'science is a system of discovering truths...whilst keeping open-minded', (Dawkins). I find carbon-dating a nice example - dates are given within probability limits (62.5% I believe ?). i.e. Science is not giving a final 'Truth'. It progresses through debate - some theories demolished, some supported. Religion is opposite in stating a definitive 'Truth', any theological challenge being a personal attack (what!!). He who says, 'I am the truth', is either a god (hmm!) or has some ego!
Science... maybe wrong in certain areas... it's a refining process and a method created by the BEST that Human understanding is capable of. Religions are based on a LACK of understanding of the natural world... or superstitious relics of our past.
You might reread what you wrote... You F#@KING TROGLODYTE !!!
Exactly Richard! Science is about what we know from testing and observation and nowhere on planet earth is there any observable evidence of Biological change as envisioned by those who are BOUND by their presuppositions that there is no Creator, which qualifies Evolution as a RELIGION as religions are what people are BOUND to or by and atheists are certainly bound by their beliefs that evolution has occurred and that there is evidence to support such a belief! If you have evidence SHOW IT TO US!
@mikeeboy1000 What qualifies as evidence to you? Is it a flip book of photographed species, slowly evolving over the course of a million years? If so, can you see the impractical nature of your needs? There is a reason for detritivores; they breakdown biological remains to sustain the continuity of life. In result, samples of each special divergence is highly impractical with our current technology. The proof is there, it just isn't sufficient for bigots.
Lets end this shit once and for all - if religious insist on believing in religion over scientific fact, stop going to hospital and wasting tax payers money!
@ sophiasaurus - Quote: "(very sorry for the quality.)" - No need to apologize, the quality of the video is not bad. The audio is good and the picture quality is fine.
I was taught in primary school that the moon came from the ocean too!... and now I'm 21 doing a masters degree in physics. I feel like going back to that shitty primary school and telling them a thing or two!
@Whiteblooded Well, I'm 60 years old. Back when I went to school Jupiter had 12 moons and Saturn had 9 moons but since then, in more recent years we have discovered that Jupiter has 60 moons. Science doesn't know everything, nor does in claim to. It's a process of discovery and facts have to be updated with new discoveries. This is the way it has always been, unlike religion that arrogantly claims to know it all when in fact it doesn't. Science is more humble and less arrogant than religion.
It makes NO practical difference whether or not God exists !!! It does, however, make a practical difference to what degree we have Scientific understanding of nature... It's the ONLY thing that makes our lives BETTER then that of our ancestors.
@Redshift313 you make a good point.. but what i'd like to argue is that it does make a difference whether or not god exists.. since the beginning of time people have been killing each other because they have different beliefs.. so assuming they're all wrong.. it does make a difference
@nickthedick92 Time has proven that 99.9999999% of All previous Religions and their Belief Systems were WRONG and are EXTINCT ! So it's NOT an assumption that Religions are wrong... but Historic FACT !
Current Religious Beliefs are more a reflection of how Human Psycho-Social Conditioning works... then some kind of representation external to the MIND.
Human imagination created, GOD... Devils, Santa Claus, English, Spanish, Unicorns, Superheros, Vaccines, MRIs, the Microscope, GPS devices, etc...
@nickthedick92 I agree with your point of view. But current Religions too have been proven Historically Wrong or False. The only reason that are still around is because they have changed, adapted and evolved their Dogmas over time.
Unlike say Euclidean Geometry or a Pythagorean Theory etc... which are as valid today as the day they were created.
@BarryDong Wtf? The probability that everything there is in this universe may have appeared at random without a Creator is equal to the probability that by burning a library you can obtain a new and improved dictionary that was never seen before. But your completely brainless head will never be able to understand that.
@chris241289 Are you going to argue that string theory is incorrect as well? The uncertainty principle that shows electron particles behaving like waves show that our understanding of the universe is undoubtably fallible. However, it is falsification that makes scientific empirical study much more credible then that of subjective assumptions. The very assumptions one would develop, because one is incapable of admitting they can't handle such a deep unanswerable question.
Well you know, burning a library could actually make a new dictionary appear- according to the laws of quantum mechanics- it'd just take a hell of a long time. Not that I take your comparison very seriously at all, as it clearly isn't, but EVEN that is plausible. If there was a pre-existing form of causation before our space-time, the primordial universe could've been waiting around "billions of years" before anything happened- and the improbability vanishes.
@Redshift313 Exactly as I said. It is waaay too dificult for you to understand something like that. You feel you know everything. But you may be wrong.
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
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
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.
Every evolutionist would say there is a massive and overwhelming evidence of evolution. I have been searching for so long for the evidence that giraffe evolve in fine gradation or incremental steps from deer like four legged animals having short necks and long antlers. Please present a series of at least 10 animals showing gradual neck changes.
@daogdaog ...10 animals? Where'd you pulll that number from? And why does the overwhelming amount of evidence have to include something so concise and arbitrary? Isn't it enough to have evidence that things liek the giraffe cvould evolve, find an ancestor, and show how it could have happened? Not that I'm saying we dont have a lot of evidence that the giraffe evolve,d Talk Origins is loaded with it. But all I'm saying is that your standards for evidence seem a bit unreasonable.
@BigLundi From a four legged deer like animals having short neck and long antler plus changes in internal organs to deal with high blood pressure to transform into a giraffe would require at least thousands of intermediate animals, So at least 10 animals would not be much to show fine incremental steps Darwin was looking for to support his claim. It is nothing if you have massive and overwhelming evidence . How can you show fine gradation if there are magical jumps in morphology?
@daogdaog Well, for one, the fact that we have found as many fossils as we have is extraordinary, let alone 10 specific instances that you're looking for. For two, we DO have several species that show a basis for the morphology of the Giraffe. There are many peer reviewed papers explaining exactly how the giraffe's neck could have evolved, and why it would concerning Natural Selection. Do you honestly think fossils are the only evidence considered for evolution?
@daogdaog Well, for one, the fact that we have found as many fossils as we have is extraordinary, let alone 10 specific instances that you're looking for. For two, we DO have several species that show a basis for the morphology of the Giraffe. There are many peer reviewed papers explaining exactly how the giraffe's neck could have evolved, and why it would concerning Natural Selection. Do you honestly think fossils are the only evidence considered for evolution?
@daogdaog Darwin already explained back in 1868 actually how the neck could have evolved through use of the natural selection and evolutionary processes. As long as it's a plausible explanation that uses evolution, and of course, evolution it vastly supported b over a quarter million papers, thousands of transitional fossilss, DNA evidence, Atavisms, ERV's, and observed speciation, then using this expanation is not only fully plausible, but highly likely as well.
@BigLundi Darwin also explained back then in chapter 6 that if there is no evidence of fine gradation his theory of natural selection would be a failure. Over a quarter million papers yet no evidence of a jump into 4 meters difference in giraffe's neck from its supposed ancestors. Giraffe is the iconic example of millions of biology books. Where is that massive evidence? You may use DNA if you have any to show fine gradation darwin was looking for to support one specie turning to new specie.
@daogdaog You are aware that the wquarter million papers are all individual pieces of evidence right? You are aware that we have observed Giraffe's necks increasing in size EVEN NOW, and have discerned reasons for why backed up by reasoning and logic. You are aware that the Giraffe's neck is aperfect example of science changing what it says due to new evidence, right?
@BigLundi Giraffes increasing in size EVEN NOW ? I am talking about fine gradation from giraffes supposed ancestors, animals before you call them giraffes, a jump of around 4 meters in neck's length, the internal organs, so many changes in giraffes body. It is almost magical. Since female giraffes are normally shorter by a meter, they must have starved and died out too along short necked animals.
@daogdaog A jump...of...4 meters...over a course of...millions of years. Not realy all that rediculous really, exsepcially when you take into account vestigial organs and how they work, the fact that the giraffe's ancestor could have very well had most of what the Giraffe has already, there's nothing saying each internal organ had to develop within the organism one at a time seperately.
Also, do you think biologists believe giraffes evolved because of...eating habits?
@BigLundi So there is no tons of massive and overwhelming fossil or mtDNA evidence of fine gradation of giraffe evolution, just speculative almost magical jump of 4 meters from an antelope into a giraffe.
@daogdaog Firstly, it's not speculative, since we can see the Giraffe's have these necks, and they're still growing, so there's no reason not to assume that they were much smaller at some point. Second, I alreadey told you the peer reviewed papers and observations are out there by the thousands, you can look, or you can not, your choice. The evidence is indeed there.
@BigLundi Well, it may not be speculative to you, but it is for me. From a small antelope animal to transform to a massive giraffe you have to stretch not just the neck but almost all parts of the ancestor antelope, change the internal organs to deal with giraffe's blood pressure and without the so called overwhelming fossil or mtDNA peer reviewed evidence of fine gradation is just speculation.
@daogdaog It's...speculative...to imagine...that something that is currently growing, was at one point smaller? WHAT?
Also, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding that an antelope ust became a giraffe. That's...so...not the case. We're talking about a common ancestor that alreadY HAD most of the organs, if not all of the organs that giraffes have, that had gradual mutations to increase neck size, which was encouraged by sexual selection. Also, I told you there's peer reviewed evidenc
@daogdaog somewhere between 5 to 23 million years ago. Also, they were 'deer like' but as you must know by now, they most certainly were not deer. :) There's nothing suggesting they didn't have all the primitive versions of the organs that giraffes have now, and we can trace the giraffe, through DNA and taxonomy, straight back to the Climacoceras. How...exactly...is that not enough evidence for you?
@BigLundi Again when exactly in time (in million years) did Climacoceras and okapi first exist? When Climacoceras first exist? and when okapi first exist? to show ancestor-descendant relation.
@BigLundi how is that even evidence? Science is about observational, testable methods of finding things. When has a deer EVER produced a non-deer to anyone? This evolution religion simply is not been observed. Please demonstrate anything that has been observed to produce offspring other than its kind.
@BigLundi sure. Kind is that of a Dog. Dogs produce more dogs, correct? A wolf can produce a great dane with enough variation, but these animals are still dogs. Yes? But you never see dogs producing non-dogs. However, what you stated was a major inconsistency with the idea evolution. "Deer do not produce non-deer. What are you talking about?" You say there is evolution (change of a species over time) yet you say that species cannot produce things other than their kind.
So a kind is a dog? Alright, how about we actually go on a taxonomical level?
You're using kind interchangeably with species. So I'm going to define kind to mean the same thing as species. If that's the case, all dogs descended from wolves count, but of course, you think 'dog' is itself a kind, so that can't be it, so DEFINE it. Giving an example is NOT a definition Are you incapable of doing so?
@rioyuske In fact, AronRa has an entire video showing that yes, indeed, we have observed evolution on a lot of different levels, in just about every single aimal we know of today. Here you go, if this doesn't convince you, you're just close minded. Sorry.
@BigLundi Uh, video on the foundations of false creationism? (I something similar) If that is your video, it does a wonderful job of explaining variation. But he then goes to say "And its easy to see how we could evolve over time" Which is a mistake evolutionists make. When did we see it evolve? You cant just imagine it to make it true. We can see and observe animals and their different variants, but a duck is still a duck. It will not morph into something other than a duck or have non-ducks.
@rioyuske ...Ok, then that's it, you don't have the capacity to understand evolution. If you can't understand the part where, "If I can walk 20 feet, I can walk 20 miles." then I dunno what to tell you. He even explains how when two isolated groups of the same species reproduce away from eachother, after many generations, their offspring will become infertile with the other isolated group's descendent offspring. How do you not see this? It's so simple.
@BigLundi I don't understand how species can, from nowhere, have new genetic material introduced from one generation to the next. This process needs to happen for the evolution of species to occur. Has it ever been demonstrated? The phenomenon you mentioned is different and the other example I can think of of morphing between generations always involves a loss of genetic material e.g. Downs Syndrome people with loss of a chromosome. Can you help me?
@croxleylad Gene duplication and deletions, I understand but , has it ever been demonstrated that an organism can produce offspring with genetic material that is new, or different from any which the parent contained?
@punksachoo Clearly if an organism has a sequence of genes that has been duplicated and it's ancestors do not then at some point an organism would have had a duplicate that was not present in the parent. Most of the time gene duplication has no effect on the organism so we would not be aware of it. Deletions and duplications are everywhere in our genes - we are very aware of new occurrences in humans when they are detrimental to the off-spring but 100% unaware when health is unaffected.
@croxleylad I think it's unfortunate that the word duplicate is used for something that is only similar and not exactly the same which is what the word duplicate means.
If species can only duplicate information or, create copies that are missing some information, how can it be possible for the introduction of new information.
Tell me where to find evidence of an animal or plant that has direct offspring that contains new/different information.
@punksachoo - duplication does refer to an exact copy. If you had bothered to read anything scientific you would know both copies mutate over time.
You keep asking for evidence at the point of change, where a duplication not present in a parent is found in a child and and I have already explained why it is unreasonable for us to expect to see this and that it is irrelevant. We can see duplicated genes within the genome which proves they exist.
Do the mutated genes have additional information contained in them?
I am more complicated than a cabbage so must have more genetic information in me than a cabbage.
For mutation to occur the genes must have information in them or an instruction in them telling them to mutate or alter; or they re-act to some outside stimulus which they must be programmed to re-act to in that way?
Direct me to where I can read about this please. Just for interest sake. Thanks.
@punksachoo Genes are simply self-replicating chemicals. They are normally very accurate but occasionally they are damaged or don't copy accurately. This is a mutation. It's not planned.
I would take a look at Dawkin's book "Greatest Show on Earth" for an interesting background to the whole subject. Wikipedia also has some good articles on genes and mutations that you can use to give you a bit of background and a pointer to other information and relevant sources of research.
@daogdaog Also, I find it hilarious that you say, "Evolutionists claim to have mountains of evidence, but they don't, cause I haven't seen them provide enough for Giraffe necks." Could you BE more obtuse? Do you just not listen when christian evangelicals say, "The DNA evidence alone are enough to prove evolution beyond all rational doubt"? You have no reason besides religious dogma to deny evolution, do you? Just admit it, it's true isn't it? :)
@glendaweil So listening to a 5 minute video of Dawkins speaking to what is obviously a completely brainwashed moron, you can't cite anything he said and refute it with evidence? I checked out your page... you appear to be a creationist drone who is as misinformed and lied to as any other in your class. So I ask again... cite something he says and refute it. Otherwise scamper off
@glendaweil I never said I was an atheist, you assumed I was. Have fun trolling Dawkins videos making yourself feel better about someone completely tearing down your misguided structure of life. Seek truth... So you really can't refute anything? You just bounce from video to video saying "He's dumb, what a jerk." You make intelligent theists look bad. You embarrass yourself and everyone whose ideology you share. THINK... or assume, which you clearly do well
@glendaweil I think that's the first thing you've actually listened to this entire time. I'm not an atheist, but I sure as hell don't subscribe to the rubbish and lies that you do. By the way transitional fossils DO exist. You ma'am are thoughtless. You have zero critical thinking skills, zero ability to refute, and zero credibility. Where do you even get off taking on someone who has 100x the education that you do and here we are back to square one, can you provide any evidence against Dawkins?
@Angryson111 Yea right your not an atheist like I believe that as far as evidence everytime he opens his mouth he spews out tons of evidence how much he hates god and relegion. As far as 100x time education just look at where his education took him the leading authoritiy on God hating atheist in the world I bet his mom is so proud thank God I am not as educated as him.
@glendaweil God gave you a brain, God gave you thought, God gave you authority over your own destiny. You choose not to use these gifts. It's a slap in God's face to not use the brain that was given to you. It's not righteous to blindly follow MAN'S awful interpretation of what God wants. Sleep tight little child for it appears you will never truly be awake.
@Angryson111 Yea and Dawkins interpretation is better yea right and I am using Gods gift the gift that allows me to seperate bs from fact which you seem to lack
@glendaweil I asked you to present some facts you were unable. Dawkins does not interpret, he is a scientist who uses scientific method, you are a joke. Crack an egg of knowledge on me that shows your gift of separating bs from fact. If you cannot, then stop. You have already made a huge fool of yourself. How old are you? I think you need guidance. If you are happy in your ignorance, then do it quietly.
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
Topics: 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 etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
Does science teach morality. In my bio class I didn't learn about a way of living. Science does not teach about how to co exist, how to live a happy life, the search for my meaning of life. Religion helps with that void. Science is the quest for physical truth. Religion is the soul's quest for meaning.
@SwuaveWEB I can't recall the reason in particular for this comment, as it was some time ago. In brief, Dawkins has made it clear on a number of occasions that the so-called postmodern critics of the Enlightenment arising after 1960 (e.g., Thomas Kuhn, Jaque Derrida, Michel Foucault) impose little to no threat to the socially progressive applications of science, or the view that science lifts the veil of reality and represents certain Truth. (cont.)
He never addresses the internal criticisms of science, like W.V. Quines criticism of logical positivism, which was the dominant philosophy of science for most of the 20th c., or Kuhn's interpretation that changes in scientific theory (revolutions) are not characterized by deductive logic. Dawkins only ever addresses theology, as if it were the only contention standing between our acceptance that science was the ultimate knowledge of reality. It isn't.
I wonder if it's possible that God created the Earth to look like it had a history.. He created Adam as a man, not a boy. So why couldn't he have done the same with the Earth?
@xSyntheticChaosx sure and he also created the NGC 4414 to look like it had a history. It just LOOKS like it is 62 million light-years away but in reality it's within max. 6000 light years after all the universe is 6000 years old. Nevermind that that galaxy alone is 17,000 parsecs in diameter it just LOOKS to be that big but it cannot be because...God created Adam as a man.
@xSyntheticChaosx I wonder whomKain and Abel (before the murder incident) were married to / together with? To their sisters?? Are we all product of incest??
I went to a school for seven years under the ACE curriculum. It is incredibly simplistic and ingrained with doctrine, so much that the curriculum is written AROUND the doctrine. The science subjects are strongly Christian and ignore many things in order to promote other ideas, such as humans and dinosaurs coexisting, a solid layer of ice encapsulating the world which was melted to create the great flood.
Just so much baseless conjecture. I'm lucky to have gotten out with my intelligence intact.
@Tsukino85 Being a palaeontologist, it always annoys but still amuses me how people have the sheer nerve to tell children that dinosaurs were drowned in a flood a few thousand years ago, and that they lived with humans.
That theory is about as believable as a man who was nailed to a cross coming back to life after being shut in a tomb, or that one of this strange man's followers saw that in the future, some giant who lives in the clouds will destroy the world.
i'm glad theres reasonable,intelligent people like dawkins encouraging everyone to question religion as to reclaim their freedom, its abuse to bombard children with nonsense,people have goodness without godness
"Science on one side"--this dichotomous view of truth was probably what Dr. Dawkins was raised with--faith in one box, science in another. But how does that work? Can one say, "I believe both of these areas of human understanding to be true, but not when they come into the room same room together?" Would it not make more sense to let the two disciplines interact with one another, shedding light one on the other?
The McGrath interview is enough to drive anyone to insanity! McGrath always comments about how "interesting" something is, and continues with his pre programmed responses with no regard to the actual question. Its like he has a booklet that tells him what to say on broad topics and just goes on with that...with the precursor of "Oh that's very interesting." Bleh.
That is EXACTLY what I thought. He ended up in a situation where he was claiming, for instance any child that survives something it shouldn't have was divine intervention, and any natural disaster that may happen has nothing to do with God.
The man's reason, when asked, for changing to Christianity from Atheism (or Agnosticism rather) is that when you believe in God, everything becomes "more interesting". No way to get a straight answer out of him :(
In the interview I saw McGrath got his ass handed to him. He was unable to answer simple questions to the point that both Dawkins and the producer had to call him twice on it...
@duckingndiving : i am a buddhist as it happens. one of the tenets of buddhism is an infinite universe and conscious beings being eternal which ties in with the never ending cycle of big bangs you refer to (actually the big crunch is now being refuted by physicists as thy have discovered that the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down as they previously thought thereby implying an eventual reversal and contraction back inro a big crunch. but rather the expansion and outward movement and
yes ancient aliens , i've heard this and seen loads of stuff on you tube about it! its amazing. i believe in it. it seems quite possible. but why are you bringing it up? are you suggesting they created us. yes. thats possible too. so perhaps they are our biological creaters but then they themselves would have had to be created by somethin. there are a lot of amazing possibilities out there. we just don't know any of it. but to me none of those rule out the possibility of a single cosmic creator.
aliens are just another strand of creation. there are also other dimnsions and other universes and infinite other forms of living things both there and in this universe of which we know nothing but i believe they were created by a central entity at some point in time and space.
as physics is beginning to relaise, matter is almost an illusion, the key 'stuff'' of the known universe is not physical matter but spiritual energy.
god is like an ingenius zany sci-fi director! i love it! lol.
i adore hawkins and am a stalwart believer in evolution and empirical science. but i'm also deeply religious and believe in god. i believe in both. all that exists i believe was created by a singular higher being. i don't believe in the scriptures. but it is god who invented every known law of nature. science is supreme, but scientists only focus on what can be seen. but all that we can see is not all that there is. the metaphysical is as just a bigger part of the known universe.
what religion are you?because evolution has disproven all the man-made ones,i am an atheist but even i cannot deny a supreme creator,the universe itself is the mathematical god that is reprograms our existance in an never ending cycle of big bangs and big crunches,it is an infinite system that we are all part of
@ducking n diving: and speed of the celestial bodies is actually accelerating! physicists now say that this expansion will just continue into infinity until our universe is diluted) evolution only disproves world religions for conservative orthodox members who insist on taking every word of the scriptures literally. buddhism teaches there is a super soul of whom we're a part and all that we are, all that we see and feel spiritually is a manisfestation of that super soul, that higher entity
that we return after each life we assume in an endless cycle of lives. you say you believe in a supreme creator, i dont see how you can then be an atheist. i guess you mean you don't believe in world religions, rather than you do not believe in god. buddhsm doesn't have a scripture that it doggedly sticks to and although it believes in the existence of a supreme being, it doesn't obssess with him, it places more responsibity on the individual in saying and doing the right things for their own
reaponsibility. so in light of all the above, i believe in a god and i believe in science for i believe all the extant laws of physics which have made the universed possible and triggered evolution on this planet which has made life and us possible, and i believe all these things to be the manisfestations of that central supreme creator. sorry for long explanation but i wanted to explain how i believe in god and evolution/science simultaneously!
hello i am happy you are a buddhist and thx for replying,yes i know physicists have proven the universe is indeed accelerating in its expansion,but i also believe this is only because gravity is letting itself be overwhelmed by the original hypermassive explosion of matter,the universe is still young,but as everything spirals away it will eventually slow down,burn out and be drawn back into the higher gravity of the center,this is nearly an infinite time away as of yet,continued
however when the last atom is pulled into this point of singularity,then the inward pressure and implosion will once again create an outward spiral of a reborn universe,will this be a reincarnation of the original,who knows?your belief of an spiritual afterlife is very similiar to a BBC series i have watched called "The Day I Died NDE+Consciusness"This documentarry is here on YT and examines near death experiences,i would suggest watching all 6 parts and giving me your opinion on this phenomena
yes, perhaps your right. new notions are surfacing all the time. there is so much we dont understand. one of the most amazing videos i have seen on youtube is 'consciousness drives reality'. i strongle urge you to have a look. i feel, god, 4lack of a better word, has in his generousity made us a part of his on going creation process. i also luv all the videos on near death experiences which i found awesome. it is a really amazing world we live in, i feel lucky to be apart of it. nothing 2fear.
yes i will check this video out,thank you very much,indeed it is a great mysterious world we have evolved in,science is giving us a lot of answers to the greater universe,hopefully someday our descendants will be able to fullfill our curious nature and find out the answers,some day....
great minds think alike! yes i have watched the 'day i died' series! i was rivetted! astonishing testinomies and glimpses into what awaits us all! everyone should watch that video for it will make them understand the importance of living compassionate and meaningful lives. i don't feel islam per se is the problem but the rightwing faction of it is appalling and should be condemned but this faction is prevalent in many religions and ideologies, not merely islam. i also feel there are
other life forms scattered in the known and unkknown universe who are not only thousands if not millions of years ahead of us technically, but spiritually. they are more attuned with the cosmic consciousness that underpins the universe and god. our understanding of god and spirituality is infantile in comparison. the bottom line is, we have to love and accept everyone and everything. there is nothing to fear or hate. we are all cut from the same cloth. we are one. a part not a apart.
i wish i was as positive as you regarding islam,it is the most dangerous idealology of all,it is not even a religion,it is an inhumane death cult that is a threat to all other religions,especially buddhism,i can see the western world expending even more resources fighting extremism instead of using our last reserves on science,however i do not want to depress you with politics,i am sure the greater humanity will push on to greater achievements,i see by your response that you believe in cont-
alien lifeforms,well it is a logical conclusion that we are not alone and i do believe we are being observed closely,our star the sun is quite young compared to others and due to the fact that life can exist in even extreme envionments it only makes sense that their are similiar older planets to our own,i believe these beings would have to be humanoid in appearance in order to interact with their enviroments cont-
i can totally see why you believe what you believe about islam and i respect it. i am not a proponent nor an advocate of islam. but i do separate the militant ring wingers from main stream islam. imagine if an individual in a town murdered someone and then the whole town was labelled murderers! surely, that would be bizarre and illogical! ans alien life forms.... another astonishing reality of the universe. i love all the theories about ancient astronauts! at first it seemed ludicurous
but on closer inspection and looking at the breadth of possible evidence, it seems quite feasible! tantalising stuff! i wonder what the religious ideas of aliens is. my feeling is, as well as being technically adcanced, they will also be spiritually thousands, maybe even millions of years, ahead of us. maybe they will be a lot more at one with the cosmic consciousness and have no need to argue and kill over religious and national differences. i wonder why they come here? another great mystery.
,but as you say will have a greater intelligence and conciousness than we could imagine,i expect them to have developed computers that are greater than their own minds to enable them to physically accelerate advancements in technology and space travel,some scientists here on earth predict that humanity will also be capable of making such a super computer within a few decades,this will give us a greater knowledge of the universe and of course continually speed up our development
as you can see i have a very strong dislike for islam,it is the great pretender and it retards human development and needs to be suppressed from civilization,Buddhism is however the polar opposite of this,so i see you have made a good choice and i wish you happiness in this doctrine,it seems far more superior to all the others and teaches love for all of humanity and life in general,thank you
could someone possibly tell me what bullshit theory he is on about.... the moon came out of the sea. or is he refering to some crap he heard in church.
This has been flagged as spam show
Why are the atheists so sad during a sex act? They have no god to whom to tell their joy.
chris241289 1 month ago
'science is a system of discovering truths...whilst keeping open-minded', (Dawkins). I find carbon-dating a nice example - dates are given within probability limits (62.5% I believe ?). i.e. Science is not giving a final 'Truth'. It progresses through debate - some theories demolished, some supported. Religion is opposite in stating a definitive 'Truth', any theological challenge being a personal attack (what!!). He who says, 'I am the truth', is either a god (hmm!) or has some ego!
FilNovak1 1 month ago
Science... maybe wrong in certain areas... it's a refining process and a method created by the BEST that Human understanding is capable of. Religions are based on a LACK of understanding of the natural world... or superstitious relics of our past.
You might reread what you wrote... You F#@KING TROGLODYTE !!!
Redshift313 3 months ago
This man also smokes crack rocks along with Wendy Wright.
cannywf1 3 months ago
SCIENCE is knowing and observing?"where were you when the universe was created."
Erstaunliche8Jungen 3 months ago
Exactly Richard! Science is about what we know from testing and observation and nowhere on planet earth is there any observable evidence of Biological change as envisioned by those who are BOUND by their presuppositions that there is no Creator, which qualifies Evolution as a RELIGION as religions are what people are BOUND to or by and atheists are certainly bound by their beliefs that evolution has occurred and that there is evidence to support such a belief! If you have evidence SHOW IT TO US!
mikeeboy1000 3 months ago
@mikeeboy1000 What qualifies as evidence to you? Is it a flip book of photographed species, slowly evolving over the course of a million years? If so, can you see the impractical nature of your needs? There is a reason for detritivores; they breakdown biological remains to sustain the continuity of life. In result, samples of each special divergence is highly impractical with our current technology. The proof is there, it just isn't sufficient for bigots.
sonicblade12345 in reply to mikeeboy1000 (Show the comment) 1 month ago
Lets end this shit once and for all - if religious insist on believing in religion over scientific fact, stop going to hospital and wasting tax payers money!
mojoswoptopz 3 months ago
I want to connect the dots on that guys wart things
weefeatures 4 months ago
@ sophiasaurus - Quote: "(very sorry for the quality.)" - No need to apologize, the quality of the video is not bad. The audio is good and the picture quality is fine.
BigFatHeretic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
According to the first law of thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed.Then where did all the energy in our universal come from?
Does it have somethings to do with this same force being timeless?
strangerlover11 4 months ago
the school should just change its name to ""The christian religious conservative tory school"
gulbirk 4 months ago
I was taught in primary school that the moon came from the ocean too!... and now I'm 21 doing a masters degree in physics. I feel like going back to that shitty primary school and telling them a thing or two!
Whiteblooded 4 months ago
@Whiteblooded Well, I'm 60 years old. Back when I went to school Jupiter had 12 moons and Saturn had 9 moons but since then, in more recent years we have discovered that Jupiter has 60 moons. Science doesn't know everything, nor does in claim to. It's a process of discovery and facts have to be updated with new discoveries. This is the way it has always been, unlike religion that arrogantly claims to know it all when in fact it doesn't. Science is more humble and less arrogant than religion.
BigFatHeretic in reply to Whiteblooded (Show the comment) 4 months ago
Why doesn't he pray for God to take away his fucking facial warts?
TenWhoWereTaken 5 months ago
It makes NO practical difference whether or not God exists !!! It does, however, make a practical difference to what degree we have Scientific understanding of nature... It's the ONLY thing that makes our lives BETTER then that of our ancestors.
Redshift313 5 months ago 15
@Redshift313 you make a good point.. but what i'd like to argue is that it does make a difference whether or not god exists.. since the beginning of time people have been killing each other because they have different beliefs.. so assuming they're all wrong.. it does make a difference
nickthedick92 in reply to Redshift313 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@nickthedick92 Time has proven that 99.9999999% of All previous Religions and their Belief Systems were WRONG and are EXTINCT ! So it's NOT an assumption that Religions are wrong... but Historic FACT !
Current Religious Beliefs are more a reflection of how Human Psycho-Social Conditioning works... then some kind of representation external to the MIND.
Human imagination created, GOD... Devils, Santa Claus, English, Spanish, Unicorns, Superheros, Vaccines, MRIs, the Microscope, GPS devices, etc...
Redshift313 in reply to nickthedick92 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@Redshift313 i can't agree more.. except the religions of today that are NOT extinct, are still pretty dangerous
nickthedick92 in reply to Redshift313 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@nickthedick92 I agree with your point of view. But current Religions too have been proven Historically Wrong or False. The only reason that are still around is because they have changed, adapted and evolved their Dogmas over time.
Unlike say Euclidean Geometry or a Pythagorean Theory etc... which are as valid today as the day they were created.
Redshift313 in reply to nickthedick92 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@Redshift313 fshizzle
nickthedick92 in reply to Redshift313 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@Redshift313 Stick your science up your asshole.
chris241289 in reply to Redshift313 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@chris241289 Stick your imaginary friend up your asshole.
BarryDong in reply to chris241289 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@BarryDong Wtf? The probability that everything there is in this universe may have appeared at random without a Creator is equal to the probability that by burning a library you can obtain a new and improved dictionary that was never seen before. But your completely brainless head will never be able to understand that.
chris241289 in reply to BarryDong (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@chris241289 Are you going to argue that string theory is incorrect as well? The uncertainty principle that shows electron particles behaving like waves show that our understanding of the universe is undoubtably fallible. However, it is falsification that makes scientific empirical study much more credible then that of subjective assumptions. The very assumptions one would develop, because one is incapable of admitting they can't handle such a deep unanswerable question.
sonicblade12345 in reply to chris241289 (Show the comment) 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chris241289
Well you know, burning a library could actually make a new dictionary appear- according to the laws of quantum mechanics- it'd just take a hell of a long time. Not that I take your comparison very seriously at all, as it clearly isn't, but EVEN that is plausible. If there was a pre-existing form of causation before our space-time, the primordial universe could've been waiting around "billions of years" before anything happened- and the improbability vanishes.
GodTheHypothesis in reply to chris241289 (Show the comment) 4 days ago
@chris241289 Why don't you go and prey to imaginary entities the next time you get sick... instead of going to the Doctor... FOOL !!!
Redshift313 in reply to chris241289 (Show the comment) 3 months ago 2
@Redshift313 Exactly as I said. It is waaay too dificult for you to understand something like that. You feel you know everything. But you may be wrong.
chris241289 in reply to Redshift313 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
Comment removed
jcook51 in reply to Redshift313 (Show the comment) 1 month ago in playlist Richard Dawkins vs. Adrian Hawkes 1-8
@Redshift313
Yup, exactly, its a non-explanation. adding an assumption that doesnt help an ounce in understanding the universe should be disregarded.
RipTheJackR in reply to Redshift313 (Show the comment) 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
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
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 6 months ago
Every evolutionist would say there is a massive and overwhelming evidence of evolution. I have been searching for so long for the evidence that giraffe evolve in fine gradation or incremental steps from deer like four legged animals having short necks and long antlers. Please present a series of at least 10 animals showing gradual neck changes.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog ...10 animals? Where'd you pulll that number from? And why does the overwhelming amount of evidence have to include something so concise and arbitrary? Isn't it enough to have evidence that things liek the giraffe cvould evolve, find an ancestor, and show how it could have happened? Not that I'm saying we dont have a lot of evidence that the giraffe evolve,d Talk Origins is loaded with it. But all I'm saying is that your standards for evidence seem a bit unreasonable.
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi From a four legged deer like animals having short neck and long antler plus changes in internal organs to deal with high blood pressure to transform into a giraffe would require at least thousands of intermediate animals, So at least 10 animals would not be much to show fine incremental steps Darwin was looking for to support his claim. It is nothing if you have massive and overwhelming evidence . How can you show fine gradation if there are magical jumps in morphology?
daogdaog in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog Well, for one, the fact that we have found as many fossils as we have is extraordinary, let alone 10 specific instances that you're looking for. For two, we DO have several species that show a basis for the morphology of the Giraffe. There are many peer reviewed papers explaining exactly how the giraffe's neck could have evolved, and why it would concerning Natural Selection. Do you honestly think fossils are the only evidence considered for evolution?
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog Well, for one, the fact that we have found as many fossils as we have is extraordinary, let alone 10 specific instances that you're looking for. For two, we DO have several species that show a basis for the morphology of the Giraffe. There are many peer reviewed papers explaining exactly how the giraffe's neck could have evolved, and why it would concerning Natural Selection. Do you honestly think fossils are the only evidence considered for evolution?
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog Darwin already explained back in 1868 actually how the neck could have evolved through use of the natural selection and evolutionary processes. As long as it's a plausible explanation that uses evolution, and of course, evolution it vastly supported b over a quarter million papers, thousands of transitional fossilss, DNA evidence, Atavisms, ERV's, and observed speciation, then using this expanation is not only fully plausible, but highly likely as well.
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi Darwin also explained back then in chapter 6 that if there is no evidence of fine gradation his theory of natural selection would be a failure. Over a quarter million papers yet no evidence of a jump into 4 meters difference in giraffe's neck from its supposed ancestors. Giraffe is the iconic example of millions of biology books. Where is that massive evidence? You may use DNA if you have any to show fine gradation darwin was looking for to support one specie turning to new specie.
daogdaog in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog You are aware that the wquarter million papers are all individual pieces of evidence right? You are aware that we have observed Giraffe's necks increasing in size EVEN NOW, and have discerned reasons for why backed up by reasoning and logic. You are aware that the Giraffe's neck is aperfect example of science changing what it says due to new evidence, right?
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi Giraffes increasing in size EVEN NOW ? I am talking about fine gradation from giraffes supposed ancestors, animals before you call them giraffes, a jump of around 4 meters in neck's length, the internal organs, so many changes in giraffes body. It is almost magical. Since female giraffes are normally shorter by a meter, they must have starved and died out too along short necked animals.
daogdaog in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog A jump...of...4 meters...over a course of...millions of years. Not realy all that rediculous really, exsepcially when you take into account vestigial organs and how they work, the fact that the giraffe's ancestor could have very well had most of what the Giraffe has already, there's nothing saying each internal organ had to develop within the organism one at a time seperately.
Also, do you think biologists believe giraffes evolved because of...eating habits?
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi So there is no tons of massive and overwhelming fossil or mtDNA evidence of fine gradation of giraffe evolution, just speculative almost magical jump of 4 meters from an antelope into a giraffe.
daogdaog in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog Firstly, it's not speculative, since we can see the Giraffe's have these necks, and they're still growing, so there's no reason not to assume that they were much smaller at some point. Second, I alreadey told you the peer reviewed papers and observations are out there by the thousands, you can look, or you can not, your choice. The evidence is indeed there.
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi Well, it may not be speculative to you, but it is for me. From a small antelope animal to transform to a massive giraffe you have to stretch not just the neck but almost all parts of the ancestor antelope, change the internal organs to deal with giraffe's blood pressure and without the so called overwhelming fossil or mtDNA peer reviewed evidence of fine gradation is just speculation.
daogdaog in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog It's...speculative...to imagine...that something that is currently growing, was at one point smaller? WHAT?
Also, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding that an antelope ust became a giraffe. That's...so...not the case. We're talking about a common ancestor that alreadY HAD most of the organs, if not all of the organs that giraffes have, that had gradual mutations to increase neck size, which was encouraged by sexual selection. Also, I told you there's peer reviewed evidenc
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi so which one is the earliest known giraffid and when it existed in relation to say okapi?
daogdaog in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog I believe it's the Climacoceras.
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi Climacoceras the deer like animal. So when exactly in time (in million years) did Climacoceras and okapi first existed?
daogdaog in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog somewhere between 5 to 23 million years ago. Also, they were 'deer like' but as you must know by now, they most certainly were not deer. :) There's nothing suggesting they didn't have all the primitive versions of the organs that giraffes have now, and we can trace the giraffe, through DNA and taxonomy, straight back to the Climacoceras. How...exactly...is that not enough evidence for you?
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigLundi Again when exactly in time (in million years) did Climacoceras and okapi first exist? When Climacoceras first exist? and when okapi first exist? to show ancestor-descendant relation.
daogdaog in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi how is that even evidence? Science is about observational, testable methods of finding things. When has a deer EVER produced a non-deer to anyone? This evolution religion simply is not been observed. Please demonstrate anything that has been observed to produce offspring other than its kind.
rioyuske in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@rioyuske Deers don't produce non deers. What are you talking about?
And define a kind. Because if you mean species, I've got a list of observed speciation like you wouldn't believe.
BigLundi in reply to rioyuske (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi sure. Kind is that of a Dog. Dogs produce more dogs, correct? A wolf can produce a great dane with enough variation, but these animals are still dogs. Yes? But you never see dogs producing non-dogs. However, what you stated was a major inconsistency with the idea evolution. "Deer do not produce non-deer. What are you talking about?" You say there is evolution (change of a species over time) yet you say that species cannot produce things other than their kind.
rioyuske in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@rioyuske You didn't define kind.
So a kind is a dog? Alright, how about we actually go on a taxonomical level?
You're using kind interchangeably with species. So I'm going to define kind to mean the same thing as species. If that's the case, all dogs descended from wolves count, but of course, you think 'dog' is itself a kind, so that can't be it, so DEFINE it. Giving an example is NOT a definition Are you incapable of doing so?
BigLundi in reply to rioyuske (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@rioyuske In fact, AronRa has an entire video showing that yes, indeed, we have observed evolution on a lot of different levels, in just about every single aimal we know of today. Here you go, if this doesn't convince you, you're just close minded. Sorry.
watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y&feature=related
BigLundi in reply to rioyuske (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi Uh, video on the foundations of false creationism? (I something similar) If that is your video, it does a wonderful job of explaining variation. But he then goes to say "And its easy to see how we could evolve over time" Which is a mistake evolutionists make. When did we see it evolve? You cant just imagine it to make it true. We can see and observe animals and their different variants, but a duck is still a duck. It will not morph into something other than a duck or have non-ducks.
rioyuske in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@rioyuske ...Ok, then that's it, you don't have the capacity to understand evolution. If you can't understand the part where, "If I can walk 20 feet, I can walk 20 miles." then I dunno what to tell you. He even explains how when two isolated groups of the same species reproduce away from eachother, after many generations, their offspring will become infertile with the other isolated group's descendent offspring. How do you not see this? It's so simple.
BigLundi in reply to rioyuske (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@BigLundi I don't understand how species can, from nowhere, have new genetic material introduced from one generation to the next. This process needs to happen for the evolution of species to occur. Has it ever been demonstrated? The phenomenon you mentioned is different and the other example I can think of of morphing between generations always involves a loss of genetic material e.g. Downs Syndrome people with loss of a chromosome. Can you help me?
punksachoo in reply to BigLundi (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@punksachoo There is plenty of information available about gene duplication as well as deletions. It is a very well understood process.
croxleylad in reply to punksachoo (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@croxleylad Gene duplication and deletions, I understand but , has it ever been demonstrated that an organism can produce offspring with genetic material that is new, or different from any which the parent contained?
punksachoo in reply to croxleylad (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@punksachoo Clearly if an organism has a sequence of genes that has been duplicated and it's ancestors do not then at some point an organism would have had a duplicate that was not present in the parent. Most of the time gene duplication has no effect on the organism so we would not be aware of it. Deletions and duplications are everywhere in our genes - we are very aware of new occurrences in humans when they are detrimental to the off-spring but 100% unaware when health is unaffected.
croxleylad in reply to punksachoo (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@croxleylad I think it's unfortunate that the word duplicate is used for something that is only similar and not exactly the same which is what the word duplicate means.
If species can only duplicate information or, create copies that are missing some information, how can it be possible for the introduction of new information.
Tell me where to find evidence of an animal or plant that has direct offspring that contains new/different information.
punksachoo in reply to croxleylad (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@punksachoo - duplication does refer to an exact copy. If you had bothered to read anything scientific you would know both copies mutate over time.
You keep asking for evidence at the point of change, where a duplication not present in a parent is found in a child and and I have already explained why it is unreasonable for us to expect to see this and that it is irrelevant. We can see duplicated genes within the genome which proves they exist.
You really need to read this stuff for yourself.
croxleylad in reply to punksachoo (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@croxleylad
Do the mutated genes have additional information contained in them?
I am more complicated than a cabbage so must have more genetic information in me than a cabbage.
For mutation to occur the genes must have information in them or an instruction in them telling them to mutate or alter; or they re-act to some outside stimulus which they must be programmed to re-act to in that way?
Direct me to where I can read about this please. Just for interest sake. Thanks.
punksachoo in reply to croxleylad (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@punksachoo Genes are simply self-replicating chemicals. They are normally very accurate but occasionally they are damaged or don't copy accurately. This is a mutation. It's not planned.
I would take a look at Dawkin's book "Greatest Show on Earth" for an interesting background to the whole subject. Wikipedia also has some good articles on genes and mutations that you can use to give you a bit of background and a pointer to other information and relevant sources of research.
croxleylad in reply to punksachoo (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@croxleylad
Thanks! I will.
punksachoo in reply to croxleylad (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@rioyuske
Are you trying to argue against Evolution or just don't understand it.
Hhave you read anything about evolution and its processess, evidence and observation or are you just repeating creationist retoric.
Really is it you just don't get it, how can I help.
VideoAudioDisco09 in reply to rioyuske (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@daogdaog Also, I find it hilarious that you say, "Evolutionists claim to have mountains of evidence, but they don't, cause I haven't seen them provide enough for Giraffe necks." Could you BE more obtuse? Do you just not listen when christian evangelicals say, "The DNA evidence alone are enough to prove evolution beyond all rational doubt"? You have no reason besides religious dogma to deny evolution, do you? Just admit it, it's true isn't it? :)
BigLundi in reply to daogdaog (Show the comment) 6 months ago
Dawkins worlds leading expert on misinformation religious hater and mean time slinger of mountains of bs.
glendaweil 7 months ago
@glendaweil how so?
Angryson111 in reply to glendaweil (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@Angryson111 Have you been listening to him thats all you have to do.
glendaweil in reply to Angryson111 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@glendaweil Examples?
Angryson111 in reply to glendaweil (Show the comment) 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Examples?
Angryson111 in reply to glendaweil (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@Angryson111 What are you deaf just listen.
glendaweil in reply to Angryson111 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@glendaweil So listening to a 5 minute video of Dawkins speaking to what is obviously a completely brainwashed moron, you can't cite anything he said and refute it with evidence? I checked out your page... you appear to be a creationist drone who is as misinformed and lied to as any other in your class. So I ask again... cite something he says and refute it. Otherwise scamper off
Angryson111 in reply to glendaweil (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@Angryson111 Like I said just another atheist idiot believe what you will makes no difference to me but you and dawkins sooooo wrong.
glendaweil in reply to Angryson111 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@glendaweil I never said I was an atheist, you assumed I was. Have fun trolling Dawkins videos making yourself feel better about someone completely tearing down your misguided structure of life. Seek truth... So you really can't refute anything? You just bounce from video to video saying "He's dumb, what a jerk." You make intelligent theists look bad. You embarrass yourself and everyone whose ideology you share. THINK... or assume, which you clearly do well
Angryson111 in reply to glendaweil (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@Angryson111 So your not an atheist is that what your saying.
glendaweil in reply to Angryson111 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@glendaweil I think that's the first thing you've actually listened to this entire time. I'm not an atheist, but I sure as hell don't subscribe to the rubbish and lies that you do. By the way transitional fossils DO exist. You ma'am are thoughtless. You have zero critical thinking skills, zero ability to refute, and zero credibility. Where do you even get off taking on someone who has 100x the education that you do and here we are back to square one, can you provide any evidence against Dawkins?
Angryson111 in reply to glendaweil (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@Angryson111 Yea right your not an atheist like I believe that as far as evidence everytime he opens his mouth he spews out tons of evidence how much he hates god and relegion. As far as 100x time education just look at where his education took him the leading authoritiy on God hating atheist in the world I bet his mom is so proud thank God I am not as educated as him.
glendaweil in reply to Angryson111 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@glendaweil God gave you a brain, God gave you thought, God gave you authority over your own destiny. You choose not to use these gifts. It's a slap in God's face to not use the brain that was given to you. It's not righteous to blindly follow MAN'S awful interpretation of what God wants. Sleep tight little child for it appears you will never truly be awake.
Angryson111 in reply to glendaweil (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@Angryson111 Yea and Dawkins interpretation is better yea right and I am using Gods gift the gift that allows me to seperate bs from fact which you seem to lack
glendaweil in reply to Angryson111 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@glendaweil I asked you to present some facts you were unable. Dawkins does not interpret, he is a scientist who uses scientific method, you are a joke. Crack an egg of knowledge on me that shows your gift of separating bs from fact. If you cannot, then stop. You have already made a huge fool of yourself. How old are you? I think you need guidance. If you are happy in your ignorance, then do it quietly.
Angryson111 in reply to glendaweil (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@Angryson111 More atheistic bs nonsense just what I would expect from a Dawkins groupie.
glendaweil in reply to Angryson111 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
God didnt do much for this guys appearance! Mingin.com
housty49 7 months ago
hmm i dont agree with confining knowledge to the doctrine but I also dont agree with hiding the doctrine away from the kids.
setnoset 7 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
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: 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 etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
Does science teach morality. In my bio class I didn't learn about a way of living. Science does not teach about how to co exist, how to live a happy life, the search for my meaning of life. Religion helps with that void. Science is the quest for physical truth. Religion is the soul's quest for meaning.
UltraEpicLoser 7 months ago
Dawkins is the most patient man in the World.
kaduisaui 7 months ago 13
"It started in America..." Why does my heart sink every time I hear those words....
CobinRain 8 months ago
@CobinRain looool, well said!
burnsie999 in reply to CobinRain (Show the comment) 7 months ago
DAVID BRENT HAHA
highlanderdurp 9 months ago in playlist Science vs Religion
America pollutes the world in more ways! I am so embarrassed that we are exporting our CHRISTIAN NUTTERY!
Viracocha711 9 months ago
Is gthat not ricki Gervais
johneamer 10 months ago
I have just realized that I've seen this some time ago and to my way of thinking it's very close to mind abuse. Noahs what?
kramdoogs 11 months ago
Why does Dawkins continue to act like he doesn't know the philosophy of science? New atheists tend to remind me of logical positivists.
featheon 11 months ago
@featheon can you elaborate on that?
SwuaveWEB in reply to featheon (Show the comment) 8 months ago
@SwuaveWEB I can't recall the reason in particular for this comment, as it was some time ago. In brief, Dawkins has made it clear on a number of occasions that the so-called postmodern critics of the Enlightenment arising after 1960 (e.g., Thomas Kuhn, Jaque Derrida, Michel Foucault) impose little to no threat to the socially progressive applications of science, or the view that science lifts the veil of reality and represents certain Truth. (cont.)
featheon in reply to SwuaveWEB (Show the comment) 8 months ago
@featheon (cont.)
He never addresses the internal criticisms of science, like W.V. Quines criticism of logical positivism, which was the dominant philosophy of science for most of the 20th c., or Kuhn's interpretation that changes in scientific theory (revolutions) are not characterized by deductive logic. Dawkins only ever addresses theology, as if it were the only contention standing between our acceptance that science was the ultimate knowledge of reality. It isn't.
featheon in reply to featheon (Show the comment) 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has a vagina on the back of his knee. Google image it!
wallymeldrum 11 months ago
if the ark was true then he would of descover america
bellyzbad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we are god
arkonastriborg123 1 year ago
I wonder if it's possible that God created the Earth to look like it had a history.. He created Adam as a man, not a boy. So why couldn't he have done the same with the Earth?
xSyntheticChaosx 1 year ago
@xSyntheticChaosx sure and he also created the NGC 4414 to look like it had a history. It just LOOKS like it is 62 million light-years away but in reality it's within max. 6000 light years after all the universe is 6000 years old. Nevermind that that galaxy alone is 17,000 parsecs in diameter it just LOOKS to be that big but it cannot be because...God created Adam as a man.
sondano in reply to xSyntheticChaosx (Show the comment) 1 year ago
@xSyntheticChaosx There was no Adam... O.o We know this as fact due to biology and genetics.
DexxterMorgan in reply to xSyntheticChaosx (Show the comment) 1 year ago
@xSyntheticChaosx Because he didn't do either.
Bumblybee256 in reply to xSyntheticChaosx (Show the comment) 1 year ago
@xSyntheticChaosx fossil record please have a look.
It's wonderful mysterious and beautiful.
Open your mind to science
tubalooney in reply to xSyntheticChaosx (Show the comment) 1 year ago 2
@xSyntheticChaosx I wonder whomKain and Abel (before the murder incident) were married to / together with? To their sisters?? Are we all product of incest??
atheistfromaustria in reply to xSyntheticChaosx (Show the comment) 1 year ago
Dicky D in the house!!
twosixteen 1 year ago
i don't think hawkes is a bad person. he's just blind
icameupwiththisname 1 year ago
I love how Adrian cracks a joke, and Dawkins is like o_o
Dahvood 1 year ago 3
I went to a school for seven years under the ACE curriculum. It is incredibly simplistic and ingrained with doctrine, so much that the curriculum is written AROUND the doctrine. The science subjects are strongly Christian and ignore many things in order to promote other ideas, such as humans and dinosaurs coexisting, a solid layer of ice encapsulating the world which was melted to create the great flood.
Just so much baseless conjecture. I'm lucky to have gotten out with my intelligence intact.
Tsukino85 1 year ago 56
@Tsukino85 Being a palaeontologist, it always annoys but still amuses me how people have the sheer nerve to tell children that dinosaurs were drowned in a flood a few thousand years ago, and that they lived with humans.
That theory is about as believable as a man who was nailed to a cross coming back to life after being shut in a tomb, or that one of this strange man's followers saw that in the future, some giant who lives in the clouds will destroy the world.
hugosaurus in reply to Tsukino85 (Show the comment) 9 months ago
i'm glad theres reasonable,intelligent people like dawkins encouraging everyone to question religion as to reclaim their freedom, its abuse to bombard children with nonsense,people have goodness without godness
midnightmorning 1 year ago 3
This is so horrible. This kind of education causes all the shit usa and the world is facing today. Adrian Hawkes is a bag of shit.
bary1234 1 year ago 6
dawkins-shittin on these fools.
RaabBlog 1 year ago
funny strange moment about the moon topic near the end
lopytube 1 year ago
dawkins is superb
InHousePussy 1 year ago
"Science on one side"--this dichotomous view of truth was probably what Dr. Dawkins was raised with--faith in one box, science in another. But how does that work? Can one say, "I believe both of these areas of human understanding to be true, but not when they come into the room same room together?" Would it not make more sense to let the two disciplines interact with one another, shedding light one on the other?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
your seeing shit!!!! lol
theonlywayisgay 1 year ago
The McGrath interview is enough to drive anyone to insanity! McGrath always comments about how "interesting" something is, and continues with his pre programmed responses with no regard to the actual question. Its like he has a booklet that tells him what to say on broad topics and just goes on with that...with the precursor of "Oh that's very interesting." Bleh.
ChoraNym 2 years ago
That is EXACTLY what I thought. He ended up in a situation where he was claiming, for instance any child that survives something it shouldn't have was divine intervention, and any natural disaster that may happen has nothing to do with God.
The man's reason, when asked, for changing to Christianity from Atheism (or Agnosticism rather) is that when you believe in God, everything becomes "more interesting". No way to get a straight answer out of him :(
retnuHDJ in reply to ChoraNym (Show the comment) 2 years ago
Has that guy left his face on a windowsill too long or something - WTF
trooperJac 2 years ago
this guy has a sarcastic face
TheNewAlias 2 years ago
does he look like ricky gervais? or am i seeing shit?
zanzibartraveler09 2 years ago 4
possibly. are you watching this while having a dump?
MrSyrett in reply to zanzibartraveler09 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
clever.
zanzibartraveler09 in reply to MrSyrett (Show the comment) 2 years ago
@zanzibartraveler09 He does have a small resemblance.
Tsteve08 in reply to zanzibartraveler09 (Show the comment) 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the best interview is with Alister McGrath...Richard Dawkins is really defeated on that one..
Alister clearly shows him that its completely insane the idea that science (specially his Richard's area) leads to atheism...
Tomsedated 2 years ago
In the interview I saw McGrath got his ass handed to him. He was unable to answer simple questions to the point that both Dawkins and the producer had to call him twice on it...
Falloutmoon in reply to Tomsedated (Show the comment) 2 years ago
@Tomsedated haha eveyone disagrees with you... btw Dawkins owned McGrath who was completely flustered and dancing around questions..
sstruyf89 in reply to Tomsedated (Show the comment) 2 years ago 2
From one side.on the other side,the guys an idiot...
kierand6533 2 years ago
@duckingndiving : i am a buddhist as it happens. one of the tenets of buddhism is an infinite universe and conscious beings being eternal which ties in with the never ending cycle of big bangs you refer to (actually the big crunch is now being refuted by physicists as thy have discovered that the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down as they previously thought thereby implying an eventual reversal and contraction back inro a big crunch. but rather the expansion and outward movement and
naughtyboymessiah 2 years ago
life is more weird and wonderful thgan we can ever imagine. there is so so so much we don't know and perhaps will never understand.
naughtyboymessiah 2 years ago
yes ancient aliens , i've heard this and seen loads of stuff on you tube about it! its amazing. i believe in it. it seems quite possible. but why are you bringing it up? are you suggesting they created us. yes. thats possible too. so perhaps they are our biological creaters but then they themselves would have had to be created by somethin. there are a lot of amazing possibilities out there. we just don't know any of it. but to me none of those rule out the possibility of a single cosmic creator.
naughtyboymessiah 2 years ago
aliens are just another strand of creation. there are also other dimnsions and other universes and infinite other forms of living things both there and in this universe of which we know nothing but i believe they were created by a central entity at some point in time and space.
as physics is beginning to relaise, matter is almost an illusion, the key 'stuff'' of the known universe is not physical matter but spiritual energy.
god is like an ingenius zany sci-fi director! i love it! lol.
naughtyboymessiah 2 years ago
i adore hawkins and am a stalwart believer in evolution and empirical science. but i'm also deeply religious and believe in god. i believe in both. all that exists i believe was created by a singular higher being. i don't believe in the scriptures. but it is god who invented every known law of nature. science is supreme, but scientists only focus on what can be seen. but all that we can see is not all that there is. the metaphysical is as just a bigger part of the known universe.
naughtyboymessiah 2 years ago
what religion are you?because evolution has disproven all the man-made ones,i am an atheist but even i cannot deny a supreme creator,the universe itself is the mathematical god that is reprograms our existance in an never ending cycle of big bangs and big crunches,it is an infinite system that we are all part of
DuckingNDiving in reply to naughtyboymessiah (Show the comment) 2 years ago
@ducking n diving: and speed of the celestial bodies is actually accelerating! physicists now say that this expansion will just continue into infinity until our universe is diluted) evolution only disproves world religions for conservative orthodox members who insist on taking every word of the scriptures literally. buddhism teaches there is a super soul of whom we're a part and all that we are, all that we see and feel spiritually is a manisfestation of that super soul, that higher entity
naughtyboymessiah in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
that we return after each life we assume in an endless cycle of lives. you say you believe in a supreme creator, i dont see how you can then be an atheist. i guess you mean you don't believe in world religions, rather than you do not believe in god. buddhsm doesn't have a scripture that it doggedly sticks to and although it believes in the existence of a supreme being, it doesn't obssess with him, it places more responsibity on the individual in saying and doing the right things for their own
naughtyboymessiah in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
reaponsibility. so in light of all the above, i believe in a god and i believe in science for i believe all the extant laws of physics which have made the universed possible and triggered evolution on this planet which has made life and us possible, and i believe all these things to be the manisfestations of that central supreme creator. sorry for long explanation but i wanted to explain how i believe in god and evolution/science simultaneously!
naughtyboymessiah in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
hello i am happy you are a buddhist and thx for replying,yes i know physicists have proven the universe is indeed accelerating in its expansion,but i also believe this is only because gravity is letting itself be overwhelmed by the original hypermassive explosion of matter,the universe is still young,but as everything spirals away it will eventually slow down,burn out and be drawn back into the higher gravity of the center,this is nearly an infinite time away as of yet,continued
DuckingNDiving in reply to naughtyboymessiah (Show the comment) 2 years ago
however when the last atom is pulled into this point of singularity,then the inward pressure and implosion will once again create an outward spiral of a reborn universe,will this be a reincarnation of the original,who knows?your belief of an spiritual afterlife is very similiar to a BBC series i have watched called "The Day I Died NDE+Consciusness"This documentarry is here on YT and examines near death experiences,i would suggest watching all 6 parts and giving me your opinion on this phenomena
DuckingNDiving in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
yes, perhaps your right. new notions are surfacing all the time. there is so much we dont understand. one of the most amazing videos i have seen on youtube is 'consciousness drives reality'. i strongle urge you to have a look. i feel, god, 4lack of a better word, has in his generousity made us a part of his on going creation process. i also luv all the videos on near death experiences which i found awesome. it is a really amazing world we live in, i feel lucky to be apart of it. nothing 2fear.
naughtyboymessiah in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
yes i will check this video out,thank you very much,indeed it is a great mysterious world we have evolved in,science is giving us a lot of answers to the greater universe,hopefully someday our descendants will be able to fullfill our curious nature and find out the answers,some day....
DuckingNDiving in reply to naughtyboymessiah (Show the comment) 2 years ago
great minds think alike! yes i have watched the 'day i died' series! i was rivetted! astonishing testinomies and glimpses into what awaits us all! everyone should watch that video for it will make them understand the importance of living compassionate and meaningful lives. i don't feel islam per se is the problem but the rightwing faction of it is appalling and should be condemned but this faction is prevalent in many religions and ideologies, not merely islam. i also feel there are
naughtyboymessiah in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
other life forms scattered in the known and unkknown universe who are not only thousands if not millions of years ahead of us technically, but spiritually. they are more attuned with the cosmic consciousness that underpins the universe and god. our understanding of god and spirituality is infantile in comparison. the bottom line is, we have to love and accept everyone and everything. there is nothing to fear or hate. we are all cut from the same cloth. we are one. a part not a apart.
naughtyboymessiah in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
i wish i was as positive as you regarding islam,it is the most dangerous idealology of all,it is not even a religion,it is an inhumane death cult that is a threat to all other religions,especially buddhism,i can see the western world expending even more resources fighting extremism instead of using our last reserves on science,however i do not want to depress you with politics,i am sure the greater humanity will push on to greater achievements,i see by your response that you believe in cont-
DuckingNDiving in reply to naughtyboymessiah (Show the comment) 2 years ago
alien lifeforms,well it is a logical conclusion that we are not alone and i do believe we are being observed closely,our star the sun is quite young compared to others and due to the fact that life can exist in even extreme envionments it only makes sense that their are similiar older planets to our own,i believe these beings would have to be humanoid in appearance in order to interact with their enviroments cont-
DuckingNDiving in reply to naughtyboymessiah (Show the comment) 2 years ago
i can totally see why you believe what you believe about islam and i respect it. i am not a proponent nor an advocate of islam. but i do separate the militant ring wingers from main stream islam. imagine if an individual in a town murdered someone and then the whole town was labelled murderers! surely, that would be bizarre and illogical! ans alien life forms.... another astonishing reality of the universe. i love all the theories about ancient astronauts! at first it seemed ludicurous
naughtyboymessiah in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
but on closer inspection and looking at the breadth of possible evidence, it seems quite feasible! tantalising stuff! i wonder what the religious ideas of aliens is. my feeling is, as well as being technically adcanced, they will also be spiritually thousands, maybe even millions of years, ahead of us. maybe they will be a lot more at one with the cosmic consciousness and have no need to argue and kill over religious and national differences. i wonder why they come here? another great mystery.
naughtyboymessiah in reply to DuckingNDiving (Show the comment) 2 years ago
,but as you say will have a greater intelligence and conciousness than we could imagine,i expect them to have developed computers that are greater than their own minds to enable them to physically accelerate advancements in technology and space travel,some scientists here on earth predict that humanity will also be capable of making such a super computer within a few decades,this will give us a greater knowledge of the universe and of course continually speed up our development
DuckingNDiving in reply to naughtyboymessiah (Show the comment) 2 years ago
as you can see i have a very strong dislike for islam,it is the great pretender and it retards human development and needs to be suppressed from civilization,Buddhism is however the polar opposite of this,so i see you have made a good choice and i wish you happiness in this doctrine,it seems far more superior to all the others and teaches love for all of humanity and life in general,thank you
DuckingNDiving in reply to naughtyboymessiah (Show the comment) 2 years ago
could someone possibly tell me what bullshit theory he is on about.... the moon came out of the sea. or is he refering to some crap he heard in church.
gavinsstuff 2 years ago