We perceive our universe as expanding and we are sure that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". My question is simple "While the universe expands, what is contracting?" If you want the answer from the man who picked up Einstein's equations and solved the mystery of a unified field, then study the work of Nassim Haramein. Like Einstein, he quit school at age 16 because it was interfering with his education.
What are the exact minimum ingredients required to create life? And what are the exact guidelines, or recipe if you like, for creating life? Do they know how those ingredients exist? And do they know how the recipe exists? Do they know how the first thing went from being inanimate to being self-replicating? I've a feeling there's a whole lot they don't know yet. So far they've only described how the program works, not how the program exists. The biggest questions still remain unanswered.
Dude looks like Charles Darwin. It's so funny they have a dude with a name like Darwin called Dawkins and a dude with a face like Darwin's called Dennett.
genius , I don't like laptops because they are awesome , laptops and sexy because apple spent millions of dollars figuring out how to hijack my brains evolved biases. yay.
Growing a long beard like Darwin won't make him as important as Darwin, but maybe he sees that as a supernormal stimulus also. If he looks like Darwin, maybe that'll give him more credence with people who worship Darwin. Dennet is keen on how things look, but why didn't he include black, hispanic, and asian girls in his example of sexy girls?
@matt605 "...why didn't he include black, hispanic, and asian girls in his example of sexy girls?"
Why the hell should he have? He could have posted pictures of sexy women and men from every culture on the planet, but it would have only served to prevent trolls like yourself from trying to find some ignorant circumvention to addressing his actual argument at the cost of wasting his and everyone who takes this conversation seriously's time.
@GuitarNoob101 He should have included other races as examples of sexy girls because they are sexy and because not everyone finds white girls to be sexy and because Darwinism has historically been used to provide a scientific basis for racial discrimination and a lot of other unpleasant things.
@matt605 "He should have included other races as examples of sexy girls because they are sexy and because not everyone finds white girls to be sexy "
Yeah, but that's completely unnecessary to illustrate his point.
@matt605 "... Darwinism has historically been used to provide a scientific basis for racial discrimination and a lot of other unpleasant things."
"Darwinism" has never been used as a "scientific" basis for racism. The scientific consensus has never held that any "race," as the word is colloquially used, is superior to any others. Instead, findings in science are misconstrued by non-scientists or already racially biased scientists to enforce a presupposed racial hierarchy. This is not science.
@GuitarNoob101 Study up on Social Darwinism and Scientific Racism. Today Darwinists reject that they ever had anything to do with such notions, but when Darwinism was a new idea, it served the purposes of its political masters. Why was colonialism acceptable if slavery was immoral? Why are should the poor not be helped? The answers are found in Social Darwinism. Evolution and its advocates have a long and sordid history of shameful service to the worst ideas in humanity.
@matt605 "Scientific Racism" is a very unscientific term made by unscientific people obscuring scientific knowledge to advance an unscientific belief - a lot like "Intelligent Design", in that regard. "Social Darwinism" was never anything advocated by Darwin OR science, and Darwin specifically spoke out against eugenics, which a lot of people like to pin on him. Social Darwinism is another distortion and poisoning of science to advance a predisposition some have towards racism.
@matt605 "Evolution and its advocates have a long and sordid history of shameful service to the worst ideas in humanity."
It's funny that you say that, since racism and the horrible atrocities that result from it have existed for many thousands of years BEFORE the Darwin was even born, most often endorsed by religious beliefs. Now the studies resulting from Darwin's theory have been used to debunk the very racism you accuse him of. What world are you living in?
@matt605 "Growing a long beard like Darwin won't make him as important as Darwin, but maybe he sees that as a supernormal stimulus also..."
So does every bearded Christian invoke the "supernormal stimulus of the beard" to inspire the authority of Jesus? Sounds blasphemous.
Nobody worships Darwin. Darwin is sacred in no way. He is just an historical figure that took his observations and formed a framework to explain them - one that has been since vindicated over and over and over again.
@matt605 I don't hold anything as blasphemous. I find dogma of any sort shallow and weak, as any idea with any validity should be able to stand up to critical scrutiny. That's why science works, and religion doesn't.
I repeat, nobody studies his writings as gospel. His understanding of evolution was simplistic, but it created a new field of study that has since been expanded upon in brilliant detail and to the benefit of ALL of us, especially in the fields of medicine and psychology.
The image on the right of the screen at 5:57 is the new and improved human as a result of random mutation. But it's only a drawing, because an infant born that way would have been thrown onto the cave fire by its mother.
That's like saying, you can cross black people(one species) with white people (another species) and still produce fertile offspring; but their still humans.
@Airlightf Atheists don't "believe" anything. That is, no person who is an atheist believes anything in his capacity as an atheist. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. So, it is entirely possible, though probably unlikely, that there are atheists who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution.
@Airlightf You're an ignorant human being. There are a lot of christians and other religious people who believe in evolution. Just because someone isn't keep on creationism doesn't mean they are atheists. Some people believe evolution is intelligent design over time because maybe God isn't as all powerful and perfect as everyone thinks.
I disagree with some of his idea's within the video ... for example the idea of attractiveness of women, although somewhat biological, is also based within the social construction of beauty. Thus the reason what is deemed as beautiful changes over time and cross-culturally... But it is interesting to consider the inversion of logic... I guess in simpler terms it could be considered as looking at things from a different angle
doGoNslybaborPereht "If new species can not come into existence then all the currently living (and already extinct) species must have lived simultaneously " God created living organisms and not bcgonynor's. LOL you are funny. The Creator's explanation is what counts.
(REVISED) You drink cow's milk, and who knows what else you put into your mouth (as an atheist) , because you do not care about what's going into your mouth or what is comming out of it; or what is going into your head as well. STOP drinking cows milk perhaps you will understand me better. LOL because your reasoning is that of domestic animals LOL HAHAHAAHH omg I love you atheists LOL HAHAHAH
@Airlightf "Since one species cannot...breed with a differente species and produce fertile offspring, it is imposible for a new species to come into Existence"
Um...one species CAN breed with a different species. In fact, animals from two different genus's can breed, and in some rare cases even animals in different families can breed. So that statement is false.
I'm not arguing that there was no creator (nor that there was one, I'm arguing neither), but get your facts straight
@Airlightf huh? you can do it with plants too...or just look it up, it's not that hard. it does not require engaging in bestiality; that's not the same thing as breeding. just don't be so mean spirited dude, damn...I am a man of God in case that makes you feel better
(REVISED)Dennett [you too Dawkins(I know you are hidding yourself somewhere)] , JUST because the milk of a cow was found in you doesn't mean you are a cow or that you and your ancestors came from "a cow" HAHAHAHAHAH Atheists/evolutionists , seriously! Also, just because you find metals and ceramics-bone-replacements in a human being doesn't mean his/her source is right there!!! omg
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dennett [you too Dawkins(I know you are hidding yourself somewhere)] , JUST because the milk of a cow was found in you doesn't mean you are a cow or that you and your ancestors came from "a cow" HAHAHAHAHAH Atheists/evolutionists , seriously! Also, just because you find metals and ceramics-bone-replacements in a human being doesn't mean his/her source is right there!!! omg
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT "Wow...that didn't really make any sense at all." It doesn't make sense to you but to evolutionists/atheists it does :) It very rational to them to believe one species oooooooooooooooover hundreds and miiiiiiiiiiiiiiillions of years sssssssssssslowly turns into another species and again that species will bear several other new species LOL
@Airlightf "It doesn't make sense to you but to evolutionists/atheists it does :)"
I guess I'm both of those (two separate) things but it didn't make any sense to me.
I can drink cow milk (without an upset stomache) but I don't believe that I turn into a cow, become one with a cow, receive the inner wisdom of a cow or receive the superpowers of a cow. (Now there's an idea for a sci-fi cartoon.)
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT You drink cow's milk, and who knows what else you put into your mouth (as an atheist) , because you do not care about what's going into your mouth or what is comming out of it; or what is going into your head as well.
@Airlightf "You drink cow's milk, and who knows what else you put into your mouth (as an atheist)"
People of most religions consume dairy products if that happens to be common in their culture otherwise. Of course lactose intolerance is quite common.
Some religions do prohibit certain foods. I don't know if any prohibit drinking cow milk.
@Airlightf yes it does make sense ... if you disagree then you could actually make an argument ... or just pretend in your mind that you are right simply because you believe you are right... meh makes no difference to anyone here
@Airlightf well for one you keep throwing around the word athiests as if everyone here are athiests when you do not have any idea whether we are... just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that we don't believe in some form of god, it actually means that we disagree with what you yourself are saying. That once again is not against your faith but against what you are saying. If you want to actually engage with people you must present arguments and engage in their explanations...
Atheists/evolutionists/agnostics, tell me about a machine (or something you have "created") that doesn't need man(God created man) in order to function? LOL
If I say that we probably can't come up with any completely maintenance free machine that would run forever without human intervention then what do you think that proves? That God exists?
"doesn't need man(God created man) in order to function"
How about a man NOT created by God? Would that be allowed? In that case we can build a one! ;-)
(See...I'm intellectually lowering myself to your level.)
That's just my humble opinion: Since one species cannot [has never been able to and will not be able to]breed with a differente species and produce fertile offspring, it is imposible for a new species to come into Existence; but instead, species are becoming extinct :(
@Airlightf "Since one species cannot...breed with a differente species and produce fertile offspring, it is imposible for a new species to come into Existence"
Just because you didn't undestand bcgonynor's explanation of speciation does not mean that it's impossible.
If new species can not come into existence then all the currently living (and already extinct) species must have lived simultaneously - humans and the various dinosaur species for example. But that's not the case.
@Airlightf Evolution doesn't postulate that one species will "turn into" another, but that its descendants will diverge into more than one "cousin" species. What you're talking about is the sort of instantaneous magic transmutation that only a God could perform, and you're not going to hear any atheist proposing such a thing. Speciation occurs when isolated populations become genetically distinct from their relatives to the degree that they can't breed. It's been observed in labs and the field.
@bcgonynor "Evolution doesn't postulate that one species will "turn into" another, but that its descendants will diverge into more than one cousin species."
Correct. But with divergence, as the story goes, comes stupendous change (allegedly) wherein "speciation" is glorified and extinction is rarely spoken of. No matter how slow evolution is thought to occur, it's hard to fathom a genuine reason why our nearest ancestral predecessor wasn't bright enough to stick around for a comment ;-)
@bcgonynor Hmm. "relatives to the degree that they can't breed" LOL. JUST because one race[in our case] doesn't want to mate/breed with a different race doesn't mean they are a different species--they continue to be humans and not chimps. That's why monkeys/chimps have always being what they are and us--humans--will always be humans. :)
@Airlightf It's not a question of not wanting to, but not being able to. Many humans have attempted to breed with sheep, but nothing comes of it in the way of offspring because we have grown too far apart genetically (fortunately). In cases where the divergence was more recent, such as a lion/tiger or horse/donkey coupling, infertile hybrids may result. Chimps have not always been chimps and we have not always been humans. If we had been, there'd be human and chimp fossils in the lower strata.
@bcgonynor But the question is, Why do we still see chimps? I answered your other questions below. Chimps would be smarter than us if we evolved from them.They would be calling us "lower animals" It's evolution and not disevolution.
@Airlightf (1/2) I'm almost certain this has been explained to you before. Your question is similar to, "If most Americans are the descendants of Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?" Species A exists. A small part of Species A becomes separated from the rest, say their territory becomes an island. Over time, due to genetic drift, this side-group's characteristics change and it becomes Species B. Species A may or may not have survived, but if A met B they'd no longer be able to breed.
@bcgonynor Yes, I've heard it before. But Americans-europeans (humans) and Europeans will always be able to multiply among themselves because they will always be humans--they up there will not change from one species into another. I wonder which Europeans will evolve into something else if that's how a new species is born.
@Airlightf I was making an analogy between the historical and biological dimensions. I did not mean to suggest that Americans and Europeans are different species. However, if a group of humans were isolated for say, tens of thousands of years, they might well become another species. Say, if Europeans had never discovered America or Australia.
@Airlightf (2/2) The process happens again. A population of Species A becomes stranded on an island. It changes over time, accelerated by genetic drift. But since their environment is different, and their genetic mutations are random, this subgroup does not become a replica of Species B - it becomes a third species, Species C. Meanwhile, Specie A on the mainland dies out. Now there are two species on two islands, who have never met and can't breed, who share a common ancestor. Do you get it now?
@bcgonynor Yes, that's the theory. But how can that be if it is impossible for a specie to pass its genes unto another species unless they have sexual intercourse? "Many humans have attempted to breed with sheep, but nothing comes of it in the way of offspring ...far apart genetically (fortunately )" I think this has always been true throughout generations, one species cannot breed with another and have fertile offspring.
@Airlightf Let's try again. Evolution is not something that happens to individuals - it happens to populations. The members of Species A who became lost on that island didn't change because they bred with an unknown Species D. They continued to breed with one another, but over time they became a different species from their relatives on the mainland due to the phenomenon of genetic drift. Mutations are random and environments differ, so in the absence of interbreeding species tend to diverge.
@Airlightf No, we've observed speciation over and over in labs and in the field. Do some research, it's not hard. Start with California salamanders. Even if we hadn't observed speciation dozens of times, scientists developed a complete model of the evolutionary tree of life based on phylogeny and archaeology throughout the century - which ended up being wholly confirmed and verified by a separate genetic process later. This is the "twin-nested hierarchy of phylogeny." We're talking about facts.
@Airlightf "The Evolution Christmas Tree" When faced with this glib dismissal of the systematic labor of tens of thousands of scientists over 150 years, which has yielded vast accomplishments not only in our understanding of the world but also in the fields of medicine, biology, zoology, and agriculture; I'm forced to conclude that you are either willfully ignorant out of an immature desire for attention, or that you harbor a deep subjective bias. Whichever it is, I'm wasting my time. Good day.
@bcgonynor We give credit to Him Who created man--and sustains Life on earth. Remember this, Technology without man is nothing. Man only grabs from what God created. I believe we have to be humble and accept that we are NOT so great or powerful or very wise... That's all.
@Airlightf If your God wrote the Bible, we are certainly wiser than He, since He evidently thinks that pi is 3, that bats are birds, that the Earth is a disk, that rain comes from outer space, and that the sea has doors at the bottom for adjustments. Giving credit to an imaginary being for our technology, our intellect, our very existence, is an insult to our ancestors, who drew themselves up from the naked plain and developed civilization in the face of death and fear. I speak on their behalf.
@bcgonynor I never said "my God"...God created the heavens and the earth and all their hosts! :)
You are an insult to humanity. Quote verses from the Bible that back up your trash. Is it not through doors that you get from one place to another, idiot/moron? First educate yourself biblically and then open your mouth to talk about the word of God. Don't just talk moronically ;)
@Airlightf If you want about 20 false statements in a row check out the part in the Book of Job where God is speaking from the whirlwind, and reveals his total ignorance of our planet's structure. Or rather, the ignorance of the temple scribes who spoke on his behalf. Genesis 1-3 also has no shortage of nonsense, including the depiction of the sky as a glass dome with the stars as holes to let rain in. Why would I quote the Bible to disprove the Bible. I'd rather compare it to the real world.
@bcgonynor Let us go step by step, Genesis 1: 1 Reads "In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth" 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."' Certainly we are not reading the same Bible, are we?
What he says is likely part of the truth, but he couldn't really explain "funny" at all. He also didn't explain why -- if our preference for sweet tastes is an evolutionary advantage to make us eat things that are good for us -- that same preference makes us want chocolate cake, which isn't good for us.
Reading through the comments, I am not quite aware as to why so many people don't believe in evolution; they know absolutely nothing about it.. Many people who comment on this video have worse talking points than Sarah Palin.............. It's a wonder why the atheist community doesn't take the theist community seriously anymore, because there's no more intelligence in the latter.
A theory is nothing else but a theory. Does a chicken become an ostrich? Atheists say yes! In millions of years, rodent can reach the clouds through evolution/natural selection? Evolutionists say YES!!! Can a dog become a bear? Atheists say yes! Can a toy become a real car withought the intervencion of a humand hand after billions of years? ATHEISTS say YES!!!YES!!!YES!!! Definitely!!! Atheists,please!
What a stunningly calculated and facetious way to misrepresent Atheism and the theory of evolution. Both of which are not even inextricably linked. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
You really need to try a hell of a lot harder if you are going to refute the sound logical reasoning of both positions and the scientific method. Try again.
@Airlightf Can a chicken become an ostrich? Yes, but not likely, given enough time and changing environmental pressure they will evolve/divide into new species. Rodents reach the clouds? only if you assume intelligence is the ultimate end product of all evolutionary processes, not likely, but they can evolve. Dog to bear, see the chicken above. Toy become a car? Do toys reproduce? Did you miss that talk when you were a kid? ... Given our observations in genetics how can life not evolve?
@Airlightf My own ignorance? Alright. Sure, I'm ignorant in many regards, but at least I'm rational and I attempt to search for truth, where it should be sought. I don't jump to conclusions at the parts in science that haven't been discovered yet and point directly to the more irrational assumption of there being a creator. That is sheer ignorance to the extreme.
@Nick153452 How did you prove to me that there is no creator? Uncover my ignorance by making a little demostration that anything can come into existence magically--just because!
Dennett, I know you praise Darwin and if he were still alive I know you would kiss his feet a few times;but please do not exagerate, ok? JUST because you look like him doesn't mean you are him. And that's the problem with you atheists. Now, go take a nap.
@Airlightf Lol? Umm, open ended attack with no bases of argument? For me, that's a direct signal of desperation...... Nice try though. Maybe you should look to your God for more intelligent thing to say....
@Airlightf Is this a serious question? Because if so, you should be ashamed for having asked such a ridiculous question....... If this is serious, you know absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution, other than the name of it........... It's questions like this that anybody with anything more than a rudimentary knowledge of the subject laughs at. It's kind of like asking, "if we used to use windows 98, why don't we use it anymore?" The reason is clear........... Better=wins.
@Nick153452 Hmm, Windows 98, hu? We must not compare your head with a tea-pot, or your nose with a god, or your brain with that of a chicken/chimp. But atheists do this kind of comparisons in order to make themselves feel better about their own theory of evolution--they will conect any piece of shit and call it "Evolution" LOL
@Airlightf Umm, haha.. If you just said that a theory is below a hypothesis, than you are completely wrong and it's no wonder that you have those thoughts. A law and a theory cannot be compared even. The theory of evolution could never become a law because it answers the question WHY. Laws only answer the question WHAT.. The LAW of gravity states that THINGS FALL.. The theory of gravity explains WHY things fall. It's no wonder you Christians are against science, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT!
@Airlightf And a hypothesis has nothing to do with a theory or a law. A hypothesis is a proposal that you are going to test....... The theory of evolution has been around for well over a hundred years and it has been tested extensively and it has been supported consistently. I mean for crying out loud I'm sure you beleive in cells, right? That's just a theory too...... You know what, I"ve finished this, it's not worth my time. You old people have nothing intelligent to say.
@Airlightf Well you sentence is flawed because TOTALLY new species isn't possible. We all came from a common ancester billions of years ago. You can see that in the DNA and how the more distant, and by saying distant, I mean how long about the two species started to deviate from each other, they have less commonalities in the genetic material. And if you look at humans and monkeys, because you guys like to do that, there are much more commonalities. I only had 500 characters to write that.
@Nick153452 If we all came from a common ancestor billions of years ago, why hasn't any new species emerged until now? I personally think chimps wouldn't exist today if we had common ancestors with them. Because don't you think chimps would be far more advanced in technology than us since they were the first ones to exist; then we would follow.
@Airlightf Species have changed, and continue to change all the time. If you are waiting to see a species change in front of your eyes, you've challenged the wrong theory. That's precisely why it took so long for somebody to discover evolution; it's because it takes so long and nobody really sees is, so who would expect it. But after over one hundred years of testing and more knowledge, the evidence only continually supports the claim.
@Nick153452 This is NOT Science. Who did observe one species change ["evolve"] into a new species? NOBODY. REAL SCIENCE is observable and verifiable. That's why a mere theory is just a theory and a hypothesis a hypothesis--a law,a LAW. Also, the theory of Darwin is not a theory of evolution but Natural Selection (Directly from Antro Professor). Evolution hides behind millions and billions and is not, it will hide behind trillions of years. Hehehe
@Airlightf I take it you haven't looked into your claims much, especially in regards to analygous and homologous structures and how they relate to similarities in the DNA. Scientists have been able to predict things to very accurate levels based on the theory of evolution. Things that are very verifiable in a lab. Of course it's real science.
Just a theory? The theory of a cell is "Just a theory". A theory is as close to proof in science that you can get..... So I don't get why you say tha
@Nick153452 " regards to analygous and homologous structures and how they relate to similarities" =Evolutionists' Christmas Tree. When I said REAL SCIENCE [TOP-SCIENCE] , I was referring to the SCIENCE that Existed in the beginning of LIFE and CREATION--which worked according to the UTTERENCIA of THE Almighty.
@Airlightf You want scientists to know 100% about what happened at the beginning and run tests in those environments? Well it's no wonder you believe in God. You will never have that..... But you can't just assume that since science can't fulfill your every want as far as possibilities are concerned that your claim is correct, especially when it is not the most consistent one.
@Nick153452 I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. That's all. Because anyone can pull a leg here and a leg overthere, join them, and bring a hand that looks like a hand and then another one similar to that of a human hand and tell you Tis is it!! We fount HIM. We got him. Remember, the fact that in our recorded history we don't see any new species is evidence that we emerged separately by LIFE. Also, we cannot just say that the Universe just appeared becasuse! That's just irrational
@Airlightf Well, of course you wouldn't see a new species in 1 lifetime. That's incredibly stupid to assume you would..... A new species would take hundreds of thousands of years to developpe. Recorded history is fairly new..
@Airlightf I don't watch movie, or TV.. I don't have the time for it. I'm too busy studying things that have actual results; physics, chemistry, biology and math.
@Airlightf Never said it was. Science just tries the explain things.... Some find sciences boring, some find it fascinating, but everybody should actually be aware about what they are talking about if it addresses science, or else they shouldn't talk as if they do :-). I hope that makes sense.. My mind is overwhelmed right now with molecular biology and calculus. to tests in the morning, and I work all night, and I'm sick.. SOOO if that makes no sense, just discard it.
@Airlightf Based on your criteria we should throw out most data gathered from cosmology, history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, etc (cosmologists view and study long dead star systems for example). Also, laws are rare. Most come from physic and mathematics (gravity, laws of motion, special relativity, etc). The quantum world is unobservable and yet we can still make accurate predictions and build theories. You pick on biology because it threaten your belief system
@ritter89 none of these GREAT and awesome CRIATURES [ BIO, CHEM, COSMOLOGY, ANTRO, MATHEMATICS, SOC, PSY, PHYSICS, and others] threaten my beliefs since I was firmly fixed on a rock by the hand of GOD ALMIGHTY.
(REVISED) Atheists, Did you observe monkeys growing two branches of life--one becoming a human being and another a monkey? Do you mind showing me tangible facts that this was so?
Atheists, why do you dare to open your big mouth to speak against Life? Did you observe monkeys growing two branches of life--one becoming a human being and onther a monkey? Do you mind showing tangible facts that this was so?
@Airlightf Theists why do you dare open your big mouth to speak against Life? Did you observe God creating the Universe? Would you mind showing tangible facts that this was so?
@ICanFlyHonest To any Theists offended by the last comment I made, this was merely a reply to Airlightf's comment and in no way my own sentiment. I would never be that disrespectful to a person that doesn't share the same beliefs as me.
@Airlightf Of course. Because your grasp of English grammar far exceeds any atheist's I've ever met. I have the sneaking suspicion you are trolling because your comment, in no way follows on from what I said. Good day to you.
@Airlightf Ha! My hat goes off to you! You are providing me with anger and amusement and that is a rather rare feet. But in all seriousness I have to go to a lecture. I hope you have a good day/night (I'm not sure which time zone you're in).
@Airlightf I couldn't resist commenting back before I left :p. I wouldn't know whether Dennett's lectures are any good as philosophy is not my field of study :D. May I ask you a question? (< other than that question ;)) From your comments, you seem to attribute evolutionary theory to atheism. Is it your belief that evolution is solely an atheistic stance?
-The reason why we change ("evolve") is because that's God's intention. Also, the Bible tells us that God wants us to perfect ourselves(that is, to evolve/change/become more civilized). I am a theistic-atheist when it comes to the God/god(s) of the people/Nations.
It's interesting to think about the way in which philosophers like Kant investigated aesthetics in his book a critique of judgement and then contrast it with the modern ideas about aesthetics like wiring.
I can understand that there are very good evolutionary explanations for humans love of sweet food & babies but why do humans love sunsets, poetry, music, etc? Why is the brain hard wired to love these things? They offer no obvious evolutionary advantage yet we all seem to like them.....
We perceive our universe as expanding and we are sure that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". My question is simple "While the universe expands, what is contracting?" If you want the answer from the man who picked up Einstein's equations and solved the mystery of a unified field, then study the work of Nassim Haramein. Like Einstein, he quit school at age 16 because it was interfering with his education.
TotalImplosion 1 week ago
great.
ashburnhouse 2 weeks ago
Came for the 2:13.
Stayed for the lucid intellectual discourse.
Joeofiowa 3 weeks ago
"god is not great"
Airlightf 1 month ago
anyone know if this book he was talking about is out now?
lutecore 1 month ago
What are the exact minimum ingredients required to create life? And what are the exact guidelines, or recipe if you like, for creating life? Do they know how those ingredients exist? And do they know how the recipe exists? Do they know how the first thing went from being inanimate to being self-replicating? I've a feeling there's a whole lot they don't know yet. So far they've only described how the program works, not how the program exists. The biggest questions still remain unanswered.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
Dude looks like Charles Darwin. It's so funny they have a dude with a name like Darwin called Dawkins and a dude with a face like Darwin's called Dennett.
matt605 3 months ago
genius , I don't like laptops because they are awesome , laptops and sexy because apple spent millions of dollars figuring out how to hijack my brains evolved biases. yay.
PsychedelicSexDream 4 months ago
@Airlightf and by "toll" i mean troll
narinwtf 4 months ago
@Airlightf toll
narinwtf 4 months ago
Growing a long beard like Darwin won't make him as important as Darwin, but maybe he sees that as a supernormal stimulus also. If he looks like Darwin, maybe that'll give him more credence with people who worship Darwin. Dennet is keen on how things look, but why didn't he include black, hispanic, and asian girls in his example of sexy girls?
matt605 4 months ago
@matt605 "...why didn't he include black, hispanic, and asian girls in his example of sexy girls?"
Why the hell should he have? He could have posted pictures of sexy women and men from every culture on the planet, but it would have only served to prevent trolls like yourself from trying to find some ignorant circumvention to addressing his actual argument at the cost of wasting his and everyone who takes this conversation seriously's time.
GuitarNoob101 3 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 He should have included other races as examples of sexy girls because they are sexy and because not everyone finds white girls to be sexy and because Darwinism has historically been used to provide a scientific basis for racial discrimination and a lot of other unpleasant things.
matt605 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matt605 "He should have included other races as examples of sexy girls because they are sexy and because not everyone finds white girls to be sexy "
Yeah, but that's completely unnecessary to illustrate his point.
GuitarNoob101 2 months ago
@matt605 "... Darwinism has historically been used to provide a scientific basis for racial discrimination and a lot of other unpleasant things."
"Darwinism" has never been used as a "scientific" basis for racism. The scientific consensus has never held that any "race," as the word is colloquially used, is superior to any others. Instead, findings in science are misconstrued by non-scientists or already racially biased scientists to enforce a presupposed racial hierarchy. This is not science.
GuitarNoob101 2 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Study up on Social Darwinism and Scientific Racism. Today Darwinists reject that they ever had anything to do with such notions, but when Darwinism was a new idea, it served the purposes of its political masters. Why was colonialism acceptable if slavery was immoral? Why are should the poor not be helped? The answers are found in Social Darwinism. Evolution and its advocates have a long and sordid history of shameful service to the worst ideas in humanity.
matt605 2 months ago
@matt605 "Scientific Racism" is a very unscientific term made by unscientific people obscuring scientific knowledge to advance an unscientific belief - a lot like "Intelligent Design", in that regard. "Social Darwinism" was never anything advocated by Darwin OR science, and Darwin specifically spoke out against eugenics, which a lot of people like to pin on him. Social Darwinism is another distortion and poisoning of science to advance a predisposition some have towards racism.
GuitarNoob101 2 months ago
@matt605 "Evolution and its advocates have a long and sordid history of shameful service to the worst ideas in humanity."
It's funny that you say that, since racism and the horrible atrocities that result from it have existed for many thousands of years BEFORE the Darwin was even born, most often endorsed by religious beliefs. Now the studies resulting from Darwin's theory have been used to debunk the very racism you accuse him of. What world are you living in?
GuitarNoob101 2 months ago
@matt605 "Growing a long beard like Darwin won't make him as important as Darwin, but maybe he sees that as a supernormal stimulus also..."
So does every bearded Christian invoke the "supernormal stimulus of the beard" to inspire the authority of Jesus? Sounds blasphemous.
Nobody worships Darwin. Darwin is sacred in no way. He is just an historical figure that took his observations and formed a framework to explain them - one that has been since vindicated over and over and over again.
GuitarNoob101 3 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Who knows? What is blasphemous to you is blasphemous to you. If no one worships Darwin then why are his writings study as gospel?
matt605 2 months ago
@matt605 I don't hold anything as blasphemous. I find dogma of any sort shallow and weak, as any idea with any validity should be able to stand up to critical scrutiny. That's why science works, and religion doesn't.
I repeat, nobody studies his writings as gospel. His understanding of evolution was simplistic, but it created a new field of study that has since been expanded upon in brilliant detail and to the benefit of ALL of us, especially in the fields of medicine and psychology.
GuitarNoob101 2 months ago
The image on the right of the screen at 5:57 is the new and improved human as a result of random mutation. But it's only a drawing, because an infant born that way would have been thrown onto the cave fire by its mother.
matt605 4 months ago
That's like saying, you can cross black people(one species) with white people (another species) and still produce fertile offspring; but their still humans.
Airlightf 4 months ago
Atheists believe that flies, bugs, dinosours, cows, humans, donkeys, fish etc-etc-- all have common ancestors. HAHAHAHAHAHHA
Airlightf 4 months ago
@Airlightf Atheists don't "believe" anything. That is, no person who is an atheist believes anything in his capacity as an atheist. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. So, it is entirely possible, though probably unlikely, that there are atheists who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution.
efeinste0 4 months ago
@efeinste0 atheism =ingonrance concerning God the Creator of the world.
Airlightf 4 months ago
@Airlightf You're an ignorant human being. There are a lot of christians and other religious people who believe in evolution. Just because someone isn't keep on creationism doesn't mean they are atheists. Some people believe evolution is intelligent design over time because maybe God isn't as all powerful and perfect as everyone thinks.
thispoorguy 4 months ago
Did anyone else pause at 2:15? Haha.
ZachRose88 6 months ago 7
6:54 Did you spot the typo?
T3RRABYT3 6 months ago
Haha. When the picture of Darwin came up, I was stricken by the thought of how similar Dennet and Darwin is. Thumbs up if you agree!
Ontehrun 6 months ago
I disagree with some of his idea's within the video ... for example the idea of attractiveness of women, although somewhat biological, is also based within the social construction of beauty. Thus the reason what is deemed as beautiful changes over time and cross-culturally... But it is interesting to consider the inversion of logic... I guess in simpler terms it could be considered as looking at things from a different angle
vindicated198 6 months ago
@vindicated198 well it may not be entirely evolutionary but it IS about the wiring, because experience can change the way our brain is wired
The3rdPlateau 4 months ago
doGoNslybaborPereht "If new species can not come into existence then all the currently living (and already extinct) species must have lived simultaneously " God created living organisms and not bcgonynor's. LOL you are funny. The Creator's explanation is what counts.
Airlightf 6 months ago
(REVISED) You drink cow's milk, and who knows what else you put into your mouth (as an atheist) , because you do not care about what's going into your mouth or what is comming out of it; or what is going into your head as well. STOP drinking cows milk perhaps you will understand me better. LOL because your reasoning is that of domestic animals LOL HAHAHAAHH omg I love you atheists LOL HAHAHAH
Airlightf 6 months ago
@Airlightf "your reasoning is that of domestic animal"
And your "reasoning" about cowmilk does not make any sense. What does cowmilk have to do with anything?
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 6 months ago
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT That's an illustration n how Atheists reason!! LOL
Airlightf 6 months ago
@Airlightf
Mmmooooo!
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 6 months ago
@Airlightf "Since one species cannot...breed with a differente species and produce fertile offspring, it is imposible for a new species to come into Existence"
Um...one species CAN breed with a different species. In fact, animals from two different genus's can breed, and in some rare cases even animals in different families can breed. So that statement is false.
I'm not arguing that there was no creator (nor that there was one, I'm arguing neither), but get your facts straight
The3rdPlateau 4 months ago
@The3rdPlateau Yes, get your facts straight or go have sex with (different species) monkeys, sheeps, chickens, goats, donkeys etc ''MORON"
Airlightf 4 months ago
@Airlightf huh? you can do it with plants too...or just look it up, it's not that hard. it does not require engaging in bestiality; that's not the same thing as breeding. just don't be so mean spirited dude, damn...I am a man of God in case that makes you feel better
The3rdPlateau 4 months ago
@The3rdPlateau LOL either, you are a chimp, a plant or man [species] .
Airlightf 4 months ago
@Airlightf wikipedia / wiki / Hybrid_(biology)
The3rdPlateau 4 months ago
I am going to bed atheists I am tired I will respond tom
Airlightf 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
twooffour -you are the loony, "You are the loony, look, " Well, yea... so what does that have to do with cows?"
Airlightf 6 months ago
anyone know what is the super normal stimus explanation for heroin
human453 6 months ago
@human453 It releases endorphins in the brain probably
ricardjorg 6 months ago
4:35 She-wookie!
SoggyPoridge 7 months ago
Long live Dennett!
someThinkingApe 8 months ago 2
always a pleasure listen ur theories santa claus
luxordiasgard 8 months ago
@luxordiasgard Damn it, you stole my comment! LOL
Beeza2996 6 months ago
if you see someone post a dumb comment or several dumb comments over a and over again... just ignore them.
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
beenn15 8 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
(REVISED)Dennett [you too Dawkins(I know you are hidding yourself somewhere)] , JUST because the milk of a cow was found in you doesn't mean you are a cow or that you and your ancestors came from "a cow" HAHAHAHAHAH Atheists/evolutionists , seriously! Also, just because you find metals and ceramics-bone-replacements in a human being doesn't mean his/her source is right there!!! omg
Airlightf 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dennett [you too Dawkins(I know you are hidding yourself somewhere)] , JUST because the milk of a cow was found in you doesn't mean you are a cow or that you and your ancestors came from "a cow" HAHAHAHAHAH Atheists/evolutionists , seriously! Also, just because you find metals and ceramics-bone-replacements in a human being doesn't mean his/her source is right there!!! omg
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf "JUST because the milk of a cow was found in you doesn't mean you are a cow or that you and your ancestors came from "a cow""
Wow...that didn't really make any sense at all.
"HAHAHAHAHAH"
Yes. It was ridiculous. I agree.
"omg"
My thoughts exactly!
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 14
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT "Wow...that didn't really make any sense at all." It doesn't make sense to you but to evolutionists/atheists it does :) It very rational to them to believe one species oooooooooooooooover hundreds and miiiiiiiiiiiiiiillions of years sssssssssssslowly turns into another species and again that species will bear several other new species LOL
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf "It doesn't make sense to you but to evolutionists/atheists it does :)"
I guess I'm both of those (two separate) things but it didn't make any sense to me.
I can drink cow milk (without an upset stomache) but I don't believe that I turn into a cow, become one with a cow, receive the inner wisdom of a cow or receive the superpowers of a cow. (Now there's an idea for a sci-fi cartoon.)
I don't start mooing either.
But that really has nothing to do with evolution.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT You drink cow's milk, and who knows what else you put into your mouth (as an atheist) , because you do not care about what's going into your mouth or what is comming out of it; or what is going into your head as well.
Airlightf 6 months ago
@Airlightf "You drink cow's milk, and who knows what else you put into your mouth (as an atheist)"
People of most religions consume dairy products if that happens to be common in their culture otherwise. Of course lactose intolerance is quite common.
Some religions do prohibit certain foods. I don't know if any prohibit drinking cow milk.
You are still not making much sense.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 6 months ago
@Airlightf
Well, yea... so what does that have to do with cows?
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour you drink cows milk not because you are a cow
Airlightf 6 months ago
@Airlightf
And... that... has to do with what? Are you a loony?
twooffour 6 months ago
@Airlightf yes it does make sense ... if you disagree then you could actually make an argument ... or just pretend in your mind that you are right simply because you believe you are right... meh makes no difference to anyone here
vindicated198 6 months ago
@vindicated198 What athiests think about my faith don't afect me at all :D <3
Airlightf 6 months ago
@Airlightf well for one you keep throwing around the word athiests as if everyone here are athiests when you do not have any idea whether we are... just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that we don't believe in some form of god, it actually means that we disagree with what you yourself are saying. That once again is not against your faith but against what you are saying. If you want to actually engage with people you must present arguments and engage in their explanations...
vindicated198 6 months ago
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT That's how evolutionists reason.
Airlightf 1 month ago
Beautifully explained. Conscience-raiser, as Mr. Dawkins would put it.
Zotov13 9 months ago 4
2.18 pause....
LsBaba 9 months ago
Atheists/evolutionists/agnostics, tell me about a machine (or something you have "created") that doesn't need man(God created man) in order to function? LOL
Airlightf 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Airlightf
If I say that we probably can't come up with any completely maintenance free machine that would run forever without human intervention then what do you think that proves? That God exists?
"doesn't need man(God created man) in order to function"
How about a man NOT created by God? Would that be allowed? In that case we can build a one! ;-)
(See...I'm intellectually lowering myself to your level.)
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 6
That's just my humble opinion: Since one species cannot [has never been able to and will not be able to]breed with a differente species and produce fertile offspring, it is imposible for a new species to come into Existence; but instead, species are becoming extinct :(
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf "Since one species cannot...breed with a differente species and produce fertile offspring, it is imposible for a new species to come into Existence"
Just because you didn't undestand bcgonynor's explanation of speciation does not mean that it's impossible.
If new species can not come into existence then all the currently living (and already extinct) species must have lived simultaneously - humans and the various dinosaur species for example. But that's not the case.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 26
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT The currintly living species were created by God. A knew species can only come into existence if God creates them.
Airlightf 1 month ago
Thank YOU Atheists for confirming to me that one species will never change into a different species! :D have a good day.
Airlightf 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Airlightf "Atheists for confirming to me that one species will never change into a different species! :D"
Ignorance does not make you right. It just makes you think that you're right. Have a nice Easter.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 6
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT
Wow! This was marked as spam in under one minute.
Some people really have issues with different opinions and freedom of speach...
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 5
So, Atheists/evolutionists, can you turn one species into a new specie before my eyes? And if you cannot do that, then trash your fantasies!
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Evolution doesn't postulate that one species will "turn into" another, but that its descendants will diverge into more than one "cousin" species. What you're talking about is the sort of instantaneous magic transmutation that only a God could perform, and you're not going to hear any atheist proposing such a thing. Speciation occurs when isolated populations become genetically distinct from their relatives to the degree that they can't breed. It's been observed in labs and the field.
bcgonynor 10 months ago
@bcgonynor "Evolution doesn't postulate that one species will "turn into" another, but that its descendants will diverge into more than one cousin species."
Correct. But with divergence, as the story goes, comes stupendous change (allegedly) wherein "speciation" is glorified and extinction is rarely spoken of. No matter how slow evolution is thought to occur, it's hard to fathom a genuine reason why our nearest ancestral predecessor wasn't bright enough to stick around for a comment ;-)
justchemicali 10 months ago
@bcgonynor Hmm. "relatives to the degree that they can't breed" LOL. JUST because one race[in our case] doesn't want to mate/breed with a different race doesn't mean they are a different species--they continue to be humans and not chimps. That's why monkeys/chimps have always being what they are and us--humans--will always be humans. :)
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf It's not a question of not wanting to, but not being able to. Many humans have attempted to breed with sheep, but nothing comes of it in the way of offspring because we have grown too far apart genetically (fortunately). In cases where the divergence was more recent, such as a lion/tiger or horse/donkey coupling, infertile hybrids may result. Chimps have not always been chimps and we have not always been humans. If we had been, there'd be human and chimp fossils in the lower strata.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor But the question is, Why do we still see chimps? I answered your other questions below. Chimps would be smarter than us if we evolved from them.They would be calling us "lower animals" It's evolution and not disevolution.
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf (1/2) I'm almost certain this has been explained to you before. Your question is similar to, "If most Americans are the descendants of Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?" Species A exists. A small part of Species A becomes separated from the rest, say their territory becomes an island. Over time, due to genetic drift, this side-group's characteristics change and it becomes Species B. Species A may or may not have survived, but if A met B they'd no longer be able to breed.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor Yes, I've heard it before. But Americans-europeans (humans) and Europeans will always be able to multiply among themselves because they will always be humans--they up there will not change from one species into another. I wonder which Europeans will evolve into something else if that's how a new species is born.
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf I was making an analogy between the historical and biological dimensions. I did not mean to suggest that Americans and Europeans are different species. However, if a group of humans were isolated for say, tens of thousands of years, they might well become another species. Say, if Europeans had never discovered America or Australia.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@Airlightf (2/2) The process happens again. A population of Species A becomes stranded on an island. It changes over time, accelerated by genetic drift. But since their environment is different, and their genetic mutations are random, this subgroup does not become a replica of Species B - it becomes a third species, Species C. Meanwhile, Specie A on the mainland dies out. Now there are two species on two islands, who have never met and can't breed, who share a common ancestor. Do you get it now?
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor Yes, that's the theory. But how can that be if it is impossible for a specie to pass its genes unto another species unless they have sexual intercourse? "Many humans have attempted to breed with sheep, but nothing comes of it in the way of offspring ...far apart genetically (fortunately )" I think this has always been true throughout generations, one species cannot breed with another and have fertile offspring.
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf Let's try again. Evolution is not something that happens to individuals - it happens to populations. The members of Species A who became lost on that island didn't change because they bred with an unknown Species D. They continued to breed with one another, but over time they became a different species from their relatives on the mainland due to the phenomenon of genetic drift. Mutations are random and environments differ, so in the absence of interbreeding species tend to diverge.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor We can try and try but we will never know for sure(we can only imagine) until we observe these species for millions of years
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf No, we've observed speciation over and over in labs and in the field. Do some research, it's not hard. Start with California salamanders. Even if we hadn't observed speciation dozens of times, scientists developed a complete model of the evolutionary tree of life based on phylogeny and archaeology throughout the century - which ended up being wholly confirmed and verified by a separate genetic process later. This is the "twin-nested hierarchy of phylogeny." We're talking about facts.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor Yes, that's what I call The Evolution Christmas Tree. But that's only my personal opinion. Thank you though. I will do more research.
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf "The Evolution Christmas Tree" When faced with this glib dismissal of the systematic labor of tens of thousands of scientists over 150 years, which has yielded vast accomplishments not only in our understanding of the world but also in the fields of medicine, biology, zoology, and agriculture; I'm forced to conclude that you are either willfully ignorant out of an immature desire for attention, or that you harbor a deep subjective bias. Whichever it is, I'm wasting my time. Good day.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor We give credit to Him Who created man--and sustains Life on earth. Remember this, Technology without man is nothing. Man only grabs from what God created. I believe we have to be humble and accept that we are NOT so great or powerful or very wise... That's all.
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf If your God wrote the Bible, we are certainly wiser than He, since He evidently thinks that pi is 3, that bats are birds, that the Earth is a disk, that rain comes from outer space, and that the sea has doors at the bottom for adjustments. Giving credit to an imaginary being for our technology, our intellect, our very existence, is an insult to our ancestors, who drew themselves up from the naked plain and developed civilization in the face of death and fear. I speak on their behalf.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor I never said "my God"...God created the heavens and the earth and all their hosts! :)
You are an insult to humanity. Quote verses from the Bible that back up your trash. Is it not through doors that you get from one place to another, idiot/moron? First educate yourself biblically and then open your mouth to talk about the word of God. Don't just talk moronically ;)
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf If you want about 20 false statements in a row check out the part in the Book of Job where God is speaking from the whirlwind, and reveals his total ignorance of our planet's structure. Or rather, the ignorance of the temple scribes who spoke on his behalf. Genesis 1-3 also has no shortage of nonsense, including the depiction of the sky as a glass dome with the stars as holes to let rain in. Why would I quote the Bible to disprove the Bible. I'd rather compare it to the real world.
bcgonynor 9 months ago
@bcgonynor OK, let me get up and bring my Bible. Relax, ok?
Airlightf 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bcgonynor Let us go step by step, Genesis 1: 1 Reads "In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth" 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."' Certainly we are not reading the same Bible, are we?
Be more specific and don't just say the Bible
Airlightf 9 months ago
Daniel Dennett: crazy ol' man
TAXtheAtheist 10 months ago
What he says is likely part of the truth, but he couldn't really explain "funny" at all. He also didn't explain why -- if our preference for sweet tastes is an evolutionary advantage to make us eat things that are good for us -- that same preference makes us want chocolate cake, which isn't good for us.
BemusedExpression 10 months ago
TOP-SCIENCE--WHICH SAW how EVERYTHING BEGAN.
Airlightf 10 months ago
Reading through the comments, I am not quite aware as to why so many people don't believe in evolution; they know absolutely nothing about it.. Many people who comment on this video have worse talking points than Sarah Palin.............. It's a wonder why the atheist community doesn't take the theist community seriously anymore, because there's no more intelligence in the latter.
Nick153452 10 months ago
Dennet, please, God created every species to mate with its own specie. At His command, life started to populate earth.
Airlightf 10 months ago
A theory is nothing else but a theory. Does a chicken become an ostrich? Atheists say yes! In millions of years, rodent can reach the clouds through evolution/natural selection? Evolutionists say YES!!! Can a dog become a bear? Atheists say yes! Can a toy become a real car withought the intervencion of a humand hand after billions of years? ATHEISTS say YES!!!YES!!!YES!!! Definitely!!! Atheists,please!
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf
What a stunningly calculated and facetious way to misrepresent Atheism and the theory of evolution. Both of which are not even inextricably linked. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
You really need to try a hell of a lot harder if you are going to refute the sound logical reasoning of both positions and the scientific method. Try again.
MentyEsquire 10 months ago
@MentyEsquire Hmmm. I cannot open your eyes to see REALITY; you willfuly deny it.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Can a chicken become an ostrich? Yes, but not likely, given enough time and changing environmental pressure they will evolve/divide into new species. Rodents reach the clouds? only if you assume intelligence is the ultimate end product of all evolutionary processes, not likely, but they can evolve. Dog to bear, see the chicken above. Toy become a car? Do toys reproduce? Did you miss that talk when you were a kid? ... Given our observations in genetics how can life not evolve?
mathkills 10 months ago
@Airlightf Lololollolllollol. Nobody says the idiotic things you say, other than you.
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 You believe in an idiocracy, moron. You laugh at your very own ignorance.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf My own ignorance? Alright. Sure, I'm ignorant in many regards, but at least I'm rational and I attempt to search for truth, where it should be sought. I don't jump to conclusions at the parts in science that haven't been discovered yet and point directly to the more irrational assumption of there being a creator. That is sheer ignorance to the extreme.
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 How did you prove to me that there is no creator? Uncover my ignorance by making a little demostration that anything can come into existence magically--just because!
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf "A theory is nothing else but a theory."
What a "theory" is depends on the context where the word "theory" is used.
watch?v=DC6-qsEyFgY
Jump to 3:50 in that video for explanations of "fact", "hypothesis", "law" and "theory" in scientific context.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 2
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT Thanks.
Airlightf 9 months ago
Dennett and Dawkins, what are you doing? Go to bed please
Airlightf 10 months ago
Dennett, just because you look like a cow with glasses doesn't mean your ancestor was a cow billions of years ago.
Airlightf 10 months ago
Dennett, I know you praise Darwin and if he were still alive I know you would kiss his feet a few times;but please do not exagerate, ok? JUST because you look like him doesn't mean you are him. And that's the problem with you atheists. Now, go take a nap.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Lol? Umm, open ended attack with no bases of argument? For me, that's a direct signal of desperation...... Nice try though. Maybe you should look to your God for more intelligent thing to say....
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 Hmm, so you have nothing to say because you don't understand the subject
Airlightf 10 months ago
Atheists, so when did you observe a chimp "evolving" into a human being? Do you mind showing me the data, please?
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Is this a serious question? Because if so, you should be ashamed for having asked such a ridiculous question....... If this is serious, you know absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution, other than the name of it........... It's questions like this that anybody with anything more than a rudimentary knowledge of the subject laughs at. It's kind of like asking, "if we used to use windows 98, why don't we use it anymore?" The reason is clear........... Better=wins.
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 Hmm, Windows 98, hu? We must not compare your head with a tea-pot, or your nose with a god, or your brain with that of a chicken/chimp. But atheists do this kind of comparisons in order to make themselves feel better about their own theory of evolution--they will conect any piece of shit and call it "Evolution" LOL
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Do you even know what at theory is??
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 Law, hypothesis, theory<<<
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Umm, haha.. If you just said that a theory is below a hypothesis, than you are completely wrong and it's no wonder that you have those thoughts. A law and a theory cannot be compared even. The theory of evolution could never become a law because it answers the question WHY. Laws only answer the question WHAT.. The LAW of gravity states that THINGS FALL.. The theory of gravity explains WHY things fall. It's no wonder you Christians are against science, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT!
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 Go argue with my highly educated Professor of Anthropology.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf And a hypothesis has nothing to do with a theory or a law. A hypothesis is a proposal that you are going to test....... The theory of evolution has been around for well over a hundred years and it has been tested extensively and it has been supported consistently. I mean for crying out loud I'm sure you beleive in cells, right? That's just a theory too...... You know what, I"ve finished this, it's not worth my time. You old people have nothing intelligent to say.
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 Mention a [totally] new species that has emerged from Evolution.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Well you sentence is flawed because TOTALLY new species isn't possible. We all came from a common ancester billions of years ago. You can see that in the DNA and how the more distant, and by saying distant, I mean how long about the two species started to deviate from each other, they have less commonalities in the genetic material. And if you look at humans and monkeys, because you guys like to do that, there are much more commonalities. I only had 500 characters to write that.
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 If we all came from a common ancestor billions of years ago, why hasn't any new species emerged until now? I personally think chimps wouldn't exist today if we had common ancestors with them. Because don't you think chimps would be far more advanced in technology than us since they were the first ones to exist; then we would follow.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Species have changed, and continue to change all the time. If you are waiting to see a species change in front of your eyes, you've challenged the wrong theory. That's precisely why it took so long for somebody to discover evolution; it's because it takes so long and nobody really sees is, so who would expect it. But after over one hundred years of testing and more knowledge, the evidence only continually supports the claim.
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 This is NOT Science. Who did observe one species change ["evolve"] into a new species? NOBODY. REAL SCIENCE is observable and verifiable. That's why a mere theory is just a theory and a hypothesis a hypothesis--a law,a LAW. Also, the theory of Darwin is not a theory of evolution but Natural Selection (Directly from Antro Professor). Evolution hides behind millions and billions and is not, it will hide behind trillions of years. Hehehe
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf I take it you haven't looked into your claims much, especially in regards to analygous and homologous structures and how they relate to similarities in the DNA. Scientists have been able to predict things to very accurate levels based on the theory of evolution. Things that are very verifiable in a lab. Of course it's real science.
Just a theory? The theory of a cell is "Just a theory". A theory is as close to proof in science that you can get..... So I don't get why you say tha
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 " regards to analygous and homologous structures and how they relate to similarities" =Evolutionists' Christmas Tree. When I said REAL SCIENCE [TOP-SCIENCE] , I was referring to the SCIENCE that Existed in the beginning of LIFE and CREATION--which worked according to the UTTERENCIA of THE Almighty.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf You want scientists to know 100% about what happened at the beginning and run tests in those environments? Well it's no wonder you believe in God. You will never have that..... But you can't just assume that since science can't fulfill your every want as far as possibilities are concerned that your claim is correct, especially when it is not the most consistent one.
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. That's all. Because anyone can pull a leg here and a leg overthere, join them, and bring a hand that looks like a hand and then another one similar to that of a human hand and tell you Tis is it!! We fount HIM. We got him. Remember, the fact that in our recorded history we don't see any new species is evidence that we emerged separately by LIFE. Also, we cannot just say that the Universe just appeared becasuse! That's just irrational
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Well, of course you wouldn't see a new species in 1 lifetime. That's incredibly stupid to assume you would..... A new species would take hundreds of thousands of years to developpe. Recorded history is fairly new..
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 You are too stupid to believe in a forceful atheistic imaginatia! You like science fiction movie, hu? I see why.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf I don't watch movie, or TV.. I don't have the time for it. I'm too busy studying things that have actual results; physics, chemistry, biology and math.
Nick153452 10 months ago
@Nick153452 That's wonderful!!! I think everyone loves the sciences.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Everybody should love sciences, if they're looking for anything reliable.
Nick153452 9 months ago
@Nick153452 The sciences is not everything in this world.
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf Never said it was. Science just tries the explain things.... Some find sciences boring, some find it fascinating, but everybody should actually be aware about what they are talking about if it addresses science, or else they shouldn't talk as if they do :-). I hope that makes sense.. My mind is overwhelmed right now with molecular biology and calculus. to tests in the morning, and I work all night, and I'm sick.. SOOO if that makes no sense, just discard it.
Nick153452 9 months ago
@Nick153452 LOL It made sense to me. I will catch you up later. I am still looking for work. I wish I was that busy like you
Airlightf 9 months ago
@Airlightf Based on your criteria we should throw out most data gathered from cosmology, history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, etc (cosmologists view and study long dead star systems for example). Also, laws are rare. Most come from physic and mathematics (gravity, laws of motion, special relativity, etc). The quantum world is unobservable and yet we can still make accurate predictions and build theories. You pick on biology because it threaten your belief system
ritter89 10 months ago
@ritter89 none of these GREAT and awesome CRIATURES [ BIO, CHEM, COSMOLOGY, ANTRO, MATHEMATICS, SOC, PSY, PHYSICS, and others] threaten my beliefs since I was firmly fixed on a rock by the hand of GOD ALMIGHTY.
Airlightf 10 months ago
yes, Dan Dennett IS cute, sexy, sweet and funny! :P
rtarbinar 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(REVISED) Atheists, Did you observe monkeys growing two branches of life--one becoming a human being and another a monkey? Do you mind showing me tangible facts that this was so?
Airlightf 10 months ago
Atheists, why do you dare to open your big mouth to speak against Life? Did you observe monkeys growing two branches of life--one becoming a human being and onther a monkey? Do you mind showing tangible facts that this was so?
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Theists why do you dare open your big mouth to speak against Life? Did you observe God creating the Universe? Would you mind showing tangible facts that this was so?
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@ICanFlyHonest To any Theists offended by the last comment I made, this was merely a reply to Airlightf's comment and in no way my own sentiment. I would never be that disrespectful to a person that doesn't share the same beliefs as me.
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@ICanFlyHonest How lovely to see morons accept their ignorance concerning the world and the Universe. How wonderful is that!
Airlightf 10 months ago
My neighbor stones me daily I dont mind.
afro20man 11 months ago
@afro20man lol... good for you.
gr4ndhustle 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life..."
812jwhite 1 year ago
Daniel Dennett: a crazy ol' man. total nut.
TAXtheAtheist 1 year ago
@TAXtheAtheist That is not a very elaborate critique of the video. And why would you tax an atheist?
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@ICanFlyHonest Your reasoning is somewhat different from ours, and that's the only reason you speak as such a baby way.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Of course. Because your grasp of English grammar far exceeds any atheist's I've ever met. I have the sneaking suspicion you are trolling because your comment, in no way follows on from what I said. Good day to you.
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@ICanFlyHonest Good day moron.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Yep, definitely a troll. What a good Christian you are.
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@ICanFlyHonest Yep, definitely a troll. What a good Christian you are
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Ha! My hat goes off to you! You are providing me with anger and amusement and that is a rather rare feet. But in all seriousness I have to go to a lecture. I hope you have a good day/night (I'm not sure which time zone you're in).
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@ICanFlyHonest Yes, I just want seriousness. I know Dennett's lectures are boring
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf I couldn't resist commenting back before I left :p. I wouldn't know whether Dennett's lectures are any good as philosophy is not my field of study :D. May I ask you a question? (< other than that question ;)) From your comments, you seem to attribute evolutionary theory to atheism. Is it your belief that evolution is solely an atheistic stance?
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@ICanFlyHonest Evolutionists =atheists; agnostics; (Pope Bennedict)...
-The reason why we change ("evolve") is because that's God's intention. Also, the Bible tells us that God wants us to perfect ourselves(that is, to evolve/change/become more civilized). I am a theistic-atheist when it comes to the God/god(s) of the people/Nations.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Hey! Thank you for your reply :). Have a good day.
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@ICanFlyHonest Hmmm.
Airlightf 10 months ago
@Airlightf Hmmm?
ICanFlyHonest 10 months ago
@Airlightf Nothing interesting
Airlightf 10 months ago
Omg this answers my age old question of why woman are atracted to guys even thou were so ugly and hairy
1navyseal1962 1 year ago
Dennet is the second coming of Darwin. And it is no coincidence that Darwin looks like god.
captaindisguise 1 year ago
It's interesting to think about the way in which philosophers like Kant investigated aesthetics in his book a critique of judgement and then contrast it with the modern ideas about aesthetics like wiring.
I can understand that there are very good evolutionary explanations for humans love of sweet food & babies but why do humans love sunsets, poetry, music, etc? Why is the brain hard wired to love these things? They offer no obvious evolutionary advantage yet we all seem to like them.....
STEPHENWRAYS