Oh I dunno, I think a creator who comes with retarded logic like 'Yeah, a dick up your arse feels good, but doing it is a sin' would be silly enough to create stuff like that.
I think God was just the original troll who's laughing hard at people following his silly rules no matter how contradicting they seem.
How does he know that the flounder's ancestors laid down on their sides? And why did they stay down after they got sand in their lower eye? At the alleged lengthy rates of evolution, it would have taken hundreds of generations of flatfish being willing to lie with one eye in the sand before their descendants with the newly located eye emerged. But if having only one good eye was a hunting and security disadvantage, it be more likely that they die out before evolving. Hmmm...
@Texas3Step You have a good point, but also think about this: the skull of the flatfish is very distorted, as Richard pointed out. It is a very inefficient design, something that you would not expect to see if the creator is intelligent as what everyone claims. This indicates evolution is true. If you argue that "well perhaps the creator made a mistake", then fine, i'll accept that. But the problem is every1 is claiming the creator is intelligent and makes no mistakes.
Or it could be an in-correction in behavior just as easily. And does distorted really mean evolution? Consider the fact that the twisting in eye increased the strength of the skull. Or that it had no reason to lie on it's side and if it did it was a behavioral issue and being so would make evolution useless in that situation.
richard dawkins argues that the animals have been evolved. yes we can all agree with that. we see it everyday. he argues that if they were created then they would of been made perfect...well what you consider perfect is just an opinion. obviously if everything was perfect and never changed even with the laws of physics there would be some magical sort of works there. but god wouldn't do that in my opinion. he would of made everything the way it is flaws and all, using evolution. using laws.
@Trouterr Humans have different ideas about creation. You said so yourself: it is your opinion. People have different ideas about Earth's age. If Earth was billions of years old, then processes independent of god could be used to explain life. Your interpretation seems to be to give credit to god for a natural process. That is highly speculative when you consider that evolution is a means and not a cause. It is extremely slow and random. Too random to be a "program" of sorts.
The flatfish is an evolutionary compromise to the stingray. If God existed, then compromises wouldn't exist. Every living thing would be perfectly suited to its environment. You have the flatfish, which wastes a lot of time and energy changing from a baby with an eye on each side to an adult who swims on its side. What was god smoking when he made that freak?
@MunkyDrag0n i dont know what god you think of but obvioulsy you dont at all. if god did exist the universe would be as perfect as we see it today. maybe he made the flat fish in its natural form and they did still did that. its not that hard to think about. you just cant say god doesn't exist because flat fish chose to change..
@Trouterr You SETTLE for your vision of this "perfect" universe. You can't imagine improvements. You accept flaws as acts of god. We atheists interpret flaws as acts of evolution, because evolution has no standards for perfection. You prefer to think the fish CHOSE to be flat, but we see that it had to evolve flat to survive. You are a cheerleader, going, "Hooray, a fish is flat when there are other non-flat fish around!" THAT truly takes a stretch of the imagination, not my idea.
@MunkyDrag0n okay well i believe in evolution, i mean if a rock was sitting in my front yard i dont say "god put that there" i know it had a history of why it is there. and i obviously do believe this is how it occured over many millions of years. even with plants and animals.. i dont see why you think i think differently just because i believe in god. you just think that you are smart lol. but you arent everyone sees this as common sense.
@MunkyDrag0n why do you think you know how god would make the universe if he existed.. obviously there can be gods that think this way and gods that think that way... especially when waht you consider right or perfect is different then what someone else considers right and perfect. you might think spiders are ugly but some people dont. you have to realize that if there was a god there would be freaks of nature. he wouldnt have make everything perfect and cute to us humans...he'll do whatever
@newfagscanttrif0rce Over thousands of generations, with every new generation the fish's downward-facing eye is positioned slightly more towards the outside, where it can see a little more. This continues until the eye is fully out from under the fish.
The thing you gotta remember is that evolution is continuous, not discrete. There are infinitesimal "steps" in every generation, too small to be noticeable from one generation to the next, but over *thousands* of generations they all add up.
yes I understand but, what selection criteria could favour slightly wider eye placement when that mutation is still results in the eye facing sand? Is it slighly advantageous to survival even if its still in sand?
@newfagscanttrif0rce I'm no expert on fish biology, but I'd guess that the advantage would be being able to see slightly more in the peripheral vision of the downward-facing eye.
I think alot more people would accept evolution if they understood it. Once they realize we dont come from apes, they will accept it. We share a common ancestor with everything, including apes. Just like all birds share a common ancestry with velociraptors, but that doesnt mean an ostrich came from it..it just shares a common ancestry.
However you can see leftover parts from ancestors in modern animals, look up vestigal organs for the best proof of evolution.
THIS IS PROOF THAT ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS!!!
youtube. com/ watch?v =jqsRDD6kXWY
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
What is God's name? Where does he live? Does he live in heaven, and if so, where IS heaven? Or is it in another dimension? How old is he? Is he a white guy? How do you know he is a "he"? Can his existence be measured in any scientific way? If not, why? If God died, would you know? How old is he? Does he have a navel?
Here is one of the biggest problems in the world today!!
dumb ass christens posting up websites and videos on the net! this is more harmful to society and or children then any other media out there! they are trying to changing history and the world around us to fit their needs! filling are children with false Information. cropping their education with misinformation and out right lies!
@Paumonsu the bible is not posting all the bull shit! just the dumb ass holes out there who don't know anything out side there little closed mines! how is spreading stupidity any good for anyone!
I am laughing hard here. This must be the best stand-up comedian ever! The Dawkins is great! He made me laugh. One joke of his is: „One fish suddenly lay on one side and he began to evolv. So one fish just was not satisfied with the way he was swiming so he tried some new stuff.”
in essence this is pretty much the same process as lamarckism,for example a giraffe strecthing his neck to reach leaves or a monkey standing up on 2 legs so he can see over the tall grass,or a little kid flapping his arms like a bird cause he wants to fly,good to see evolution has logical answers
Actually lamarckism is extremely similiar to darwinian evolution, but obviously, the fish that had the higher eyes would survive better and thus regular evolution would take place. LaMarck has already be refuted.
This is a weak argument because his premise is entirely fallacious. Dawkins' conception of God is in fact his own personal view of God (should he exist). He says "if there is a God, why is his designed flaw". By flawed he is proposing that God should not make something asymmetrical? How did he reach that conclusion to begin with? In the same respect, does he consider most of the modern art theses day not art because they don't align with his conventional views of what art should be?
@jwtevor He doesn't the design is flawed because it's asymmetrical. He's saying it's because the skull of the fish is distorted due to the movement of the eye from one side to the other side. If both eyes were always on one side (because it was created that way), then the skull wouldn't be distorted.
@Scarlett770 You're just nitpicking vocabulary. Replace "assymetrical" with "distorted" then read it again if you like. And you're not really refuting anything. Why couldn't God create/design a fish like that? What if it's not really distorted at all? After all, it is a matter of perspective; therefore, Dawkin's is making a fallicious assumption. It's just propaganda for his agenda.
your right, it is "fallicious" (a word i can't find in the dictionary, but I assume you mean fallacy) but keep in mind this is presentation intended for children, I doubt children would enjoy or even understand the intricate mathmatical and biological details which support his claims. Your criticizing a single sentence in a childrens book. A useless effort. What he's saying is, "why would god intentionally create structures that support evolution."
Hahaha, I'm sorry you can't understand a word that's one letter off. (hint: read other posts and examine spelling there) Perhaps you're not accustom to seeing "big boy" words in those children books you seem to know so much about. Anyways, if his example is childish (like you suggest) it does not stand up to adult reasoning. Ps: I'm not trying to save you, I don't think there's much hope for you. I was making a comment...you know, like the ones that everyone else makes in the comment section
Just the kind of response I was expecting, *sigh* jwtevor, your a real mental midget. I have no interest in reading any of your previous statements or entertaining any notions that you will somehow conceive a single logical thought. Please leave us thinking alone and worship your imaginary friends.
lol propaganda? Yes, Dawkins gains so much by fooling us. He tells us to donate more money to him and his church so we can get gods love. He sells us the false hope of life after death and most of all, he gets so rich off his propaganda that he HAS to be lying to us >.> We should trust child molesting priests, crazed figure heads and people/things we cant see, feel or hear. Yes, we're drowning in propaganda.
Its up to you to save us jwtevor. One mis-spelled comment at a time.
@jwtevor "Flatfish are born with eyes like any other fish: one on each side of their head. But during development, one eyeball moves up around the top of the head to join the other eye on the opposite side. By adulthood, the skull is so deformed that both eyes peer out from one side of the body."
"This month, the science journal Nature reports the discovery of a fossil flat fish with one eye on the side of its head, and the other eye on top of its skull."
You people are all idiots, if you wanna debate religion go somewhere else. Question. If the halibuts eyes are an example of an imperfection, why are they still around? Natural selection could have taken them out.
It's an imperfection as in the face the the fish is now distorted not that it wouldn't survive. Basically Dawkins arguement is that if the fish was created it wouldn't have two eyes on one side.
Because not all imperfections lead to enough deaths.
We humans still have our appendexes, a useless piece of machinery that occasionally kills. However, it isn't detrimental enough for our entire species to be eliminated.
Your question defeats the idea of evolution, to assume the imperfect halibut will not evolve any further. Natural selection and evolution have not reached some sort of grand equilibrium.
Question to you, why does perfection only have to survive? The halibut is still around because it can still successfully survive in nature, simple answer, whence why its single eye evovled to distort its head, but its head still works. Its really simple and quite wonderful when you look at it.
I think Mr Dawkins is a Satanist in drag who knows is he also a fag I am shocked and amazed at all the suckers who listen to every word he utters What in the world has happened to you I am talking to you the Red White and Blue What has happened have you gone mad So atheism is now your latest fad Its been tried you know they have done it before take away God take away the law French history called it the reign of terror of this bad news I am the bearer
Some evidence is obvious intellectual stuff such as the the universe itself being created from nothingness, the infinitesimal mathematical probability of the laws of physics being set during the Big Bang to allow life to exist, the life of the historical Jesus as recorded by first century biographers, and the God impulse that's implanted in every human being. The most compelling evidence is the personal connection many Christians have made with God..but that's for us to know and you to find out.
god is not in the bible! the bible was written by man! not god! if you want to know god. then look at the world around us! learn how he really work his miracles! see how he has set laws that can not be broken! these are his laws! not man's! learn about the world around you and you will know god!
i do not believe in the bible! it is full of shit! and i do not believe that there is a god! but lots of people do. and think he is in the bible. i am just trying to get them to stop thinking that he is in the bible. and to look for him in the world around us. that would be the first step to getting rid of this stupidity that comes from religion. and when they see that there is no prof of a god, it will be much easier for them to except it with out the bible to fog there minds!
ok, there is nothing more I would want than for you to be correct, but i am afraid you are mistaking in thinking that ANY evidence will get them to think... as they ALWAYS do, they will simply find another stupid excuse for why there is not proof for a god in the world around us... you have to understand that their brain is not powered by reason but by fear! they fear death, they are unable to accept the fact that we have not purpose other than to serve our DNA and its further copying
you are the retard! if you read my post just under the one you did read you would see how dumb you are to comment on just the first thing you see! next time read more before you make a comment! dumb ass!
i'm not a creationist before any of you try to point that out. i'm not religious either. BUT--nothing in this world has disproven a god's existence, and the complexity of the universe (and evolution) doesn't come close to disproving it. only strengthens the possibility in my opinion.
also, there are dozens of evolutionary scientists who are far more intelligent than this shithead Dawkins, they don't go out of their way to bash religion like he does either. dawkins is a media whore, nothing more
True - nothing in this world disproves God's existence, but nothing proves it either. And the increasing complexity of the universe suggests an even more complex designer which stretches the non-existant evidence, making God's existence less likely, not more.
There are other evolutionary scientists, but few who have revolutionised the way we see evolution to such a degree. In fact, are there many? I can only think of Stephen Gould & he's dead! Oh, and Watson & Crick, but that isn't 'dozens'...
Not only are you wrong about "strengthening the possibility" which is an incredibly childish statement, There are by no means dozens of far more intelligent evolutionary biologists.
Dawkins is one of the best authorities on the subject, other biologists were turning to Dawkins for his science since before you were ever born.
True that the religious argument is too simple and petty for a great mind like Dawnkins' but you are way off. It's simply a waste of his time that's the problem.
There is proof for non-existence of an all-powerful being. Now, if someone wants to define god as not all-powerful we can talk further and disprove his existence yet again, but as far as i know god is by definition all-powerful ergo non-existent.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
for someone who dedicates his life to evolution, he sure is obsessed with religion. everything he creates is a hitpiece on religion. does he think he's evolution's Jesus?
uhh, yeah, he did. 1:20 - he didn't talk about religion, he just made sure everyone knew how stupid creationism is. this guy is a genius though, he can go on rants for hours about the stupidity of religion, all the while repeating the same stupid ass phrases, "flying spaghetti monster oh magical unicorn in the sky" shit like that. brilliant.
maybe decades ago, but science is free to do whatever it pleases. evolution is taught in most schools nowadays, some schools don't even let people pray without getting suspended (thanks to science) and there are absolutely no restrictions on how far science will go. so please, tell me, how is religion "the greatest obstacle"? because there are wars in third world countries? no, don't blame religion, blame the people who fund those wars.
If Man evolved from apes, why are apes still around? Shouldn't we be the apes now? Are they eventually going to evolve into Man again, as we continue to evolve into some other superior being?
There are still apes today because we didn't evolve from them. The humans and apes came from a common ancestor, which split into the different species of ape. There is no reason for modern apes to become human because they live in ways humans don't. If they were forced to go through the challenges that human ancestors did, they might become human-like.
Other species of apes have found their own niche, where they could outcompete other species for resources such as food. Because they have found their niche they are able to survive and reproduce, passing on their genes to the next generation. Whilst we did have a common ancestor, an event such as prolonged geographic isolation reduces the mixing of genes between two groups resulting in the split of species. Hope that helps :)
Humans are apes, we are no further diverged from Chimpanzees than Gorillas are. All three of these species are technically apes. The other apes (besides humans) are still around because they occupy a different niche than humans. If they had competed with us at any point, one would have dominated the other, leaving only one species. Homo Sapien was not the first species to walk upright and to have the same intelligence that we have today, but Homo Sapien is the most practical version so far.
Evolution isn't about species climbing some sort of "Ladder of Progress", always moving ever higher. Evolutionary change is only about a creature becoming more competitive within it's environment, changing as the environment changes.
I have often thought of that and thought about a intelligent being evolved from Gorillas (who share 98% of our DNA) and just imagine what kind of humanoid they would be? But im sure at a time there were clever apes and not so clever apes who took different branches/paths and some still stayed the same. Like if our weather changes drastically maybe the smartest of primates will start to build etc.
If Americans originally came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Humans are still apes. Evolution doesn't turn you into something new, it turns you into a more specific thing. We are a kind of ape. All modern life is still evolving.
@agoodkid1: Millions of years ago, there were no gorillas or orangutans. The apes you see today are not our "grandparents", but should be considered a "remote cousin". Modern humans and apes are indeed related, but not as close as most people think. Humans and apes went their separate ways many, many years ago.
And now we know the game is up for all the creationist, scientifically illiterate
"A missing link in human evolution may have been filled by a remarkable fossil, which could be the common ancestor of all apes and monkeys, including our species". (theTimes)
Opinion of An Atheistic man, there's no science in this except for the fish on the plate and skull and eyeball in its' head. All else he said came from his own speculation. And would 'nt you know, deception comes in the easiest packages to accept. I can't believe you all trust this man.
what, so you don't know what i mean. You wouldn't accept any answer with God in it anyways. But the argument would be that only Consciousness can bring forth Consciousness, it's what's evident in life today.
consiousness is a product of an evolved brain, just like being able to grab is the product of an opposable thumb, conciousness is only the term we give to self awareness... there are several other animals that are self aware, and many that are not. and none of this shows any evidence towards a creator.
'creationist' assumes much about me; thanks for also not understanding the difference between believing that something was 'created' and being a 'creationist'. 'creationist' is a school of thought that belives the earth was created in 6 days and that women come from a rib etc. this is not my standing point and again; you also dont understand the possibilities of the word 'created' and your judgement of me means you are not the open minded people i was reffering to; thanks for trying to be smart.
well it is particularly related to that school of thought and its more broader catagories usually arent referred to as 'creationist'. dawkins seems to belive that if you work out the function of something, or the way in which it came about/was created, it had no creator. i have seen him debate and he is like a priest preaching to the cheers/jeers of the converted....cont
...he answered the question of 'what if your wrong' with 'what if your wrong about the joo joo at the bottome of the sea' this underlines his lack of understanding of various theologys which can marry the science he belives in..it also makes a jeer at an intelligent question that if directed at someone with a deep thinking mind could have brough a reasoned and interesting answer...but of course, he is NEVER wrong; well not to his sheep like followers,...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Who would you follow, A man, imperfect as he is, with a deep thinking mind, Or a God glorified in everything that exist, with an even deeper mind, because he did create all things and has a knowledge far beyond human understanding so that it appears to man as ridiculous and pointless. I doubt you could keep your answer to a simple "yes" or "no", because your pride would overwhelm you with your overrated "Deep Thinking." Evolution is wasted time trying to explain a universe without God.
What you all have to remember is science never knows where it is going to end up! It's just a method and it will lead wherever it leads. Wherever it leads, it will be the result of a lot of hard work! Those who argue the case for an "intelligent designer" how much work did you put in to come to that conclusion? Where you basing your ideas to some degree on the magnificence of nature exposed by scientific research. Your leaches operating and profiting on the back of our greatest minds
These sort of evolutionary lectures by a younger Dawkins are what i am saddened at missing out on at a young age in favour of religious nonsense. Dawkins is correct in saying that forcing impressionable children into 'believing' in serious fantasy, is a form of child abuse!
Yes mustardman, Dawkins shared his wealth of knowledge about how the Halibut got tired of sand getting in its eye, but when asked about the origin of life, he believes that maybe aliens or some advanced race came and planted the seeds that would someday become life on our planet... One of the greates Evolutionary Scholars today and he believes in Intelligent Design, as long as we don't think there is a God..... obviously, it makes far more sense until you ask where the aliens originated... hmmm?
I've never heard or seen Dawkins state that and i strongly doubt that he would state that he 'believes in intelligent design'. What Dawkins does say, is that people whom assume that if you do not understand something and you use the answer 'God', it is ignorance. & i have to agree, to just blindly accept that God (whichever one of them you pander to) lives, interfears with past, present & future & all the rest of it, is naive, willfully ignorant and delusional.
Dawkins has said over and over that there might be aliens or some other form of Super Intelligent beings behind our birth on this planet. Go find this video - search for Dawkins on Aliens - I'm not making this up. Its too important to play games with this subject.
I agree that it's too important to play games with this subject! Something that's 'alien' is something that we do not know about&that's fair to say in his own context (he speculates not claims it is true)...the point is, all of the religions can't all be right (which they claim to be true accounts of creation) particularly when the evidence,truth&evolved logic is stacked against them all.Children should be taught religious culture but not to the extent that it is true..E.g.art,architecture etc
mustardman? If he speculates about intelligent beings as his best guess as to how the first organic material was placed on this planet, then his own words make him an Intelligent Design proponent. You cannot have it both ways.... How can you say that intelligent beings may be behind our creation and deny that the earth is a product of Intelligent Design????
One more thing - You do know that the fish he is describing in this video is born with eyes on opposite sides of its head - as it matures, the bottom eye moves to the top - Hey, it doesn't even take Billions and Billions of years, just a few months.... Another nail in Darwin's Coffin.
I think you're COMPLETELY missing the point! If i were you, i would re-watch the entire film & listen to Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens (& many more free thinkers)... & to say 'another nail in darwin's coffin' is a disgrace to intelligence, knowledge & you are plain ignorant. I nor scientists claim to have all the answers, (But they're doing a damn good job at trying to find out) it's people that share your attitude who hinder progression, when you regress into your comfort blanket
Mustard - Free thinkers? I applaud you and other atheists for your amazing Faith. You believe we got here because of a random explosion in space, yet you can neither tell us what exploded, how it got there and who lit the fuse. Your best guess is aliens, an advanced life form, but you deny that it could be the entity we simple Bible believers call God!
An extreme athiest would claim that there is no 'God' (with whatever a 'god' is defined by) & someone like yourself has extreme faith in what a man-made scripture tells you (at the other end of the spectrum) Faith has been defined by many as believing in something without evidence. I believe it is a true injustice to accept that any holy book holds the answer (as they are all ancient and derived from human imagination) there are far to many facts that rip apart these texts and expose them.....
... for what they are... poetic fiction! I and many athiests do not just accept your assumptions of how human existence evolved, but i would say that faith in science is a logical and justifyable reason to want to find the answers and not just ignorantly accept ideas that generations of indoctrination have imposed on your mind.....& the minds of individuals who believe that their book is better than your book. what makes your god any more real than Mohammed,allah, yahweh, Thor, appolo, etc etc
mustard, You've gotten off the subject of our conversation. Dawkins believes that aliens planted seeds here on earth which grew to become all of life, yet he denies that we could be the product of Intelligent Design.... you can't have your random accident theories and your alien seed planters, you have to pick one - The magice ingredient to Evolution is time. If something doesn't make sense, just explain it away using billions and billions of years as the answer and everybody goes oooh ahhhhh
I can do that sometimes! But it's all relevent i He uses the word Intelligent Design in the sense that no-one can prove that the is no maker...But the Intelligent Design interpretted by people who believe in personal gods that 'exist' today contain elements that have been proven to be falsehoods, defy logic, reason & therefore should form no basis to worship... This is why he defiantly states that there 'probably is no god'....
Hey - I do believe in Evolution - your name is "Thisguyisajerk" and you have evolved into a perfect example of what a jerk sounds like. Oh, Dawkins does believe what I said, just watch the many videos of him expounding on his theory of extra terrestrial beings as our best bet for Intelligent Design - After watching those, ask yourself. If advanced beings created us, who created them? Advanced beings again? At some point, your endless loop logic has to come to a common question. Who did it?
seriously, if you're going to be that fucking ignorant you shouldn't have access to the internet to flaunt you stupidity.
i chose the name "thisguysajerk" for a reason. it goes both way. in this case i'm the "jerk" for acting jerk-like, but you're the jerk for not paying enough attention when dawkins speaks. you're a fucking tool and a sheep.
saying "expounding on his theory of extra terrestrial beings as our best bet for Intelligent Design" implies a belief in intelligent design, which he does not believe in. do you see how fucking stupid you are?
here we go XD alright, what religion am i? i literaly have no clue... Okay i belive that there is a god but i think the bible is complete bs, god made life exist on the earth but then evolution/god took it from there so,
Albert Einstein was a pantheist. He's still in awesome company, however. When you remove Einstein you can still put in Thomas Paine and Baruch Spinoza, for instance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The process he said that happened probably happened I agree totally as a creationist. And he kinda proved that the Halibut was created. Because the halibut´s eye did change from position. It takes a genius designer that gave the Halibut the genetic possibility to survive in this circumstance by giving the halibut the possibilty to move his eye from the sand. Before the halibut changed into this, it still was a halibut, but only with one eye on each side. He kinda gave credit to the Designer. :)
MAGXX: You sound soooooo stupid! LMAO, my 2nd Grade daughter can decipher the scientific explanation and you cant!!!! HAHAHAHA. This is good coz you ridicule yourself on here. More.. more stupidity from you MAGXX. LMAO
Im certain that you have a normal level of dignity. You wouldnt dance through the supermarket wearing nothing but a tutu, you have respect for yourself. I am assuming therefore that you are making an ironic comment here in a parody of a fool, nobody would otherwise embarrass themselves in public like that. With this accepted, I have to congratulate you on your resourcefullness, you managed to pack the maximum amount of stupidity into the shortest space that i have ever seen. Well done.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bible crusher Dawkins wastes so much of his life energy preaching evolution to religious non believers, it's good to see he's chosen a much more pliable and impressionable audience.
The old tired canard of calling atheism a religion, huh? How does teaching and understanding science through observable phenomena compare with telling your children they're going to burn in hell for eternity if they're gay? Dawkins is young here, and this is probably a British audience, in which case, they're hopefully smarter than us religiostupidified Americans.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Did you catch him saying, "By some kind of a historical accident"? Sounds like a reliable, provable, and well-searched-out scientific fact, doesn't it?
that was not the point. he was trying to disprove the idea of irreducible complexity. the idea that it could not have evolved but instead must have been created. the argument that says evolution can't explain it
even god himself would admit hes an atheist after seeing this video
blindedby2monkeys 2 days ago
Oh I dunno, I think a creator who comes with retarded logic like 'Yeah, a dick up your arse feels good, but doing it is a sin' would be silly enough to create stuff like that.
I think God was just the original troll who's laughing hard at people following his silly rules no matter how contradicting they seem.
nageljeuk 5 months ago
@nageljeuk
I lolled hard at your post man! xD.
ExtremeBogom 1 week ago
How does he know that the flounder's ancestors laid down on their sides? And why did they stay down after they got sand in their lower eye? At the alleged lengthy rates of evolution, it would have taken hundreds of generations of flatfish being willing to lie with one eye in the sand before their descendants with the newly located eye emerged. But if having only one good eye was a hunting and security disadvantage, it be more likely that they die out before evolving. Hmmm...
Texas3Step 8 months ago
@Texas3Step You have a good point, but also think about this: the skull of the flatfish is very distorted, as Richard pointed out. It is a very inefficient design, something that you would not expect to see if the creator is intelligent as what everyone claims. This indicates evolution is true. If you argue that "well perhaps the creator made a mistake", then fine, i'll accept that. But the problem is every1 is claiming the creator is intelligent and makes no mistakes.
Casshyr 5 months ago
@Texas3Step Apparently being flat and camouflaging like that was an advantage over having only one usable eye.
nageljeuk 1 week ago
He should have shown some of the transitional fossils too. It would have clown the minds of the creationists.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
Or it could be an in-correction in behavior just as easily. And does distorted really mean evolution? Consider the fact that the twisting in eye increased the strength of the skull. Or that it had no reason to lie on it's side and if it did it was a behavioral issue and being so would make evolution useless in that situation.
TheyAreHere2 1 year ago
richard dawkins argues that the animals have been evolved. yes we can all agree with that. we see it everyday. he argues that if they were created then they would of been made perfect...well what you consider perfect is just an opinion. obviously if everything was perfect and never changed even with the laws of physics there would be some magical sort of works there. but god wouldn't do that in my opinion. he would of made everything the way it is flaws and all, using evolution. using laws.
Trouterr 1 year ago
@Trouterr Humans have different ideas about creation. You said so yourself: it is your opinion. People have different ideas about Earth's age. If Earth was billions of years old, then processes independent of god could be used to explain life. Your interpretation seems to be to give credit to god for a natural process. That is highly speculative when you consider that evolution is a means and not a cause. It is extremely slow and random. Too random to be a "program" of sorts.
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
@MunkyDrag0n i am not argueing against evolution..
Trouterr 1 year ago
@Trouterr I know that, but you are giving credit for it to god which I don't think can possibly be true.
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
The flatfish is an evolutionary compromise to the stingray. If God existed, then compromises wouldn't exist. Every living thing would be perfectly suited to its environment. You have the flatfish, which wastes a lot of time and energy changing from a baby with an eye on each side to an adult who swims on its side. What was god smoking when he made that freak?
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
@MunkyDrag0n i dont know what god you think of but obvioulsy you dont at all. if god did exist the universe would be as perfect as we see it today. maybe he made the flat fish in its natural form and they did still did that. its not that hard to think about. you just cant say god doesn't exist because flat fish chose to change..
Trouterr 1 year ago
@Trouterr You SETTLE for your vision of this "perfect" universe. You can't imagine improvements. You accept flaws as acts of god. We atheists interpret flaws as acts of evolution, because evolution has no standards for perfection. You prefer to think the fish CHOSE to be flat, but we see that it had to evolve flat to survive. You are a cheerleader, going, "Hooray, a fish is flat when there are other non-flat fish around!" THAT truly takes a stretch of the imagination, not my idea.
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
@MunkyDrag0n okay well i believe in evolution, i mean if a rock was sitting in my front yard i dont say "god put that there" i know it had a history of why it is there. and i obviously do believe this is how it occured over many millions of years. even with plants and animals.. i dont see why you think i think differently just because i believe in god. you just think that you are smart lol. but you arent everyone sees this as common sense.
Trouterr 1 year ago
@MunkyDrag0n why do you think you know how god would make the universe if he existed.. obviously there can be gods that think this way and gods that think that way... especially when waht you consider right or perfect is different then what someone else considers right and perfect. you might think spiders are ugly but some people dont. you have to realize that if there was a god there would be freaks of nature. he wouldnt have make everything perfect and cute to us humans...he'll do whatever
Trouterr 1 year ago
GAY POWER
airhead516 1 year ago
God does exist !!!
1. Living God-bread of life like Jesus promised in Bible
Eucharistic miracles of Naju !
2. Manopello veil of Veronica and Jesus face,
3.Fatima 1917, Zeitoun 1968-70, etc
4.Eucharistic Miracle Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.
5. Uncorrupted bodies of catholic’s saints
6.Calanda, Spain in 1640, a young farmer’s leg was restored to him after having been amputated two and a half years earlier
7. Hiroshima 1945, untouched house,even grass outside, where rosary was prayed!
JezusSlave 1 year ago
@JezusSlave credulous gibberish
Drweavil 1 year ago
How does the fish eye slowly migrate to the top? I know it takes a long time but what where the 'transitional' steps per se.
newfagscanttrif0rce 1 year ago
@newfagscanttrif0rce Over thousands of generations, with every new generation the fish's downward-facing eye is positioned slightly more towards the outside, where it can see a little more. This continues until the eye is fully out from under the fish.
The thing you gotta remember is that evolution is continuous, not discrete. There are infinitesimal "steps" in every generation, too small to be noticeable from one generation to the next, but over *thousands* of generations they all add up.
LorienTheYounger 1 year ago
@LorienTheYounger
yes I understand but, what selection criteria could favour slightly wider eye placement when that mutation is still results in the eye facing sand? Is it slighly advantageous to survival even if its still in sand?
newfagscanttrif0rce 1 year ago
@newfagscanttrif0rce I'm no expert on fish biology, but I'd guess that the advantage would be being able to see slightly more in the peripheral vision of the downward-facing eye.
LorienTheYounger 1 year ago
Dawkins look young.
IszamShawal 1 year ago
@IszamShawal This show was made like 1991 or something.
cyberdaemon 1 year ago
he is so cute here.
bfoaliali 1 year ago
I think alot more people would accept evolution if they understood it. Once they realize we dont come from apes, they will accept it. We share a common ancestor with everything, including apes. Just like all birds share a common ancestry with velociraptors, but that doesnt mean an ostrich came from it..it just shares a common ancestry.
However you can see leftover parts from ancestors in modern animals, look up vestigal organs for the best proof of evolution.
AsG1989 1 year ago
Make me laugh Ricky Lake!
nonfoods1 1 year ago
THIS IS PROOF THAT ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS!!!
youtube. com/ watch?v =jqsRDD6kXWY
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
God bless You
JezusSlave 1 year ago
@JezusSlave
What is God's name? Where does he live? Does he live in heaven, and if so, where IS heaven? Or is it in another dimension? How old is he? Is he a white guy? How do you know he is a "he"? Can his existence be measured in any scientific way? If not, why? If God died, would you know? How old is he? Does he have a navel?
rovku 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rovku
JESUS CHRIST IS "HE"!
REST YOU WILL FIND IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE!
JezusSlave 1 year ago
@JezusSlave sorry but that's Mithra who started the eating bread and wine thing. not Jesus!
franktastikart 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is one of the biggest problems in the world today!!
dumb ass christens posting up websites and videos on the net! this is more harmful to society and or children then any other media out there! they are trying to changing history and the world around us to fit their needs! filling are children with false Information. cropping their education with misinformation and out right lies!
franktastikart 1 year ago
@franktastikart You mean the Bible isn't it?
Paumonsu 1 year ago
@Paumonsu the bible is not posting all the bull shit! just the dumb ass holes out there who don't know anything out side there little closed mines! how is spreading stupidity any good for anyone!
franktastikart 1 year ago
I am laughing hard here. This must be the best stand-up comedian ever! The Dawkins is great! He made me laugh. One joke of his is: „One fish suddenly lay on one side and he began to evolv. So one fish just was not satisfied with the way he was swiming so he tried some new stuff.”
ovidiutu 1 year ago
in essence this is pretty much the same process as lamarckism,for example a giraffe strecthing his neck to reach leaves or a monkey standing up on 2 legs so he can see over the tall grass,or a little kid flapping his arms like a bird cause he wants to fly,good to see evolution has logical answers
sliew72 1 year ago
@sliew72
Actually lamarckism is extremely similiar to darwinian evolution, but obviously, the fish that had the higher eyes would survive better and thus regular evolution would take place. LaMarck has already be refuted.
Xjak 1 year ago
@sliew72 to be honest..i always wondered how lamarck tried to argue his hypothesis.
Serpico261 1 year ago
wowwwww what an explanation of apoptasis
artregeous 1 year ago
Sad that only two other people understood the point of this video-- and that is to admire the sexiness that is young Richard Dawkins.
eurofete 1 year ago
Evolution is so elaborate and here is another example. Dawkins should wright children's books.
BigNadz23 1 year ago
FUCK he is YOUNG in this clip... insanely smart still though MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
gweegwee3 1 year ago
Then again, at least he's done something with his life, which is something I will never be able to say about myself.
rnalithe00 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
richard dawkins is an imbecile. How is an imbecile regaled as brilliant?
malithe00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the NEW ATHEISM movement has been completely crushed...click on my name for the ur l to see how...
Atheist:
have you for but a moment considered that you have adopted a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present?
do you think you are RIGHT and they are all WRONG?
WRONG
88strangelove 2 years ago
This is a weak argument because his premise is entirely fallacious. Dawkins' conception of God is in fact his own personal view of God (should he exist). He says "if there is a God, why is his designed flaw". By flawed he is proposing that God should not make something asymmetrical? How did he reach that conclusion to begin with? In the same respect, does he consider most of the modern art theses day not art because they don't align with his conventional views of what art should be?
jwtevor 2 years ago
@jwtevor He doesn't the design is flawed because it's asymmetrical. He's saying it's because the skull of the fish is distorted due to the movement of the eye from one side to the other side. If both eyes were always on one side (because it was created that way), then the skull wouldn't be distorted.
Scarlett770 1 year ago
@Scarlett770 You're just nitpicking vocabulary. Replace "assymetrical" with "distorted" then read it again if you like. And you're not really refuting anything. Why couldn't God create/design a fish like that? What if it's not really distorted at all? After all, it is a matter of perspective; therefore, Dawkin's is making a fallicious assumption. It's just propaganda for his agenda.
jwtevor 1 year ago
@jwtevor
your right, it is "fallicious" (a word i can't find in the dictionary, but I assume you mean fallacy) but keep in mind this is presentation intended for children, I doubt children would enjoy or even understand the intricate mathmatical and biological details which support his claims. Your criticizing a single sentence in a childrens book. A useless effort. What he's saying is, "why would god intentionally create structures that support evolution."
RebelFactor4Life 1 year ago
Hahaha, I'm sorry you can't understand a word that's one letter off. (hint: read other posts and examine spelling there) Perhaps you're not accustom to seeing "big boy" words in those children books you seem to know so much about. Anyways, if his example is childish (like you suggest) it does not stand up to adult reasoning. Ps: I'm not trying to save you, I don't think there's much hope for you. I was making a comment...you know, like the ones that everyone else makes in the comment section
jwtevor 1 year ago
Just the kind of response I was expecting, *sigh* jwtevor, your a real mental midget. I have no interest in reading any of your previous statements or entertaining any notions that you will somehow conceive a single logical thought. Please leave us thinking alone and worship your imaginary friends.
RebelFactor4Life 1 year ago
@jwtevor
lol propaganda? Yes, Dawkins gains so much by fooling us. He tells us to donate more money to him and his church so we can get gods love. He sells us the false hope of life after death and most of all, he gets so rich off his propaganda that he HAS to be lying to us >.> We should trust child molesting priests, crazed figure heads and people/things we cant see, feel or hear. Yes, we're drowning in propaganda.
Its up to you to save us jwtevor. One mis-spelled comment at a time.
RebelFactor4Life 1 year ago
@jwtevor "Flatfish are born with eyes like any other fish: one on each side of their head. But during development, one eyeball moves up around the top of the head to join the other eye on the opposite side. By adulthood, the skull is so deformed that both eyes peer out from one side of the body."
"This month, the science journal Nature reports the discovery of a fossil flat fish with one eye on the side of its head, and the other eye on top of its skull."
Scarlett770 1 year ago
Wow Dawkins looks young here. He looks pretty nerdy too. It's like if his atheist crusade gave him reinvent himself in style.
ToquiGambit 2 years ago
the skull is now an extremely distorted object (films dumb-looker kid)
iamamastar 2 years ago
What an excellent example, I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before
infalliblle 2 years ago
You people are all idiots, if you wanna debate religion go somewhere else. Question. If the halibuts eyes are an example of an imperfection, why are they still around? Natural selection could have taken them out.
wowpapa 2 years ago
It's an imperfection as in the face the the fish is now distorted not that it wouldn't survive. Basically Dawkins arguement is that if the fish was created it wouldn't have two eyes on one side.
Ajayfray 2 years ago
Because not all imperfections lead to enough deaths.
We humans still have our appendexes, a useless piece of machinery that occasionally kills. However, it isn't detrimental enough for our entire species to be eliminated.
koreindian1 2 years ago
@wowpapa
Your question defeats the idea of evolution, to assume the imperfect halibut will not evolve any further. Natural selection and evolution have not reached some sort of grand equilibrium.
popson4 2 years ago
Question to you, why does perfection only have to survive? The halibut is still around because it can still successfully survive in nature, simple answer, whence why its single eye evovled to distort its head, but its head still works. Its really simple and quite wonderful when you look at it.
SpeciousGwa 2 years ago
If god made everything, Then he is a dumbass... Sense everythin evolved, and God isn't real, I think the argument is done
JimImimust 2 years ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some evidence is obvious intellectual stuff such as the the universe itself being created from nothingness, the infinitesimal mathematical probability of the laws of physics being set during the Big Bang to allow life to exist, the life of the historical Jesus as recorded by first century biographers, and the God impulse that's implanted in every human being. The most compelling evidence is the personal connection many Christians have made with God..but that's for us to know and you to find out.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick of Christians and Atheists arguing?
atheistfriends 2 years ago
god is not in the bible! the bible was written by man! not god! if you want to know god. then look at the world around us! learn how he really work his miracles! see how he has set laws that can not be broken! these are his laws! not man's! learn about the world around you and you will know god!
franktastikart 2 years ago
hahahaha :D
wow, nice pathetic cry for the non-existent magical idiot from your imagination :D
interesting reaction to an awesome proof of evolution and non-existence of the mystical moron with a magic stick :D
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
i do not believe in the bible! it is full of shit! and i do not believe that there is a god! but lots of people do. and think he is in the bible. i am just trying to get them to stop thinking that he is in the bible. and to look for him in the world around us. that would be the first step to getting rid of this stupidity that comes from religion. and when they see that there is no prof of a god, it will be much easier for them to except it with out the bible to fog there minds!
franktastikart 2 years ago
i see...
ok, there is nothing more I would want than for you to be correct, but i am afraid you are mistaking in thinking that ANY evidence will get them to think... as they ALWAYS do, they will simply find another stupid excuse for why there is not proof for a god in the world around us... you have to understand that their brain is not powered by reason but by fear! they fear death, they are unable to accept the fact that we have not purpose other than to serve our DNA and its further copying
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
what miracles? all i see is polution, suffering, war, genocide, hunger ....
if your god did exist i would kill myself to tell him in the afterlife how much of a fucking asshole he is.
however he doesnt. and thank god for that :D*thats a little word play for u retards who didnt get it)
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago 2
you are the retard! if you read my post just under the one you did read you would see how dumb you are to comment on just the first thing you see! next time read more before you make a comment! dumb ass!
franktastikart 2 years ago
again, "in my opinion". arguing against that isn't going to work.
Agaetis181 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
i'm not a creationist before any of you try to point that out. i'm not religious either. BUT--nothing in this world has disproven a god's existence, and the complexity of the universe (and evolution) doesn't come close to disproving it. only strengthens the possibility in my opinion.
also, there are dozens of evolutionary scientists who are far more intelligent than this shithead Dawkins, they don't go out of their way to bash religion like he does either. dawkins is a media whore, nothing more
Agaetis181 2 years ago
True - nothing in this world disproves God's existence, but nothing proves it either. And the increasing complexity of the universe suggests an even more complex designer which stretches the non-existant evidence, making God's existence less likely, not more.
There are other evolutionary scientists, but few who have revolutionised the way we see evolution to such a degree. In fact, are there many? I can only think of Stephen Gould & he's dead! Oh, and Watson & Crick, but that isn't 'dozens'...
tdp1909 2 years ago
Bashing religion may be distasteful, but if religion isn't true, then people shouldn't waste their lives in pursuit of the wrong answer.
tdp1909 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and you guys bash christians for trying to get atheists on THEIR side. it's best you let them make their own decisions, is that right fagget?
Agaetis181 2 years ago
Not only are you wrong about "strengthening the possibility" which is an incredibly childish statement, There are by no means dozens of far more intelligent evolutionary biologists.
Dawkins is one of the best authorities on the subject, other biologists were turning to Dawkins for his science since before you were ever born.
True that the religious argument is too simple and petty for a great mind like Dawnkins' but you are way off. It's simply a waste of his time that's the problem.
zutroy1 2 years ago
yes there is no way to proove that there is or isnt a god
but religion has no evidence for it
and signifigant evidence against it
he doesnt bash deists
just theists
VeganBoy13507 2 years ago
There is proof for non-existence of an all-powerful being. Now, if someone wants to define god as not all-powerful we can talk further and disprove his existence yet again, but as far as i know god is by definition all-powerful ergo non-existent.
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
agaetis181 is that the best you can come up with
aenoch75 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
for someone who dedicates his life to evolution, he sure is obsessed with religion. everything he creates is a hitpiece on religion. does he think he's evolution's Jesus?
Agaetis181 2 years ago
I don't remember him saying anything about religion. I think you're just a Dawkins hater and are just here to shit stir.
SpeciousGwa 2 years ago 2
uhh, yeah, he did. 1:20 - he didn't talk about religion, he just made sure everyone knew how stupid creationism is. this guy is a genius though, he can go on rants for hours about the stupidity of religion, all the while repeating the same stupid ass phrases, "flying spaghetti monster oh magical unicorn in the sky" shit like that. brilliant.
Agaetis181 2 years ago
It's partly because religion is arguably the greatest obstacle of science and reason. And no, he doesn't think he's evolution's Jesus.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
maybe decades ago, but science is free to do whatever it pleases. evolution is taught in most schools nowadays, some schools don't even let people pray without getting suspended (thanks to science) and there are absolutely no restrictions on how far science will go. so please, tell me, how is religion "the greatest obstacle"? because there are wars in third world countries? no, don't blame religion, blame the people who fund those wars.
And yes, he's a narcissistic piece of shit.
Agaetis181 2 years ago
He looks super sexy here.
anulay 2 years ago 5
I feel like he could have explained it better.
drbroccoli1 2 years ago
those kids dont have a clue wat hes talking about.
XANDERXXZ 2 years ago
this isnt hard stuff
thehollandone 2 years ago 2
i know but just look at their face's. they're probly not old enough to be bothered with evolution.
XANDERXXZ 2 years ago
I am not a scientist, but, interested to learn.
If Man evolved from apes, why are apes still around? Shouldn't we be the apes now? Are they eventually going to evolve into Man again, as we continue to evolve into some other superior being?
agoodkid1 2 years ago
There are still apes today because we didn't evolve from them. The humans and apes came from a common ancestor, which split into the different species of ape. There is no reason for modern apes to become human because they live in ways humans don't. If they were forced to go through the challenges that human ancestors did, they might become human-like.
XXL2oo 2 years ago 27
@XXL2oo Sometimes it seems like people haven't really quite evolved. (Even though, yes, that's not how it works)
TheScurvyNinja 1 year ago
Other species of apes have found their own niche, where they could outcompete other species for resources such as food. Because they have found their niche they are able to survive and reproduce, passing on their genes to the next generation. Whilst we did have a common ancestor, an event such as prolonged geographic isolation reduces the mixing of genes between two groups resulting in the split of species. Hope that helps :)
SteeeeeeeeV 2 years ago
Humans are apes, we are no further diverged from Chimpanzees than Gorillas are. All three of these species are technically apes. The other apes (besides humans) are still around because they occupy a different niche than humans. If they had competed with us at any point, one would have dominated the other, leaving only one species. Homo Sapien was not the first species to walk upright and to have the same intelligence that we have today, but Homo Sapien is the most practical version so far.
theplainsman6 2 years ago
Evolution isn't about species climbing some sort of "Ladder of Progress", always moving ever higher. Evolutionary change is only about a creature becoming more competitive within it's environment, changing as the environment changes.
somnolent49 2 years ago 2
I have often thought of that and thought about a intelligent being evolved from Gorillas (who share 98% of our DNA) and just imagine what kind of humanoid they would be? But im sure at a time there were clever apes and not so clever apes who took different branches/paths and some still stayed the same. Like if our weather changes drastically maybe the smartest of primates will start to build etc.
Mehigh1234567 2 years ago
If Americans originally came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Humans are still apes. Evolution doesn't turn you into something new, it turns you into a more specific thing. We are a kind of ape. All modern life is still evolving.
VonAether 2 years ago
@agoodkid1: Millions of years ago, there were no gorillas or orangutans. The apes you see today are not our "grandparents", but should be considered a "remote cousin". Modern humans and apes are indeed related, but not as close as most people think. Humans and apes went their separate ways many, many years ago.
rovku 2 years ago
Can't some folks just put away the bible and read something civilised, please, before babbling around non-sense.
AnonymousCowardX 2 years ago 2
He's the Tooth Fairy.
OneDollarBook 2 years ago
And now we know the game is up for all the creationist, scientifically illiterate
"A missing link in human evolution may have been filled by a remarkable fossil, which could be the common ancestor of all apes and monkeys, including our species". (theTimes)
deafflylii 2 years ago
Opinion of An Atheistic man, there's no science in this except for the fish on the plate and skull and eyeball in its' head. All else he said came from his own speculation. And would 'nt you know, deception comes in the easiest packages to accept. I can't believe you all trust this man.
ChadizzleFoshizzle 2 years ago
Yeah, one of the most respected geneticists in the world. Good point, toolbag.
adamish1134 2 years ago
No one is trusting anyone... they are trusting cold hard facts... Its something "civilized" people do.. You should try it
xTPTxOCELOT 2 years ago
If Evolution is not real then why did the old Spanish Flu change into the new Swise Flu?
Everything evolves.
RandomDirectors 2 years ago
Tell me how unconciousness begot Conciousness? I know how...
ChadizzleFoshizzle 2 years ago
Chadizzle,
you know how?
well golly gee!
tell me!
Knowledge is for sharing!
Plus i'm sure we all want to hear what you have to say =)
PS: i love how you immediately go from evolution of Swine Flu to evolution of consciousness.
akbarblanchet 2 years ago
what, so you don't know what i mean. You wouldn't accept any answer with God in it anyways. But the argument would be that only Consciousness can bring forth Consciousness, it's what's evident in life today.
ChadizzleFoshizzle 2 years ago
consiousness is a product of an evolved brain, just like being able to grab is the product of an opposable thumb, conciousness is only the term we give to self awareness... there are several other animals that are self aware, and many that are not. and none of this shows any evidence towards a creator.
abassett22 2 years ago
one word: Picasso
amIright?
dylanotto 2 years ago
Comment removed
SounzNice 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
haha he doesnt even understand what 'created' means, and to the intelligent, open minded person, he sound like a bufoon. which he is.
jonhickman123 2 years ago
lol....just lol...
blackblade123 2 years ago
Hello creationist. Don't let the door hit you on the way out...
RPFS2008 2 years ago
'creationist' assumes much about me; thanks for also not understanding the difference between believing that something was 'created' and being a 'creationist'. 'creationist' is a school of thought that belives the earth was created in 6 days and that women come from a rib etc. this is not my standing point and again; you also dont understand the possibilities of the word 'created' and your judgement of me means you are not the open minded people i was reffering to; thanks for trying to be smart.
jonhickman123 2 years ago
"'creationist' is a school of thought that belives the earth was created in 6 days and that women come from a rib etc"
Not necessarily.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
well it is particularly related to that school of thought and its more broader catagories usually arent referred to as 'creationist'. dawkins seems to belive that if you work out the function of something, or the way in which it came about/was created, it had no creator. i have seen him debate and he is like a priest preaching to the cheers/jeers of the converted....cont
jonhickman123 2 years ago
...he answered the question of 'what if your wrong' with 'what if your wrong about the joo joo at the bottome of the sea' this underlines his lack of understanding of various theologys which can marry the science he belives in..it also makes a jeer at an intelligent question that if directed at someone with a deep thinking mind could have brough a reasoned and interesting answer...but of course, he is NEVER wrong; well not to his sheep like followers,...
jonhickman123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who would you follow, A man, imperfect as he is, with a deep thinking mind, Or a God glorified in everything that exist, with an even deeper mind, because he did create all things and has a knowledge far beyond human understanding so that it appears to man as ridiculous and pointless. I doubt you could keep your answer to a simple "yes" or "no", because your pride would overwhelm you with your overrated "Deep Thinking." Evolution is wasted time trying to explain a universe without God.
ChadizzleFoshizzle 2 years ago
how can i answer 'yes or no' to your question? you gave me a choice of following man or god, not 'yes or no'
but just so you know; dont me judge so readily as to how proud i am; you have no idea; believe me
jonhickman123 2 years ago
You think god is real. LOL @ that. You people just love to accept ignorance, don't you?
cockyjeremy 2 years ago
k, go kill yoself lol
SeriouslyPissedOff 2 years ago
Haha, I'm putting this on my page. Great quote.
Uxoriouswidow 2 years ago
I don't care how halibuts came to be. All I need to know is that they are delicious.
hsumi1 2 years ago
What you all have to remember is science never knows where it is going to end up! It's just a method and it will lead wherever it leads. Wherever it leads, it will be the result of a lot of hard work! Those who argue the case for an "intelligent designer" how much work did you put in to come to that conclusion? Where you basing your ideas to some degree on the magnificence of nature exposed by scientific research. Your leaches operating and profiting on the back of our greatest minds
splotsplot 2 years ago
Well put.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
These sort of evolutionary lectures by a younger Dawkins are what i am saddened at missing out on at a young age in favour of religious nonsense. Dawkins is correct in saying that forcing impressionable children into 'believing' in serious fantasy, is a form of child abuse!
mustardman10 2 years ago
Yes mustardman, Dawkins shared his wealth of knowledge about how the Halibut got tired of sand getting in its eye, but when asked about the origin of life, he believes that maybe aliens or some advanced race came and planted the seeds that would someday become life on our planet... One of the greates Evolutionary Scholars today and he believes in Intelligent Design, as long as we don't think there is a God..... obviously, it makes far more sense until you ask where the aliens originated... hmmm?
swoodtn 2 years ago
I've never heard or seen Dawkins state that and i strongly doubt that he would state that he 'believes in intelligent design'. What Dawkins does say, is that people whom assume that if you do not understand something and you use the answer 'God', it is ignorance. & i have to agree, to just blindly accept that God (whichever one of them you pander to) lives, interfears with past, present & future & all the rest of it, is naive, willfully ignorant and delusional.
mustardman10 2 years ago
Dawkins has said over and over that there might be aliens or some other form of Super Intelligent beings behind our birth on this planet. Go find this video - search for Dawkins on Aliens - I'm not making this up. Its too important to play games with this subject.
swoodtn 2 years ago
I agree that it's too important to play games with this subject! Something that's 'alien' is something that we do not know about&that's fair to say in his own context (he speculates not claims it is true)...the point is, all of the religions can't all be right (which they claim to be true accounts of creation) particularly when the evidence,truth&evolved logic is stacked against them all.Children should be taught religious culture but not to the extent that it is true..E.g.art,architecture etc
mustardman10 2 years ago
mustardman? If he speculates about intelligent beings as his best guess as to how the first organic material was placed on this planet, then his own words make him an Intelligent Design proponent. You cannot have it both ways.... How can you say that intelligent beings may be behind our creation and deny that the earth is a product of Intelligent Design????
swoodtn 2 years ago
One more thing - You do know that the fish he is describing in this video is born with eyes on opposite sides of its head - as it matures, the bottom eye moves to the top - Hey, it doesn't even take Billions and Billions of years, just a few months.... Another nail in Darwin's Coffin.
swoodtn 2 years ago
I think you're COMPLETELY missing the point! If i were you, i would re-watch the entire film & listen to Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens (& many more free thinkers)... & to say 'another nail in darwin's coffin' is a disgrace to intelligence, knowledge & you are plain ignorant. I nor scientists claim to have all the answers, (But they're doing a damn good job at trying to find out) it's people that share your attitude who hinder progression, when you regress into your comfort blanket
mustardman10 2 years ago
Mustard - Free thinkers? I applaud you and other atheists for your amazing Faith. You believe we got here because of a random explosion in space, yet you can neither tell us what exploded, how it got there and who lit the fuse. Your best guess is aliens, an advanced life form, but you deny that it could be the entity we simple Bible believers call God!
swoodtn 2 years ago
An extreme athiest would claim that there is no 'God' (with whatever a 'god' is defined by) & someone like yourself has extreme faith in what a man-made scripture tells you (at the other end of the spectrum) Faith has been defined by many as believing in something without evidence. I believe it is a true injustice to accept that any holy book holds the answer (as they are all ancient and derived from human imagination) there are far to many facts that rip apart these texts and expose them.....
mustardman10 2 years ago
... for what they are... poetic fiction! I and many athiests do not just accept your assumptions of how human existence evolved, but i would say that faith in science is a logical and justifyable reason to want to find the answers and not just ignorantly accept ideas that generations of indoctrination have imposed on your mind.....& the minds of individuals who believe that their book is better than your book. what makes your god any more real than Mohammed,allah, yahweh, Thor, appolo, etc etc
mustardman10 2 years ago
mustard, You've gotten off the subject of our conversation. Dawkins believes that aliens planted seeds here on earth which grew to become all of life, yet he denies that we could be the product of Intelligent Design.... you can't have your random accident theories and your alien seed planters, you have to pick one - The magice ingredient to Evolution is time. If something doesn't make sense, just explain it away using billions and billions of years as the answer and everybody goes oooh ahhhhh
swoodtn 2 years ago
I can do that sometimes! But it's all relevent i He uses the word Intelligent Design in the sense that no-one can prove that the is no maker...But the Intelligent Design interpretted by people who believe in personal gods that 'exist' today contain elements that have been proven to be falsehoods, defy logic, reason & therefore should form no basis to worship... This is why he defiantly states that there 'probably is no god'....
mustardman10 2 years ago
"Dawkins believes that aliens planted seeds here on earth which grew to become all of life"
that is a lie and you are a douchebag.
thisguysajerk 2 years ago
Hey - I do believe in Evolution - your name is "Thisguyisajerk" and you have evolved into a perfect example of what a jerk sounds like. Oh, Dawkins does believe what I said, just watch the many videos of him expounding on his theory of extra terrestrial beings as our best bet for Intelligent Design - After watching those, ask yourself. If advanced beings created us, who created them? Advanced beings again? At some point, your endless loop logic has to come to a common question. Who did it?
swoodtn 2 years ago
you're an idiot. he doesn't believe aliens did it, he stated it is MORE plausible than YOUR idea of god.
you need to listen better moron.
thisguysajerk 2 years ago 4
seriously, if you're going to be that fucking ignorant you shouldn't have access to the internet to flaunt you stupidity.
i chose the name "thisguysajerk" for a reason. it goes both way. in this case i'm the "jerk" for acting jerk-like, but you're the jerk for not paying enough attention when dawkins speaks. you're a fucking tool and a sheep.
thisguysajerk 2 years ago 3
saying "expounding on his theory of extra terrestrial beings as our best bet for Intelligent Design" implies a belief in intelligent design, which he does not believe in. do you see how fucking stupid you are?
thisguysajerk 2 years ago 3
"Dawkins believes that aliens planted seeds here on earth which grew to become all of life"
Lie
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Dahh.. Of course not.... Then you'll have the same question... How Aliens were created?
fearzone2000 2 years ago
here we go XD alright, what religion am i? i literaly have no clue... Okay i belive that there is a god but i think the bible is complete bs, god made life exist on the earth but then evolution/god took it from there so,
God is real bible is bullshit, what am i?
yourtiy 3 years ago
one step away from being an atheist
congrats =)
ArchonAlarion 3 years ago
"God is real bible is bullshit, what am i?"
You're a Deist. You're in good company; Ludwig van Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein were deists.
pofacimo 3 years ago
Albert Einstein was a pantheist. He's still in awesome company, however. When you remove Einstein you can still put in Thomas Paine and Baruch Spinoza, for instance.
QuantumTuba 2 years ago
In your own words yourtiy: "I literaly have no clue" - By definition, that makes you Clueless.. and that is no BS.
swoodtn 2 years ago
a theist.
romanoskar 2 years ago
So thats how they evolved. I didnt care how they came to be all I know is they taste great! thank you evolution
AsG1989 3 years ago
whahahahah look at and LISTEN to 0:38 , it says "distorted skull" and then switches to a child xD
subtle yet harsh humor by the editor xD
roflroflomgomg 3 years ago 4
lmfao that is good harsh humor
that is brilliant
00Ruth7 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The process he said that happened probably happened I agree totally as a creationist. And he kinda proved that the Halibut was created. Because the halibut´s eye did change from position. It takes a genius designer that gave the Halibut the genetic possibility to survive in this circumstance by giving the halibut the possibilty to move his eye from the sand. Before the halibut changed into this, it still was a halibut, but only with one eye on each side. He kinda gave credit to the Designer. :)
MAGXX 3 years ago
MAGXX: You sound soooooo stupid! LMAO, my 2nd Grade daughter can decipher the scientific explanation and you cant!!!! HAHAHAHA. This is good coz you ridicule yourself on here. More.. more stupidity from you MAGXX. LMAO
tintinlady 3 years ago
no, it doesn't prove a designer at all. It however very strongly supports evolution. But keep trying.
cowdragon 3 years ago
Im certain that you have a normal level of dignity. You wouldnt dance through the supermarket wearing nothing but a tutu, you have respect for yourself. I am assuming therefore that you are making an ironic comment here in a parody of a fool, nobody would otherwise embarrass themselves in public like that. With this accepted, I have to congratulate you on your resourcefullness, you managed to pack the maximum amount of stupidity into the shortest space that i have ever seen. Well done.
Elishaonabear 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bible crusher Dawkins wastes so much of his life energy preaching evolution to religious non believers, it's good to see he's chosen a much more pliable and impressionable audience.
twinpinesmall 3 years ago
true i suppose..better to get 'em when they're young
untwerf 3 years ago
The old tired canard of calling atheism a religion, huh? How does teaching and understanding science through observable phenomena compare with telling your children they're going to burn in hell for eternity if they're gay? Dawkins is young here, and this is probably a British audience, in which case, they're hopefully smarter than us religiostupidified Americans.
infideluxe 3 years ago 5
Dawkins rocks.
But that is a place on the tray not a halibut.
I´m an ex fisherman, and the ´But` is dark brown in coulour, and is not as flat as that place in the video.
Also taking a Halibut that small/young is against he law. They are big fish. (Last one we landed was the size of a small dinner table)
Dawkins still rock though!!!
hoadmaback 3 years ago
Richard Dawkins is a hero!
Mazmatickz 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did you catch him saying, "By some kind of a historical accident"? Sounds like a reliable, provable, and well-searched-out scientific fact, doesn't it?
Benthoof 3 years ago
You're an idiot. That is he's way of saying a beneficial mutation to non evolutionary biologists, you absolute fucking dumbass.
PR0GRAMMING 3 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Circular thinking.
You first assume evolution - then you say, see, this proves my assumption!
There is absolutely zero way to disprove what he's saying - how are we going to design an experiment to disprove that?
How does he know what we would expect a created thing to look like? He makes that claim, but again, there's no way to test whether its true or false.
SDS4BO 3 years ago
that was not the point. he was trying to disprove the idea of irreducible complexity. the idea that it could not have evolved but instead must have been created. the argument that says evolution can't explain it
when in fact evolution CAN.