I think you'd seriously have to be an idiot to think that life just 'sprung up' naturally. I think that there would be some type of deficiency issue somewhere in the frontal lobe of a person who could believe that enough to argue against any other idea. Seriously, who believes that?
I hate how hypocritical atheists are. You accept evolution, the big bang and abiogensis without understanding or having witnessed it for yourself. You accept it blindly and yet you have the gall to call Creationists brainwashed for believing preachers and prophets. If you dont FULLY understand every principle of every concept of the three controversial theories then you are no different from someone sitting in a church. You take the word of scientists (prophets) on an issue you dont understand
Im not saying I dont believe that Evo,BB or abio are possible or happened. But lets just say that if they turn out not to have happened the way people think then I wont be surprised. They are all pretty useless theories. Think about it objectively. How does the basic concept of either of these theories possibly help anyone? What is it that you cant do now that you would be able to do if one of them were true? Ex: In order to fly we HAD to understand gravity. Serious question
@psford1 How does lightning happen? And anything along those lines, retarded dumbfucks like you back in the day thought it was God smiting people and they sacrificed human beings because of that type of thinking. You are a fucking moron, wake the fuck up and read a god damn book other than bullshit Bible or Quran.
@CntthnkO15 LoL, I'm an engineering major and probably read more relevant 'god damn' books than you. Which is quite obvious by the level of comprhension you possess. Try again to provide a question that is answered best by one of the BASIC concepts of one of the three controversial theories. Or answer this question: How does the basic concept of either of the controversial theories help anyone?
I already know the answers to these questions but I will wait for it to sink in on you. Nube
@psford1 The point of the question and the way I answered it was to show you how the idea of "God" came to be. Anything we cannot know, is "Gods'" doing. Nice little tangent though. How does considering a human being was born from a virgin who could walk on water help anyone? I'd rather have a viable answer to things or just say "I don't know" than say some asswipe in the sky made it all happen and when I die and accept his son as my Savior, I will go to heaven, no matter the crimes I committed.
@CntthnkO15 One thing, you're superimposing the Christian belief. Which I have said nothing about. I havent mentioned God or any other being. There's no need to strawman by using a specific religion or religious idea to try and dispel my point. You dont have a viable answer with natural theories, or with religion. CONSIDERING a human being born of a virgin doesnt necessarily help you at all. I know that. But neither does considering any of the basic concepts of the popular theories. --->
@psford1 So called basic theory of gravity doesn't help? Theory of evolution doesn't help people understand reality? For damn sure it helps me. I am familiar with Christian dogma the most, but I can bash on Islamic bullshit of treating woman worse than I treat my shit and flying horses. The Hindu bullshit of a dude with a million heads and a God that looks like a monkey.
@CntthnkO15 The theory or law of gravity does certainly help - never said it didnt. Thats one way that its different from evolutionary theory. With evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis scientists created a theory BEFORE there were any observations made. That is where the inherent problem is introduced. With theory prior to observation you WILL have conjecture. You WILL have opinion. Neither of which is empirical or scientific. Evolutionary theory is useless, and it is terribly unscientific!
@CntthnkO15 3) Please tell me how the BASIC concept of Intelligent design - intelligent designer(s) of the universe and life - does not stack up against the BASIC concept of any natural causation theory? Please explain how one can be true and another cannot be. Also show EMPIRICAL, conjecture-free evidence to support your claim. It would make more sense if this evidence came solely from you, and not just you taking the word of some scientist (prophet). Good luck!
@psford1 Your argument about "before," is pretty retarded and inaccurate, but I'll play along. So, if you're going to say that intelligent design is valid because they DON'T use this? How do you figure that? And you're indirectly using complexity theory, so to that I say, who created this insanely complex being that created this complex universe, since there is a need for a designer and this theory doesn't stop, as in, who created that complex being and blah blah blah. It's beyond retarded.
@CntthnkO15 Still wrong. ID is not valid BECAUSE it's not used. Its valid because it meets the same criteria that somehow seems to make evolutionary theory valid. No evidence OF it ever occurring and instead only observations that can be used to support it. The ONLY thing 'true' about evolution is that small adaptions happen. That's it, but that also does not describe the basic concept of evolutionary theory. If you allow derived theories to validate ET then you're using circular logic...
@psford1 Most of that made no sense. Try again. And what are you even arguing? That intelligent design is a valid theory? 6 fucking days? Cool man. If this helped me in any way, according to your logic, I would use it, but it doesn't so, I won't use it. I kind of like your logic, if it helps you on a selfish level, then you can believe it, if it doesn't, even if its true, you shouldn't believe it. That's fine I guess, you can live your life the way you want, I suggest you let God go, just advice
@CntthnkO15 See, you make it obvious how close-minded and brainwashed active atheists are. You CONTINUALLY interject this Christian-bashing when I have made no claim that the Christian religion is even what I believe in. Intelligent Design is NOT '6 fucking days' - grow a brain. And I never said that any theist idea helps anyone, actually I said quite the opposite. I said that, JUST LIKE evolutionary theory, theism probably cannot be used to solve any problem and is therefore useless also. Idiot
@CntthnkO15 2) Also, Intelligent Design is probably more valid and useful than evolutionary theory in the sense that if either of the BASIC concepts of either theory was shown to be accurate it MAY be possible to use ID theory as a means to an end. Where as with ET that is 100% impossible. There is no falsifiable, testable prediction that can be made from an understanding of the basic concept of ET!!! Not one. However, the same cannot be said for Intelligent Design, it may be possible to use it.
@CntthnkO15 The point is that you do not know for sure what's true. And furthermore even if natural causation is shown to be 100% accurate it's STILL useless. For a theory to be useful you need to be able to apply it to solve some problem or make valid predictions. To have theories before observation makes no sense in the first place. Say 'we dont know' thats cool. But then also be able to say 'you could be right' to someone with a differing opinion. Because intelligent design theory is as valid
@psford1 Theories before observation... wow, there is no scientifically proven theory that does this. The only "theory" i know is the intelligent design, which is something I only consider a theory. Evolution? I consider it a scientific theory. I hope you know the difference. Google does wonders, try it.
@CntthnkO15 If you wish to change the classification to further your strawman attempts thats fine. Calling it a theory does nothing to diminish or refute the parallels between it and evolutionary theory. BOTH have no evidence OF them happening and instead rely solely on observations and evidence that can be used to support the ideas. The difference: Only ONE of these, if found true, could be used to make a falsifiable prediction. Evolutionary theory = Useless bit of conjecture
@psford1 I'm done with you dude, so fucking stupid. Here is why: If we need an intelligent designer, that intelligent designer would need an even more intelligent designer. Fuck off retard, learn some logic.
@CntthnkO15 Well try this one: If we can ONLY have natural causation theories be valid then we need an explanation of how time, matter, space and energy could ever be created! To date there is no possible scientific principle that can account for those miraculous events. As i said, I am in a science field and study natural science laws so i know a little bit. In a finite universe there had to be supernatural forces acting at some time. Nuff said. And you failed to trump anything I mentioned
@psford1 What the fuck dude, how do you not see the obvious problem with your intelligent designer or creation theory... I say I DON'T KNOW and so do most scientist but they are trying to figure it out. Fuck.
@CntthnkO15 OK then! say you dont know. That's fine. But then you MUST say that intelligent design - of any kind - may be possible. Im not saying that it makes more sense than evolutionary theory. I understand that scientifically speaking it doesnt. But evolutionary theory is NOT inherently scientific and saying that intelligent design is not even possible or calling someone an idiot who believes in it is unscientific and borderline religious. Thats all Im saying. Say that its possible...
@psford1 OMFG, NO DUDE, IT IS ILLOGICAL! How did you not understand this? Fuck dude, you know what, fine, we can have a creator, but only the deist creator and none of the other bullshit organized religion tells us. NONE OF THE ALL LOVING, ALL POWERFUL, OMNIPRESENT, ETC. You know this already...
@CntthnkO15 Alright, these arguments never go anywhere. But how can you say that ID theory is illogical and evolutionary theory is valid? What criteria are you using to make that assumption? Thats one of the things that I have a problem with. There is no evidence of either one happening, neither can readily be used to solve any problem or make predictions. Neither is inherently scientific, empirical, or observable. I dont see how you can classify one as impossible and the other as valid...
@psford1 Considering the most commonly used definition of Intelligent design, which is the Christian God, it is utterly illogical. This was my point. BUT the deist creator is completely plausible, just no proof for it. There is much proof for evolution. I do not think you have done enough research to dismiss it, if you dismiss it.
@CntthnkO15 That's cool man. And no i dont dismiss evolution as defined by evolutionary theory at all. Seriously. But I would say to let the Christian idea of ID go. It may be considered to be a type of ID but whether Christianity is true or false does not make the overall idea of ID invalid. Simply put if Christianity (or any other religion) is wrong, ID could still be true. There is also evidence FOR ID, but there is no evidence OF it. Big difference and the same as evolutionary theory...
@psford1 No, there is no if the Christian God exists or not, HE DOESN'T. Don't, for a second, give these people that power. They will eat that shit right up. You need to strict against moronic ideologies of lifes' origins as most religions advocate. Sure man, whatever, there is no proof "OF" evolution. Because there actually is, but I don't really know how to explain it to you, but you could read evolution books... That would probably help. Or biology.
@CntthnkO15 And by the way we know how electricity works. It stems from a difference in electric potential.
Now that I've answered one of your stupid, irrelevant questions answer this one: What the HELL does that have to with the basic concept of abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang?! The basic concept of these theories does not help anyone. You cannot use them to make a falsifiable prediction of any future event. They are essentially useless, even if they were found to be undeniably accurate
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
@CntthnkO15 Here let me rephrase it for the stupid people of which i appoint you leader.
-The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda 2 discredit the Bible. Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM enslavement of man under the scepter of the Pope in his New World fucking Order until their secret Jesuit military has finished destroying the validity of the gospel truth of the Bible in the minds and hearts of Man, u dumbfuck.
@SpencerBenedict2nd I am guessing you are referring to the Bilderberg or Zionist-Jew group. So, maybe it's just me, but don't you dumbfucks believe in the same God? Anyways, tool, you keep calling Bible the truth, word of god, blah blah, it will definitely get you further away from understanding reality. Humans created in 6 days, lmfao. Good one dude.
"I am guessing you are referring to the Bilderberg or Zionist-Jew group."-CntthnkO15Trying2Learn-AlongWay2go
>No. I am referring to the Papal Caesar Dynasty Vatican Rome's secret military Jesuit Order founded by Ignatius Loyola in the 1500's. An underground military of jesuits who are helping bring Rome's Council of Trent Counter Reformation agenda 2 fruition. By the 1800's the Jesuits had control of governments throughout Europe and complete control of America by the early 1900's.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@111E982a Oh My God; it's you at last, not a figment of imagination after all; truth in all it's splendour....but more importantly ....what's the winning lottery numbers for this weekend ?
@111E982a I know I know; you must be inundated, but just forget those people starving in Somalia and concentrate on the numbers for me; which one are you by the way, Jim Carrey or Morgan Freeman ?
@ZachRose88 But what started that first molecule ? Did it know to replicate or was it automatic; in built or part of the survival element do you think?
@NUTCASE71733 Is that what you think ? I hadn't got that far yet; you must be really sharp, and so far your the only one mentioning God. What is your perception of what the term "God" means anyway ?
@no1hoopsman It certainly didn't have a goal or purpose in replicating [at least, not in the way we humans think about goals and purposes]. And it wasn't "automatic" or built in as you suggest; because nothing preceded it except for the primordial soup of molecules that followed the 600 million year period of heavy bombardment at the onset of Earth's development. It is unknown right now exactly how this event came about. But the common idea is that was purely an accident 3.8 billion years ago.
@ZachRose88 I didn't actually suggest anything; merely asking the question. I was wondering about the lowest form of intelligence possible in that it replicated itself, and what sparked this change in the molecular structure of that particular one, that was all.
@no1hoopsman Right, I get that. Your question was perfectly legitimate. It's important to understand that something does not need to be possessed of any intelligence whatsoever in order to make copies of itself and with high fidelity. A virus is the most basic modern organism and it is incredibly adept at making copies of itself. The first self-replicating molecule would have been more simple than a virus even. Exactly what sparked this event? We don't know, yet...
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secularist social perspective
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. It took that long because scientific community refused to believe that it was a hoax. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
@fairjasmine PART 1 "Dawkins is not a scientist, he's an anti-theologist. He has more arguments against religion (mostly sarcasm and satire) than he has "for" evolution theory."
-
Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL
- I really doubt you know what Dr. Sc. is given that vomit you provided - it is the highest doctorate available in science...given for a long and highly distinguished contribution to a field of science, in Richard's case, to EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY !
The YouTube videos that Atheists don't want you to see- (Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)
I don’t mean to disrespect or discredit him but what he concludes about the existence of a creator based on what he observed is way too audacious that any true scientist could never aspire to do. For me he is a classic fool of the next generation.
Im sure you have lived long enough in this world to see that its not entirely logical and if it is for you I should call you lucky. And if you truly cannot see beyond evolution I so pity you that I cannot even laugh at it.
@fairjasmine I love the way people like you have the arrogance to argue with academics who have dedicated
a whole life to learning and research about a subject using evidence and reason as if you know better cos you have a 'feeling' that they're not right...get an education from more than 1 book and then try again.
You're so right in regards to people who have an inkling about stuff who are disputing people who've spent 10 years+in college learning this stuff, and another 20, 30+ years in a lab applying and testing this knowledge.
Unfortunately, the colloquial understanding of 'theory' and 'doubt' and cynicism is allowing the morons to convince many other morons
@fairjasmine you should read "The Greatest Show on Earth". There's a plethora of evidence for evolution by natural selection. What's more, Richard Dawkins sets it out beatifully and writes eloquently. It's a great read and I'd highly recommend it to you.
@fairjasmine what beyond evolution that u mentioned?? could you tell a little bit about that? on what ground you make that claim. why did you say that this world is not a logical world?? what did you mean by that?? and again, on what ground you make such claim?
@fairjasmine people like you make me fear for the prospects of humanity. if only you understood how you sound to people who did their bio homework in high school and dont base their beliefs on fairy tale gibberish
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Did he just say "Darwins own specimens"?! What a lying old fuck! Darwin never discovered any actual fossils which is why he had doubts about his own theory! Wow! Just... wow!
@BloodOfRayne "Did he just say "Darwins own specimens"?! What a lying old fuck! Darwin never discovered any actual fossils which is why he had doubts about his own theory! Wow! Just... wow!" No, you idiot - Darwin collected many specimins of species during his studies, not fossils. Just look at any documentary about Darwin, they show you them. You need to start understanding & seeing what is there before you start making your own stupid, stupid conclusions.
@glebe9 "No, you idiot - Darwin collected many specimins of species during his studies, NOT FOSSILS." There's my point! Thanks for making it for me. :)
@BloodOfRayne "No, you idiot - Darwin collected many specimins of species during his studies, NOT FOSSILS." There's my point! Thanks for making it for me. :)" - Doesn't make sense. You called Dawkins a lying old fuck - but you didn't understand. YOU said fossils, Dawkins said SPECIMINS. There is a difference.
@glebe9 Why? Doesn't evolution use fossils of specimens as a "proof" for macro evolution? For which there is none? Where are all the BILLIONS of transitional fossils from the numerous ammonts of species, one to another? Nowhere! Maybe the flying spagetti monster ate them all!
@BloodOfRayne If you understood evolution you would know that every living thing becomes a transitional fossil - even you. Honestly, once you understand it, it's very simple. If you are looking for some kind of half crocodile/half duck (as hilariously proposed by stupid boy Kirk Cameron) then you will be disappointed - evolution does not work that way. Creationists will always say "there are no t. fossils" - ie they quote each other but ignore the actual science. Very frustrating.
@glebe9 I know that I'm supposed to be a transitional fossil! A step in the ladder so to speak! But this still doesn't answer why there is no satifactory evidence of these thousands of species evolving into others! If it's so cut and dry then the creationists shouldn't even have a hope of debating evolutionists and yet... they always do quite well! The time needed goes against the time we've had. Then I have others saying that we've STOPPED evolving cos of our enviroment! I'm not convinced..
@glebe9 n order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God.
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also discovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
So let me get this st8; Darwin was afraid of blood, to stupid to be a pastor, so he takes a job as a captains cabin boy and then collects bugs and birds on the side, then 20 yrs later after someone else writes a book about evolution, he pulls out all his ole shit and makes a book too. And this is the great scientist. Oh yeah watched barnacles grow for eleven yrs. I'm going to the bookstore 2morrow and buy his biography now for sure. Should'nt take but about 20 minutes to read.
@JimmyCarol100 Oh! Dear He we go again. I wouldn't botherreading the book, I've read "On the Origin of Species, it would be far out of your intellectual grasp.
Yet again, a typical religious reaction to things they have no argument against. Lies and ridicule.
I think all religious people are taught this. "If you can't answer the argument, attack the person."
i accept evolution as a scientific fact but, in the light of the cambrian explosion there must be a paradigm shift made in regards to some of evolutions premises such as natural selection and variation. evolution does not work on its own impetus some intelligence is formulating and engineering the fundamental frame work of the cosmos.
@doctorw2 Do you realize that the Cambrian Explosion took place over MILLIONS of years? Sure, that's relatively little time in the 4.5 billion year span of the Earth, but it's still MILLIONS of years.
Evolution absolutely DOES work on its own, because there has never been even a shred of evidence for any kind of "guiding force", let alone "intelligence". All it is, is change in organisms over time as required to survive in ever-changing environments. It has nothing to do with the "cosmos".
@UnderlordZ on the contrary it does no one considers that those lifeforms in earths early age of development particularly the cambrian age were highly complex and no one considers the complexity of the laws of the cosmos and not putting two and two together all things require energy and the application of very sophisticated mathmatics to exist and function. this is indicitive of a higher intelligence of virtualy limitless potential.
@doctorw2 I'll grant limitless potential, but the scientific theory of biological evolution BY DEFINITION has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the Universe or even with how life started; it only concerns showing how life on this planet has adapted and diversified over ~a billion years. That's it, nothing else.
And the Cambrian era is actually fairly recent, between 542m and 488.3m years ago, which barely passes the previous eighth of the Earth's age, which is roughly 4.5 BILLION years.
@UnderlordZ in light of the topic of this video scientists like doctor dawkins begin their discourse on how life started on earth becuase you cant explain how life adapted and diversified on the planet without explaining how life started here in the first place that would be like putting the cart before the horse so to speak. everything is connected to everything else like i said in my former comment. without the fundamental elements of the universe life would not be possible anywhere.
@UnderlordZ natural selection and the fundemental elements of the universe are both governed by an energy exchange and a catalyst which requires mathmatical precision to determine the shape,size, width, and height of a particular object or thing which takes us back to my original argument about intelligence.
@doctorw2 You have shown no actual evidence for any kind of "higher intelligence". All you've shown is that you lack an actual understanding of evolutionary biology.
@UnderlordZ wrong, your not considering that everything is connected and is relative to everything else that exists in the cosmos. the universe is evolving and is always evolving all the time just like everything on earth has been evolving over time. something has to be facilitating the process keeping some factors of it constant while rooting out less desirable varibles this takes intelligence.
@doctorw2 "the universe is evolving and is always evolving all the time just like everything on earth has been evolving over time"
Cosmic changes have nothing to do with the changes in life on Earth. How far Mercury is from the Sun has no effect whatsoever on how animals change on our world.
"something has to be facilitating the process keeping some factors of it constant while rooting out less desirable varibles"
True, but it's not any kind of "intelligence"; it's called natural selection.
@UnderlordZ you are so wrong on both counts, first off if the earth was just even a fraction off from its current distance from the sun life would not have been possible the various biomes on earth are all influenced by the sun and the moon and other external factors and changes in the cosmos and they deffinetly had an influence on the biological organisms on earth the asteroid that struck the earth during the triassiac period for example changed the atmosphere and killed the dinosuars.
@doctorw2 Life AS WE KNOW IT would not have formed. That's not to say life COULDN'T have formed. And so what if it didn't? If your god made life, he could have made it capable of surviving ANYTHING, and yet a vast majority of just Earth is entirely uninhabitable by humans.
Do some ACTUAL research. Science websites and books, not creationist bullshit.
@UnderlordZ your not thinking clearly like most people your mind is blinded by your own biases which mars your objectivity. most of the earth is only uninhabitable by homonids but, other life forms live in those ecosystems such as the north pole for example polar bears, seals, whales, and pinguins live there and they all are mamals just like homonids as a matter of fact eskimos are a good example of a people that live in what should be unhabitable land so are the indians of the amazon basin.
Penguins live at the South Pole, not the North. Well, and the Galapagos Islands, but that's just more evidence for evolution, which has still yet to be shown to be "intelligently guided". And they're not mammals; they're birds.
As for "eskimos", why can't they live in Siberia or Antarctica, where it's even colder, without problems?
@UnderlordZ so sorry for those two mistakes i made in my previous comment i meant to say south pole and i didnt mean to classify penguins as mammals apologies for those two blunders i got a bit excited in trying to make my point and typed too fast. anyway im trying to make you see that GOD is an intelligence that works according to the laws of science and what people deem to be supernatural is really quite natural to a being of infinite potential but, people do not seem to understand this.
@doctorw2 If you meant South Pole, then you'd still be wrong, because polar bears don't live there.
Let's see if I understand this: you're saying that god works through the entirely-natural forces that have already been explained WITHOUT god? Sorry, but that's a violation of Occam's Razor; you're asserting an absolutely unnecessary step with no evidence to back it up even if it WAS needed.
@UnderlordZ no i am saying that what seems supernatural from our viewpoint in a three dimensional world is quite natural for a being in a four or even twelth dimensional world. in this existence our senses are very limited especialy when compared to other animals on the planet.
@UnderlordZ take for example the tesseract as proposed by the late dr Carl Sagan here on you tube he demonstrated that a being from a fourth dimensional world would try to make his prescence known by what we would call supernatural acts or ghostly acts such as strange markings on walls appearing all of a sudden,hearing strange sounds, and being able to go through solid objects mr sagan explained that this would be possible for a being in another dimension due to different physical laws.
@doctorw2 First, that's another argument from authority. Just becausse someone famous said it, doesn't automatically make it true.
Second, anecdotes are not evidence. Stories about something that might have happened, don't prove anything.
You cannot demonstrate a fourth physical dimension; even if one does exist, you've already admitted that the human mind would be incapable of understanding it. And so if it cannot be demonstrated, why should anyone believe that it exists?
@UnderlordZ well, dr carl sagan did demonstrate it quite clearly even Einsteins theory of relativity confirms there are other dimensions. i dont understand how people can be so mundane in their thinking and just dismiss the possibility of things that may actualy exist even if the evidence is yet to be revealed. black holes,dark matter, wormholes, ect; were once catergorized as things that could not exist do to lack of evidence yet when the evidence did come to light it caused a paradigm shift.
@doctorw2 "black holes,dark matter, wormholes, ect; were once catergorized as things that could not exist do to lack of evidence yet when the evidence did come to light it caused a paradigm shift."
You've officially made my point for me. Nobody acknowledged the idea of the exitence of such things UNTIL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.
We're done. We're absolutely done. You've gone around in circles, made a minimal amount of sense, and now made points against your own ideas. We're done.
@UnderlordZ you failed to see my point things that were deemed non existant for decades had to be accepted as valid once evidence came to light, just becuase some people have failed to provide evidence for their claims doesnt mean that some one else will be able to provide it or point it out.
If you're a atheists and believe in the teaching' of Richard Dawkins, should you be a liberal and believe in socialism ? and if you believe in God should you be a conservative and believe in individualism ? does society put us in our place based only if we believe in God or not ?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawkins is not a scientist, he's an anti-theologist. He has more arguments against religion (mostly sarcasm and satire) than he has "for" evolution theory. If he was truly passionate about evolution he'd spend time finding in-the-face evidences rather mocking different faiths to convince you to believe in evolution. He's least of all scientists whom i respect. Most of his explanations r "thats silly", " its irrelevant" and much less science. Darwin on the other hand is a true scientist.
@fairjasmine yeah right! you neednt utter another word.
"In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field"
@craigMellow Quote: yeah right! you neednt utter another word.
"In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field"
Dawkins' entire last book was full of evidence for evolution. In fact it was called "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Also, it's not a scientists job to go around justifying high level theory 100% of the time. That's Dawkins' hobby. He's also put forth several insightful ideas, including the memetic theory of cultural evolution and the idea that what we call color is just a mental label for sensory input and needn't be only associated with vision.
Love how you start out by saying dawkins is not a scientist, then later state that he is the "least of all scientists whom you respect". You're an idiot
Well, Dawkins points on religion is to show if religion had it's way then we'd be back in caves like the people of the middle east are now. It's an oversimplification I'll admit but the fact every religious nutjob out there thinks we should have no scientific advancement unless it goes with their backwards viewpoint, it would be the end of civilization as we know it. Any scientst would be concerned about that, and I myself am Christian.
I dont understand what you're saying. My viewpoint was a defensive on religion not an offensive on science. There is nothing wrong in wanting to Know, question, ponder its part of human nature. And as far as I know its not wrong in any religion to do that, for me evolution is a giant leap of faith, may be its true and awe- inspiring for some. But RD is definitely getting rich not because of what a wonder evolution is but because how he mocks and makes fun of religion..pathetic
I know what you were saying, relax. I was elaborating Dawkin's position. The reason he attacks religion is because the nutjobs in that group want to get rid of science and turn the world back into a fearful and bigoted society.
true that, it always suprises me how long he takes to disprove creation or attack in when, if looked at, is a true possiblity...by god...i dont know, but theres much evidence
@fairjasmine You're joking right? Do you have any clue as to Dawkins credentials? How many ground breaking, comprehensive books he has written? Do you even know what research means? Maybe you should try doing some yourself before making a total fool of yourself. Again that is.
@fairjasmine Actually, he's done some very interesting lectures on science. Its just his current job is to refute nonsense and to try and educate people, and the flow of stupidity never stops flowing his way.
@fairjasmine "...not a scientist...an anti-theologist." He's Simonyi Professor for Public Understanding of Science at fucking Oxford University. Do you think Oxford would appoint a non scientist to that post? You are a fucking idiot.
@fairjasmine PART 1 "Dawkins is not a scientist, he's an anti-theologist. He has more arguments against religion (mostly sarcasm and satire) than he has "for" evolution theory. If he was truly passionate about evolution he'd spend time finding in-the-face evidences rather mocking different faiths to convince you to believe in evolution. He's least of all scientists whom i respect. Most of his explanations r "thats silly", " its irrelevant" and much less science. Darwin on the..."
@fairjasmine PART 2 ... other hand is a true scientist. "
- ? that paragraph of yours is one of the most ignorant pieces of nonsense I have ever heard !
Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL
- I really doubt you know what Dr. Sc. is given that vomit you provided - it is the highest doctorate available in science...given for a long and highly distinguished contribution to a field of science, in Richard's case, to EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY !
Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest". It was Herbert Spencer.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
may God have pity on your souls
GMapocolypse 1 month ago
@GMapocolypse Yours too.
dabears17x 1 day ago
My wife and I want a new puppy so we're swirling a bunch of dust around in a big circle in hopes of forming one........morons.
8TBALL 1 month ago
suggest to watch
OSHO: There Is No Creator
newFranzFerencLiszt 1 month ago
Christians are retards.
martyaus2905 3 months ago 2
I think you'd seriously have to be an idiot to think that life just 'sprung up' naturally. I think that there would be some type of deficiency issue somewhere in the frontal lobe of a person who could believe that enough to argue against any other idea. Seriously, who believes that?
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 Just like you have to be an idiot to think God just "sprung up" magically. Cool story man, thanks.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CntthnkO15 That's cool...as long as you admit that you're an idiot!
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 What the fuck? You definitely are an idiot. Wow. Amazingly thought out comeback, by the way. No logic what so ever, complete fail at life.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
I hate how hypocritical atheists are. You accept evolution, the big bang and abiogensis without understanding or having witnessed it for yourself. You accept it blindly and yet you have the gall to call Creationists brainwashed for believing preachers and prophets. If you dont FULLY understand every principle of every concept of the three controversial theories then you are no different from someone sitting in a church. You take the word of scientists (prophets) on an issue you dont understand
psford1 4 months ago
Im not saying I dont believe that Evo,BB or abio are possible or happened. But lets just say that if they turn out not to have happened the way people think then I wont be surprised. They are all pretty useless theories. Think about it objectively. How does the basic concept of either of these theories possibly help anyone? What is it that you cant do now that you would be able to do if one of them were true? Ex: In order to fly we HAD to understand gravity. Serious question
psford1 5 months ago
@psford1 It helps answer questions that religion just blindly says, "God did it." Good try though.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 Oh yeah. Name such a question...
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 How does lightning happen? And anything along those lines, retarded dumbfucks like you back in the day thought it was God smiting people and they sacrificed human beings because of that type of thinking. You are a fucking moron, wake the fuck up and read a god damn book other than bullshit Bible or Quran.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 LoL, I'm an engineering major and probably read more relevant 'god damn' books than you. Which is quite obvious by the level of comprhension you possess. Try again to provide a question that is answered best by one of the BASIC concepts of one of the three controversial theories. Or answer this question: How does the basic concept of either of the controversial theories help anyone?
I already know the answers to these questions but I will wait for it to sink in on you. Nube
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 The point of the question and the way I answered it was to show you how the idea of "God" came to be. Anything we cannot know, is "Gods'" doing. Nice little tangent though. How does considering a human being was born from a virgin who could walk on water help anyone? I'd rather have a viable answer to things or just say "I don't know" than say some asswipe in the sky made it all happen and when I die and accept his son as my Savior, I will go to heaven, no matter the crimes I committed.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 One thing, you're superimposing the Christian belief. Which I have said nothing about. I havent mentioned God or any other being. There's no need to strawman by using a specific religion or religious idea to try and dispel my point. You dont have a viable answer with natural theories, or with religion. CONSIDERING a human being born of a virgin doesnt necessarily help you at all. I know that. But neither does considering any of the basic concepts of the popular theories. --->
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 So called basic theory of gravity doesn't help? Theory of evolution doesn't help people understand reality? For damn sure it helps me. I am familiar with Christian dogma the most, but I can bash on Islamic bullshit of treating woman worse than I treat my shit and flying horses. The Hindu bullshit of a dude with a million heads and a God that looks like a monkey.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 The theory or law of gravity does certainly help - never said it didnt. Thats one way that its different from evolutionary theory. With evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis scientists created a theory BEFORE there were any observations made. That is where the inherent problem is introduced. With theory prior to observation you WILL have conjecture. You WILL have opinion. Neither of which is empirical or scientific. Evolutionary theory is useless, and it is terribly unscientific!
psford1 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 3) Please tell me how the BASIC concept of Intelligent design - intelligent designer(s) of the universe and life - does not stack up against the BASIC concept of any natural causation theory? Please explain how one can be true and another cannot be. Also show EMPIRICAL, conjecture-free evidence to support your claim. It would make more sense if this evidence came solely from you, and not just you taking the word of some scientist (prophet). Good luck!
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 Your argument about "before," is pretty retarded and inaccurate, but I'll play along. So, if you're going to say that intelligent design is valid because they DON'T use this? How do you figure that? And you're indirectly using complexity theory, so to that I say, who created this insanely complex being that created this complex universe, since there is a need for a designer and this theory doesn't stop, as in, who created that complex being and blah blah blah. It's beyond retarded.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 Still wrong. ID is not valid BECAUSE it's not used. Its valid because it meets the same criteria that somehow seems to make evolutionary theory valid. No evidence OF it ever occurring and instead only observations that can be used to support it. The ONLY thing 'true' about evolution is that small adaptions happen. That's it, but that also does not describe the basic concept of evolutionary theory. If you allow derived theories to validate ET then you're using circular logic...
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 Most of that made no sense. Try again. And what are you even arguing? That intelligent design is a valid theory? 6 fucking days? Cool man. If this helped me in any way, according to your logic, I would use it, but it doesn't so, I won't use it. I kind of like your logic, if it helps you on a selfish level, then you can believe it, if it doesn't, even if its true, you shouldn't believe it. That's fine I guess, you can live your life the way you want, I suggest you let God go, just advice
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 See, you make it obvious how close-minded and brainwashed active atheists are. You CONTINUALLY interject this Christian-bashing when I have made no claim that the Christian religion is even what I believe in. Intelligent Design is NOT '6 fucking days' - grow a brain. And I never said that any theist idea helps anyone, actually I said quite the opposite. I said that, JUST LIKE evolutionary theory, theism probably cannot be used to solve any problem and is therefore useless also. Idiot
psford1 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 2) Also, Intelligent Design is probably more valid and useful than evolutionary theory in the sense that if either of the BASIC concepts of either theory was shown to be accurate it MAY be possible to use ID theory as a means to an end. Where as with ET that is 100% impossible. There is no falsifiable, testable prediction that can be made from an understanding of the basic concept of ET!!! Not one. However, the same cannot be said for Intelligent Design, it may be possible to use it.
psford1 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 The point is that you do not know for sure what's true. And furthermore even if natural causation is shown to be 100% accurate it's STILL useless. For a theory to be useful you need to be able to apply it to solve some problem or make valid predictions. To have theories before observation makes no sense in the first place. Say 'we dont know' thats cool. But then also be able to say 'you could be right' to someone with a differing opinion. Because intelligent design theory is as valid
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 Theories before observation... wow, there is no scientifically proven theory that does this. The only "theory" i know is the intelligent design, which is something I only consider a theory. Evolution? I consider it a scientific theory. I hope you know the difference. Google does wonders, try it.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 If you wish to change the classification to further your strawman attempts thats fine. Calling it a theory does nothing to diminish or refute the parallels between it and evolutionary theory. BOTH have no evidence OF them happening and instead rely solely on observations and evidence that can be used to support the ideas. The difference: Only ONE of these, if found true, could be used to make a falsifiable prediction. Evolutionary theory = Useless bit of conjecture
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 I'm done with you dude, so fucking stupid. Here is why: If we need an intelligent designer, that intelligent designer would need an even more intelligent designer. Fuck off retard, learn some logic.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 Well try this one: If we can ONLY have natural causation theories be valid then we need an explanation of how time, matter, space and energy could ever be created! To date there is no possible scientific principle that can account for those miraculous events. As i said, I am in a science field and study natural science laws so i know a little bit. In a finite universe there had to be supernatural forces acting at some time. Nuff said. And you failed to trump anything I mentioned
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 What the fuck dude, how do you not see the obvious problem with your intelligent designer or creation theory... I say I DON'T KNOW and so do most scientist but they are trying to figure it out. Fuck.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 OK then! say you dont know. That's fine. But then you MUST say that intelligent design - of any kind - may be possible. Im not saying that it makes more sense than evolutionary theory. I understand that scientifically speaking it doesnt. But evolutionary theory is NOT inherently scientific and saying that intelligent design is not even possible or calling someone an idiot who believes in it is unscientific and borderline religious. Thats all Im saying. Say that its possible...
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 OMFG, NO DUDE, IT IS ILLOGICAL! How did you not understand this? Fuck dude, you know what, fine, we can have a creator, but only the deist creator and none of the other bullshit organized religion tells us. NONE OF THE ALL LOVING, ALL POWERFUL, OMNIPRESENT, ETC. You know this already...
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 Alright, these arguments never go anywhere. But how can you say that ID theory is illogical and evolutionary theory is valid? What criteria are you using to make that assumption? Thats one of the things that I have a problem with. There is no evidence of either one happening, neither can readily be used to solve any problem or make predictions. Neither is inherently scientific, empirical, or observable. I dont see how you can classify one as impossible and the other as valid...
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 Considering the most commonly used definition of Intelligent design, which is the Christian God, it is utterly illogical. This was my point. BUT the deist creator is completely plausible, just no proof for it. There is much proof for evolution. I do not think you have done enough research to dismiss it, if you dismiss it.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 That's cool man. And no i dont dismiss evolution as defined by evolutionary theory at all. Seriously. But I would say to let the Christian idea of ID go. It may be considered to be a type of ID but whether Christianity is true or false does not make the overall idea of ID invalid. Simply put if Christianity (or any other religion) is wrong, ID could still be true. There is also evidence FOR ID, but there is no evidence OF it. Big difference and the same as evolutionary theory...
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 No, there is no if the Christian God exists or not, HE DOESN'T. Don't, for a second, give these people that power. They will eat that shit right up. You need to strict against moronic ideologies of lifes' origins as most religions advocate. Sure man, whatever, there is no proof "OF" evolution. Because there actually is, but I don't really know how to explain it to you, but you could read evolution books... That would probably help. Or biology.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 I can accept that. Peace
psford1 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 And by the way we know how electricity works. It stems from a difference in electric potential.
Now that I've answered one of your stupid, irrelevant questions answer this one: What the HELL does that have to with the basic concept of abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang?! The basic concept of these theories does not help anyone. You cannot use them to make a falsifiable prediction of any future event. They are essentially useless, even if they were found to be undeniably accurate
psford1 4 months ago
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd You're right, so let's just bring back slavery, kill homos, treat woman like my shit, stone kids for disobeying, etc etc.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
@CntthnkO15 Here let me rephrase it for the stupid people of which i appoint you leader.
-The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda 2 discredit the Bible. Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM enslavement of man under the scepter of the Pope in his New World fucking Order until their secret Jesuit military has finished destroying the validity of the gospel truth of the Bible in the minds and hearts of Man, u dumbfuck.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd I am guessing you are referring to the Bilderberg or Zionist-Jew group. So, maybe it's just me, but don't you dumbfucks believe in the same God? Anyways, tool, you keep calling Bible the truth, word of god, blah blah, it will definitely get you further away from understanding reality. Humans created in 6 days, lmfao. Good one dude.
CntthnkO15 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CntthnkO15
"I am guessing you are referring to the Bilderberg or Zionist-Jew group."-CntthnkO15Trying2Learn-AlongWay2go
>No. I am referring to the Papal Caesar Dynasty Vatican Rome's secret military Jesuit Order founded by Ignatius Loyola in the 1500's. An underground military of jesuits who are helping bring Rome's Council of Trent Counter Reformation agenda 2 fruition. By the 1800's the Jesuits had control of governments throughout Europe and complete control of America by the early 1900's.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
I wonder what started evolution ?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman my fart
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a Oh what a breath of freash air that illuminating comment was; lol
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman yes, afterall it was what i created the world with.
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a Oh My God; it's you at last, not a figment of imagination after all; truth in all it's splendour....but more importantly ....what's the winning lottery numbers for this weekend ?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman how many numbers does your lottery have? people from all around the world ask me that.
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a I know I know; you must be inundated, but just forget those people starving in Somalia and concentrate on the numbers for me; which one are you by the way, Jim Carrey or Morgan Freeman ?
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman no you infidel, i am Bruce Lee. what blasphemy, you pitted the black and white against the yellow! you will burn in hell forever!!!
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a Aaaagggh noooo; I thought you were Jackie Chan; oh shit, wrong again, just like the numbers...take it easy and have a good day.
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
@no1hoopsman The first self-replicating molecule.
ZachRose88 6 months ago
@ZachRose88 Would you say that the "self replicating" implies an element of intelligence or structure ?
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@ZachRose88 But what started that first molecule ? Did it know to replicate or was it automatic; in built or part of the survival element do you think?
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Argument from ignorance. "I CAN'T THINK OF HOW IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED NATURALLY SO GAAAAWWWWD MUSTA DONE IT"
Seriously, read a book idiot.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Is that what you think ? I hadn't got that far yet; you must be really sharp, and so far your the only one mentioning God. What is your perception of what the term "God" means anyway ?
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NUTCASE71733 DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman It certainly didn't have a goal or purpose in replicating [at least, not in the way we humans think about goals and purposes]. And it wasn't "automatic" or built in as you suggest; because nothing preceded it except for the primordial soup of molecules that followed the 600 million year period of heavy bombardment at the onset of Earth's development. It is unknown right now exactly how this event came about. But the common idea is that was purely an accident 3.8 billion years ago.
ZachRose88 6 months ago
@ZachRose88 I didn't actually suggest anything; merely asking the question. I was wondering about the lowest form of intelligence possible in that it replicated itself, and what sparked this change in the molecular structure of that particular one, that was all.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman Right, I get that. Your question was perfectly legitimate. It's important to understand that something does not need to be possessed of any intelligence whatsoever in order to make copies of itself and with high fidelity. A virus is the most basic modern organism and it is incredibly adept at making copies of itself. The first self-replicating molecule would have been more simple than a virus even. Exactly what sparked this event? We don't know, yet...
ZachRose88 6 months ago
@ZachRose88 Thanks
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@no1hoopsman DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@no1hoopsman DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
@ZachRose88 DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secularist social perspective
shieldsff 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. It took that long because scientific community refused to believe that it was a hoax. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
daogdaog 7 months ago
@fairjasmine PART 1 "Dawkins is not a scientist, he's an anti-theologist. He has more arguments against religion (mostly sarcasm and satire) than he has "for" evolution theory."
-
Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL
- I really doubt you know what Dr. Sc. is given that vomit you provided - it is the highest doctorate available in science...given for a long and highly distinguished contribution to a field of science, in Richard's case, to EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY !
nordhorny 9 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordhorny DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordhorny DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
@nordhorny DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AntiChrista4WPeace "DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe"
_ explain this please...
nordhorny 5 months ago
The YouTube videos that Atheists don't want you to see- (Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)
Bobweiserbudman 9 months ago
I don’t mean to disrespect or discredit him but what he concludes about the existence of a creator based on what he observed is way too audacious that any true scientist could never aspire to do. For me he is a classic fool of the next generation.
Im sure you have lived long enough in this world to see that its not entirely logical and if it is for you I should call you lucky. And if you truly cannot see beyond evolution I so pity you that I cannot even laugh at it.
fairjasmine 10 months ago
@fairjasmine I love the way people like you have the arrogance to argue with academics who have dedicated
a whole life to learning and research about a subject using evidence and reason as if you know better cos you have a 'feeling' that they're not right...get an education from more than 1 book and then try again.
pieter292 10 months ago 18
This has been flagged as spam show
@pieter292 DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
@pieter292
You're so right in regards to people who have an inkling about stuff who are disputing people who've spent 10 years+in college learning this stuff, and another 20, 30+ years in a lab applying and testing this knowledge.
Unfortunately, the colloquial understanding of 'theory' and 'doubt' and cynicism is allowing the morons to convince many other morons
areyouquitemad 5 months ago
@fairjasmine you should read "The Greatest Show on Earth". There's a plethora of evidence for evolution by natural selection. What's more, Richard Dawkins sets it out beatifully and writes eloquently. It's a great read and I'd highly recommend it to you.
HarrynJessie 10 months ago 2
@fairjasmine what beyond evolution that u mentioned?? could you tell a little bit about that? on what ground you make that claim. why did you say that this world is not a logical world?? what did you mean by that?? and again, on what ground you make such claim?
siegkdash 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@siegkdash DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
@fairjasmine people like you make me fear for the prospects of humanity. if only you understood how you sound to people who did their bio homework in high school and dont base their beliefs on fairy tale gibberish
ericfeinberg28 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ericfeinberg28 DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 11 months ago
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
Dawkins mentioned at one point that some of Darwin's specimens are still viewable in museums. Does anybody know where these are located?
Elmoogle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Elmoogle DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
What a fucking waste it would have been had Darwin persued theology!
scruethedemiurge 1 year ago
You want 8 billion atheists on this planet who believe in nothing?
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne We would tear each other apart and you know why? .... out of fear of what our nieghbours would do you us!
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
Respond to this video...
Did he just say "Darwins own specimens"?! What a lying old fuck! Darwin never discovered any actual fossils which is why he had doubts about his own theory! Wow! Just... wow!
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne "Did he just say "Darwins own specimens"?! What a lying old fuck! Darwin never discovered any actual fossils which is why he had doubts about his own theory! Wow! Just... wow!" No, you idiot - Darwin collected many specimins of species during his studies, not fossils. Just look at any documentary about Darwin, they show you them. You need to start understanding & seeing what is there before you start making your own stupid, stupid conclusions.
glebe9 1 year ago
@glebe9 "No, you idiot - Darwin collected many specimins of species during his studies, NOT FOSSILS." There's my point! Thanks for making it for me. :)
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne "No, you idiot - Darwin collected many specimins of species during his studies, NOT FOSSILS." There's my point! Thanks for making it for me. :)" - Doesn't make sense. You called Dawkins a lying old fuck - but you didn't understand. YOU said fossils, Dawkins said SPECIMINS. There is a difference.
glebe9 1 year ago
@glebe9 Why? Doesn't evolution use fossils of specimens as a "proof" for macro evolution? For which there is none? Where are all the BILLIONS of transitional fossils from the numerous ammonts of species, one to another? Nowhere! Maybe the flying spagetti monster ate them all!
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne If you understood evolution you would know that every living thing becomes a transitional fossil - even you. Honestly, once you understand it, it's very simple. If you are looking for some kind of half crocodile/half duck (as hilariously proposed by stupid boy Kirk Cameron) then you will be disappointed - evolution does not work that way. Creationists will always say "there are no t. fossils" - ie they quote each other but ignore the actual science. Very frustrating.
glebe9 1 year ago
@glebe9 I know that I'm supposed to be a transitional fossil! A step in the ladder so to speak! But this still doesn't answer why there is no satifactory evidence of these thousands of species evolving into others! If it's so cut and dry then the creationists shouldn't even have a hope of debating evolutionists and yet... they always do quite well! The time needed goes against the time we've had. Then I have others saying that we've STOPPED evolving cos of our enviroment! I'm not convinced..
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BloodOfRayne DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
@glebe9 n order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God.
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glebe9 DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also discovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
thechessstick 1 year ago
So let me get this st8; Darwin was afraid of blood, to stupid to be a pastor, so he takes a job as a captains cabin boy and then collects bugs and birds on the side, then 20 yrs later after someone else writes a book about evolution, he pulls out all his ole shit and makes a book too. And this is the great scientist. Oh yeah watched barnacles grow for eleven yrs. I'm going to the bookstore 2morrow and buy his biography now for sure. Should'nt take but about 20 minutes to read.
JimmyCarol100 1 year ago
@JimmyCarol100 Oh! Dear He we go again. I wouldn't botherreading the book, I've read "On the Origin of Species, it would be far out of your intellectual grasp.
Yet again, a typical religious reaction to things they have no argument against. Lies and ridicule.
I think all religious people are taught this. "If you can't answer the argument, attack the person."
HonestMan395 1 year ago
@JimmyCarol100 You display immense ignorance. Darwin was a genius
glebe9 1 year ago
i accept evolution as a scientific fact but, in the light of the cambrian explosion there must be a paradigm shift made in regards to some of evolutions premises such as natural selection and variation. evolution does not work on its own impetus some intelligence is formulating and engineering the fundamental frame work of the cosmos.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 Do you realize that the Cambrian Explosion took place over MILLIONS of years? Sure, that's relatively little time in the 4.5 billion year span of the Earth, but it's still MILLIONS of years.
Evolution absolutely DOES work on its own, because there has never been even a shred of evidence for any kind of "guiding force", let alone "intelligence". All it is, is change in organisms over time as required to survive in ever-changing environments. It has nothing to do with the "cosmos".
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ on the contrary it does no one considers that those lifeforms in earths early age of development particularly the cambrian age were highly complex and no one considers the complexity of the laws of the cosmos and not putting two and two together all things require energy and the application of very sophisticated mathmatics to exist and function. this is indicitive of a higher intelligence of virtualy limitless potential.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 I'll grant limitless potential, but the scientific theory of biological evolution BY DEFINITION has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the Universe or even with how life started; it only concerns showing how life on this planet has adapted and diversified over ~a billion years. That's it, nothing else.
And the Cambrian era is actually fairly recent, between 542m and 488.3m years ago, which barely passes the previous eighth of the Earth's age, which is roughly 4.5 BILLION years.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ in light of the topic of this video scientists like doctor dawkins begin their discourse on how life started on earth becuase you cant explain how life adapted and diversified on the planet without explaining how life started here in the first place that would be like putting the cart before the horse so to speak. everything is connected to everything else like i said in my former comment. without the fundamental elements of the universe life would not be possible anywhere.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 "without the fundamental elements of the universe life would not be possible anywhere."
You're absolutely right, but not a single one of those chemical elements is "intelligence".
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ natural selection and the fundemental elements of the universe are both governed by an energy exchange and a catalyst which requires mathmatical precision to determine the shape,size, width, and height of a particular object or thing which takes us back to my original argument about intelligence.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 You have shown no actual evidence for any kind of "higher intelligence". All you've shown is that you lack an actual understanding of evolutionary biology.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ wrong, your not considering that everything is connected and is relative to everything else that exists in the cosmos. the universe is evolving and is always evolving all the time just like everything on earth has been evolving over time. something has to be facilitating the process keeping some factors of it constant while rooting out less desirable varibles this takes intelligence.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 "the universe is evolving and is always evolving all the time just like everything on earth has been evolving over time"
Cosmic changes have nothing to do with the changes in life on Earth. How far Mercury is from the Sun has no effect whatsoever on how animals change on our world.
"something has to be facilitating the process keeping some factors of it constant while rooting out less desirable varibles"
True, but it's not any kind of "intelligence"; it's called natural selection.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ you are so wrong on both counts, first off if the earth was just even a fraction off from its current distance from the sun life would not have been possible the various biomes on earth are all influenced by the sun and the moon and other external factors and changes in the cosmos and they deffinetly had an influence on the biological organisms on earth the asteroid that struck the earth during the triassiac period for example changed the atmosphere and killed the dinosuars.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 Life AS WE KNOW IT would not have formed. That's not to say life COULDN'T have formed. And so what if it didn't? If your god made life, he could have made it capable of surviving ANYTHING, and yet a vast majority of just Earth is entirely uninhabitable by humans.
Do some ACTUAL research. Science websites and books, not creationist bullshit.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ your not thinking clearly like most people your mind is blinded by your own biases which mars your objectivity. most of the earth is only uninhabitable by homonids but, other life forms live in those ecosystems such as the north pole for example polar bears, seals, whales, and pinguins live there and they all are mamals just like homonids as a matter of fact eskimos are a good example of a people that live in what should be unhabitable land so are the indians of the amazon basin.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 What biases does REALITY hold?
Penguins live at the South Pole, not the North. Well, and the Galapagos Islands, but that's just more evidence for evolution, which has still yet to be shown to be "intelligently guided". And they're not mammals; they're birds.
As for "eskimos", why can't they live in Siberia or Antarctica, where it's even colder, without problems?
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ so sorry for those two mistakes i made in my previous comment i meant to say south pole and i didnt mean to classify penguins as mammals apologies for those two blunders i got a bit excited in trying to make my point and typed too fast. anyway im trying to make you see that GOD is an intelligence that works according to the laws of science and what people deem to be supernatural is really quite natural to a being of infinite potential but, people do not seem to understand this.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 If you meant South Pole, then you'd still be wrong, because polar bears don't live there.
Let's see if I understand this: you're saying that god works through the entirely-natural forces that have already been explained WITHOUT god? Sorry, but that's a violation of Occam's Razor; you're asserting an absolutely unnecessary step with no evidence to back it up even if it WAS needed.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ no i am saying that what seems supernatural from our viewpoint in a three dimensional world is quite natural for a being in a four or even twelth dimensional world. in this existence our senses are very limited especialy when compared to other animals on the planet.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 EVIDENCE! Demonstrate that more than three physical dimensions (length, width, depth) exist, or shut up.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ take for example the tesseract as proposed by the late dr Carl Sagan here on you tube he demonstrated that a being from a fourth dimensional world would try to make his prescence known by what we would call supernatural acts or ghostly acts such as strange markings on walls appearing all of a sudden,hearing strange sounds, and being able to go through solid objects mr sagan explained that this would be possible for a being in another dimension due to different physical laws.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 First, that's another argument from authority. Just becausse someone famous said it, doesn't automatically make it true.
Second, anecdotes are not evidence. Stories about something that might have happened, don't prove anything.
You cannot demonstrate a fourth physical dimension; even if one does exist, you've already admitted that the human mind would be incapable of understanding it. And so if it cannot be demonstrated, why should anyone believe that it exists?
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ well, dr carl sagan did demonstrate it quite clearly even Einsteins theory of relativity confirms there are other dimensions. i dont understand how people can be so mundane in their thinking and just dismiss the possibility of things that may actualy exist even if the evidence is yet to be revealed. black holes,dark matter, wormholes, ect; were once catergorized as things that could not exist do to lack of evidence yet when the evidence did come to light it caused a paradigm shift.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 "black holes,dark matter, wormholes, ect; were once catergorized as things that could not exist do to lack of evidence yet when the evidence did come to light it caused a paradigm shift."
You've officially made my point for me. Nobody acknowledged the idea of the exitence of such things UNTIL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.
We're done. We're absolutely done. You've gone around in circles, made a minimal amount of sense, and now made points against your own ideas. We're done.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ you failed to see my point things that were deemed non existant for decades had to be accepted as valid once evidence came to light, just becuase some people have failed to provide evidence for their claims doesnt mean that some one else will be able to provide it or point it out.
doctorw2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@doctorw2 DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're a atheists and believe in the teaching' of Richard Dawkins, should you be a liberal and believe in socialism ? and if you believe in God should you be a conservative and believe in individualism ? does society put us in our place based only if we believe in God or not ?
QWERTY34990 1 year ago
Strange is that Darwin was not only scholar to shape evolutionary theory. Lamarck and Wallace were important people on that path as well!
cyberdaemon 1 year ago
RD is the main!!
grindhiphop 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is not a scientist, he's an anti-theologist. He has more arguments against religion (mostly sarcasm and satire) than he has "for" evolution theory. If he was truly passionate about evolution he'd spend time finding in-the-face evidences rather mocking different faiths to convince you to believe in evolution. He's least of all scientists whom i respect. Most of his explanations r "thats silly", " its irrelevant" and much less science. Darwin on the other hand is a true scientist.
fairjasmine 1 year ago
@fairjasmine yeah right! you neednt utter another word.
"In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field"
craigMellow 1 year ago 15
@craigMellow Quote: yeah right! you neednt utter another word.
"In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field"
And what a shame that is!
fairjasmine 1 year ago
@craigMellow Fuck those professors! Why do you suck their cocks so eagerly? *slurp slurp*
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@craigMellow Where is the free speech? Why was fairs comment spammed? Because he said something you atheists don't like? Hmmmm... free speech?1
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@fairjasmine You haven't read any of his books that don't deal with theology.
Dawkins is the worlds top intellectual.
themetalgod21 1 year ago
@fairjasmine
Dawkins' entire last book was full of evidence for evolution. In fact it was called "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Also, it's not a scientists job to go around justifying high level theory 100% of the time. That's Dawkins' hobby. He's also put forth several insightful ideas, including the memetic theory of cultural evolution and the idea that what we call color is just a mental label for sensory input and needn't be only associated with vision.
meyerjac 1 year ago
@fairjasmine
Love how you start out by saying dawkins is not a scientist, then later state that he is the "least of all scientists whom you respect". You're an idiot
igotsachubby 1 year ago
@fairjasmine
Well, Dawkins points on religion is to show if religion had it's way then we'd be back in caves like the people of the middle east are now. It's an oversimplification I'll admit but the fact every religious nutjob out there thinks we should have no scientific advancement unless it goes with their backwards viewpoint, it would be the end of civilization as we know it. Any scientst would be concerned about that, and I myself am Christian.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
I dont understand what you're saying. My viewpoint was a defensive on religion not an offensive on science. There is nothing wrong in wanting to Know, question, ponder its part of human nature. And as far as I know its not wrong in any religion to do that, for me evolution is a giant leap of faith, may be its true and awe- inspiring for some. But RD is definitely getting rich not because of what a wonder evolution is but because how he mocks and makes fun of religion..pathetic
fairjasmine 1 year ago
Comment removed
fairjasmine 1 year ago
@fairjasmine
I know what you were saying, relax. I was elaborating Dawkin's position. The reason he attacks religion is because the nutjobs in that group want to get rid of science and turn the world back into a fearful and bigoted society.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NUTCASE71733
Oh and btw if you didnt already know . Bible does say that evolution took place.
fairjasmine 1 year ago
true that, it always suprises me how long he takes to disprove creation or attack in when, if looked at, is a true possiblity...by god...i dont know, but theres much evidence
of design
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@fairjasmine "Most of his explanations r "thats silly", " its irrelevant" and much less science."
For example?
TheOmegadusk 1 year ago
@fairjasmine You're joking right? Do you have any clue as to Dawkins credentials? How many ground breaking, comprehensive books he has written? Do you even know what research means? Maybe you should try doing some yourself before making a total fool of yourself. Again that is.
newcoyote 1 year ago
@fairjasmine You're a credulous fool.
rooflee 1 year ago
@fairjasmine
you sir are a complete idiot.
and youre obviously threathned by Dawkins inteligence
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@fairjasmine Actually, he's done some very interesting lectures on science. Its just his current job is to refute nonsense and to try and educate people, and the flow of stupidity never stops flowing his way.
andromidius 1 year ago
@fairjasmine "...not a scientist...an anti-theologist." He's Simonyi Professor for Public Understanding of Science at fucking Oxford University. Do you think Oxford would appoint a non scientist to that post? You are a fucking idiot.
scruethedemiurge 1 year ago
@fairjasmine Ya hes only discovered the extended phenotype what does he know. lol
highlanderdurp 11 months ago
@fairjasmine PART 1 "Dawkins is not a scientist, he's an anti-theologist. He has more arguments against religion (mostly sarcasm and satire) than he has "for" evolution theory. If he was truly passionate about evolution he'd spend time finding in-the-face evidences rather mocking different faiths to convince you to believe in evolution. He's least of all scientists whom i respect. Most of his explanations r "thats silly", " its irrelevant" and much less science. Darwin on the..."
nordhorny 10 months ago
@fairjasmine PART 2 ... other hand is a true scientist. "
- ? that paragraph of yours is one of the most ignorant pieces of nonsense I have ever heard !
Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL
- I really doubt you know what Dr. Sc. is given that vomit you provided - it is the highest doctorate available in science...given for a long and highly distinguished contribution to a field of science, in Richard's case, to EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY !
nordhorny 10 months ago