The Genius Of Charles Darwin - Part 3 - God Strikes Back

[LouisGodena]

I don't think this Wendy Wright is, as they say, "all there." 

[hunta99]

"That's ridiculous, but thank you very much" hahaha



[daviberto]

The dude in 18:00 does not deserves to be wearing a t-shirt with Maxwell's equations.

[aaronh250]

6:02, whaaaaaaaaat a fking cutie

[MrPerezCosta]

4:42 ..."Darwin never criticized religion directly in public... instead he let his science do the talking..." something we, the ones that know that evolution is a fact will have to start doing, and never respond in the way we're being criticized by religious people in public. This is a war against culture and tradition, and this concept is natural selection itself, of those who can see a bigger truth, or maybe the biggest truth known to man.

[warnation101]

The australian preacher is fucking annoying.

[XepicmeauX]

@warnation101 he probably moved to America because he knew he would get no credit here. I apologise for our education system letting that one slip. :)

[tensorbundle]

@15;15 looks like she was gonna weep

[DoomSquadProductions]

thanks for the post sciencefoundation! :D great series

[AIajmis]

Creation in Islam: 1- God created the heavens and the earth long before Adam. 2- The earth was inhabited by Jin before humans. Humans are their successor on earth. 3- nobody knows the age of the world and not even an estimate. 4- the story of creation in the Judeo-Christian tradition is written by corrupt men who thought everything on earth was created with Adam. 5- the whole chapter of genesis in the bible is rubbish. ( see point 4 )

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "However, that atheistic position is illogical because the effect cannot be its own cause."

This is the same flaw in the insistence that it is given rise to by an uncreated god, done so on the basis of special pleading. There's no basis to insist everything must be created EXCEPT your supposed god, other than that you claim it to be so. You have no basis for insisting everything else MUST be created, and by him.

[MrJiddukrishhesse]

a great documentary!!!

[EconosPhylos]

Wendy Wright looks ant talks like the she is the dumbest person on earth... She is funny to watch actually.

[hulloghost]

I do not idolize Charles Darwin. I think he was a brilliant man who realized a truth that changed the world. I cannot idolize him because of his views on race.

[sulljoh1]

Does he need to pit religion against evolution so directly? Maybe they are in conflict, but evolution is just true. It is true if you believe in God or if you don't.

[Chuichupachichi]

Its ironic that the title of this video is; "The Genius Of Charles Darwin", considering that he was, in fact, quite dumb. Darwin traveled from Britain all the way to the Galapagos, simply to observe a slight variation between Finches & that sparked his theory. He could have stayed at home in Britain & observed far greater variation between dogs

The fact is that evolutionary theory & Satanism share a common origin in Sumerian culture. Thats why it required Darwin to travel so far. Prior to going

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Chuichupachichi You really are just rambling by the end there

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "However, it required the "genius" to travel half way around the world to have his epiphany"

Nevertheless, he had it, while those who stayed abed in England held their manhood cheap that they did not... to coin a phrase.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Chuichupachichi No, you were rambling, your argument was 'he didn't notice descent with modification at home, therefore its wrong'

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "Darwin could have observed far greater, more obvious variation between dogs"

No, he couldn't have, because those dogs are all the same species and still interbreed. The finches Darwin observed in his voyage are not, and don't. This prompted the question: why so many different species of clearly related organisms? Why, if your god exists, is he so inordinately fond of beetles? They must wholly fascinate him, given there are 400,000 KNOWN species so far.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "he was, in fact, quite dumb. Darwin traveled from Britain all the way to the Galapagos, simply to observe a slight variation between Finches"

As opposed to the people who stayed home and continued to believe that an invisible magic man made a guy out of mud and a woman out of a spare rib, and that the whole lot of them were outsmarted by a talking snake...?

[Aanthanur]

@Chuichupachichi LOL the funniest nonsense i have come across in a while :)

made me giggle.

[fudgebucket55]

@Chuichupachichi

wow just wow. you never going full retard

[EdensSiren]

@Chuichupachichi HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! YOU LITERALLY JUST MADE ME LAUGH OUT LOUD!!!!!

It brings join to my heart to see individuals like yourself still in existence. It must be pretty scary watching the tide of logic wash up on the shores of mysticism. Superstitious nonsense and the Mystics who believe it like yourself are on the way out. I hope that you know someday humanity will look back on you and people like yourself as unintelligent savages and on Richard Dawkins as a genius.

[EdensSiren]

@Chuichupachichi joy*

[Chuichupachichi]

ashore on the Galapagos, Darwin landed in South America where he encountered some Occultists & they inflicted some magick upon him which is what truly put evolutionary thinking into his mind. Otherwise, greater variation amongst humans, dogs & other lifeforms, than can be found amongst Finches, would have sparked the theory within Darwin at his home in Britain

Dawkins speaks of non-negotiable scientific fact. Einstein's discovery of time/space being finite is such a fact. Regarding the origin

[Chuichupachichi]

of the universe, Materialist, Atheist Evolutionists insist that the cause of the universe was naturalistic processes. However, the universe is nature & thus, Atheists insist that the effect is its own causation. This is absurdly illogical & after correctly disqualifying nature, the only remaining possibility is a supernatural causation

Its also ironic that Dawkins ended this production with a handful of soil containing 25 billion bacteria because if a changed global environment were to kill all

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Chuichupachichi 'Atheists insist that the effect is its own causation.'

Complete strawman, atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing to do with a position on cosmogony or origins.

[Chuichupachichi]

@TheScienceFoundation

{Complete strawman atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods}

Mine is not a strawman. The problem is that your argument is completely irrelevant. I didn't claim to state the meaning of atheism. I spoke of "atheists" themselves in regards to their position on a particular issue. Certainly, atheists possess a particularly specific view, regarding the origins of time/space, i.e. the universe

Its undeniable that atheists insist that the causation is naturalistic processes

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "Certainly, atheists possess a particularly specific view, regarding the origins of time/space, i.e. the universe Its undeniable that atheists insist that the causation is naturalistic processes"

It is deniable, in fact. "Causation" implies the universe to be caused, and have a beginning. I'm not aware of anything in physics that currently requires that universe to come into existence rather than to have always existed in some state. Other atheists may disagree.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Chuichupachichi No, once again it's a strawman that atheists insist that the causation is a naturalistic process because the definition of atheism only pertains to skepticism regarding claims of gods.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "Its undeniable that atheists insist that the causation is naturalistic processes"

If you're ignorant, I suppose. There are people who do not believe in gods (and are thus atheist) who nevertheless believe in impersonal supernatural forces. Also, it's not necessary to assume the universe had a "cause" in the first place, which moots the question of the nature of that "cause".

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "the universe is nature & thus, Atheists insist that the effect is its own causation"

On what basis do you suppose the universe to be an "effect" in the first place? To put another spin on it, what "caused" the "effect" of your supernatural agency?

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

{On what basis do you suppose the universe to be an "effect" in the first place?}

I'm basing it on the fact that Einstein's mathematics revealed that time/space is finite. The universe had a beginning & it will have an end. All things that had a beginning, are an effect & must necessarily have a causation. Your existence had a beginning. Thus, you are the effect of your parents' causative union

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "The universe had a beginning"

To say that time and space are finite is NOT to demonstrate that the universe itself had a beginning. All it necessarily connotes is that the universe took on a property at volume (space) at the Big Bang, and that a measurable rate of change (time) began with it. The universe could existed as a singularity lacking dimension and change (in other words, being timeless; thus, effectively eternal) prior to that, without affecting Einstein's findings.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "Your existence had a beginning."

The properties of a set of objects are not necessarily the properties of the set itself. That I have a beginning does not imply that the atoms that make me up began at the same time (in fact, quite obviously, they didn't), or that the universe does. To insist otherwise is to argue that since the parts making up an airplane each have the property of non-flight themselves, that therefore the airplane they make up has the property of non-flight.

[Chuichupachichi]

{what "caused" the "effect" of your supernatural agency?}

There is no other category that exists between Creator & creature or creation. There exist only Creator & creature/creation. The reason why creatures are creatures & why creation is creation, is because they were created. The reason why the Creator is the Creator, is because when regarding the act of creating, he is the one that does it. Thus, he is not a creature or created. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the Creator. But rather, a creature!

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "There exist only Creator & creature/creation."

This is simply an assertion of definition. "Creature" is an arbitrary label used to insist on a creator, unless that creator is independently established. To insist that "creatures" proof a "creator" is circular logic and can be discounted as a proof.

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

Your entire post is a straw man

{Creature is an arbitrary label used to insist on a creator}

It is not arbitrary. "Creature" is defined only 1 way. How much more dunce can one be? The word "create" is obviously the root of "creature". The disputed ontology of God is irrelevant. Simply conceptually or definitively, "creature" cannot be considered without "creator". Thats why evolutionists foolishly call Creationists "stupid", then insist upon "ape-like creatures"

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

{the status of a thing as an organism does not necessitate its being characterized as having been "created}

Whether or not organisms are created, is irrelevant to this particular matter. The argument was regarding the word "creature", as exampled by your statement; "To insist that "creatures" prove a "creator" is circular logic". If your current argument, in parentheses above, were relevant, then you would have previously stated... "to insist that life is created"...etc

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "Whether or not organisms are created, is irrelevant to this particular matter."

On the contrary; it is entirely central to the matter. If an organism isn't "created", it doesn't have a "creator". You haven't given us any reason to believe organisms are indeed created, so your point is an ungrounded ipse dixit. If your "proof" for your god is that in English, people casually use the word "creature" as a euphemism for "being", again, that's extremely poor.

[Chuichupachichi]

{To insist that "creatures" proof a "creator" is circular logic}

Its no wonder that atheist evolutionists have great difficulty with logic, you can't even recognize its correct or incorrect execution when produced by others. By definition, "creatures" NECESSARILY imply a "Creator"

Not to mention that "circular logic" is impossible, for then it wouldn't be logic. Thats why the English speaking world expanded the language withe the word "illogical"... to describe evolutionists

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

{In what regard is evolution illogical?}

Firstly, I said that evolutionists are illogical. Those are persons & you're referring to a theory. Nevertheless, evolution postulates that all of the normal individuals will die, while only a few reproductive defects will survive. That is contradictory to known reality. Also, evolution postulates that a species may come to struggle for its survival while its population is abundantly numerous. However, the species achieves

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "Firstly, I said that evolutionists are illogical. Those are persons & you're referring to a theory."

Those are persons whom YOU chose to characterize as "evolutionists"; hence you're commenting on the that sole aspect of a much broader set of beliefs, values, and life experiences that make up a person in general. You aren't saying they're illogical for their attitudes on income tax, the Mac, or global warming. You're talking about evolution.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "evolution postulates that all of the normal individuals will die, while only a few reproductive defects will survive"

You've either misunderstood it or are mischaracterizing it. The theory is that an individual bearing a trait better suiting it to the environment it inhabits will tend as a result to live longer and enjoy greater reproductive success such that that favourable trait will over the course of many generations become normative in that environment.

[Chuichupachichi]

survival after its population has been numerically reduced to merely a handful of reproductive defects. One can substitute the handful of reproductive defects with normal individuals and still, the postulation is contradictory to known reality

Logic prevents contradiction!

About the only thing that appears to be correct is evolutionist's insistence that they are biologically composed 100% of millions of retained, accumulated, reproductive defects

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

or doesn't understand the theory. If one opposes evolution, then evolutionists automatically conclude that the dissenter doesn't understand the theory. Inversely, you conclude that one does understand the theory, only if he agrees with evolution. What you fail to recognize is that you have predetermined that evolution is absolutely valid. Thus, if anyone correctly understands the theory, then there's no way possible that he could reject it

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi “you conclude that one does understand the theory, only if he agrees with evolution”

Not exactly. You’re putting the cart before the horse, suggesting that one first favours evolution and then undertakes to understand it. On the contrary; to actually grasp it is to come to accept its validity, as in any theory in science. I’m not aware of any principle that disestablishes it. Are you?

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi “Thus, if anyone correctly understands the theory, then there's no way possible that he could reject it”

No, there is: to bring forward evidence that counters the theory as it is understood. For example, to present evidence of rabbits in the fossil record before the rise of modern mammals: this could not be explained by the theory as it exists.

(cont'd)

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi (cont'd)

However, this would not be to invalidate the theory for those aspects it continues to explain: only to demonstrate that it does not explain this particular aspect of biology, and so requires revision... not wholesale rejection. Newton's laws of gravity to not concord with the observed orbit of Mercury; Einstein's theory of relativity does. But Newton's laws still perfectly well describe other observable aspects of gravity.

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

I correctly stated that evolution postulates that all of the normal individuals will die, while only a few reproductive defects will survive

This is undeniably a correct understanding of the theory. Yet, you concluded that I misunderstood the theory. Evolutionists do this abundantly

Its simply one more indicator revealing that evolutionists can't think critically for themselves

[PatchesRips]

“evolution postulates that all of the normal individuals will die, while only a few reproductive defects will survive”

Again, that is an incorrect digest of the theory. Your misunderstanding of it sheds light on why you reject it. The core of evolutionary theory is that changes in the genome better suiting an organism to its environment enhance its reproductive success and over time become the norm for the species. Those that prejudice its survival tend not to be passed on.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi “This is undeniably a correct understanding of the theory”

I deny it. You do not understand the theory of evolution and I’ve corrected you on the matter twice now.

“you concluded that I misunderstood the theory. Evolutionists do this abundantly”

So your position is that those who accept the theory do not understand it, while you who reject the theory, do understand it. That strikes me as highly unlikely.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi Now that I've dealt with your issues, please address mine.

Explain to us the principle by which your god can be asserted to be uncreated. Also, why that principle cannot be applied to the universe.

Beyond its postulated existence itself, explain to us how you can claim to know anything in particular about this creator, particularly if, as you claim, it exists outside the universe, and therefore your competent sphere of experience.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "millions of retained, accumulated, reproductive defects"

On what basis do you characterize them as "defects"? In your opinion, is a tree that grows slightly taller and thus captures more sunlight, garnering energy to produce more seeds and thus more trees like itself, "defective" relative to the trees around it?

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

{On what basis do you characterize them as "defects"?}

Its simply a fact of Biology... mutants are reproductive defects

During reproduction a process which consists of copying cells is executed. On rare occasions, a dysfunction occurs in the execution of that process & it results in a inaccurately reproduced cell... a defective copy. That is how mutations occur. Thus, a mutant is a reproductive defect

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi “Its simply a fact of Biology... mutants are reproductive defects”

But “defect” is a subjective term. It’s based on a value judgement--and shaky one at that: that anything different from previous iterations is necessarily broken. The objective basis, however, for determining the value of a mutation is whether it suits the organism of which it is a part better or worse to the environment which it inhabits.

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

A Xerox machine executes a process which results in the reproduction of a particularly printed paper. On occasion, a dysfunction occurs in the execution of that process & it results in the inaccurate reproduction of the original. The machine spits out a defective copy of an Evolutionist Morpholobotomized Mutard's image... thus correcting him

Your tall, light-grabbing tree story is irrelevant because mutants being a defect is a fact of Biology

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi “A Xerox machine executes a process”

But a process that is not analogous to reproduction. Paper documents do not reproduce themselves, nor do they compete with one another for resources in their environment, nor do they have to cope with their environment and thus the changes in them due to the xerographic process are moot. The only criterion to their replication whether or not a human being happens to require that process, which is arbitrary.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi “Your tall, light-grabbing tree story is irrelevant because mutants being a defect is a fact of Biology”

This dodges the question I asked: how do you equate a demonstrable advantage to survival and reproduction, and thus the proliferation of the mutation, as a “defect”? Explain how an improvement qualifies as a defect.

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

However, regarding your story of the tree that grew taller & captured more sunlight, which in turn, enabled it to generate further... if you knew how that relates to Entropy as it pertains to Abiogenesis, you wouldn't be an Evolutionist

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi “if you knew how that relates to Entropy as it pertains to Abiogenesis”

How do entropy and abiogenesis relate?

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "The reason why the Creator is the Creator, is because when regarding the act of creating, he is the one that does it. Thus, he is not a creature or created. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the Creator. But rather, a creature!"

Do you actually hold that one cannot be both a creature and a creator? Are humans, in your opinion, "creatures"? And yet, do they not also create, and are thus also creators? On what basis, therefore, do you insist "the Creator" could not itself be created?

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

{Do you actually hold that one cannot be both a creature and a creator?}

The answer is contained within your own words. Notice that within your first sentence, you wrote; "a creator" (my emphasis on "a") Then, within your last sentence, you wrote; "the Creator" (my emphasis on "the")

There's a difference between we, who can be "a" creator & God who is "the" Creator. The only reason why you continue to argue is because you're ignoring the undeniable loss of your

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "There's a difference between we, who can be "a" creator & God who is "the" Creator."

I see. So your proof that your god is uncreated is basically no more substantial than the fact that the English language uses capital letters to connote a proper noun. Unfortunately, by that logic, Peter Pan is uncreated. New York is uncreated. Jiffy Pop Popcorn is uncreated.

And do I need to point out here that you've essentially dodged answering my question?

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

{So your proof that your god is uncreated is basically no more substantial than the fact that the English language uses capital letters to connote a proper noun}

Straw Man... my argument had nothing to do with capital letters & proper nouns

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "Straw Man... my argument had nothing to do with capital letters & proper nouns "

Given that that was the only distinction you were making to differentiate creators generally from yours, that would actually appear to be the ONLY point you were making. You certainly didn't offer anything else other than that grammatical convention in support of your thesis.

[Chuichupachichi]

Not all things can be creatures or creation because when those exist, someone must necessarily do the creating. If all were creatures and/or creation, then from whence would they come? It isn't necessary that the Creator of space/time, being external of space/time, have a creator. Simply because the rule of "cause & effect" is from within space/time, i.e. the universe

It isn't possible for man to devise a 5 word statement, consisting of merely 3 different words, containing as much information &

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "when those exist, someone must necessarily do the creating"

Again, this is simply an assertion by definition. The only reason someone must "do the creating" is that you're insisting the subjects you're talking about are "created". That remains an unjustified ipse dixit on your part.

[Chuichupachichi]

profoundness, such as that from God. To the question of "who are you"? God replied; "I Am, Who I Am". Two words are repeated. Thus, its comprised of only 3 different words. If any & all humans are asked the same, they may begin to reply as did God; "I am". Referring to oneself, a name is given; "John". A human will proceed by stating a surname; "Doe". That is referring to those whom have come before, i.e, forefathers. However, God, after referring to himself; "I Am". He then referred back to

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "If any & all humans are asked the same"

This is rhetorical nonsense. First of all, it's vastly straying from the point into essentially meaningless metaphysics. You might as well go on about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and since there are pins, there must be angels, and therefore POOF! a god. Secondly, every single human being can just as easily answer "who are you" with "I am, who I am" if they want to supply a meaningless answer with no additional value.

[PatchesRips]

@PatchesRips (cont'd) Three-year-olds have got your god's answer down pat; they invent it themselves by the millions and they use it all the time. "Who's there?" "Me!" But they manage it in just one word. whereas your loquacious creator seems to need to expand it to five... or three... whatever. I suppose it depends upon which particular language he's using that day to provide the question with a similiar non-answer.

[Chuichupachichi]

himself once again; "Who I Am". This indicates that none have come before. Prior to he, there was none. The Creator is the Creator. Hence, not created

Merely 3 different words and more meaning can be extracted from them yet. No men can devise such a thing

[Chuichupachichi]

living organisms, save one, then bacteria would undoubtedly be the sole survivors. Amongst those inclined towards jungle book monkey tales, St. Simian Selection of the Tree Descention would be dumber than even Daniel Dennett, for having evolved single celled organisms into all the other lifeforms, simply to end up with bacteria as the "Kings of Survival"

I'll finish with one, last, nifty, little, scientific statement for all you Evolutionists...

"God did it"

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Chuichupachichi I really don't think you're aware of what 'scientific' means

Evolution is not directional so your ramblings are horribly ignorant of anything related to biology.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "if a changed global environment were to kill all living organisms, save one, then bacteria would undoubtedly be the sole survivors"

And your point is?

[Chuichupachichi]

@PatchesRips

{And your point is?}

I should be asking you that. I explained my point. Thus, what is your point...do you require a repetition, reiteration or redundancy?

Don't you think it strange that if single cell organisms were the first life on earth & all other lifeforms were the result of greater degrees of survivability attained, that single celled bacteria would now be the most proficient survivors? Isn't there something about evolutionary theory that is slightly amiss? At least a tad?

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "I explained my point."

What I meant was, what's your objection here? So all that would be left would be bacteria. And? Am I supposed to object? So something happens that only bacteria survive. Fine, okay. So WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

"that single celled bacteria would now be the most proficient survivors?"

They ARE. There are VASTLY more of them in the world than there are multi-cellular eukaryotes, both in absolute numbers and species.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi "Isn't there something about evolutionary theory that is slightly amiss?"

Let's suppose all single-celled life had at some point ceased to exist, and only multi-cellular life remained. How would this be any different from the observation that nearly every species that has ever existed, including ones that led to species existing today, has become extinct in the past? The supposed disappearance of single-celled life would hardly pose a disproof of evolution.

[PatchesRips]

@Chuichupachichi"God did it"

This is hardly a revelation. It's long be understood that this is your position. If you would claim it to be "science", though, you would have to put forward a theory backed by observation and evidence. What are those observations unmistakably connoting its existence; what is that evidence? What are, and aren't, the things you claim were "done" by this being? How were they accomplished?

[TeeGeeFan]

God, I hate Wendy Wright's dumb smile.

[dpaanlka]

What's the song used during the end credits? It sounds familiar, like from a movie or something.

[SebastiaanHalff]

At 14:53, I had to behave myself not to punch my fist into her face for being so ignorant. Luckily, my screen is saved but damn, go back to Hogwarts you b*tch.

[dann203]

there should be 6 billion views

[steaminggreentea]

to continue, God is absolutely infallible, but it is MAN who is flawed. Religion is flawed because all men are flawed. Though God did inspire the prophets to write the Bible, the generations of man who have passed it down could have screwed up at some point and misinterpreted the Holy Scripture. I am taught to look at the Bible for moral inspiration and guidance, not to explain the origins of species. DARWIN FOR THE WIN

[steaminggreentea]

i, myself have been raised a Catholic all my life, and it's good to know that the curriculum I've been taught explores Darwin's theory of evolution as the bottom truth of our existence. ( i'm part of the new generation in open-minded Canada) It's so sad to see that a lot of the youth in this world are still in the dark and refuse to come out. The Bible is SO hard to interpret, and it may have been tampered with in the past, so it simply CANNOT be used as a reference to explain science.

[supertito123]

Love Dawkin's face at 5:55, although looks a little like Cheney

[MamboFilmProject]

learn more at lovedocumentaries



[Atothetheist]

laughing at hate mail... like a boss

[ZachRose88]

Dawkins is my hero. 

[MonCoin]

I think it is wrong to say "a battle between science and faith"like Dawkins does sometimes... "a battle between evolution theory and creationism" is more suitable in my opinion... In his case. I know some ppl that work as scientists and still believe in a god...

[TomFynn]

@MonCoin Actually it's a war by religion on science. Science is concerned with finding put what there. Religion is about making stuff up. And since science again and again has pulled the rug out from the fallacious and baseless arguments of religion, it is the religionists who try to pull everyone down to their level so as to not having to suffer the embarrassment of being disproven again and again.

[MonCoin]

@TomFynn I don't agree. But that's ur opinion. :)

[dragonfiremalus]

"not a single one of my ancestors failed to copulate." Boy is that the mother of all biased studies. lols.

[alinaysa]

4:12 - I find it fascinating how that poor excuse of a human DARES call Professor Dawkins close-minded, and then proves without a shred of a doubt that she has NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about what evolution is.......

the floor of a cave just called - it wants its BATSHIT back!

[cminorman]

He can't see God, so why does he believe in God and not evolution? When there's evidence for evolution and none what so ever for a God

[MVT44]

I wonder how many people who doubt gravity took Dawkins suggestion to jump out of a 10th story window seriously.

[sondano]

Rowan Williams may speak rubbish but at least he does it in an epic voice. Unlike American creationists who speak rubbish and sound terrible at the same time

[iMaKeUsHoOk]

Reminder 13:00

[aleph0909]

I never understood why do you have to choose between God and the evolution.

I think God (not christian or any other, just God) is the supreme creator, and all we do is discover the laws he created. Science is the way to do it, evolution is the way Gods creation works...

Of course, always having an open mind, constantly questioning...

Science is great for me because it doesn't have sides, it's simply...REALITY.

Amongst other things, It's proof of the existence of God...

[crysheep]

@aleph0909

With your views on God, without any adherence to formal religion, there is less of a clash with evolution. However, with any of the Abrahamic faiths, with their specific claims on creation stories, there is a clash. There are still problems even when taking a liberal, non-literal, metaphorical account of creation. It gets progressively harder to reconcile notions of our humanity's special place in the universe. The whole notion of man falling because of sin starts to break down.

[aleph0909]

@crysheep

Both of the sides just have to accept one simple truth and work on it, acknowledge that the only progress that really matters is spiritual progress. It's a long philosophical discussion, but it seems to me that neither the creationist nor the evolutionist are open minded enough, with a few exceptions of course...

Although creationist can be quite silly, so people tend to ridicule them.

[iMaKeUsHoOk]

@crysheep That's not entirely true...Islam does not restrict Muslims in belief. There may be some fanatics who are more threatened culture-wise than religiously, but evolution doesn't clash with Islamic teachings, so Muslims can easily accept it. But there seems to be a minority of "adherents" to Islam that even turn their backs to sheikhs and scholars when it comes to evolution because they tend to follow Christian traditions

[lotr450]

@iMaKeUsHoOk Couldn't agree more with you.

[msac83]

It´s sad to witness how these people´s braincells go to waste filled with creationism. If they could only open their eyes and see the beauty nature has given them. Instead, they choose to be ignorant blind followers of a book that tells them how to lead their lives. ``The word of God,`` a `man` whom they´ve been waiting for for over 2000 years

[DrThankYouStein]

I absolutely cannot stand this woman and her fake smile and her head nodding and her over pronunciation of simple words. Ugh, she makes me sick, and I have the most patience and tolerance of anyone I know. PUKE.

[campasini]

i love when he gets frustrated with creationist, lol

[proudfootz]

At 6:00 - the creationist is really spooky. Hard to imagine anyone actually believes this stuff.

[ranchai100]

the christian church understands evolution just fine,they know its true but must fight its truth for the bottom line,getting peoples money

[Aanthanur]

@ranchai100 actually, the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, i think it was the first time in the 1994 version of Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[saxmanchiro]

Darwin is one of the greatest men to have ever taken a breath on this earth. He killed god. So sad that 150 yrs after that death blow, we still see billions full of woo, keeping this imaginary jealous homicidal zombie(according to his alleged writings) alive and well.

[lotr450]

@saxmanchiro Darwin was an agnostic. He didn't kill God at all! Many people believe in both evolution and God. In my view, evolution simply increases the breadth of God's creation. It's simply a method God used to create complex and diverse life. So essentially, he didn't kill God but enlightened people about our true history.

[saxmanchiro]

@lotr450 He killed 'god' through pwnage of religious texts(which religions use to back up their belief in their particular deity) and their ignorant explanations. In that respect, anyone who claims to worship a god and uses a holy text to support that position, needs to reassess that position based on the truth brought by Darwin(or anyone else who contributes to this pwnage).

[lotr450]

@saxmanchiro Not all religious texts agree with creation myths. But I agree with you, surely Darwin woke people from their ignorance and was able to explain our true lineage :)

[saxmanchiro]

@lotr450 When we speak of religions, at least most of the time, we are referring to the Abrahamic religions(Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and these all have Creation stories within their texts. I am aware that some religions do not hold Creationist stories but I posit they are few.