to me it didnt even happened, this teory its actually falling into pieces, because coincidences are too many, making it mathematically unprobable to be the way this sir says.
DNA code is empirical proof that biological life forms are a creative product of information and language. i.e.: Nous / Logos (Einstein called this: "The MIND of GOD").
Darwin had it all wrong and now atheists need a new theory for origins.
although i think dawkins is a little too reductionist by thinking that all evolution is explained by genes, his selfish gene theory (i am more with gould idea, that only explain it at certain level, which it seems that nobody has picked up since, i dont know why)
i LOVE when this guy start his atheist battle and left all of this religious people really pissed off hahaha is beatiful
Because for Wilson's Multi-level selection idea to be of any appeal he'd have to develop a strong theoretical model first, which, in the eyes of many, he hasn't. And, since Wilson's idea is the only "new" and "less implausible" account of 'group selection', nobody picks up Gould's claims, except, perhaps, very few scientists, such as Dunbar.
Nevertheless, it appears to me that deciding to buy into group selection has to do more with some sort of "ethical appeal" than science.
Siempre me ha causado gracia que Richard Dawkins pueda usar libremente la palabra "egoísta" en sus libros, pero si Wilson usa la palabra "altruísmo" o Margulis empieza a hablar de simbiosis de inmediato se suben las cejas. ¿No será el problema "científico" más un problema "linguistico"?
The first step of the scientific method is the observation, and begins in our consciousness, it is not begins in subatomic particles. If Richard says: my thoughts depend on the movement of subatomic particles (MSP), then, the atheism is only product of the MSP. If he says: my thoughts no depend on the MSP, then, the subatomic particles are capable to moves according to the design (spirit), and the atheism is false. The atheism is a cult; it is based on an assumption not verifiable
I dn't know Y I feel upset when I hear this guy saying that evolution & Darwin's studies are the reason Y he doesn't believe in god. I want to tell him that believing is subject to ignorance. The more you explore your own body the more you get aware of your own perfection. The less you experience your innermost being the less you know the misterious rules the govern your existance! Keep up with the great job in evolution but please also collect the hidden evidances and you'll find the real truth
It's clear that not all humans drop their beliefs in gods after accepting the fact of evolution, but it IS quite obvious that evolution makes gods unnecessary, to say the least, in order to explain the complexity of life.
You might be interested in checking out the 'Genius of Charles Darwin Uncut Interview' with Randolph Nesse, where they explore the imperfections of our bodies, which are proof of them being the result of an unintelligent process with no direction. Regards.
Why the heck are you responding in English, yizas! They guy was commenting in Spanish, dude. You've got to stop reading in English for a while, haha.
Pero si te interesa Multimaestro, lee The End of Faith de Sam Harris para entender por qué la ciencia y la religión (o creencias locas sin evidencia en general) son incompatibles en un mundo moderno como el de hoy.
Estamos viviendo en un mundo maravilloso, con increíbles cantidades de conocimiento al alcance de la mano de casi cualquiera que realmente se lo proponga.
No puede ser, repito, no puede ser que hoy por hoy haya gente que todavía crea que el mundo tiene menos de 10.000 años. Y no por ignorancia, sino por aferrarse a un cuento de hadas. ¿Qué le pasa al mundo? ¿Cuántos años más tienen que pasar para que maduremos estas ideas como sociedad?
Soy parte del mundo. Y no creo en cuentos de hadas. Cre que Dios y ciencia nos on excluyentes. Es más piendo que Dios es, además de muchas más cosas, un científico. ¿Cuál es el problema?
Un creyente en Dios y en la ciencia...ambos fascinantes
Mientras la ciencia busca diferenciarse de la religión, a base de lógica, la religión por otro lado, cada vez busca con más fuerza disfrazarse de ciencia.
Esto ha sido gradual, hace no mucho tiempo, la religión rechazaba completamente a la ciencia, mientras tenían el poder, cuando la gente era ignorante, en el sentido de que ignoraban el funcionamiento de su mundo. Se conformaban con los cuentos de la religión. Eso se está acabando, la religión cavó su propia tumba.
El primer problema es que decir que dios es un científico es una frase rimbombante carente de todo sentido. Lo que tradicionalmente se entiende por dios es un ser omnisciente creador del universo y sus leyes. Por lo tanto es ridículo decir que dios es un científico puesto que no tendría ninguna hipótesis que someter a experimentación ni ninguna cuestión sobre la que aplicar el método científico.
Los dogmas, relatos y mitos de las religiones existentes sí son incompatibles con la ciencia. El génesis, la virginidad de María, la resurrección de muertos, convertir el agua en sangre, etc, etc. Si no crees en los cuentos de hadas ¿me podrías dar una razón no arbitraria por la cual crees en una religión y no en todas las demás?
Un inciso, Alfred Russel Wallace tuvo la misma idea, solo que por su posterior obsesión con el espiritismo y lo sobrenatural no recibió el mismo reconocimiento.
que quisiste decir en los dos comentarios? respondeme pero o creo que crees en la seleccion natural pero te hago una pregunta de donde salieron nuestros supestos decendientes??? crees derepente de la nada nada nada se creo el mundo y todo lo demas??? fue dios quien nos creo idiota
A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population. A correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level. An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002.
It's not that funny... The Principle of Evolution, as most other scientific knowledge, doesn't actually deny the existence of God. Both concepts are compatible. The mistake is to blindly believe every single word taught by religious institutions, without questioning and reasoning through it. Science and religion aren't necessarily enemies. They could live together if people were willing to think once in a while and leave fanaticism aside.
The best countries in the world in terms of peace, happiness, low crime rates and low corruption rates are highly atheist countries (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawkins is being a bit presumptuous when he says the theory of evolution has changed FOREVER our view of the world and our place in it. He says that there is undoubtable evidence for evolution, when there have been no transitional fossils between species discovered. Micro evolution may exist (within species, like the iguana 'cousins'), but not macro (one species changing into another).
Actually, he's right. The fossil registry is discreet: species appear and disappear suddenly, without gradualism. That's what lead Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to develop the hyposthesis of "Punctuated" Equilibrium (I'm not sure if this is the right name in English): species remain unchanged for long periods, then a small population suffers an abrupt process of speciation. I recommend you all to read their works. :) (The Panda's Thumb is a great one).
an old idea,parmenius, you have been mislead. Research the evidence and make your mind up your self..its worth the time and effort some of us have found.
The Principle of Evolution HAS changed our point of view forever. Biology as a whole was changed almost entirely. The point of view from which we analyse all biologic phenomena is completely new. Palaeontology and other areas of knowledge exist because of it. Don't use technical terms and try to prove scientists wrong over the two or three things you know, because you obviously don't understand the basics. Inform yourself before arguing, please.
Did God create or did Chance create? Look at man. The evidence suggests a vast intelligence was needed to creat man simply because of the complexity and functionality of his DNA. Could blind and brainless Chance create the language in DNA in each of trillions of cells working in harmony? Do we even need to ask the question?
what evidence are we talking about? you don't think that evolutionists have taken this into consideration? do you realize HOW many times we have heard this argument?
why the evolution happened?
thats the real question
to me it didnt even happened, this teory its actually falling into pieces, because coincidences are too many, making it mathematically unprobable to be the way this sir says.
maxsalasr 1 year ago
*
The documentals of Carl Sagan are much better than R. Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins tries to convince us to believe in his BELIEFS, once angain BELIEFS.
It's very irrational to mix Religion and Science and We can understand that Dawkins is making foolish remarks.
~
Does he want to sell more videos, sell more books? it's very possible, since he has not any chance as a scientific.
~
It's very stupid to use the science in order to support Atheisms BELIEFS.
*
bravasobob 1 year ago
DNA code is empirical proof that biological life forms are a creative product of information and language. i.e.: Nous / Logos (Einstein called this: "The MIND of GOD").
Darwin had it all wrong and now atheists need a new theory for origins.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
although i think dawkins is a little too reductionist by thinking that all evolution is explained by genes, his selfish gene theory (i am more with gould idea, that only explain it at certain level, which it seems that nobody has picked up since, i dont know why)
i LOVE when this guy start his atheist battle and left all of this religious people really pissed off hahaha is beatiful
redeyeswyvern 2 years ago
Because for Wilson's Multi-level selection idea to be of any appeal he'd have to develop a strong theoretical model first, which, in the eyes of many, he hasn't. And, since Wilson's idea is the only "new" and "less implausible" account of 'group selection', nobody picks up Gould's claims, except, perhaps, very few scientists, such as Dunbar.
Nevertheless, it appears to me that deciding to buy into group selection has to do more with some sort of "ethical appeal" than science.
Regards
Veganomante 2 years ago
Siempre me ha causado gracia que Richard Dawkins pueda usar libremente la palabra "egoísta" en sus libros, pero si Wilson usa la palabra "altruísmo" o Margulis empieza a hablar de simbiosis de inmediato se suben las cejas. ¿No será el problema "científico" más un problema "linguistico"?
redeyeswyvern 2 years ago
Aunque eso no tiene nada que ver con lo anterior.
Veganomante 2 years ago
The first step of the scientific method is the observation, and begins in our consciousness, it is not begins in subatomic particles. If Richard says: my thoughts depend on the movement of subatomic particles (MSP), then, the atheism is only product of the MSP. If he says: my thoughts no depend on the MSP, then, the subatomic particles are capable to moves according to the design (spirit), and the atheism is false. The atheism is a cult; it is based on an assumption not verifiable
Leivinn20 2 years ago
This is empty rethoric. A philosophical conception it is not science. And what is spirit? Spirit is a not verifiable assumption.
Amartolos74 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is an idiot and Darwin was satans homo buddy !!!!!
Yashupal7 2 years ago
I dn't know Y I feel upset when I hear this guy saying that evolution & Darwin's studies are the reason Y he doesn't believe in god. I want to tell him that believing is subject to ignorance. The more you explore your own body the more you get aware of your own perfection. The less you experience your innermost being the less you know the misterious rules the govern your existance! Keep up with the great job in evolution but please also collect the hidden evidances and you'll find the real truth
MultiMaestro 2 years ago
MultiMaestro,
It's clear that not all humans drop their beliefs in gods after accepting the fact of evolution, but it IS quite obvious that evolution makes gods unnecessary, to say the least, in order to explain the complexity of life.
You might be interested in checking out the 'Genius of Charles Darwin Uncut Interview' with Randolph Nesse, where they explore the imperfections of our bodies, which are proof of them being the result of an unintelligent process with no direction. Regards.
LiberacionIgualdad 2 years ago
Why the heck are you responding in English, yizas! They guy was commenting in Spanish, dude. You've got to stop reading in English for a while, haha.
Pero si te interesa Multimaestro, lee The End of Faith de Sam Harris para entender por qué la ciencia y la religión (o creencias locas sin evidencia en general) son incompatibles en un mundo moderno como el de hoy.
Saludos
Veganomante 2 years ago
Here it is:
watch?v=pcnCJqDa1us
You might also be interested in watching this presentation by Daniel Dennett called 'Can we know our own minds?'.
watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo
LiberacionIgualdad 2 years ago
Estamos viviendo en un mundo maravilloso, con increíbles cantidades de conocimiento al alcance de la mano de casi cualquiera que realmente se lo proponga.
No puede ser, repito, no puede ser que hoy por hoy haya gente que todavía crea que el mundo tiene menos de 10.000 años. Y no por ignorancia, sino por aferrarse a un cuento de hadas. ¿Qué le pasa al mundo? ¿Cuántos años más tienen que pasar para que maduremos estas ideas como sociedad?
Saludos
DemilicheEttin 2 years ago
Soy parte del mundo. Y no creo en cuentos de hadas. Cre que Dios y ciencia nos on excluyentes. Es más piendo que Dios es, además de muchas más cosas, un científico. ¿Cuál es el problema?
Un creyente en Dios y en la ciencia...ambos fascinantes
MultiMaestro 2 years ago
Mientras la ciencia busca diferenciarse de la religión, a base de lógica, la religión por otro lado, cada vez busca con más fuerza disfrazarse de ciencia.
Esto ha sido gradual, hace no mucho tiempo, la religión rechazaba completamente a la ciencia, mientras tenían el poder, cuando la gente era ignorante, en el sentido de que ignoraban el funcionamiento de su mundo. Se conformaban con los cuentos de la religión. Eso se está acabando, la religión cavó su propia tumba.
Staldren 2 years ago
El primer problema es que decir que dios es un científico es una frase rimbombante carente de todo sentido. Lo que tradicionalmente se entiende por dios es un ser omnisciente creador del universo y sus leyes. Por lo tanto es ridículo decir que dios es un científico puesto que no tendría ninguna hipótesis que someter a experimentación ni ninguna cuestión sobre la que aplicar el método científico.
Atheus78 2 years ago
Los dogmas, relatos y mitos de las religiones existentes sí son incompatibles con la ciencia. El génesis, la virginidad de María, la resurrección de muertos, convertir el agua en sangre, etc, etc. Si no crees en los cuentos de hadas ¿me podrías dar una razón no arbitraria por la cual crees en una religión y no en todas las demás?
Atheus78 2 years ago
Un inciso, Alfred Russel Wallace tuvo la misma idea, solo que por su posterior obsesión con el espiritismo y lo sobrenatural no recibió el mismo reconocimiento.
Referencias:
Wikipedia.
Una breve historia de casi todo (Bill Bryson).
dIngenieroAntiTODOb 3 years ago
muy bueno vamos a bver la segunda parte dios debe morir ya!
CAPCOMALLSTARS 3 years ago
como dices grandisimo hijodeputa???
manuel260694 2 years ago
se te nota q eres creyente???
desde la edad media IGUAL!!!!
luicro 2 years ago
que quisiste decir en los dos comentarios? respondeme pero o creo que crees en la seleccion natural pero te hago una pregunta de donde salieron nuestros supestos decendientes??? crees derepente de la nada nada nada se creo el mundo y todo lo demas??? fue dios quien nos creo idiota
manuel260694 2 years ago
AJAAAA yo soy el idota!!!!!!! totalitarsta esas en la EDAD MEDIA ...
le recomiendo q mire el resto de los videos .....
a recuerde q los amigos imaginarios son solo eso IMAGINARIOS!!!!!!
luicro 2 years ago
its frustrating and disheartening how people abandon rational thought for the 'blissful' ignorance of religion.
enott93 3 years ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population. A correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level. An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002.
TeslaSagan 3 years ago 5
Its funny ... i believe in god but agree with dawkins on nearly everything.
Tyreleon 3 years ago
It's not that funny... The Principle of Evolution, as most other scientific knowledge, doesn't actually deny the existence of God. Both concepts are compatible. The mistake is to blindly believe every single word taught by religious institutions, without questioning and reasoning through it. Science and religion aren't necessarily enemies. They could live together if people were willing to think once in a while and leave fanaticism aside.
In case anyone wants to know, I'm an atheist.
Shampalwe 2 years ago
The best countries in the world in terms of peace, happiness, low crime rates and low corruption rates are highly atheist countries (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg).
TeslaSagan 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is being a bit presumptuous when he says the theory of evolution has changed FOREVER our view of the world and our place in it. He says that there is undoubtable evidence for evolution, when there have been no transitional fossils between species discovered. Micro evolution may exist (within species, like the iguana 'cousins'), but not macro (one species changing into another).
Parmenius 3 years ago
No transitional fossils? Are you kidding me? Go to a paleontologist and say that.
GodoftheGeeks 3 years ago 7
Actually, he's right. The fossil registry is discreet: species appear and disappear suddenly, without gradualism. That's what lead Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to develop the hyposthesis of "Punctuated" Equilibrium (I'm not sure if this is the right name in English): species remain unchanged for long periods, then a small population suffers an abrupt process of speciation. I recommend you all to read their works. :) (The Panda's Thumb is a great one).
Shampalwe 2 years ago
There are many examples of transitional species in evolution. Go look in the mirror. You are a transitional species. ;)
hackenbollox 3 years ago
an old idea,parmenius, you have been mislead. Research the evidence and make your mind up your self..its worth the time and effort some of us have found.
guyingenes 3 years ago
The Principle of Evolution HAS changed our point of view forever. Biology as a whole was changed almost entirely. The point of view from which we analyse all biologic phenomena is completely new. Palaeontology and other areas of knowledge exist because of it. Don't use technical terms and try to prove scientists wrong over the two or three things you know, because you obviously don't understand the basics. Inform yourself before arguing, please.
Shampalwe 2 years ago 2
Did God create or did Chance create? Look at man. The evidence suggests a vast intelligence was needed to creat man simply because of the complexity and functionality of his DNA. Could blind and brainless Chance create the language in DNA in each of trillions of cells working in harmony? Do we even need to ask the question?
Parmenius 3 years ago
what evidence are we talking about? you don't think that evolutionists have taken this into consideration? do you realize HOW many times we have heard this argument?
JigsawMaster 3 years ago
There is no blind and brainless chance. You obviously don't understand the principles of natural selection.
Go read Prof. Dawkins' excellent 'Climbing Mount Improbable'.
hackenbollox 3 years ago 2
Nor does he know anything about the structure of DNA.
Shampalwe 2 years ago
You're mistaken if you think that "chance" is an element of the evolutionary model. It really does not, not at all in fact.
It's a misconception many people have but really if you look into you'll quickly see that it's quite the opposite.
Falloutmoon 3 years ago