ah yes, how tempting to set one's rational mind (seemingly) above God's (as if!) A humble spirit is best when opening the Bible if you want true understanding for the gaps are within us, not within our Creator.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Love Bill Maher and his comedy! But his Q about God resting on the 7th Day shows superficiality (though he uses it to make a funny point)--God rested on the 7th Day as an example for us to follow, Not because He was "pooped"! ;p
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Holy shit. I'm just starting to meet those guy (I'm obviously not from the US) and I was thinking to myself "what would happen if Bill Maher and Dawkins were together at the same place? And then I saw this video and the world sudently made sense to me.
I'm an atheist, not an "adeist". I have no belief in a theistic god (a personal and present god who hears and answers prayers). Einstein stated directly that he didn't believe in a personal god, which is an atheistic belief system., but the word atheist had such a bad connotation at the time that he avoided the word by describing his lack of a theistic belief system rather than simply using the word atheist.. Atheist doesn't necessarily imply certainty of there being no deistic god.
@ndrthrdr1 Great point, I've never heard atheism explained that way. Your explanation gave me more understanding that atheists don't cross out the possibility of a deistic being, which is highly unlikely, but just the personal theistic god.
@jontheundertaker actually he's wrong atheism is defined as the rejection of the idea of any deity. what he describes is deism which is different from atheism if only by a hair
@ndrthrdr1 atheism is defined as the rejection of a deity what you describe is deism. atheism is NOT simply the rejection of a theistic god but ANY deity
@ndrthrdr1 i seriously doubt that but ok. and yes they do vary but this one is rather precise atheism is the rejection of ALL deities if you believe that it is possible then you are at least agnostic and if you believe in at least one then you are at least a deist
@buttface112211 I don't know where you got your info from but I've read quotes from the man himself that explicitly show that he wasn't. Not that it matters, atheists will always try to pull every brilliant agnostic into their camp. YOu can't reason with an atheist anymore than you can a christian or a muslim because religious minded people can't be reasoned with. So believe whatever you want, you're not worth another response
@bellydweller He was not a Theist in the modern sense. He did not believe in an Abrahamic God by any means. His God was closer to the Universe or just simply the force that Created the Universe
@TheRationalist76 i will respond to your comment because it is intelligent and thoughtful which is more than I can say for buttface's comments which sound like something butthead (from beavis & butthead would say). You are absolutely right. he was not a Theist, and it would be preposterous for a brilliant scientist to believe in the parting of the red sea, or the immaculate conception.
@bellydweller His personal reflections of faith sound more like 18th century masonic conception of a "Grand Architect " as described by George Washington and Ben Franklin. I'm not saying he was a Deist but he certainly did express deistic tendencies:
"Whatever there is of God and goodness in the universe, it must work itself out and express itself through us. We cannot stand aside and let God do it."
"there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle.
@bellydweller They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims." So you see Einstein understood that there is a mystery to the universe that even brilliant physicists like him were not meant to understand.
@bellydweller The fact that Dawkins, quite possibly the most religious minded fanatical atheist on earth would actually champion Einstein is ludicrous. Einstein was a true skeptic. Dawkins is about as dogmatic as the Pope.
@bellydweller "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote 24 March 1954.included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton University Press.
you haven't done anything but affirmed what i already said. I don't know what you think this proves, but deities do not HAVE to be personal beings, only supernatural ones. They do not have to be anthropomorphic although they almost always are. So be clever if it makes you happy, that's the only thing atheists are good at. I could pull out numerous other quotes where Einstein explicitly rejects the atheist tag because of what he perceives as irrational rationalism.
@commake Did YOU read the bible? I don't think so, because anybody with a brain who reads the bible wakes up and realizes that it contains nothing but crap. The main problem is that Christians do NOT read their fucking bible and talk a lot about it without even knowing anything about the shit written in it.
What a pompous jerk, like being a atheist is something to be proud of. Like that is a sign of intelligens. Relgion, spirituality is a emotional and soul seeking metaphysic process that is special for every human.
So Dawkins, you want to kill the semitic god, and he thinks that science is going to fill the void. Or as liberal leftist, UN hugger as Maher, he probably prefer decandence, consumerism, , media crap culture instead of things as religion.
The Nazis also accepted the theory of gravity (Newton's, not Einstein's at least not at first), thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism....etc. So if you think that just because the Nazis accepted a theory that theory is automatically wrong, throw your pc out of the window and go live in the woods you retarded, knuckle dragging caveman
@ahmedeox -X-cellent point. I wait for the day the religious sects of this nation go after the theory of gravity; it is afterall only a theory y'know ; )
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested. He didn't rest because He was tired He rested because He was finished. I wouldn't want to be any of those men on judgement day. Jesus Christ is coming soon and I'm glad He is. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
@Roberthurz Its too bad your dedicating your life to a compilation of childrens stories used to teach kids lessons in lifem followed by the writings of several deranged men. Do you believe in Thomas The steam Engine as well?
The wisest man to of ever lived, lived some 2000 years ago in and around the region of what we call today, modern Israel. He was so wise that history has never forgotten him. All he did was tell the truth and they tortured him and nailed him to a wooden stake. People are free to believe what they want but why do you persecute those who`s beliefs differ from your own?
@1WhoSeeks "why do you persecute those who's beliefs differ from your own?"
I think that's a question for the religious, not the irreligious. Overall, it is the religious people who do the persecuting.
ALSO, atheists (such as Dawkins) who argue against your beliefs are not persecuting - they are simply saying religious people are wrong. You have the freedom to believe what you want, not the freedom to have your beliefs respected if they are wrong.
The fact that religious nuts bring up social Dawinism, and Nazis, and Communism shows that they do not have an argument against evolution by natural selection. Evolution was happening billions of years before Darwin was born, and will be happening long after we have all gone. The case for it could not be any more obvious.
@JIMITAPP Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher comes to your television screen this fall in their own spinoff...watch as they chase down and capture criminals this fall...be prepared to be blown away as they slay vampires in the dead of night this fall...Dawkins and Maher team up in "Rights" this fall...
No what I'm saying is you are simply quote mining, looking through literature to find a part of a quote that supports your argument or in this case discredits an author.
What book? On the origin of species? I have read it, some of the explanations we have found through science haven't always been the prettiest thing but its reality wither you like it or not.
Hmm descent of man still doesn't have anything to do with on the origin of species. The holocaust was not motivated by darwin's theory and the genocide of the native americans happened well before darwin even wrote the book. His theories don't teach that we should kill off different races,species,etc... I can't believe bullshit like this can be believed by someone such as yourself.
nah he said the extermination of the indians was a goodd thing---read some hitler, he was wiping out a sub race and then read more darwin all i can tell ya, sorry for being pollitically incorrect, read some darwin and hitler and figure some stuff out and throw in darwins cousin who invented the idea of eugenics, thats all i can say--but if ya dont like something i suppose you dont have to look at facts, their not pretty
nope just stateing facts, mabey everything has no meaning, you ever think of that? dawkins and darwin the same guy? and mabey i will read some dawkin then marx and then remember oh darwin advocated genocide just a fast fact, and mabey a little hiter oh so did he just following some darwin, but hey not evrything has to be part of a great plan just some facts
ok, after reading a few more of your insane ramblings i see you have no idea what you are talking about. you've clearly never read any of darwins works, you merely copy/paste dishonestly mined quotes.
Omg the Nazis accepted evolutionary science - so what? So does everyone. So did Churchill and Roosevelt. Anyone with a little knowledge on biology understands and accepts evolution. What's your point?
@frellthat lol its like saying Omg the Nazis believe the world is round! That must mean it is automatically wrong, anti-Christian, communist, islamic and black.
@frellthat And nazis interpreted evolution as "the strongest, the better", and that's false... truth is "the more adapted, the better" in any aspect (streanght, intelligence, camouflage, speed, coordination, etc)
just saying hitler was just following the conclusions of darwin to the best of his abillity unill at the end of the war he said 't'he russian peoples of the east won this struggle of natural selection' and 'the german people deserve to die because its natural'. so reading a little darwin i suppose it was all natural just some fast facts
Well, you are wrong about something. Hitler did believe in some social darwinian theory, but he did misunderstand Darwin. He wanted to keep the Arien race pure by killing the unpure. This is not to improve the human by artificial selection but some religious pseudo-science.
Selective breeding is not Darwin evolution at all, and have nothing to do with Darwin. Some plant have been selected for 3000 years, this does include the Banana, probably a good part of your breakfast and grass. Applied to human, it been done since Sparta and it is still done in USA by economics and cost ''control''.
The same with social darwinism, it is not linked in any freaking way to Darwin. It's Herbert Spencer the responsible.
@therrydicule oh the nazis wernt for rich people so its not social darwinism. and wiping out the retarded and what they considered weaker lifforms is more biological darwinism. modern eugenics was a creation of Darwins cousin but nazis practiced both. nazis were just wiping out savages like darwin talks alot about
I will advocated a no relation in academic contest. Evolution is natural selection as a way of adaptation to the natural environment. Eugenism is based on artificial selection for social ideal, often based upon idea of racial supremacy (as in Nazi) or principle of purity and/or elitism (as in Wang Zhizhi).
In fact, if you ask a blood test to your partner,seeking genetic diseases and genetic incompatibilities, it is eugenism.'Darwinism' is only to screw her for her beauty.
Yeah, but it by no means makes you a bad person for it. Read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins and learn about some info on why species help each other out to benefit collectively.
so anyway give me the smoking gun of evolution-- because the fish growing legs because it wants on land is about as resonable as a dude in space making earth--the science community has nevr seen a fish grow legs cause it desire it or to adapt--
frogsssssss----and i suppose they willed themselves to evolve to something greater if they liked--so according to Darwin if you introduced a bunch of frogs to a harsh enviroment they would adapt to it-- so a frog would grow fur to survive if it were too cold--amphibians, are born in water and live on land as adults its part of their life cycle--its not evolving , if it were the question would be solved because we would say hey, we watch this thing evolve, from a baby to an adult
Willed, no. But any fish that found it's way even a couple feet inland were safe from other aquatic predators. And given access to a previously untapped food supply in the form of the plants and tinier bugs.
As for exposing frogs to harsh environments, well... they'd probably just die. Unless through diversity there already happened to be a furred frog, in which case it would thrive and become the dominant species of frog.
Heh, lo and behold, the first small mammal is born!
mabey so but, you ever find a that did that? threw away its gills for better food--speculatoin - or mabey the preditors commited genocide against this hopefull fish- i dont know i didint see it or perhaps a man in a cloud saved the fish from the genocidal superior fish with majic and then it got its lungs, food, and legs--happy fish- wish i could have seen that
yeah did you see it evolve or did they find it like that? you tell me your the expert i was saying darwin advocates genocide , which he does. And darwin was pointing out missing links everywhere, such as the 'negro' in his words and such
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. " C. Darwin
It existed in a time in history specifically before land based animals, and after many very old fish species disappeared.
A fish on the verge of developing limbs, was that not the very thing you were asking about?
I don't think he actually "advocates" genocide. Rather, it sounded more like a prediction based on the current trends of his time. You'll have to point out where he specifically "advocates" it.
you can read my quotes ive allready put up the charichter count is to high but they are both connected to the same page, i would suggest you read the book if you want more info ill talk later i have to go to work---but im not saying you are wrong, with what you have said
Darwin, on the future of Negroes and Australian Aborigines- or do something insane and read the whole book too, im not trying to change your mind, go get your own knowledge------------you tube takes too much time to repeat yourself over and over again page numbers are listed in previouse quotes, and i have better things to do---whats a fish have to do with genocide? anyway i got better things to do im done waisting my time--back to the real world.
for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla-continued
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene---
between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla --end quote
At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla C. Darwin--these are quotes from his book Decent Of Man" shall i get more quotes ive allready stated these below.
Wow, it seems that you have some issues with religion...arguing that creationist stories are inaccurate does not mean a person has issues with religion, just that part of it. There are scientists who follow religions and believe in evolution simultaneously!!
im saying religion has as much credence as Evolution, its all speculation, tell me when you see something evolve or invent a time machine to prove your theory.. and your right how do you know god didint create a frog and give it properties to evolve and leave earth alone after that , you dont, you dont know if things do evolve and adapting is different then evolving
You believe that creationism 10000 years ago is as "speculative" as evolution?Obviously there are 'missing links' in evolution, archaeologists recently found what is believed to be our ancient ancestor.The likelihood that we will find fossils of all the form that humans evolved from is unlikely given the conditions of earth & the millions of years."Missing links" in history don't prevent us from piecing together what remains from ancient civilizations &drawing conclusions.
as you say not all religions belive it was 10000 years ago, and like you say not all evolutionists agree that these fossiles are compleatly cedible. and not all scientist belive things evolve, obviously that anything that is extinct couldent evolve to save itself, why is the chimpanzee still here if it evolved- and if more evolved humans wiped these sub human cultures out --where did the humans evolve from so you dont know its whats known as a theory an educated gusse-
Firstly, you are restating what I already established earlier on: that evolution is a theory, I'm not denying that. What you seem to be unwilling to accept is that it is the most accepted theory. The Judeo-Christian (and Muslim) creation story of Adam and Eve is the same for all 3 religions, so yes, they are creationist religions (i.e. they have a creation story). But Pope John Paul II said evidence of evolution can't be denied. Many followers of those religions view creationism as a metaphor.
some religions belive that adam and eve came after the extinction of the dinosaurs,and all that, and the earth was here long before adam and eve making the age of earth as you stated not accurate for all religions---right and if you think creationism is a metaphore you would belive in a god anyway to create the evolving animals
but im not catholic and dont belive in a pagan guy who wears a fish head dress
its still all speculation---and then you have to go to before the earth existed in this area of space to figure out where that came from-something we wont know untill captain kirk travels through time and finds out
and also can you tell me any ideas how the matter that makes up these evolving animals was created out of nothing in the first place? or the matter that makes up a planet or the matter that exploded that created the big bang--no one will ever know except that it is here now this is all we know
So since we do not know (and likely will never know) how the universe was created, we should not investigate and develop PLAUSIBLE explanations using what technology we do have at our disposal? Through your attempt to "discredit" evolution (which you don't succeed in doing), you do not make religion "right". The absence of proof to the contrary doesn't make it true. There are several theories about how the Big Bang started. Some philosophical, others scientific.
im not discrediting it, just stating plain facts that Darwin and such advocated genocide-and why is discrediting so important to you which you fail to do--one thing is for certain charles darwin advocates genocide
You are asking for a burden of proof for things which are impossible to prove using that standard. It is a simplistic argument to say that since no one was around to witness evolution, it can't be considered. It's not a theory based on nothing. If all you believe is what is perceived through observation, you have a narrow understanding of the world. Even the sciences rely on other means. I'm done discussing with you: have a good life!
ever hear of the scientific method, when something becomes a fact? these are all theories you were not there when man came into being and neither i. and you cannot tell me that something is fact when you were not there to see it do you know why, because i dont know, and you dont possess mental powers i do not.
Right, so because Darwin didn't live for thousands of years to witness species evolving the theory must be discredited? All he is saying is that evolution is the most credible theory and that creationism as it is in the bible is not. Carbon dating supports the theory that the earth is millions of years old, not thousands. I do not claim that evolution is a fact - the use of the word "theory" makes that clear. However, it is still the most reasonable explanation over creationism.
just saying Bill Maher should read darwin and in religioluse he points out that religiouse leaders cause so many problems over time--an evolutionist never caused problems except that thing between 39-45
The point Maher is trying to make is that there is evidence that supports evolution - scientific evidence that continues to be credited. The racist notions of WW2 have been discredited by modern science. The fact that the Earth is not 10,000 years old has long been supported by scientific evidence and continues to be. That is the difference.
not racist notions of ww2 it was the notions of Darwin, the creator of that theory--and the notions in ww2 could be based on this mans work Charles Darwin anyway i made a video explains it all to you
So what is your "beef" - that they reference Darwin, or that they support evolution (which was supported by Darwin?) Do all of Darwin's theories have to be rejected because of his racist notions which have now been proven false, even though his evolutionary theories have not been proven so, but in fact have been further supported?
ah yes, how tempting to set one's rational mind (seemingly) above God's (as if!) A humble spirit is best when opening the Bible if you want true understanding for the gaps are within us, not within our Creator.
judecowell 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Love Bill Maher and his comedy! But his Q about God resting on the 7th Day shows superficiality (though he uses it to make a funny point)--God rested on the 7th Day as an example for us to follow, Not because He was "pooped"! ;p
judecowell 4 months ago
@judecowell A perfect being needs no rest. There are too many obvious loopholes in biblical stories.
Crislips 1 week ago
Crocoduck tie FTW
mymoset 4 months ago
Idiots
LibertarianBrit 5 months ago 3
Where can I get that tie?
SilentMott 6 months ago
This is how dictionary(.)com defines atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Therefore, if you do not believe in Zeus, you are by definition #2, an atheist.
Cosmosity 6 months ago
@Cosmosity A good definition takes into account common usage of the term.
elysium735 6 months ago
@frelthat no the nazis did not accept evolution the book orgion of species was banned by the nazi party in germany look it up if you dont believe me.
andrewfink1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Holy shit. I'm just starting to meet those guy (I'm obviously not from the US) and I was thinking to myself "what would happen if Bill Maher and Dawkins were together at the same place? And then I saw this video and the world sudently made sense to me.
munizrfelipe 7 months ago
I'm an atheist, not an "adeist". I have no belief in a theistic god (a personal and present god who hears and answers prayers). Einstein stated directly that he didn't believe in a personal god, which is an atheistic belief system., but the word atheist had such a bad connotation at the time that he avoided the word by describing his lack of a theistic belief system rather than simply using the word atheist.. Atheist doesn't necessarily imply certainty of there being no deistic god.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Great point, I've never heard atheism explained that way. Your explanation gave me more understanding that atheists don't cross out the possibility of a deistic being, which is highly unlikely, but just the personal theistic god.
jontheundertaker 7 months ago
@jontheundertaker actually he's wrong atheism is defined as the rejection of the idea of any deity. what he describes is deism which is different from atheism if only by a hair
scar504 6 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 atheism is defined as the rejection of a deity what you describe is deism. atheism is NOT simply the rejection of a theistic god but ANY deity
scar504 6 months ago
@scar504 Opinions vary a lot on labels. Short description of my religious beliefs: I don't have any.
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago 2
@ndrthrdr1 i seriously doubt that but ok. and yes they do vary but this one is rather precise atheism is the rejection of ALL deities if you believe that it is possible then you are at least agnostic and if you believe in at least one then you are at least a deist
scar504 6 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
I love Dawkins' smirk after he makes a joke. Classy as fuck.
watermelonygoodness 8 months ago
Crocoduck tie!
drummerkid1993 8 months ago
einstein wasn't an atheist
bellydweller 8 months ago
@bellydweller Yes, he was.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@buttface112211 I don't know where you got your info from but I've read quotes from the man himself that explicitly show that he wasn't. Not that it matters, atheists will always try to pull every brilliant agnostic into their camp. YOu can't reason with an atheist anymore than you can a christian or a muslim because religious minded people can't be reasoned with. So believe whatever you want, you're not worth another response
bellydweller 8 months ago
@bellydweller Agnosticism is a form of atheism because you still lack belief in a deity and are independent of a theistic religion.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@bellydweller He was not a Theist in the modern sense. He did not believe in an Abrahamic God by any means. His God was closer to the Universe or just simply the force that Created the Universe
TheRationalist76 8 months ago
@TheRationalist76 i will respond to your comment because it is intelligent and thoughtful which is more than I can say for buttface's comments which sound like something butthead (from beavis & butthead would say). You are absolutely right. he was not a Theist, and it would be preposterous for a brilliant scientist to believe in the parting of the red sea, or the immaculate conception.
bellydweller 8 months ago
@bellydweller His personal reflections of faith sound more like 18th century masonic conception of a "Grand Architect " as described by George Washington and Ben Franklin. I'm not saying he was a Deist but he certainly did express deistic tendencies:
"Whatever there is of God and goodness in the universe, it must work itself out and express itself through us. We cannot stand aside and let God do it."
bellydweller 8 months ago
Whatever he was he was certainly NOT an Atheist:
"there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle.
bellydweller 8 months ago
@bellydweller They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims." So you see Einstein understood that there is a mystery to the universe that even brilliant physicists like him were not meant to understand.
bellydweller 8 months ago
@bellydweller The fact that Dawkins, quite possibly the most religious minded fanatical atheist on earth would actually champion Einstein is ludicrous. Einstein was a true skeptic. Dawkins is about as dogmatic as the Pope.
bellydweller 8 months ago
@bellydweller "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote 24 March 1954.included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton University Press.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
you haven't done anything but affirmed what i already said. I don't know what you think this proves, but deities do not HAVE to be personal beings, only supernatural ones. They do not have to be anthropomorphic although they almost always are. So be clever if it makes you happy, that's the only thing atheists are good at. I could pull out numerous other quotes where Einstein explicitly rejects the atheist tag because of what he perceives as irrational rationalism.
bellydweller 7 months ago
@bellydweller Well thank you for appreciating it :D i know many on YouTube don't, so i salute you for that
TheRationalist76 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bill Maher is stupid. God is not a man, but a spirit.
organicsunhealth 9 months ago
Religion equals mambo jambo magical thinking
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
It's the crockaduck! I love that tie!
Baldingchimp 1 year ago
@neko2808 y r u trying to start a fight with a kid over the Internet do u have nothing better to do?
commake 1 year ago
Love that remark about Sarah Palin! Couldn't agree more!
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
Well a day for god is actually a lot longer so before you criticize the bible read it ASSHOLE
commake 1 year ago
@commake Your right! Everyone should READ the bible. Nothing can make someone an atheist quicker than reading that particular piece of fiction.
johnedwards1968 1 year ago
@johnedwards1968 It's people like you that give atheists a bad name, why can't you just have your opinion and stfu about it
commake 1 year ago
@commake " why can't you just have your opinion and stfu about it"???
Really? Are you going to say the same thing about Christians? Just close the church doors and shut up about it?
All of done is encourage people to read your so-called Holy Book. You should be thanking me, instead of being afraid exposed as a fraud.
A hypocritical Christian? LOL Who would have guessed!
johnedwards1968 1 year ago
@commake Did YOU read the bible? I don't think so, because anybody with a brain who reads the bible wakes up and realizes that it contains nothing but crap. The main problem is that Christians do NOT read their fucking bible and talk a lot about it without even knowing anything about the shit written in it.
neko2808 1 year ago 10
The ' 1 GOD MORE TUNE ' type it in the search and have a listen or shut the F... front door!
kansaimagic 1 year ago
hmm..... I don't think taking that attitude will help the atheist cause in america
aslglados 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a pompous jerk, like being a atheist is something to be proud of. Like that is a sign of intelligens. Relgion, spirituality is a emotional and soul seeking metaphysic process that is special for every human.
So Dawkins, you want to kill the semitic god, and he thinks that science is going to fill the void. Or as liberal leftist, UN hugger as Maher, he probably prefer decandence, consumerism, , media crap culture instead of things as religion.
I myself is a agnostic.
Carpediem8110101 1 year ago
The Nazis also accepted the theory of gravity (Newton's, not Einstein's at least not at first), thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism....etc. So if you think that just because the Nazis accepted a theory that theory is automatically wrong, throw your pc out of the window and go live in the woods you retarded, knuckle dragging caveman
ahmedeox 1 year ago 19
@ahmedeox -X-cellent point. I wait for the day the religious sects of this nation go after the theory of gravity; it is afterall only a theory y'know ; )
qland 1 year ago
Rest in the Bible does not mean rest in the sense you would think, it means to simply cease to do. So God stoped.
tgamerlegend 1 year ago
@tgamerlegend He "stoped"? Are you serious? He "stoped"? If you can't spell the word "stopped" it doesn't add much weight to your cause...
hmspinaforethisisspa 1 year ago
EPIC!
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
I want Dawkins' tie. Just to hang it on my wall or something. I dunno. I just want it!
mornmeril 1 year ago
@mornmeril Heh, crocoduck tie :D
clvezlys 1 year ago
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested. He didn't rest because He was tired He rested because He was finished. I wouldn't want to be any of those men on judgement day. Jesus Christ is coming soon and I'm glad He is. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Roberthurz 1 year ago
@Roberthurz do you have any evidence outside of the bible?
rapeutical 1 year ago
@Roberthurz Its too bad your dedicating your life to a compilation of childrens stories used to teach kids lessons in lifem followed by the writings of several deranged men. Do you believe in Thomas The steam Engine as well?
flamablesteve 1 year ago 5
The wisest man to of ever lived, lived some 2000 years ago in and around the region of what we call today, modern Israel. He was so wise that history has never forgotten him. All he did was tell the truth and they tortured him and nailed him to a wooden stake. People are free to believe what they want but why do you persecute those who`s beliefs differ from your own?
1WhoSeeks 1 year ago
@1WhoSeeks Ask the Christians, they should know. He also condemned a fig tree because it didn't produce fruit and spat in the eyes of blind people.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@1WhoSeeks "why do you persecute those who's beliefs differ from your own?"
I think that's a question for the religious, not the irreligious. Overall, it is the religious people who do the persecuting.
ALSO, atheists (such as Dawkins) who argue against your beliefs are not persecuting - they are simply saying religious people are wrong. You have the freedom to believe what you want, not the freedom to have your beliefs respected if they are wrong.
KaraBear567 1 year ago
The fact that religious nuts bring up social Dawinism, and Nazis, and Communism shows that they do not have an argument against evolution by natural selection. Evolution was happening billions of years before Darwin was born, and will be happening long after we have all gone. The case for it could not be any more obvious.
chansetwo 1 year ago
@chansetwo Neither do they know Darwin didn't invent the theory of evolution.
HybridD91 1 year ago
STFU fag
Nopalesasados 2 years ago
haha Einstein on one hand Sarah Palin on the other hand lmao
buddhika216 2 years ago
I hate the clapping fuckers on that show.
gavbag1234 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
search Miracle of Design in the Cell 4 videos to help you realize that there HAS to be intelligent design
majorl31 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
DO ME!!!!!!!
anetchi 2 years ago
this is too stupid to read
quathar 2 years ago 4
Dawkins and Maher should have a tv show together, something on tv worth watching
JIMITAPP 2 years ago 103
@JIMITAPP fuck ye
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
@JIMITAPP Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher comes to your television screen this fall in their own spinoff...watch as they chase down and capture criminals this fall...be prepared to be blown away as they slay vampires in the dead of night this fall...Dawkins and Maher team up in "Rights" this fall...
Looks like this show will be
*puts on shades*
Religulous
YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
degillin 9 months ago
@JIMITAPP that is a sitcom that i would watch
1991rayder 5 months ago
Comment removed
erich10001 2 years ago
ok back to real life
erich10001 2 years ago
No what I'm saying is you are simply quote mining, looking through literature to find a part of a quote that supports your argument or in this case discredits an author.
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
read the book than im not waisting time with you
erich10001 2 years ago
What book? On the origin of species? I have read it, some of the explanations we have found through science haven't always been the prettiest thing but its reality wither you like it or not.
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
'descent of man' , ya and the holocaust was real too, and the extermination of the native americans, and eugenics--darwins cousin
erich10001 2 years ago
i suppose darwinism has caused suffering, and not just religion
erich10001 2 years ago
Hmm descent of man still doesn't have anything to do with on the origin of species. The holocaust was not motivated by darwin's theory and the genocide of the native americans happened well before darwin even wrote the book. His theories don't teach that we should kill off different races,species,etc... I can't believe bullshit like this can be believed by someone such as yourself.
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
nah he said the extermination of the indians was a goodd thing---read some hitler, he was wiping out a sub race and then read more darwin all i can tell ya, sorry for being pollitically incorrect, read some darwin and hitler and figure some stuff out and throw in darwins cousin who invented the idea of eugenics, thats all i can say--but if ya dont like something i suppose you dont have to look at facts, their not pretty
erich10001 2 years ago
Wait what? Do you think that this is some sort of plan to kill off people? ITS A FUCKING SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
nope just stateing facts, mabey everything has no meaning, you ever think of that? dawkins and darwin the same guy? and mabey i will read some dawkin then marx and then remember oh darwin advocated genocide just a fast fact, and mabey a little hiter oh so did he just following some darwin, but hey not evrything has to be part of a great plan just some facts
erich10001 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have wasted my time with you.
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
as have i, with you. another you tube moment
erich10001 2 years ago
ok, after reading a few more of your insane ramblings i see you have no idea what you are talking about. you've clearly never read any of darwins works, you merely copy/paste dishonestly mined quotes.
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago
have a german film up called victims of the past thats from Darwin
erich10001 2 years ago
well they go off Darwin
erich10001 2 years ago
Omg the Nazis accepted evolutionary science - so what? So does everyone. So did Churchill and Roosevelt. Anyone with a little knowledge on biology understands and accepts evolution. What's your point?
frellthat 2 years ago 78
@frellthat Nazis accepted Jesus but don't tell the fundies that.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@frellthat They mixed it with mythology and shit though, so it wasn't pure science.
Militarized 1 year ago
@frellthat lol its like saying Omg the Nazis believe the world is round! That must mean it is automatically wrong, anti-Christian, communist, islamic and black.
XerxesOmicron 1 year ago
@frellthat And nazis interpreted evolution as "the strongest, the better", and that's false... truth is "the more adapted, the better" in any aspect (streanght, intelligence, camouflage, speed, coordination, etc)
GABOBO1991 1 year ago
Comment removed
AxeHomeless 6 months ago
@frellthat
Actually they did not:
youtu . be / iyYwo7X4zck
AxeHomeless 6 months ago
just saying hitler was just following the conclusions of darwin to the best of his abillity unill at the end of the war he said 't'he russian peoples of the east won this struggle of natural selection' and 'the german people deserve to die because its natural'. so reading a little darwin i suppose it was all natural just some fast facts
erich10001 2 years ago
jeesus that was garbelled oh wel i never said i could spell well i, always fullble a few cyllibie
erich10001 2 years ago
Well, you are wrong about something. Hitler did believe in some social darwinian theory, but he did misunderstand Darwin. He wanted to keep the Arien race pure by killing the unpure. This is not to improve the human by artificial selection but some religious pseudo-science.
therrydicule 2 years ago 3
@therrydicule like selective breeding or Eugenics, a science founded by darwins cousin . think you misunderstand social darwinism vs darwinism.
erich10001 2 years ago
Selective breeding is not Darwin evolution at all, and have nothing to do with Darwin. Some plant have been selected for 3000 years, this does include the Banana, probably a good part of your breakfast and grass. Applied to human, it been done since Sparta and it is still done in USA by economics and cost ''control''.
The same with social darwinism, it is not linked in any freaking way to Darwin. It's Herbert Spencer the responsible.
therrydicule 2 years ago 3
@therrydicule
erich10001 2 years ago
@therrydicule oh the nazis wernt for rich people so its not social darwinism. and wiping out the retarded and what they considered weaker lifforms is more biological darwinism. modern eugenics was a creation of Darwins cousin but nazis practiced both. nazis were just wiping out savages like darwin talks alot about
erich10001 2 years ago
I will advocated a no relation in academic contest. Evolution is natural selection as a way of adaptation to the natural environment. Eugenism is based on artificial selection for social ideal, often based upon idea of racial supremacy (as in Nazi) or principle of purity and/or elitism (as in Wang Zhizhi).
In fact, if you ask a blood test to your partner,seeking genetic diseases and genetic incompatibilities, it is eugenism.'Darwinism' is only to screw her for her beauty.
therrydicule 2 years ago 2
how can you call eugenics "darwins cousin" when eugenics has been known and used well well before darwins time?
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago
darwins cousin came up with eugenics---his cousin
erich10001 2 years ago
Sir Francis Galton in 1883 first came up with the term Eugenics---yes he was Darwins cousin
erich10001 2 years ago
so he coined the name, but selected breeding goes back thousands of years...
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago 4
Stop butchering logic.
quathar 2 years ago 3
like you say its not always pretty
erich10001 2 years ago
Yeah, but it by no means makes you a bad person for it. Read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins and learn about some info on why species help each other out to benefit collectively.
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
so anyway give me the smoking gun of evolution-- because the fish growing legs because it wants on land is about as resonable as a dude in space making earth--the science community has nevr seen a fish grow legs cause it desire it or to adapt--
erich10001 2 years ago
Ever heard of amphibians?
tarrin4ever 2 years ago
frogsssssss----and i suppose they willed themselves to evolve to something greater if they liked--so according to Darwin if you introduced a bunch of frogs to a harsh enviroment they would adapt to it-- so a frog would grow fur to survive if it were too cold--amphibians, are born in water and live on land as adults its part of their life cycle--its not evolving , if it were the question would be solved because we would say hey, we watch this thing evolve, from a baby to an adult
erich10001 2 years ago
Willed, no. But any fish that found it's way even a couple feet inland were safe from other aquatic predators. And given access to a previously untapped food supply in the form of the plants and tinier bugs.
As for exposing frogs to harsh environments, well... they'd probably just die. Unless through diversity there already happened to be a furred frog, in which case it would thrive and become the dominant species of frog.
Heh, lo and behold, the first small mammal is born!
tarrin4ever 2 years ago
mabey so but, you ever find a that did that? threw away its gills for better food--speculatoin - or mabey the preditors commited genocide against this hopefull fish- i dont know i didint see it or perhaps a man in a cloud saved the fish from the genocidal superior fish with majic and then it got its lungs, food, and legs--happy fish- wish i could have seen that
erich10001 2 years ago
a fish-----------missing word
erich10001 2 years ago
Tiktaalik roseae.
tarrin4ever 2 years ago
yeah did you see it evolve or did they find it like that? you tell me your the expert i was saying darwin advocates genocide , which he does. And darwin was pointing out missing links everywhere, such as the 'negro' in his words and such
erich10001 2 years ago
How did Darwin advocate genocide?
And Darwin using the word "negro", what is bad about that?
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. " C. Darwin
erich10001 2 years ago
It existed in a time in history specifically before land based animals, and after many very old fish species disappeared.
A fish on the verge of developing limbs, was that not the very thing you were asking about?
I don't think he actually "advocates" genocide. Rather, it sounded more like a prediction based on the current trends of his time. You'll have to point out where he specifically "advocates" it.
tarrin4ever 2 years ago
well he states , 'we can only hope', and you should just read the book for more statements, so id assume he means he hopes
erich10001 2 years ago
We can only hope... what? That's not much of a quote.
What did the rest of the sentence say?
tarrin4ever 2 years ago
you can read my quotes ive allready put up the charichter count is to high but they are both connected to the same page, i would suggest you read the book if you want more info ill talk later i have to go to work---but im not saying you are wrong, with what you have said
erich10001 2 years ago
Perhaps a page number will suffice. So I may see for myself just what he meant by "'we can only hope".
Frankly, I'm thinking they're completely separate quotes.
Btw, no other comments on the fish?
tarrin4ever 2 years ago
look at page numbers Page - 642-643
Darwin, on the future of Negroes and Australian Aborigines- or do something insane and read the whole book too, im not trying to change your mind, go get your own knowledge------------you tube takes too much time to repeat yourself over and over again page numbers are listed in previouse quotes, and i have better things to do---whats a fish have to do with genocide? anyway i got better things to do im done waisting my time--back to the real world.
erich10001 2 years ago
I think i found the site where you got that info. Was it an article called
Darwin And The Origin Of .The Racist?
Not a very biased source. I've only come to this conclusion because you listed the wrong page numbers.
What you were actually looking for was Page - 200-201
Now, as we both understand the limit of comment size, I shall send you a link to the quote in it's full context.
tarrin4ever 2 years ago
Err sorry, wasn't complete.
Page 200-201 of The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin.
Those watching at home, I'll gladly share the link I sent to erich if anyone asks.
Btw, the original topic of our comments was on the "fish". You changed it to genocide when you ran out of points to be made against fish evolution.
tarrin4ever 2 years ago
Comment removed
erich10001 2 years ago
for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla-continued
erich10001 2 years ago
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene---
erich10001 2 years ago
between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla --end quote
erich10001 2 years ago
hey i got a nazi film on evolution for you to show their veiw as well
erich10001 2 years ago
Judging by this, you have a huge misconception of what evolution really is.
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla C. Darwin--these are quotes from his book Decent Of Man" shall i get more quotes ive allready stated these below.
erich10001 2 years ago
Great quote mining there, please post the rest.
I take it you pulled that off of a site that attempts to discredit Darwin? (Which still doesn't touch evolution)
If Newton was a pedophile or a racist would it make his work invalid? Of course not, why should it be any different for Darwin?
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
nah i posted the rest if you read and i took it out of darwin as i stated jeeze
erich10001 2 years ago
shall i post the whole chapter of the book?
erich10001 2 years ago
Bit of an overreaction there.
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
just stating facts.. well if you dont like them you could say they dont exist i suppose, thought you read Darwin since your teaching me about him
erich10001 2 years ago
Comment removed
erich10001 2 years ago
Learn the scientific method and dont make false statements when talking about facts or your theories---you just have som complex about religion
erich10001 2 years ago
Wow, it seems that you have some issues with religion...arguing that creationist stories are inaccurate does not mean a person has issues with religion, just that part of it. There are scientists who follow religions and believe in evolution simultaneously!!
Soninha1982 2 years ago
im saying religion has as much credence as Evolution, its all speculation, tell me when you see something evolve or invent a time machine to prove your theory.. and your right how do you know god didint create a frog and give it properties to evolve and leave earth alone after that , you dont, you dont know if things do evolve and adapting is different then evolving
erich10001 2 years ago
You believe that creationism 10000 years ago is as "speculative" as evolution?Obviously there are 'missing links' in evolution, archaeologists recently found what is believed to be our ancient ancestor.The likelihood that we will find fossils of all the form that humans evolved from is unlikely given the conditions of earth & the millions of years."Missing links" in history don't prevent us from piecing together what remains from ancient civilizations &drawing conclusions.
Soninha1982 2 years ago
as you say not all religions belive it was 10000 years ago, and like you say not all evolutionists agree that these fossiles are compleatly cedible. and not all scientist belive things evolve, obviously that anything that is extinct couldent evolve to save itself, why is the chimpanzee still here if it evolved- and if more evolved humans wiped these sub human cultures out --where did the humans evolve from so you dont know its whats known as a theory an educated gusse-
erich10001 2 years ago
credible oops typo
erich10001 2 years ago
i must be part of a 'savage' race as darwin calls it, i cant spell, im german not english im a barbarian
erich10001 2 years ago
i suppose muslims and christains follow the same beliefs because they are both creationists?
erich10001 2 years ago
Firstly, you are restating what I already established earlier on: that evolution is a theory, I'm not denying that. What you seem to be unwilling to accept is that it is the most accepted theory. The Judeo-Christian (and Muslim) creation story of Adam and Eve is the same for all 3 religions, so yes, they are creationist religions (i.e. they have a creation story). But Pope John Paul II said evidence of evolution can't be denied. Many followers of those religions view creationism as a metaphor.
Soninha1982 2 years ago
some religions belive that adam and eve came after the extinction of the dinosaurs,and all that, and the earth was here long before adam and eve making the age of earth as you stated not accurate for all religions---right and if you think creationism is a metaphore you would belive in a god anyway to create the evolving animals
but im not catholic and dont belive in a pagan guy who wears a fish head dress
erich10001 2 years ago
its still all speculation---and then you have to go to before the earth existed in this area of space to figure out where that came from-something we wont know untill captain kirk travels through time and finds out
erich10001 2 years ago
and also can you tell me any ideas how the matter that makes up these evolving animals was created out of nothing in the first place? or the matter that makes up a planet or the matter that exploded that created the big bang--no one will ever know except that it is here now this is all we know
erich10001 2 years ago
So, what?
bahramf 2 years ago
So since we do not know (and likely will never know) how the universe was created, we should not investigate and develop PLAUSIBLE explanations using what technology we do have at our disposal? Through your attempt to "discredit" evolution (which you don't succeed in doing), you do not make religion "right". The absence of proof to the contrary doesn't make it true. There are several theories about how the Big Bang started. Some philosophical, others scientific.
Soninha1982 2 years ago
im not discrediting it, just stating plain facts that Darwin and such advocated genocide-and why is discrediting so important to you which you fail to do--one thing is for certain charles darwin advocates genocide
erich10001 2 years ago
i mean to say why is discrediting religion which you dont belive so important to you
erich10001 2 years ago
You are asking for a burden of proof for things which are impossible to prove using that standard. It is a simplistic argument to say that since no one was around to witness evolution, it can't be considered. It's not a theory based on nothing. If all you believe is what is perceived through observation, you have a narrow understanding of the world. Even the sciences rely on other means. I'm done discussing with you: have a good life!
Soninha1982 2 years ago 2
you cant say somethings a fact unless you have a smoking gun in science,, ya have a good one-glad your done-- last word Darwin was into genocide
erich10001 2 years ago
what a cutey
erich10001 2 years ago
Comment removed
erich10001 2 years ago
ever hear of the scientific method, when something becomes a fact? these are all theories you were not there when man came into being and neither i. and you cannot tell me that something is fact when you were not there to see it do you know why, because i dont know, and you dont possess mental powers i do not.
like he sais
erich10001 2 years ago
Right, so because Darwin didn't live for thousands of years to witness species evolving the theory must be discredited? All he is saying is that evolution is the most credible theory and that creationism as it is in the bible is not. Carbon dating supports the theory that the earth is millions of years old, not thousands. I do not claim that evolution is a fact - the use of the word "theory" makes that clear. However, it is still the most reasonable explanation over creationism.
Soninha1982 2 years ago
just saying Bill Maher should read darwin and in religioluse he points out that religiouse leaders cause so many problems over time--an evolutionist never caused problems except that thing between 39-45
erich10001 2 years ago
The point Maher is trying to make is that there is evidence that supports evolution - scientific evidence that continues to be credited. The racist notions of WW2 have been discredited by modern science. The fact that the Earth is not 10,000 years old has long been supported by scientific evidence and continues to be. That is the difference.
Soninha1982 2 years ago
not racist notions of ww2 it was the notions of Darwin, the creator of that theory--and the notions in ww2 could be based on this mans work Charles Darwin anyway i made a video explains it all to you
erich10001 2 years ago
So what is your "beef" - that they reference Darwin, or that they support evolution (which was supported by Darwin?) Do all of Darwin's theories have to be rejected because of his racist notions which have now been proven false, even though his evolutionary theories have not been proven so, but in fact have been further supported?
Soninha1982 2 years ago