Christopher Hitchens - "God Is Not Great" Interview (Charlie Rose Show, May 4, 2007)

[1empathy]

Oh deluded one, if science points to a god, how come 90% plus of the people best able to judge (members of the national academy, royal societies etc) are atheist. The quran describes a geocentric (ptolomaic) solar system and says man was a special creation from clay, jinns from fire, the sun resting in a muddy puddle! Islam is a joke.

[goohgulliscia]

"A fool says in his heart 'there is no God." The evidence for God is everywhere but usually anger and pride are the roadblocks to a relationship with Christ.

[LuckynumberSlevin11]

@goohgulliscia Where is the evidence? Show me please.

[MCSKeelar]

@goohgulliscia What is the evidence?

[goohgulliscia]

@MCSKeelar How about looking at His creation? The complexity of just the human eye alone should be enough to convince you that it was DESIGNED--not some random quirk that assembled itself from a warm pool of slime. To believe in random assembly of a complex item think of this: Dis-assemble a watch. Place all of those pieces on a rocket; then zoom it into the moon hoping that the watch will assemble itself. In a billion tries it would never assemble itself and the human eye is far more complex.

[Briandnlo4]

Let Hitch himself end the flame war in the comments. "That which can be asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence."

[visionvp]

hitchens, GOD IS GREAT!!!! death comes to all......

[Keskimaki]

@visionvp Death is a very human thing. Unlike all the eternal-god-stuff.

[SegBekur]

so in reality the first amendment should say no religious person should ever have a government job

[MrWaddefak]

@SegBekur no, he or she just shouldn't try to impose their religion on what they are doing.

[SegBekur]

hmm i dont know how lucky we are because as far as i see religion is a part of the Us politics and what Thomas Jefferson sad is actually helping religion sneak into the senate while the government can`t do anything against or they break the first amendment

[flassk7]

Charlie Rose is the shittest interviewer ever

[lockwyn]

Thanks for upload! Hitchslap. 

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, RationalThought321.

[carinatube00]

I am going to write a book called “God is great - Atheism poisons everything” to clearly show that Mr. Hitchens is totally wrong.

[TomFynn]

@carinatube00 A book about God? Why would you write a book about something that you - like everyone else - do not know anything about?

[THEkiloniner]

@TomFynn Based on her comment, I would suggest that @carinatube00 very likely lacks the ability to write a book on any topic more complex than the smell of warm biscuits. If by chance she ever attempted such a thing it would most probably contain little more than the warmed-over hash of mindless, rote justifications with which the believer has always meant to convince those with the gumption to challenge such dross.

[carinatube00]

@TomFynn Well unfortunately we know a lot about God, the absolute creator. Thanks to Gods messengers in the past we have realized the existence of God and received great information about God, why God created us and other important questions. Have you read something about the messengers of Godin the past?

[TomFynn]

@carinatube00 LOL. Sorry, this does not merit a better response. If a man goes into a cave, a desert or, in the case of Joseph Smith, an attic and then comes back and tells the world that God has spoken to him the only rational response is LOL.

[carinatube00]

@TomFynn Okey, if the man who went to the a cave, a desert or, in the case of Joseph Smith, an attic and then comes back and tells the world that God has spoken to him, the only rational response is “ where is your evidence” and not LOL. The evidence that Prophet Mohamed has presented for being the messenger of God are extremely strong. You should not listen to what the haters of religion have to say. Do like i did, investigate the facts by yourself and you will find the truth. take care.

[TomFynn]

@carinatube00 Since he cannot produce any evidence beside saying "Because I say so", the only response *is* LOL.

And the "strong evidence" is what? Because he said so?

[mercyflush101]

@carinatube00 Please explain how Hitchens is wrong. I look forward to ripping apart your argument.

[carinatube00]

@mercyflush101 One very crucial point which rips Mr Hitchens apart is his negative view about religion. He believes that religion poisons everything. Is it only religion that poisons everything? A person who believes that religion is the only thing that poisons everything is very naive and narrow- minded.

[mercyflush101]

@carinatube00 Yes he believes religion poisins everything, and I would very much agree with that. However you have some how got from that - that he does not believe anything else poisons society??!!. I really dont know were you got that in to your head, because that is certainly not what he believes. He simply believes that religion is the No.1 cause of evil in the world - and I believe that is 100% true.

[carinatube00]

@mercyflush101 Where did I mention “Society “ in my comment??!! Hitchens wrote a book called “God is not great – How religion poisons EVERYTHING”. Is there something that religion doesn’t poison? What do you think is the answer to this question? The answer will show you how narrow-minded Hitchens and his followers are.

[mercyflush101]

@carinatube00 Religion poisons everything that it possibly could. It makes logical people into deluded sheep/corupts childrens minds into thinking faith is a virtue/stops people from seeing the truth of reality and mortality. I could go on and on. It truely poisons all facets of human endeavour. So to answer your question - no, there is nothing religion does not poison. I laughed when I read your "narrow minded" part. Haha ever heard the saying "people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones"? Ha

[russellrummage]

@carinatube00 He clearly never says anywhere that religion is the sole poison in this World. But with it's divisive nature and the celebration of death, religion seriously needs to either piss off or tone the fuck down. Call me a narrow minded atheist if you wish, but I'd like to actually live my life and see civilization advance instead of just treating it like a test run to something beyond. Dangerous shit to the n'th degree.

[carinatube00]

@russellrummage (Part 1) Please he wrote a book where he clearly says in the title”God is not great – How religion poisons EVERYTHING” so you are telling me that Hitchens doesn’t understand what he is talking about? I don’t want to call you a narrow-minded atheist. I also would like to live a free life without being bombarded with atheistic ideas (as it was in school). Cont..

[carinatube00]

Svara på det här videoklippet... (part 2) Religion is not dangerous; thanks to my faith I have now become a much better human being. Before I used to do all bad things and I was very near to ruin my life. But now faith has given me a second chance. If religion is dangerous, why has it helped me?

[TomFynn]

@carinatube00 "If religion is dangerous, why has it helped me?" Maybe you should ask that the 3000 victims of 9/11, the tens of thousands killed in Iraq by precision ammo, the even bigger number of people blown up by suicide bombers, the people who are under death treat for their writings and the gunned down abortion doctors? And the millions in Iraq Israel and Indonesia held hostage by power mad priests?

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 Faith is being willing to believe something without evidence. don't have faith!

[carinatube00]

@1empathy I am afraid that you are wrong. My spiritual journey is all based on evidence. All people who belive in the existence of the Creator do have evidence for their belife. I invite you to investigate the evidence which the messengers of the Creator used for proofing the existence of the Creator. If the evidence of the messenger of the Creator is authentic, then you should know that the exictance of the Creator is truth. Please take care.

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 You say i'm wrong and then go on to agree with me!? if you had a spiritual journey and have evidence for god, then you do not need faith. You are not taking things on faith you are believing based on evidence, well done. I've always been interested in religions, and have never seen anything that would convince me, what messengers provided evidence for you?

[carinatube00]

@1empathy )Part 1) You must now that true belief is achieved only when the person is absolutely convinced (with knowledge and logic) that his faith is truth. There is scientific evidence for the existence of the Creator, but faith is still needed since the Creator himself is beyond the limits of scientific measurements. You can implement science to reach the conclusion that there must be a Creator, but you need faith to understand why we are here and where we are heading etc. contin...

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 If science proves a creator how come the people best able to judge (members of the national academy, royal societies etc) are over 90% atheist? I've read the quran and it is repetitive nonsense, historically it is just judaism for the arabs, it copies from the bible (same god, same stories, same patriarchs) and copies the jews right down to cutting your foreskin off and not eating pork! All these religions are clearly human inventions, i'm sorry you can't see that.

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (1) Because they have been taught to believe in the Darwinian faith and that religion is an evil human invention. Science confirms the existence of a creator. But these 90% atheist choose to believe that the Creator is “Chance and fluctuations”. I am not an idiot to believe that the existence of the universe and life was perfectly formed and programmed by this so called “Chance and fluctuations”. The atheistic belief is clearly a human invention, I'm deeply sorry that you can't se that

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (2) The Quran is not repetitive nonsense. The Quran is not a copy of the Torah or the Bible. But I agree with you that there are similarities between the scriptures. This is great since it confirms the theory that these scriptures have come from the same source, i.e. The Creator. I recommend you to investigate the many scientific miracles presented in the Quran. Do you believe in the Creator? If not, why?

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 Darwinian faith? What's that? Every "scientific miracle" in the quran is either wrong or a loose interpretation of ambiguous language. A quick search on the internet for "scientific errors in the quran" will help you. There is no evidence for a creator, we never see anything created (except by us or possibly a bird's nest or a beaver's dam). What we see is natural processes (not chance), Religion is a human invention, i'm deeply sorry you can't see that ;o)

[carinatube00]

Part 1. I have googled “scientific errors in the quran". The non authentic hadiths that interpret the verses give the Quran these errors. There are many scientific verses that don’t need any interpretation because they are so clear. The many scientific verses in the Quran have been confirmed by modern science. Please google “The Scientific Miracles of the Qur'an”. There are also detailed information about this topic if you google “Miracles of the Qur'an - Harun Yahya”.

[carinatube00]

@1empathy Part 2. There is no evidence for a creator? Are you kidding me? How come you never see anything created? The creation of a human baby from a fertilized egg cell in the mother`s womb. Is this not creation? If not, what is it then? If nature is controlling this so called “natural process”, then nature must be extremely intelligent, don’t you agree?

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 Harun yahya is a proven fraud and no, a child is not created, life is a reorganisation of existing matter and energy, religions claim "creation from nothing" and we have never seen that. Please direct me to the "clear scientific verses" "confirmed by modern science" as anything i can find online is either plain wrong or a loose interpretation of ambiguous text.

[carinatube00]

@1empathy Part 1. Study the clear facts and the authentic references presented by Harun yahya. Why do you think Harun yahya is a fraud? The facts and references presented are AUTHENTIC!! Religion does not claim creation from noting, atheism claims that “reorganization of existing matter and energy” to complex systems on micro and macro levels is directed by NOTHING. Logic and religion refuses this concept. Every creation has a creator, do you accept this statement? continue..

[carinatube00]

Part 2. Regarding directing you to the scientific verses confirmed by modern science. There are HUNDREDS of scientific verses in the Quran. You can begin your journey by watching these youtube videos:

youtube.com/watch?v=-szJCUmNYB­k&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=86rRXyUMv9­I

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 really? as i have already pointed out no scientist is convinced by this and neither am i.

[carinatube00]

@1empathy …no scientist is convinced? are you sure? Please search for this on youtube “Quran on Embryology - Professor Keith L. Moore” . Professor Keith L. Moore is one of the world`s prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology. Please see also “Christian scientist confirm Quran is true! “ If the great scientist are convinced, why aren’t you?

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 And the rest of the embryology community firmly disavows Moore's senseless comments. Just ask PZ Myers. What is your point, dimwit?

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 A true dimwit is the one who believes that biological organisms are not a design. You accept that a laptop is intelligently designed, but you just can’t accept that a human is intelligently designed?! Be strong and deliver your mind from the brainwashing Darwinian faith. The theory of evolution is an extremely weak theory. There are many arguments that have crushed this irrational, illogical belief long ago.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Anyone who attempts to draw a parallel between a device such as a laptop and a biological system clearly doesn't understand either or both of them. The theory you define "weak" is the only one that for the past 150 years has allowed us to explain the diversity of life on this planet, leading to a coherent framework that encompasses virtually the entire biomedical field. If you think you have arguments that can "crush" it, feel free to share. I'm sure they've been debunked long ago.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 "...If you think you have arguments that can "crush" it, feel free to share..". You asked me to share some arguments that destroys the theory of evolution. I would love to share one important statement which Darwin himself have written. Darwin wrote: “ If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break

down."

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 What Darwin is saying, in today's words, is that if irreducible complexity were real, the theory of evolution could not be correct. Unfortunately for you, every single alleged instance of "irreducible complexity" ever proposed by the ID/Creationist lot has been debunked and rejected so many times that Behe himself is probably ashamed of ever coming up with the silly term "irreducible complexity." Got anything noteworthy to offer or are we done?

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 So have archaeologist ever found transitional species proving that organisms evolve? if not, don’t tell me that the scientist will discover them in the near future.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Archaeologists? Maybe you mean palaeontologists? That aside, any single organism on this planet is a transitional organism between the previous and the following generation. By extension, any fossil is the fossil of a transitional organism. The traces of that transition are most evident in an organism's genome. Thinking of a half-duck/half-crocodile organism as a "transitional" organism is a misconception based on a very flawed understanding of how evolution works.

[moroney1]

@Kalevala87 Your dodging the question, your original statement I critiqued was the one asserting you can prove god by asking for him to enlighten you, this is a fallacy

[Kalevala87]

@moroney1 I think you may have the wrong person, mate.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 “any fossil is the fossil of a transitional organism. The traces of that transition are most evident in an organism's genome.…” that is a huge mistake. Every fossil is the fossil of a complete organism that is not a link in any evolutionary process. Traces of transition??! Similarities in the genome between two organisms don’t mean that there is an ancestral connection between the organisms. Where is the proof that all organisms have one ancestor?

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Any living, viable organism is a complete organism. Any organism is also a transitional organism. The two things are not incompatible. Your trouble understanding it comes from your misconception of what a transitional organism is. Stop thinking of crocoducks, that's just bullcrap. And yes, genetic similarity is indeed evidence of common ancestry, especially when linked with systematic differences that can only be accounted for by a common descent.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 “…Stop thinking of crocoducks…” Who said that I am thinking of crocoducks?! “…And yes, genetic similarity is indeed evidence of common ancestry, …” you are saying that similarities between the yeast genome and the human genome suggest that the humans and yeast organisms are relatives? Is this the logic you are following? Deliver your mind from this nonsense. Organisms having similarities in their genome is not evidence of one common ancestor. There is no proof for that.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Wow, your ignorance is amazing. Whether you like it or not, genetic similarities is, always was, and always will be evidence of common descent. If you wish to prove otherwise, go get a PhD in biology and make a fool of yourself trying to prove otherwise. Try to explain how BOTH genetic similarities and differences match consistently with traditional taxonomy. Try to explain systematic variation in a non-evolutionary framework. You will fail.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 I think your ignorance is amazing. Please answer my question. The humans and yeast organisms have genetic similarities. What does this mean? Are humans and yeast organisms relatives? I don’t need a PhD in biology, we just need a brain and a free mind to understand that humans and yeast cells are not relatives.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 I've already answered your question, and the answer is yes. The presence of the same fundamental biochemistry, equivalent cellular metabolism, and the fact that both the genetic similarities and systematic differences consistently match the pattern described by classical taxonomy demonstrate unequivocally a common genealogy and a common abiogenetic origin. Repeating that's not the case means nothing until you can present an alternative theory with equivalent explanatory power.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 And please, until you can actually do so, refrain from posting further comments and making a complete fool of yourself. It's truly depressing to witness.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 It is truly depressing to witness that you don’t want to answer my question. And please don’t make a fool of yourself by running away with excuses.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 I have *just* answered your question. How stupid can you be? What part of "the answer is yes" still baffles you, you ignorant dimwit? Please, do us all a massive favour and go stick a fork in a power socket.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 Watch your language. Why are you not admitting that there is no scientific explanation for the evolutionary origin of new kinds of plants or animals? There is no provable biological mechanism for the origin of new plants or animals, nor is there a testable scientific theory of evolutionary change to "create" complex new biological designs.Please don’t make a fool of yourself telling me that you are a believer of a slimy primordial soup that created life.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Watch your stupidity. Why not? Because it's not true and even in your ignorance you know that. Variation and divergence is the only mechanism that can systematically create biological diversity and its activity can be traced back in the genomes of organisms. Claiming otherwise is, quite simply, ignorance or cowardice. Take your pick.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 The theory of gravity is testable simply by dropping an apple. We see it in action. The theory of evolution is not able to be empirically proven. It will never be proven, whether you like it or not. How can you test the origin of life from nonliving matter?? I invite you to liberate yourself from the weak and unscientific theory of evolution. Don’t be afraid of the truth, you just need to have the courage to open your mind. The choice is yours. Take care / Carina

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 1) The theory of evolution by natural selection actually doesn't concern itself with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis, an entirely separate field of investigation. If you don't know this, you have no place in a debate concerning evolution. You should be in school.

2) The theory of evolution has been consistently proven for over 100 years. Nothing in biology makes sense if evolution isn't true. Your ignorance of this simple fact is no excuse for your arrogance.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87

1.) Good, so how did life start? in a puttering, slimy, primordial soup?

2.) The theory of evolution has NOT been proven. If a theory is proven, then that theory becomes a fact. The theory of evolution is still called “the theory of evolution”, then that particular theory is NOT a fact. You don’t need a PhD to understand this simple fact. “Nothing in biology makes sense if evolution isn't true…” that is a big lie!!



[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 1) I don't think you understand what is meant by "primordial soup." Deep sea oceanic vents are a likely scenario.

2) A theory never becomes a fact. A theory in science is the highest title a scientific model will ever achieve. Your interpretation of "theory" as meaning "guess" betrays an embarrassing ignorance of how science work. You clearly would benefit from even a BSc in biology. Poor ignorant fool.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 1) “Deep sea oceanic events.” so what forces directed molecules in that deep sea to form life? Van der Waals bonds and coincidence with a bit of amazing luck??

2) “A theory never becomes a fact”. Okey, if I presume or make a guess (theory) that UFO exists, and later evidence of the existence of UFO:s are given (ex authentic pictures etc). Is my guess a fact or is it fiction? Try to answer the question without giving unnecessary information.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 1) The same forces that direct ANY chemical reaction regardless of location. Physical forces that are universal to all physical systems. No supernatural intervention required.

2) If you "presume and make a guess," in science you formulate a hypothesis, not a theory. A hypothesis becomes a theory if collected data supports it. Google "null hypothesis" and "alternative (or maintained) hypothesis." These are basic notions you learn in any undergrad statistics course.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 1) What are the components and which are the reactions that took place? Why do you exclude supernatural intervention? Are you 100% sure that no supernatural intervention took place? What is your evidence for your claim?

2) so what data support the theory that species evolve from other species? Is there any evidence for this theory? I have never encountered scientific articles explaining the mechanism for how species evolve from other species over time.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 1) Different organic compounds have different components. Water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, phosphorus, and so on. They have all been shown to react pretty straightforwardly to create organic compounds needed for life. If you want the reaction equations you will have to read the paper, there's no room to post them in a comment. If such reaction can occur naturally - and they can - there is no reason to postulate an unneeded supernatural intervention. Occam's razor wins again.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 2) There's plenty of evidence, and we've been through this. Genetic differences and similarities between living organisms are too systematic and match expected cladistics relations too much for the explanation to be anything but common descent. And there's plenty of textbooks and papers out there detailing the mechanisms of genetic inheritance and genetic variation. Just drop by your local book store and you'll find piles and piles of them. If you don't want to buy them, library.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 1) Firstly, what is the possibility for life to emerge out of a caotic organic mixture? secondly, if it is true what you are saying, then why have scientist failed to reproduce simple life forms in laboratories? Even the simplest forms of life (prokaryotic organisms) haven’t been reproduced by any scientist. The only logical reason why the scientists have failed to do so is because they still don’t know what forces directed the creation of life. Don’t you agree?

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 1) The odds would be very slim if life had emerged the way Creationists claim. An evolutionary process, on the other hand, actually thrives on the diversity that a chaotic system generates. That aside, the validity of abiogenesis hinges in no way on our ability to replicate it, much like stellar fusion occurs whether we can replicate it on Earth or not. Also, prokaryotes are in no way the simplest form of life and as such weren't the immediate outcome of abiogenesis.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 2) I have come in contact with a great scientific webpage dealing with the huge problems of the theory of evolution. There are many problems in the theory of evolution which you must know about. Google “Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2 CHAPTER 15” and choose the first alternative. what are your comments?

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Scientific webpage? Nothing but yet another collection of creationist ignorance. I'm sorry, but if there are arguments that you wish me to consider, you will have to go through the trouble of formulating them yourself. I won't do your homework for you.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 1) The mechanism of fusion is well known and is taking place in the stars. There are scientific articles explaining in great detail about fusion. On the other hand, the mechanism of life emerging spontaneously in a chaotic organic mixture is unknown. There is no evidence proving abiogenesis, that’s a fact. It doesn’t implicate that the "Primordial soup" theory is correct just because another theory sounds bad. to be continued…

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 1) Just as the mechanism of evolution is well-known and takes place daily all around us. There's plenty of papers - whole journals - dedicated to explaining the mechanisms behind it. Sadly, they appear to be beyond your reach and comprehension. As for abiogenesis, there have been plenty of experiments demonstrating that the fundamental building blocks of life can and do emerge spontaneously from abiotic conditions.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 1) cont…What is the odds of life emerging from a primordial soup? What was the immediate outcome of abiogenesis and how was that outcome formed? Remember, I am not arguing for creationists, I am trying to understand the theory of abiogenesis and why people still belive in it when it sounds very unlikely.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 1) I have already explained this. Several times. Scroll back to my comments from 4 days ago, because I just can't be arsed to repeat myself. Spontaneous chemical reactions are ubiquitous in nature. That sets the odds of abiogenesis occurring as extremely high.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 2) ok, I begin by asking the following question: Evolution is based on change from one species to another. what is the mechanism for this to occur? secondly is this stamen correct? : “Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." –*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 2) No, evolution is based on the change in allele frequency over time within populations. Speciation is merely the consequence of the fact that said divergence doesn't magically stop at arbitrary points. And no, that nearly-two-century-old statement is not correct. Anything else? I'll be honest with you, I'm growing tired of running in circles with you. If you don't come up with anything of any value I'll have to stop indulging you pretty soon.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 1) Plenty of experiments have shown that DNA can never be formed in a primordial soup. A chaotic organic mixture can never create nucleotides and chance can never create the intelligent information found in DNA. Do you believe that chance is the force which created DNA containing thousands of intelligently designed genes coding for complex functional proteins?

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 1) No abiogenetic model claims that DNA suddenly popped out of an inorganic mixture, so that's a straw man. Abiogenetic experiments have clearly shown that the precursors of proteins - amino acids and later even proteinoids - and of RNA, not to mention lipid bilayers, can form spontaneously in abiotic conditions. Miller-Urey, Fox, Adam, Michaelian, Wächtershäuser and many many others. Just read their work and shut the hell up.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Oh, and there's no intelligence in DNA, since DNA isn't really information. Do study some Information theory before you spew more nonsense. DNA is a molecule physically interacting with other molecules in the only way that their physical conformation allows. Actually, all the flaws inherent in the process blatantly point to a natural process.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 2) Show me one single scientific article clearly explaining (with evidence) the mechanism for how one species evolves to another species. One key element in the theory of evolution is that species have evolved from other species. There is no evidence proving this. “Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has been changed." If you cannot provide evidence disproving this statement, then this statement is regarded as true.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 There's actually plenty of recorded instances of speciation. Are you truly that ignorant? talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/faq-s­peciation.html talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/speci­ation.html Even the common descent between Homo sapiens sapiens and the other primates is beautifully exemplified in the discovery of the chromosomal fusion of human chromosome 2.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 1) “abiogenetic” experiments have clearly shown that RNA and DNA molecules was NOT created by an organic warm soup. Generally, these experiments have clearly shown that life never emerged from a hot organic mixture. The theory that life emerged from a primordial soup is therefore a myth. NO intelligence in DNA?? I am pretty sure that you fully understand that DNA carries genetic information… yes genetic INFORMATION.

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 You didn't even read my post, did you? You just go on and vomit the same few sentences over and over again ignoring the fact that people have already addressed your points, don't you? In that case I'm going to do just the same until you realise your own ignorance.

[carinatube00]

2) (part 1) I did not ask you about the mechanisms of genetic inheritance. I asked you about the mechanism for how one species evolves to another species. The webpage you provided me with does not answer the question. The examples and references given as “evidence” for speci¬ation are just nonsense. (to be continued…)

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Inheritance and divergence ARE THE MECHANISMS THROUGH WHICH SPECIES DIVERGE! Seriously, how can you be THIS stupid? And the recorded instances of speciation are not nonsense. They are simply evidence you cannot refute.

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 2) (part 2)… You must understand that random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. Transformations across the species barrier never occur. New varieties and new breeds is not evolution; it is only variation within the already existing species. (to be continued…)

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 "You must understand that random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds." <- Thank you for finally admitting that evolution is true. Everything else in your post is ignorant fluff. There is no such thing as a "DNA code barrier," nor is there a magical barrier that prevents speciation. Populations routinely diverge past the point at which interbreeding is possible. THAT IS EVOLUTION, YOU RIDICULOUS DUMBFUCK!

[carinatube00]

@Kalevala87 2) (part 3)…I conclude with the following quote "To assert that population dynamics gives a picture of evolution in action is an unfounded opinion, or rather a postulate, that relies on not a single proved fact showing that transformations in the two kingdoms have been essentially linked to changes in the balance of genes in a population . . As for seeking in it proof of the formation of new species, there is no such hope." (Professor Pierre P. Grasse)

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Wow, a quotation by one of the last French Lamarckists out of pure national pride. You just have no idea whatsoever of what you're saying, do you? You just ramble on, hoping that some day somewhere you will manage to make a coherent point. Sorry, but I just don't have the time to wait around until that day come. You are an ignorant fuck with no sense of shame. This is officially my last reply to you. But by all means, go on putting your ignorance on display.

[carinatube00]

1) So how was the first DNA molecule formed? One scientist was asked this question and his answer was: “One can only spec­u­late. They could have formed from smaller molecules present on primitive Earth, either very slowly over millions of years or rapidly before the Earth cooled down. Asteroids may have brought them from outer space,” he added, thought this doesn’t explain how they would have formed there.” I believe you share the same idea with him, don’t you?

[Kalevala87]

@carinatube00 Oh, and the mechanisms of genetic inheritance and variation are detailed in just about any high school biology textbook. Just look up Mendelian inheritance and meiosis. It's all in there. Did you ever go to school?

[carinatube00]

2) I just go directly to the point I want to make, the theory of evolution is a weak theory with no scientific evidence. I will give you a piece of advice. Be an open-minded person. Don’t be so naïve believing that the model you have in your mind of how the creation was formed is the absolute truth. There is a huge possibility that the theory suggesting the presence of a Creator might turn out to be true.

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 93% of the national academy are atheist, are you sure science points to god?

[carinatube00]

@1empathy “93% of the national academy are atheist”, that doesn’t mean that atheism is correct. Science points to God as the compass points to north. Have you ever tried to feel how it is to be a believer? I strongly recommend you to try it for one day. Ask your Creator for forgiveness and accept Him in your life, I promise you that your life will not be the same. Please take care / Carina

[moroney1]

@carinatube00 ''Ask your Creator for forgiveness and accept Him in your life, I promise you that your life will not be the same. ''

Really though, isn't that more of an emotive thing trick, simple rhetoric that leads to a placebo. I mean many Chrisitans may have said they asked for God's help and got it, but how does that proove God, when many Muslims, Hindus, Jews, worshiper's of Isis etc have all claimed to have been enlightened by their chosen Deity as well. It's not proof ...

[carinatube00]

@moroney1 There is one thing that you must know: Muslims, Hindus, Jews, worshiper's of Isis etc all believe that life and the universe did not emerge by chance. The first step is to realize that we are a creation and have a Creator. Which religion is right is another issue to investigate. But the most important step is to realize that life was not created by coincidence, but by the Creator.

[moroney1]

@carinatube00 Again though it would undermine your argument and any principle of religon, if you tell me ask God to enlighten me and that will prove God, then if a Jew asks and gets enlightenment it would mean their God and not your God exists the same for any other religon, infact all faiths have claimed this to be true, which would undermine your reasoning as they cannot all be true because they all contradict eachother

[carinatube00]

@moroney1 I am not saying that all religions are true. I am trying to explain for you that all religions believe that life and the Universe were not created by chance. That is the common nominator in all religions. Now, you are telling me that the Muslim god is not the same as the hindu god or the Jewish god. In this case, we are not investigating which religion is true or false. That is the next step after one has understood that life was not designed by chance.

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 No it doesn't mean atheism is correct but it does mean that the people best able to judge think science does not point to a god or gods, which is what i said. I was a believer so i know what it is like and you should try reality instead of your delusion. Which god do you subscribe to and why are you right and the other religions wrong?

[carinatube00]

@1empathy @1empathy I am not asking people to believe in a certain god or in a certain religion. I don’t have any delusions either. I am strongly criticizing the belief that the formation of life and the universe was due to coincidence and “natural” forces. I have long ago left the idea that life emerged from a hot, slimy soup billions of years ago. Chemical reactions and time does not produce life forms, that is a fact and people must realize this.

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 You need to learn what a fact is. The truth is nobody knows but until a god or gods is proved or even some proof of the supernatural, it is reasonable to assume that nature is all there is and thus that the universe and everything in it is a product of natural forces. That we do not understand all these processes is why science is a work in progress, while religions claimed to have all the answers and as science proves them wrong, they claim the answers science hasn't answered yet.

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 1) As you assume that the universe and everything in it is a product of natural forces, why then is it wrong to assume that nature is a product (creation) caused by a Creator? This assumption, that a Creator is the cause of the creation of the universe and life, is not based on weak arguments. It is based on scientific observations and authentic historical events. I would like to ask you. (to be continued)…

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 2) History testifies that there existed men who came forward and invited people to leave polytheism and embrace monotheism. These men said that they were messengers sent by the only Creator worthy of worship. Do you deny the existence of these men who invited people to monotheism?

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 What is the scientific evidence for god?! People make all sorts of claims, they are only valid if supported by evidence. I assume there is only nature but i don't act on it, if you similarly assume there is a god but don't act on it then we are equal. The problem is that most people assume a god or gods and act on it usually through a religion. Do you accept there are people now and through history that say there are more than one god and want monotheists to accept that?

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 1) I don’t assume there is a Creator, I am sure that a Creator exists. There are plenty of strong arguments which give support for the idea of the existence of a Creator. History testifies that there existed messengers sent by the Creator to invite people to monotheism. Regarding you question, yes I accept that. But it is not about accepting or rejecting, it is about investigating the truth. Which theory represents the truth, is it monotheism or polytheism? (cont..)

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 2) The first step towards understanding the truth is asking if a Creator truly exists. The next logical step is to investigate if the Creator has made contact with humanity. At this stage, if there has been a contact, one need to investigate if the contact is authentic. Do you believe that the Creator had made contact with humanity?

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 Step 1, does a creator exist, answer, I don't know, but given that we have found only natural explanations for everything but the origin of the universe and life then on the balance of probabilities i'll go with no creator. step 2 history testifies that all cultures have produced religions where individuals have made claims about their god/gods, so it is more likely that these experiences are human in origin. So probably no creator, almost definitely no personal contact.

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 1) The creation of life can’t be explained by “natural” processes. The probability for life to emerge with the help of “natural” forces equals to 0 (zero). All the physical constants are so fine tuned that the probability that these constants were formed by chance equals to 0 (zero). Science explain how certain biological and physical processes take place. If we know how something happened (such as the formation of stars) does that mean that a Creator doesn’t exist??

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 2) So on the balance of the probabilities I mentioned in my previous comment, I and millions of other people go for the existence of a Creator. History testifies that in every culture there have been men sent by the Creator inviting the people to believe in the truth and worship the only Creator worthy of worship. During time, the monotheistic teaching was changed. In every polytheistic religion, there is the greatest god and there are smaller gods.

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 3) The common nominator in every religion is the presence of the greatest god of all gods. This phenomenon confirms the theory that in every previous faith there once existed a monotheistic belief. By time, the true teachings were changed. That is why the Creator sent new messengers to, once again, bring forward the true teachings. The last there messengers of the Creator were Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Do you believe that they existed?

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 Part one-the argument from ignorance (saying science can't explain life does not mean it can't)) Part 2-argument ad populum (millions thought the world was flat, it isn't) Animism (the pre-cursor to all religions) has no ultimate god nor do some branches of taoism. Part 3- mohammed is well documented,jesus less so,moses probably didn't but who cares? What matters is were they conduits for a creator? Their words and deeds and the "holy" books show they were not.

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 1) I don’t understand your contra-argument? I am telling you that natural forces don’t have the capability to produce life forms. I am not saying that science can’t explain life; the creation of life was not due to natural forces since natural forces don’t have the capability to produce sophisticated and intelligent functional biological systems. Science has proven that. What does your contra-argument have to do with the issue? cont..

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 2) ad populum? I am not blindly following a theory because millions of people do that. I am basing my understanding on the same ground you based your conclusion on. You wrote “…then on the balance of probabilities i'll go with no creator”. But the probability for life to emerge by chance equals to zero, so on that bases I go with a Creator. Why do you go with no creator if you fully understand that the probability for life to emerge by chance is zero? ad populum? cont..

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 3) if Mohammed is well documented, do you admit that he invited people to believe that there is a Creator and that he was sent by the Creator? Their words, deeds and their holy books clearly state that the messengers were sent by the Creator. Why do you deny this fact? cont…

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 4) For example, a verse in the Quran states: “Say, [O Muhammad], "O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death." So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided.

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 You are asserting without evidence that life can not arise naturally, i don't care what mohammed, or jesus claimed, i only care if it is true, there is no evidence that any of these people where conduits for a creator, just as there is no evidence for a creator. You mentioned as part of your previous post "millions of people" (go look) that is an ad populum fallacy,although i don't accuse you of simply following the herd, you have clearly thought about this,

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 1) Please google “The Miller and Urey experiment”. This experiment has shown that life did not emerge from the primordial soup. The experiment successfully showed how biological molecules were formed but strongly failed to prove that life emerged from the primordial soup. Regarding the messengers of the Creator. These messengers came with irrefutable proof. Mohammed claimed he was sent by the Creator. (to be continued..)

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 2) When the people asked for evidence, he showed them the miracles they wanted to see to believe in him. The only miracle left for us to witness is the Quran. Hundreds of historical and scientific evidence confirm that the Quran truly is the words of the Creator. Have you studied the scientific miracles in the Quran?

[1empathy]

@carinatube00 Miller-urey doesn't prove that life occurred naturally but it doesn't prove it can't either. The only miracle of the quran is that so many people still believe it is the word of a god when it contains so many scientific errors;o)

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 1) Miller-urey wanted to test the primordial soup theory. He tried to imitate the conditions were the first life form assembled billions of years ago. He made an astonishing discovery. He could see that the biological molecules produced in his experiment were never able to create life. The conclusion drawn from his experiment was that biological building blocks can never ever assemble to life forms by chance. (to be continued…)

[carinatube00]

@1empathy

(Part 2) The primordial soup theory was crushed and when these kinds of theories are proven wrong, the theory of intelligent design grows stronger. Regarding the Quran, hundreds of scientists have embraced Islam because of the science presented in the Quran. Google “Non muslim scientist confirm the miracles of the quran part 1”. The Quran doesn’t contain scientific errors; I have confirmed by myself that all such claims are false. (contin..)

[carinatube00]

@1empathy (Part 3) I would like to invite you to be a believer of the almighty Creator just for one day. The moment you accept the Creator, your life will never be the same. Be open to all possibilities and investigate the evidence presented to you without having any preconceived notions. This is how my spiritual journey began. Before you go to bed, ask your Creator for forgiveness and guidance. Try this once and I can guarantee you that it will have a positive result on your life.

[mindwis3]

@mindwis3

"Try this once and I can guarantee you that it will have a positive result on your life"

Unfortunately the people who did do this already have an effect on my life, a negative one and that's not limited to them uttering non sense like

"the theory of intelligent design grows stronger."

No, i'rather quote Omar Khayyám and say:

"Well, well, what matters it! believe that too".

[carinatube00]

@carinatube00 Part 2. The Creator has sent many messengers throughout history to deliver his messages to humanity. Noa, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed were some of the messengers whom the Creator has sent for our guidance. These messengers have put forward irrefutable evidence to confirm that they were true messengers from the Creator. The last messenger of God was Mohammed, have you studied his evidence?

[lpslostagain]

love hitchens

[iliveon]

Love it.

[elshiple]

a very insightful interview, thank you for posting

[bcn533]

@elshiple An "insightful interview"? That doesn't even make sense.