

[Hendixon]

Cheap shot? Sounded like a direct question to me!

[gazamused]

Cheap shot but it didnt work

[SalvationEternity777]

lol

[TheFallibleFiend]

Scam video, thoroughly refuted. Creationists don't care about facts.

[SalvationEternity777]

Research this topic without the specs of ignorance.

[TheFallibleFiend]

"Research" is alien to fundamentalists.

[spaceyariel]

i think that the point of the video is that evolution runs out of facts when it comes to answering some questions.

[TheFallibleFiend]

The point of the video is to make it appear that an evolutionist cannot answer this particular question. It's misleading. But creationism isn't about find the truth of the matter, it's about scoring points and defending the faith.

[SalvationEternity777]

Well of course the atheists believe truth is misleading, when was atheism all about truth?

[TheFallibleFiend]

The video is misleading. Some religious people don't care about truth, as the sort of person who put a vid like this up.

[SalvationEternity777]

That's some fine rhetoric there.

[TheFallibleFiend]

That's not rhetoric. That's a fact, the lack of familiarity of which explains the sparsity in your video.

[SalvationEternity777]

You are confusing the use and the term rhetoric with fact. Very common with fundamentalism

[TheFallibleFiend]

Nope. I'm not confused at all. The "interviewers" in this film lied to gain access to Dawkins' home. His pause was not to think of an example, but of how to answer someone who had lied to him. Ought he be rude to a guest who had lied to gain entry to his home? Of course, fundamentalist 'Christians' have no sense of integrity. They don't care about facts. They only care about scoring points.

[sushiyama1]

dawkins was not stumped, he was simply trying to answer the question correctly with an answer everyone can understand.

nice cheapshot u stupid creationsists.

[SalvationEternity777]

Defending a scam + ad hominem attacks will have you blocked.

[fool1shmortal]

Maybe something will make the literal account less literal. I doubt it. Not everything can B understood w/ the instruments of our time. Like I said, God can do anything. Can you imagine how many tragedies could have befallen us? We only see disasters&say, "How can a good God do....?". Our senses can B fooled&our minds clouded. Science is supposed 2B cynical; not have a dogmatic consensus. I smell special interests in mac.evol. in schools. Maybe gravity is better explained than it is.

[guitmartiman]

If evolution is indeed valid, shouldn't we have found some evidence of our ancestry in the fossil record? Apparently, so far, all we've found is are some species that are extinct, but which lived at the same time as species that are just as evident today as they were then.

[fool1shmortal]

I think it's likely that creation happened as the Bible says. It's not always meant as literally stated (as we call our dads, "father"), thus an interpreting body created for the rest of time N the Bible. Still, there were things that did happen literally, such as Noah&the the flood. God can do anything He wants. All that said, macroevolution is not even near proven&so careers should not B ruined by fascist naturalists we should stick w/ the Bible's version as it's God's Word 4 time being

[valambiguous]

Is Darwin an apostate of,Darwinism now?

[valambiguous]

Huh??

[beachtides24]

lol

stumped

[guitmartiman]

What an incredibly candid statement to be made by an atheist evolutionist! What he is basically admitting is that there is no evidence in support of macro evolution, at least in terms of intermediate stages of development from say an amoeba to man! He says we did not descend (or ascend if you will) from apes. That seems to be a departure from Darwin.

[josiahdallas]

that answer almost had zero to do with the question.

[foxmuldr]

His answer also serves to disprove the theory of evolution quite nicely in that those 300 million year ago ancestors of modern fish and modern humans should have lots and lots of intermediate stages which demonstrate the clear path from one to the other. They don't.

In addition, his statement indicates there was originally a super creature that had all of the genetic information possible for all species for all time, and that each species is just weeding out over time what it doesn't need.