World Scientists That rule without political borders neutrally, commenting that Mr Richard Dawkins is soooo out of date, stupid and backward. By the time they discover the result of latest experiment, Mr Dawkins Idea is NO LONGER VALID
Mr Dawkins Rules NOTHING, World Scientists Rule, Visit the Website in flesh, type godsurety . org directly on your browser. Science has proven that "God" does exist, yes, the One who made decision to put everything in order so that we see it as it is, and we are meant to have a freewill to make any "Individual Selection". Spread The News to all Your Friends. get F.O.C Update of Science, Mr Dawkins is sooooooooo out of date, backward, stupid, as Old saying: little knowledge is dangerous.
Stephen is absolutely right! If there's a God, he is outside the time. Time is the space between two events; before any 'event', there was no time.
And since nothing finite can exist for infinite time (that's why the word is 'finite'), what existed outside it, call IT by whatever name: Allah/God/Creator, IT is what is outside the time before even the primordial mass (finite, too) could exist.
There's no before or after God, or whatever name you use for him (not male, not female, not a 'thing').
he says his book is intelligent design because we designed it. now if we were to intelligently design ourselves then why are we giving ourselves the ability to like the blue house over the red house? if its useless it would have died off because of natural selection but we still have it and i don't know why.
@DaFleegsta I doubt that. He is probably a Deist, that is someone who doesn't follow any religion but believes in some higher power. The founding fathers of USA, for example, were almost all Deists.
hmm if you've mirrored the show so it doesn't trigger some automatic copyright recognition system, kudos to you sir, and thanks for showing this to non americans.
Omgadnowai ...supporters could not have made the bible survive especially the middle ages, many atheists that have attacked the bible and set out to disprove it became believers, perhaps you will be one as well I challenge you to get into the bible and many of the questions you have God will answer.
Hey everyone! There's a new pro-atheist book out and it's getting rave views by those who know they are smart enough to understand it!" On sale now: "How to properly conduct yourself as a free-thinking atheist in the 21st century..." by Ima D. Ott and Noah Morales
Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3. Its just obvious no matter how the prophets of Darwin like Dawkins try to paint it, they love it because its an alternative to the God of the bible. The bible has stood for thousands of years, to every critic in every generation.
Dawkins is such a moron only in this age would he be tolerated. Any scientist can create a computer NO ONE can create a human being. Yet ya know who CAN create a human being? Random selection starting with inorganic matter pfft.
@SushiBlender He became the Universe long ago. But that's funny since Atheists always ask "Well then where did God come from"? yet when you talk about the big bang and ask where THAT came from they don't have an answer either. Kind of hypocritical to make fun of a theory when you yourself have the same answer to the same question. Btw the Hindus theory of the "Opening and closing of the eye of Brahma" is a pretty good match to the big bang and yes they say it happened billions of years ago.
@Pablofilmmaker okay you have a point, but there is a pretty decent theory of how it was created (the big bang) and what existed before it, check out Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing, on youtube.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 You've just admitted that evolution is possible within "kinds" such as breeds of dogs and cats. Now imagine that the dogs and cats are scattered around the world and are forced to adapt to new environments for millions of years. There would be an enormous evolutionary change within that time. So much change that they would be considered totally different from their original form before they were scattered, thus considered a totally new species. See, learning is fun.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
@JohnSnowstorm It's because the automatic video analyzer that scans each video when you upload to youtube is designed to identify and block copyrighted material, ingenious little design, but pain in the ass for sharing viacom video. By mirroring the image you can (at least for now) trick the software.
Stephen Colbert is a fucking tool, everytime Richard was about to answer a question/refute something, that sorry excuse for a human, Colbert would quickly interrupt and and babble some ridiculous hocus pocus crap to try defend his misguided beliefs. let the genius speak you moron!
The thing that is interesting, that some of you might disagree with out of denial, is Colbert believes in God and is a Christian. He has stated that. Throughout the interview, here and there, you see some true belief and debate with Dawkins, as he should since he believes in that.
Personally and obviously, I am an atheist. None the less, Colbert is very much not. And this is not being misleading by personal beliefs, but as to what he said himself.
idk what colbert believes in. i really think he's an atheist. remember, most of the time he is playing a character on the show and in most interviews. he's humur is satire so it's difficult to know when he's being honest or not
@adamasdiamandis FYI Colbert made sure that Dawkins knew he was only role playing by going to his dressing room beforehand and telling him as much. Dawkins was in on it from the start. I only know this because Dawkins said that on a video I saw before this one.
@Blurtex33 If you mean the video of Dawkins saying he knew about Colbert, it's on 1 of 6 videos of Dawkins being intervieweds by Penn Jillette on youtube. I forget which one.
@zideffil I think it's pretty obvious to most people that Colbert is playing a character.... if anyone actually tunes in to the Colbert Report and thinks he is being genuine has to be mildly retarded.
it's obviously inconceivable that, with Colbert's level of popularity, anyone wouldn't know he plays a satirical character on TV let alone a guest on the show itself.
@ubermensch826 You and I know that, but I was answering a few questions as to if he was kidding or not. Believe it or not, some folks have never heard of Stephen Colbert. Some folks only watch documentaries and news.
When he made fun of O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor it was priceless. For all those who do not understand, this is all an ACT by Colbert. He's using imitation in the form of comedy of idiotic right winged nuts in the states.
AAAAAAAAAAAAH I hate this guy. This guy is clearly a showman who uses, his childish humour and his fan boy audience to endorse his bull shit beliefs. It's unfair to put him up against an intelligent and rational man such as Dawkins, who is above the bull shit cheap tactics of this cunt. Seth Mcfarlane v Stephen Colbert is what I wanna see, he would get roasted
@tastytastfood Colbert's act is satirical. Do you know of satire? Dawkins knew what was going on here, thats why here was having a laugh. Its a pity you didnt.
@tastytastfood Colbert went to Prof. Dawkins dresssing room before show time and made doubly sure that Prof. Dawkins knew that he was not serious. Dawkins had already been prepared by Collbert's team, but he wanted to make sure out of his high respect for Prof. Dawkins. I'm not trying to appear smarter than you, my atheist friend - it's just that I was just watching another Dawkins interview where he stated that. Also, I am with you - Fuck stupid fundies and their childish beliefs
@adamasdiamandis Fuck you dude, seriously if you wanna say shit like that on this video you may as well get down on your knees and suck Colbert's self righteous dick and shove a bible up your ass
You guys do know the show has a format right? He had to cut him off or they wouldn't have been able to go to commercial break, and thus CC would not be able to continue broadcasting the show.
The remark "...the universe just exploded from nothing..." said with an sarcastic tone is old and tired, and illogical. Of course the universe came nothing: where else would it come from?
@Bubinga5 It's a comedy show-Stephen Colbert is a satirist, the whole show is a joke. You can't have seriously thought he was a genuine interviewer and this was a real interview? Wow.
@nickharris86 Colbert IS in fact a practicing Christian (Catholic to be specific). It's an act that he's conservative ideologue but it's not an act that he is, in fact, a fairly religious Catholic who teaches Sunday school. Not every Christian is a narrow-minded conservative idiot douchebag. There are Christians like Colbert who are liberal, intelligent and open-minded. Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit PRIEST, is a frequent guest.
@klausweasley Which always boggles my mind. How can you reconcile belief in the magical creation of the universe (even if you see the 7 day myth as allegory) with the knowledge we have today?
Belief in God, ok that I can understand, but belief in Jesus and the Bible I just can't fathom.
@martystreets Rest assured- Stephen Colbert is NOT a serious Catholic, no thinking personcan be one. It is the most fucked up form of Christianity out there, except for Mormons, who have one too many 'Ms' in the name of their religion. If you're familiar with their beliefs, they talk about the 'moroni' - in my view, that is the plural form of 'moron'. Anyway, they're all fucked. I live for the day when the last stone will fall from the last church on the head of the last priest.
@dSTUMMFiSCHb That's his character. It's a persona that embodies a certain personality found commonly in America today. Just pay attention to him on any other episode with this description in mind and you will understand his type of comedy so much more.
@dSTUMMFiSCHb He's a satirist. He uses O'Rielly as a character inspiration for a lot of his humor style. As much as I like dawkins I can't hold this interview against Colbert because I can't take it seriously.
@dSTUMMFiSCHb As far as I can remember, Stephen Colbert has a habit of warning his guests beforehand that he'll play a thick retard on the show during their interview. Don't take my word for this, but I have a hunch that he and Dawkins are probably pretty ok with each other... (since Dawkins went on the show a second time to discuss his book "The Greatest Show on Earth"... but on the other hand he went on Fox News twice as well and hates them (who doesn't?) so again don't take my word for it)
While some of you got F.O.C Enlightenment here for being "HUMAN enough" to make a conclusion that this VIP ( Very Idiotic Person ) Mr Richard Dawkins a "retarded bird's brain", Sooooooooo stupid yet managed to Sell His RUBBISH to 2,000,000 or so "Knowledge Hungry" Fans, His fans paid HARD CASH to Buy ONE WAY Back To "Freaking Work Of Nature" - Very Dangerous, Save your loving family and friends Before Its To Late. For The Sake of Mankind, Also Refer to Our Previous Posting..
The"First Awakened Human", In the "Human Race", have to be "Reengineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING GOD, FEARFUL yet LOVING , If Your Break The Law, You'll be Trown into the BURNING HELL literally. Means, There was other MUCH MORE ADVANCE ENTITY that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE/Primate, As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Dont Tell me, The "First Awakened Human", In the begining of "Human Race", had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to FullFill Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Pls Explain >>>
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on, We have implimented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, We see Mr Dawkins is SOOOOO Outdated/Backward for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution Of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us "HUMAN" Now....
4:40-4:50 theist argument smoked by logic. LOL what a hilarious show, we needed hitchens on this!
AryaNFirE 32 minutes ago
Comment removed
Zejex 9 hours ago
Lmao "right, god doesn't like blackholes" ... good one Stephen; got to love his humor.
Props to Dawkins again.
aparks306 9 hours ago
Democracy proves god existence... hauhauahauhauhau!!!! That is a funny theist... heheheh
gdreyer 15 hours ago
One of the reasons I love Richard Dawkins is his sense of wonder in science.
DancingDi 20 hours ago
World Scientists That rule without political borders neutrally, commenting that Mr Richard Dawkins is soooo out of date, stupid and backward. By the time they discover the result of latest experiment, Mr Dawkins Idea is NO LONGER VALID
Ordeal1000 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr Dawkins Rules NOTHING, World Scientists Rule, Visit the Website in flesh, type godsurety . org directly on your browser. Science has proven that "God" does exist, yes, the One who made decision to put everything in order so that we see it as it is, and we are meant to have a freewill to make any "Individual Selection". Spread The News to all Your Friends. get F.O.C Update of Science, Mr Dawkins is sooooooooo out of date, backward, stupid, as Old saying: little knowledge is dangerous.
Ordeal1000 1 day ago
Compare this interview to the one with O'Reilly. You can almost cringe at Bill's stupidity.
lebronbeastjames6 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stephen is absolutely right! If there's a God, he is outside the time. Time is the space between two events; before any 'event', there was no time.
And since nothing finite can exist for infinite time (that's why the word is 'finite'), what existed outside it, call IT by whatever name: Allah/God/Creator, IT is what is outside the time before even the primordial mass (finite, too) could exist.
There's no before or after God, or whatever name you use for him (not male, not female, not a 'thing').
rollingklouds 1 day ago
Comment removed
rollingklouds 1 day ago
i love richard dawkins, but i also love GOD :D
ilvdeos 1 day ago
what language is the book cover in at 1:16?? I can't read it
destroyallhaha 1 day ago
@destroyallhaha It's in plain english, just the image of the video has been mirrored so it's reversed :)
GronTheMighty 1 day ago
This is the best thing ever!
I can laugh at myself when it’s funny!
lucymango123 1 day ago
he's a funny guy is colbert, and he's almost double agent interms of showing how dumb it is to believe god.
BenFosterism 2 days ago
genius!
mrnatascorpus 2 days ago
God Delusion for the WIN !!!!
heltongut123 2 days ago
omg, two of my favorite people having a discussion, a hilarious one at that lmao
l3ete1geuse 2 days ago
I have instant dislike of this guy. He won't even let Dawkins finish his sentence. What's the point in 'interviewing' him?
jimjimeny00 2 days ago
@jimjimeny00 the interviewer is not serious, it's a character he does :) I'm sure Dawkins knew what the interview would be like..
Leaderofpancakes 2 days ago
@jimjimeny00 heh heh heh its just so dam funny
mrnatascorpus 2 days ago
he says his book is intelligent design because we designed it. now if we were to intelligently design ourselves then why are we giving ourselves the ability to like the blue house over the red house? if its useless it would have died off because of natural selection but we still have it and i don't know why.
TJS305 3 days ago
its shiny and i can see my face in it but past that its a real disapointment. hahahahahhaha
kylescotternest 4 days ago
Hahaa good to see Dawkins in a not-so-serious setting.
alwalk21 4 days ago 7
Colbert is an atheist isn't he?
DaFleegsta 4 days ago
@DaFleegsta Absolutely...this is just his character. I'm pretty sure Dawkins was wise to this and was pretty much just playing along with it.
alwalk21 4 days ago
@alwalk21 Actually, Colbert is a Christian. He leans towards the left. but he believes in God.
demiricious 2 days ago
@demiricious Yeah, he is a Christian.
It's interesting, though, that he decided to effectively make fun of Christians by oversimplifying their arguments.
nanoday1 2 days ago
@demiricious That's really interesting. I really wouldnt have picked him as a Christian.
alwalk21 1 day ago
@DaFleegsta I doubt that. He is probably a Deist, that is someone who doesn't follow any religion but believes in some higher power. The founding fathers of USA, for example, were almost all Deists.
Kuhlfurst 3 days ago
@Kuhlfurst Well, probably not Jefferson or Franklin.
leviballen 3 days ago
hmm if you've mirrored the show so it doesn't trigger some automatic copyright recognition system, kudos to you sir, and thanks for showing this to non americans.
CCPlaetean 5 days ago
haha...great to see Dawkins enjoying this. I think it only annoys him when he gets it from people who really believe it!
PixelSlayer247 5 days ago
Omgadnowai ...supporters could not have made the bible survive especially the middle ages, many atheists that have attacked the bible and set out to disprove it became believers, perhaps you will be one as well I challenge you to get into the bible and many of the questions you have God will answer.
jimmyriche 5 days ago
ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
89cz3ko 6 days ago
Hey everyone! There's a new pro-atheist book out and it's getting rave views by those who know they are smart enough to understand it!" On sale now: "How to properly conduct yourself as a free-thinking atheist in the 21st century..." by Ima D. Ott and Noah Morales
troother777 6 days ago
Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3. Its just obvious no matter how the prophets of Darwin like Dawkins try to paint it, they love it because its an alternative to the God of the bible. The bible has stood for thousands of years, to every critic in every generation.
jimmyriche 6 days ago
**throws feces @jimmyriche
IsThisMyName89 6 days ago
@jimmyriche
It only stood because of its supporters, not because of its Holy nature. Your thought process is convoluted.
Omgadnowai 5 days ago
Dawkins is such a moron only in this age would he be tolerated. Any scientist can create a computer NO ONE can create a human being. Yet ya know who CAN create a human being? Random selection starting with inorganic matter pfft.
Pablofilmmaker 6 days ago
@Pablofilmmaker please enlighten me. How did god create the universe then?
SushiBlender 6 days ago
@SushiBlender He became the Universe long ago. But that's funny since Atheists always ask "Well then where did God come from"? yet when you talk about the big bang and ask where THAT came from they don't have an answer either. Kind of hypocritical to make fun of a theory when you yourself have the same answer to the same question. Btw the Hindus theory of the "Opening and closing of the eye of Brahma" is a pretty good match to the big bang and yes they say it happened billions of years ago.
Pablofilmmaker 6 days ago
@Pablofilmmaker okay you have a point, but there is a pretty decent theory of how it was created (the big bang) and what existed before it, check out Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing, on youtube.
89cz3ko 6 days ago
@SushiBlender the best explanation of how god created the universe
/watch?v=GGIen0Pp7TQ
bad quality but you get the point
"we are all atheist some of us take it one god further" - Richard Dawkins
IsThisMyName89 6 days ago
@Pablofilmmaker and me, Im a genetic engineer lol
wwe3466 6 days ago
Colbert is purely satirical, right?
kingpojo1 1 week ago
It's so nice of Colbert to let Dawkins slither onto his show.
ivlfounder 1 week ago
Wow I had a totally wrong idea about colbert. He's a fundamental asshole just like the rest of them.
MrAwesomesize 1 week ago
@MrAwesomesize lol do you know that colbert "plays the role" of bill oreily. Please tell me you know this
kr4yzi32k 1 week ago 3
@kr4yzi32k Oh thank god! (yes, pun intended)
MrAwesomesize 1 week ago
Last minute: I died.
lindendragon 1 week ago
Comment removed
lindendragon 1 week ago
colbert troll level = expert
sharkeysamuel 1 week ago 50
@sharkeysamuel Pshh...All he needs to do is start speaking in Mandarin and it would easily reach Asian level.
Fuyons9999 2 days ago
Just had to laugh hard at the first 25 seconds.
solomonkain 1 week ago
Dawkins is laughing so much because he's actually heard these arguments from non satirical religious people.
DaltonMunnal 1 week ago 2
*Sees title*
This won't end well!
Kuhlfurst 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 week ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 You've just admitted that evolution is possible within "kinds" such as breeds of dogs and cats. Now imagine that the dogs and cats are scattered around the world and are forced to adapt to new environments for millions of years. There would be an enormous evolutionary change within that time. So much change that they would be considered totally different from their original form before they were scattered, thus considered a totally new species. See, learning is fun.
Egag642 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 1 week ago
oh I see, the video is mirror image, weird.
JohnSnowstorm 1 week ago 8
@JohnSnowstorm It's because the automatic video analyzer that scans each video when you upload to youtube is designed to identify and block copyrighted material, ingenious little design, but pain in the ass for sharing viacom video. By mirroring the image you can (at least for now) trick the software.
Polydynamix 1 week ago
@Polydynamix fascinating, thumbs up for knowledge. ty
JohnSnowstorm 1 week ago
@JohnSnowstorm it's to get around copyrighted material
herrmusiclovert 1 week ago
@JohnSnowstorm I was wondering why they shook hands with their left hand, then I saw the book cover mirrored. Weird indeed.
sinistergnr 3 days ago
left handed handshake? what the hell is this? I am immediately uncomfortable.
JohnSnowstorm 1 week ago
Stephen Colbert is a fucking tool, everytime Richard was about to answer a question/refute something, that sorry excuse for a human, Colbert would quickly interrupt and and babble some ridiculous hocus pocus crap to try defend his misguided beliefs. let the genius speak you moron!
bobdidge 1 week ago
@bobdidge Not sure if your joking? but Colbert was playing a character, its all part of his act and character . Hes playing the stupid Christian.
gazzthompson 1 week ago
@bobdidge he was doing it on purpose as part of a stupid christian act :P you can quite easily tell if you watch and listen closely
kafroflol 1 week ago
@bobdidge Colbert "acts" a lot like Bill (The Moron) O'Reilly here, doesn't he?
TechMaven 1 week ago
@bobdidge lol he's being ironic. kinda obvious
megaplayah 1 week ago
lol @ "God doesn't like black holes" :D
Chris197980CH 1 week ago
The thing that is interesting, that some of you might disagree with out of denial, is Colbert believes in God and is a Christian. He has stated that. Throughout the interview, here and there, you see some true belief and debate with Dawkins, as he should since he believes in that.
Personally and obviously, I am an atheist. None the less, Colbert is very much not. And this is not being misleading by personal beliefs, but as to what he said himself.
Heifsin85 1 week ago
@Heifsin85
idk what colbert believes in. i really think he's an atheist. remember, most of the time he is playing a character on the show and in most interviews. he's humur is satire so it's difficult to know when he's being honest or not
arsenalskate123 1 week ago
This is great ahaha :D
idreamtofflight 2 weeks ago
@MindFlip Stephen Colbert is a liberal Catholic who plays the stereotypical Republican Fundamentalist to make people laugh. Very witty guy.
buffer545 2 weeks ago
is the interviewer an athiest mocking religion or is he serius? :O
MindFlip 2 weeks ago
This was such a funny interview.
8bobthebuilder 2 weeks ago
what about the pan spermia theory?
hulksmashize 2 weeks ago
Colbert and Dawkins did that perfectly :D
ehcouldnot 2 weeks ago
@adamasdiamandis FYI Colbert made sure that Dawkins knew he was only role playing by going to his dressing room beforehand and telling him as much. Dawkins was in on it from the start. I only know this because Dawkins said that on a video I saw before this one.
zideffil 2 weeks ago 26
@zideffil Where's the video of him saying that I am curious
Blurtex33 2 weeks ago
@Blurtex33 If you mean the video of Dawkins saying he knew about Colbert, it's on 1 of 6 videos of Dawkins being intervieweds by Penn Jillette on youtube. I forget which one.
zideffil 2 weeks ago
@zideffil I think it's pretty obvious to most people that Colbert is playing a character.... if anyone actually tunes in to the Colbert Report and thinks he is being genuine has to be mildly retarded.
BronzeBullBalls 1 week ago
@zideffil all the guests are "in on it"
it's obviously inconceivable that, with Colbert's level of popularity, anyone wouldn't know he plays a satirical character on TV let alone a guest on the show itself.
ubermensch826 4 days ago
@ubermensch826 You and I know that, but I was answering a few questions as to if he was kidding or not. Believe it or not, some folks have never heard of Stephen Colbert. Some folks only watch documentaries and news.
zideffil 4 days ago
I love Colberts act.
When he made fun of O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor it was priceless. For all those who do not understand, this is all an ACT by Colbert. He's using imitation in the form of comedy of idiotic right winged nuts in the states.
nickharris86 2 weeks ago
AAAAAAAAAAAAH I hate this guy. This guy is clearly a showman who uses, his childish humour and his fan boy audience to endorse his bull shit beliefs. It's unfair to put him up against an intelligent and rational man such as Dawkins, who is above the bull shit cheap tactics of this cunt. Seth Mcfarlane v Stephen Colbert is what I wanna see, he would get roasted
tastytastfood 2 weeks ago
@tastytastfood Colbert's act is satirical. Do you know of satire? Dawkins knew what was going on here, thats why here was having a laugh. Its a pity you didnt.
cokehead1969 2 weeks ago
@tastytastfood Colbert went to Prof. Dawkins dresssing room before show time and made doubly sure that Prof. Dawkins knew that he was not serious. Dawkins had already been prepared by Collbert's team, but he wanted to make sure out of his high respect for Prof. Dawkins. I'm not trying to appear smarter than you, my atheist friend - it's just that I was just watching another Dawkins interview where he stated that. Also, I am with you - Fuck stupid fundies and their childish beliefs
zideffil 2 weeks ago
@adamasdiamandis Fuck you dude, seriously if you wanna say shit like that on this video you may as well get down on your knees and suck Colbert's self righteous dick and shove a bible up your ass
tastytastfood 2 weeks ago
95% BULL SHIT
RottingCorpse100 2 weeks ago
satin going to love that atheist long time
papagaryel 2 weeks ago
@papagaryel And YOU are an IDIOT!
zideffil 2 weeks ago
You guys do know the show has a format right? He had to cut him off or they wouldn't have been able to go to commercial break, and thus CC would not be able to continue broadcasting the show.
Dalesy617 2 weeks ago
He is a jerk for not letting him finish, but He is pretty much acting like any fundie to get a laugh and its pretty damn hilarious.
ChrisMcC7692 2 weeks ago
Did anyone else notice that they shook left hands at :22?
MrLukeWelsh 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheXwodnavel 2 weeks ago
@MrLukeWelsh the image is mirrored. look at the book at 1:14
TheXwodnavel 2 weeks ago
@TheXwodnavel The whole video is mirrored
cheesenugget38 2 weeks ago
@cheesenugget38 Yes. That's what i meant.
TheXwodnavel 2 weeks ago
Dawkins looked like he enjoyed himself, it was better than being yelled at by people on Fox that's for sure.
CheeseMacro 2 weeks ago
I dunno if I'd ever seen Dawkins smile so much. :D
jayeenn 2 weeks ago
Colbert isn't a jerk. He has a show and has to maintain a schedule. They could go back and forth for hours on this subject.
ALLNEWSUNNY 2 weeks ago
@ALLNEWSUNNY COLBERT'S PATHETIC. HES A CATHOLIIC AND HES MAKING THEM LOOK STUPID
martystreets 2 weeks ago
this is hilarious! If you're upset at all just watch a real debate. Colbert is funny and dawkins stays in character and doesn't ham it up, its great!
MrBaldurthegood 2 weeks ago
Yeah at least dawkins has a sense of humour. I dont think colbert was being terribly serious in this 'debate', if you can even call it that.
diatomicjaguar 2 weeks ago
Am still not sure how to feel about this. Was he being disrespectful to Prof. Dawkins.
101truthhurts 2 weeks ago
@101truthhurts It's an act. He's like that to most guests. He's spoofing Bill O'Reilly. But he probably has more respect for Dawkins than Bill O.
klausweasley 2 weeks ago
The remark "...the universe just exploded from nothing..." said with an sarcastic tone is old and tired, and illogical. Of course the universe came nothing: where else would it come from?
SSNReactorOperator 2 weeks ago
Shut up Stephen
mmmm79099 2 weeks ago
95% of Americans are wrong! lol see I can be narrow minded too
mrjamesx 2 weeks ago
Colbert beautifully mimics the delusion perpetuated by 90% of US citizens.
CarajilloDulce 2 weeks ago
read the BIBLE
newman20072008 2 weeks ago
I love Richard Dawkins. He will be immensely more popular in the future when more and more people wake up from their religious suppression.
ManDudeYeah 2 weeks ago 41
GOD is real. deal with it
newman20072008 2 weeks ago
@newman20072008 Orly? Wanna throw some proof of that over my way?
gotsda 2 weeks ago
that guy is a ANTY CHRIST ans i aplaud colbert.
newman20072008 2 weeks ago
@newman20072008
Lol. You are an 'ANTY' INTELLECTUAL, Colbert is using fairly blatant satire to mock his own arguments against Dawkins.
mrwhiterain69 2 weeks ago
0:22
Left Handed Handshake? Do they shake hands on the opposite side too?
mrwhiterain69 2 weeks ago
@mrwhiterain69
nevermind, the image is mirrored somehow.
mrwhiterain69 2 weeks ago
?sdrawkcab delleps eman s’nikwaD drahciR si yhW
hyperstone6 2 weeks ago
I love Dawkins but have to wonder if he actually has a sense of humor.
xclosetohumanx 2 weeks ago 2
@xclosetohumanx I think he does have a sense of humor of sorts, but he's a real brit in the sense of his pride etc so it's pretty removed.
herringla 2 weeks ago
@xclosetohumanx
Oh he has, you must see the video of him reading hate mail:)
TheSaltyAdmiral 2 weeks ago
bloody awful american talk show host... talk about canned laughter
Bubinga5 2 weeks ago 2
@Bubinga5 It's a comedy show-Stephen Colbert is a satirist, the whole show is a joke. You can't have seriously thought he was a genuine interviewer and this was a real interview? Wow.
hugoegbert79 2 weeks ago
I love Colberts comical act. I wonder if theres ever idiotic conservatives who actually believe Cobert is a Christian.
nickharris86 2 weeks ago
@nickharris86 Colbert IS in fact a practicing Christian (Catholic to be specific). It's an act that he's conservative ideologue but it's not an act that he is, in fact, a fairly religious Catholic who teaches Sunday school. Not every Christian is a narrow-minded conservative idiot douchebag. There are Christians like Colbert who are liberal, intelligent and open-minded. Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit PRIEST, is a frequent guest.
klausweasley 2 weeks ago
@klausweasley Which always boggles my mind. How can you reconcile belief in the magical creation of the universe (even if you see the 7 day myth as allegory) with the knowledge we have today?
Belief in God, ok that I can understand, but belief in Jesus and the Bible I just can't fathom.
megamarsvin 2 weeks ago
@nickharris86 Stephen Colbert is actually a Catholic and teaches sunday school at his church. who's an idiot now?
dairylives 2 weeks ago
Stephen Colbert plays a conservative christian character for those below who do not understand that it is all a comical act.
HeinrichGruenmann 2 weeks ago 3
@HeinrichGruenmann BUT HE REALLY IS A STRICT CATHOLIC THOUGH
martystreets 2 weeks ago
@martystreets Rest assured- Stephen Colbert is NOT a serious Catholic, no thinking personcan be one. It is the most fucked up form of Christianity out there, except for Mormons, who have one too many 'Ms' in the name of their religion. If you're familiar with their beliefs, they talk about the 'moroni' - in my view, that is the plural form of 'moron'. Anyway, they're all fucked. I live for the day when the last stone will fall from the last church on the head of the last priest.
zideffil 2 weeks ago
stephen colbert is such a jerk, why doesn´t he let dawkin finish -.-
dSTUMMFiSCHb 3 weeks ago 14
@dSTUMMFiSCHb It's for the media lol
guitarb3ast7x 3 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb That's his character. It's a persona that embodies a certain personality found commonly in America today. Just pay attention to him on any other episode with this description in mind and you will understand his type of comedy so much more.
xxmastermixx 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb He's a satirist. He uses O'Rielly as a character inspiration for a lot of his humor style. As much as I like dawkins I can't hold this interview against Colbert because I can't take it seriously.
CarletonSaw 2 weeks ago
@CarletonSaw Dawkins were apparently informed/warned before the show about Colbert´s "character" and said himself that he had enjoyed the experience.
LoverofLiszt 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb Its satire!!!
Alexander021 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb it's his satirical character that he plays
NoogieFoshoogie99 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb because that's his character
JoyDivision19 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb hes also a character, the real Stephen colbert is actualy friends with alot of intellectuals.
Areyourealythatdumb 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb im sure people have pointed this out but colbert is a satirist he acting like bill o'Reilly just for laughs
1991rayder 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb retarded troll is retarded.
convictPKlol 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb stephen colbert is just highlighting the ignorence og theism. Also, itscomedy show, what u expect.
unholyjebus 2 weeks ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb As far as I can remember, Stephen Colbert has a habit of warning his guests beforehand that he'll play a thick retard on the show during their interview. Don't take my word for this, but I have a hunch that he and Dawkins are probably pretty ok with each other... (since Dawkins went on the show a second time to discuss his book "The Greatest Show on Earth"... but on the other hand he went on Fox News twice as well and hates them (who doesn't?) so again don't take my word for it)
hmspinaforethisisspa 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mellowcowism 1 week ago
@dSTUMMFiSCHb Because he's a comedian who caricatures the right-wing media.
mellowcowism 1 week ago
The best Satirical man ever.. his sarcasm is highly entertaining and intellectual!!
sinlokemp 3 weeks ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
While some of you got F.O.C Enlightenment here for being "HUMAN enough" to make a conclusion that this VIP ( Very Idiotic Person ) Mr Richard Dawkins a "retarded bird's brain", Sooooooooo stupid yet managed to Sell His RUBBISH to 2,000,000 or so "Knowledge Hungry" Fans, His fans paid HARD CASH to Buy ONE WAY Back To "Freaking Work Of Nature" - Very Dangerous, Save your loving family and friends Before Its To Late. For The Sake of Mankind, Also Refer to Our Previous Posting..
Ordeal1000 3 weeks ago
i love how there are always a hand full of dumb shits in colbert's audience who don't realize when he is being sarcastic... how embarrassing!
wrathofme03 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The"First Awakened Human", In the "Human Race", have to be "Reengineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING GOD, FEARFUL yet LOVING , If Your Break The Law, You'll be Trown into the BURNING HELL literally. Means, There was other MUCH MORE ADVANCE ENTITY that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE/Primate, As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Ordeal1000 3 weeks ago
Dont Tell me, The "First Awakened Human", In the begining of "Human Race", had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to FullFill Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Pls Explain >>>
Ordeal1000 3 weeks ago
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on, We have implimented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, We see Mr Dawkins is SOOOOO Outdated/Backward for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution Of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us "HUMAN" Now....
Ordeal1000 3 weeks ago