Anyone who doubts evolution, gravity or any scientific theory; Please, read a science book. But if you won't accept that particular fact because your holy book says something else, fuck off. Get a medication. I mean, it's 2012; what the fuck is wrong with this world? People still believe in god?
I lost interest at the point when he described the continental shift. I am a creationist, and I believe that the flood was the key factor in the movement of the continents. There is so much evidence for a massive, catastrophic flood, and I think he even alludes to some.
@darthmid Your heart seems to be in the right place. I bet after an hour of argument we would come down to standards of evidence. What sort of thing counts as evidence and how do we discover anything when plagued by our personal biases? Scientists have no less bias than anybody else, we/they have just developed an elaborate system of checks and tests so that (hopefully) no theory without very strong evidence survives the assault. This is the best we can do with the natural world.
@darthmid I'm a seismic analyst, and I would like to point out, as continents drift apart, through modern earthquakes we can observe, they go at an average observable pace. If you extrapolate from that pace backwards over time, eventually they come together in Pangaea (the single supercontinent you can piece together on a map.) The point is, the timeline required for this drift to happen is millions of years. The same millions of years required for evolution to take place.
@darthmid You place God in those tiny little gaps where science has yet to conclude an explanation - Your God gets smaller and smaller with every new discovery. You're not that special, get over yourself.
I think many religious people feel intimidated by the idea that they are apes, or "just animal". I'm not religious myself but I think Dawkins should use some more time explaining to religious people that even if we are evolved from a common ancestor, it doesn't take away who or what we are, or make our existence any less special(If that is what he wants to do obviously). I think they mistake evolution as a mode to determine society. And that's what scares them.
@Faerlon123 they will always be offended lol. You can try it yourself. When you explain to them how they remain human beings but just share common ancestors with primates, they take this as an attack to their God.
@TheHolyBible1000 Why would he debate with Kent? That would mean that his stance has any validity, besides that it's not as though he would add anything new to the so call 'creation science' argument.
question: why did this stupid christian cop movie commercial come up before the Dawkins vid, & how can we fix it so that doesn't happen? totally inappropriate.
@nutsbutdum Hi Nutsbutdum, Marsupials mainly exist in Australia (a couple in S. America too) they therefore seem to have evolved in there. Australia has for millions of years been an island and the animals there are quite unique to that Island Continent which is what you would expect if evolution by natural selection were true. If Marsupials cropped up way off in Canada too, that would be a big problem for the theory. But they don't. At 5.01 starts to explain it a bit. Cheers.
@nutsbutdum Another good example of geographical distribution is island gigantism. Wikipedia "island gigantism" for a very interesting read.
The most simple proof of geographical distribution is remote islands. Islands almost exclusively have animals found no where else in the world, like Madagascar. According to evolution, animals on islands and remote areas should be considerably different than other animals, because over time they have evolved under very, very different circumstances.
Richard Dawkins is quite right: any individuals who persist in denying the overwhelming evidence should simply be ignored. Genuine questions about evolution should be addressed, however the categorical denial of evidence in biology, geology, zoology and psychology, etc., and promote nonsensical non-sequiturs that have long since been debunked should simply be ignored. You don't believe that all life on earth is the product of billions of years of evolution? Go away and read a book.
The nerve going down to the voice box of a giraffe is a great example of a very bad designer's work if there is one. That's something I didn't know of, and now I have some more to say to a creationist. Thanks to you Mr. Dawkins.
@hdersoz In my opinion the example of the nerve going down through the voice box of the giraffe isn't "quite" a DEFINITIVE proof to tell a creationist. I reckon Richard is mistaking "design" with "practicality". You would hope, I guess, an intelligent designer not to be constrained by our expectation of which path the nerve SHOULD take. By the way I'm not a creationist. I'm just pointing that out:)
@nutsbutdum Honestly I don't care too much for debating with creationists, it's like the saying about arguing with idiot. "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
how the fuck on earth u are going to see those missing links u will have to dig whole earth
to see something like dinosaur going to predatoric bird going to flying bird u will have to dig the whole continent yet u could not find any bones, fairly small amount of bones go rocky (sorry i dno proper word for the bone that gets rocky and lasts million years) to rly have idea how evolution happens check out khan academy biology section
@georgianpornostyle "sorry i dno proper word for the bone that gets rocky and lasts million years"
It is a fossil, they are fossils. Giving you singular and plural on that. Hope it helps.
As for the other questions, we actually do have fossils of animals suspended halfway between dinosaurs and birds, and between the proto-birds and proper birds as well. We just don't have every single stage of development from one to the next for any species and creationists will accept nothing less.
“What’s remarkable about fossils is the very process of fossilization. When an animal dies it’s remains must be covered quickly by sediment - the first condition for preservation.” Stephen Schwochow Host/writer P.B.S. Form and Function of Fossils
Hmmmm... could a flood account for fossils? NO WAY MAN. THAT IS CHEATING! THAT IS TOO OBVIOUS.
It is hard for creationist to take evolutionists seriously when the great preponderance of evidence for creation comes from the evolutionists.
What it cannot do, however, is account for the stratification that we see, it cannot account for fossil distribution, it cannot account for the consistency of the fossil-geographic strata correlation, it cannot account for the progression of fossils.
What a global flood would do is give us one layer containing all fossils in absolutely no order.
And why does he go on and on about what you cannot expect to find? He keeps making excuses for the lack of fossil evidence to support evolution.
His main evidence he says is based upon a "rare event... so very rare... only once in a million years" but it must have happened for his theory to be true. This guy sounds like a religious cult leader.
And his main argument against creation is that if he were God he would not have done things that way. He has me falling down laughing!
It is hard for me to agree with most of what he is saying because it contradicts to many other leading evolutionists. Back in the 80's when I was researching this subject I often read in scientific literature the reference of "out of order" fossils and explanations for this COMMON phenomena.
If anyone is interested I will post quotes and references. This guy has obviously not studied the subject in depth.
I completely agree with what he's saying. Could anyone tell me what book his comparison of the detective finding evidence being the same as scientist finding evidence for evolution is from? Thanks
I heard about the chance to have dinner with Richard Dawkins and I did not attemp that chance because I was afraid I would win. If I had dinner with Richard Dawkins, I would be afraid that I would not be a good enough dinner partner to make it an interesting evening. Thus I would forever feel that I had failed Richard Dawkins and wasted his valuable time.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Regarding "_Controversial_ author and atheist Richard Dawkins" (the description on this video): he's probably only "controversial" in places like the Middle-East, parts of the USA, Turkey, and such places where for some reason basic modern biology education is still lacking, and there are religious influences that hinder scientific litteracy.
Elsewhere in the world, he's pretty mainstream and respected.
@0debug Simply promoting evolution shouldn't make someone controversial. Some of his ideas about memes and selfish genes are quite controversial though. Also his style of Atheism is much more robust and outspoken in contrast with the popular atheist writers of the 20th century like Antony Flew, Jean-Paul Sartre, A.J Ayer & Julian Huxley.
If God made man in his image, man would reproduce asexually, as there would be no need for male and female counterparts in a supreme being. Evolution made sex, which I see as a more beautiful gift than the notion I am made from an egomaniacal alien.
The universe and it's building blocks have a progression of advancement to higher standards of function. All human beings have a conscience and if it is in a healthy state it will have a built-in knowing of right and wrong, good and bad, Every human being has the capacity for love and hate. People become and believe in what the expose themselves too. ALL THIS DID NOT JUST HAPPEN, IF YOU THINK IT DID WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND YOU ARE ADVANCED BY IT, THEN KEEP IT GOING, GET YOUR OWN PLANET!
@mrelgordoA Okay, can you point out something i can consider to be evidence of intelligent design but not these points that have been refuted: flood caused fossilization, universal constants, cause of human intelligence, unreliability within the carbon dating system, voids in the explanation of abiogenesis and cosmogenesis.
QUOTE: Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
QUOTE:- Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." mrelgordoA 1 second ago
QUOTES:- George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
QUOTES:- George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
QUOTES :-Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.The universe must have a purpose".
@mrelgordoA I don't know if you guys are talking about evolution theory as a biologist would define, but the two scientists you cited, Fred Hoyle and Paul Davies, they both believe in evolution theory. Fred only rejects abiogenesis (and bbt). And he also by no means is promoting a Christian God. What pisses me off about creationists is they think "look, there has to be a supernatural force", and somehow this means "my God is the right God". There's a bridge they fail to cross.
@Casshyr #1:- The problem with atheists is, they look at the worlds religions and their horrible history, including christianity and throw the baby out with the bath water. The creator I believe in has been lied about through history and once a person gives him a chance to be what he desires to be to them they will ALWAYS want him and can trust he wants only the best for them. This universe is INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, THERE IS NOT DEBATE FOR THE ACCURATE OBSERVER.
@Casshyr #2:- If you can agree that the universe is INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED you are opening the door to understanding that the intelligent source, be it what you think, always wants the best for you and by opening up your self to this source your will be amazed at how much better life gets.
@mrelgordoA I remain agnostic about universe being "intelligently designed" until I see 2 things. 1) The proof for a supernatural creator capable of designing the universe. And no, ancient documents don't count. I want to see scientific evidence. 2) Something that is not intellectual designed. You CAN'T say something is intellectual designed if you don't define what is NOT intellectual designed. Analogy: you can't say a water is cold without defining what is hot first.
@Casshyr #1:- Are you saying that until you have proof of an entity causing the universe exist you will have faith in the universe coming into existence without any separate source of power? To me that would be like a car engine starting without any electrical signal, just one simple example of potentially millions. #2 If you take the position that nothing is intelligently designed then you deny your own ability to exist. The very foundation of matter has order and function.
@mrelgordoA "like a car engine starting without any electrical signal, just one simple example of potentially millions" =>but nobody is saying a fully functional cell that "popped" into existence. According to RNA world hypothesis, current popular scientific belief is that first life forms came in the form of RNA strands capable of self-replication. And we do have examples where we successfully created self-replicating strands in the lab, so it's theoretically possible (but not fact)
@mrelgordoA "f you take the position that nothing is intelligently designed then you deny your own ability to exist." => I didn't say that. I'm not asking for proof for either position. My point is you need to define what is considered NOT intelligently designed before you can say something is intelligently designed. Just like my analogy: if I give you a cup of water, can you say it's hot without defining what's cold? no. You need to define the counterpart.
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it on earth.
YOUNG EARTH: The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests.
Einstein's Quote: "I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details." Go to "Evidence for a Young Earth" @ earthage org and don't be afraid to learn, Our creator is a friend!
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth...... MERRY CHRISTMAS!! Wise men still seek him, it gives you peace!
@mrelgordoA That's not true at all. The sun is getting bigger. Stop making up crap for your shit ideas. Face it, Young Earth Creationists are wrong. Don't even bother trying to prove your stupid ideas to be true because you might as well try say the earth is flat.
@saumyab44 Your anger shows you are frightened and insecure. Einstein's Quote: "I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details." Go to "Evidence for a Young Earth"
@ earthage org and don't be afraid to learn, Our creator is a friend!
@mrelgordoA No it's cos your "facts" are not facts at all. There's no reason to spread lies and make other people as ignorant as you. And ya I looked at your website, it presents some interesting thoughts but nothing that can't be explained. Try to look up some actual scientific website that weren't created by people who were predisposed to finding "evidence" to support a young earth.
Mathematical calculations show that at the current rate of population growth, the current world population would be produced from only a few people in 4,000 years, thus showing evidence that the current world population was started at the time of Noah's flood (about 2348 BC). Henry Morris advocates this view in his book Scientific Creationism.
@mrelgordoA Modern humans come from a small population which lived about half a million years ago. Not 4000 years ago. This point is backed up by the majority of scientists who are experts in the field. Your getting your information from a guy who has degrees in civil engineering lol. He may be smart but he knows nothing on biology and the origin of man. Why not get your facts from Dawkins who has degrees in Biology and has spent decades with other scientists working out this kind of stuff?
@saumyab44 Evolutions say man first appeared on earth .5 million years ago, where are all the bones from .5 million years of humans, Calculating a very small birth rate of a fraction of 1% the skeletons would be pilled millions of miles high. About 2.45 X 10 to the 990th power. that is more skeletons pilled up then the universe could hold. even 25000 years ago at 1/10 of 1% growth rate the current population would be 144 billion, that would be 22 earths with a population of 6.5 billion.
@mrelgordoA "Evolutions say man first appeared on earth .5 million years ago" => not quite, more like ~250,000 years.
"Calculating a very small birth rate of a fraction of 1% the skeletons would be pilled millions of miles high. About 2.45 X 10 to the 990th power" => bones decay rather rapidly, in the span of couple hundreds years. This is also why finding fossil evidence is rare because only under precise conditions do we see preserved forms of the past thousands of years old.
@mrelgordoA "even 25000 years ago at 1/10 of 1% growth rate the current population would be 144 billion" => false assumption. Ancestral human beings did not enjoy the same survival rate as we do today. The growth rate cannot be assumed to be an exponential function. The survival rate would instead match more similar to the monkeys, where even without human intervention, we see that the growth rate is not exponential.
@mrelgordoA Um you realise that its difficult for fossils to be formed, theres many stages that bones must go through to firstly be able to form into a fossil and then discovered by us. Fossils can only be made on sedimentary rock for example which limits how many can actually be made. Thats just one factor that proves your point to be invalid. Secondly many fossils have been discovered of humans from back in that time, your acting as if non have been found. Your calculations mean nothing.
@mrelgordoA population growth rate is an interesting idea. However, this isn't how the world works. Your example doesn't take into war, famine, or disease. The Black Death killed nearly 1/3 of Europe if I am not mistaken. There is an entire section in The Believing Brain which goes into this. Check it out! Great read!
@adiamondfordisease #1:- Hi, I appreciate the ref. Obviously I do not know where you stand. One thing I am noticing, when posting on evolution/atheist videos like this, is the lack of people with a pleasant personalities. They often get offended and angry, lashing out at others that are intelligent human beings. This type of behavior is a clear sign of insecurity and protectionism....
@adiamondfordisease #2:- Do you think that a person that has been happily married for 50 years with 5 successful grown up children all with there own families in tact. with good health, no drugs or alcohol of any kind EVER, Financials in order, CEO of their own company for the 50 years is going to listen to insults and putdowns and think for one second they would ever exchange their life and close relationship with their all providing CREATOR for that GARBAGE.
@adiamondfordisease #3:- Organized religions of all strips can be and in many times are the worst sources of hatred on this earth and it seems like Atheists base their beliefs of a intelligent design or creator on the Religion they have seen or heard about. Atheists aren't studying the world around them, great people of the past and present, Individuals that have become extremely successful, etc, and finding out what those types of people base their successes on.
@adiamondfordisease #4:- If people would stop the arguing on what is the source of the universe is and take a close look at what all the sources of information are saying, they would realizing that no one has all the answers, and this planet would be a better place. WISE MEN STILL SEEK HIM. Richard Dawkins is not thinking clearly in some areas. He is intelligent and has a lot on information, but is unwilling to admit others do too.
@mrelgordoA the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that as a whole universe entropy is increasing, but it doesn't mean that locally entropy can't increase (it just means that elsewhere it has to increase more) so 2nd law doesn't contradict molecules coming together and evolving....
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago?
#2:- REF: Evidence for a young Earth. What are evolution-believing scientists and the media so afraid of? In other words: IF the theory of evolution is anywhere near as sound as they claim, then why not have some publicly televised debates on this issue?
#1:- REF: Evidence for a Young Earth. Don't you think it's a bit odd that there are virtually NO Public debates between evolution-believing scientists and Creation scientists? And considering the fact that roughly half of all scientists (and 88 % of the public) believe in (either) spontaneous or slow Creation this is even more astounding.
People that believe in a selective process of advancement for all living things, called natural selection. Have a fundamentally flawed belief system. This is why, natural selection should never be tampered with, by doing so an intelligent component influenced it's process. Would a evolutionist ever consider medical help, ask your self why would they interfere with the natural selection that has NO INTELLIGENT COMPONENT IN ITS SYSTEMS. Let the natural selecting weed out the inferior beings.
@mrelgordoA That argument makes no sense. The invention of medicine gave an evolutionary advantage to humans. Natural Selection doesn't mean you stand around naked waiting for nature to select you. It means that the fittest and most able to reproduce pass on their genes.
@tobrien28 It makes perfect sense. Does the"invention of medicine had a component of intelligence to it? If you say yes, you are saying intelligence came from non-intelligence. If you say no then you are saying there is no intelligence in our world today.
@mrelgordoA That is not what intelligent design means. Your example is at the most artificial selection (deliberately breeding for desirable traits) but the mechanism is the same. It's random mutations and a non-random selection process causing change.
Intelligent design on the other hand is the idea that a god or something designed everything as is. That things are exactly as this god intended and they haven't changed since creation. Entirely different to what you're saying.
@Skywake And then there is one form of ID that claims there is some sort of hyper evolution, but that mostly only apears when you talk with those who believes in the judeo-christian creation myth and Noas flood.
@Skywake "Intelligent design on the other hand is idea that a god or something designed everything as is. That things are exactly as this god intended and they haven't changed since creation" => actually, if you go on wiki, you'll see intelligent design can also be grouped under theistic evolution, which then says God's creations have evolved over time (via processes of evolution) but everything is still as God intended. The definition of ID is really muddy imo, it differs depend who u talk to
@Casshyr They can water down their "theory" as much as they want. If they water it down to the point where it's a god setting the rules and state of the universe and pressing play I don't have much of a problem with it.
Still, I was mostly criticising definitions of ID and evolution that "proved" evolution wrong if doctors are smart or if Artificial selection takes place. That's obviously not a disproof, artificial selection is the same process. :)
@Casshyr The Revolution Against Evolution 1994 Article ref :The second law of thermodynamics binds the universe. It is constantly running down. The sun and stars burns up energy at a furious rate. There is not one place in the universe where we see energy created and stored up without the further expense of disorder. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics demands that some time in the past, the universe had to be created and put in order.
@Casshyr #1:- The theory of evolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists ask you to believe that the world started in a state of disorder, with life coming about by accident, and gradually increased in complexity and order. They say that over the course of millions of years, it produced the world we have today. This idea is in direct opposition to what we observe. The theory of evolution hides behind great expanses of time.
@mrelgordoA "The theory of evolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics" => lets start from the basic. Define 2nd law of thermodynamics for me.
@Casshyr #2:- Evolutionists reason, "Given enough time, anything can happen." If you consider the second law of thermodynamics, you'll find that's not true. Time is an enemy to order: as time increases, disorder increases.
its funny how creationists are not happy with 70-75 percent of facts figured out. they are happier to believe something with zero evidence or proof. reatard is one word that comes to mind. ln my country we feel sorry for those with such a low i/q that they could believe in fairy tales like santa, religion or easter bunnys!!!
Richard Dawkins still needs to show a missing link of a sort. I am curious to hear about this sort of mythic "Stem Creature" that can create other species. Also who created the first cell since all cells come from pre-existing cells.
Evolution happens yes that I can buy. But Evolution creating whole new kingdoms that can be linked together?
Not saying the mainline creationist belief is correct but scientifically speaking, it seems evolution has some big questions to answer.
@MrNightlyProductions I would be delighted to answer you questions. Regarding the so called "missing link," we have been able to discover certain species that share traits with both modern and primitive animals. For example, australopithecus afarensis was a clear "missing link", exhibiting characteristics of both modern humans, and primitive apes. Regarding cell theory, this only applies to present-day cells. The first cells formed through self replicating RNA nucleotides, forming amino acids.
the self replication bit is only a hypothesis, not even a theory. Also that monkey isn't sufficient for what I call a "Stem Creature" because most of evolution theory believe people come from fishes etc. If you can show me an example of an animal changing kingdoms over time or has the possibility of changing into another kingdom I'd appreciate it.
@MrNightlyProductions How can anyone show you it directly as it takes thousands of years. Its like me asking you to show me the stars moving in the sky (even though they do) or show me bacteria in the toilet. Not being able to see something with your eyes doesnt mean it doesnt happen. I know its hard to get your head around humans eventually had ancestry with fish... but its hard for our minds to comprehend the time involved in the process. It is beyond us to imagine sometimes.
Well there is no general proof. People could give at least a legitimate theory or connect the dots but a lot of atheism on the creation of man is spent trying to prove creationism wrong. Doesn't it make more sense that God created the first humans? or life on earth?
@MrNightlyProductions Atheism lacks content, so theres no point saying anything about the character of an atheist... Its only easier to say god made man, if we don't understand what really happens. This is the difference between me and you. You are happy to just go with the simple explanation 'god did it using magic', whereas as a scientist, I say 'this is very complex and interesting, lets look at what evidence we have and try to figure it all out'. Which position do you think is better?
The real difference between you and I is that this is day 3 of me even getting involved in this discussion even though others have spent years talking about it. I am a man of science as well and understand things from that perspective. A lot of people who advocate evolution for the creation of man generally waste time name calling like little children and the occasional few that come up with something still can't piece it together properly.
The real difference between you and I is that this is day 3 of me even getting involved in this discussion even though others have spent years talking about it. I am a man of science as well and understand things from that perspective. A lot of people who advocate evolution for the creation of man generally waste time name calling like little children and the occasional few that come up with something still can't piece it together properly.
@MrNightlyProductions Well im not name calling. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life... this is the classic strawman from creationists. I like every biologist in the world has one answer for the qeustion 'how did life get there' - answer (and the only one we have) is: 'I dont know, but we do know life started as a single cell... and we have some ideas at how this cell may have arose' - thats the honest answer. Religious people think they know, but they dont know anything.
@MrNightlyProductions No offence to you as people have been doing it for thousands of years, but we are lazy in our thinking. The ancients would have just blamed god for the rain, and not bothered to consider why puddles went dry, or what clouds were... it took hundreds of years until someone who made the effort to figure it out came to the obvious conclusion. Darwin was brilliant in that he stood back from the consensus 'god did it' and spent his life making the effort to figure it all out.
I have never full read the Bible or Origin of Species but what I have read on Origin is that for the most part Darwin recognized evolution. Evolution is not wrong and you will never find me saying it is. However as a basis for the creation of life? a little tough to buy. If one man wants to spend his whole life learning about this particular subject then best of luck to you, I however am still seeking answers that need to be questioned.
@MrNightlyProductions Well actually I dont do biology, I do medical science, and I find no shame in wanting to understand the human body and try to fix it to save real human beings who live on a real planet called Earth.
The only place to find those answers you look for is through the discipline called Science. It looks at nature with an open mind and asks the most indepth questions 'how does this work, how did it get here, why does it do that etc....' - religion will give you nothing.
@MrNightlyProductions The theory of self-replicating RNA nucleotides is supported by a large body of evidence, including experiments done by Miller and Urey. They were able to reproduce conditions on early earth to produce amino acids. In addition, I feel rather ebullient regarding the fact that evidence of your "Stem Creature" has been found. Fossils like Osteolepis, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and Eryops brilliantly demonstrate the evolution from fish to amphibian.
If Human beings could create a form of artificial intelligence, then sit back and observe how it develops, at points when we realize that the intelligence was having problems we subtly interfere to set it on the right course. Over time our interactions with that intelligence becomes reduced to zero and they do not have any actual memory of those interactions, but create myths and stories and eventually religions worshipping us as their Gods.
@Casshyr Could you please show me any valid evidence of genetic information being increased? The design of the eye is not flawed. Eyes which do not function they way they were designed is due to mutations which do occur. These mutations can be passed on but they will never randomly create new genetic information to say let's begin the growth of two symmetrical wings and finish them in 100 million years
@cakum1994 Easy.... The human genome is jam packed full of repeated regions that do NOTHING. they are simply copying mistakes where genetic information has duplicated itself, and therefore increased. MRSA has gained resistance to antibiotics due to gene transfer, where the information has increased. Resistence to AIDS is beginning to arise due t a mutation in the HLA gene. This is a chance mutation that we can pin point, that confers an obvious advantage. Information can be added therefore.
@TheSelfishAltruist I believe these genes are known as pseudogenes. These are necessary as one was removed in mice at the University of California accidentally and they were born with severe birth defects. "This suggested that the fragmentary gene bit was somehow required for healthy life." I understand what you are saying in relation to AIDs etc. Darwin's finches will always be birds though. This is only a variation within species.
@cakum1994 Yes but Chimpanzees are also primates like humans... so you accept that humans and chimps could potentially evolve from or into each other? Because you just accepted it in finches?
Yes many Pesudogenes do in fact have a mysterious function, but most probably have none at all. Mutations appear in them all the time and nothing happens to you or me. 8% of the human genome is made of viral DNA that does nothing.... how do you suggest it got there if evolution hasn't happened?
...never get a new species, even over large periods of time as this would require an increase in genetic information. A mutation involves a loss or switch around in genetic information. Don't try and tell me that the "first " form of life, probably a tiny imaginary organism, contained all the genetic information for all living species on the planet today and randomly decided to switch some on and off to create messed up genetics. Did you know rock layers were dated before they had carbon datin
@cakum1994 "Don't try and tell me that the "first " form of life contained all the genetic information for all living species on the planet today" => nope, mutations can introduce novel biological function, as demonstrated already repeatedly. Pubmed of beneficial mutation will guide you from there. First life form didn't have the required genetic capacity, these were evolved over time. Since we do have novel function occurring via evolution, this is not pure guess.
@Casshyr Novel functions occur all the time in evolution. Novel just means new. LIke I said the easiest example is resistence to AIDS. It is a novel mutation, causing a novel function. After the spanish flu pandemic, new novel resistance genes arose to influenza, because the most vulnerable genes died with their hosts.
@cakum1994 Cakum. A mutation is a change in the gene, and could lead to any new function in theory... normally it makes things worse, but you got to remember a mutation is only good/bad in relation to the environment it is in. This is very important you understand this. A mutation taking all your skin pigment would be bad in Africa, but good in the Arctic. So when a mutation happens, it is tested against the environment. If it works, it lasts.. if it doesn't, you die, and the gene dies with you.
@cakum1994 New species have evolved lots of times recently. Darwins finches are an easy example, and you see whole new species evolve in sometimes 2 generations. Evolution can happend very quickly if the environment puts a strain on you. Aids in Africa for example is causing brand new resistence genes to pop up, and if we for example allowed everyone to die of Aids, give it time and everyone would have the resistence... this would be 'evolution' in action. Pandemics are good examples of this.
@TheSelfishAltruist Ok I have a simple idea.... Dog domestication has only happened in 10'000 years and look at the huge differences between a chi hu hu and a great dane. These two animals came from ONE ancestor 10K years ago. Now imagine if we carried that on for another 1'000'000 years. Are you telling me we couldnt have a difference, such as between a small rat (with two ears, eyes, a tail, four legs) and a Tiger (2 ears, eyes, tail, four legs). Animals share the same body plan for a reason.
@TheSelfishAltruist I understand where you're coming from as I used to find this plausable. However, I now find it to be physically difficult to evolution and see these similar traits as pointing to a common designer as plants do not have these traits which animals have.
@cakum1994 Actually you are wrong. Plants and animals at the cellular level are very very similar. Our mitochondria is similar to a chloroplast. We both use DNA as our genetic information, have immune systems. We use genes to encode proteins. We use the same genetic letters (A,T,C,G). Its a bit technical but the process of creating energy in plants is very similar (if not backwards) to animals. Simply google 'mitochondria chloroplast' and look at the pics to see the obvious similarities.
@cakum1994 Yes I suppose if god exists it makes sense that animals and planst share characteristics, but as I said there is no evidence of this. The real evidence shows evolution, and hundreds upon hundreds of experiments prove it. Many disciplines like genetics wouldn't work if evolution didn't happen. And it is plausible to you, because it is true.... I think the power of evolution is shown so easily in dog domestication. How animals change so drastically and over such a small time frame.
The human eye has no design faults! The blood vessels in front of the retina filters out harmful ultra-violet radiation. If this did not occur then we would lose our sight within 10 years. Example: an octopus has the blood vessels behind the retina as the water it lives in does the job of filtering out ultra-violet radiation. All that is spoken of here is micro evolution (variation in species) which occurs as we know you can do selective breeding to get different types of dogs but you will neve
@cakum1994 "The human eye has no design faults! " => lmao tell that to the parents with kids who have ocular albinism, retinitis pigmentosa, and many more of the congenital eye diseases. And don't tell me it's because of Original Sin, that's the most bullshit excuse ever invented to explain away why disease happen. Don't bring in variables that you can't prove.
Ardipithicus ramidus, australopithicus afarensis with supporting climate change. Raptor to bird. Megalodon to smaller sharks with supporting food source change and whale migrational patterns. Human fetus vestigial features which are to much to list here. DNA which provides an encyclopedia of evolutionary changes, again to much for a 500 character comment block. The examples given by professor Dawkins if you cared to listen. The thought that creationism needs to even be an alternative is scary.
@JackFucington Australopithicus Africanus, Australopithicus sediba, australopithicus aethiopicus, australopithicus robustus, australopithicus boisei, australopithicus anamensis, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo SapiensNeanderthalensis, Homo Florensiesis, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
@JackFucington You are precisely correct. These individuals simply ignore the overwhelming evidence to support the idea of evolution. They may as well be initiating an altercation regarding the existence of gravity.
there is no one true god beloging to one faith. and it is not are duty to know the meaning of life. in all religiuos beliefs we find hidden symbols meanings and stories that link them all together. we also find contradictions too. i was brought up church of england converted to catholic then to pagan. i think god is man made and we are god and god exists in all of us. but there is nothing more important then mother nature and the five elements of life.
Dawkings is my hero, but why does he waste time with people with no science degrees or anything, scientists are not split on this topic. its only the educated v the non educated. until they have a science degree they shouldnt even be allowed to have a comment on grown ups topics!!! KEEP YR BIBLES OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS AND WE WILL KEEP THINKING OUT OF YR CHURCH!!!
@KRAUCH74 What nonsense. I love Richard Dawkins (not 'Dawkings' for the record), and suggesting that only those of us with 'science degrees' should be allowed to discuss evolution, creationism and the like is absolute poppycock. For a start, I very much doubt that you 'Krauch' have a science degree. Isn't it generally a requirement that one is able to talk like a grown up to obtain a Bachelor's Degree? I certainly had to for mine..
@Robinjwhite you seem like a creationist hiding as an evolutionist with an intellect. not sure l follow ur point but i/q levels and creationist theorists go hand in hand. the higher the I/Q the less probability that one will believe in creationism. for the record what degree do you currently have? l am a lecturer at a leading university in my country and would enjoy having you in my class..
@KRAUCH74 I'm as evolutionist as they come - my point was that your comment came across as particularly uneducated, therefore your point about creationists being, as you said, largely uneducated, was highly ironic.
@Robinjwhite No you're not. I don't see what was uneducated about that statement, and it's not hard to point out flaws in anothers typing as a way to try and validate your pseudo-intellect. The statement "until you have a science degree, you should not be taken seriously in trying to dictate science curriculum. I.e. replacing evolution with creationism" is a completely valid point, as creationism is a blatant attempt to sabotage centuries of intellect and progress.
@JackFucington No I'm not what? Are you trying to suggest I'm a creationist? I'm neither a deist nor a theist. The suggestion that only people with science degrees can comment on the evolution vs creation debate is nonsense. Surely if someone without a degree (or with a BA for example) were to study the subject they'd be just as welcome to have an input? Are only those of us with degrees allowed to read Dawkins' books?
@JackFucington Sorry, might I also add that Krauch didn't say '"until you have a science degree, you should not be taken seriously in trying to dictate science curriculum. I.e. replacing evolution with creationism" which sounds much more reasonable. He said 'until they have a science degree they shouldnt even be allowed to have a comment on grown ups topics!!!' which is completely different. And liking others to type like grown ups in no way indicates a 'pseudo intellect'...
@Robinjwhite Why are we trying to make the case for creationism to be taken seriously in debate as it pretains to being taught in the public education system? I agree that a science degree is not required to have a "grown up conversation," but the guy clearly means as it pretains to the aformentioned problem. Creationism is not derived from intelligence and fact, not even theory to be exact. It is mearly a belief derived from zero knowledge. You know what I mean in regard to grammar
@JackFucington You're making grand assumptions with what the guy clearly means. Let's leave the grammar point aside for a moment and look simply at the quote I took umbrage with - ''until they have a science degree they shouldnt even be allowed to have a comment on grown ups topics!!!''. Now, what if I, as an atheist don't have a science degree, am I no longer allowed to have an opinion? Or is it just creationists without science degrees who can't talk about it?
@Robinjwhite And we have a winner! Yes, the point I'm trying to make is that it is a non-issue with regards to the peanut gallery. Atheists with picket signs, creationists with picket signs, neither have a say in the topic of school aged science curriculum. As most scientists don't even humor the concept of creationism the issue gets left with the "leaders" that pander to the religious zealots to get elected. Scientists can only weigh in at non-government institutions of higher.....
Anyone who doubts evolution, gravity or any scientific theory; Please, read a science book. But if you won't accept that particular fact because your holy book says something else, fuck off. Get a medication. I mean, it's 2012; what the fuck is wrong with this world? People still believe in god?
DeterminationForever 1 day ago
What evidence is that, darthmid?
jlmcvay1971 1 week ago
I lost interest at the point when he described the continental shift. I am a creationist, and I believe that the flood was the key factor in the movement of the continents. There is so much evidence for a massive, catastrophic flood, and I think he even alludes to some.
darthmid 1 week ago
Comment removed
sulljoh1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darthmid Your heart seems to be in the right place. I bet after an hour of argument we would come down to standards of evidence. What sort of thing counts as evidence and how do we discover anything when plagued by our personal biases? Scientists have no less bias than anybody else, we/they have just developed an elaborate system of checks and tests so that (hopefully) no theory without very strong evidence survives the assault. This is the best we can do with the natural world.
sulljoh1 1 week ago
@darthmid I'm a seismic analyst, and I would like to point out, as continents drift apart, through modern earthquakes we can observe, they go at an average observable pace. If you extrapolate from that pace backwards over time, eventually they come together in Pangaea (the single supercontinent you can piece together on a map.) The point is, the timeline required for this drift to happen is millions of years. The same millions of years required for evolution to take place.
NeuromancerKing 1 week ago
@darthmid You place God in those tiny little gaps where science has yet to conclude an explanation - Your God gets smaller and smaller with every new discovery. You're not that special, get over yourself.
ogjbot 2 days ago
I think many religious people feel intimidated by the idea that they are apes, or "just animal". I'm not religious myself but I think Dawkins should use some more time explaining to religious people that even if we are evolved from a common ancestor, it doesn't take away who or what we are, or make our existence any less special(If that is what he wants to do obviously). I think they mistake evolution as a mode to determine society. And that's what scares them.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 they will always be offended lol. You can try it yourself. When you explain to them how they remain human beings but just share common ancestors with primates, they take this as an attack to their God.
Casshyr 1 week ago
it's very apparent that this canadian interviewer has done some homework, unlike those in america
anattaalex 2 weeks ago
Hearing Dawkins say "penis" with his posh English accent just made my day.
DraconionDevil 3 weeks ago
Anyone else want Dawkins' tie?
wjbevan92 1 month ago
The coward Dawkins refuse deabte with Kent Hovind, what a loser he is.
TheHolyBible1000 1 month ago
@TheHolyBible1000 Why would he debate with Kent? That would mean that his stance has any validity, besides that it's not as though he would add anything new to the so call 'creation science' argument.
NotDuncan 1 month ago
@TheHolyBible1000 He has argued and won with better than Kent
1Jivan642 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheFallofSaodos 4 weeks ago
@TheHolyBible1000 It would be hard for Dawkins to debate Hovind, considering Hovind is currently serving a prison sentence hahaha.
TheFallofSaodos 4 weeks ago
question: why did this stupid christian cop movie commercial come up before the Dawkins vid, & how can we fix it so that doesn't happen? totally inappropriate.
jamesejudy3 1 month ago
I enjoyed this very much, thank you for posting!
ilovelani69 1 month ago
Comment removed
ISupaSoakaI 1 month ago
sweet tie
erichs6193 1 month ago
Can somebody PLEASE explain to me the "geographical distribution" proof at 03:39 again. I don't really get it. Thanks:)
nutsbutdum 1 month ago
@nutsbutdum Hi Nutsbutdum, Marsupials mainly exist in Australia (a couple in S. America too) they therefore seem to have evolved in there. Australia has for millions of years been an island and the animals there are quite unique to that Island Continent which is what you would expect if evolution by natural selection were true. If Marsupials cropped up way off in Canada too, that would be a big problem for the theory. But they don't. At 5.01 starts to explain it a bit. Cheers.
simpsonmark 1 month ago
@simpsonmark Thanks:)
nutsbutdum 1 month ago
@nutsbutdum Another good example of geographical distribution is island gigantism. Wikipedia "island gigantism" for a very interesting read.
The most simple proof of geographical distribution is remote islands. Islands almost exclusively have animals found no where else in the world, like Madagascar. According to evolution, animals on islands and remote areas should be considerably different than other animals, because over time they have evolved under very, very different circumstances.
cyberslick18 1 month ago in playlist Richard Dawkins
@cyberslick18 Thanks:)
nutsbutdum 1 month ago
It seems like all the Christians have bad arguments and the bad grammar and spelling to go along with it.
budgerigar42 1 month ago 26
@budgerigar42 Amen
christinachapman85 3 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins is quite right: any individuals who persist in denying the overwhelming evidence should simply be ignored. Genuine questions about evolution should be addressed, however the categorical denial of evidence in biology, geology, zoology and psychology, etc., and promote nonsensical non-sequiturs that have long since been debunked should simply be ignored. You don't believe that all life on earth is the product of billions of years of evolution? Go away and read a book.
jcgiron89 1 month ago 19
Looking for the missing link? Meet my friend Dave.
smhussain62 1 month ago
The nerve going down to the voice box of a giraffe is a great example of a very bad designer's work if there is one. That's something I didn't know of, and now I have some more to say to a creationist. Thanks to you Mr. Dawkins.
hdersoz 1 month ago
@hdersoz In my opinion the example of the nerve going down through the voice box of the giraffe isn't "quite" a DEFINITIVE proof to tell a creationist. I reckon Richard is mistaking "design" with "practicality". You would hope, I guess, an intelligent designer not to be constrained by our expectation of which path the nerve SHOULD take. By the way I'm not a creationist. I'm just pointing that out:)
nutsbutdum 1 month ago
@nutsbutdum Honestly I don't care too much for debating with creationists, it's like the saying about arguing with idiot. "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
NotDuncan 1 month ago
The universe is unimaginable, evolution is a fact, but god is the truth!
Selimagick 1 month ago
@Selimagick false
NitsuaNaed 1 month ago
how the fuck on earth u are going to see those missing links u will have to dig whole earth
to see something like dinosaur going to predatoric bird going to flying bird u will have to dig the whole continent yet u could not find any bones, fairly small amount of bones go rocky (sorry i dno proper word for the bone that gets rocky and lasts million years) to rly have idea how evolution happens check out khan academy biology section
georgianpornostyle 1 month ago
@georgianpornostyle "sorry i dno proper word for the bone that gets rocky and lasts million years"
It is a fossil, they are fossils. Giving you singular and plural on that. Hope it helps.
As for the other questions, we actually do have fossils of animals suspended halfway between dinosaurs and birds, and between the proto-birds and proper birds as well. We just don't have every single stage of development from one to the next for any species and creationists will accept nothing less.
TomVodkaCollins 4 weeks ago
“What’s remarkable about fossils is the very process of fossilization. When an animal dies it’s remains must be covered quickly by sediment - the first condition for preservation.” Stephen Schwochow Host/writer P.B.S. Form and Function of Fossils
Hmmmm... could a flood account for fossils? NO WAY MAN. THAT IS CHEATING! THAT IS TOO OBVIOUS.
It is hard for creationist to take evolutionists seriously when the great preponderance of evidence for creation comes from the evolutionists.
bretlcarpenter 1 month ago
@bretlcarpenter This has been refuted many times so i won't bother, just look it up.
Curassus 1 month ago
@bretlcarpenter
1. But a REAL evolutionist would say that, yes. A flood could account for fossils but that's no evidence for the biblical flood
2. So you're saying that you can't take the source of the data seriously but you draw great conclusions from it anyway?
3. You creationists really are a laugh a minute :-)
shumble32 1 month ago
@bretlcarpenter A flood can lead to fossils.
What it cannot do, however, is account for the stratification that we see, it cannot account for fossil distribution, it cannot account for the consistency of the fossil-geographic strata correlation, it cannot account for the progression of fossils.
What a global flood would do is give us one layer containing all fossils in absolutely no order.
MrFungus420 1 month ago
And why does he go on and on about what you cannot expect to find? He keeps making excuses for the lack of fossil evidence to support evolution.
His main evidence he says is based upon a "rare event... so very rare... only once in a million years" but it must have happened for his theory to be true. This guy sounds like a religious cult leader.
And his main argument against creation is that if he were God he would not have done things that way. He has me falling down laughing!
bretlcarpenter 1 month ago
It is hard for me to agree with most of what he is saying because it contradicts to many other leading evolutionists. Back in the 80's when I was researching this subject I often read in scientific literature the reference of "out of order" fossils and explanations for this COMMON phenomena.
If anyone is interested I will post quotes and references. This guy has obviously not studied the subject in depth.
bretlcarpenter 1 month ago
I completely agree with what he's saying. Could anyone tell me what book his comparison of the detective finding evidence being the same as scientist finding evidence for evolution is from? Thanks
broomiester 1 month ago
I heard about the chance to have dinner with Richard Dawkins and I did not attemp that chance because I was afraid I would win. If I had dinner with Richard Dawkins, I would be afraid that I would not be a good enough dinner partner to make it an interesting evening. Thus I would forever feel that I had failed Richard Dawkins and wasted his valuable time.
TheReaverOfDarkness 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible / ID Video / Abiogenesis Is Pseudoscience" on YouTube
All praise to You heavenly Father
Jesus is returning soon...are you ready?
ATBINTC 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is what evolution and eugenics does..."Eugenics, Human Cloning, GMO Food & The NWO - Alex Jones WARNING - Humanity is Under Attack " on YouTube
ATBINTC 1 month ago
Regarding "_Controversial_ author and atheist Richard Dawkins" (the description on this video): he's probably only "controversial" in places like the Middle-East, parts of the USA, Turkey, and such places where for some reason basic modern biology education is still lacking, and there are religious influences that hinder scientific litteracy.
Elsewhere in the world, he's pretty mainstream and respected.
0debug 1 month ago
@0debug Simply promoting evolution shouldn't make someone controversial. Some of his ideas about memes and selfish genes are quite controversial though. Also his style of Atheism is much more robust and outspoken in contrast with the popular atheist writers of the 20th century like Antony Flew, Jean-Paul Sartre, A.J Ayer & Julian Huxley.
Anglican08 1 month ago
If God made man in his image, man would reproduce asexually, as there would be no need for male and female counterparts in a supreme being. Evolution made sex, which I see as a more beautiful gift than the notion I am made from an egomaniacal alien.
bodinian 2 months ago 4
The universe and it's building blocks have a progression of advancement to higher standards of function. All human beings have a conscience and if it is in a healthy state it will have a built-in knowing of right and wrong, good and bad, Every human being has the capacity for love and hate. People become and believe in what the expose themselves too. ALL THIS DID NOT JUST HAPPEN, IF YOU THINK IT DID WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND YOU ARE ADVANCED BY IT, THEN KEEP IT GOING, GET YOUR OWN PLANET!
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA Okay, can you point out something i can consider to be evidence of intelligent design but not these points that have been refuted: flood caused fossilization, universal constants, cause of human intelligence, unreliability within the carbon dating system, voids in the explanation of abiogenesis and cosmogenesis.
Curassus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
QUOTE: Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
QUOTE:- Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." mrelgordoA 1 second ago
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
QUOTES:- George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
QUOTES:- George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
QUOTES :-Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.The universe must have a purpose".
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA I don't know if you guys are talking about evolution theory as a biologist would define, but the two scientists you cited, Fred Hoyle and Paul Davies, they both believe in evolution theory. Fred only rejects abiogenesis (and bbt). And he also by no means is promoting a Christian God. What pisses me off about creationists is they think "look, there has to be a supernatural force", and somehow this means "my God is the right God". There's a bridge they fail to cross.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr #1:- The problem with atheists is, they look at the worlds religions and their horrible history, including christianity and throw the baby out with the bath water. The creator I believe in has been lied about through history and once a person gives him a chance to be what he desires to be to them they will ALWAYS want him and can trust he wants only the best for them. This universe is INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, THERE IS NOT DEBATE FOR THE ACCURATE OBSERVER.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@Casshyr #2:- If you can agree that the universe is INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED you are opening the door to understanding that the intelligent source, be it what you think, always wants the best for you and by opening up your self to this source your will be amazed at how much better life gets.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA I remain agnostic about universe being "intelligently designed" until I see 2 things. 1) The proof for a supernatural creator capable of designing the universe. And no, ancient documents don't count. I want to see scientific evidence. 2) Something that is not intellectual designed. You CAN'T say something is intellectual designed if you don't define what is NOT intellectual designed. Analogy: you can't say a water is cold without defining what is hot first.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr #1:- Are you saying that until you have proof of an entity causing the universe exist you will have faith in the universe coming into existence without any separate source of power? To me that would be like a car engine starting without any electrical signal, just one simple example of potentially millions. #2 If you take the position that nothing is intelligently designed then you deny your own ability to exist. The very foundation of matter has order and function.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA "like a car engine starting without any electrical signal, just one simple example of potentially millions" =>but nobody is saying a fully functional cell that "popped" into existence. According to RNA world hypothesis, current popular scientific belief is that first life forms came in the form of RNA strands capable of self-replication. And we do have examples where we successfully created self-replicating strands in the lab, so it's theoretically possible (but not fact)
Casshyr 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA "f you take the position that nothing is intelligently designed then you deny your own ability to exist." => I didn't say that. I'm not asking for proof for either position. My point is you need to define what is considered NOT intelligently designed before you can say something is intelligently designed. Just like my analogy: if I give you a cup of water, can you say it's hot without defining what's cold? no. You need to define the counterpart.
Casshyr 2 months ago
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it on earth.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA LMFAO. thats a good one.
dopeasfuckk 2 months ago
YOUNG EARTH: The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
Einstein's Quote: "I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details." Go to "Evidence for a Young Earth" @ earthage org and don't be afraid to learn, Our creator is a friend!
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
syok-sendiri.. satan!
shue79 2 months ago
#4. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth...... MERRY CHRISTMAS!! Wise men still seek him, it gives you peace!
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA That's not true at all. The sun is getting bigger. Stop making up crap for your shit ideas. Face it, Young Earth Creationists are wrong. Don't even bother trying to prove your stupid ideas to be true because you might as well try say the earth is flat.
saumyab44 2 months ago
@saumyab44 Your anger shows you are frightened and insecure. Einstein's Quote: "I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details." Go to "Evidence for a Young Earth"
@ earthage org and don't be afraid to learn, Our creator is a friend!
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA No it's cos your "facts" are not facts at all. There's no reason to spread lies and make other people as ignorant as you. And ya I looked at your website, it presents some interesting thoughts but nothing that can't be explained. Try to look up some actual scientific website that weren't created by people who were predisposed to finding "evidence" to support a young earth.
saumyab44 2 months ago
@saumyab44 Young Earth / Creation View
Mathematical calculations show that at the current rate of population growth, the current world population would be produced from only a few people in 4,000 years, thus showing evidence that the current world population was started at the time of Noah's flood (about 2348 BC). Henry Morris advocates this view in his book Scientific Creationism.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA Modern humans come from a small population which lived about half a million years ago. Not 4000 years ago. This point is backed up by the majority of scientists who are experts in the field. Your getting your information from a guy who has degrees in civil engineering lol. He may be smart but he knows nothing on biology and the origin of man. Why not get your facts from Dawkins who has degrees in Biology and has spent decades with other scientists working out this kind of stuff?
saumyab44 2 months ago
@saumyab44 Sorry it was actually more like 250,000 years ago.
saumyab44 2 months ago
@saumyab44 Evolutions say man first appeared on earth .5 million years ago, where are all the bones from .5 million years of humans, Calculating a very small birth rate of a fraction of 1% the skeletons would be pilled millions of miles high. About 2.45 X 10 to the 990th power. that is more skeletons pilled up then the universe could hold. even 25000 years ago at 1/10 of 1% growth rate the current population would be 144 billion, that would be 22 earths with a population of 6.5 billion.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrelgordoA "Evolutions say man first appeared on earth .5 million years ago" => not quite, more like ~250,000 years.
"Calculating a very small birth rate of a fraction of 1% the skeletons would be pilled millions of miles high. About 2.45 X 10 to the 990th power" => bones decay rather rapidly, in the span of couple hundreds years. This is also why finding fossil evidence is rare because only under precise conditions do we see preserved forms of the past thousands of years old.
Casshyr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrelgordoA "even 25000 years ago at 1/10 of 1% growth rate the current population would be 144 billion" => false assumption. Ancestral human beings did not enjoy the same survival rate as we do today. The growth rate cannot be assumed to be an exponential function. The survival rate would instead match more similar to the monkeys, where even without human intervention, we see that the growth rate is not exponential.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA Um you realise that its difficult for fossils to be formed, theres many stages that bones must go through to firstly be able to form into a fossil and then discovered by us. Fossils can only be made on sedimentary rock for example which limits how many can actually be made. Thats just one factor that proves your point to be invalid. Secondly many fossils have been discovered of humans from back in that time, your acting as if non have been found. Your calculations mean nothing.
saumyab44 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA population growth rate is an interesting idea. However, this isn't how the world works. Your example doesn't take into war, famine, or disease. The Black Death killed nearly 1/3 of Europe if I am not mistaken. There is an entire section in The Believing Brain which goes into this. Check it out! Great read!
adiamondfordisease 2 months ago
@adiamondfordisease #1:- Hi, I appreciate the ref. Obviously I do not know where you stand. One thing I am noticing, when posting on evolution/atheist videos like this, is the lack of people with a pleasant personalities. They often get offended and angry, lashing out at others that are intelligent human beings. This type of behavior is a clear sign of insecurity and protectionism....
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@adiamondfordisease #2:- Do you think that a person that has been happily married for 50 years with 5 successful grown up children all with there own families in tact. with good health, no drugs or alcohol of any kind EVER, Financials in order, CEO of their own company for the 50 years is going to listen to insults and putdowns and think for one second they would ever exchange their life and close relationship with their all providing CREATOR for that GARBAGE.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@adiamondfordisease #3:- Organized religions of all strips can be and in many times are the worst sources of hatred on this earth and it seems like Atheists base their beliefs of a intelligent design or creator on the Religion they have seen or heard about. Atheists aren't studying the world around them, great people of the past and present, Individuals that have become extremely successful, etc, and finding out what those types of people base their successes on.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@adiamondfordisease #4:- If people would stop the arguing on what is the source of the universe is and take a close look at what all the sources of information are saying, they would realizing that no one has all the answers, and this planet would be a better place. WISE MEN STILL SEEK HIM. Richard Dawkins is not thinking clearly in some areas. He is intelligent and has a lot on information, but is unwilling to admit others do too.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that as a whole universe entropy is increasing, but it doesn't mean that locally entropy can't increase (it just means that elsewhere it has to increase more) so 2nd law doesn't contradict molecules coming together and evolving....
WarringGod 2 months ago
#3 Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago?
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
#2:- REF: Evidence for a young Earth. What are evolution-believing scientists and the media so afraid of? In other words: IF the theory of evolution is anywhere near as sound as they claim, then why not have some publicly televised debates on this issue?
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
#1:- REF: Evidence for a Young Earth. Don't you think it's a bit odd that there are virtually NO Public debates between evolution-believing scientists and Creation scientists? And considering the fact that roughly half of all scientists (and 88 % of the public) believe in (either) spontaneous or slow Creation this is even more astounding.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
People that believe in a selective process of advancement for all living things, called natural selection. Have a fundamentally flawed belief system. This is why, natural selection should never be tampered with, by doing so an intelligent component influenced it's process. Would a evolutionist ever consider medical help, ask your self why would they interfere with the natural selection that has NO INTELLIGENT COMPONENT IN ITS SYSTEMS. Let the natural selecting weed out the inferior beings.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA That argument makes no sense. The invention of medicine gave an evolutionary advantage to humans. Natural Selection doesn't mean you stand around naked waiting for nature to select you. It means that the fittest and most able to reproduce pass on their genes.
tobrien28 2 months ago
@tobrien28 It makes perfect sense. Does the"invention of medicine had a component of intelligence to it? If you say yes, you are saying intelligence came from non-intelligence. If you say no then you are saying there is no intelligence in our world today.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA That is not what intelligent design means. Your example is at the most artificial selection (deliberately breeding for desirable traits) but the mechanism is the same. It's random mutations and a non-random selection process causing change.
Intelligent design on the other hand is the idea that a god or something designed everything as is. That things are exactly as this god intended and they haven't changed since creation. Entirely different to what you're saying.
Skywake 2 months ago
@Skywake And then there is one form of ID that claims there is some sort of hyper evolution, but that mostly only apears when you talk with those who believes in the judeo-christian creation myth and Noas flood.
Sweddude 2 months ago
@Skywake "Intelligent design on the other hand is idea that a god or something designed everything as is. That things are exactly as this god intended and they haven't changed since creation" => actually, if you go on wiki, you'll see intelligent design can also be grouped under theistic evolution, which then says God's creations have evolved over time (via processes of evolution) but everything is still as God intended. The definition of ID is really muddy imo, it differs depend who u talk to
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr They can water down their "theory" as much as they want. If they water it down to the point where it's a god setting the rules and state of the universe and pressing play I don't have much of a problem with it.
Still, I was mostly criticising definitions of ID and evolution that "proved" evolution wrong if doctors are smart or if Artificial selection takes place. That's obviously not a disproof, artificial selection is the same process. :)
Skywake 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA hmm...are you saying bacteria is dumb? sounds like you are.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr The Revolution Against Evolution 1994 Article ref :The second law of thermodynamics binds the universe. It is constantly running down. The sun and stars burns up energy at a furious rate. There is not one place in the universe where we see energy created and stored up without the further expense of disorder. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics demands that some time in the past, the universe had to be created and put in order.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA "The Revolution Against Evolution 1994 Article re" => LOL this isn't peer-reviewed. Do yo know what peer-review in science means?
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr #1:- The theory of evolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists ask you to believe that the world started in a state of disorder, with life coming about by accident, and gradually increased in complexity and order. They say that over the course of millions of years, it produced the world we have today. This idea is in direct opposition to what we observe. The theory of evolution hides behind great expanses of time.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
@mrelgordoA "The theory of evolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics" => lets start from the basic. Define 2nd law of thermodynamics for me.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr #2:- Evolutionists reason, "Given enough time, anything can happen." If you consider the second law of thermodynamics, you'll find that's not true. Time is an enemy to order: as time increases, disorder increases.
mrelgordoA 2 months ago
its funny how creationists are not happy with 70-75 percent of facts figured out. they are happier to believe something with zero evidence or proof. reatard is one word that comes to mind. ln my country we feel sorry for those with such a low i/q that they could believe in fairy tales like santa, religion or easter bunnys!!!
KRAUCH74 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins still needs to show a missing link of a sort. I am curious to hear about this sort of mythic "Stem Creature" that can create other species. Also who created the first cell since all cells come from pre-existing cells.
Evolution happens yes that I can buy. But Evolution creating whole new kingdoms that can be linked together?
Not saying the mainline creationist belief is correct but scientifically speaking, it seems evolution has some big questions to answer.
MrNightlyProductions 2 months ago
@MrNightlyProductions I would be delighted to answer you questions. Regarding the so called "missing link," we have been able to discover certain species that share traits with both modern and primitive animals. For example, australopithecus afarensis was a clear "missing link", exhibiting characteristics of both modern humans, and primitive apes. Regarding cell theory, this only applies to present-day cells. The first cells formed through self replicating RNA nucleotides, forming amino acids.
YusufSMahmood 2 months ago
@YusufSMahmood
the self replication bit is only a hypothesis, not even a theory. Also that monkey isn't sufficient for what I call a "Stem Creature" because most of evolution theory believe people come from fishes etc. If you can show me an example of an animal changing kingdoms over time or has the possibility of changing into another kingdom I'd appreciate it.
MrNightlyProductions 2 months ago
@MrNightlyProductions How can anyone show you it directly as it takes thousands of years. Its like me asking you to show me the stars moving in the sky (even though they do) or show me bacteria in the toilet. Not being able to see something with your eyes doesnt mean it doesnt happen. I know its hard to get your head around humans eventually had ancestry with fish... but its hard for our minds to comprehend the time involved in the process. It is beyond us to imagine sometimes.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
Well there is no general proof. People could give at least a legitimate theory or connect the dots but a lot of atheism on the creation of man is spent trying to prove creationism wrong. Doesn't it make more sense that God created the first humans? or life on earth?
MrNightlyProductions 2 months ago
@MrNightlyProductions Atheism lacks content, so theres no point saying anything about the character of an atheist... Its only easier to say god made man, if we don't understand what really happens. This is the difference between me and you. You are happy to just go with the simple explanation 'god did it using magic', whereas as a scientist, I say 'this is very complex and interesting, lets look at what evidence we have and try to figure it all out'. Which position do you think is better?
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
The real difference between you and I is that this is day 3 of me even getting involved in this discussion even though others have spent years talking about it. I am a man of science as well and understand things from that perspective. A lot of people who advocate evolution for the creation of man generally waste time name calling like little children and the occasional few that come up with something still can't piece it together properly.
MrNightlyProductions 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
The real difference between you and I is that this is day 3 of me even getting involved in this discussion even though others have spent years talking about it. I am a man of science as well and understand things from that perspective. A lot of people who advocate evolution for the creation of man generally waste time name calling like little children and the occasional few that come up with something still can't piece it together properly.
MrNightlyProductions 2 months ago
@MrNightlyProductions Well im not name calling. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life... this is the classic strawman from creationists. I like every biologist in the world has one answer for the qeustion 'how did life get there' - answer (and the only one we have) is: 'I dont know, but we do know life started as a single cell... and we have some ideas at how this cell may have arose' - thats the honest answer. Religious people think they know, but they dont know anything.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@MrNightlyProductions No offence to you as people have been doing it for thousands of years, but we are lazy in our thinking. The ancients would have just blamed god for the rain, and not bothered to consider why puddles went dry, or what clouds were... it took hundreds of years until someone who made the effort to figure it out came to the obvious conclusion. Darwin was brilliant in that he stood back from the consensus 'god did it' and spent his life making the effort to figure it all out.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
I have never full read the Bible or Origin of Species but what I have read on Origin is that for the most part Darwin recognized evolution. Evolution is not wrong and you will never find me saying it is. However as a basis for the creation of life? a little tough to buy. If one man wants to spend his whole life learning about this particular subject then best of luck to you, I however am still seeking answers that need to be questioned.
MrNightlyProductions 2 months ago
@MrNightlyProductions Well actually I dont do biology, I do medical science, and I find no shame in wanting to understand the human body and try to fix it to save real human beings who live on a real planet called Earth.
The only place to find those answers you look for is through the discipline called Science. It looks at nature with an open mind and asks the most indepth questions 'how does this work, how did it get here, why does it do that etc....' - religion will give you nothing.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@MrNightlyProductions The theory of self-replicating RNA nucleotides is supported by a large body of evidence, including experiments done by Miller and Urey. They were able to reproduce conditions on early earth to produce amino acids. In addition, I feel rather ebullient regarding the fact that evidence of your "Stem Creature" has been found. Fossils like Osteolepis, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and Eryops brilliantly demonstrate the evolution from fish to amphibian.
YusufSMahmood 2 months ago
@MrNightlyProductions I couldn't agree more.
cakum1994 2 months ago
If Human beings could create a form of artificial intelligence, then sit back and observe how it develops, at points when we realize that the intelligence was having problems we subtly interfere to set it on the right course. Over time our interactions with that intelligence becomes reduced to zero and they do not have any actual memory of those interactions, but create myths and stories and eventually religions worshipping us as their Gods.
Dawkins is very smart but very arrogant as well.
DeejayBaj 2 months ago
@Casshyr Could you please show me any valid evidence of genetic information being increased? The design of the eye is not flawed. Eyes which do not function they way they were designed is due to mutations which do occur. These mutations can be passed on but they will never randomly create new genetic information to say let's begin the growth of two symmetrical wings and finish them in 100 million years
cakum1994 2 months ago
@cakum1994 Easy.... The human genome is jam packed full of repeated regions that do NOTHING. they are simply copying mistakes where genetic information has duplicated itself, and therefore increased. MRSA has gained resistance to antibiotics due to gene transfer, where the information has increased. Resistence to AIDS is beginning to arise due t a mutation in the HLA gene. This is a chance mutation that we can pin point, that confers an obvious advantage. Information can be added therefore.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist I believe these genes are known as pseudogenes. These are necessary as one was removed in mice at the University of California accidentally and they were born with severe birth defects. "This suggested that the fragmentary gene bit was somehow required for healthy life." I understand what you are saying in relation to AIDs etc. Darwin's finches will always be birds though. This is only a variation within species.
cakum1994 2 months ago
@cakum1994 Yes but Chimpanzees are also primates like humans... so you accept that humans and chimps could potentially evolve from or into each other? Because you just accepted it in finches?
Yes many Pesudogenes do in fact have a mysterious function, but most probably have none at all. Mutations appear in them all the time and nothing happens to you or me. 8% of the human genome is made of viral DNA that does nothing.... how do you suggest it got there if evolution hasn't happened?
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrBluerizlas 2 months ago
...never get a new species, even over large periods of time as this would require an increase in genetic information. A mutation involves a loss or switch around in genetic information. Don't try and tell me that the "first " form of life, probably a tiny imaginary organism, contained all the genetic information for all living species on the planet today and randomly decided to switch some on and off to create messed up genetics. Did you know rock layers were dated before they had carbon datin
cakum1994 2 months ago
@cakum1994 "Don't try and tell me that the "first " form of life contained all the genetic information for all living species on the planet today" => nope, mutations can introduce novel biological function, as demonstrated already repeatedly. Pubmed of beneficial mutation will guide you from there. First life form didn't have the required genetic capacity, these were evolved over time. Since we do have novel function occurring via evolution, this is not pure guess.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Novel functions occur all the time in evolution. Novel just means new. LIke I said the easiest example is resistence to AIDS. It is a novel mutation, causing a novel function. After the spanish flu pandemic, new novel resistance genes arose to influenza, because the most vulnerable genes died with their hosts.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist I think you misclicked me, I'm not a creationist. Perhaps it's a post addressed to cakum?
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Yeh your right, sorry... Probably in my rage I just went mad and clicked randomly.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@cakum1994 Cakum. A mutation is a change in the gene, and could lead to any new function in theory... normally it makes things worse, but you got to remember a mutation is only good/bad in relation to the environment it is in. This is very important you understand this. A mutation taking all your skin pigment would be bad in Africa, but good in the Arctic. So when a mutation happens, it is tested against the environment. If it works, it lasts.. if it doesn't, you die, and the gene dies with you.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@cakum1994 New species have evolved lots of times recently. Darwins finches are an easy example, and you see whole new species evolve in sometimes 2 generations. Evolution can happend very quickly if the environment puts a strain on you. Aids in Africa for example is causing brand new resistence genes to pop up, and if we for example allowed everyone to die of Aids, give it time and everyone would have the resistence... this would be 'evolution' in action. Pandemics are good examples of this.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist Ok I have a simple idea.... Dog domestication has only happened in 10'000 years and look at the huge differences between a chi hu hu and a great dane. These two animals came from ONE ancestor 10K years ago. Now imagine if we carried that on for another 1'000'000 years. Are you telling me we couldnt have a difference, such as between a small rat (with two ears, eyes, a tail, four legs) and a Tiger (2 ears, eyes, tail, four legs). Animals share the same body plan for a reason.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist I understand where you're coming from as I used to find this plausable. However, I now find it to be physically difficult to evolution and see these similar traits as pointing to a common designer as plants do not have these traits which animals have.
cakum1994 2 months ago
@cakum1994 Actually you are wrong. Plants and animals at the cellular level are very very similar. Our mitochondria is similar to a chloroplast. We both use DNA as our genetic information, have immune systems. We use genes to encode proteins. We use the same genetic letters (A,T,C,G). Its a bit technical but the process of creating energy in plants is very similar (if not backwards) to animals. Simply google 'mitochondria chloroplast' and look at the pics to see the obvious similarities.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@cakum1994 Yes I suppose if god exists it makes sense that animals and planst share characteristics, but as I said there is no evidence of this. The real evidence shows evolution, and hundreds upon hundreds of experiments prove it. Many disciplines like genetics wouldn't work if evolution didn't happen. And it is plausible to you, because it is true.... I think the power of evolution is shown so easily in dog domestication. How animals change so drastically and over such a small time frame.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
The human eye has no design faults! The blood vessels in front of the retina filters out harmful ultra-violet radiation. If this did not occur then we would lose our sight within 10 years. Example: an octopus has the blood vessels behind the retina as the water it lives in does the job of filtering out ultra-violet radiation. All that is spoken of here is micro evolution (variation in species) which occurs as we know you can do selective breeding to get different types of dogs but you will neve
cakum1994 2 months ago
@cakum1994 "The human eye has no design faults! " => lmao tell that to the parents with kids who have ocular albinism, retinitis pigmentosa, and many more of the congenital eye diseases. And don't tell me it's because of Original Sin, that's the most bullshit excuse ever invented to explain away why disease happen. Don't bring in variables that you can't prove.
Casshyr 2 months ago
05:55 slightly awkward moment. "hey don't touch my foot"
mexicandruglord 2 months ago
Ardipithicus ramidus, australopithicus afarensis with supporting climate change. Raptor to bird. Megalodon to smaller sharks with supporting food source change and whale migrational patterns. Human fetus vestigial features which are to much to list here. DNA which provides an encyclopedia of evolutionary changes, again to much for a 500 character comment block. The examples given by professor Dawkins if you cared to listen. The thought that creationism needs to even be an alternative is scary.
JackFucington 2 months ago
@JackFucington Australopithicus Africanus, Australopithicus sediba, australopithicus aethiopicus, australopithicus robustus, australopithicus boisei, australopithicus anamensis, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo SapiensNeanderthalensis, Homo Florensiesis, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
YusufSMahmood 2 months ago
@YusufSMahmood Yes, thank you. 'Can't see the forest through the trees' I think is the appropriate phrase to describe these ppl
JackFucington 2 months ago
@JackFucington You are precisely correct. These individuals simply ignore the overwhelming evidence to support the idea of evolution. They may as well be initiating an altercation regarding the existence of gravity.
YusufSMahmood 2 months ago
there is no one true god beloging to one faith. and it is not are duty to know the meaning of life. in all religiuos beliefs we find hidden symbols meanings and stories that link them all together. we also find contradictions too. i was brought up church of england converted to catholic then to pagan. i think god is man made and we are god and god exists in all of us. but there is nothing more important then mother nature and the five elements of life.
peace and love
TomTheBombBombadilo1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if everything is created who created god. with every question answered a new one is revealed for example who made the man who made me.
TomTheBombBombadilo1 2 months ago
I just love Richard. He inspires me and makes my heart smile!!!! HE has made me see the light - not God.
NoeBernardin 2 months ago
Amazing Tie Richard :D
Brengmathew 2 months ago
This video is a fake, the interviewer ISNT a total douchebag... lol
MrGuitarphenomenon 2 months ago
God´s a tricky little fucker isn´t he? Always messing with people´s heads, a fucking riot at parties I´m told.
yatter1 2 months ago
godzillas fossil was found in new york city?
british123able 3 months ago
lol awkward shoe touch 6:03
johnnybradshaw41 3 months ago 15
Dawkings is my hero, but why does he waste time with people with no science degrees or anything, scientists are not split on this topic. its only the educated v the non educated. until they have a science degree they shouldnt even be allowed to have a comment on grown ups topics!!! KEEP YR BIBLES OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS AND WE WILL KEEP THINKING OUT OF YR CHURCH!!!
KRAUCH74 3 months ago 11
@KRAUCH74 What nonsense. I love Richard Dawkins (not 'Dawkings' for the record), and suggesting that only those of us with 'science degrees' should be allowed to discuss evolution, creationism and the like is absolute poppycock. For a start, I very much doubt that you 'Krauch' have a science degree. Isn't it generally a requirement that one is able to talk like a grown up to obtain a Bachelor's Degree? I certainly had to for mine..
Robinjwhite 2 months ago
@Robinjwhite you seem like a creationist hiding as an evolutionist with an intellect. not sure l follow ur point but i/q levels and creationist theorists go hand in hand. the higher the I/Q the less probability that one will believe in creationism. for the record what degree do you currently have? l am a lecturer at a leading university in my country and would enjoy having you in my class..
KRAUCH74 2 months ago
@KRAUCH74 I'm as evolutionist as they come - my point was that your comment came across as particularly uneducated, therefore your point about creationists being, as you said, largely uneducated, was highly ironic.
Robinjwhite 2 months ago
@Robinjwhite No you're not. I don't see what was uneducated about that statement, and it's not hard to point out flaws in anothers typing as a way to try and validate your pseudo-intellect. The statement "until you have a science degree, you should not be taken seriously in trying to dictate science curriculum. I.e. replacing evolution with creationism" is a completely valid point, as creationism is a blatant attempt to sabotage centuries of intellect and progress.
JackFucington 2 months ago
@JackFucington No I'm not what? Are you trying to suggest I'm a creationist? I'm neither a deist nor a theist. The suggestion that only people with science degrees can comment on the evolution vs creation debate is nonsense. Surely if someone without a degree (or with a BA for example) were to study the subject they'd be just as welcome to have an input? Are only those of us with degrees allowed to read Dawkins' books?
Robinjwhite 2 months ago
@JackFucington Sorry, might I also add that Krauch didn't say '"until you have a science degree, you should not be taken seriously in trying to dictate science curriculum. I.e. replacing evolution with creationism" which sounds much more reasonable. He said 'until they have a science degree they shouldnt even be allowed to have a comment on grown ups topics!!!' which is completely different. And liking others to type like grown ups in no way indicates a 'pseudo intellect'...
Robinjwhite 2 months ago
@Robinjwhite Why are we trying to make the case for creationism to be taken seriously in debate as it pretains to being taught in the public education system? I agree that a science degree is not required to have a "grown up conversation," but the guy clearly means as it pretains to the aformentioned problem. Creationism is not derived from intelligence and fact, not even theory to be exact. It is mearly a belief derived from zero knowledge. You know what I mean in regard to grammar
JackFucington 2 months ago
@JackFucington You're making grand assumptions with what the guy clearly means. Let's leave the grammar point aside for a moment and look simply at the quote I took umbrage with - ''until they have a science degree they shouldnt even be allowed to have a comment on grown ups topics!!!''. Now, what if I, as an atheist don't have a science degree, am I no longer allowed to have an opinion? Or is it just creationists without science degrees who can't talk about it?
Robinjwhite 2 months ago
@Robinjwhite And we have a winner! Yes, the point I'm trying to make is that it is a non-issue with regards to the peanut gallery. Atheists with picket signs, creationists with picket signs, neither have a say in the topic of school aged science curriculum. As most scientists don't even humor the concept of creationism the issue gets left with the "leaders" that pander to the religious zealots to get elected. Scientists can only weigh in at non-government institutions of higher.....
JackFucington 2 months ago