A Select Atheist's Toll on Evolution

[CanadiaNecro1]

I do not respect those who dissable ratings. Usually the videos are dumb as shit, it's not surprising the video maker doesn't want anyone talking back to them. I usually don't even bother to continue watching once I see that, I don't care for one way conversations. I have yet to see an atheist video with dissabled ratings.

[Biogirl52]

@CanadiaNecro1 Um... the ratings aren't disabled? You can like or dislike this video. There is no longer a ratings system on youtube. Anyways, not good judgement to judge a video that way. Obviously you can still leave comments. Christ.... would you say this to my face?

[CanadiaNecro1]

@Biogirl52 I was talking abou the creationists who disable ratings, which you mentioned, not about you.

[Biogirl52]

@CanadiaNecro1 Oh then I sincerely apologize. You'd have to understand I'm using to dealing with people criticizing me all the time. I don't even remember what was in this video!

[g0jeeta]

BioGirl you have to watch Dawkins lectures (when he was younger) to understand why Evolution lays a heavy blow on any designer of life. Please watch, I think they are called "Christmas lectures"??

[LewisSmith]

As the great Irish poet and playright , Sean O'Casey said "I'm an Atheist.... thank God!"

[LewisSmith]

LMAO!!!! I was very much a dick in my last comment. As we say in Ireland.... Fair play to yee!!!. You made a great argument and certainly made me feel bad..... though you missed some arguments I believe you made some gerat arguments and I responded without any intelligence. Thanks for putting me right. Take care.... Lewis.

[LewisSmith]

I haven't listened the whole way through.... which I will..... but Satan (A fictitious being) created the fossil record.... Is that really the beginning of your argument? I'm glad to be higher up in the gene-pool.... THANK GOD!!!!....lmao

[camino1ca]

Evolution doesn't comment on god but it does exclude the need for such nonsense.

[GreatKingOfTerror]

the only western man that knew the truth about 'god' was Socrates. That's that.

[lowcomedy]

I love you.

Honest I do.

[webmaster2089]

dawkins does, however, then take that very good idea of how there could be no god, and use that to make a case against god at all on the basis that there is no evidence

[webmaster2089]

i don't think dawkins is saying at all that evolution is proof that there is no god. he's saying that since we have evolution we have a very good idea of what happens in the absence of god. if you notice in the video he says that the only thing evolution refutes is the bringing about of complex life forms by a creator, not god being the answer to life, the universe and everything. (that of course being 42)

[waltermh111]

you are right.

Biogirl misunderstands Dawkins.

Hes especially commenting on creationists I believe.

He isnt meaning that evolution answers everything, even the beginning of the universe or the earth.

Hes responding to a christian biologist which wouldnt speak on anything but his field, figuring the basis for life.

Therefore, she misunderstands him and takes his comment out of context I think.

Dawkins if she heard him enough, would also know Dawkins doesnt say he knows the beginning of life

[musliminshallah]

why do you people only look at the christian view on how life started, hindu books and the quran say that the world evolved slowley, so why dont athiests debate with muslims and sikhs and hindus... thats becuz they knew about evolution for thousands of years!!

[waltermh111]

islam is based on judaism, related to christianity. It wont be significantly different to be worth debating. Islam is even less open to debate then christianity. Hence the new EU law that wont even allow people to speak against islam. It makes it very hard for Dawkins to consider having a debate with islam.

Hindu isnt dawkins major concern because it does not try to spread itself like a virus unlike the judao-based religions

Christianity is also the most prevalent in english language territories

[musliminshallah]

i dont need a lesson on religion, im a scholar in religion, what i said is why dont dawkins debate a muslim, or a sikh, or a hindu, in these Holy Books evolution is mentiond especialy in the hindu holy books the vedas, fair enough no holy book says we were monkeys like you guys do, but there is such thing as evolution, man, animals etc evolve to suit the climate etc that they are in, dawkins will never debate people who know these holy books becuase he knows they will make a good case for God

[waltermh111]

I explained why he wont debate them, why do you ignore that?

I will repeat.

Hindu isnt an issue for him as long as it does not force itself onto others. Sure, he probably thinks it hinders science also, but it isnt an issue in the sense that hes english, and focuses on English nations. Hindu isnt big in english language nations, nor is islam, or sikh that I even know of.

Besides, who cares that they agree with evolution. The gods of Hindu not islam, or sikh are any more evidential.

[musliminshallah]

lol i think you should stop writing before anyone who has ever picked up a holy book starts luaghing at you, stick to science n leave da knoweledge of religion to people like me, r u stupid the hindu holy book(vedas) even mention prophet muhammad saws, the sikh holy book has a whole chapter on muhammad saws, are you crazy? all the main world religions are linked, and who the hell said hindu sikh etc believe a diferent god? its the way in wich we worship God we argue about, not the God we worship

[waltermh111]

tell that to an islamist and they are likely to kill you for saying they pray to a hindu god or they share a god with a hindu.

If they believe their god tells them to believe one way and hindu teaches its followers to believe another way, then they essentially believe in different gods. How is it the same god if this god is giving 2 different messages?

[musliminshallah]

wow if you even knew what you was talking about u wudnt bother asking me these questions, but bieng as im bored il waste my time explaining, who ever said the messages are different, im a muslim myself dude, we dont disagree with the messages, we disagree with the practices some people do, hindus worship idols(even tho there book doesnt tell them to) same with christians worshipping jesus and so on, can you tel me who said the messages are different, well the core of them anyway LOOL

[Gnomefro]

The only people who delude themselves into thinking the messages are identical are the muslims. And of course, that means that all the messages should be "identical to the Qur'an" in their eyes.

This is of course a deep insult to everyone else's beliefs. Islam doesn't respect any other religion or "holy" character, any more than I would respect Islam is I say "Oh, I respect Mohammed. However, his epilepsy corrupted the real message - that the Flying Spaghetti Monster loves everybody."

[Gnomefro]

If you really thought the messages were identical it wouldn't be a big deal what religion people followed, yet you guys(Or actually, the alleged Allah in the Qur'an) claim all non-muslims will burn in hell. Which... kinda means you're ignorant or a liar doesn't it?

[AcanLord]

""hindus worship idols""

 That is a myth. I am not a hindu but i know a few. Hindu people worship Idols in the same why a christian Worships a cross. The Statues you often see are merely that, Statues. Its not like Hindus really believe these statues ARE there deities, Which incidentally are far less polytheistic then you may be aware. Hinduism is a complex religion that is extremely easy for those who have Cultural prejudice toward it to apply Logical Fallacies.

[Gnomefro]

"its the way in wich we worship God we argue about, not the God we worship"

That's what the muslims believe. Nobody else wants to be associated with your evil demon though.

Same with your ridiculous idea that Mohammed is mentioned in other books. The rest of the world laughs their asses off at you trying to invent ridiculous excuses and pervert grammar/language to attempt to insert the most inane traces of your desert fascism into other religions.

[Gnomefro]

"i dont need a lesson on religion"

Yes, you do.

If we have two concepts A and B, and those two concepts have different properties. They are *not* the same object. Many unintelligent people, like yourself, try to argue that A=B, but...they're simply not equivalent. Allah burns people in hell for not performing Islamic ritual magic. No other gods do this. Jesus saved mankind,(the *entire* point of Christianity) none of that in Islam, you even deny it.

It is inane to pretend they are equivalent.

[theartofstew]

hey i have that book too!

[snakeguy76]

On the platypus part, the link was that the sex deteminiation was similar to birds, but not evolved from birds. Males still have the X5Y5 chromosome where male birds have ZZ. Platypus don't have the SRY gene that causes testes formation in males. Platypus also retain many of the egg producing genes that are still found in reptiles (and birds) though birds eggs are still more evolved. At least thats how I understand it.

[soulinite]

5/5 and favorite!

Hail Xenu.

[Fausto1749]

YMCA!!!

[zbambam5]

ROFL! YMCA ftEPICw.

[shuu7777]

qwertyuiop asdfghjkl zxcvbnm

The Theory of Evolution only talks about the diversity of species not how life began, not how the cosmos came to be, and not God doesnt exist just the diversity of species.

daaayyyuuuum girl you is smart

SSSCCCIIEENNCCEEESSSSIIIDDEEE!­!!!!!

[jissaikun]

hey that looks like my kitty :D

[jebus6kryst]

Great video. I agree with it 100%. I do hate people that try to turn any form of science into an ideology. It makes everyone that studies science look bad.

Also, the "YMCA" picture was the funniest thing I have seen all day. I had to pause the video and wait a minute before I could watch the rest.

[My90sMusic]

Great vid Biogirl, I think Im in love :-p, just kidding! G'Day from Australia. Stay Frosty.

[rowsdowersavesus]

I hope I'm not one of the nasty stupid ones you're speaking about. But I agree with you here

[Biogirl52]

Nah. Definitely not. You've got yourself some class. I'm talking about ones lacking sophistication and try to defend Evolution based on their atheism alone (read: they are stupid).

[ZarlanTheGreen]

Also: Dawkins isn't so much of a "Science vs Creationism" guy, but rather a "Science vs Faith"

Blind faith (and if it isn't blind, then faith is not the correct word) is irrational and dangerous, as many (e.g. Dawkins) have shown.

[ZarlanTheGreen]

Very good criticism.

I respectfully disagree, with the notion that the issue of god, cannot be taken scientifically, though.

I agree with Richard Dawkins, who has dealt with arguments for and against god (any god), and concluded that there is no more reason to believe in a god, then there is to believe in, say, tooth fairies.

Belief in tooth fairies may be rather harmless, but religion certainly isn't.

I also agree with him, in that religion and science are corrosive to each other.

[Gnug215]

Hi, great video.

A problem in this entire "evolution vs. creationism" debate is the fact that atheists (and agnostics) are getting all the flak of an organized religion/system, without enjoying any of the benefits.

(I suppose it can be said to be slightly similar with the various religions and denominations, but I'd say it's even worse for atheists/agnostics.)

[ogbash]

I do not get it, what is wrong about 8 people and 4000 years?

[Biogirl52]

I hope you're joking!

[Erech01]

incest plays a BIG role in answering that question......

[ogbash]

You mean they do not have enough genetical information to survive? It may be but not obvious.

[Erech01]

incest is not a good thing, if two people too closly related have kids, their kids would be slightly more deformed than their parents (yes, all of us have some small minor deformations, either one high slightly higher than the other, one leg longer ect) if incest went on for 1000's of years....we would be extremly deformed.

[ogbash]

As I understand not every child is deformed. We would not be deformed because selection filters it out.

4000 years, 8 people is not correct after you calculate human gene pool and mutation rate, but I can't see anything intrinsicly stupid about this statement (apart that it comes from the bible).

[Erech01]

'As I understand not every child is deformed'

not at first sight, but if all that is going on is incest then you have no chance.

asfor selection filtering it out, well:P if it did try to filter it, you would have near to 0 after poduct, the children lucky enoguh to live would be hit by alsorts in the real world.

[Biogirl52]

Incest is a problem because you create more availability for certain genetic disorders. Everyone carries some sort of recessive genetic disorder in their code. Mating back to a parent or sibling increases the chances that the offspring will receive both recessive genes.

The blue people of Kentucky is an example. Look no further than Hemophilia in the royal family. Classic example.

Anyways that is the simplest I can explain it.

[ogbash]

Yes, but fatal genes, even recessive ones, should be filtered out (it seems that in smaller populations even faster). Blue skin was not fatal and royal family had no natural selection.

I've just found interesting guess about the origins of native americans: (biointeractive org -> interactive -> click and learn -> origins of modern humans -> slide 13) 20 individuals within last 20000 years. Not too far from 8 and 4000.

[sthebg20]

I know I'm late in this disscussion, but I just did some calculations (and I hope I'm right), and 8 people to 6.5 billion in 4000 years would require 1,625,000 people to be born per year starting the year when the flood receded (sp)! 8 to 6.5 billion in 4000 years? Highly dubious. Sorry.

[mistameanor420]

Lame, I was hearing an intellectual converstaion, then it was suddenly dubbed over with the opinions of a dumb bimbo.

PS. If evolution IS TRUE, and humans evolved from some relative of ape, then it DOES disprove the bible. It would be another stake through heart of the "Adam and Eve" theory the bible presents.

[Biogirl52]

Indeed. Wait, I'm not the dumb bimbo am I? :P

It cancels out a literal interpretation of Genesis. Honestly though, who would interpret the bible literally anymore than we'd interpret other mythological myths written 1000's of years ago? It's a nice story. You sin against God for your own benefit, he punishes you but forgives you. That's how I feel about most stories in the bible: moral fables (Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel).

[dj2baduk]

The problem, and this is what often leads to exasperation, is that a great number of youtube posters DO interpret the WHOLE bible absolutely literally. Pointing out that by that account, the human population of the entire earth at the time the great pyramids were built would be 17, seems to hold no sway. I really like the video by the way, but science and religion do conflict frequently and when it comes to the thin end of the educational wedge, that's when frontal assault is necessary.

[Biogirl52]

Yes, I see the major frusterations invovled. My point is more so to not treat Evolution like it's a fiery religous passion.. it's just another scientific discipline.

Only 17? Really? Guess I don't know much about that kind of history. But yeah... haha. That's pretty funny

[religiousfear]

the question for this scientist who accepts evolution is whether there are any neanderthals in heaven lol

[Qba86]

However, suggesting that God somehow guided the evolutionary process is a violation of scientific ethos - it is talking about a natural process and at the same time trying explain at least a part of it by a supernatural intervention. It doesn't matter if it's a comment made in or outside the lab. It is still intellectually incoherent (just as much as claiming that biological evolution is a scientific proof of Gods nonexistence...)

[Qba86]

While accepting the simple fact that evolution is a strongly supported (and indeed only) theory that explains the diversity of life is a matter of pure science (and therefore is religiously indifferent), it still has serious philosophical implications. It certainly is a strong blow for the "god of gaps" concept. Of course not every Christian believes in such a God, but than again those don't are usually intelligent enough to understand evolution anyway...

[DefaultPosition]

I'm not sure that the term "Agnostic" correctly describes sciences position on god.

Agnosticism is the opinion "we cannot know if god exists or not."

For science to take that position you would have to define what god was and then submit that concept to the scientific method.

Science currently has no opinion on god as the concept of god because 'god' has no tangible definition for science to work from.

[sighuponsigh]

Anyhow, Great vid. I agree.

[sighuponsigh]

I like the position Ken Miller and others hold about a creator being compatible with evolution, and a creator setting in motion the processes in which life can arise and evolution diversify from there. Yet I have no reason to add this to my world view, other than Pascals wager.

[HeadoftheHydra]

I liked this video, Biogirl. I think you just subscribed to me, so I shall surely now return the favor!

I agree with you...Every time an atheist uses evolution as an excuse for being an atheist, they further reinforce the lame, overplayed Creationist propaganda that "Evolutionists [sic] are all atheists!" or that "Evolution is the God of the Atheist religion!" or whatever.

I don't believe in God because it's a silly ass notion. Period. Wow, that was hard!

[sighuponsigh]

Exactly.. I'm not a believer for the simple reason I was never introduced to it when I was younger, mostly because I moved a few times. When I was introduced to the concept, the afterlife seemed like a nice hypothesis, and I see why ppl would become emotionally attached to the idea, but it still had no traction with me. Evolution has nothing to do with why I'm a non-believer, but it does make the position easier to defend.

[NoCreatorRequired]

I think you are misinterpreting Dawkins comment. He is saying evolution explains things without the need to involve the supernatural. Which is exactly what you are saying in this video. He most certainly is not saying that evolution disproves anything supernatural.

[Biogirl52]

Actually, even though I didn't interpret it that way necessarily, I said I didn't like the implications of the statement. This was a large interview, afterwards they had a discussion with 3 people once Richard had left - and this is kind of how they interpreted him. It's a quote minefield. When he says there's no need for a "designer" that kind of clues me off to it to that conclusion. Regardless if that is what he meant, people can and will twist his words to this.

[NoCreatorRequired]

What Richard is saying is that evolution explains things without the need of adding a designer as part of its explanation, not that evolution proves you don't need a designer. I think in fact you and Richard are of the same mind on this issue and you are right his comments are often twisted by people who want to push their own agendas, especially if he isn't there to defend himself. I've watched your other videos by the way and they are very good, subscribed. :-)

[crazypants88]

Yes! Thank you!

[Desertphile]

Good, Bloody, GODS! Dawkins really said that?! And here I thought he was smarter than that. I shall have to adjust my high opinion of him by half, if not a quarter, of what it was before I heard him say such a stupid and asinine thing.

[daleshankins]

Bravo!! Five stars for you. Actually I wish Dawkins would stick to what he says in his book...he is in fact not 100% atheistic about God. That would be intellectually dishonest. Somehow he seldom mentions this in his discussions though and goes for the jugular all the time. Oh well. Science and nature will continue regardless of what we silly humans do at this point in our history. Thank goodness for that. Peace.

[NyseriA]

Does he not refer to himself as "de facto atheist" in that it's a very high probability that God (as in, beard, cloud, harps and creating organsims from mud etc) doesn't exist?

[Biogirl52]

He is agnostic about God the way he is agnostic about fairies :P. I think I've heard him say that he believes something exists - something beyond his imagination (i.e. not one of the big religions down here's God). And of course people for ID just loooooooooooove that. Dawkins is pro-intelligent design! OMG. *shoots self*

[daleshankins]

You may want to read his book. He offers a "scale" for degrees of atheism. He does indeed argue that the evidence is strongly against any possibility for a Yahweh type of God. Does this make him an atheist. The "God" of Einstein and Spinoza is another matter entirely. Part of the difficulty of atheism is that there seem to be approximately 6.5 billion definitions of God. God is essentially a meaningless term anymore. :-)

[Biogirl52]

For reals. Sometimes people change from what they've written during a discussion to keep up in a debate, a lot more pressure I think.

Haha. And you are entirely correct, this is all just a waste of time, isn't it? :P

[daleshankins]

LOL about Dawkins being pro intelligent design. I to am all for intelligent design. Now if we could just locate some intelligence somewhere to get the ball rolling! :-)

Your videos certainly are not a waste of time. As a matter of fact I am not sure that it is even possible to waste time...who is holding the ruler/measurement tool for determining what is wasteful or not? Peace. :-)

[deBeuk]

"I am not sure that it is even possible to waste time"

Two words. Atlas Shrugged.

[daleshankins]

Atlas Shrugged = silliness.

[Danmill23]

Nice one BioGirl.  Not an easy subject to approach. Agreed!

[NyseriA]

Science (or indeed evolution) is not "agnonstic", it's "atheistic" because it does not involve theism.

Other than that, don't think you put a foot wrong ;)

[Biogirl52]

Interesting. I guess I've always, personally, referred to it as agnostic because for me... agnostic has always been a bit of a "don't know and don't care" attitude (like the awesome pin). Which more or less fits my attitude at times :)

Do you see how referring to science as atheistic would kind of be a shot in the foot? :P Just the connotations associated with the term.

[NyseriA]

It would be churlish to disagree and I can definitely see where you are coming from. That is perhaps one of the biggest problems with such debating is that it becomes arguments over semantics, terminology and the smaller picture rather than the overall debate.

It's very similar to the argument that keeps getting foisted on me recently that being an atheist is subscribing to a belief system. Personally, it's a lack of belief but either way it doesn't validate other belief systems ;)

[Biogirl52]

Yeah. It's confusing because the terms are defined in so many ways and there's really no set belief struture for any of them. I think the term I've adapted to my 'belief' system is a Practioncioner of Common Sense.

[NyseriA]

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Some smart guy said that ;)

I'd go with that "belief system too" though :)

[pyromania152]

Excellent video.

[newwwfag]

Sorry, evolution = atheism. Science agrees.

[gradymcguire]

Actually evolution does not equal atheism. I went to a Catholic high school and in freshman year, I was taught a theology course and a biology course and in both of these courses, my teachers told me that while the Bible does say that God created the earth in seven days and though evolution may differ on that timespan by a few billion years, it does not comment on the validity or existence, if you will, of any deity such as God or an intelligent designer.

[gradymcguire]

Biology and the evolution simply have no comment on religion. Biogirl is correct. It is the scientists and theists/deists who make claims concerning whether or not God exists. Nowhere in a textbook of evolution will yo see otherwise.

[pyromania152]

Evolutionary theory makes no statement on the existence of gods. I suppose it could be considered weak atheism.

[Desertphile]

"Sorry, evolution = atheism. Science agrees."

Yes, in the same sense that photosynthesis equals atheism; in the same sense mathematics equals atheism; in the same sense aerodynamics equals atheism.

[ArgosXeno]

I agree with some of the things said

As you say Science is agnostic and has nothing to say about whether God exists or not. However science is how 1 can explain existence without God being necessary.

If Evolution has been made the battleground of the Atheism debate it is the fault of the theist who has made it so. All the creationists think that if they somehow disprove Evolution you will destroy Atheism. Atheism is not a state; it's a conclusion that 1 will come 2 from his or her experiences

[ArgosXeno]

When Dawkins says " Darwin led me to Atheism" it really only gave him the alternative view to "God did it" He then had to decide whether his atheism spawned from that. Atheism means you do not believe in a God. Now that is all it means. Atheists can be good, bad, intelligent or stupid it does not say enough about them to properly categorise. Saying Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life is not a critique because it does not intend to do so. The origins of life is task for biochemistry.

[DeusMortemEst]

At first, I thought I wouldn't agree with you on this, but now I see that I do. As much as I love Dawkins, the fact that he seems to propone the whole evolution=atheism-thingy may work as bait for creationists and a scarecrow for moderate theists. Even though evolution makes a creator god less probable, they are not mututally exclusive. I say, let's try to attract as many people as possible to the concept of evolution, and let's hope that htye end up with a godless worldview. Keep up the win!

[Biogirl52]

Yes! You've got it now. Creationist bait, and that is my concern. They would just LOVE for an Evolutionary Biologist to say that Evolution reinforces their atheism. I don't even get it. For me, Evolution doesn't convince me that there isn't a God.

I can proudly say that I dropped my 'faith' LONG before I ever began to study or understand Biology. The Christian church did that plenty good enough on it's own.

[deBeuk]

I think Dawkins was too specific, and in that I completely agree with your critique. The fact is, science in general offers explanations without appealing to the supernatural, not just evolutionary theory.

I would agree with him if he said that evolutionary theory argues against certain interpretations of the bible/God, but it doesn't argue against a God in general.

[Biogirl52]

I agree, evolution was just the example that was used. Mostly, with that video clip, I just disliked the implications that could be made.

[deBeuk]

"I agree, evolution was just the example that was used. Mostly, with that video clip, I just disliked the implications that could be made"

I think he plays right into the creationist's hand by making that statement. "See, evolution leads to atheism". From a PR perspective alone it's not a smart thing to say.

[Biogirl52]

Ah, the fine art of a quote mine :P

[Desertphile]

"I would agree with him if he said that evolutionary theory argues against certain interpretations of the bible/God, but it doesn't argue against a God in general."

Indeed, that makes perfect sense; What the bloody heck could Dawkins have been thinking?! Sheeeish.

The same holds true for the theory of planetary motion--- it does *NOT* demonstrate gods are not pushing planets around, nor does it shows the gods do not exist; it just means the gods are not necessary to move planets.

[DeimosSaturn]

Catch more flies with honey? No, the creationists are willfully ignorant and they always take the low road. They intentionally conflate atheism and evolution, they intentionally lie, quote mine, and engineer intelligent design into a pretty science-sounding package...I don't just mean VFX, I am talking about the most robust of apologetics with all the resources to hire fact checkers like the Discovery Institute. The only retaliation is to placate their intentional ignorance.

[IllegalAlien1]

awsome video

[mtambors]

I totally agree with you, though it appears that you disagree less with what Dawkins actually meant and more with how he said it.

Anyway, the rest of the video is dead on. Unfortunately, every demographic has its share of idiots, and atheism is no exception, though I wonder if the proportion is higher smong those raised as atheists, not converted (pure speculation on my part).

I agree the only way to defend science is with science itself. Squabbling only undermines this process.

[alienspy07]

I subscribed to you as soon as I saw in your profile that you were going to make this video. This really needed to be said. Great video.

[indignant99]

In the interest of furthering your education, the parenthetical phrase is "case in point," not "case and point."

[Biogirl52]

Perhaps it's my case..

AND THEN..

it's my point :)

[XyoungearthX]

I can't stand Dawkins. Not because of evolution, but because of the reasons that you've pointed out.

Also, on the origin of life issue, he promoted an intelligent designer for earth-bound abiogenesis.

Someone might have said this already, but @ 4:32, surfdude36 says "I agree with biogirl, hes great"

ha.

I'm sure he was referring to someone else, but out of context it looks silly.

Oh, and bottleneck means a whole lot to me, biogirl.

[mtambors]

"Also, on the origin of life issue, he promoted an intelligent designer for earth-bound abiogenesis."

If you're referring to the movie "Expelled," that quote was mined. Dawkins was asked to make up out of thin air a possible way for an ID'er.

In no way was he promoting it as a belief of his.

[Biogirl52]

Actually, the entire Histruthbeknown scenario was completely and 100% in context. The only editing I did was removing the exact same comment that HTBK left on surfdude for space reasons.

And quite, while I don't mind Dawkins, I dislike any sort of mixture of evolution and religion in general.

[michael201119]

Campbell :)

anyways, good video. I really understand what you mean and think that I can agree with most.

but don't you think that Dawkins wanted to say something else? To me it seems that he states that science does not involve God and that it is not scientific to bring in something you assume to exist. I don't think that he has a "problem" with religious scientists.

With much interpretation you can hear the same statement of this video in his words:

science does not deal with God!

[Biogirl52]

Yeah I agree. I didn't like the "implications" of this statement, the entire interview is here on youtube. But this is about all I got for an atheist's toll on evolution - some stupid kiddies who don't like Christians and cries that it says there's no God. Which isn't too bad.

[sorienor]

I like the video but to be honest, there is something you are missing.

When you say intelligently refute creationists or be quiet, you have to realize that some of us have been refuting creationists longer then you have been alive. No matter what we say, what evidence exists, no matter how many times you refute them people like VenomFangX just don't care about any of it. They will continue to spew their lies and people will continue to believe without question.

[Biogirl52]

Very true and it is a frustration that I've only had yet to scratch the surface of. But perhaps I'm more so focusing on people my age doing this. I just don't know why someone would waste their time leaving such idiotic comments - from either side. Basically, I just don't want to hate someone because they are a creationist without even knowing them.

[neotropic9]

I disagree that science cannot talk about God. The domain of science is the physical realm. If a particular hypothesis about God makes a prediction about the physical realm -prayers being answered, angels appearing, seven day creation, etc- that hypothesis can be falsified (and indeed has been in many cases).

If your God does not leave any marks in the physical realm (because you define it that way) then by definition there can be no evidence in its favor.

[Biogirl52]

Suppose it more or less can depend on your religious views, of which I made my particularly clear in the video, on whether or not you think God should be included in Science.

I strictly think it should not, but if someone I'm working with thinks it should... fine? It won't kill me. I'm just not too hip on using God to explain what we don't know yet.

[Desertphile]

"... on whether or not you think God should be included in Science."

The point is, as you and others have noted, that it is impossible to add gods to science--- one cannot in any way measure gods, weigh gods, test gods for their properties and attributes, do spectral analysis (no pun intended) of gods.... they are completely null when it comes to knowing anything about them, even if they exist or not. Therefore science is, and must be, null on the subject of gods. Dawkins should know better.

[beliserius]

Well.

I have to half agree and disagree with you.

It is possible to prove the non-existance of A god with Science, but not possible to disprove the existance of God in general.

For example, if a book states that A god makes things fall down to earth due to earths magnetic field, then obviously, science can disprove that.

On the other hand, if the definition of God is vague enough, then it is entirely impossible to prove or disprove.

[GnosisTu]

It is impossible to disprove any Gods with science, only prove things that are observable.

Taking your example we know that gravity makes things fall down to earth but there's nothing to stop a God using their powers to also pull thing down to earth. It might be a waste of their time but there nothing stopping the Gods from doing it also. Since Gods by their nature is supernatural, science can not measure supernatural observations, therefore can not disprove a God, just make them obsolete.

[neotropic9]

"It is impossible to disprove any Gods with science"

That is simply wrong. If one hypothesizes a God that does certain things, and those things do not happen -i.e. if your hypothesis is falsified- then you thereby prove that particular God doesn't exist. That is what the parent meant.

"science can not measure supernatural observations" Of course it can, supposing they exist. Prayer studies have been done before. Those COULD have proven a supernatural phenomenon.

[GnosisTu]

Supernatural observations are unexplainable, therefore unmeasurable (what would you measure).

[Biogirl52]

Ah, you just reminded me. Oh those prayer studies! :P What a magnificent waste of like... $4 million. I wrote a paper about them once awhile ago.

[beliserius]

Yes, it is impossible to disprove something unobservable.

However, it is possible to disprove A specific God's existence, if evidence disproves his deeds, or abilities.

For example, if a God is claimed to show up in the figure of a clown, inside the white house, it is scientifically possible to disprove him,

[GnosisTu]

Sorry to neogirl for messing up your comments section.

No it doesn't disprove the god, only prove that this god is a liar and doesn't do as they says they will do.

[beliserius]

Exactly, and if that God is a liar, and is said not to be, then, obviously that particular god doesn

t exost/

[Biogirl52]

neogirl? who is neogirl? :P

Hehehehehe.

[Rahab111222]

Great vid, very profound. 5/5

[Biogirl52]

:D thaaaaaaaanks!!