Dawkins has a great sense of humour, even in a debate. When rationalizing about science it's more common a creationist's theory is debatable as an issue of pseudo-science. The problem with some professors with a convincing intellectual compound of creationism is that they are not aware to a certain degree about the evolutionary concepts of organisms.
Dawkins isn't taking such a debate seriously in relation to evolutionary pressure factors.
I think Dawkins does a great job of promoting science, the videos on his channel are very encouraging and engaging. But imagine people telling you everything you worked on in university is not true(evolution), Richard is just being defensive towards the attacks brought onto him by certain religious radicals.
First of all, Dawkins is admitting what Tyson said. Second, a person is not necessarily more intelligent than others that lack certain skills in verbal communication ( go read "the selfish gene") even though many people think Dawkins always say exactly what they wanted to say all along, in a very persuasive manner.
And last : where does he something innapropiate about religious people in "The god delusion"? Telling people they are wrong and why does not equal to attacking them
@2edsajdmsa Neil deGrasse Tyson is no fool. He has ten times the intellect that Dawkins has. He's been a huge proponent of scientific understanding and is extremely passionate about it, as opposed to shouting at idiots to sell books.
That said, I like Dawkins. It's just that my head almost exploded when I saw somebody call Tyson a fool.
"He has ten times the intellect that Dawkins has." that's a rather idiotic statement. You probably haven't met either of them. Who are you to judge someone's intellect?
I'll judge the intellect of public figures of the scientific community all I damn well please because I've heard their seminars and read their books.
Admittedly, they are both in separate fields so it's true that you can't really compare them. However, where Tyson demonstrates his passion for science, Dawkins gets into fights with lunatics like Deepak Chopra.
Tyson's passion is what brings people to him. Catch more flies with honey.
Hogwash. You think that by watching a few videos on youtube and reading their books that you are capable of judging one's intelligence? Unless you are at their equal intellectual level, you cannot make such judgement calls. Anyways, your assessment is moot, because Dawkins also has a substantial following, perhaps more than Tyson and is respected on both sides. They both have different strategies, Dawkins is just allot more outspoken and it apparently works.
What this "fool" is saying is a perfectly reasonable argument of being less confrontational which in many ways can actually be counter productive. I love Tyson and I love Dawkins, they both have their ways of delivering their message, but at the end of the day, the only people they will convert, are those that are willing to do so. You cannot force you beliefs on anyone with neither force or reason. That's just my opinion.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS YOU ENDLESSLY."
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
This is going to slay you. The scientists that say they have a great deal of evidence for evolution and the big bang wrote it down in BOOKS, same with the writers of the Old Testament and New Testament books that claimed God existed and that a Messiah came to Earth 2000 years ago. Not much of a difference there.
There is actual evidence to back up science, anyone can seek the evidence out for themselves. I suggest you give it a go....
Massive difference.
ANYONE who has studied biology can see the proof for evolution. Even without having studied it to a professional level, I know very simple biology-related facts which prove evolution, and I don't just rely on books.
I suggest you actually research a subject before you refute it, lest you look stupid.
@Rawk4Life The scientists DO have evidence. That is NOT the same as the nomadic tribesmen who wrote the abrahamic religions, where the only evidence is the books themselves.
ANYBODY can see the VAST amounts of evidence for science's claims.
NOBODY has any evidence whatsoever to back up religion's claims.
The difference between said scientists is if you ask them to show you the evidence (or ask them how they did their experiments so you can do them yourself), the books will also detail how you can search for it yourself.
Can you point to me how one can prove the tree of life in Eden?
Because I can point to you how you can analyze the cosmic radiowave background for evidence of the Big Bang.
Just to clear up my former ststement. Neil, whom I greatly admire, dresses things up too much for me and many others, and as such you will end up in theological discussions with groups presenting no facts. I will stick with Richard and his presentations.
There are plenty of 'missing links' which link each other back to apes and their forfathers. Cumulative DNA evidence is actually a living fossil and 'punctuated equilibrium' more than explains the 'missing links' in between the 'missing links'.
Niel Tyson is typical of that group of religious followers who like things 'dressed up' and take style over substance.
W hy don't you go do some research on how other scientists feel about him, and while you're at it, you tube, and Google scientific evidence for a creator! The fossil record will ALWAYS have huge gaps where transitional specie to specie animals are supposed to be. It's been over 100 years since Darwin's theory began, and out of millions of fossils found, not even ONE trans. Fossil exists! That is crucial to evolution being true, even Darwin admitted this fact.
@TheWayandWordofLife Thats not actually true, there are quite a few "transition" fossils. The most interesting (in my opinion anyway) is Ambulocetus which is an early relative of the whale that still retained its ability to walk on land but was also built to swim rather well. If you are a fish person there is Guiyu which shares both Actinopterygii and Sarcopterygii features, although I believe (dont quote me on it) that it is slightly more closely related to Sarcoptergii fish.
@lundymaphone In fairness I will add that the very concept of "transition" fossils is itself misleading, as it assumes an end goal. That human need to compartmentalize everything has lead to the idea that things skip from one species to the next, when it appears to be more of a "flow" from one species to the next.
@TheWayandWordofLife Well that is a lie. We've found many transitional fossils. You're just choosing to ignore them to defend your faith. Evolution has mountains of evidence backing it, the same amount of evidence that, if it wasn't going in the face if faith would be completely accepted, but because of the religious majority in countries like the United States, they assume they have credibility because more of them are saying there isn't any evidence.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO THE LOVELY HUMAN EXAMPLE OF EVOLVED MAN AT IT'S FINEST- this comment goes out to Eatmybologna: WOW!!! Your user name says it ALL! As well as your filthy, hateful mouth, your obvious Hatred for believers, and your extremely inaccurate information on current day faith values. You say Sweden has a much better economic system, and less crime, no war, etc. Yet these facts have NOTHING to do with the majority of ATHEISTS, it has to do with the socialist economy, and that t
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I will believe in evolution when: #1 THOUSANDS of fossils that show a fully formed species in suspended TRANSFORMATION of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SPECIES! Out Of the MILLIONS of DISCOVERED FOSSILS, SCIENCE CANNOT PRODUCE EVEN ONE! NOT EVEN ONE! WHERE ARE THEY! FOR all of the BILLIONS OF YEARS that both animals and man have walked this earth, SHOULDN'T there be thousands, upon thousands of them??? YET NO MISSING LINK for MAN himself HAS EVER BEEN found, out of BILLIONS of skeletal remains, t
HE's such a deceitful little weasel! So insulting, and a magician of words! HIS GOAL IS TO INFLAME THE DISTASTE FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN ANY TYPE OF GOD, AND INFLAME ALL THOSE NEGATIVE EMOTIONS OF DISDAIN FOR BELIEVERS IN GOD, INTO A VENGEFUL REBELLION! IT'S already working- check out ALL THE ATHEIST COPY CATS ON YOU TUBE, his minions are everywhere! I've NEVER seen ANYONE HAVE SO MUCH VEHEMENT HATRED FOR PEOPLE, AND GOD, oh, except for the anti- christ, and Hitler, oh yeah, Anton La Vey!
The british probably aren't as accustomed to having to dance around the sensitivities of people with religious faith. Also, Americans don't seem to appreciate Richard Dawkins' robust wit. There is probably a positive correlation between religious fundamentalism and an underdeveloped sense of humor.
Oh-ho yes! Underdeveloped sense of humour, indeed. Or to put it more broadly, a total lack of irony. And it's that inability to appreciate nuance, paradoxes, contradictions, that is emblematic of a black-and-white, religious mindset that doesn't challenge premises, and doesn't think critically at all.
Science-,although much more complex and less contradicting,still just the proof that justifies the faith.
Science is a form of faith and thats all there is too it.Its a system just like a religous system.the bottom line is humans have there head so far up there ass they just cannot accept that there's no way for us to prove anything.
Well, i remember an anecdote when Zeno was teaching in the streets how it was impossible for anything to move at all, that movement was an illusion of mind. One of the guys listening told him "Hey Zeno, could you please come over here for a second? I have something to show you."
So Zeno walked up to him, and after he did, the other guy told him "have you seen this? you moved! Movement is proven by walking."
And so the truth of our science is proven through technology.
Well, i remember an anecdote when Zeno was teaching in the streets how it was impossible for anything to move at all, that movement was an illusion of mind. One of the guys listening told him "Hey Zeno, could you please come over here for a second? I have something to show you."
So Zeno walked up to him, and after he did, the other guy told him "have you seen this? you moved! Movement is proven by walking."
And so the truth of our science is proven through technology.
actually science is not a form of faith. There's no faith ( blind belief ) in observing something, studying it, analyzing it and thus concluding something about it.
Definition of faith according to wikipedia : "Faith is the confident belief or trust in a person, idea, or thing that is not based on proof".
@rpaslux well,actually you still have to have faith in your microscope,then after that you have to have faith in human perception,and faith in the scientific system we humans have created,and whilst being fairly brainy,we are still hugely flawed creatures.science cannot truly prove anything.but it certainly does better for us than most religous pursuit.Im just saying that The Map Is NOT The Territory! : )
without good religion, a human being comes to regard himself/herself as a dictator-like figure who does not accept his own relativity. dawkins is a good example.
@KYUNGILNAM You know this how? All your years of observation and research?
You are believing in a book that was written by people who thought slavery was OK, thought the world was flat, that the sun was 17 miles away and raped women freely.
Educate yourself. People like you are why the rest of the world hate Americans.
@Eatmybologna you even do not understand what i mean. over the history, scientists justify slave system and colonialism. it is true. study history, please,
by saying that, i want to tell you that scientists do many mistakes too. they need to be humble and accept different views.
@Eatmybologna without religion, people tend to absolutize themselves in many cases. people need to relativize themselves and accept differences. absolutizing one's own view provokes violence.
@KYUNGILNAM I have come to the conclusion that you are trolling. I came to this conclusion mainly for my own sanity, I refuse to believe there are some people this stupid out there in the world.
Some days I think there is hope and then other days I read posts like yours and realize humanity is completely and utterly fucked.
Some advice, smoke some weed, get laid and look through a microscope. Maybe you will realize how moronic and close minded your arguments are.
@Eatmybologna not accepting different views is violence itself. there is good elements and dark elements in all religions as in the case of science. i do not justify the dark elements of religion as exemplified in child abuse of in some catholic church. but as a rule, religion has been doing a great job in making people noble and humanized and more compassionate. how can one deny the fact???
@KYUNGILNAM Not all views are equal, though, and not all should be given equal credence by any stretch. If a child tells me he believes in Santa Claus, I use my judgment to reject that viewpoint as completely unfounded. If a schizophrenic on the street tells me he's under the control of extraterrestrials, I can be reasonably certain he's delusional. Most of us atheists and agnostics think that belief in deities is just as ludicrous and just as unworthy of serious consideration.
@assassthenation yes, but most normal, well-adjusted people are perfectly happy to let others believe what they want, as long is it has no negative impact on their own lives. I don't believe in God, but I also don't think that belief in God is ludicrous or laughable. People are quite entitled to find succour wherever they can and I refuse to look down on them for that, as long as the impact on me is not directly negative.
science cannot monopolize truth. there are so many different views of truth. but when science tries to exaust truth, it becomes violent. also if there is no guide of ethics or religion, science becomes easily violent as shown in the case of auschwitz and maruta. over the human history, science and scientists justify slave system, colonialism and so on. dawkins is very violent too; he does not accept difference.
@KYUNGILNAM Further evidence stupidity should be illegal.
Yes he has written some of the most thought provoking books of all time that must have taken 1000s of hours of research, life work and time to write and he did it all for fame at the ripe old age of 70.
@KYUNGILNAM Really it does? What about all the priests who rape little boys? What about all the religious Americans going to shoot people in Iraq? What about all the Islamic people blowing themselves up on buses? What about the century's of religious wars that have been waged? What about the crusades? 90% of Americans believe in God yet you have a terrible crime rate, tell me why is that?
his idea of religion is not new at all. there have been countless atheists and agnotists over world history. religions survive such a challenge. without religion (in a good sense) and art in general, human beings are nothing but animals.
Why is it that Sweden's economy is not down the shitter? Why do they have the lowest crime rate in the world? Why is their government actually trying to help its country?
Oh did I mention over 85% of Sweden are atheist? Shit, that kind of puts you're whole "we need religion" thing straight out the window doesn't it.
THIS IS PROOF THAT ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS!!!
youtube. com/ watch?v =jqsRDD6kXWY
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
Religion is such bullshit! why is it taking so fucking long to realise thisssss????? all the money wasted on religion could be helping ill people instead of teching gullible people.
Yeah, he was in charge of the group that reclassified it.. It was actually an accurate description. If we included Pluto as a planet, we would need to include a few hundred other balls of ice in the same region that we have discovered in recent decades. Pluto really belongs in that class of objects..not with the other major planets.
Pluto was voted on by a world wide organization of Astronomers. I'm sure Tyson was voting as well. They voted it out because if Pluto was to remain a planet then like 8 other wiener objects would have to be planets too.
Speaking of religious people, of which I am not one, I do recall going to sunday school as a child and being taught evolution. Of course they mixed it in with the creation in 6 days, but they were cool with it one way or another.
It's all hit and miss and who feels like saying what....
@Polybun: Go get a ball bat. And hit your mother right in the face for not believing in evolution! That's very cool! You are back to the age of idiots.
I feel degrauss fails to comprehend that the only way to educate most of the people here in the US about science is to grab them by the throat and shake the living shit out of them. Religion was beat into them with a 2x4. It's going to take a ball bat to get it out.
Like him, or hate him. He is very well spoken, and even more intelligent. It does not take a gargantuan dose of science to realize this quite honestly, but if you want one... read his books.
Most important, dialogue-shifting, influential evolutionary biologists to exist since Darwin himself.
In all honesty, and I really did not come here looking for an argument, so don't expect to get one. Of most forums on the internet where just anyone can chime in and say whatever they are thinking, this is amongst the lousiest... consistently
The debates are just trite and/or dumb.
Dawkins is a "godsend" to his field. He is an especially astute scientist, and i would sincerely doubt that anyone who says he isn't a good scientist even caries a degree in science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@troyspaz Dawkins knows more about biology than most, but he thinks something can disprove God and hes wrong. We're so tiny and insignificant I think he forgets it'd be like a germ (or a being of some the size of a sub-atomic particle) trying to find proof of an elephant. We might be able to do it one way or the other, but it'd take a fuck-load of effort.
He doesn't think he can disprove God, no one can. He just doesn't think you can prove it and finds it irrational to belief something without proof. Would you believe Leprechauns, Fairies, Monsters, etc exist without proof? if your answer is no, then why should God be any different.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@takerhbkfan Well, he claims to somehow believe that the multiverse makes more sense than God, though he knows that another universe wouldn't have to follow our laws of logic or physics for that matter, and anything could pretty much be done in any way. It kinda contradicts itself, don't it? Isn't that what heaven is and always was? A beyond physical reach place? I always knew God wasn't in the clouds. He's in another universe. I think opening a worm hole would kill us all. Watch Michio Kaku. :P
@troyspaz You know, it could just be that you poo poo anything that offends your sensabilies, which makes you just as trite really. Come to think of it. The comment you just made has absolutely no meaning to it, and no purpose in the least. It's just dry complement, which is totally worthless and meaningless.
Hahaha! Oh, yeah! Richard hasn't been sensitive enough to other people's feelings/state of mind -- scientists are renowned for that. What a shame.*
Perhaps scientists should use the same "sensitivity" that Christians & Muslims have used in their conversion tactics and dogma, in their tediously-long history: kill anyone who doesn't accept their theory.**
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You see, your comment is another shining exmaple of how Richard preys on ignorant fools to propogate his beliefs.
I am not a christian, just a human being with a well edcuated enough mind to see can see that a Richard Dawkins is a classic old fashioned fundamentalist prick
The only contribution Dawkins has made to society and the world is inflame the potentiality of another world war
What a great guy! ow dont forget the wonderful donations to HIS type of science
And which of Richard's books have you read? And in what way does Richard separate himself from the rest of the scientific community to be seen as teaching a completely separate _version_ of science? Which ancient religious ideologies does Richard strictly adhered to that would qualify him as being fundamentalist? Exactly where is Richard in error? Oh, and . . . what do you "believe" in? Are you an atheist? If you want to respond with reason, then send me a pvt. message, let's not flood this.
"You are professor of the public understanding of science, not professor of delivering truth to the public."
Dawkins, Science is a search for truth, but all the same, please try to educate people about it in a way that could not be confused with your trying to deliver truth to the public.
Society has treated religion and other supernatural horse manure with kid gloves for far too long. We need people like Dawkins, Penn Gilette, Adam Carolla, and Bill Maher, among others, who are willing to stand up and ioenly ridicule the ridiculous.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Ridicule the ridiculous" you say? LOL!
Then why not "ridicule" the ridiculous theory of evolution? It deserves far more ridicule than the idea of God creating! And there is far more evidence for Creation than there is for the man-made idea of evolution! Evolution is just a LIE to lead people astray and away from the actual TRUTH,which is that God Created the universe and ALL that is therein!
Go right ahead, Sparky. YouTube is full of genuises like yourself attempting to ridicule science with bronze-age mythology-- And the irony is all the more delicious when it's done on a "man made" computer.
You are 100% correct. The Bible is the word of God and God is perfect. That's why I believe that we should be able to own slaves and why I think Homosexuals, rebellious teenagers and adulterers should be stoned to death.
i love religeous nutjobs...how the fuck can you shoot someone outside an abortion clinic first if they go to hell NOW...waiting...HAIL SATAN!...fuck off
the thing which is rfepulsive in believers is that they don't want to think - in many things - they chose belief as the way of understanding. which is... lame
evolution is flawed in so many ways u have no idea
i would go on and prove it but the 500 word count is annoying and i cant fit anything simply put
where does the organism obtain the information in their dna to change and adapt? nothing in the outside world can affect or change your dna. DNA stays the same throughout your life, so how does an organism know when to change if no new information is added to the dna strand.
"where does the organism obtain the information in their dna to change and adapt?"
The organism itself doesn't, and although your assumption that your DNA stays the same throughout your life is wrong, the mutations don't affect your body because when they occur, they only occur in a single cell. Because your body consists of millions and millions of cells, that won't influence your physical appearance (continued in next post...)
unless in cancer cells, but let's leeave those alone for now.
The thing is, when a mutation occurs in a sperm cell, an egg cell, or a stem cell of the early embryo, it does have effect. because the entire body will be "built" according to the blueprints in the now-mutated DNA, so the changes will be noticable.
What I want to say is that the organism itself won't change, but his children will, and in fact, entire species.
DNA u were born with does not have the capacity and information to evolve. your dna u were born with was solely just to survive, nowhere in ur dna is it written to lost ur tail, so my question is how does the organism itself know to change, u said that ur cell changes but HOW? it doesnt do it by itself something outside has to change ur cell but nothing physical can change ur genetic makeup
I meant to say that only mutations in either a sperm cell, an egg cell, or a stem cell of the early embryo do have effect, as those are the cells that the whole body is based on. I hope you understand me when I put it like that.
Second, the organism itself doesn't know how to change, it's like this: a sperm cell mutates, then merges with the core of the egg cell, and then the baby that follows will have the exact same DNA in all of its cells as the sperm cell and the egg cell combined.
-continued- when that mutation coincidentally ensures a better life for that organism, for example a longer neck for a giraffe or a harder shield for a turtle, there is a better chance for that organism to survive and thus mate, and his children will inherit the same gene, etc etc. So the organism doesn't choose to change, it just happens. And if it's a beneficial mutation, and the consequences spread over multiple generations (thousands), that's called evolution.
Oh, and third, mutations can occur either by "something outside", like radiation or carcinogens, or by itself during the meiosis (the division of cells used by the body to create sperm or egg cells).
Once there is any variation in genetic code of a species, ie, we aren't all clones, then the species can evolve. Dogs are the perfect example, they are all the same species, but look at the massive variety in breeds, that have arose in even our own recorded history, due to selective breeding, we have accelerated the process. Natural pressures can easily do the same over a longer period. How can you say evolution is not real, we have clearly been evolving dogs for thousands of years!
We are not literally "evolving" dogs, as it isn't a transitive verb. What spartonne tries to say, is that the way humans have bred dogs is a form of selection, like natural selection but not natural.
In natural selection, nature does the selecting. In dog breeding, humans did.
And they are still the same species, but still *very* different from eachother and from their ancestor, the wolf. This is the result of mutated genes.
so how does radiation and other influences increase the rate of survival? it would probably harm u if u were hit by radiation
and yes i do believe in natural selection
i can believe in natural selection but not evolution because natural selection is just the fact that the strongest and fastest survive
e.x. giraffes with longer necks get the food better, therefore the longer necks survive. thats perfectly logical so thye have babies with longer necks
I don't say that organisms randomly evolve, I say that the mutations that cause evolution are random.
Carcinogens are substances that invoke cancer. As you may know a cancer cell is a cell that has mutated DNA in duch a fashion that the cell splits unusually fast, thus creating a tumor.
And I NEVER said that the organism knows anything beforehand. I even DENIED that.
As for the radiation (and the carcinogens), I just named a few things that can cause mutation, because you asked for examples...
but if its random? i always thought the organisms specifically evolve just to increase rate of survival. and carcinogens as you described can not increase your chance of survival but greatly decrease it.
Mutations are random, evolution is not. That is because of the phenomenon natural selection.
If you really want to learn about evolution and how it works, and you're got some spare time, watch the following series: youtube . com / view_play_list?p=ED4BA3683D0273ED
so ur saying lots of organisms have bad mutations that hurt them so they die.
then the ones that didnt have bad ones live
and thye make more babies
that would me lots and lots of organisms would die almost to the point of extinction because it is random so whats the chances of evolving for good. but i have never heard of an animal that evolved for worse? have you?
They don't die because of the random mutations, they die because the environment kills them. It is called natural selection.
You should really be looking at a scientific textbook if you want to learn about evolution. You clearly don't know much about it and YouTube comments are probably an ineffective form of education about the matter.
Maybe talkorigins(.)org would help? Or you could go watch some videos on it before trying to debate about it?
I commend you on using logic but any honest investigation has to be two-pronged, using logic AND evidence.
At this point, the evidence seems to be what you are missing here and that could probably seriously be cleared up by watching a few videos on how evolution works.
Again, though, it is probably good that you have the logic part first. I've met people who drum around with bad evidence but don't have the logic to see it and they are not at all pleasant to talk to.
Oh there's nothing wrong with that. It's even kind of true. "Survival of the fittest" is a way for *nature* to *select* the ones who survive and multiply. *Nature*. *Select*.
Fossilization is a pretty rare occurrance- Since something with a "bad" mutation would die quickly, it's not going to multiply and spread the mutation. It's extremely unlikely to find a fossil of one individual freak- Assuming we'd notice the "bad mutation" from its skeleton in the first place.
Yes they are the same species now, but eventually, the genetic differences become prominent enough, that two breeds are no longer sexually compatible, and thus become separate species. That takes time.
Also how do you explain vestigious structures like leg bones in whales? Or your very own appendix? Emus have wings? Why? They do not use them, AT ALL.
well humans have been on the earth for a long time
actually the time that humans started breeding dogs there were already humans(duh)
then how come humans havent changed into different species becasue dogs change because of their surrounding their enviorment and etc. and humans are the same some live in africa in europe asia but although we have different skin colors we are the same species
It's impossible to dislike Dawkins. I want to have a beer with him :D
tontsa911 2 weeks ago
Dawkins has a great sense of humour, even in a debate. When rationalizing about science it's more common a creationist's theory is debatable as an issue of pseudo-science. The problem with some professors with a convincing intellectual compound of creationism is that they are not aware to a certain degree about the evolutionary concepts of organisms.
Dawkins isn't taking such a debate seriously in relation to evolutionary pressure factors.
Ringvireot 1 month ago
I think Dawkins does a great job of promoting science, the videos on his channel are very encouraging and engaging. But imagine people telling you everything you worked on in university is not true(evolution), Richard is just being defensive towards the attacks brought onto him by certain religious radicals.
OhmgrownCron 2 months ago
First of all, Dawkins is admitting what Tyson said. Second, a person is not necessarily more intelligent than others that lack certain skills in verbal communication ( go read "the selfish gene") even though many people think Dawkins always say exactly what they wanted to say all along, in a very persuasive manner.
And last : where does he something innapropiate about religious people in "The god delusion"? Telling people they are wrong and why does not equal to attacking them
claschxtreme 2 months ago
2:09 WTF
Superwolf1337 2 months ago
Dawkins is educating people, what this fool is asking him to do is sugar coat it.
2edsajdmsa 2 months ago
@2edsajdmsa Neil deGrasse Tyson is no fool. He has ten times the intellect that Dawkins has. He's been a huge proponent of scientific understanding and is extremely passionate about it, as opposed to shouting at idiots to sell books.
That said, I like Dawkins. It's just that my head almost exploded when I saw somebody call Tyson a fool.
Miazma 2 months ago
@Miazma
"He has ten times the intellect that Dawkins has." that's a rather idiotic statement. You probably haven't met either of them. Who are you to judge someone's intellect?
HDaviator 4 weeks ago
@HDaviator
I'll judge the intellect of public figures of the scientific community all I damn well please because I've heard their seminars and read their books.
Admittedly, they are both in separate fields so it's true that you can't really compare them. However, where Tyson demonstrates his passion for science, Dawkins gets into fights with lunatics like Deepak Chopra.
Tyson's passion is what brings people to him. Catch more flies with honey.
Miazma 4 weeks ago
@Miazma
Hogwash. You think that by watching a few videos on youtube and reading their books that you are capable of judging one's intelligence? Unless you are at their equal intellectual level, you cannot make such judgement calls. Anyways, your assessment is moot, because Dawkins also has a substantial following, perhaps more than Tyson and is respected on both sides. They both have different strategies, Dawkins is just allot more outspoken and it apparently works.
HDaviator 4 weeks ago
@2edsajdmsa
What this "fool" is saying is a perfectly reasonable argument of being less confrontational which in many ways can actually be counter productive. I love Tyson and I love Dawkins, they both have their ways of delivering their message, but at the end of the day, the only people they will convert, are those that are willing to do so. You cannot force you beliefs on anyone with neither force or reason. That's just my opinion.
HDaviator 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neil deGrasse Tyson - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS YOU ENDLESSLY."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins knows the fucking score!
Phoenix1664 4 months ago 5
I love the way Dawkins swears, he makes it sound friendly , you gotta love the man , he is awesome sauce.
LogicalStatements1 4 months ago 18
If there is no undisputed evidence that this world happened minus a Divine Creator, then you cannot say atheists are more correct than Christians/
Rawk4Life 4 months ago
@Rawk4Life No, the onus is on the people who believe in magic with no evidence to prove it.
As it stands, scientists have a great deal of evidence for evolution and the big bang.
Religion has books, written by people centuries ago, which also conveniently controls people and makes a sh!t load of money.
TheLordSod 3 months ago
This is going to slay you. The scientists that say they have a great deal of evidence for evolution and the big bang wrote it down in BOOKS, same with the writers of the Old Testament and New Testament books that claimed God existed and that a Messiah came to Earth 2000 years ago. Not much of a difference there.
Rawk4Life 3 months ago
@Rawk4Life
Are you fucking retarded??
There is actual evidence to back up science, anyone can seek the evidence out for themselves. I suggest you give it a go....
Massive difference.
ANYONE who has studied biology can see the proof for evolution. Even without having studied it to a professional level, I know very simple biology-related facts which prove evolution, and I don't just rely on books.
I suggest you actually research a subject before you refute it, lest you look stupid.
TheLordSod 3 months ago 4
@Rawk4Life The scientists DO have evidence. That is NOT the same as the nomadic tribesmen who wrote the abrahamic religions, where the only evidence is the books themselves.
ANYBODY can see the VAST amounts of evidence for science's claims.
NOBODY has any evidence whatsoever to back up religion's claims.
Knowledge and logic FAIL.
Marktheshtfgenius 3 months ago 3
@Rawk4Life
The difference between said scientists is if you ask them to show you the evidence (or ask them how they did their experiments so you can do them yourself), the books will also detail how you can search for it yourself.
Can you point to me how one can prove the tree of life in Eden?
Because I can point to you how you can analyze the cosmic radiowave background for evidence of the Big Bang.
Xgya2000 3 months ago 3
DeGrasse sure knows his way with words. I never knew that there were so many words which mean absolutely nothing. -_-;
chocolatMouse 5 months ago
Yeah, but Dawkins is bloody funny
JohnHalladay1 5 months ago 2
WTF FUCKING INTRO AND OUTRO FUCK OFF YOISM
x1x2x3ct 5 months ago
DeGrasse is flustering and inarticulate...
mscorney 6 months ago
fuck off!
themooddisorders 8 months ago
Just to clear up my former ststement. Neil, whom I greatly admire, dresses things up too much for me and many others, and as such you will end up in theological discussions with groups presenting no facts. I will stick with Richard and his presentations.
teknical100 9 months ago
There are plenty of 'missing links' which link each other back to apes and their forfathers. Cumulative DNA evidence is actually a living fossil and 'punctuated equilibrium' more than explains the 'missing links' in between the 'missing links'.
Niel Tyson is typical of that group of religious followers who like things 'dressed up' and take style over substance.
teknical100 9 months ago
Is this symposium available to view in its entirety anywhere? I'd appreciate it.
WilderWein77 10 months ago
The comment below is for 26Keano:
TheWayandWordofLife 10 months ago
W hy don't you go do some research on how other scientists feel about him, and while you're at it, you tube, and Google scientific evidence for a creator! The fossil record will ALWAYS have huge gaps where transitional specie to specie animals are supposed to be. It's been over 100 years since Darwin's theory began, and out of millions of fossils found, not even ONE trans. Fossil exists! That is crucial to evolution being true, even Darwin admitted this fact.
TheWayandWordofLife 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife Thats not actually true, there are quite a few "transition" fossils. The most interesting (in my opinion anyway) is Ambulocetus which is an early relative of the whale that still retained its ability to walk on land but was also built to swim rather well. If you are a fish person there is Guiyu which shares both Actinopterygii and Sarcopterygii features, although I believe (dont quote me on it) that it is slightly more closely related to Sarcoptergii fish.
lundymaphone 10 months ago
@lundymaphone In fairness I will add that the very concept of "transition" fossils is itself misleading, as it assumes an end goal. That human need to compartmentalize everything has lead to the idea that things skip from one species to the next, when it appears to be more of a "flow" from one species to the next.
lundymaphone 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife Well that is a lie. We've found many transitional fossils. You're just choosing to ignore them to defend your faith. Evolution has mountains of evidence backing it, the same amount of evidence that, if it wasn't going in the face if faith would be completely accepted, but because of the religious majority in countries like the United States, they assume they have credibility because more of them are saying there isn't any evidence.
BitTrampVideos 6 months ago
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO THE LOVELY HUMAN EXAMPLE OF EVOLVED MAN AT IT'S FINEST- this comment goes out to Eatmybologna: WOW!!! Your user name says it ALL! As well as your filthy, hateful mouth, your obvious Hatred for believers, and your extremely inaccurate information on current day faith values. You say Sweden has a much better economic system, and less crime, no war, etc. Yet these facts have NOTHING to do with the majority of ATHEISTS, it has to do with the socialist economy, and that t
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I will believe in evolution when: #1 THOUSANDS of fossils that show a fully formed species in suspended TRANSFORMATION of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SPECIES! Out Of the MILLIONS of DISCOVERED FOSSILS, SCIENCE CANNOT PRODUCE EVEN ONE! NOT EVEN ONE! WHERE ARE THEY! FOR all of the BILLIONS OF YEARS that both animals and man have walked this earth, SHOULDN'T there be thousands, upon thousands of them??? YET NO MISSING LINK for MAN himself HAS EVER BEEN found, out of BILLIONS of skeletal remains, t
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
HE's such a deceitful little weasel! So insulting, and a magician of words! HIS GOAL IS TO INFLAME THE DISTASTE FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN ANY TYPE OF GOD, AND INFLAME ALL THOSE NEGATIVE EMOTIONS OF DISDAIN FOR BELIEVERS IN GOD, INTO A VENGEFUL REBELLION! IT'S already working- check out ALL THE ATHEIST COPY CATS ON YOU TUBE, his minions are everywhere! I've NEVER seen ANYONE HAVE SO MUCH VEHEMENT HATRED FOR PEOPLE, AND GOD, oh, except for the anti- christ, and Hitler, oh yeah, Anton La Vey!
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
The british probably aren't as accustomed to having to dance around the sensitivities of people with religious faith. Also, Americans don't seem to appreciate Richard Dawkins' robust wit. There is probably a positive correlation between religious fundamentalism and an underdeveloped sense of humor.
Ecdysiast96 1 year ago
@Ecdysiast96
Oh-ho yes! Underdeveloped sense of humour, indeed. Or to put it more broadly, a total lack of irony. And it's that inability to appreciate nuance, paradoxes, contradictions, that is emblematic of a black-and-white, religious mindset that doesn't challenge premises, and doesn't think critically at all.
TheConciseStatement 9 months ago
Oh look, a video about communism in the related videos. Wow, who keeps watching these videos about what uninformed Americans hate?
hotelmario510 1 year ago
RELyIng on JOhN ( a CAPS-pun on religion I just made up ) gives me gas.
I think he sold me bad beans. And bad seeds too.
rpaslux 1 year ago
Haha Tyson and Dawkins are the best partners!
dycarbon1 1 year ago
Bible = history, parables, fables, and ancient laws. Not just history.
joerouleau54 1 year ago
science is great,and so is religon.
The bible-the proof that justifies the faith
Science-,although much more complex and less contradicting,still just the proof that justifies the faith.
Science is a form of faith and thats all there is too it.Its a system just like a religous system.the bottom line is humans have there head so far up there ass they just cannot accept that there's no way for us to prove anything.
sparticaldidit 1 year ago
@sparticaldidit
Well, i remember an anecdote when Zeno was teaching in the streets how it was impossible for anything to move at all, that movement was an illusion of mind. One of the guys listening told him "Hey Zeno, could you please come over here for a second? I have something to show you."
So Zeno walked up to him, and after he did, the other guy told him "have you seen this? you moved! Movement is proven by walking."
And so the truth of our science is proven through technology.
jotabe1789 1 year ago
@sparticaldidit
Well, i remember an anecdote when Zeno was teaching in the streets how it was impossible for anything to move at all, that movement was an illusion of mind. One of the guys listening told him "Hey Zeno, could you please come over here for a second? I have something to show you."
So Zeno walked up to him, and after he did, the other guy told him "have you seen this? you moved! Movement is proven by walking."
And so the truth of our science is proven through technology.
jotabe1789 1 year ago
@sparticaldidit
actually science is not a form of faith. There's no faith ( blind belief ) in observing something, studying it, analyzing it and thus concluding something about it.
Definition of faith according to wikipedia : "Faith is the confident belief or trust in a person, idea, or thing that is not based on proof".
Science actually looks for proof for its claims.
rpaslux 1 year ago 4
@rpaslux well,actually you still have to have faith in your microscope,then after that you have to have faith in human perception,and faith in the scientific system we humans have created,and whilst being fairly brainy,we are still hugely flawed creatures.science cannot truly prove anything.but it certainly does better for us than most religous pursuit.Im just saying that The Map Is NOT The Territory! : )
sparticaldidit 1 year ago
without good religion, a human being comes to regard himself/herself as a dictator-like figure who does not accept his own relativity. dawkins is a good example.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM You know this how? All your years of observation and research?
You are believing in a book that was written by people who thought slavery was OK, thought the world was flat, that the sun was 17 miles away and raped women freely.
Educate yourself. People like you are why the rest of the world hate Americans.
Eatmybologna 1 year ago
@Eatmybologna you even do not understand what i mean. over the history, scientists justify slave system and colonialism. it is true. study history, please,
by saying that, i want to tell you that scientists do many mistakes too. they need to be humble and accept different views.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM Meant to say "made up facts"
Eatmybologna 1 year ago
@Eatmybologna without religion, people tend to absolutize themselves in many cases. people need to relativize themselves and accept differences. absolutizing one's own view provokes violence.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM I have come to the conclusion that you are trolling. I came to this conclusion mainly for my own sanity, I refuse to believe there are some people this stupid out there in the world.
Some days I think there is hope and then other days I read posts like yours and realize humanity is completely and utterly fucked.
Some advice, smoke some weed, get laid and look through a microscope. Maybe you will realize how moronic and close minded your arguments are.
Eatmybologna 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM "Study history?" Study English first, please...
assassthenation 1 year ago
@Eatmybologna not accepting different views is violence itself. there is good elements and dark elements in all religions as in the case of science. i do not justify the dark elements of religion as exemplified in child abuse of in some catholic church. but as a rule, religion has been doing a great job in making people noble and humanized and more compassionate. how can one deny the fact???
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM Not all views are equal, though, and not all should be given equal credence by any stretch. If a child tells me he believes in Santa Claus, I use my judgment to reject that viewpoint as completely unfounded. If a schizophrenic on the street tells me he's under the control of extraterrestrials, I can be reasonably certain he's delusional. Most of us atheists and agnostics think that belief in deities is just as ludicrous and just as unworthy of serious consideration.
assassthenation 1 year ago 20
@assassthenation yes, but most normal, well-adjusted people are perfectly happy to let others believe what they want, as long is it has no negative impact on their own lives. I don't believe in God, but I also don't think that belief in God is ludicrous or laughable. People are quite entitled to find succour wherever they can and I refuse to look down on them for that, as long as the impact on me is not directly negative.
furQ 4 weeks ago
science is not objective at all. science's being objective is a myth. in many case, their research depends on their prejudice and money.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
science cannot monopolize truth. there are so many different views of truth. but when science tries to exaust truth, it becomes violent. also if there is no guide of ethics or religion, science becomes easily violent as shown in the case of auschwitz and maruta. over the human history, science and scientists justify slave system, colonialism and so on. dawkins is very violent too; he does not accept difference.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
Comment removed
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
Who is Richard quoting?
PreparationH 1 year ago
in my view, he just want to be famous by attacking religion. good luck!!!
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM Further evidence stupidity should be illegal.
Yes he has written some of the most thought provoking books of all time that must have taken 1000s of hours of research, life work and time to write and he did it all for fame at the ripe old age of 70.
Fuck off, twat.
Eatmybologna 1 year ago
@Eatmybologna it is nothing new. behave even on line. non-religous people know only how to say fuck off? where is your humanism?
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
Comment removed
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM Fuck you're stupid.
Eatmybologna 1 year ago
@Eatmybologna all what you can do is to call people's names? please grow up.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eatmybologna your behavior shows the violent element of being-nonreligious. you had no chance of making your violent character noble.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM Really it does? What about all the priests who rape little boys? What about all the religious Americans going to shoot people in Iraq? What about all the Islamic people blowing themselves up on buses? What about the century's of religious wars that have been waged? What about the crusades? 90% of Americans believe in God yet you have a terrible crime rate, tell me why is that?
You are talking nonsense backed by made of facts.
Eatmybologna 1 year ago
Comment removed
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
sience has been used in killing peope, e.g. during the second world war. without religious humanism, science tends to lose its direction.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
his idea of religion is not new at all. there have been countless atheists and agnotists over world history. religions survive such a challenge. without religion (in a good sense) and art in general, human beings are nothing but animals.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM Tell me this, you dumb fuck.
Why is it that Sweden's economy is not down the shitter? Why do they have the lowest crime rate in the world? Why is their government actually trying to help its country?
Oh did I mention over 85% of Sweden are atheist? Shit, that kind of puts you're whole "we need religion" thing straight out the window doesn't it.
Eatmybologna 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS IS PROOF THAT ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS!!!
youtube. com/ watch?v =jqsRDD6kXWY
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
God bless You
JezusSlave 1 year ago
his understanding of religion is very shallow.
KYUNGILNAM 1 year ago
@KYUNGILNAM I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!
TheTrevorGoodchild 1 year ago
Sorry, but Neil doesn't describe his as "supercilious".
jursamaj 1 year ago
Religion is such bullshit! why is it taking so fucking long to realise thisssss????? all the money wasted on religion could be helping ill people instead of teching gullible people.
mattbiker419 1 year ago
@mattbiker419 Yeah, we could have spent the money sending you to school.
nialljames666 1 year ago
He's not supercilious - he's right.
GendPzTrSchmidt 1 year ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow dawkins is such a loser
Roachenator 1 year ago
Isn't Tyson the guy who's responsible for Pluto not being a planet?
lufah234 1 year ago
No that would be the the laws of physics and the nature of cosmic objects that's responsible.
DandeB88 1 year ago 9
@lufah234
Yeah, he was in charge of the group that reclassified it.. It was actually an accurate description. If we included Pluto as a planet, we would need to include a few hundred other balls of ice in the same region that we have discovered in recent decades. Pluto really belongs in that class of objects..not with the other major planets.
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
Pluto was voted on by a world wide organization of Astronomers. I'm sure Tyson was voting as well. They voted it out because if Pluto was to remain a planet then like 8 other wiener objects would have to be planets too.
mooseclamps 1 year ago
Haha....Dawkins for the win! He's smart, blunt, entertaining, knowledgable about science, and effective!
ZaraMikazuki 1 year ago 2
go, Richard, go! Sensitivity my ass. If you're wrong you're wrong.
kulturni 1 year ago 3
@tohidefromourways-
Speaking of religious people, of which I am not one, I do recall going to sunday school as a child and being taught evolution. Of course they mixed it in with the creation in 6 days, but they were cool with it one way or another.
It's all hit and miss and who feels like saying what....
wd336 1 year ago 2
@Polybun: Go get a ball bat. And hit your mother right in the face for not believing in evolution! That's very cool! You are back to the age of idiots.
cloudscreamer 2 years ago
@cloudscreamer could you find a dinosaur who had a Siamese twin or an extra limb? have any of those fossils survived?
tohidefromourways 2 years ago
I feel degrauss fails to comprehend that the only way to educate most of the people here in the US about science is to grab them by the throat and shake the living shit out of them. Religion was beat into them with a 2x4. It's going to take a ball bat to get it out.
Polybun 2 years ago 129
@Polybun So you know most people?
onepcwhiz 1 year ago
@onepcwhiz More than I want too. The more people I meet, the fewer of them I like.
Polybun 1 year ago
@Polybun Ain't that the truth?! Not exclusively to the US, however.
alanpgoodwin 1 year ago
@Polybun im an america atheist... im like 1 in a school of 500 -.-
cheshirecatsaira 1 year ago
@cheshirecatsaira More like 1 in 10. I'd go crazy if it was i in 500.
ryanmshepard92 1 year ago
@ryanmshepard92 nah really i was being a bit sarcastic but its about 1 in 50
cheshirecatsaira 1 year ago
I LOVE Richard Dawkins and his humour:)
marty2905 2 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Like him, or hate him. He is very well spoken, and even more intelligent. It does not take a gargantuan dose of science to realize this quite honestly, but if you want one... read his books.
Most important, dialogue-shifting, influential evolutionary biologists to exist since Darwin himself.
troyspaz 2 years ago 11
In all honesty, and I really did not come here looking for an argument, so don't expect to get one. Of most forums on the internet where just anyone can chime in and say whatever they are thinking, this is amongst the lousiest... consistently
The debates are just trite and/or dumb.
Dawkins is a "godsend" to his field. He is an especially astute scientist, and i would sincerely doubt that anyone who says he isn't a good scientist even caries a degree in science.
troyspaz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@troyspaz Dawkins knows more about biology than most, but he thinks something can disprove God and hes wrong. We're so tiny and insignificant I think he forgets it'd be like a germ (or a being of some the size of a sub-atomic particle) trying to find proof of an elephant. We might be able to do it one way or the other, but it'd take a fuck-load of effort.
tohidefromourways 2 years ago
He doesn't think he can disprove God, no one can. He just doesn't think you can prove it and finds it irrational to belief something without proof. Would you believe Leprechauns, Fairies, Monsters, etc exist without proof? if your answer is no, then why should God be any different.
takerhbkfan 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@takerhbkfan Well, he claims to somehow believe that the multiverse makes more sense than God, though he knows that another universe wouldn't have to follow our laws of logic or physics for that matter, and anything could pretty much be done in any way. It kinda contradicts itself, don't it? Isn't that what heaven is and always was? A beyond physical reach place? I always knew God wasn't in the clouds. He's in another universe. I think opening a worm hole would kill us all. Watch Michio Kaku. :P
tohidefromourways 1 year ago
If there is a God how do you know he/she/it's as the bible or whatever your holy book is describes it, since it is untestable?
Ilikemustard 1 year ago 2
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Sabohaque 1 year ago
@troyspaz You know, it could just be that you poo poo anything that offends your sensabilies, which makes you just as trite really. Come to think of it. The comment you just made has absolutely no meaning to it, and no purpose in the least. It's just dry complement, which is totally worthless and meaningless.
Polybun 1 year ago
Both men are brilliant, both are controversial, and both are right.
RegressLess 2 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
For a more reasonable discussion (without the Christian/Atheist ranting) check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Hahaha! Oh, yeah! Richard hasn't been sensitive enough to other people's feelings/state of mind -- scientists are renowned for that. What a shame.*
Perhaps scientists should use the same "sensitivity" that Christians & Muslims have used in their conversion tactics and dogma, in their tediously-long history: kill anyone who doesn't accept their theory.**
Yeah, Richard's a real arsehole alright.***
*sarcasm
**sarcasm
***sarcasm
Boy192 2 years ago 8
Yeah, Richard's a real arsehole alright.***
*(no)sarcasm
**(no)sarcasm
***(no)sarcasm
1madaboutguitar 2 years ago
Oh dear, did he hurt your poor Christian blues soul by saying that everything you believe about the cosmos is most likely ... WRONG?!
Richard is, in fact, a very polite and reasonable man who has made substantial contributions to society.
AMEN!
Boy192 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You see, your comment is another shining exmaple of how Richard preys on ignorant fools to propogate his beliefs.
I am not a christian, just a human being with a well edcuated enough mind to see can see that a Richard Dawkins is a classic old fashioned fundamentalist prick
The only contribution Dawkins has made to society and the world is inflame the potentiality of another world war
What a great guy! ow dont forget the wonderful donations to HIS type of science
1madaboutguitar 2 years ago
And which of Richard's books have you read? And in what way does Richard separate himself from the rest of the scientific community to be seen as teaching a completely separate _version_ of science? Which ancient religious ideologies does Richard strictly adhered to that would qualify him as being fundamentalist? Exactly where is Richard in error? Oh, and . . . what do you "believe" in? Are you an atheist? If you want to respond with reason, then send me a pvt. message, let's not flood this.
Boy192 2 years ago 5
Your sarcasm is funny.
XChillX42 2 years ago
Are you being sarcastic?
1madaboutguitar 2 years ago
Are you? Sounded like it.
XChillX42 2 years ago
"You are professor of the public understanding of science, not professor of delivering truth to the public."
Dawkins, Science is a search for truth, but all the same, please try to educate people about it in a way that could not be confused with your trying to deliver truth to the public.
How dare you, Dawkins.
And it's Dawkins for the win.
ajheddy 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
that joke is the only thing richard dawkins said that is true.
thehumancookie 2 years ago
??? Thats been recored???
sulthus 2 years ago
I think he just recognizes that there's no use in babying people with the delivery of science. Have you ever tried to reason with faith?
coder0xff 2 years ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Neil brings up a great point, and I'm severely unimpressed with how Dawkins dodged around it.
SnakeTheFox 2 years ago
He didn't dodge around it. He said Neil was correct.
efletch91 2 years ago 2
Haha I love Dawkins!
b1gr1g 2 years ago 5
Is that man doing shadow puppets?
khyren 2 years ago
haha dawkins rules
PerpetuaITorment 2 years ago 5
A dietist? Which diet did he worship? Atkins? Weight Watchers? Or did he believe the Good News of Richard Simmons?
GoblinXXX 2 years ago 2
Very funny u know what i ment, jerk.
Atamv 2 years ago
Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can Fuck Off.
DieHardDeus 2 years ago 9
Society has treated religion and other supernatural horse manure with kid gloves for far too long. We need people like Dawkins, Penn Gilette, Adam Carolla, and Bill Maher, among others, who are willing to stand up and ioenly ridicule the ridiculous.
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Ridicule the ridiculous" you say? LOL!
Then why not "ridicule" the ridiculous theory of evolution? It deserves far more ridicule than the idea of God creating! And there is far more evidence for Creation than there is for the man-made idea of evolution! Evolution is just a LIE to lead people astray and away from the actual TRUTH,which is that God Created the universe and ALL that is therein!
Jesus is LORD.
Peace.
nobodyknowsbutjesus 2 years ago
Go right ahead, Sparky. YouTube is full of genuises like yourself attempting to ridicule science with bronze-age mythology-- And the irony is all the more delicious when it's done on a "man made" computer.
GoblinXXX 2 years ago 14
You are 100% correct. The Bible is the word of God and God is perfect. That's why I believe that we should be able to own slaves and why I think Homosexuals, rebellious teenagers and adulterers should be stoned to death.
Note to sane people: I'm being sarcastic
stud6999 2 years ago 103
Joking against Christ is blasphemy.
You are going to hell now.
Unless of course, I shoot you outside an abortion clinic first.
guerillajack 2 years ago 19
i love religeous nutjobs...how the fuck can you shoot someone outside an abortion clinic first if they go to hell NOW...waiting...HAIL SATAN!...fuck off
xRIKTERx 2 years ago
@xRIKTERx there are good and there are bad religious people. I know of some that actually accept evolution as fact.
tohidefromourways 2 years ago 3
they accept it or they just "belive in it"?
the thing which is rfepulsive in believers is that they don't want to think - in many things - they chose belief as the way of understanding. which is... lame
kcarnivore 1 year ago 3
@tohidefromourways I'm one of those people. : ) There's just too much evidence to deny it.
akariprince 1 year ago
Preach it brother.
Also, those who work on Sundays are damned to burn in Hell for all eternity.
Blacksun1942 2 years ago
Word up homes.
NJAAMWAA 2 years ago 2
including the ones who work at charity shops on sundays (me!) ^^
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
@stud6999 i noticed when you said slaves
sobored671 1 year ago
u guys get so mad
noobs
evolution is flawed in so many ways u have no idea
i would go on and prove it but the 500 word count is annoying and i cant fit anything simply put
where does the organism obtain the information in their dna to change and adapt? nothing in the outside world can affect or change your dna. DNA stays the same throughout your life, so how does an organism know when to change if no new information is added to the dna strand.
beat that
got more coming if u want
haydonlee93 2 years ago
Wow. You should be published in the scientific literature with such a theory. It's watertight.
dafyddoe 2 years ago
Obviously you don't know your evolution.
"where does the organism obtain the information in their dna to change and adapt?"
The organism itself doesn't, and although your assumption that your DNA stays the same throughout your life is wrong, the mutations don't affect your body because when they occur, they only occur in a single cell. Because your body consists of millions and millions of cells, that won't influence your physical appearance (continued in next post...)
necropedophilia 2 years ago
unless in cancer cells, but let's leeave those alone for now.
The thing is, when a mutation occurs in a sperm cell, an egg cell, or a stem cell of the early embryo, it does have effect. because the entire body will be "built" according to the blueprints in the now-mutated DNA, so the changes will be noticable.
What I want to say is that the organism itself won't change, but his children will, and in fact, entire species.
tl;dr: lrn2evolution.
necropedophilia 2 years ago
DNA u were born with does not have the capacity and information to evolve. your dna u were born with was solely just to survive, nowhere in ur dna is it written to lost ur tail, so my question is how does the organism itself know to change, u said that ur cell changes but HOW? it doesnt do it by itself something outside has to change ur cell but nothing physical can change ur genetic makeup
haydonlee93 2 years ago
I meant to say that only mutations in either a sperm cell, an egg cell, or a stem cell of the early embryo do have effect, as those are the cells that the whole body is based on. I hope you understand me when I put it like that.
Second, the organism itself doesn't know how to change, it's like this: a sperm cell mutates, then merges with the core of the egg cell, and then the baby that follows will have the exact same DNA in all of its cells as the sperm cell and the egg cell combined.
necropedophilia 2 years ago
-continued- when that mutation coincidentally ensures a better life for that organism, for example a longer neck for a giraffe or a harder shield for a turtle, there is a better chance for that organism to survive and thus mate, and his children will inherit the same gene, etc etc. So the organism doesn't choose to change, it just happens. And if it's a beneficial mutation, and the consequences spread over multiple generations (thousands), that's called evolution.
necropedophilia 2 years ago
Oh, and third, mutations can occur either by "something outside", like radiation or carcinogens, or by itself during the meiosis (the division of cells used by the body to create sperm or egg cells).
necropedophilia 2 years ago
Once there is any variation in genetic code of a species, ie, we aren't all clones, then the species can evolve. Dogs are the perfect example, they are all the same species, but look at the massive variety in breeds, that have arose in even our own recorded history, due to selective breeding, we have accelerated the process. Natural pressures can easily do the same over a longer period. How can you say evolution is not real, we have clearly been evolving dogs for thousands of years!
spartonne 2 years ago
we havent been evolving dogs, they are still the same species!
haydonlee93 2 years ago
We are not literally "evolving" dogs, as it isn't a transitive verb. What spartonne tries to say, is that the way humans have bred dogs is a form of selection, like natural selection but not natural.
In natural selection, nature does the selecting. In dog breeding, humans did.
And they are still the same species, but still *very* different from eachother and from their ancestor, the wolf. This is the result of mutated genes.
necropedophilia 2 years ago
so how does radiation and other influences increase the rate of survival? it would probably harm u if u were hit by radiation
and yes i do believe in natural selection
i can believe in natural selection but not evolution because natural selection is just the fact that the strongest and fastest survive
e.x. giraffes with longer necks get the food better, therefore the longer necks survive. thats perfectly logical so thye have babies with longer necks
haydonlee93 2 years ago
I don't say that organisms randomly evolve, I say that the mutations that cause evolution are random.
Carcinogens are substances that invoke cancer. As you may know a cancer cell is a cell that has mutated DNA in duch a fashion that the cell splits unusually fast, thus creating a tumor.
And I NEVER said that the organism knows anything beforehand. I even DENIED that.
As for the radiation (and the carcinogens), I just named a few things that can cause mutation, because you asked for examples...
necropedophilia 2 years ago
but if its random? i always thought the organisms specifically evolve just to increase rate of survival. and carcinogens as you described can not increase your chance of survival but greatly decrease it.
haydonlee93 2 years ago
Mutations are random, evolution is not. That is because of the phenomenon natural selection.
If you really want to learn about evolution and how it works, and you're got some spare time, watch the following series: youtube . com / view_play_list?p=ED4BA3683D0273ED
without the spaces of course.
necropedophilia 2 years ago
hmm.
so ur saying lots of organisms have bad mutations that hurt them so they die.
then the ones that didnt have bad ones live
and thye make more babies
that would me lots and lots of organisms would die almost to the point of extinction because it is random so whats the chances of evolving for good. but i have never heard of an animal that evolved for worse? have you?
haydonlee93 2 years ago
They don't die because of the random mutations, they die because the environment kills them. It is called natural selection.
You should really be looking at a scientific textbook if you want to learn about evolution. You clearly don't know much about it and YouTube comments are probably an ineffective form of education about the matter.
Maybe talkorigins(.)org would help? Or you could go watch some videos on it before trying to debate about it?
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
yea i dont kno much im just using logic
so the enviorment kills them but we should have fossils of organisms with bad mutations
haydonlee93 2 years ago
I commend you on using logic but any honest investigation has to be two-pronged, using logic AND evidence.
At this point, the evidence seems to be what you are missing here and that could probably seriously be cleared up by watching a few videos on how evolution works.
Again, though, it is probably good that you have the logic part first. I've met people who drum around with bad evidence but don't have the logic to see it and they are not at all pleasant to talk to.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
Agreed 100%. I find it really hard to reason with him, for A. I'm not a native Englisg speaker and B. What you said, he lacks evidence.
Also, his belief in natural and disbelief in evolution really confuses me...
necropedophilia 2 years ago
his belief in natural *selection*
necropedophilia 2 years ago
natural selection is very similar to survival of the fittest
what is wrong with that?
haydonlee93 2 years ago
Oh there's nothing wrong with that. It's even kind of true. "Survival of the fittest" is a way for *nature* to *select* the ones who survive and multiply. *Nature*. *Select*.
Natural selection.
necropedophilia 2 years ago
ty
i know what ur talking about
haydonlee93 2 years ago
Fossilization is a pretty rare occurrance- Since something with a "bad" mutation would die quickly, it's not going to multiply and spread the mutation. It's extremely unlikely to find a fossil of one individual freak- Assuming we'd notice the "bad mutation" from its skeleton in the first place.
GoblinXXX 2 years ago 2
Yes they are the same species now, but eventually, the genetic differences become prominent enough, that two breeds are no longer sexually compatible, and thus become separate species. That takes time.
Also how do you explain vestigious structures like leg bones in whales? Or your very own appendix? Emus have wings? Why? They do not use them, AT ALL.
spartonne 2 years ago
well humans have been on the earth for a long time
actually the time that humans started breeding dogs there were already humans(duh)
then how come humans havent changed into different species becasue dogs change because of their surrounding their enviorment and etc. and humans are the same some live in africa in europe asia but although we have different skin colors we are the same species
haydonlee93 2 years ago