ENERGY never dies, is eternal and cannot be created. So before our universe of matter formed from Energy the Energy always existed Eternally and Infinitely, then the energy formed matter, matter in motion produces space and time. I completly agree with the scientific evedience backing this like relativity, Conservation of energy, and thermodynamics. I call that Energy that becomes matter God, thats why I see God in everything, or as you might say: I see energy in everything. : )
what the hell is darwin talking about. just cause i believe in god, that means i am not rational, or dont enjoy nature. darwin always trying to blame men problem on religion to much. the facts is mens sinners and we of live in a sinful world there always going to be problems. it funny how men can never blame their self for their problem but quick to blame else what.
I love this philosophy. It's saying that really there is no purpose to life except for life itself. There's no right or wrong life per se because it's all life. So whenever anyone complains about aspects in their life they should remember it's not about right or wrong per se. Life itself is enough. Pretty inspirational stuff. And from an atheist/agnostic too.
@MrGabs83 dude, dont be quickly to believe in that crap. it will be best if you think this through. dont be so quick to take what darwin say in run with it. put his thory to the test. what darwin say might sound good but when you test what he say, it might be a completely different thing. god bless.
atheism = no belief in a god (you could even wish for one to exist, and still be an atheist) / agnosticism = without certainty, you remain skeptical to the possibility / a belief = you think something is real, without any empirical proof / faith = you elevate a set of beliefs into a virtue
Now, if people could stop calling themselves something that they aren't... It could help solving the debate. Otherwise, you keep debating with atheists who think they're not atheists... and much worse... >.>
atheism was created to encourage, stupidity, dishonesty and sexual deviancy. An expected "unexpected" result is cowardice which manifests itself as treason.
He is not using his time well if he spends it all rubishing others and what there belief is. Dawkins is a moden day preacher knocking on as many doors as he can to tell you that your stupid and you should accept his religion of Atheisism.
Being ignorent is not a skill, it does not make Dawkins smart to think he know all
as only a fool knows every thing about a subject he has never been part of.
Dawkins know about God as much as Pat Robinson knows about Haiti
I'm theist, myself, although I'm a religious sceptic/ skeptic (however you spell it). But I agree. Don't waste life. He speaks alot of sense. I totally believe in evolution, and just dislike (to put it mildly) creationists.
Dawkins is far from evil, even if his dislike of religion/ theism is incredibly strong. But then again, look at the religious extremists. Like Hitchen's says, however, we're a weak race. I'm sure, in a brief space of time, we would replace our beliefs with other beliefs.
Ok Mirabilia, so you have studied biology at MIT apparently. I'd love to see you bring this up with your professors and have them laugh in your face. Don't even begin to criticize people's logic when your response to something is a quote about what God once said. You consider yourself a scholar of science and you go around throwing completely untestable ideas out there.
i think atheism and theism are both wrong views.agnostic is the right one because no one knows the truth about the god no god argument.simply say i don't know IS THE RIGHT ANSWER,BOTH SIDES ARE ARROGANT TO SAY THEY KNOW THE TRUTH.but dawkins is a genius in his own right.
Agnostic views are not right, and the only reason they "aren't sure" what happens when we die............is because they have also had religion shoved in thier faces at one point or another.
God is made up by people, and depending when or were you grow up will depend on your beliefs.
I believe agnostic people are as ignorant as people that believe in god in the first place.
Agnosticism is more purely rational than atheism. Science consists only of theories deriving from the apparent predictability of experiences-- personal perceptions, ultimately. No theory or belief explains the origin of mind. Science can only seek communally replicable experience, and it can only logically disprove religious beliefs that affirm specific communally observable spiritual events. Few religious beliefs are of that nature, and they're not the ones that cause the most problems.
How far are you willing to go to be agnostic though? As Dawkins has said, he's agnostic about God, but only to the same extent he's agnostic about fairies -- you can't disprove the existence of fairies. Nonetheless, you don't see many people using that as a reason to entertain their existence.
You are right in saying that science is strictly agnostic. Though, perhaps a better term would be 'apatheistic' since divine intervention is untestable and science deals with experimentation (testing).
I rarely bother to consider the possibility of an anthropomorphic God. There's a long way, though, between that belief and what I perceive to be typical atheist belief, which is that the material world is all that truly exists, and mind is some gestalt creature of brain activity. That's a reasonable theory, but it's irrational to feel sure of it. Science itself affirms that we construct notions of reality indirectly; it's all just theories, and none truly explains consciousness.
But consciousness is just the product (gift) of an evolved brain... also, dolphins and chimpanzees have shown to possess a simple level of consciousness too. But you are right, we are still far from a true understanding of our brains and its inner workings.
Still, attributing "thinking about thinking" to the intervention of a supernatural being is a logically fallacious statement, just as silly as saying I'm a professional climber because I have a picture of Mount Everest in my room. :-)
if you can prove that you've somehow, magically, stepped out of your own consciousness in order to experience anything whatsoever, then i will allow the notion that science might prove something about consciousness.
I don't understand what's there to prove. I will stand by what I have already stated. Whatever happens (emotions, dreams, ecstasy, etc.) AND feels real is still a neurological phenomenon which comes from within and nowhere else. We can make ourself believe many things, anything at all, even without the aid of drugs or alcohol ;-) Through meditation some even experience the realization of their consciousness. Bottom line: once your brain shuts off, it's bye-bye to everything there is to know. Sad
you don't understand what i'm trying to say, and i don't have time to describe it properly. but even if i did, you'd probably shrug it off, because you have faith (yes, faith) in science.
On the contrary, I believe I know what you are SAYING, but you are the one believing in magic here, not me. Also, playing with semantic doesn't get you anywhere. I believe in science, have faith in it, and hope it will get better. Those verbs may have religious connotations or not. Religion has everything to prove. Science proved a lot beyond any doubt, corrected and admitted mistakes, and will continue to do so.
"I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day" (D. Adams)
@gregsc1 People seem to think that atheism means believing, absolutely, that there's no God. Stop right there. You're wrong. Atheism simply means not believing. Even if an atheist claimed to believe, it wouldn't mean he does. Believing in something is not a state of mind in which you can induce yourself. When you realize the definition of atheism, it's not incompatible with agnosticism. An agnostic who assumes that there's 50% chance for God to exist, or not exist, is clearly being irrational.
@finalfansix Atheism can mean believing absolutely that there's no chance of a God, or more casually believing God doesn't exist, or in some cases it can be roughly synonymous with agnosticism. In the latter case I suggest it's a bad definition and poor term to identify oneself with-- not simply because "agnosticism" is a more literally correct term, but because the term "atheism" must serve stronger functions; so, why be unnecessarily vague with language.
@gregsc1 "Atheism can mean believing absolutely that there's no chance of a God, or more casually believing God doesn't exis"
If one believes ABSOLUTELY that there's no god, a label more suitable for them would be a gnostic atheist, don't put us all into the same category since those kind of atheists are only a few from my experience. And furthermore atheism can also mean simply lack of belief in gods. In that case it's not a belief, it's a non-belief.
@byteresistor I can only repeat myself-- if you're agnostic, why label yourself with a broader and often misleading term like atheism? In my experience, most people who call themselves atheist think that religious people are idiots. If you happen to feel that way, atheist may be a good descriptor. Most self-described agnostics seem to have a more tolerant attitude.
@gregsc1 Atheism means you don't think a god exists. Agnostic means you don't know, and aren't thinking about it. Anyone who looks at this particular problem and analyzes it, in a scientific manner, is an atheist because there is no evidence of any god.
@ccarr313 Good science never declares that something doesn't exist just because there isn't empirical evidence of it. At all points in history, science has been incapable of measuring or formulating things that were later found to be very good science indeed. Good scientists may tend to disbelieve things that seem logically impossible, or incompatible with established (but never certain) scientific principles. God is not such a thing. Not even some anthropomorphic guy on a celestial throne.
@ccarr313 People who claim to have evidence of God's existence are in a weak place logically-- they're easy targets. That doesn't make it logical to state that no God exists. Science is supposed to be open and noncommittal about things it can't currently address. There are many sound reasons to be skeptical about human knowledge; but if you prefer a very literal materialistic science, you may be better off that way.
@byteresistor True, but don't leave out us "Militant Atheists". Which means not only do we not believe in gods, but we believe that religion actually hurts our society's progress.
@finalfansix, I think what most people mean with "atheist" is that they're anti-religion. It's usually (not always) because they've placed literal and rigid faith in the constantly revised theories of science.
I'm a big fan of logic and scientific method, which seem essential to any hope for true civilization. They are however simply tools for the human mind dealing with the eternal mystery of Other. Strident and arrogant atheists sometimes cause almost as much harm as religious fanatics.
@gregsc1 An atheist who seriously thinks that he KNOWS that there is no God, is perhaps an atheist, but not because of his belief. Since atheism is a lack of belief in a god, he corresponds to the definition of atheism. However, he's not an agnostic atheist, he's just an idiot... Because... how can we prove for sure that there is no god? And who in his right mind would want to attempt that anyway... An agnostic may say that the chance for god is high or low. If he says 50/50 he's kind of dumb...
@finalfansix Definitions and usage of "atheist" and "agnostic" vary a LOT. I simply advocate is a clearer distinction between the terms. I see no good reason why an intellectually skeptical and logical person would call themselves atheist instead of agnostic, unless they wish to emphasize an entirely nonreligious or even anti-religious mindset. I'd bet 90% or more of self-described atheists at least have a very strong hunch that God doesn't exist. (continued)
@finalfansix Many atheists (such as Dawkins) strongly disparage the very concept of religion. Given that, why would anyone who can accurately call themselves "agnostic" choose the label "atheist"?
People seem to give you thumbs up just because you affirm their position. Not much thought is being put into this claim nor in their blind obedience.
Atheism is a claim to know something. When you say you can't prove God, you are acting in inconformity with your own worldview--it's an agnostic position.
The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim. Stop making this standard a special case for one group alone.
@ByronC900 I have so much evedience I am surprised you don't know it already. I guess me seeking out the answer or "burdon of proof" caused me to find it, while you sitting on your arse has caused you to remain ignorant, I don't give a flying fuck if you know the truth of God and religion, I KNOW. If you can't find it yourself, who needs you. do the species a favor and don't reproduce. One Love Jah Rastafari
@ByronC900 Your the one who claims you seek truth, seek it. I don't care in the slightest to be judged by you. I am not religious at all, I am someone who seeks truth. SImple, and If I want to tell you to fo fuck yourself I will, and I could care less if you judge me, while your judgeing me, someon else is judgeing you!
Then apparently you have no understanding of the fossil record...You fulfilled another prognostication I made- FINALLY, the unsubstantiated insults! Care to quote Davison again?
Shall we delve into your "infallible" bible, Mirabilia? LETS DO! Genesis is a really, REALLY good place to start.On what day was there light?NOW- What day did God create the sun? HMMM? He separated day from night EXACTLY WHEN? Unh-huh...before he created the sun, that's when. NOW- Why does this planet have day and night? Did you learn that in grade school, or are my tax dollars being wasted? TELL ME HOW OLD THIS PLANET IS. I want you to tell me,ok?Or are you going to revert to childish insults?
Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be read? The Darwinian model is a dismal failure which has never produced anything more than the elaboration of intraspecific varieties and subspecies all of which are dead ends.
I'm a degreed biologist
Yeah and where did you get your degree from the flying spaghetti monster.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. But really going around telling people that you have graduated from a University in biology which any layman can see from your writings is so far from the truth it is well ridiculous.
A layman like you? A kid? I have 2 DEGREES; After I got my BS in med lab, I finished up my BS in biology. 2 BS degrees, friend. How's high school going?
You have a degree from MIT, huh? I smell fish....so did Jonah! Tell me about Jonah and the fish! Please? Tell me about Moses parting the red sea. Tell me about the great flood. Tell me about the Christ rising from the dead. Explain to me how man walked the earth with Utahraptor....and Tyrannosarus....tell me about Mosasaurs swimming the seas with salmon! I'm all ears....MIT, INDEED!
The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard. Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments. Hereditary variations are restricted in number and they develop in determined direction.
Berg? ARE YOU SHITTING ME? "Hereditary variations are restricted in number and they develop in DETERMINED DIRECTION". I was wondering when you would bring God into the equation; thanks for showing your true colors! God has no place in science, as God is MAGICAL and therefore lies outside reality.TELL ME HOW OLD THE EARTH IS. You really like to quote others, huh?I've counted 5 so far...I was right about those undies, too- right? Now are you going to tell me how you deal with the conflict or what?
Even intermediate forms, however, fail to support Darwinian macroevolution, because fossils cannot demonstrate that transitions were due to random variation and natural selection.
Now go back to the couch homo and pop open your beer can and return to your Jerry Springer reruns. You are boring.
How did you pass English Comp at MIT with your grammar, composition, and spelling? Funny you chose MIT, my father worked there as a maintenance man in the 70's...no way anybody in this family could afford the tuition there...MIT, indeed! I have to go, Springer is putting on a Christmas special in 20 and I'm ALL OUT OF BEER! To be so boring, you can't seem to just fade away...
Unless the defenders of the Darwinian model acknowledge the fact that common descent makes scientific sense only from the existing highest form of intelligence, Darwin's idea will not sell well on the marketplace of ideas.
By the way noticed I never said anything about God or the church? A biologist or any man who proclaimed science as a feild of understanding would know that. He would have debated on the issues at hand. You are not a man of science but a little man who read a dawkin's book and now thinks he can argue using cut and paste quotes from your idol. Please your stupidity has stung up this room.
Nah, what I did was take the fight to you; what I did was strike at the heart of your reasoning: science flies in the face of your personal convictions- we both know that is the case. TELL ME HOW OLD THIS PLANET IS.
Evolution over millions of years is undeniable just as long as you realize that each discrete step was dramatic and without transitional forms.
All creative evolution (phylogeny) stemmed from internal sources and proceeded independently of any environmental forces exactly as the development of the individual (ontogeny) continues to do today. As for the age of the earth doesn't concern me evidence does.
Your knowledge of the evidence is laid bare; we have literally thousands of pounds of transitional fossils....Hey, can you tell me something? Why do you believe the bible when it tells us the earth is only 6000 years old?
Davison is in part right; Darwin's idea does not sit well with the majority of those who subscribe to the Biblical account of our planet's history. What he gets wrong is what the rest of the scientific community has rightfully acknowledged: God is magic. Magic is not real, is not measurable, and as such has no place in science. As to Berg- I wonder what his opinion would be today in the age of genetics and gene sequencing;his hypotheses fall apart when the evidence is brought to bear, my friend.
I recommend you return to the security afforded by PZ Meyers and the rest of his atheist cronies at Pharyngula. You really shouldn't continue to make a perfect fool of yourself here.
Tell us about Adam and Eve. Tell us how Pachycephalasarus and Dimetrodon walked the earth with humans. Explain how Tyrannasarus was origionally a vegan. TELL ME ABOUT THE FLOOD. How do you live with the internal conflict? How do you believe that bible of yours, which assures us that it is the INFALLIBLE word of God, when you admit it is wrong about the age of the earth?
The geological period known as the Cambrian is marked by the rather sudden appearance of all the basic forms of animals now in existence. There are no transitional forms between them, and no new basic forms have appeared since then.
We are all well aware of the Cambrian explosion, friend. Now you seem to be acknowledging the transitional fossils before that explosion, however. Tsk tsk. No new basic forms?Right. Homo Sapiens indeed is not a "new basic form"- I AGREE!However, human chomosome 2 is so compelling that your camp won't even GO THERE...I love it...No new forms, just Homo Sapiens, Chimps, Bonobos...
In short, there is hardly anything more evident than the fact that the paradigm of evolution from a simple beginning to lifes complexity is in violation of the principle of causality, of the cause-and-effect relationship, which is supposedly the cornerstone of science.
The only thing worse than your logic is your arguments. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing anything except a delusional ravings of a moron was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective. You might want to actually study science before trying to advise anyone on it. As for a degree in biology you obvious have none, now go away fly.
Stay down, Mirabilia.....or shall we continue?Shall we talk about YOUR "evidence"? We can start with Genesis, if you like....let's compare notes! "a past evolution is undeniable"..."your supposedly scientifically verifiable claims?".....SHEESH! Tell me- do you go to church on Saturday? WHY NOT? You do not KNOW, do you? "Remember the sabbath and KEEP IT HOLY"...sound familiar? Keeping it holy, you are....changed the very day it is observed, THAT'S what I call keeeping it holy!Ask your pastor...!
The point is this professor of philosophy is no more a expert on what created the universe as is any new age guru. His menu should be with people like Dr Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav and Dannion Brinkley. The point is this imbecile has made a laughing disgrace of Oxford's media professorship and has hidden his true motives. But if you wish to follow this imbecile feel free.
if u know better than share and if u want to know then ask?knowledge spreads in this way.don waste ur/our time by preaching like father/imam or whatever.
Just out of curiosity- how is it you believe the bible's account of creation, yet you subscribe to the theory of evolution? You believe the book's account of the age of the earth, too?
Yeah, we all know you're a Davison fan. Whoopee. Now: are you going to answer my question, or what? How is it that you can have it both ways, eh? How is it you can believe the goodbook, which assures us all it is no less than INFALLIBLE, when you and I both know it is not? "What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidense" Christopher Hitchens
Nice quote; were you not attacking Dawkins of being nothing more than a philosopher? Why do you rely only on philisophical ramblings (not even your OWN ramblings) to bolster your supposedly scientifically verifiable claims? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis", INDEED.....You're just a kid, aren't you? A kid way out of his league...the grownups are talking about things you don't understand, little Johnny; go to bed like a good little boy....
Nice try. You cannot turn this around; if the bible claims to be the infallible word of God, and you champion it's cause as not only the most noble but also the most RELEVANT scientifically viable explanation for life as we know it, then by virtue of being the ultimate truth, you should be able to provide EVIDENCE. Problem is, you attack science as insufficient, yet posit an UNSUBSTANTIATED fairy-tale as evidence. CLASSIC!
the Darwinian scheme can predict absolutely nothing because nobody has the vaguest notion of what "natural selection", that evolutionary elixir, is going to do next. An hypothesis with no predictive value is meaningless.
Richard Dawkins, has done more to inhibit progress in the understanding of evolution than any other person, including Darwin himself. His statements speak volumes about his ideology and require no interpretation.
I'll spell it for you, ok? B-I-O-L-O-G-I-S-T....my "problem" is that I'm a degreed biologist, and you're just a blowhard, impressionable, superstitious KID with an inflated opinion of his grasp of evolutionary biology....sad, really. Go to bed, Johnny, unless you're ready to ANSWER MY ORIGIONAL QUESTION...but we both know you're avoiding it, DO WE NOT? How do you deal with the internal turmoil, Johnny? Tell me how old the earth is...please....
The scientifically, evidence supported claim of descent with modification....which is the basic premise of evolutionary theory. THAT CLAIM. Not the "crocoduck", as your camp likes to trumpet....lol...you can try and confuse the general public, that's all good; does not work with those who KNOW. We all know what your true motives here are...YOU FAIL. Nice try, though....kid....
How so? Please elaborate. PLEASE. Give us all an example as to Mr. Dawkins' inhibition of the scientific community's concurrance of the suggestive nature of the evidence at hand. Please! We are all ears...Educate us....how EXACTLY did he inhibit our understanding of evolution? As to Mr. Darwin's "inhibiting progress in the understanding of evolution" : Are you fucking daft? Did the man not PROPOSE the theory first?You're not helping your argument here, you know?You know SHIT about biology...
i checked last 2 pages and didn find a single point in ur post?u should watch cdk007(u ll learn to present ur work spending minimum time).if i say RELIGION IS CRAP then that doesn make any sense.does it?u ve to ask why?got me?
"Now lets think ric daw is bullshit".i don know anything so my ques is WHY?(conversation/science/knowledge starts from a ques and someone enriched him/herself by looking for the answer.)
so did many other new age gurus. some even teach their now so what? Maybe if he concentrated less on philosophy and more on science he would have something intelligent to say.
Maybe if you took an English composition course you'd be more coherent.....and it's painfully clear you have never read the man's books. You're just a theist who is pissed off about The God Delusion...
You like that term "new age gurus", no? You like to use the Davison quote, too; just look at your channel! Problem is, you're just a kid with no real understanding of what the theory really proposes. Your real beef is that it flies in the face of the goodbook, and that the evidence is overwhelming; unable to compensate, you go on the attack WITHOUT PROVOCATION to try to somehow eradicate the relevance of the evidence that exists. But you fail, because the evidence is too compelling....nice try.
You are digging to deep into this. Fraud? wow. Everything is a conspiracy with you people. Academia agrees with Dawkins. HE is in the business of truth, scientific knowledge is universal. TRUTH HURTS SOMETIMES SO BE IT. I'll pass on your propaganda. But good questioning just too out there. DARWINIAN THEORY ALWAYS WINS
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, It is a thing called evidence. Dawkin's influences the dumb, people who haven't the power to think for themselves. He isn't a scientist he's a philosopher unless you want to encourage Dick to go back and finish his degree. Personally I love when he accuses people like expelled for making him look stupid by taking all that extra footage of him and editing it out. If you don't know, what his debates that all he has ever done.
Dawkins is a biologist. Get your facts straight, ok? He has a degree in Biology and a masters in Psych. The man has forgotten more about evolutionary biology than you will ever learn....He isn't a scientist.....lol...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
For anyone who doesn't know him, Richard Dawkins is the biggest intellectual fraud and academic charlatan currently active. His work consists of a thinly-veiled apologia for market capitalism couched in the populist jargon of pseudo-science. It is of sociological rather than intellectual interest: future generations will marvel at how such a transparent ideologue could have been taken seriously.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
My kids will giggle at people like you, I hope. Jesus Christ, conspiracist twat.
Your kids will most likely grow up ashamed of you, disown you for being such a disgrace on mankind and you will wither away in a mental institute where people will come all over to see the sheer stupidity you generate.
I don't understand what you're asking or saying. Considering your channel is full of voodoo, I presume you're trying to crack a cheap shot at the videos' contents. Keep in mind that ridicule isn't an argument if you're going to do that in the future. ;)
What do you mean 'nothing'? Clearly, you don't understand the theory of evolution or the big bang theory if you think it's motivated by 'nothing', lol...
theres no present like the time.. that is because time is pre-sent to us by us so we may experience ourselves in the relative dimension of time. in the dimension of the absolute where the only time is now, it is not possible to exoerience anything. Therefor we have been given a grand present by being in the present!
imagine if your parents never met... what about both of their parents, and the parents of your parents... how about millions of generations in the past that would have had to meet... mate, and then have an offspring that finds the correct mate in the series so that you personally could be here. If any parents happened to not meet within the millions of generations, you would not be here, instead it would be someone completly different. I truely belive that we have all "won" the lottery of life!
It is so sad that so many people need religion and God to have value in their lives. Value is something that humans place on their own lives and on the lives of others. If someone wants their life to have value then they should make themselves worthy of being alive, be of value to others and make this world a better place for future generations.
The religious value of a person's life is so selfish. It's all about that person not pissing off God and getting into heaven. What a waste of a life.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
SoloBass,
I hate to disagree man, but its not about value for me. Its about the belief that there either is or isn't a supreme creator of the Universe. If you don't believe there is, then value is what you make it here and now. If you do believe there is a supreme creator, then life is about living for Him and following His teachings. I lived a long time not believing, but there were just too many facts to refute it. Lee Strobel has a great book called "Case for the Creator" check it out
A worthy substitution for Carl Sagan..
tomboooty 3 months ago
@tomboooty Except one is an Astrophysicist and the other is a Biologist?
Gretgor666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ENERGY never dies, is eternal and cannot be created. So before our universe of matter formed from Energy the Energy always existed Eternally and Infinitely, then the energy formed matter, matter in motion produces space and time. I completly agree with the scientific evedience backing this like relativity, Conservation of energy, and thermodynamics. I call that Energy that becomes matter God, thats why I see God in everything, or as you might say: I see energy in everything. : )
truthseeker010101 4 months ago
Science today uses the word Energy were religion uses the word God
Try it sometime in science, replace Energy with God and you may find you've known God to exist all your life.
truthseeker010101 4 months ago
He's so inspiring, I love the way he views life, that we should make the most of it, in our finite time here.
Gretgor666 6 months ago
what the hell is darwin talking about. just cause i believe in god, that means i am not rational, or dont enjoy nature. darwin always trying to blame men problem on religion to much. the facts is mens sinners and we of live in a sinful world there always going to be problems. it funny how men can never blame their self for their problem but quick to blame else what.
6ave305 8 months ago
Richard Dawkins has a sexy ass brain : )
anetchi 1 year ago
I love this philosophy. It's saying that really there is no purpose to life except for life itself. There's no right or wrong life per se because it's all life. So whenever anyone complains about aspects in their life they should remember it's not about right or wrong per se. Life itself is enough. Pretty inspirational stuff. And from an atheist/agnostic too.
MrGabs83 1 year ago
@MrGabs83 dude, dont be quickly to believe in that crap. it will be best if you think this through. dont be so quick to take what darwin say in run with it. put his thory to the test. what darwin say might sound good but when you test what he say, it might be a completely different thing. god bless.
6ave305 8 months ago
atheism = no belief in a god (you could even wish for one to exist, and still be an atheist) / agnosticism = without certainty, you remain skeptical to the possibility / a belief = you think something is real, without any empirical proof / faith = you elevate a set of beliefs into a virtue
Now, if people could stop calling themselves something that they aren't... It could help solving the debate. Otherwise, you keep debating with atheists who think they're not atheists... and much worse... >.>
finalfansix 1 year ago
Comment removed
finalfansix 1 year ago
atheism was created to encourage, stupidity, dishonesty and sexual deviancy. An expected "unexpected" result is cowardice which manifests itself as treason.
atheists are douchebags. LOL
malithe00 1 year ago
As an Atheist & Skeptic- I can see we are risking building up a 'personality cult' around Dawkins.
We should concentrate on the message and not on the man- as he's sure to be flawed like the rest of us.
He's the highest profile atheist to be sure- but that doesnt mean we should all clap to everything he says...
cwsaja 2 years ago
Richard, no matter what the religious fanatics say, u have given me immense happiness and joy and a meaning to my life!
navinovich2000 2 years ago
He is the brightest guy, so far. In my opinion.
BrightJasniakpl 2 years ago
He is not using his time well if he spends it all rubishing others and what there belief is. Dawkins is a moden day preacher knocking on as many doors as he can to tell you that your stupid and you should accept his religion of Atheisism.
Being ignorent is not a skill, it does not make Dawkins smart to think he know all
as only a fool knows every thing about a subject he has never been part of.
Dawkins know about God as much as Pat Robinson knows about Haiti
beginization 2 years ago
I'm theist, myself, although I'm a religious sceptic/ skeptic (however you spell it). But I agree. Don't waste life. He speaks alot of sense. I totally believe in evolution, and just dislike (to put it mildly) creationists.
Dawkins is far from evil, even if his dislike of religion/ theism is incredibly strong. But then again, look at the religious extremists. Like Hitchen's says, however, we're a weak race. I'm sure, in a brief space of time, we would replace our beliefs with other beliefs.
yellowcougar18 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
darkins is A big FAT liaR. evolution religion. creation for life.
narupiece 2 years ago
I can smell your trollface over the internet.
HeroesFail 2 years ago 15
say what say huh say ex-squeeze me say i dont understand you.
narupiece 2 years ago
Logic? Have you taken a logic course? You have so many faulty premises and faulty conclusions that it should make everyone sick.
guntherfanfan 2 years ago
Ok Mirabilia, so you have studied biology at MIT apparently. I'd love to see you bring this up with your professors and have them laugh in your face. Don't even begin to criticize people's logic when your response to something is a quote about what God once said. You consider yourself a scholar of science and you go around throwing completely untestable ideas out there.
guntherfanfan 2 years ago
alhamdulilah..
ramans11 3 years ago
i think atheism and theism are both wrong views.agnostic is the right one because no one knows the truth about the god no god argument.simply say i don't know IS THE RIGHT ANSWER,BOTH SIDES ARE ARROGANT TO SAY THEY KNOW THE TRUTH.but dawkins is a genius in his own right.
dogbatcatheryn 3 years ago
Atheism is the right view since no god exists.
Agnostic views are not right, and the only reason they "aren't sure" what happens when we die............is because they have also had religion shoved in thier faces at one point or another.
God is made up by people, and depending when or were you grow up will depend on your beliefs.
I believe agnostic people are as ignorant as people that believe in god in the first place.
burntorangeapple 2 years ago
All religions put forward a claim, "There is a God, or Gods"
Atheism is the rational response, "What evidence do you have for that proposition?"
The burden of proof is on the religious.
ByronC900 2 years ago 25
Agnosticism is more purely rational than atheism. Science consists only of theories deriving from the apparent predictability of experiences-- personal perceptions, ultimately. No theory or belief explains the origin of mind. Science can only seek communally replicable experience, and it can only logically disprove religious beliefs that affirm specific communally observable spiritual events. Few religious beliefs are of that nature, and they're not the ones that cause the most problems.
gregsc1 2 years ago
How far are you willing to go to be agnostic though? As Dawkins has said, he's agnostic about God, but only to the same extent he's agnostic about fairies -- you can't disprove the existence of fairies. Nonetheless, you don't see many people using that as a reason to entertain their existence.
You are right in saying that science is strictly agnostic. Though, perhaps a better term would be 'apatheistic' since divine intervention is untestable and science deals with experimentation (testing).
HeroesFail 2 years ago
I rarely bother to consider the possibility of an anthropomorphic God. There's a long way, though, between that belief and what I perceive to be typical atheist belief, which is that the material world is all that truly exists, and mind is some gestalt creature of brain activity. That's a reasonable theory, but it's irrational to feel sure of it. Science itself affirms that we construct notions of reality indirectly; it's all just theories, and none truly explains consciousness.
gregsc1 2 years ago
But consciousness is just the product (gift) of an evolved brain... also, dolphins and chimpanzees have shown to possess a simple level of consciousness too. But you are right, we are still far from a true understanding of our brains and its inner workings.
Still, attributing "thinking about thinking" to the intervention of a supernatural being is a logically fallacious statement, just as silly as saying I'm a professional climber because I have a picture of Mount Everest in my room. :-)
bersa888 2 years ago
if you can prove that you've somehow, magically, stepped out of your own consciousness in order to experience anything whatsoever, then i will allow the notion that science might prove something about consciousness.
gregsc1 2 years ago
I don't understand what's there to prove. I will stand by what I have already stated. Whatever happens (emotions, dreams, ecstasy, etc.) AND feels real is still a neurological phenomenon which comes from within and nowhere else. We can make ourself believe many things, anything at all, even without the aid of drugs or alcohol ;-) Through meditation some even experience the realization of their consciousness. Bottom line: once your brain shuts off, it's bye-bye to everything there is to know. Sad
bersa888 2 years ago
you don't understand what i'm trying to say, and i don't have time to describe it properly. but even if i did, you'd probably shrug it off, because you have faith (yes, faith) in science.
gregsc1 2 years ago
On the contrary, I believe I know what you are SAYING, but you are the one believing in magic here, not me. Also, playing with semantic doesn't get you anywhere. I believe in science, have faith in it, and hope it will get better. Those verbs may have religious connotations or not. Religion has everything to prove. Science proved a lot beyond any doubt, corrected and admitted mistakes, and will continue to do so.
"I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day" (D. Adams)
bersa888 2 years ago
@gregsc1 People seem to think that atheism means believing, absolutely, that there's no God. Stop right there. You're wrong. Atheism simply means not believing. Even if an atheist claimed to believe, it wouldn't mean he does. Believing in something is not a state of mind in which you can induce yourself. When you realize the definition of atheism, it's not incompatible with agnosticism. An agnostic who assumes that there's 50% chance for God to exist, or not exist, is clearly being irrational.
finalfansix 1 year ago
@finalfansix Atheism can mean believing absolutely that there's no chance of a God, or more casually believing God doesn't exist, or in some cases it can be roughly synonymous with agnosticism. In the latter case I suggest it's a bad definition and poor term to identify oneself with-- not simply because "agnosticism" is a more literally correct term, but because the term "atheism" must serve stronger functions; so, why be unnecessarily vague with language.
gregsc1 1 year ago
@gregsc1 "Atheism can mean believing absolutely that there's no chance of a God, or more casually believing God doesn't exis"
If one believes ABSOLUTELY that there's no god, a label more suitable for them would be a gnostic atheist, don't put us all into the same category since those kind of atheists are only a few from my experience. And furthermore atheism can also mean simply lack of belief in gods. In that case it's not a belief, it's a non-belief.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor I can only repeat myself-- if you're agnostic, why label yourself with a broader and often misleading term like atheism? In my experience, most people who call themselves atheist think that religious people are idiots. If you happen to feel that way, atheist may be a good descriptor. Most self-described agnostics seem to have a more tolerant attitude.
gregsc1 1 year ago
@gregsc1 Atheism means you don't think a god exists. Agnostic means you don't know, and aren't thinking about it. Anyone who looks at this particular problem and analyzes it, in a scientific manner, is an atheist because there is no evidence of any god.
ccarr313 1 year ago
@ccarr313 Good science never declares that something doesn't exist just because there isn't empirical evidence of it. At all points in history, science has been incapable of measuring or formulating things that were later found to be very good science indeed. Good scientists may tend to disbelieve things that seem logically impossible, or incompatible with established (but never certain) scientific principles. God is not such a thing. Not even some anthropomorphic guy on a celestial throne.
gregsc1 1 year ago
@gregsc1 So you have some small shred of evidence for gods existence? Let us hear it.
ccarr313 1 year ago
@ccarr313 People who claim to have evidence of God's existence are in a weak place logically-- they're easy targets. That doesn't make it logical to state that no God exists. Science is supposed to be open and noncommittal about things it can't currently address. There are many sound reasons to be skeptical about human knowledge; but if you prefer a very literal materialistic science, you may be better off that way.
gregsc1 1 year ago
@ccarr313 I'm pretty sure Agnosticism doesn't mean you aren't thinking about it. It simply means you don't know. I think about it all the time..
hasnahs 1 year ago
@byteresistor True, but don't leave out us "Militant Atheists". Which means not only do we not believe in gods, but we believe that religion actually hurts our society's progress.
ccarr313 1 year ago
@finalfansix, I think what most people mean with "atheist" is that they're anti-religion. It's usually (not always) because they've placed literal and rigid faith in the constantly revised theories of science.
I'm a big fan of logic and scientific method, which seem essential to any hope for true civilization. They are however simply tools for the human mind dealing with the eternal mystery of Other. Strident and arrogant atheists sometimes cause almost as much harm as religious fanatics.
gregsc1 1 year ago
@gregsc1 An atheist who seriously thinks that he KNOWS that there is no God, is perhaps an atheist, but not because of his belief. Since atheism is a lack of belief in a god, he corresponds to the definition of atheism. However, he's not an agnostic atheist, he's just an idiot... Because... how can we prove for sure that there is no god? And who in his right mind would want to attempt that anyway... An agnostic may say that the chance for god is high or low. If he says 50/50 he's kind of dumb...
finalfansix 1 year ago
@finalfansix Definitions and usage of "atheist" and "agnostic" vary a LOT. I simply advocate is a clearer distinction between the terms. I see no good reason why an intellectually skeptical and logical person would call themselves atheist instead of agnostic, unless they wish to emphasize an entirely nonreligious or even anti-religious mindset. I'd bet 90% or more of self-described atheists at least have a very strong hunch that God doesn't exist. (continued)
gregsc1 1 year ago
@finalfansix Many atheists (such as Dawkins) strongly disparage the very concept of religion. Given that, why would anyone who can accurately call themselves "agnostic" choose the label "atheist"?
gregsc1 1 year ago
People seem to give you thumbs up just because you affirm their position. Not much thought is being put into this claim nor in their blind obedience.
Atheism is a claim to know something. When you say you can't prove God, you are acting in inconformity with your own worldview--it's an agnostic position.
The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim. Stop making this standard a special case for one group alone.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Ugh.
Read 'The God Delusion'. There is an entire chapter about why what you write is wrong.
Good luck.
ByronC900 2 years ago
Read that entire piece of fluff.
He basically echoes what he says in the book over here, and repeating the same fallacious argument doesn't make it valid all of a sudden.
regelemihai 2 years ago
So when you say you can't prove fairies, pink spotted unicorns or purple cookie monsters, you are also acting in conformity with your own worldview?
abamovich1 2 years ago
Yes. I don't see why not... :\
regelemihai 2 years ago
@ByronC900 I have so much evedience I am surprised you don't know it already. I guess me seeking out the answer or "burdon of proof" caused me to find it, while you sitting on your arse has caused you to remain ignorant, I don't give a flying fuck if you know the truth of God and religion, I KNOW. If you can't find it yourself, who needs you. do the species a favor and don't reproduce. One Love Jah Rastafari
truthseeker010101 4 months ago
@truthseeker010101 How very religious of you. I'm sure that's exactly how Christ would have responded.
ByronC900 4 months ago
@ByronC900 Your the one who claims you seek truth, seek it. I don't care in the slightest to be judged by you. I am not religious at all, I am someone who seeks truth. SImple, and If I want to tell you to fo fuck yourself I will, and I could care less if you judge me, while your judgeing me, someon else is judgeing you!
truthseeker010101 4 months ago
The end of the world almost certainly won't be the end of humanity.
AstraISymphony 3 years ago
Then apparently you have no understanding of the fossil record...You fulfilled another prognostication I made- FINALLY, the unsubstantiated insults! Care to quote Davison again?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
Shall we delve into your "infallible" bible, Mirabilia? LETS DO! Genesis is a really, REALLY good place to start.On what day was there light?NOW- What day did God create the sun? HMMM? He separated day from night EXACTLY WHEN? Unh-huh...before he created the sun, that's when. NOW- Why does this planet have day and night? Did you learn that in grade school, or are my tax dollars being wasted? TELL ME HOW OLD THIS PLANET IS. I want you to tell me,ok?Or are you going to revert to childish insults?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
Stay down, Mirabilia.....or shall we continue?
Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be read? The Darwinian model is a dismal failure which has never produced anything more than the elaboration of intraspecific varieties and subspecies all of which are dead ends.
I'm a degreed biologist
Yeah and where did you get your degree from the flying spaghetti monster.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
The University of Tennessee at Martin; where did you get yours?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
The great age of the earth and its contained extinct fossils is not to be denied either by this investigator or any of his sources.
J.A. Davison
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. But really going around telling people that you have graduated from a University in biology which any layman can see from your writings is so far from the truth it is well ridiculous.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
A layman like you? A kid? I have 2 DEGREES; After I got my BS in med lab, I finished up my BS in biology. 2 BS degrees, friend. How's high school going?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago 3
I never heard MIT called high school but it is well. 2 degrees huh? I guess paper mills are working overtime with you.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
You have a degree from MIT, huh? I smell fish....so did Jonah! Tell me about Jonah and the fish! Please? Tell me about Moses parting the red sea. Tell me about the great flood. Tell me about the Christ rising from the dead. Explain to me how man walked the earth with Utahraptor....and Tyrannosarus....tell me about Mosasaurs swimming the seas with salmon! I'm all ears....MIT, INDEED!
homeostasis4me 3 years ago 4
The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard. Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments. Hereditary variations are restricted in number and they develop in determined direction.
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Berg? ARE YOU SHITTING ME? "Hereditary variations are restricted in number and they develop in DETERMINED DIRECTION". I was wondering when you would bring God into the equation; thanks for showing your true colors! God has no place in science, as God is MAGICAL and therefore lies outside reality.TELL ME HOW OLD THE EARTH IS. You really like to quote others, huh?I've counted 5 so far...I was right about those undies, too- right? Now are you going to tell me how you deal with the conflict or what?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
You love to quote! Tell you what- why not pick up a textbook for a change?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even intermediate forms, however, fail to support Darwinian macroevolution, because fossils cannot demonstrate that transitions were due to random variation and natural selection.
Now go back to the couch homo and pop open your beer can and return to your Jerry Springer reruns. You are boring.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
How did you pass English Comp at MIT with your grammar, composition, and spelling? Funny you chose MIT, my father worked there as a maintenance man in the 70's...no way anybody in this family could afford the tuition there...MIT, indeed! I have to go, Springer is putting on a Christmas special in 20 and I'm ALL OUT OF BEER! To be so boring, you can't seem to just fade away...
homeostasis4me 3 years ago 2
LOL!
Springer,
Jerry's guests usually prove the devaluation of mankind. and that reverse evolution actually exists... LOL!
51362879 2 years ago
Unless the defenders of the Darwinian model acknowledge the fact that common descent makes scientific sense only from the existing highest form of intelligence, Darwin's idea will not sell well on the marketplace of ideas.
Professor J.A.Davison
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
By the way noticed I never said anything about God or the church? A biologist or any man who proclaimed science as a feild of understanding would know that. He would have debated on the issues at hand. You are not a man of science but a little man who read a dawkin's book and now thinks he can argue using cut and paste quotes from your idol. Please your stupidity has stung up this room.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Nah, what I did was take the fight to you; what I did was strike at the heart of your reasoning: science flies in the face of your personal convictions- we both know that is the case. TELL ME HOW OLD THIS PLANET IS.
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
Evolution over millions of years is undeniable just as long as you realize that each discrete step was dramatic and without transitional forms.
All creative evolution (phylogeny) stemmed from internal sources and proceeded independently of any environmental forces exactly as the development of the individual (ontogeny) continues to do today. As for the age of the earth doesn't concern me evidence does.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Your knowledge of the evidence is laid bare; we have literally thousands of pounds of transitional fossils....Hey, can you tell me something? Why do you believe the bible when it tells us the earth is only 6000 years old?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
Davison is in part right; Darwin's idea does not sit well with the majority of those who subscribe to the Biblical account of our planet's history. What he gets wrong is what the rest of the scientific community has rightfully acknowledged: God is magic. Magic is not real, is not measurable, and as such has no place in science. As to Berg- I wonder what his opinion would be today in the age of genetics and gene sequencing;his hypotheses fall apart when the evidence is brought to bear, my friend.
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
I recommend you return to the security afforded by PZ Meyers and the rest of his atheist cronies at Pharyngula. You really shouldn't continue to make a perfect fool of yourself here.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Tell us about Adam and Eve. Tell us how Pachycephalasarus and Dimetrodon walked the earth with humans. Explain how Tyrannasarus was origionally a vegan. TELL ME ABOUT THE FLOOD. How do you live with the internal conflict? How do you believe that bible of yours, which assures us that it is the INFALLIBLE word of God, when you admit it is wrong about the age of the earth?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago 4
The geological period known as the Cambrian is marked by the rather sudden appearance of all the basic forms of animals now in existence. There are no transitional forms between them, and no new basic forms have appeared since then.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
We are all well aware of the Cambrian explosion, friend. Now you seem to be acknowledging the transitional fossils before that explosion, however. Tsk tsk. No new basic forms?Right. Homo Sapiens indeed is not a "new basic form"- I AGREE!However, human chomosome 2 is so compelling that your camp won't even GO THERE...I love it...No new forms, just Homo Sapiens, Chimps, Bonobos...
homeostasis4me 3 years ago 2
In short, there is hardly anything more evident than the fact that the paradigm of evolution from a simple beginning to lifes complexity is in violation of the principle of causality, of the cause-and-effect relationship, which is supposedly the cornerstone of science.
J.A. Davison
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
The only thing worse than your logic is your arguments. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing anything except a delusional ravings of a moron was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective. You might want to actually study science before trying to advise anyone on it. As for a degree in biology you obvious have none, now go away fly.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Stay down, Mirabilia.....or shall we continue?Shall we talk about YOUR "evidence"? We can start with Genesis, if you like....let's compare notes! "a past evolution is undeniable"..."your supposedly scientifically verifiable claims?".....SHEESH! Tell me- do you go to church on Saturday? WHY NOT? You do not KNOW, do you? "Remember the sabbath and KEEP IT HOLY"...sound familiar? Keeping it holy, you are....changed the very day it is observed, THAT'S what I call keeeping it holy!Ask your pastor...!
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
The point is this professor of philosophy is no more a expert on what created the universe as is any new age guru. His menu should be with people like Dr Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav and Dannion Brinkley. The point is this imbecile has made a laughing disgrace of Oxford's media professorship and has hidden his true motives. But if you wish to follow this imbecile feel free.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
sorry that would be Gurus.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
if u know better than share and if u want to know then ask?knowledge spreads in this way.don waste ur/our time by preaching like father/imam or whatever.
amiamiiiii 3 years ago
Just out of curiosity- how is it you believe the bible's account of creation, yet you subscribe to the theory of evolution? You believe the book's account of the age of the earth, too?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Yeah, we all know you're a Davison fan. Whoopee. Now: are you going to answer my question, or what? How is it that you can have it both ways, eh? How is it you can believe the goodbook, which assures us all it is no less than INFALLIBLE, when you and I both know it is not? "What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidense" Christopher Hitchens
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
So in your opinion if a hypothesis is wrong you still must believe in it? interesting.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true!
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Nice quote; were you not attacking Dawkins of being nothing more than a philosopher? Why do you rely only on philisophical ramblings (not even your OWN ramblings) to bolster your supposedly scientifically verifiable claims? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis", INDEED.....You're just a kid, aren't you? A kid way out of his league...the grownups are talking about things you don't understand, little Johnny; go to bed like a good little boy....
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
Nice try. You cannot turn this around; if the bible claims to be the infallible word of God, and you champion it's cause as not only the most noble but also the most RELEVANT scientifically viable explanation for life as we know it, then by virtue of being the ultimate truth, you should be able to provide EVIDENCE. Problem is, you attack science as insufficient, yet posit an UNSUBSTANTIATED fairy-tale as evidence. CLASSIC!
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
the Darwinian scheme can predict absolutely nothing because nobody has the vaguest notion of what "natural selection", that evolutionary elixir, is going to do next. An hypothesis with no predictive value is meaningless.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Richard Dawkins, has done more to inhibit progress in the understanding of evolution than any other person, including Darwin himself. His statements speak volumes about his ideology and require no interpretation.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
I'll spell it for you, ok? B-I-O-L-O-G-I-S-T....my "problem" is that I'm a degreed biologist, and you're just a blowhard, impressionable, superstitious KID with an inflated opinion of his grasp of evolutionary biology....sad, really. Go to bed, Johnny, unless you're ready to ANSWER MY ORIGIONAL QUESTION...but we both know you're avoiding it, DO WE NOT? How do you deal with the internal turmoil, Johnny? Tell me how old the earth is...please....
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
your supposedly scientifically verifiable claims?
Which are?
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
The scientifically, evidence supported claim of descent with modification....which is the basic premise of evolutionary theory. THAT CLAIM. Not the "crocoduck", as your camp likes to trumpet....lol...you can try and confuse the general public, that's all good; does not work with those who KNOW. We all know what your true motives here are...YOU FAIL. Nice try, though....kid....
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
The same evidence that convinced your hero to claim "a past evolution: UNDENIABLE"...OUCH.....that stung, huh?
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
How so? Please elaborate. PLEASE. Give us all an example as to Mr. Dawkins' inhibition of the scientific community's concurrance of the suggestive nature of the evidence at hand. Please! We are all ears...Educate us....how EXACTLY did he inhibit our understanding of evolution? As to Mr. Darwin's "inhibiting progress in the understanding of evolution" : Are you fucking daft? Did the man not PROPOSE the theory first?You're not helping your argument here, you know?You know SHIT about biology...
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
Ahm.....huh? Who said anything about predictions? Darwin asserted we could predict a species' arrival? Are you on the bottle? BE HONEST...
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
You still have not answered my question.....how do you do it? You must struggle with that every moment....good luck with that!
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
i checked last 2 pages and didn find a single point in ur post?u should watch cdk007(u ll learn to present ur work spending minimum time).if i say RELIGION IS CRAP then that doesn make any sense.does it?u ve to ask why?got me?
"Now lets think ric daw is bullshit".i don know anything so my ques is WHY?(conversation/science/knowledge starts from a ques and someone enriched him/herself by looking for the answer.)
amiamiiiii 3 years ago
Imbicile, huh? I suppose you have a degree from Oxford, then.....oh, no, wait- DAWKINS has the degree from Oxford.
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
so did many other new age gurus. some even teach their now so what? Maybe if he concentrated less on philosophy and more on science he would have something intelligent to say.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Maybe if you took an English composition course you'd be more coherent.....and it's painfully clear you have never read the man's books. You're just a theist who is pissed off about The God Delusion...
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
You like that term "new age gurus", no? You like to use the Davison quote, too; just look at your channel! Problem is, you're just a kid with no real understanding of what the theory really proposes. Your real beef is that it flies in the face of the goodbook, and that the evidence is overwhelming; unable to compensate, you go on the attack WITHOUT PROVOCATION to try to somehow eradicate the relevance of the evidence that exists. But you fail, because the evidence is too compelling....nice try.
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
Along with George Carlin, one of the greatest people to grace this planet.
TwoRavingPsychopaths 3 years ago 2
What's up with the ominous music as he talks about how awesome life is?
herzog31 3 years ago
Dawkins is so sexy. I would love to pass on his genetic information for the propogation of the species... mmmhmmm...
7Row7enn7 3 years ago
Richard dawkins is my god!!!
sirnoobalot1337 3 years ago
Richard dawkins is my god!!!
point proven. please people study science not the ramblings from Dick.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
oh you and me both sista ;)
SparrowisSexy 3 years ago
You are digging to deep into this. Fraud? wow. Everything is a conspiracy with you people. Academia agrees with Dawkins. HE is in the business of truth, scientific knowledge is universal. TRUTH HURTS SOMETIMES SO BE IT. I'll pass on your propaganda. But good questioning just too out there. DARWINIAN THEORY ALWAYS WINS
nonphixional1 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins needs to stick to biology. Beyond that he's an idiot.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
Dawkins needs to stick to biology. Beyond that he's an idiot.
Actually his degree is in philosophy, he has a BS in biology.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, It is a thing called evidence. Dawkin's influences the dumb, people who haven't the power to think for themselves. He isn't a scientist he's a philosopher unless you want to encourage Dick to go back and finish his degree. Personally I love when he accuses people like expelled for making him look stupid by taking all that extra footage of him and editing it out. If you don't know, what his debates that all he has ever done.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Dawkins is a biologist. Get your facts straight, ok? He has a degree in Biology and a masters in Psych. The man has forgotten more about evolutionary biology than you will ever learn....He isn't a scientist.....lol...
homeostasis4me 3 years ago
Grotesquely lucky.. Best quote ever.
lord69z 3 years ago
Dawkins is one of our ages great minds
nonphixional1 3 years ago 2
He's not even in the ball park dude!!!
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
And who, in your humble opinion, is?
HeroesFail 3 years ago
At about 1:33 he says that we are fortunate to be alive. Then he adds, that we SHOULD make the most of our time on the earth.
How does he decide about SHOULD and SHOULD NOT? That is a reference to a moral standard.
Where does he get that standard from? Who decides what is right and wrong?
Tekakaromatagi
tekakaromatagi 3 years ago
"Who decides what is right and wrong?"
Silly question for a 48 year old man to be asking. The police do that.
HeroesFail 3 years ago
no politicians and judges do. police enforce it.
monkeyjeebusx420 3 years ago
You understood what I was getting at though, ;)
HeroesFail 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For anyone who doesn't know him, Richard Dawkins is the biggest intellectual fraud and academic charlatan currently active. His work consists of a thinly-veiled apologia for market capitalism couched in the populist jargon of pseudo-science. It is of sociological rather than intellectual interest: future generations will marvel at how such a transparent ideologue could have been taken seriously.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
Dude, you have obviously not read his books on evolution. He's one of the smartest, clearest-thinking people I've ever read.
herzog31 3 years ago 3
My kids will giggle at people like you, I hope. Jesus Christ, conspiracist twat.
isafos 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My kids will giggle at people like you, I hope. Jesus Christ, conspiracist twat.
Your kids will most likely grow up ashamed of you, disown you for being such a disgrace on mankind and you will wither away in a mental institute where people will come all over to see the sheer stupidity you generate.
MirabiliaMania 3 years ago
even more propaganda
viciousattackvideo 3 years ago
That's quite a sound and light show.
Who's funding it? And why?
D2
SilverRedIndigo 3 years ago
I don't understand what you're asking or saying. Considering your channel is full of voodoo, I presume you're trying to crack a cheap shot at the videos' contents. Keep in mind that ridicule isn't an argument if you're going to do that in the future. ;)
HeroesFail 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"...true magesty of our world in all its complexity..."
"...how much more you want?"
"...we are privileged to be alive"
So,all these came out of nothing?
Nothing created this cosmos?
Nothing made it all that we could ever need?
Nothing made life so beautiful and interesting?
Whatever this answer is,Dawkings clearly does not know it
boromir2007 3 years ago
What do you mean 'nothing'? Clearly, you don't understand the theory of evolution or the big bang theory if you think it's motivated by 'nothing', lol...
HeroesFail 3 years ago
what motivates a fart? physics do.
monkeyjeebusx420 3 years ago
theres no present like the time.. that is because time is pre-sent to us by us so we may experience ourselves in the relative dimension of time. in the dimension of the absolute where the only time is now, it is not possible to exoerience anything. Therefor we have been given a grand present by being in the present!
doybhoy 3 years ago
imagine if your parents never met... what about both of their parents, and the parents of your parents... how about millions of generations in the past that would have had to meet... mate, and then have an offspring that finds the correct mate in the series so that you personally could be here. If any parents happened to not meet within the millions of generations, you would not be here, instead it would be someone completly different. I truely belive that we have all "won" the lottery of life!
guitarman1231234 3 years ago 6
It is so sad that so many people need religion and God to have value in their lives. Value is something that humans place on their own lives and on the lives of others. If someone wants their life to have value then they should make themselves worthy of being alive, be of value to others and make this world a better place for future generations.
The religious value of a person's life is so selfish. It's all about that person not pissing off God and getting into heaven. What a waste of a life.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
SoloBass,
I hate to disagree man, but its not about value for me. Its about the belief that there either is or isn't a supreme creator of the Universe. If you don't believe there is, then value is what you make it here and now. If you do believe there is a supreme creator, then life is about living for Him and following His teachings. I lived a long time not believing, but there were just too many facts to refute it. Lee Strobel has a great book called "Case for the Creator" check it out
djrob99 3 years ago