Why can't American journalism be more neutral like British journalism? Over here, reporting has either an obvious liberal slant or an obvious conservative slant.
I'm so glad I have been born in an Atheist family. I can't imagine what I'd be like if I was a Christian (or any other religion). The truth is beautiful.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
British news reporting is so much better than in America, it acknowledges the need for neutrality in reporting. Notice when Dawkins asked if he was an atheist he said "I'm the interviewer not the [interviewee]".
Not like Fox news where Bill O'reilly tries to tell him about the tides.
Man used to think that the sunrise was down to some god. Now we know it's because the earth revolves around the moon. man used the concept of a god to help them until they knew the truth.
There was tv programme on tv in the uk where a tribe chief from Africa was brought to st Pauls cathedral and he could not comprehend how it was built so he insisted god built it. In this sense I think religion is a defence mechanism. You seem like an athiest like myself. How would you describe the presence of religion in our evolution.
Religion is important in our evolution.it's a defence mechanism to help us in so many ways. but one day it will be extinct in humans. But maybe other animals might use religion to help explain things they don't understand and help with their day to day life.
@a1974h Maybe it served no real purpose and it was parasitic upon other useful behaviours like 'always listen to things that are bigger than you' (because they are likely your parents). Or 'do what the big apes tell you to do' because they might have violent consequence.
I fail to see religion as a defence mechanism, or any kind of useful explanation to anything.
It's just a control mechanism used to take advantage of those that are less fortunate in mind and physical dominance.
"Agnosticism is knowing that your knowledge is limited, theism and atheism is ignorance and pretense of knowledge for adolescent wanks."
What an idiot lol.
Atheism, for your information, is the lack of belief in the existence of a god(s). It's not, as commonly thought, the positive assertion in the non-existence of god. There is nothing 'arrogant' about atheism.
I wish people would just think of it less like "only the strong survive", which leads to extreme examples like eugenics and so called darwinian economics, etc, and people looked at natural selection in a way that rewards efficiency, not strength.
Evolution will become an intelligent design process once humans start to take control over it through technology Although "intelligent" can be disputed.
Richard is a great reporter. He reports on scientist's findings. These things aren't disputable. They're not opinions. It's all factual. Why some people have a problem with that is completely irrational.
How is it that I (someone who is completely daft about these things) can understand him when he talks about things like genetics, but theists hear him and seem to block out most of what he says? I am an atheist, and believe in the pursuit of science, but I'm not in the slightest bit scientifically minded.
"... but theists hear him and seem to block out most of what he says?"
It's because most theists understand that their god only lives in the limits of their knowledge. For instance, things like rain, the seasons, thunder, lightning, etc. were all attributed to gods and mythology at one point. As those things were explained the gods were not needed anymore. So, the theists wants to keep the area where his god can live as big as possible.
We live in a Darwinian world society. Altruism of small inter-dependent closely related groups can then over many generations produce individuals who care about other lifeforms. The instinct or behavior of caring for others doesn't limit it's expression towards other things. Example, the caring nature of some individuals drives them to care for other creatures such as pets which confers no survival advantage or increase in the probability of passing one's genes.
Well, if only big words and eloquence equated to wisdom then we would not have witnessed two idiots pontificating upon matters of which they clearly know fuck all about. I mean: “every twenty million years”...... have a think about it!
@newagemisfit so the genius minds of the world that give us many facets of science are idiots. Your lack of understanding does not make something untrue- shush and listen
@mompm Thank you for that! Actually I do listen and wish you would too, instead of just nodding your head in the mistaken belief that your sycophantic allegiance to those you suck up to somehow makes you intelligent. I doesn’t! So stop doing it and start thinking and when you have thought of something worth saying let me know. Until then fuck off!
@newagemisfit the ones head nodding heads are in churches and mosques and sinagoges and prayer mats. What is it you think I should think of? And belief modern science makes me a suck up- what's running your computer right now?.. leprachans? Why do educated people piss you off so much?
@mompm I agree the church and religion is corrupted and misleads the masses with misinterpretation /omission from Holy Scripture. Please think of what ever you want to but please think. Education - what’s this sound a bit like believing what the last person told you to believe.
@mompm It would depend on what you mean by belief in modern science as to whether this belief would make you a suck up, because much of modern science is unproven and contested within its realm and what is proven does not necessarily conflict with other doctrines which you freely dismiss/disparage.
@mompm On your channel you talk of people being veiled to the truth do you not realise the irony you have quoted Scipture. You talk of belief as though you mean faith you sound like a follower, a disciple of secular knowledge of subjective truth. Do you pray to Guru Dawkins?
1, The premise of my original comment was quite simple; it posed a question (given that experts agree the human brain was extensively underused), as to whether this condition is contrary to the fundamental system of advancement of species, that is essential to the concepts of both natural selection and evolution. The figure used for average use of the human brain was 1-10% of capacity, suggesting, 90-99% unused capacity.
2,You have contested the validity of the question, your basis for doing this is that the figure of 1-10% was incorrect; you have asserted that this new information ‘deconstructed’ the original premise of the comment and its question. You suggested I look to the many articles that exist on the internet to substantiate your contradiction. I followed this advice.
3, There exists a considerable amount of information on the internet advocating in simple terms that: ‘The commonly held belief that human’s use only 10% of the brain is in fact an urban myth.’ However, it must be said, this plethora of information appears to be largely conjectural and implicitly simplistic and ambiguous, most importantly without reference to any specific research.
- To discharge the sources you read dispelling the 10 % myth (lets address it as such) as conjecture, simplistic and ambiguous shows a lack of research rigour. Surely an intellectually accurate conclusion is to go in search of sources that are not superficial and do in fact have a more robust scientific basis rather than using weak findings as a basis for rebuttal...I mean come on, to do this is silly.
4, It seems that science is eager to refute this belief, and establish it as myth, but the best evidence produced to counter this ‘myth’ is that tests on the human brain have indicated activity across the entirety of the brain. However, this is not really the same as saying humans need all of the brain for normal existence or saying that the brain cannot do any more than is required for normal existence. The Dormant Brain Research Centre says:
@newagemisfit PART 2 "It seems that science is eager to refute this belief, and establish it as myth, but the best evidence produced to counter this ‘myth’ is that tests on the human brain have indicated activity across the entirety of the brain."
- the best evidence produced, or the best you could find or perhaps are willing to accept ?...come on, you must be aware that this assertion has no merit.
- 'normal existence', of course full brain function and ability is not required for this !
5,“The point is this: There is no dispute amongst honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folksay was correct ‘The human brain is only 10% functional’ John Eccles thinks that number is too high:” “How can you calculate a percentage of infinity?”
@newagemisfit PART 3 ",“The point is this: There is no dispute amongst honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folksay was correct ‘The human brain is only 10% functional"
- be honest with yourself, can you not see the poetic, philosophical and contextual basis for this statement ?
6, The Centre explains why some experts seek to dispel the 10% rule: “It’s the old; I know more than you game. It’s an ego thing. It’s the old you are stupid and I am smart by comparison. Skeptics love telling people that they are wrong, it makes them feel superior. It is a sin of omission as often as not. Such people making this contrary statement do not really let us know the full story.” This would explain comments like “your ignorance is on display”.
7, It is known that the human brain contains billions of cells, but it is not known how many of these are required for normal or even advanced human activity. However, validity of the original question rests not on determining an exact amount of brain cell use, but rather on whether all brain cells are used and whether potential for further development and use exists. It seems that, it is rational to say that all brain cells are not used and there is considerable potential for use.
I cannot accept that you believe this to be a justifiable basis for an explanation of 10% denial, by myself or anyone else. I would never offer such weak reasoning.
(ref. your part 7)
validity of your original premise cannot be linked to this, the two are talking of different things, of course not all cells are used, but the overall brain usage is much higher than your premise, none of which disagrees with your correct final sentence !
8, We know that it is possible to develop muscle and increase muscle capacity, but this does not conflict with the evolution theory, because it is possible, even probable, that earlier humans were more physically active, and that modern subsistence has a reduced in humans, the need for physical strength.
9, The brain is quite different, as it comes with a predetermined amount of brain cells that cannot increase in number or capacity, so the brain does not get bigger by exercising it through thinking more, instead new cells become active as and when required.
10, The only explanation consistent to the concept of natural selection and evolution, given that early humans were more physically active, is that earlier humans once used all of their brain capacity and have since regressed in intelligence. Though it seems unlikely that of proponents of evolution would agree to this
@newagemisfit "The only explanation consistent to the concept of natural selection and evolution, given that early humans were more physically active, is that earlier humans once used all of their brain capacity and have since regressed in intelligence. Though it seems unlikely that of proponents of evolution would agree to this"
@nordhorny B, Thus allowing for increasingly less active, less intelligent offspring to inherit an increasingly inactive brain. Because, proponents of E&NS do not claim this as an explanation, preferring instead to espouse that the human brain is at the very pinnacle of millions of years of natural design. Then by simple reason, there exists a contradiction in the theories of E&NS. By saying: ‘Do I really need to explain why’; it's clear that you have still not understood the point.
@nordhorny A, In part 10, I concluded parts 1-9 by outlining the conundrum of contradiction in the theory that the human brain developed through a process of E&NS. To explain the existence of massive unused brain potential in modern humans, proponents of E&NS, would have to accept that an earlier version of human had reached a higher stage of brain development, either through higher levels of physical activity or higher levels of intelligence.
@nordhorny You run away, yet turn to throw stones, you clearly know your position is indefensible, but you cannot concede, clearly what’s more important to you than truth, is the belief that you are a part of a secular existence. The theory of evolution can only be accepted by an unquestioning mind, and that’s precisely the way it’s meant to be. No doubt, you would have read ‘The Earliest Englishman’ convinced by the phony fossil skull of ‘Piltdown Man’.
@newagemisfit I am not even going to entertain you with a response to that nonsense...climb back onboard the mature and reasoned stage or simply cease sending anything.
@nordhorny And final comment from me, unless you can provide some real evidence to substantiate the premise of your original assertion i.e. that the existing human brain has no latent potential for further use.
@nordhorny Well, if you state that a vessel is not less than one tenth full, then you have stated that the vessel is either, one tenth full, more than one tenth full, or full (that’s called logic).
@newagemisfit Come on now, can you not use your own analogy to see that your stated claim to the premise I used is inaccurate !? I must point out the paradoxical irony in being able to use an analogy that accurately interprets my position, yet fail to see that your previous remark was not the same as the analogy (I helped you out there to see where you have gone wrong).
@nordhorny Only one comment ago there was no premise to your original comment, now it seems there is! You must have copied, pasted and written hundreds of words and your position, apart from protesting mine to be wrong is a complete mystery, as I suspect it is to you too. It is very clear that you have neither the evidence to substantiate nor the knowledge to clarify your original assertion and now regret posting it.
@newagemisfit With respect, you seem not to be able to follow this as it progresses, read my comment again andhopefully this time you will see why you are wrong still further in what you state. I remind you also that as you made the premise and I challenged it, the onus is on you to back it up.
To be clear and help you through your evident confusion, I have not made any premise.
@nordhorny 3, This statement is from a research report: ‘Dormancy of the Human Brain’ by the Dormant Brain Research and Development Laboratory, it clearly corroborates what I said in my first comment, and disputes the very myth upon which your original statement relies. Sir John Eccles has won the Nobel Prize for research on the human brain. You are now compelled to concede, as not only your ignorance, but your arrogance is on display.
@nordhorny 2, “There is no dispute amongst honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folksay was correct ‘The human brain is only 10% functional’ John Eccles thinks that number is too high: “How can you calculate a percentage of infinity?”
@nordhorny 1, No! The premise that I used in relation to human brain use, was and I quote: “neurologists are agreed that only a fraction (1-10% of the human brain is actually used”. You dismissed this as being a myth and attempted to ridicule me in a very condescending way. Instead of offering information to correct the situation you demanded I provide evidence in support of what I said; I provided you with the following statement:
@nordhorny You are doing what every know-it-all person does when confronted with the evidence they’re wrong. You’re attempting to steer the gist of the disagreement into new safer territory. Inevitably this tactic will use a superior approach and purport some relevance to the original contention; the purpose; to blur the distinction between issues. It’s an undignified, hapless ploy and only ever results in greater humiliation. In simple terms stop digging yourself into a hole!
@nordhorny Well, I think if you had some evidence you would have produced it by now! Instead you continue with this odd pretence that your opinion on the workings of the human brain has greater credence than that of a Nobel Prize winner! But apparently this is a secret that you cannot disclose. Yes I am sticking to my original premise and have provided ample evidence to justify me to do so. Take care ;o)
1, As, I have said, I haven’t claimed to know exactly how the brain works and have merely cited that neurologists agree that the human brain functions at less than 10% of its potential, and suggested this seemed to be inconsistent with the concept of evolution. However, you may be interested to know that another aspect of the human brain has caused at least one neurologist to question evolution.
@newagemisfit New subjects raised can be interesting but we have not resolved your original point about brain usage conflicting with evolution ! Do a little research into brain usage and you will conclude my gripe !
@nordhorny 2, If we accept evolution, then we must accept that every creature is of ultimate design, as it is the end product of its own innate design process. It is not possible to argue that the human brain does not contain dormant tissue, because we know that large areas of the brain can be removed or destroyed by disease with no noticeable loss of intelligence. So why would human beings develop dormant brain capacity.
@nordhorny 1, OK. In my first comment, I quoted Richard Dawkins. I then stated that there is expert agreement that human brain function is about 1-10% of capacity. I then asked the question: ‘so why evolve dormant tissue’ and said something humorous (I thought so) about giraffes. Now, if you can point out exactly what it is I have said that is incorrect, perhaps I can answer you.
@newagemisfit PART 1 The point being that the brain usage is far higher than 10 % ! This fact deconstructs your premise (I said do research into that fact, rather than citing that scientist).
Now you have introduced even more incorrect information....
"If we accept evolution, then we must accept that every creature is of ultimate design"
NO
""because we know that large areas of the brain can be removed or destroyed by disease with no noticeable loss of intelligence"
Yes, but intellect is far from the only function of the brain which deconstructs yet another premise, this one...
"So why would human beings develop dormant brain capacity."
Now I have said already, don't introduce new staements until the original point is resolved ! After that, I am happy to discuss why your further points are incorrect...
@nordhorny I have tried to be reasonable, but I think your real objective here is to demonstrate that you are very clever, resorting to ridicule and bragging about having a PHD in Zoology, as though I should somehow be impressed (I’m not your mother). I have explained myself in a way that anyone would understand; you however, have spouted a load of quasi intellectual nonsense, no doubt, because you have since discovered that your response to my initial comment was incorrect.
@newagemisfit Ignoring all that nonsense, are you wishing to resolve the original debate or not ?
Go and look up how much brain usage there is in reality and then conclude for yourself why I have contacted you in the first place ! Then, perhaps you will see that I have done nothing like what you have just asserted ! Now, go...really, read how much of the brain is used for yourself, you should then realise how and why your original premise about RD was unfounded !
@nordhorny When you say ‘look up’ what’s does this mean? Find anything in writing that supports your case I suppose. You appear very anxious to establish that the human brain is completely maxed-out. Is the reason for this that you a beginning see a flaw in the doctrine you have been programmed with? I’m aware there is evidence of activity across the entirety of the brain; however, this does not detract from the evidence of use being far less than capacity for use.
@newagemisfit Research, look online for the wording that backs up my point about brain usage, yes. I am not anxious, I merely want you to realise the error or your premise, that is all ! The rest of your comment is based upon further misconception, for the THIRD time, I am not addressing anything else until the ORIGINAL aspect is resolved....
@nordhorny Had a look-see on-line as suggested - couldn’t find any evidence to support your contention that the human brain is used to its maximum potential. So unless you can provide some real evidence to substantiate your position, you cannot continue to repudiate the relevance of a question as to how potential is created by evolution or by natural selection. I will happily wait, but, until you have evidence the debate is sterile.
@newagemisfit "couldn’t find any evidence to support your contention that the human brain is used to its maximum potential"
...I did NOT say that !
...moreover, what did you find in that huge ocean of information called the internet ? Could you not find a SINGLE piece that asked for what I state ? ...is it beyond you ? What DID I state ? 'that the human brain is utilised way beyond 10 %, this data is very easy to find online...30 seconds should bring it up !
@nordhorny Agreed there is much conjecture based information on the internet, but I am asking you to direct me to compelling evidence that the human brain is used, as you have implied to its maximum potential, that is all of the billions of brain cells are actively used on a regular basis and are essential to average human existence. I await with interest.
I said the brain is used far beyond 10%, thus deconstructing your premise. You are now emphasisng 'full usage' as if that was my claim, it was not. It seems clear why you would wish to do this (must I spell that out ?). You have clearly realised what I stated is correct (stop trying to shift the goal posts !).
Now, it is no big deal to say you have found what I state, is it ? Say so and lets move on, this is about learning, not point scoring...
@nordhorI think the amount is irrelevant…if you will accept there exists within the human brain a sizeable potential for further use, that is to say, the human brain has the means to do much more than the most advanced humans demand of it, then it’s reasonable to ask how this has come about and whether it is consistent with the concepts of evolution/natural selection.
@newagemisfit We can come to that, it is a separate matter from your original premise. This topic is not one that impacts upon the question regarding evolution and brain usage. Now, lets end the original debate !
2, Professor Frantisec Vyskocil of Charles University, Prague is a renowned neurophysiologist who because of his research on the human brain has converted from being an evolutionist to being a creationist.
3, “My doubts about evolution began when I was studying synapses. I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How’, I wondered ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense.’(Prof Frantisec Vyskocil)
4, Professor Frantisec Vyskocil went on to explain how bacteria can divide every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than 3 or 4 billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes has a very interesting take on the start and growth of religion. I recommend it to anyone who might be interested.
Professor Richard Dawkins just said: “natural selection/evolution has given us big brains”. That’s interesting, because neurologists are agreed that only a fraction (1 – 10%) of the human brain is actually used. So why evolve dormant tissue? I mean, you would expect giraffe’s neck to stop evolving when the giraffe was as tall as the tallest tree - not ten times taller!
@newagemisfit "Professor Richard Dawkins just said: “natural selection/evolution has given us big brains”. That’s interesting, because neurologists are agreed that only a fraction (1 – 10%) of the human brain is actually used. So why evolve dormant tissue? I mean, you would expect giraffe’s neck to stop evolving when the giraffe was as tall as the tallest tree - not ten times taller!"
That brain usage stat is an infamous myth, your comment is deconstructed and your ignorance on display.
@nordhorny Firstly, the measure of human brain activity against capacity is not truly a ‘statistic’; however, expressing an average of low use of potential would disprove evolution. Secondly, I did not say how much of the human brain is used, I stated: “neurologists are agreed only a fraction (1 – 10%) of the human brain is actually used.”
Thirdly, why don’t you produce some evidence to disprove that statement?
"Secondly, I did not say how much of the human brain is used, I stated: “neurologists are agreed only a fraction (1 – 10%) of the human brain is actually used.”
- your data was used to support your own claim that what RD stated was a contradiction, this usage is based upon false data, thus why I said your comment is deconstructed and your ignorance on display.
@nordhorny I believe the first person to state that the human brain functioned at less than 10% of its potential was Sir John Eccles AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS. He was a neurophysiologist who won a Nobel Prize for his work on the human brain. I do not claim to understand exactly how the brain works, but perhaps you do, given that you have a PHD in Zoology.
@newagemisfit Listen, my MO is to expose your remarks about Richard Dawkins as based upon a false premise, you have now admitted your ignorance regarding that premise, so that leads me to believe that you made the remark due to unjust prejudice ! ...and you have not addressed my rebuttal....
@newagemisfit Perhaps I could be charitable and let you off the exposure hook ?
...the human brain is used in its entirety, not simultaneously - each region has its function and is used accordingly when required. If latent regions were evident, natural selection would have selected against their lineage and they would no longer evolve. Conversely, those regions that are used intensely and are of evolutionary importance will continue to evolve in an upward manner.
@nordhorny Your basis for claiming that my original comment is groundless is that you claim to know more about the human brain than Sir John Eccles AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS. Well perhaps you do, after all you do have a PHD in Zoology.
@nordhorny My original comment related to Dawkin’s re: ‘evolving big brains’. I stated that neurologists agree the human brain operated at a fraction of its potential, and suggested that this fact is divergent from the basic concept of evolution. You dismissed my comment on the basis that the ‘data’ (10%) was ‘mythical’ and later demanded evidence for this. I provided evidence of a pre-eminent neurologist who espoused the human brain functioned at a fraction of its potential.
@newagemisfit My remark was on the basis of my knowledge that your stated reasoning was incorrect (the usage data) NOT as you subsequently asserted "Your basis for claiming that my original comment is groundless is that you claim to know more about the human brain than Sir John Eccles". THAT was why I said "explain how you could have arrived at such a ridiculous conclusion ?"
You have not provided evidence, just a reference...one that I suspect is either incorrect or out of context !
Evidence of God is too big to be seen Psalm 19:1-4 "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the words of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth their words to the ends of the world."
Isaiah 64:4
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate"
@kotkee it means you don't understand what you call that stupid book because if you did understand you would not call the book stupid,in that book its says wisdom is more valuable than silver or gold ,the pages of what you call that stupid book are full of wisdom
i have to remember that SOMEONE told me about God ... then again those same SOMEONES told me about Santa .... neither of them have ever made their presence know to me personally ... i was just told to believe or else id burn forever .... that's love i guess!!
Atleast there is something to cheer up about. Whenever religion has tried to clash with science ... It's religion that is revisited. Citations: earth is flat, disease is god's punishment, and universe was created in 6 days. Not many Christians believe that anymore. That's progress indeed.
@schuletrip, you write on your youtube channel: "we can never be taken seriously if we are identified with Nazis." Yours is a philosophy of exclusion in society, of difference and hierarchical superiority borne of racial stereotyping. I don't think Dawkins is on your side. God is on your side, however, no matter what you think, but would surely ask that you rethink your relationship to your fellow man. Our differences are to be celebrated. Our common humanity is worth cherishing.
@byScrooby i've never written anything like that on my channel, where did you find that.. i can't even find it and it's my channel? Nazism isn't my cup of tea! Anti religion and the debunking of religion is much better-I'm definitely not a nazi! I sort of agree with you, our common humanity is worth cherishing.. We are all the same genetically, our DNA is 98.6% the same asa chimp, the bonobo chimp is even closer to us! To think we were created or designed is a cop out-that's my point
@schuletrip "schuletrip's Groups(1)New European Nationalists! Description:
European patriots, Anti Islam, anti EU, Anti Marxism, Anti Communism, Anti Islamic Immigration, BNP Britain, PVV Holland...we can never be taken seriously if we are identified with Nazis. (more) (less) Tags: "New Nationalists" Europe Politics "Patriots Anti Islam"" You ask where I found this, well this is what everyone can read when they click your name link......?
@byScrooby yeah, i see your point-i didn't write any of that and i didn't make the group! But it does appear quite a harsh undertaking.. I am quite annoyed by enforced multiculturalism and more annoyed with mass immigration, but it was a short lived tirade and i realise there's little i can do.. I am though a keen atheist and i enjoy a few rants with the religious folk!
Dawkins is clever and a decidedly genial man; he is, however, incorrect. God is a scientific certainty and evolution from a common ancestor with apes is demonstrably false.
@TADGELL the falsehood of the evolution of man from common ancestors with apes is demonstrated in the book The Attempted Murder Of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know. It's freely available to order from any library in the world. I like Dawkins - and Stephen Hawking, who chimed in recently to declare the non-existence of God - Both happen to be incorrect. God is a scientific certainty and evolution from a common ancestor with apes is demonstrably false.
@byScrooby maybe you're confused about what scientific certainty means. it means proven by observation and evidence, and tested repreatedly to yield the same result. none of these points are the case pertaining to god, and all of the scientists i've ever heard speak on this topic say that the evidence for god is nil. you're mistaken about god existing my friend.
@TADGELL 'all of the scientists I've ever heard speak on this topic' - so your own scientific method is to listen to others and take it as Gospel. Not until you become the scientist in checking the facts for yourself - in borrowing the book from a library for instance and finding out what this is about - can you credibly lay claim to any measure of scientific certainty. You have 'heard' God does not exist, without knowing all the facts for yourself. Unwise, if I may say so.
I think this interview should be "text book" (or video!) when Fox news presenters are been trained to do their job...if you see Dawkins interview with O'Reilly, Dawkins didn't have a chance to expose his ideas and O'Reilly's questions were patronising...you can see the difference between an interview in the US and one in the UK!!!
smart people are atheists... thats so funny, how he is trying to manipulate people... so if i am believing in god, i am stupid... ok mr. dawkins i guess i guess i know who is stupid here
@Uensalhoodstar indeed, you are an idiot if you believe there is a god, religion is the opiate of the masses. The world would be a better place without it.
He didn't say that. Plenty of intelligent people are theists. The arch-bishop of canterbury for example is a very intellifent man. He said the majority of well-educated people are atheists which is undoubtedly true in the scientific community, even in the US.
@Lan5in6 why would you say that? whats wrong with my comment? judging by your comment i would say you dont respect other people... Dont call me stupid when you dont know me, my friend
@Uensalhoodstar why because your holy book says do not judge? I'll remind you that according to the new testament you should turn the other cheek. You're a moron now bend over and take it up the arse like a good christian (not literally sodomy in sinful)
@Lan5in6 ok first of all, who told you i am a christian? I AM NOT CHRISTIAN. Btw i am not judging about Mr. Dawkins, without listening to what he is saying, and he is indeed saying, that smart people do not believe in god, so thats a message that if we do believe in a god, we are not very smart. So you should read more carefully and not call other stupid.
I believe in both, but the way my physics Prof. explained it. I believe in evolution, but homo sapiens came about through alien (call it devine if you want) intervention and the only property implanted was the ability to reason and decide. And where do the aliens came from? - we dont know, like we also dont know with certainty the composition of the smallest building blocks of an atom or even what exactly is gravity - in short, there are many things we do not know, but they exist.
Dawkins is a baised peron. I think baised people are normally lairs because they will say anything to support their side or views. Therefore, i do not find him and alike credible at all. As for his work, there is nothing spectacular such as newton, eistein, louis pasteur, thomas edisson etc etc.
The father I wish I had :((( he is amazing.
Antdog5 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please everybody change the expreshion (OMG) to OMD .....oh my Dawin.......... its a start to change the language
thescroopy1 1 week ago
Why can't American journalism be more neutral like British journalism? Over here, reporting has either an obvious liberal slant or an obvious conservative slant.
carlsm95 2 weeks ago
**arguments in the comments
nateakadino 4 weeks ago
I wonder if YouTube arguments have bigger weight for influence than the videos themselves
nateakadino 4 weeks ago
I'm so glad I have been born in an Atheist family. I can't imagine what I'd be like if I was a Christian (or any other religion). The truth is beautiful.
ThePremize 2 months ago
@ThePremize Mate, it´s horrible, traumatic, deceitful, manipulative, abusive etc...(born in a christian family)
GATESCRC 1 week ago
ha ha ha look at me i got it all figured out!
people carrying signs saying "hooray for my side".
being very smart can trick one into being very stupid.
MisterBouncyBounce 2 months ago
@MisterBouncyBounce No scientist, least of all Dawkins, would ever claim to "have it all figured it out"
TheSobek 1 month ago
Get some bollocks Adam and admit your athiest.
dilwich123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Dawkins has apparently seen Idiocracy. 6:50
AngeCord 4 months ago 3
You forgot to mention,tobbaco kromosoms.that means we came from tobbaco hahaha
meyaxshavat 5 months ago
British news reporting is so much better than in America, it acknowledges the need for neutrality in reporting. Notice when Dawkins asked if he was an atheist he said "I'm the interviewer not the [interviewee]".
Not like Fox news where Bill O'reilly tries to tell him about the tides.
Yaarrr 5 months ago 17
Man used to think that the sunrise was down to some god. Now we know it's because the earth revolves around the moon. man used the concept of a god to help them until they knew the truth.
a1974h 6 months ago
@a1974h The Earth revolves around... the Sun. And on its own axis.
Thelordisgayandmerry 5 months ago
There was tv programme on tv in the uk where a tribe chief from Africa was brought to st Pauls cathedral and he could not comprehend how it was built so he insisted god built it. In this sense I think religion is a defence mechanism. You seem like an athiest like myself. How would you describe the presence of religion in our evolution.
a1974h 6 months ago
Religion is important in our evolution.it's a defence mechanism to help us in so many ways. but one day it will be extinct in humans. But maybe other animals might use religion to help explain things they don't understand and help with their day to day life.
a1974h 6 months ago
@a1974h Maybe it served no real purpose and it was parasitic upon other useful behaviours like 'always listen to things that are bigger than you' (because they are likely your parents). Or 'do what the big apes tell you to do' because they might have violent consequence.
I fail to see religion as a defence mechanism, or any kind of useful explanation to anything.
It's just a control mechanism used to take advantage of those that are less fortunate in mind and physical dominance.
BrickInTheWall1 6 months ago
God is an atheist, you freaks are the ones who have problems with faith
Agnosticism is knowing that your knowledge is limited, theism and atheism is ignorance and pretense of knowledge for adolescent wanks.
TakisAthensGr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TakisAthensGr
"Agnosticism is knowing that your knowledge is limited, theism and atheism is ignorance and pretense of knowledge for adolescent wanks."
What an idiot lol.
Atheism, for your information, is the lack of belief in the existence of a god(s). It's not, as commonly thought, the positive assertion in the non-existence of god. There is nothing 'arrogant' about atheism.
Mattyb88ful 6 months ago
I wish people would just think of it less like "only the strong survive", which leads to extreme examples like eugenics and so called darwinian economics, etc, and people looked at natural selection in a way that rewards efficiency, not strength.
evilyig 7 months ago
Evolution will become an intelligent design process once humans start to take control over it through technology Although "intelligent" can be disputed.
Hirnlego999 7 months ago
Richard is a great reporter. He reports on scientist's findings. These things aren't disputable. They're not opinions. It's all factual. Why some people have a problem with that is completely irrational.
a1mint 8 months ago
How is it that I (someone who is completely daft about these things) can understand him when he talks about things like genetics, but theists hear him and seem to block out most of what he says? I am an atheist, and believe in the pursuit of science, but I'm not in the slightest bit scientifically minded.
skywize 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skywize
"... but theists hear him and seem to block out most of what he says?"
It's because most theists understand that their god only lives in the limits of their knowledge. For instance, things like rain, the seasons, thunder, lightning, etc. were all attributed to gods and mythology at one point. As those things were explained the gods were not needed anymore. So, the theists wants to keep the area where his god can live as big as possible.
amcnea 9 months ago
We live in a Darwinian world society. Altruism of small inter-dependent closely related groups can then over many generations produce individuals who care about other lifeforms. The instinct or behavior of caring for others doesn't limit it's expression towards other things. Example, the caring nature of some individuals drives them to care for other creatures such as pets which confers no survival advantage or increase in the probability of passing one's genes.
chroniclerofthe70s 9 months ago
the interviewer is atheist aswel, you can tell by the tone of his questions, and he refused to say he wasnt,
dan11009 10 months ago
hehe interviewer called him mister dawkinz
alexhamster1134 10 months ago
wheeled out as the atheist!!! made me lol hard!!!
cookitagain2 11 months ago
Well, if only big words and eloquence equated to wisdom then we would not have witnessed two idiots pontificating upon matters of which they clearly know fuck all about. I mean: “every twenty million years”...... have a think about it!
newagemisfit 11 months ago
@newagemisfit so the genius minds of the world that give us many facets of science are idiots. Your lack of understanding does not make something untrue- shush and listen
mompm 10 months ago
@mompm Thank you for that! Actually I do listen and wish you would too, instead of just nodding your head in the mistaken belief that your sycophantic allegiance to those you suck up to somehow makes you intelligent. I doesn’t! So stop doing it and start thinking and when you have thought of something worth saying let me know. Until then fuck off!
newagemisfit 10 months ago
@newagemisfit the ones head nodding heads are in churches and mosques and sinagoges and prayer mats. What is it you think I should think of? And belief modern science makes me a suck up- what's running your computer right now?.. leprachans? Why do educated people piss you off so much?
mompm 10 months ago
@mompm I agree the church and religion is corrupted and misleads the masses with misinterpretation /omission from Holy Scripture. Please think of what ever you want to but please think. Education - what’s this sound a bit like believing what the last person told you to believe.
newagemisfit 10 months ago
@mompm It would depend on what you mean by belief in modern science as to whether this belief would make you a suck up, because much of modern science is unproven and contested within its realm and what is proven does not necessarily conflict with other doctrines which you freely dismiss/disparage.
newagemisfit 10 months ago
@mompm On your channel you talk of people being veiled to the truth do you not realise the irony you have quoted Scipture. You talk of belief as though you mean faith you sound like a follower, a disciple of secular knowledge of subjective truth. Do you pray to Guru Dawkins?
newagemisfit 10 months ago
@newagemisfit good point, I will remove that part. And no I don't pray to anyone
mompm 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordhorny What is that nonsense? You have been proved wrong - so stop trying to get the last word in!
newagemisfit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what nonsense is that? you've been proved to be wrong so stop trying to have the last word!
newagemisfit 1 year ago
1, The premise of my original comment was quite simple; it posed a question (given that experts agree the human brain was extensively underused), as to whether this condition is contrary to the fundamental system of advancement of species, that is essential to the concepts of both natural selection and evolution. The figure used for average use of the human brain was 1-10% of capacity, suggesting, 90-99% unused capacity.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
2,You have contested the validity of the question, your basis for doing this is that the figure of 1-10% was incorrect; you have asserted that this new information ‘deconstructed’ the original premise of the comment and its question. You suggested I look to the many articles that exist on the internet to substantiate your contradiction. I followed this advice.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
3, There exists a considerable amount of information on the internet advocating in simple terms that: ‘The commonly held belief that human’s use only 10% of the brain is in fact an urban myth.’ However, it must be said, this plethora of information appears to be largely conjectural and implicitly simplistic and ambiguous, most importantly without reference to any specific research.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 1
- To discharge the sources you read dispelling the 10 % myth (lets address it as such) as conjecture, simplistic and ambiguous shows a lack of research rigour. Surely an intellectually accurate conclusion is to go in search of sources that are not superficial and do in fact have a more robust scientific basis rather than using weak findings as a basis for rebuttal...I mean come on, to do this is silly.
nordhorny 1 year ago
4, It seems that science is eager to refute this belief, and establish it as myth, but the best evidence produced to counter this ‘myth’ is that tests on the human brain have indicated activity across the entirety of the brain. However, this is not really the same as saying humans need all of the brain for normal existence or saying that the brain cannot do any more than is required for normal existence. The Dormant Brain Research Centre says:
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 2 "It seems that science is eager to refute this belief, and establish it as myth, but the best evidence produced to counter this ‘myth’ is that tests on the human brain have indicated activity across the entirety of the brain."
- the best evidence produced, or the best you could find or perhaps are willing to accept ?...come on, you must be aware that this assertion has no merit.
- 'normal existence', of course full brain function and ability is not required for this !
nordhorny 1 year ago
5,“The point is this: There is no dispute amongst honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folksay was correct ‘The human brain is only 10% functional’ John Eccles thinks that number is too high:” “How can you calculate a percentage of infinity?”
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 3 ",“The point is this: There is no dispute amongst honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folksay was correct ‘The human brain is only 10% functional"
- be honest with yourself, can you not see the poetic, philosophical and contextual basis for this statement ?
nordhorny 1 year ago
6, The Centre explains why some experts seek to dispel the 10% rule: “It’s the old; I know more than you game. It’s an ego thing. It’s the old you are stupid and I am smart by comparison. Skeptics love telling people that they are wrong, it makes them feel superior. It is a sin of omission as often as not. Such people making this contrary statement do not really let us know the full story.” This would explain comments like “your ignorance is on display”.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
7, It is known that the human brain contains billions of cells, but it is not known how many of these are required for normal or even advanced human activity. However, validity of the original question rests not on determining an exact amount of brain cell use, but rather on whether all brain cells are used and whether potential for further development and use exists. It seems that, it is rational to say that all brain cells are not used and there is considerable potential for use.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 4 (ref. your part 6)
I cannot accept that you believe this to be a justifiable basis for an explanation of 10% denial, by myself or anyone else. I would never offer such weak reasoning.
(ref. your part 7)
validity of your original premise cannot be linked to this, the two are talking of different things, of course not all cells are used, but the overall brain usage is much higher than your premise, none of which disagrees with your correct final sentence !
nordhorny 1 year ago
8, We know that it is possible to develop muscle and increase muscle capacity, but this does not conflict with the evolution theory, because it is possible, even probable, that earlier humans were more physically active, and that modern subsistence has a reduced in humans, the need for physical strength.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
9, The brain is quite different, as it comes with a predetermined amount of brain cells that cannot increase in number or capacity, so the brain does not get bigger by exercising it through thinking more, instead new cells become active as and when required.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
10, The only explanation consistent to the concept of natural selection and evolution, given that early humans were more physically active, is that earlier humans once used all of their brain capacity and have since regressed in intelligence. Though it seems unlikely that of proponents of evolution would agree to this
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit "The only explanation consistent to the concept of natural selection and evolution, given that early humans were more physically active, is that earlier humans once used all of their brain capacity and have since regressed in intelligence. Though it seems unlikely that of proponents of evolution would agree to this"
Do I really need to explain why ?
nordhorny 1 year ago
You cant explain it so stop kidding yourself and start thinking outside of your comfort zone!
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Well lets leave our debate at that nonsense comment, take care.
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Nonsense is easily exposed as such.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Well, not always, it depends upon the specific case....
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny B, Thus allowing for increasingly less active, less intelligent offspring to inherit an increasingly inactive brain. Because, proponents of E&NS do not claim this as an explanation, preferring instead to espouse that the human brain is at the very pinnacle of millions of years of natural design. Then by simple reason, there exists a contradiction in the theories of E&NS. By saying: ‘Do I really need to explain why’; it's clear that you have still not understood the point.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@nordhorny A, In part 10, I concluded parts 1-9 by outlining the conundrum of contradiction in the theory that the human brain developed through a process of E&NS. To explain the existence of massive unused brain potential in modern humans, proponents of E&NS, would have to accept that an earlier version of human had reached a higher stage of brain development, either through higher levels of physical activity or higher levels of intelligence.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Yet again your conjecture depends upon your inaccurate original premise.
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny You run away, yet turn to throw stones, you clearly know your position is indefensible, but you cannot concede, clearly what’s more important to you than truth, is the belief that you are a part of a secular existence. The theory of evolution can only be accepted by an unquestioning mind, and that’s precisely the way it’s meant to be. No doubt, you would have read ‘The Earliest Englishman’ convinced by the phony fossil skull of ‘Piltdown Man’.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit I am not even going to entertain you with a response to that nonsense...climb back onboard the mature and reasoned stage or simply cease sending anything.
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny There you go pretending to be superior again.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Final comment from me unless you change your attitude and behave as you surely know would be of merit...
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny And final comment from me, unless you can provide some real evidence to substantiate the premise of your original assertion i.e. that the existing human brain has no latent potential for further use.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit ...a reasonable remark, although that is not a premise that I made. Indeed I did not state any premises - I took you up on yours...
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Well, if you state that a vessel is not less than one tenth full, then you have stated that the vessel is either, one tenth full, more than one tenth full, or full (that’s called logic).
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Come on now, can you not use your own analogy to see that your stated claim to the premise I used is inaccurate !? I must point out the paradoxical irony in being able to use an analogy that accurately interprets my position, yet fail to see that your previous remark was not the same as the analogy (I helped you out there to see where you have gone wrong).
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Only one comment ago there was no premise to your original comment, now it seems there is! You must have copied, pasted and written hundreds of words and your position, apart from protesting mine to be wrong is a complete mystery, as I suspect it is to you too. It is very clear that you have neither the evidence to substantiate nor the knowledge to clarify your original assertion and now regret posting it.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit With respect, you seem not to be able to follow this as it progresses, read my comment again andhopefully this time you will see why you are wrong still further in what you state. I remind you also that as you made the premise and I challenged it, the onus is on you to back it up.
To be clear and help you through your evident confusion, I have not made any premise.
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny 3, This statement is from a research report: ‘Dormancy of the Human Brain’ by the Dormant Brain Research and Development Laboratory, it clearly corroborates what I said in my first comment, and disputes the very myth upon which your original statement relies. Sir John Eccles has won the Nobel Prize for research on the human brain. You are now compelled to concede, as not only your ignorance, but your arrogance is on display.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@nordhorny 2, “There is no dispute amongst honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folksay was correct ‘The human brain is only 10% functional’ John Eccles thinks that number is too high: “How can you calculate a percentage of infinity?”
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@nordhorny 1, No! The premise that I used in relation to human brain use, was and I quote: “neurologists are agreed that only a fraction (1-10% of the human brain is actually used”. You dismissed this as being a myth and attempted to ridicule me in a very condescending way. Instead of offering information to correct the situation you demanded I provide evidence in support of what I said; I provided you with the following statement:
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit 1. "No! The premise that I used in relation to human brain use, was and I quote:"
- no need for a reminder, thanks, my memory is fine...
"You dismissed this as being a myth and attempted to ridicule me in a very condescending way"
- justify how I did this (or attempted to), until you do, clearly I disagree....
" Instead of offering information to correct the situation"
- for the 3rd or 4th time, as it was your premise, the onus is yours....
nordhorny 1 year ago
@newagemisfit 2.
I have responded to that quote and remarked what you should do consequently.
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny You are doing what every know-it-all person does when confronted with the evidence they’re wrong. You’re attempting to steer the gist of the disagreement into new safer territory. Inevitably this tactic will use a superior approach and purport some relevance to the original contention; the purpose; to blur the distinction between issues. It’s an undignified, hapless ploy and only ever results in greater humiliation. In simple terms stop digging yourself into a hole!
newagemisfit 1 year ago 7
@newagemisfit Well if you are sticking to that interpretation and I to what I have said from the outset, this is stalemate...take care...
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Well, I think if you had some evidence you would have produced it by now! Instead you continue with this odd pretence that your opinion on the workings of the human brain has greater credence than that of a Nobel Prize winner! But apparently this is a secret that you cannot disclose. Yes I am sticking to my original premise and have provided ample evidence to justify me to do so. Take care ;o)
newagemisfit 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@newagemisfit More misrepresentation of my position and I shall not even bother with addressing the downfall of the rest, take care...
nordhorny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordhorny What is that nonsense about? You have been proved wrong - so stop trying to get the last word in!
newagemisfit 1 year ago
1, As, I have said, I haven’t claimed to know exactly how the brain works and have merely cited that neurologists agree that the human brain functions at less than 10% of its potential, and suggested this seemed to be inconsistent with the concept of evolution. However, you may be interested to know that another aspect of the human brain has caused at least one neurologist to question evolution.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit New subjects raised can be interesting but we have not resolved your original point about brain usage conflicting with evolution ! Do a little research into brain usage and you will conclude my gripe !
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny 2, If we accept evolution, then we must accept that every creature is of ultimate design, as it is the end product of its own innate design process. It is not possible to argue that the human brain does not contain dormant tissue, because we know that large areas of the brain can be removed or destroyed by disease with no noticeable loss of intelligence. So why would human beings develop dormant brain capacity.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@nordhorny 1, OK. In my first comment, I quoted Richard Dawkins. I then stated that there is expert agreement that human brain function is about 1-10% of capacity. I then asked the question: ‘so why evolve dormant tissue’ and said something humorous (I thought so) about giraffes. Now, if you can point out exactly what it is I have said that is incorrect, perhaps I can answer you.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 1 The point being that the brain usage is far higher than 10 % ! This fact deconstructs your premise (I said do research into that fact, rather than citing that scientist).
Now you have introduced even more incorrect information....
"If we accept evolution, then we must accept that every creature is of ultimate design"
NO
""because we know that large areas of the brain can be removed or destroyed by disease with no noticeable loss of intelligence"
(CONT.)
nordhorny 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 2
Yes, but intellect is far from the only function of the brain which deconstructs yet another premise, this one...
"So why would human beings develop dormant brain capacity."
Now I have said already, don't introduce new staements until the original point is resolved ! After that, I am happy to discuss why your further points are incorrect...
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny I have tried to be reasonable, but I think your real objective here is to demonstrate that you are very clever, resorting to ridicule and bragging about having a PHD in Zoology, as though I should somehow be impressed (I’m not your mother). I have explained myself in a way that anyone would understand; you however, have spouted a load of quasi intellectual nonsense, no doubt, because you have since discovered that your response to my initial comment was incorrect.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Ignoring all that nonsense, are you wishing to resolve the original debate or not ?
Go and look up how much brain usage there is in reality and then conclude for yourself why I have contacted you in the first place ! Then, perhaps you will see that I have done nothing like what you have just asserted ! Now, go...really, read how much of the brain is used for yourself, you should then realise how and why your original premise about RD was unfounded !
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny When you say ‘look up’ what’s does this mean? Find anything in writing that supports your case I suppose. You appear very anxious to establish that the human brain is completely maxed-out. Is the reason for this that you a beginning see a flaw in the doctrine you have been programmed with? I’m aware there is evidence of activity across the entirety of the brain; however, this does not detract from the evidence of use being far less than capacity for use.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Research, look online for the wording that backs up my point about brain usage, yes. I am not anxious, I merely want you to realise the error or your premise, that is all ! The rest of your comment is based upon further misconception, for the THIRD time, I am not addressing anything else until the ORIGINAL aspect is resolved....
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Had a look-see on-line as suggested - couldn’t find any evidence to support your contention that the human brain is used to its maximum potential. So unless you can provide some real evidence to substantiate your position, you cannot continue to repudiate the relevance of a question as to how potential is created by evolution or by natural selection. I will happily wait, but, until you have evidence the debate is sterile.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit "couldn’t find any evidence to support your contention that the human brain is used to its maximum potential"
...I did NOT say that !
...moreover, what did you find in that huge ocean of information called the internet ? Could you not find a SINGLE piece that asked for what I state ? ...is it beyond you ? What DID I state ? 'that the human brain is utilised way beyond 10 %, this data is very easy to find online...30 seconds should bring it up !
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Agreed there is much conjecture based information on the internet, but I am asking you to direct me to compelling evidence that the human brain is used, as you have implied to its maximum potential, that is all of the billions of brain cells are actively used on a regular basis and are essential to average human existence. I await with interest.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Listen carefully...
I said the brain is used far beyond 10%, thus deconstructing your premise. You are now emphasisng 'full usage' as if that was my claim, it was not. It seems clear why you would wish to do this (must I spell that out ?). You have clearly realised what I stated is correct (stop trying to shift the goal posts !).
Now, it is no big deal to say you have found what I state, is it ? Say so and lets move on, this is about learning, not point scoring...
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorI think the amount is irrelevant…if you will accept there exists within the human brain a sizeable potential for further use, that is to say, the human brain has the means to do much more than the most advanced humans demand of it, then it’s reasonable to ask how this has come about and whether it is consistent with the concepts of evolution/natural selection.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit We can come to that, it is a separate matter from your original premise. This topic is not one that impacts upon the question regarding evolution and brain usage. Now, lets end the original debate !
nordhorny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordhorny OK, I'm off to bed now - it's 2am!
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@nordhorny I have 'posted my reply.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
2, Professor Frantisec Vyskocil of Charles University, Prague is a renowned neurophysiologist who because of his research on the human brain has converted from being an evolutionist to being a creationist.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
3, “My doubts about evolution began when I was studying synapses. I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How’, I wondered ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense.’(Prof Frantisec Vyskocil)
newagemisfit 1 year ago
4, Professor Frantisec Vyskocil went on to explain how bacteria can divide every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than 3 or 4 billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes has a very interesting take on the start and growth of religion. I recommend it to anyone who might be interested.
Davetech23 1 year ago
I personally don't believe in evolution, and I would encourage the rest of you to question the claims of Dawkins and others.
VitalSigns1 1 year ago 2
Professor Richard Dawkins just said: “natural selection/evolution has given us big brains”. That’s interesting, because neurologists are agreed that only a fraction (1 – 10%) of the human brain is actually used. So why evolve dormant tissue? I mean, you would expect giraffe’s neck to stop evolving when the giraffe was as tall as the tallest tree - not ten times taller!
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit "Professor Richard Dawkins just said: “natural selection/evolution has given us big brains”. That’s interesting, because neurologists are agreed that only a fraction (1 – 10%) of the human brain is actually used. So why evolve dormant tissue? I mean, you would expect giraffe’s neck to stop evolving when the giraffe was as tall as the tallest tree - not ten times taller!"
That brain usage stat is an infamous myth, your comment is deconstructed and your ignorance on display.
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Firstly, the measure of human brain activity against capacity is not truly a ‘statistic’; however, expressing an average of low use of potential would disprove evolution. Secondly, I did not say how much of the human brain is used, I stated: “neurologists are agreed only a fraction (1 – 10%) of the human brain is actually used.”
Thirdly, why don’t you produce some evidence to disprove that statement?
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 1, I should introduce myself as this is heading toward debate, I am a zoologist (PhD)...
" Firstly, the measure of human brain activity against capacity is not truly a ‘statistic’
- my wording was to merely indicate the single piece of data...
"however, expressing an average of low use of potential would disprove evolution"
- NO, it would not, any statement expressed requires testing and examination against what evolution says !
(CONT.)
nordhorny 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 2
"Secondly, I did not say how much of the human brain is used, I stated: “neurologists are agreed only a fraction (1 – 10%) of the human brain is actually used.”
- your data was used to support your own claim that what RD stated was a contradiction, this usage is based upon false data, thus why I said your comment is deconstructed and your ignorance on display.
(CONT.)
nordhorny 1 year ago
@newagemisfit PART 3
"Thirdly, why don’t you produce some evidence to disprove that statement?"
- It is routine that if a claim or remark is refuted, the onus is on the person who made the claim to back it up...
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny I believe the first person to state that the human brain functioned at less than 10% of its potential was Sir John Eccles AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS. He was a neurophysiologist who won a Nobel Prize for his work on the human brain. I do not claim to understand exactly how the brain works, but perhaps you do, given that you have a PHD in Zoology.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Listen, my MO is to expose your remarks about Richard Dawkins as based upon a false premise, you have now admitted your ignorance regarding that premise, so that leads me to believe that you made the remark due to unjust prejudice ! ...and you have not addressed my rebuttal....
nordhorny 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Perhaps I could be charitable and let you off the exposure hook ?
...the human brain is used in its entirety, not simultaneously - each region has its function and is used accordingly when required. If latent regions were evident, natural selection would have selected against their lineage and they would no longer evolve. Conversely, those regions that are used intensely and are of evolutionary importance will continue to evolve in an upward manner.
nordhorny 1 year ago
@newagemisfit I hope you can now see why your original comment against RD was groundless and has no merit in countering what he said ?
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Your basis for claiming that my original comment is groundless is that you claim to know more about the human brain than Sir John Eccles AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS. Well perhaps you do, after all you do have a PHD in Zoology.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit explain how you could have arrived at such a ridiculous conclusion ?
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny My original comment related to Dawkin’s re: ‘evolving big brains’. I stated that neurologists agree the human brain operated at a fraction of its potential, and suggested that this fact is divergent from the basic concept of evolution. You dismissed my comment on the basis that the ‘data’ (10%) was ‘mythical’ and later demanded evidence for this. I provided evidence of a pre-eminent neurologist who espoused the human brain functioned at a fraction of its potential.
newagemisfit 1 year ago
@newagemisfit My remark was on the basis of my knowledge that your stated reasoning was incorrect (the usage data) NOT as you subsequently asserted "Your basis for claiming that my original comment is groundless is that you claim to know more about the human brain than Sir John Eccles". THAT was why I said "explain how you could have arrived at such a ridiculous conclusion ?"
You have not provided evidence, just a reference...one that I suspect is either incorrect or out of context !
nordhorny 1 year ago
@newagemisfit Further, I did not 'demand' anything of you.
" I stated that neurologists agree the human brain operated at a fraction of its potential"
- this remark does not equate with your original premise.
nordhorny 1 year ago
Comment removed
newagemisfit 1 year ago
Give it another 2000 years and religion will be dead, at least i hope so.
Go atheism , science and logic thinking! <3 Dawkins!
zauii89 1 year ago 2
press 9, then 0 and then 5. You had to destroy anything :)
BstmKsander 1 year ago
Evidence of God is too big to be seen Psalm 19:1-4 "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the words of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth their words to the ends of the world."
Isaiah 64:4
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate"
majorl31 1 year ago
@majorl31 It does not make youre case if you quote that stupid book.
kotkee 1 year ago
@kotkee it means you don't understand what you call that stupid book because if you did understand you would not call the book stupid,in that book its says wisdom is more valuable than silver or gold ,the pages of what you call that stupid book are full of wisdom
majorl31 1 year ago
i have to remember that SOMEONE told me about God ... then again those same SOMEONES told me about Santa .... neither of them have ever made their presence know to me personally ... i was just told to believe or else id burn forever .... that's love i guess!!
apoplexy1974 1 year ago
@apoplexy1974 Jesus Christ, Christmas round at your gaff must have been a laugh a bloody minute.
Mum: "Apoplexy1974, you little fucking shit bag, don't ever deny Santa Claus or you'll burn in hell forever. Cunt."
Apoplexy1974: "Mum, don't call me that, it's a fucking silly moniker, ya daft tart. Why can't we be like normal families?"
Mum: Oh just fuck off and watch Eastenders next door then, I don't care. AND DON'T SLAM THE DOOR....wanker."
HitMeQuick 1 year ago
@apoplexy1974 Yeah i doubt you were told you'g burn if you didnt believe in Santa!! If you were, then you had some fucked up parents
bigderekkeene 1 year ago
Boulton is trying hard to restrain his bigotry from slipping out but is struggling.
asdashopperrr 1 year ago
surprisingly good questions by the interviewer.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think Adam Boutlon has his own theory of evolution. He sits at the top while the rest of mankind serves him.
newsreeldemocracy 1 year ago
I think Adam boutlon has his own theory of evolution. He sits at the top while the rest of mankind serves him.
newsreeldemocracy 1 year ago
Smart and respectful people call him Prof. Dawkins, christian journalists (morons) call him Mr. Dawkins
NOWYOURGONNABURNHOE 1 year ago 2
Religon should stop trying to Cockblock progress
shandcunt 1 year ago 59
@shandcunt thanks
jagggsss 1 year ago
@shandcunt what progress? enlighten me
prime440 1 year ago
@prime440 are you being sarcastic?
Evolution
Abortion
Gay Rights
Stem Cell Research
Rock Music (It's satanic ya'll)
Condoms
Gravity
At one point or another the church has been opposed to these ideas but this is just off the top off my head, if you want a full list let me know.
shandcunt 1 year ago 17
@shandcunt
The Church, as far as i know, was never opposed to Gravity.
InaneRex 1 year ago
@shandcunt You forgot a couple more like Geocentrism and Euthanasia.
CrimsonKingl2 1 year ago
Atleast there is something to cheer up about. Whenever religion has tried to clash with science ... It's religion that is revisited. Citations: earth is flat, disease is god's punishment, and universe was created in 6 days. Not many Christians believe that anymore. That's progress indeed.
dac38555 1 year ago
i love Dawkins and Hitchens! Trying their best to quash all religious nuts and still, with all the evidence of evolution people aren't listening!
schuletrip 1 year ago
@schuletrip, you write on your youtube channel: "we can never be taken seriously if we are identified with Nazis." Yours is a philosophy of exclusion in society, of difference and hierarchical superiority borne of racial stereotyping. I don't think Dawkins is on your side. God is on your side, however, no matter what you think, but would surely ask that you rethink your relationship to your fellow man. Our differences are to be celebrated. Our common humanity is worth cherishing.
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby i've never written anything like that on my channel, where did you find that.. i can't even find it and it's my channel? Nazism isn't my cup of tea! Anti religion and the debunking of religion is much better-I'm definitely not a nazi! I sort of agree with you, our common humanity is worth cherishing.. We are all the same genetically, our DNA is 98.6% the same asa chimp, the bonobo chimp is even closer to us! To think we were created or designed is a cop out-that's my point
schuletrip 1 year ago
@schuletrip "schuletrip's Groups(1)New European Nationalists! Description:
European patriots, Anti Islam, anti EU, Anti Marxism, Anti Communism, Anti Islamic Immigration, BNP Britain, PVV Holland...we can never be taken seriously if we are identified with Nazis. (more) (less) Tags: "New Nationalists" Europe Politics "Patriots Anti Islam"" You ask where I found this, well this is what everyone can read when they click your name link......?
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby yeah, i see your point-i didn't write any of that and i didn't make the group! But it does appear quite a harsh undertaking.. I am quite annoyed by enforced multiculturalism and more annoyed with mass immigration, but it was a short lived tirade and i realise there's little i can do.. I am though a keen atheist and i enjoy a few rants with the religious folk!
schuletrip 1 year ago
Dawkins is clever and a decidedly genial man; he is, however, incorrect. God is a scientific certainty and evolution from a common ancestor with apes is demonstrably false.
Best and God bless,
Scrooby.
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby
facts facts facts o wait no matter how much i type this u will never have any. I tried
and god bless my godlessness
AMEN
nerdragemoarimo 1 year ago
@byScrooby ok, demonstrate how evolution is false. how many scientists have proved the existence of god, besides the one at your christian "college"?
TADGELL 1 year ago
@TADGELL the falsehood of the evolution of man from common ancestors with apes is demonstrated in the book The Attempted Murder Of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know. It's freely available to order from any library in the world. I like Dawkins - and Stephen Hawking, who chimed in recently to declare the non-existence of God - Both happen to be incorrect. God is a scientific certainty and evolution from a common ancestor with apes is demonstrably false.
Best and God bless,
Scrooby.
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby maybe you're confused about what scientific certainty means. it means proven by observation and evidence, and tested repreatedly to yield the same result. none of these points are the case pertaining to god, and all of the scientists i've ever heard speak on this topic say that the evidence for god is nil. you're mistaken about god existing my friend.
TADGELL 1 year ago
@TADGELL 'all of the scientists I've ever heard speak on this topic' - so your own scientific method is to listen to others and take it as Gospel. Not until you become the scientist in checking the facts for yourself - in borrowing the book from a library for instance and finding out what this is about - can you credibly lay claim to any measure of scientific certainty. You have 'heard' God does not exist, without knowing all the facts for yourself. Unwise, if I may say so.
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby silly billy-
schuletrip 1 year ago
@byScrooby Yeah, Zeus blees you too
VOD713 1 year ago
Can this really be Sky News??
ChrisWales22 1 year ago
What a wonderful interview!
cromos 1 year ago
I think this interview should be "text book" (or video!) when Fox news presenters are been trained to do their job...if you see Dawkins interview with O'Reilly, Dawkins didn't have a chance to expose his ideas and O'Reilly's questions were patronising...you can see the difference between an interview in the US and one in the UK!!!
eap8317 1 year ago 2
smart people are atheists... thats so funny, how he is trying to manipulate people... so if i am believing in god, i am stupid... ok mr. dawkins i guess i guess i know who is stupid here
Uensalhoodstar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Uensalhoodstar indeed, you are an idiot if you believe there is a god, religion is the opiate of the masses. The world would be a better place without it.
James09854 1 year ago
@Uensalhoodstar
He didn't say that. Plenty of intelligent people are theists. The arch-bishop of canterbury for example is a very intellifent man. He said the majority of well-educated people are atheists which is undoubtedly true in the scientific community, even in the US.
chebob2009 1 year ago
@Uensalhoodsta judging by your comment i'd say you're very stupid
Lan5in6 1 year ago
@Lan5in6 why would you say that? whats wrong with my comment? judging by your comment i would say you dont respect other people... Dont call me stupid when you dont know me, my friend
Uensalhoodstar 1 year ago
@Uensalhoodstar why because your holy book says do not judge? I'll remind you that according to the new testament you should turn the other cheek. You're a moron now bend over and take it up the arse like a good christian (not literally sodomy in sinful)
Lan5in6 1 year ago
@Lan5in6 ok first of all, who told you i am a christian? I AM NOT CHRISTIAN. Btw i am not judging about Mr. Dawkins, without listening to what he is saying, and he is indeed saying, that smart people do not believe in god, so thats a message that if we do believe in a god, we are not very smart. So you should read more carefully and not call other stupid.
Uensalhoodstar 1 year ago
@Uensalhoodstar call other what stupid?
Lan5in6 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens.....Carl Sagan, I only wished they had more recordings of the last one too on here :(
David1531992 1 year ago
"make your life puposeful while you've got it." couldn't put it better myself
fourbabies1 1 year ago 2
I believe in both, but the way my physics Prof. explained it. I believe in evolution, but homo sapiens came about through alien (call it devine if you want) intervention and the only property implanted was the ability to reason and decide. And where do the aliens came from? - we dont know, like we also dont know with certainty the composition of the smallest building blocks of an atom or even what exactly is gravity - in short, there are many things we do not know, but they exist.
oomblikkies 1 year ago
Dawkins is a baised peron. I think baised people are normally lairs because they will say anything to support their side or views. Therefore, i do not find him and alike credible at all. As for his work, there is nothing spectacular such as newton, eistein, louis pasteur, thomas edisson etc etc.
wandp7782 1 year ago