How can anyone this young with such an obvious lack of education possibly think he can argue on the same level as the Chair of Public Understanding at Oxford? You haven't even finished high school.
When you close your eyes, and plug your ears when someone is showing you scientific evidence about evolution of course you will keep saying there are no transitional forms....
Wow, this guy miss quotes and comes up with his own interpretations of what Dawkin's actually said. Kind of like how christians try and inerperet the bible, rather than reading the bible as it written.
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 thessalonians 2;11
you clearly don't understand what "god of the gaps" means. the only way your criticism would be valid is if there was a religious theory that had a gap and scientists said "AHA, you don't know, therefore our science is correct."
...but then again, religion is not scientific, hence it has no theories. the watchmaker argument has been refuted time and again, but i leave it to someone else to explain it to you, because i don't think you will do the legwork.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
Here's a direct quote from your argument: “Big Bang cosmology, for example – that the Universe had a cause. Well, that would have to, erm, God would be the best explanation for that, and he must necessarily exist. Therefore he must exist eternally.”
I suggest that you look up the word "refute" in a dictionary before you attribute that word to your supposed argument.
I'm sorry I couldn't watch this all the way through, I felt my intelligence diminishing. You argument is illogical, unlettered and wilfully ignorant. Here's a thought, how about you read some books, buy a thesaurus and try again? You'd still be wrong but it wouldn't be so painful to listen to.
@babkrani Yes, in my mind I have. It's pretty obvious to those who require evidence in order to believe something that the concept of God has no logical reasoning.
You see, in holy books, God is always appearing, always giving divine orders and instructions.
Why doesn't God still do that today?
If God existed, we would see him with the same frequency that they did in the holy books.
But we don't.
If God knows I'm going to suffer in hell forever for non-belief, why doesn't he prevent that?
Sorry but you are wrong in the Holy book God cannot be percieved by eyesight. "If God knows I'm going to suffer in hell forever for non-belief, why doesn't he prevent that?" Simple enough, maybe because one is judged because of his deeds, if he prevents it than he is no more "Just" ?? For a fair chance, you have one just try to applie the theory of relativity and u'll get my point.
@babkrani God isn't perceived by sight in the Bible, but there are hundreds of times where his voice is heard from the sky, and he is seen in the form of a burning bush, yet ever since then he has either disappeared or never existed in the first place...
The theory of relativity, hahaha, EINSTEIN HIMSELF the creator, was a non-believer.
What if life didn't exist is a contradiction, I wouldn't be here to answer the question if life didn't exist, just like it doesn't exist on Mars or Venus.
The definition of God in terms of religion, God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God, who only created you to test you, is all-knowing yet still has emotions (which is a contradiction), creates people unequally in living conditions (some filthy poor, some filthy rich), claims that he loves his children yet commands thousands or murders in the Bible for non-belief (and to this day), is all-powerful yet somehow still needs your money...
@mattdd05 Ok, what about your definition of Allah ( Islam ) ? Because most of your reasoning is against what Islam says, if you dismiss God just because you think the bible is wrong than your "reasoning" is flawed. So do you agree to debate about the Islamic God ?
@babkrani Well I only refer to the Bible because I live in North America, but I believe all religious texts are flawed.
In Islam, the penalty for non-belief (if you've ever come in contact with the Islamic faith) is death, and once you die, God sends your soul to hell for eternity. Also, a God that wants womens bodies to be covered by not mens? Sounds like God is choosing favourites here.
Islam just like any other religion is just a way to oppress people and scare them into obidience.
@mattdd05 You shouldn't claim something when you do not have something to back up with. That makes you lose credibility. I thought so before, that the penalty for apostasy is death. but when i read the Quran i found that it is totally the opposit ( freedom of religion ( Ex:(2:256) i think ), Islam feed the woman 1400 centuries ago!! ( in western countries until the 18th-19th century ). Also it tells people to reject blind faith and think, and look for signs and proofs ( i'm being serious here! )
@babkrani I believe you, but like all holy books there are many contradictions in the Quran. I'm sure there are parts of the Quran that oppose murder, intolerance, injustice to women....
But I'm also sure there are parts of the Quran, which are the same as in the Bible and Torah, preaching intolerance and death to idolatry, non-believers,not to befriend Jews or Christians, etc.
I understand that there are verses of the Quran which contradict me, but also verses which agree with me.
@babkrani I believe you, but like all holy books there are many contradictions in the Quran. I'm sure there are parts of the Quran that oppose murder, intolerance, injustice to women....
But I'm also sure there are parts of the Quran, which are the same as in the Bible and Torah, preaching intolerance and death to idolatry, non-believers,not to befriend Jews or Christians, etc.
I understand that there are verses of the Quran which contradict me, but also verses which agree with me.
@babkrani Look for anything in any holy books, and try to reproduce that situation, and see if a God intervenes. You won't. The Mayo Clinic found that patients who prayed and have prayers dedicated to them have no increased chances of getting better.
Another thing, what reason would a loving God have to command people to kill others? Couldn't an all powerful God do it himself?
Why does an all powerful God need to be worshipped?
Why does he want us to believe without proof? Or our brains?
@mattdd05 Text is limited so i'll answer the first claim only.Prayers do accelerate the treatment of the sick. Although he is not a believer, Dr. Herbert Benson has concluded that the worship and faith in God has more beneficial effects on human health than anything else seen elsewhere. Benson said the conclusion he reached is that no other faith does as much as mental serenity in God. (Timeless Healing, page 203) Its even now concluded that the mind and the body are "set" to believe in God.
@babkrani Final note. Has God ever appeared to you? Why not? Why does he want you to believe without faith, but not biblical prophets he appears to? Why does God not give us all a fair chance at getting into heaven?
Does it make sense that God only created you to see if you would worship him, and if you don't, he will send you to hell for all eternity?
Well guess what, God created Satan, and God created hell. God allows Satan to tempt us (book of Job),
@babkrani Final note. Has God ever appeared to you? Why not? Why does he want you to believe without faith, but not biblical prophets he appears to? Why does God not give us all a fair chance at getting into heaven?
Does it make sense that God only created you to see if you would worship him, and if you don't, he will send you to hell for all eternity?
Well guess what, God created Satan, and God created hell. God allows Satan to tempt us (book of Job),
Perhaps you should actually do some research on the claims before you dispute them, like the "dogmatic belief in Darwinian evolution". You can't claim something is false when you don't even know what it is ;) just a tip
You don't even need a complex laptop for your argument, even if we were to find a hammer or a simple nail in nature the theory of evolution would be in deep shit.
But isn't it amazing that you god has not designed anything even that simple?
Isn't it amazing that the only things that would make us believe were designed are "created" in front of our eyes and all have DNA/RNA?
I'd love to argue with you in public. I'd make you cry infront of your boyfriend. IT IS OBVIOUS YOU DIDN'T READ THE BOOK. Possibly at minimum you have a reading comprehention value on the negetive side of the scale. BTW Genes don't care what species we classify them in a group as. In other words genes dont care if we call you a HOMO Sapien or HOMO Erectus. Next time you have a PHD in Evolutionary Biology we can talk.
"I uh dlon't know wht he means by that" makes me think of kirk Camron if you don't thin the issue of evolution does not come up. like um physics surgery managment and a million other things that require thought. look up DonExdous2 he knows all about transionals
There are plenty of transitional forms. They found apes with human hands and ape feet. And you clearly don't understand what a logical contradiction is. He is a SCIENTIST. He will not refute something unless you can absolutely 100% prove that it is false. God cannot be proven false; religion designed him this way. But this is the difference between a scientist and a zealot -- he is willing to say that it is POSSIBLE (but very improbably) that he is wrong, instead of blindly clinging to it.
1. you cant refute evidence for christianity because no such evidence has ever been provided.
2. yes you know a laptop has been diesigned because its MAN MADE, man did not make the universe, and if you believe in "intelligent" design look at all of the flaws, earth is the only tiny speck of habitable land in the universe, anywhere else YOU WOULD DIE, earth too has many flaws.
3. transitional forms, look up "lucy" ancient remains of a creature between ape and human.
If you think something like a laptop can't exist without a creator, then you refute your own argument by proxy. Why can't the laptop be eternal?
Everything is a 'transitional form'; categories are a human construct and evolution is an unending gradient. Evolution is very observable, particularly in microbiology. Viruses like AIDS evolve immunity to antivirals very quickly.
Scientific knowledge develops as new evidence presents itself. Religions haughtily assume to know it all already, often
@captainpanic08 going so far as to say 'we don't need evidence'. If someone says, based on the theory that fire makes things hot, 'don't touch things recently exposed to fire', you'd be remiss to ignore them.
Of course Darwin understands that the universe began in the finite past. What physics hasn't yet ascertained is precisely why. We're pretty sure it has a lot to do with a quantum singularity, though it's rather complicated stuff that we're working on. See the Large Hadron Collider.
@captainpanic08 'There's no evidence for god' and 'God almost certainly doesn't exist' are not at all contradictory. In fact, the latter is the precisely appropriate response to the former, based on the scientific method of theories based on observable evidence that can stands up to experimental challenge.
Pikaia, Conodont, haikouichthys, Arandaspis, Birkenia and Guiyu. Those are just the invertibrates to fish. gogo wikipedia list.
Science of the gaps? That's what science is here for... as well as ignorance of the gaps. That's what gaps are for. Also if you think this is logically incoherent then you should take a philosophy class.
I'd love to see this kid debate Richard Dawkins. Though it would be a waste of time because Dawkins would undoubtedly prove how vacuous the boys arguments are.
1. humans designed laptops, and you are claiming god designed humans, so you are disproving your own point. (though i do see what you are getting at, you just use a poor example.)
2. actually, you are completely wrong when you say we have never tested evolution. Scientists have WATCHED HIV evolve in real time, as it evolves to survive drugs designed to destroy it. that is where you get drug resistant diseases from; evolution.
The fact is that there isn't a shred of evidence or proof of ANY God, much less the one from biblical mythology. If you believe in something with no proof and with all the evidence pointing against it, you're a gullible fool.
So we rationalists don't just accept things "on faith". We need proof.
A book of PLAGIARIZED PAGAN MYTHOLOGY with the characters' names changed that uses demonstrably false global event times lines (Jews enslaved & building pyramids? WHEN?!) is NOT proof by a long shot.
Let's see if I can explain the paradox of the who designed the designer argument to you, kid.
Scientists CAN actually explain how the universe spontaneously came into being (quantum fluctuations & the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
But can you explain how an omnipotent being suddenly came into being?
If you can accept the argument that "God has always just existed", then you can just as easily accept the argument that the universe has always existed.
Why do so many ignorant little children with such limited knowledge and understanding of science, logic and reasoning always feel compelled to post up videos on YouTube that painfully illustrate how limited their capacity for intellectual contemplation is and how shallow their depth of thought is?
The illogicalities, circular logic and straw men in this video are legion.
Laptop? Really? Sigh.
Also, this kid keeps inserting the god of the gaps argument, yet fails to see the fallacy in that.
Hahaha I love how all of these videos that say something like, "PROOF OF GOD!" or "How can you still be atheist after this?!" and the dislikes heavily outweigh the likes.
1. Laptops aren't born, nor do grow on trees, nor do they have an archeological record, they're designed, but life evolves, this is a fact.
2. Go look at the evidence for evolution yourself, and realise that transitional forms don't exist, because life is in a constant state of evolutionary flux.
3. Your 'God of the Gap' professes to KNOW what science does not. When science brings attention to a gap, at least science will say: "We don't know what's going on here, but we're going to find out)
To compare God to a laptop is simply ignorant and a fallacy. Of course you don't need to know who designed the designer of a laptop, you fucking twat. Also, Evolution is a fact because if we were to map out all species and plants, and their differences between each other, we would see a definite family tree which originated from a single cell. Even though 90% of all life on Earth has gone extinct, we have fossil evidence of these species that once exist.
@campinginatent (continued) Science isn't out to get religious people, in-fact I feel the contrary due to religious zealots wanting religion being taught in the Science classroom. I don't mind them unless they shove such false claims that lack evidence down my throat. Natural selection works by improving on what needs improving, and wiping out that which can't sustain life due to other species/conditions on the Earth. We know that the Big Bang must of happened....
@campinginatent (continued) because we can observe galaxies that move away from us, and the farther they are, the faster they move away. However, the most compelling fact is that we experience radiation from 300,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe turned transparent, and the light was very intense, eventually stretching out to form microwaves. Also, we haven't had the technology to fully understand the circumstances of the universe after the Big Bang...
@campinginatent We know that the Big Bang happened 13.7 Billion years ago, from observations on star's distances and rewinding Hubble's Law, and they seem to comply. This was a time that the Universe was a singularity, there were no space between the particles. A billionth of a second after the Big Bang, particles and atoms gained mass. This is what Dawkins was referring to. It hurts me to know ignorant teenagers (I'm 14) like you exist and don't pursue a life based around observation and facts.
"A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception."
The only other possible explanation, is that two pairs of chromosomes fused together. So the scientists tested this, because if the result was negative, then that would disprove evolution. On observation, they found that chromosome 2 was a combination of 2 chromosomes. So unless the intelligent designer was trying to confuse us when we were designed in this way, I don't see how you can deny evolution after that.
"science is something that has to be repeated, tested and observed, we have never done that."
Um, yes we definitely have. The best example of this is when some biologists noticed that we have one less pair of chromosomes that our 3 closest relations (chimpanzee, gorilla and one other I can't remember). Anyway, if at some stage in the evolutionary process one of our ancestors lost a chromosome then that organism would not survive so it couldn't happen.
Your arguments also seem to consist of either dismissing the few points in the book as "a non-issue" or just saying "that is wrong" with your explanation boiling down to "because I say it is. I'll say it again: because it's wrong". You give no reasons or proof as to why his arguments are flawed, and it is an insult to his work to call this video "God Delusion Refuted". I'd keep pointing out how every argument you "refute" you do not in fact refute, but I've hit the 500 character limit again :/
2:10, you use a manmade example that you know was designed and created by man. Theists claim that God made things in nature so use nature as an example.
2:22, I don't understand why you tried to use a manmade example to avoid answering the question "who designed the designer". It is NOT a non-issue as you state. You offer no reason as to why it is a non-issue, to say nothing of the fact that you didn't try and answer the question "who designed the designer". I also find no such argument on pg157
this video is pathetic. Firstly it's done by some stupid little kid, who doesn't know shit about anything, trying to take on one of the smartest men alive today.
Secondly the things he says are just laughable in their ignorance. Especially the "you can't give 1 transitional form." Go do some research kid, they have so many transitional forms having a hard time telling where 1 species ends and the next begins.
Dude! Take a biology class. The reason EVERYONE believes in evolution, is because OF the EVIDENCE! It is there! In fact there is so much of it we take it for granted!
Here is a link just to start! edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html
Wow. You are such a moron I'm going to show this video to my christian friends to convince them to abandon religion. You perfectly demonstrate christian ignorance.
Kid, you miss every single point that Dawkins makes. You clearly misunderstand evolution, science, and logic. This video was the biggest waste of my time. You absolutely can not accuse science of being "of the gaps." Did you even read the book? You bastardize every premise of his.
I think you should take some Science classes and understand the topics involved before you go off and call Professor Dawkins (a well versed and educated scientist) an ignorant fool. It is quite clear that you have never even set foot in an advanced Science class of any sort. While you're at it, I recommend taking a course on critical reasoning. None of your arguments make any sort of logical sense. Each of your arguments do not have a linear logical progression of any sort.
who designed the designer is a recursive loop that is his point think about it. If god is eternal then god is infinite which is a mathematical error just like your logic bud sorry. check your self please.
Why do theists think they can compare the production of an inanimate object to a living cell? They always use the example of "walking through the forest and discovering a laptop/watch/airplane/whatever.. you would deduce it had a creator".. first of all, you don't discover those things in nature. That's why it's incredibly retarded to think that's what an evolutionist believes. A better example of what evolutionists believe, is walking through a forest and discovering animals.
No, what it means is that "We don't have the ultimate answer yet."
All of the explanations we DO have (e.g. evolution) are anything BUT chance. Inserting "chance" as the default position in the gaps of a theory is just as bad as inserting god into it.
god can only exist in the mind of retards...in normal brains he cant..
therefore he is not allpowerfull...and no god..
god is rather a hobo looking for a place to bunk for the night ..and that space in the empty head of the reigious he has to share with angels, deamons, satan and his good for nothiung hippie son..
The reason you can tell that the laptop is designed compared to the rest of the park, is because you know the park isn't. Your designed object looks out of place due to the comparison between something that is designed versus something that was not. Replace your laptop with a rock, or a sapling, and you wouldn't make the same argument.
...Did this kid just flip to the main summary and NOT read the extensive arguments and evidence Dawkins used to back up his assertions? Because none of this kid's "rebuttals" make any sense in the full context of the book.
Yes, compassion are biochemical reactions, according to BIOCHEMISTRY. It's a proven fact. Nor is it random; it's perfectly BIOlogical. Atheism has nothing to do with it, and you are on the verge of slander by implying that it does.
3.) Christianity, at its BEST, teaches that Atheists and non-believers will go to a fiery place of judgment and anguish, where they will suffer and burn for eternity. That's force at its sneakiest and nastiest. At its worst, God told the Israelites to slaughter the men, women,and children who were of different religions. That is force at its most open and contemptuous.
1.) No one suggested that we exist by chance. Quite the opposite.
2.) Just because Newton and Einstein believed in God (highly doubtful on Einstein's part)...so what? That's like the reverse argument "Hitler was an Atheist, so Atheism is bad." Not only is this sorely inaccurate, it means absolutely nothing. They didn't do their work in the name of Atheism.Neither did Newton or Einstein do their work in the name of "Intelligent design.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
@Pevensie15 You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply) , the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply) , the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply) , the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
Im sure this dude didn't read the book. Dawkins wasn't saying that god is a delusion, as in, oh, all of the people are having a mental breakdown and that's why they believe in it. he was just in general disproving the claims people made. Moreover, if he read the book, he wouldn't be refuting it.
@camthejock C S Lewis - luminary in creative writing, perhaps less well practised in rational thought or less troubled by observable evident reality. He is quite wrong the world view become much more complex. There never was a universal meaning if there was it would have been agreed upon by now, but theists have never been so divided. Meaning is a personal choice. Often it is to become, in some measure, better. Atheist value compassion and reason.
@camthejock The mutations that cause all features of in life are in the first instance random. but by natural selection evolution is deterministic. Biochemical activity may have random elements but gating and filtration mechanisms in the brain lead to deterministic outcomes in the presence of clear information. In absence of clear information the probabilities for out comes are described by the math used in quantum theory(source New Scientist). For more random outcomes use religious flimflam.
your refutation is really dumb..do not have to get into who created god...do not know what ...you are just to naive to actually put your argument to refute ...rubbish...look at the bible...written stories and rubbish..you yourself is rubbish
I doubt that you've even read this book, if you had, you would have found very good, logically consistant counter-arguments to all of the point you raise.
your making no sense, the laptop, I know there's a designer, but i dont need to explain how the designer got there? make sense you head case. but you can find out who designed it, is the point you fool.
This is really depressing. It seems to me that you actually have no idea what you have read. It is also quite surprising to see a person make a video about a book which in itself leaves the door open for God, Science and even Scientology.
Oh, and don't you really understand the concept of controversy and contradiction? If you claim Dawkins contradicts himself (according to your example), then you must have not understood anything about the book.
by the way, to all those considering going to that website at the end, it is currently under construction. there's nothing there but a white screen and five or six words.
Don't read 2 pages, read the whole book. And I'm not surprised there aren't many christians on that thing you mentioned at the end. Also some advice would be to never make a video like this again, Oxford University does not hire science professors who can be outsmarted by a kid.
words cannot describe the rage. there are many instances of transitional forms. See Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Archaeopteryx, Homo Erectus, all transitional forms. I can list more if needed. Dawkins DOES believe the universe has a finite beginning (see Cosmology and Big Bang Theory). Mutations are incorporated under evolution and natural selection last i checked. He DOES think evolution CAN be refuted by science. he just thinks it WON'T be, due to all the EVIDENCE supporting it.
Initially it doesn't matter if a designer also has a designer. I disagree. However complex an object may be, there was a process with which it came unto it's complexity. Your response grants that an eternal god is needed in order to explain things of complexity. You exempt this god-concept from the current problem of complex things needing a designer. What is your reasoning about this? I hope that your reasons for your argument isn't just "this one thing is different" as it makes little sense.
you're pretty much saying that it's irrelevant if God had a creator or not, but it's very much relevant. Dawkins is saying "If God created everything, what created God?" and your rebuttal is basically "it doesn't matter"
Every thing needs a designer and therefore is designed,..except for god which is what I'm trying to prove. God seems to escape your omnipresent necessity of a designer. Do I need to suggest that you google the term "special pleading?'
Evolution is a fact, and there is hundreds of transitional forms fool, and it has been observed, my god, you're an idiot, go on wikipedia for a couple of days.
People are accusing you of being dishonest, which they know you are not. You'll be lucky if 1 in a 100 atheists care about the evidence when it comes to this.
what did you refute??? LOLOLOL!!! you fuckin retard!!!!
ElValhallaMeEspera 1 month ago
There is no such thing as "evidence for atheism". Is there a photo of you in the dictionary next to the definition of the word WRONG??
gigisdad 2 months ago
Tiktaalik is a transitional form in the fossil record.
SamWiseGingy 2 months ago
@ 3:20 "surprised he didn't throw in mutations". You can _not_ have evolution without mutations, please read up on how evolution works.
scientiavictoria 2 months ago
How can anyone this young with such an obvious lack of education possibly think he can argue on the same level as the Chair of Public Understanding at Oxford? You haven't even finished high school.
Quakeboy02 2 months ago
When you close your eyes, and plug your ears when someone is showing you scientific evidence about evolution of course you will keep saying there are no transitional forms....
Stupid people re stupid.
ImyurZero 2 months ago
Wow, this guy miss quotes and comes up with his own interpretations of what Dawkin's actually said. Kind of like how christians try and inerperet the bible, rather than reading the bible as it written.
cujomade101 2 months ago 2
This cretin is proof of the random nature of evolution - unintelligent design if you like.
sionnyn 2 months ago 2
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 thessalonians 2;11
jamesbamaboi 3 months ago
Comment removed
jamesbamaboi 3 months ago
you clearly don't understand what "god of the gaps" means. the only way your criticism would be valid is if there was a religious theory that had a gap and scientists said "AHA, you don't know, therefore our science is correct."
...but then again, religion is not scientific, hence it has no theories. the watchmaker argument has been refuted time and again, but i leave it to someone else to explain it to you, because i don't think you will do the legwork.
castelgandalf 3 months ago
Refuted? The ratings say it all.
NateKirch 4 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 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
If I need some fail, I'll come here. This video is full of it.
ndrthrdr1 5 months ago
i face palmed so hard my hand went through my head
FiveFingeredMonkey 5 months ago
The amount of fails in this video is staggering.
MC473428 5 months ago
Here's a direct quote from your argument: “Big Bang cosmology, for example – that the Universe had a cause. Well, that would have to, erm, God would be the best explanation for that, and he must necessarily exist. Therefore he must exist eternally.”
I suggest that you look up the word "refute" in a dictionary before you attribute that word to your supposed argument.
fathersnitch 5 months ago
If you find "God, by definition, exists, therefore god is real" to be a compelling argument then you are not worth the time to discuss things with.
bantam700 5 months ago
I'm sorry I couldn't watch this all the way through, I felt my intelligence diminishing. You argument is illogical, unlettered and wilfully ignorant. Here's a thought, how about you read some books, buy a thesaurus and try again? You'd still be wrong but it wouldn't be so painful to listen to.
dragonproof 5 months ago
1. God made humans.
2. God gave them brain.
3. Humans use brain to disprove God.
Why would an intelligent designer create a human who ends up disproving His existence?
Seems like a pretty unintelligent creator to me.
Or am I going to get the whole "God gave you free-will to choose right or wrong".
Well thanks a lot God, instead of showing me the truth, you decide not to, and make me burn in hell for all eternity.
Why couldn't you have made me stupider, so I would have faith in you!?!?!
mattdd05 5 months ago
Comment removed
babkrani 5 months ago
@mattdd05 "Humans use brain to disprove God" ... Really ? Did you disprove God ??
babkrani 5 months ago
@babkrani Yes, in my mind I have. It's pretty obvious to those who require evidence in order to believe something that the concept of God has no logical reasoning.
You see, in holy books, God is always appearing, always giving divine orders and instructions.
Why doesn't God still do that today?
If God existed, we would see him with the same frequency that they did in the holy books.
But we don't.
If God knows I'm going to suffer in hell forever for non-belief, why doesn't he prevent that?
mattdd05 5 months ago
@mattdd05 Which God are you talking about ?
Sorry but you are wrong in the Holy book God cannot be percieved by eyesight. "If God knows I'm going to suffer in hell forever for non-belief, why doesn't he prevent that?" Simple enough, maybe because one is judged because of his deeds, if he prevents it than he is no more "Just" ?? For a fair chance, you have one just try to applie the theory of relativity and u'll get my point.
Think about it, what if life didn't exist ?
Define God --'
babkrani 5 months ago
@babkrani God isn't perceived by sight in the Bible, but there are hundreds of times where his voice is heard from the sky, and he is seen in the form of a burning bush, yet ever since then he has either disappeared or never existed in the first place...
The theory of relativity, hahaha, EINSTEIN HIMSELF the creator, was a non-believer.
What if life didn't exist is a contradiction, I wouldn't be here to answer the question if life didn't exist, just like it doesn't exist on Mars or Venus.
mattdd05 5 months ago
@babkrani Define God....hmm okay.
The definition of God in terms of religion, God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God, who only created you to test you, is all-knowing yet still has emotions (which is a contradiction), creates people unequally in living conditions (some filthy poor, some filthy rich), claims that he loves his children yet commands thousands or murders in the Bible for non-belief (and to this day), is all-powerful yet somehow still needs your money...
mattdd05 5 months ago
@mattdd05 Ok, what about your definition of Allah ( Islam ) ? Because most of your reasoning is against what Islam says, if you dismiss God just because you think the bible is wrong than your "reasoning" is flawed. So do you agree to debate about the Islamic God ?
babkrani 5 months ago
@babkrani Well I only refer to the Bible because I live in North America, but I believe all religious texts are flawed.
In Islam, the penalty for non-belief (if you've ever come in contact with the Islamic faith) is death, and once you die, God sends your soul to hell for eternity. Also, a God that wants womens bodies to be covered by not mens? Sounds like God is choosing favourites here.
Islam just like any other religion is just a way to oppress people and scare them into obidience.
mattdd05 5 months ago
@mattdd05 You shouldn't claim something when you do not have something to back up with. That makes you lose credibility. I thought so before, that the penalty for apostasy is death. but when i read the Quran i found that it is totally the opposit ( freedom of religion ( Ex:(2:256) i think ), Islam feed the woman 1400 centuries ago!! ( in western countries until the 18th-19th century ). Also it tells people to reject blind faith and think, and look for signs and proofs ( i'm being serious here! )
babkrani 5 months ago
@babkrani I believe you, but like all holy books there are many contradictions in the Quran. I'm sure there are parts of the Quran that oppose murder, intolerance, injustice to women....
But I'm also sure there are parts of the Quran, which are the same as in the Bible and Torah, preaching intolerance and death to idolatry, non-believers,not to befriend Jews or Christians, etc.
I understand that there are verses of the Quran which contradict me, but also verses which agree with me.
mattdd05 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babkrani I believe you, but like all holy books there are many contradictions in the Quran. I'm sure there are parts of the Quran that oppose murder, intolerance, injustice to women....
But I'm also sure there are parts of the Quran, which are the same as in the Bible and Torah, preaching intolerance and death to idolatry, non-believers,not to befriend Jews or Christians, etc.
I understand that there are verses of the Quran which contradict me, but also verses which agree with me.
mattdd05 5 months ago
@babkrani Look for anything in any holy books, and try to reproduce that situation, and see if a God intervenes. You won't. The Mayo Clinic found that patients who prayed and have prayers dedicated to them have no increased chances of getting better.
Another thing, what reason would a loving God have to command people to kill others? Couldn't an all powerful God do it himself?
Why does an all powerful God need to be worshipped?
Why does he want us to believe without proof? Or our brains?
mattdd05 5 months ago
Comment removed
babkrani 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mattdd05 Text is limited so i'll answer the first claim only.Prayers do accelerate the treatment of the sick. Although he is not a believer, Dr. Herbert Benson has concluded that the worship and faith in God has more beneficial effects on human health than anything else seen elsewhere. Benson said the conclusion he reached is that no other faith does as much as mental serenity in God. (Timeless Healing, page 203) Its even now concluded that the mind and the body are "set" to believe in God.
babkrani 5 months ago
@babkrani Final note. Has God ever appeared to you? Why not? Why does he want you to believe without faith, but not biblical prophets he appears to? Why does God not give us all a fair chance at getting into heaven?
Does it make sense that God only created you to see if you would worship him, and if you don't, he will send you to hell for all eternity?
Well guess what, God created Satan, and God created hell. God allows Satan to tempt us (book of Job),
so all evil is caused by God.
mattdd05 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babkrani Final note. Has God ever appeared to you? Why not? Why does he want you to believe without faith, but not biblical prophets he appears to? Why does God not give us all a fair chance at getting into heaven?
Does it make sense that God only created you to see if you would worship him, and if you don't, he will send you to hell for all eternity?
Well guess what, God created Satan, and God created hell. God allows Satan to tempt us (book of Job),
so all evil is caused by God.
mattdd05 5 months ago
I guarantee you didn't read the God Delusion. Or you wouldn't be making this argument.
TheAtheismist 5 months ago
Worst Augment Ever!!!
TheAtheismist 5 months ago
you sir and not so smart.. its a fucking laptop made by humans.... just like god, man made
lpslostagain 5 months ago 2
Wow man! Nice arguments! LOOOL
Dinheru 5 months ago
Perhaps you should actually do some research on the claims before you dispute them, like the "dogmatic belief in Darwinian evolution". You can't claim something is false when you don't even know what it is ;) just a tip
feline256 5 months ago
You simply aren't intelligent enough to understand this topic.
LucCole88 5 months ago
You don't even need a complex laptop for your argument, even if we were to find a hammer or a simple nail in nature the theory of evolution would be in deep shit.
But isn't it amazing that you god has not designed anything even that simple?
Isn't it amazing that the only things that would make us believe were designed are "created" in front of our eyes and all have DNA/RNA?
saintpine 5 months ago
no evidence for evolution??? this guy is a fucking idiot
oneball1982 5 months ago
Such a sad commentary.
biffsbiz 5 months ago
I'd love to argue with you in public. I'd make you cry infront of your boyfriend. IT IS OBVIOUS YOU DIDN'T READ THE BOOK. Possibly at minimum you have a reading comprehention value on the negetive side of the scale. BTW Genes don't care what species we classify them in a group as. In other words genes dont care if we call you a HOMO Sapien or HOMO Erectus. Next time you have a PHD in Evolutionary Biology we can talk.
sinedeocodex 5 months ago
"I uh dlon't know wht he means by that" makes me think of kirk Camron if you don't thin the issue of evolution does not come up. like um physics surgery managment and a million other things that require thought. look up DonExdous2 he knows all about transionals
CapQuacer 5 months ago
Well... that was a complete waste of time
ullevafan 6 months ago
There are plenty of transitional forms. They found apes with human hands and ape feet. And you clearly don't understand what a logical contradiction is. He is a SCIENTIST. He will not refute something unless you can absolutely 100% prove that it is false. God cannot be proven false; religion designed him this way. But this is the difference between a scientist and a zealot -- he is willing to say that it is POSSIBLE (but very improbably) that he is wrong, instead of blindly clinging to it.
MasterJaffer 6 months ago
Your argument was "I dont need to ask who designed god so i wont." close minded fool
what4321ify 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, you're smarter than Richard Dawkins! (<--- irony)
grebrim 6 months ago
Comment removed
grebrim 6 months ago
1. you cant refute evidence for christianity because no such evidence has ever been provided.
2. yes you know a laptop has been diesigned because its MAN MADE, man did not make the universe, and if you believe in "intelligent" design look at all of the flaws, earth is the only tiny speck of habitable land in the universe, anywhere else YOU WOULD DIE, earth too has many flaws.
3. transitional forms, look up "lucy" ancient remains of a creature between ape and human.
DemoraX 6 months ago 12
@DemoraX but yo have to understand once Adam and Eve sin they threw everything out of wack thats why its not a perfect world bro
jamesbamaboi 3 months ago
This guy was educated by Ray Comfort.
ALL of these arguments are P.R.A.T.T arguments.
P.reviously
R.efuted
A.
T.housand
T.imes
AtheistAutopsy 6 months ago
You MUST be a troll. NO-ONE CAN BE THIS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!
AtheistAutopsy 6 months ago 35
@AtheistAutopsy He just might be stupid.
vanilaish 2 months ago
Really? The old Paley argument? It has been refuted so many times now...
Cytokin 6 months ago
If you think something like a laptop can't exist without a creator, then you refute your own argument by proxy. Why can't the laptop be eternal?
Everything is a 'transitional form'; categories are a human construct and evolution is an unending gradient. Evolution is very observable, particularly in microbiology. Viruses like AIDS evolve immunity to antivirals very quickly.
Scientific knowledge develops as new evidence presents itself. Religions haughtily assume to know it all already, often
captainpanic08 6 months ago
@captainpanic08 going so far as to say 'we don't need evidence'. If someone says, based on the theory that fire makes things hot, 'don't touch things recently exposed to fire', you'd be remiss to ignore them.
Of course Darwin understands that the universe began in the finite past. What physics hasn't yet ascertained is precisely why. We're pretty sure it has a lot to do with a quantum singularity, though it's rather complicated stuff that we're working on. See the Large Hadron Collider.
captainpanic08 6 months ago
@captainpanic08 'There's no evidence for god' and 'God almost certainly doesn't exist' are not at all contradictory. In fact, the latter is the precisely appropriate response to the former, based on the scientific method of theories based on observable evidence that can stands up to experimental challenge.
captainpanic08 6 months ago
I can give you many trnsitional forms!
Pikaia, Conodont, haikouichthys, Arandaspis, Birkenia and Guiyu. Those are just the invertibrates to fish. gogo wikipedia list.
Science of the gaps? That's what science is here for... as well as ignorance of the gaps. That's what gaps are for. Also if you think this is logically incoherent then you should take a philosophy class.
Solensherre 6 months ago
I'd love to see this kid debate Richard Dawkins. Though it would be a waste of time because Dawkins would undoubtedly prove how vacuous the boys arguments are.
ThisPoisonTree 6 months ago
1. humans designed laptops, and you are claiming god designed humans, so you are disproving your own point. (though i do see what you are getting at, you just use a poor example.)
2. actually, you are completely wrong when you say we have never tested evolution. Scientists have WATCHED HIV evolve in real time, as it evolves to survive drugs designed to destroy it. that is where you get drug resistant diseases from; evolution.
red666111 6 months ago
The fact is that there isn't a shred of evidence or proof of ANY God, much less the one from biblical mythology. If you believe in something with no proof and with all the evidence pointing against it, you're a gullible fool.
So we rationalists don't just accept things "on faith". We need proof.
A book of PLAGIARIZED PAGAN MYTHOLOGY with the characters' names changed that uses demonstrably false global event times lines (Jews enslaved & building pyramids? WHEN?!) is NOT proof by a long shot.
morpheusxnyc 6 months ago
Let's see if I can explain the paradox of the who designed the designer argument to you, kid.
Scientists CAN actually explain how the universe spontaneously came into being (quantum fluctuations & the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
But can you explain how an omnipotent being suddenly came into being?
If you can accept the argument that "God has always just existed", then you can just as easily accept the argument that the universe has always existed.
morpheusxnyc 6 months ago
Why do so many ignorant little children with such limited knowledge and understanding of science, logic and reasoning always feel compelled to post up videos on YouTube that painfully illustrate how limited their capacity for intellectual contemplation is and how shallow their depth of thought is?
The illogicalities, circular logic and straw men in this video are legion.
Laptop? Really? Sigh.
Also, this kid keeps inserting the god of the gaps argument, yet fails to see the fallacy in that.
morpheusxnyc 6 months ago
your belief in god appears to block any kind of reason, i pity you.
HolyHellsing 6 months ago
Hahaha I love how all of these videos that say something like, "PROOF OF GOD!" or "How can you still be atheist after this?!" and the dislikes heavily outweigh the likes.
lasoogneypubes 6 months ago
@lasoogneypubes haha yeah, cuz the titles appeals atheists who dislikes the videos.
HolyHellsing 6 months ago
@HolyHellsing Yeah or the maker of the video wasn't able to refute anything
lasoogneypubes 6 months ago
lol. "It's dumb because I don't understand it and it is against God."
bkeeblur 6 months ago
1. Laptops aren't born, nor do grow on trees, nor do they have an archeological record, they're designed, but life evolves, this is a fact.
2. Go look at the evidence for evolution yourself, and realise that transitional forms don't exist, because life is in a constant state of evolutionary flux.
3. Your 'God of the Gap' professes to KNOW what science does not. When science brings attention to a gap, at least science will say: "We don't know what's going on here, but we're going to find out)
cypeapplejuice 6 months ago
How the designer got there is NOT a non-issue. If everything supposed to come from something then it is very much an issue.
Ashtwan 6 months ago
is this a satire? i could write a book on how many ways you're wrong in your arguments kiddo.
And no evidence for evolution? Get your hands on any biology manual or just google "evidence for evolution".
At this point in timel, it's a fact, and furthermore evolution explains the complexity of life on earth, not it's origins, that's abiogenesis.
Before trying to "Refute" someone like Dawkins, get yourself a PhD in biology, and only then speak against evolution.
mihaimoldo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
To compare God to a laptop is simply ignorant and a fallacy. Of course you don't need to know who designed the designer of a laptop, you fucking twat. Also, Evolution is a fact because if we were to map out all species and plants, and their differences between each other, we would see a definite family tree which originated from a single cell. Even though 90% of all life on Earth has gone extinct, we have fossil evidence of these species that once exist.
campinginatent 6 months ago
@campinginatent (continued) Science isn't out to get religious people, in-fact I feel the contrary due to religious zealots wanting religion being taught in the Science classroom. I don't mind them unless they shove such false claims that lack evidence down my throat. Natural selection works by improving on what needs improving, and wiping out that which can't sustain life due to other species/conditions on the Earth. We know that the Big Bang must of happened....
campinginatent 6 months ago
@campinginatent (continued) because we can observe galaxies that move away from us, and the farther they are, the faster they move away. However, the most compelling fact is that we experience radiation from 300,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe turned transparent, and the light was very intense, eventually stretching out to form microwaves. Also, we haven't had the technology to fully understand the circumstances of the universe after the Big Bang...
campinginatent 6 months ago
@campinginatent We know that the Big Bang happened 13.7 Billion years ago, from observations on star's distances and rewinding Hubble's Law, and they seem to comply. This was a time that the Universe was a singularity, there were no space between the particles. A billionth of a second after the Big Bang, particles and atoms gained mass. This is what Dawkins was referring to. It hurts me to know ignorant teenagers (I'm 14) like you exist and don't pursue a life based around observation and facts.
campinginatent 6 months ago
"A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception."
God is a delusion by definition...
MrAnthonyfilms 6 months ago
The only other possible explanation, is that two pairs of chromosomes fused together. So the scientists tested this, because if the result was negative, then that would disprove evolution. On observation, they found that chromosome 2 was a combination of 2 chromosomes. So unless the intelligent designer was trying to confuse us when we were designed in this way, I don't see how you can deny evolution after that.
zippidy0 6 months ago
"science is something that has to be repeated, tested and observed, we have never done that."
Um, yes we definitely have. The best example of this is when some biologists noticed that we have one less pair of chromosomes that our 3 closest relations (chimpanzee, gorilla and one other I can't remember). Anyway, if at some stage in the evolutionary process one of our ancestors lost a chromosome then that organism would not survive so it couldn't happen.
zippidy0 6 months ago
You show your ignorance within the first minutes of your video. Evidence for atheism? do you even know what atheism means?
NoahTheZoophile 6 months ago
Your arguments also seem to consist of either dismissing the few points in the book as "a non-issue" or just saying "that is wrong" with your explanation boiling down to "because I say it is. I'll say it again: because it's wrong". You give no reasons or proof as to why his arguments are flawed, and it is an insult to his work to call this video "God Delusion Refuted". I'd keep pointing out how every argument you "refute" you do not in fact refute, but I've hit the 500 character limit again :/
EpicFishFingers 6 months ago
2:10, you use a manmade example that you know was designed and created by man. Theists claim that God made things in nature so use nature as an example.
2:22, I don't understand why you tried to use a manmade example to avoid answering the question "who designed the designer". It is NOT a non-issue as you state. You offer no reason as to why it is a non-issue, to say nothing of the fact that you didn't try and answer the question "who designed the designer". I also find no such argument on pg157
EpicFishFingers 6 months ago
Did you read the book?
Stevoukos 6 months ago
this video is pathetic. Firstly it's done by some stupid little kid, who doesn't know shit about anything, trying to take on one of the smartest men alive today.
Secondly the things he says are just laughable in their ignorance. Especially the "you can't give 1 transitional form." Go do some research kid, they have so many transitional forms having a hard time telling where 1 species ends and the next begins.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
place a w ww . in front of the link :-)
1010glock 6 months ago
Dude! Take a biology class. The reason EVERYONE believes in evolution, is because OF the EVIDENCE! It is there! In fact there is so much of it we take it for granted!
Here is a link just to start! edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html
1010glock 6 months ago
Wow. You are such a moron I'm going to show this video to my christian friends to convince them to abandon religion. You perfectly demonstrate christian ignorance.
BuzzOrHowl 6 months ago
Did you even read the book? Or did you just go like "Fuck it, it's probably wrong anyways"
TheBoredProle 6 months ago
You can't compare a Laptop to the universe.
I stopped watching after that false analogy.
Atheists - 1
Christians - 0
r0bbinz 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins v.s This kid
LOL
iSniPe4FuN 6 months ago
Its sad that this is what our youth are becoming,,,,
338tomer 6 months ago
Kid, you miss every single point that Dawkins makes. You clearly misunderstand evolution, science, and logic. This video was the biggest waste of my time. You absolutely can not accuse science of being "of the gaps." Did you even read the book? You bastardize every premise of his.
nickjpowers 6 months ago
What we have here is someone who has no idea what he is talking about. Fun, fun.
NathanEmanuelS 6 months ago
I think you should take some Science classes and understand the topics involved before you go off and call Professor Dawkins (a well versed and educated scientist) an ignorant fool. It is quite clear that you have never even set foot in an advanced Science class of any sort. While you're at it, I recommend taking a course on critical reasoning. None of your arguments make any sort of logical sense. Each of your arguments do not have a linear logical progression of any sort.
chang584 6 months ago
who designed the designer is a recursive loop that is his point think about it. If god is eternal then god is infinite which is a mathematical error just like your logic bud sorry. check your self please.
OlympianGossip 6 months ago
I was a bout to spout a long and wordy comment but then i realized the two top comments said it perfectly
robman8855 6 months ago
Why do theists think they can compare the production of an inanimate object to a living cell? They always use the example of "walking through the forest and discovering a laptop/watch/airplane/whatever.. you would deduce it had a creator".. first of all, you don't discover those things in nature. That's why it's incredibly retarded to think that's what an evolutionist believes. A better example of what evolutionists believe, is walking through a forest and discovering animals.
GrowMasterGeneral 7 months ago
@EaglesSoar10
How so?
That's a serious accusation.
Kinin4 7 months ago
Wait...you read The God Delusion and you still believe in him?
wetpixels 7 months ago
@EaglesSoar10
No, what it means is that "We don't have the ultimate answer yet."
All of the explanations we DO have (e.g. evolution) are anything BUT chance. Inserting "chance" as the default position in the gaps of a theory is just as bad as inserting god into it.
Kinin4 7 months ago
god can only exist in the mind of retards...in normal brains he cant..
therefore he is not allpowerfull...and no god..
god is rather a hobo looking for a place to bunk for the night ..and that space in the empty head of the reigious he has to share with angels, deamons, satan and his good for nothiung hippie son..
its more like a ymca for fallen myths.
turdseeker010101 7 months ago
The reason you can tell that the laptop is designed compared to the rest of the park, is because you know the park isn't. Your designed object looks out of place due to the comparison between something that is designed versus something that was not. Replace your laptop with a rock, or a sapling, and you wouldn't make the same argument.
Your argument has just defeated itself. Bravo.
TheBroncoTrip 7 months ago
...Did this kid just flip to the main summary and NOT read the extensive arguments and evidence Dawkins used to back up his assertions? Because none of this kid's "rebuttals" make any sense in the full context of the book.
Kinin4 7 months ago 2
@camthejock
Yes, compassion are biochemical reactions, according to BIOCHEMISTRY. It's a proven fact. Nor is it random; it's perfectly BIOlogical. Atheism has nothing to do with it, and you are on the verge of slander by implying that it does.
Kinin4 7 months ago
3.) Christianity, at its BEST, teaches that Atheists and non-believers will go to a fiery place of judgment and anguish, where they will suffer and burn for eternity. That's force at its sneakiest and nastiest. At its worst, God told the Israelites to slaughter the men, women,and children who were of different religions. That is force at its most open and contemptuous.
Kinin4 7 months ago
@EaglesSoarCA
1.) No one suggested that we exist by chance. Quite the opposite.
2.) Just because Newton and Einstein believed in God (highly doubtful on Einstein's part)...so what? That's like the reverse argument "Hitler was an Atheist, so Atheism is bad." Not only is this sorely inaccurate, it means absolutely nothing. They didn't do their work in the name of Atheism.Neither did Newton or Einstein do their work in the name of "Intelligent design.
Kinin4 7 months ago
Comment removed
Kinin4 7 months ago
@EagleSoars100 If USA lost all it's atheists it would lose most of its scientists, Professors and few of its convicts.
EmmittBrownBTTF1 7 months ago
10% of the people who thumb this can't see what is so evidently wrong with it.
Watchmaker fallacy.
eternal -> outside of time - >outside of existence
Transitional forms strawman - all species ARE transitional forms.
Kinds has no scientific definition, natural selection eliminates suboptimal forms and genetic drift creates new forms.
"we don't know" is more honest than "godid it" filler argument pretending we have answer. Hope is not faith.
Loosing your religion? Many are!
EmmittBrownBTTF1 7 months ago
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pevensie15 You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply) , the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply) , the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply) , the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard, half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
@Pevensie15
You honestly believe there are no transitional fossils, don't you? What do you think Archaeopteryx is? It's as close to a half-lizard half-bird as you're ever going to find. But that's not good enough?
And the question of "who designed the designer?" still stands. If something complex requires a designer (as you imply), the designer must be more complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer, being more complex, requires a designer too, as complex things require a designer.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
@EagleSoars100 "for Christians are good and loving people"
No more 'good' and 'loving' than the rest of the world, and capable of just as many atrocities as the rest of us, too.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
Im sure this dude didn't read the book. Dawkins wasn't saying that god is a delusion, as in, oh, all of the people are having a mental breakdown and that's why they believe in it. he was just in general disproving the claims people made. Moreover, if he read the book, he wouldn't be refuting it.
hihihidddd 7 months ago
@EagleSoars100 "Christians are good and loving people" So there are no bad Christians? Anders Behring Breivik
MrRewind86 7 months ago
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..."
— C.S. Lewis
camthejock 7 months ago
@camthejock C S Lewis - luminary in creative writing, perhaps less well practised in rational thought or less troubled by observable evident reality. He is quite wrong the world view become much more complex. There never was a universal meaning if there was it would have been agreed upon by now, but theists have never been so divided. Meaning is a personal choice. Often it is to become, in some measure, better. Atheist value compassion and reason.
EmmittBrownBTTF1 7 months ago
@EmmittBrownBTTF1 Compassion and reason are just random biochemical reactions, accroding to atheism.
camthejock 7 months ago
@camthejock The mutations that cause all features of in life are in the first instance random. but by natural selection evolution is deterministic. Biochemical activity may have random elements but gating and filtration mechanisms in the brain lead to deterministic outcomes in the presence of clear information. In absence of clear information the probabilities for out comes are described by the math used in quantum theory(source New Scientist). For more random outcomes use religious flimflam.
EmmittBrownBTTF1 5 months ago
Wow, Pevensie15. This is really cute! Like it! Keep it up!
JesseMoshe 7 months ago
Look up "Logic: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)" on Amazon.
MBoothe517 7 months ago
@EagleSoars100 You are ignorant towards Atheism in general.
Atheists simply don't believe in a god.
Militant Atheists are violent towards religion.
I am the latter as far as Organized Religion is involved.
MBoothe517 7 months ago
You can't prove a negative. No amount of evolution, no amount of ANYTHING can prove a negative.
That's what these people dont get.
KingR3aper 7 months ago
how about instead of reading only 157-158 you read the whole book
meron90 7 months ago
Hey kid, you're an idiot.
Bestmoviealive 7 months ago
your refutation is really dumb..do not have to get into who created god...do not know what ...you are just to naive to actually put your argument to refute ...rubbish...look at the bible...written stories and rubbish..you yourself is rubbish
artkoh17 7 months ago
ALL FORMS ARE TRANSITIONAL, YOU FUCKING MORON. EVOLUTION. NEVER. STOPS.
Xtremephoenix 7 months ago 2
I doubt that you've even read this book, if you had, you would have found very good, logically consistant counter-arguments to all of the point you raise.
TheIncredibleD1701 7 months ago
People like this make me doubt evolution sometimes...
Asuperl33tninja 7 months ago
@Asuperl33tninja For a second there I didn't get the joke. bud-um tisk
valek27 7 months ago
Hahahahaha Dude this kid is like 12, i doubt he could even understand half the vocabulary in the Book. BTW there is no proof of a designer. :)
stomecko 7 months ago
I want aliens to land to shut these people the fuck up.
bklurchio 7 months ago
It looks like you missed/didn't understand 99% of the book's arguments.
GLainesse 7 months ago 6
Great video, son, keep it up.
AnnymsVoice 7 months ago
Is this Bill O'reilly's son?
weasterlin 7 months ago 2
Are you sure you read this book? Doesn't seem like it.
MacBass85 7 months ago 2
your making no sense, the laptop, I know there's a designer, but i dont need to explain how the designer got there? make sense you head case. but you can find out who designed it, is the point you fool.
zenden64 7 months ago
This is really depressing. It seems to me that you actually have no idea what you have read. It is also quite surprising to see a person make a video about a book which in itself leaves the door open for God, Science and even Scientology.
Oh, and don't you really understand the concept of controversy and contradiction? If you claim Dawkins contradicts himself (according to your example), then you must have not understood anything about the book.
Sad, really.
tammerik24 7 months ago
by the way, to all those considering going to that website at the end, it is currently under construction. there's nothing there but a white screen and five or six words.
me835 7 months ago
Don't read 2 pages, read the whole book. And I'm not surprised there aren't many christians on that thing you mentioned at the end. Also some advice would be to never make a video like this again, Oxford University does not hire science professors who can be outsmarted by a kid.
rex786 7 months ago
petersbooth dotcom
dominicmilan 7 months ago
haha you have make me laugh
f
dominicmilan 7 months ago
words cannot describe the rage. there are many instances of transitional forms. See Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Archaeopteryx, Homo Erectus, all transitional forms. I can list more if needed. Dawkins DOES believe the universe has a finite beginning (see Cosmology and Big Bang Theory). Mutations are incorporated under evolution and natural selection last i checked. He DOES think evolution CAN be refuted by science. he just thinks it WON'T be, due to all the EVIDENCE supporting it.
me835 7 months ago
Sorry to beat a dead horse, by the by.
TheArmyofWombats 7 months ago
Initially it doesn't matter if a designer also has a designer. I disagree. However complex an object may be, there was a process with which it came unto it's complexity. Your response grants that an eternal god is needed in order to explain things of complexity. You exempt this god-concept from the current problem of complex things needing a designer. What is your reasoning about this? I hope that your reasons for your argument isn't just "this one thing is different" as it makes little sense.
TheArmyofWombats 7 months ago
you're pretty much saying that it's irrelevant if God had a creator or not, but it's very much relevant. Dawkins is saying "If God created everything, what created God?" and your rebuttal is basically "it doesn't matter"
Torikramone 7 months ago
Every thing needs a designer and therefore is designed,..except for god which is what I'm trying to prove. God seems to escape your omnipresent necessity of a designer. Do I need to suggest that you google the term "special pleading?'
firstatheist 7 months ago
Evolution is a fact, and there is hundreds of transitional forms fool, and it has been observed, my god, you're an idiot, go on wikipedia for a couple of days.
LuciferLBelial 7 months ago
People are accusing you of being dishonest, which they know you are not. You'll be lucky if 1 in a 100 atheists care about the evidence when it comes to this.
NewVinland 7 months ago
You're mis-quoting and using words out of context, from Dawkins book.
Not only are you presenting a strawman fallacy ... but you're obviously doing that deliberately ... which is simply dishonest.
THUMBS DOWN
insanecuriosity 7 months ago
Anyone else want to shove a sock in this kid's mouth?
bigbadalastor 7 months ago