@TommyGuitarful Well in a stupid world, you can't waste the best of your intelligence on people who won't understand it. It's best to make people mildly smarter than to give them the best of intelligence only for them to not understand it.
@jimmyphonghater Indeed. I was just surprised that this level of stupidity is found at universities - although I guess just because it's held at a university doesn't mean the audience is university students.
About that banana guy, ray, I just noticed in his lameness he sais the banana is easy to digest. Well, from all I know, the banana is really NOT that easy to digest. It kinda weighs on the stomach almost as much as a steak, but probably digests better than that, obviously I'd say. However, the middle vein of the banana is one of the most undigestable things you can eat. It literaly comes out the way it went in.
How do the displayed pictures have "nothing to do with the survival and propagation of their own genes?" They all appear to be connected with conspicuous display of people's good genes or supplying/protecting abilities in order to attract high quality mates.
@Stupidxxxx cemeteries? playing chess? what do these have to do with survival? By survival goals, Richard Dawkins is talking about hunting for food, looking for shelter etc. Things animals do. Also, I play chess and the LAST motivation on my mind for getting good at chess is finding a mate!
@PaladinswordSaurfang What's your conscious motivation does not have anything to do with why you're doing it from an evolutionary perspective. Why do you think does your brain reward you with good feelings when you win and punish you when you lose an important game out of stupidity? One of them raises your perceived status, the other lowers it (high status means higher chance of attracting high-quality mates).
@Stupidxxxx You're attempting to correct him on what he later explains anyway. He was talking in layman's terms, he didn't mean it literally and he was trying to make a point. In this case, he actually is right. Playing chess, music, tennis etc. does not increase the chance of survival of the person or his genes.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
The reason why atheists like R Dawkins and Peter Atkins are wrong and why I believe in God: 1) Science and logic cannot explain everything, 2) what is the human race compared with nature and the infinite universe, thats right we are almost nothing compared with nature, 3) the purpose of the human race is stupidity, we are stupid because everything we create or invent breaks sooner or later we cannot make things that last forever. Nature is way smarter than us.
@megaman7552 Humans are a part of nature.Nature is characterized by a continuous cycle of birth and distruction.After all,we are all composed of stardust.The purpose of humans is in my oppinion, the development of science to increase our survival chances.
@megaman7552 The trouble with that thinking is history shows a disturbing trend for it, whatever we didn't know, well then it was god. Tides in the 1500's? God. Now we know it's the moon. Planets in the night sky going retrograde (backwards momentarily)? Well that how god made it, or even that they are gods. Now we know it's a consequence of relative motion of us all going around the sun in our own orbits. So the gap for god is ever diminishing, but really does a gap lead to god? No
I've watched almost all of his documentaries that are here on youtube and what he says is very entertaining and intelligent, just a year ago I was on the other side sadly. smh
Christian or not, everyone is pretty wack. that's God's whole point. you're all wack. you all point out other people's flaws but you dont see how wack you or your organization is. Christians do not follow Christ, scientists have not solved shit in effect. the world remains under the snare of the devil, and you're all blinded by a separation between the evil of the world and your own doing as if it aint your fault. collectively it's all of our fault so stop blaming each other and work together
the retarded Dwkins said that the Bat is like a missile in homing in on a targets, WTF !!!
the Bats and insects do exist million of years before our primitive technology, he should have said the missile is like bat, not bat is like a missile
comparing biological technology in animals to our technology will put us on shame.
@0000000NoName0000000 Another stupidity.. the current banana came from selective breeding, that's evolution in a way. Also, if A evolved from B, it is not true to say that B "must" not exist anymore because A has evolved from B. All currently living organisms are likely to have evolved from LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), which is one species. So species can give rise to new species without itself goes into extinction.
"Put your trust in the scientific method. Put your faith in the scientific method, There's nothing wrong with having faith . . . there's nothing wrong with having faith in a proper scientific prediction." - Richard Dawkins
I took a look on "Richard Dawkins" show and I can say I agree with him. The problem is with a guy like him and like you is that you think that all Christians are as stupid as those fuckers with the banana. Man because of some stupid idiots you guys paint all Christians as stupid. Hey I can find stupid atheists to you know. That does not make every body who is an atheists stupid. The same with Christianity. Not all Christians ignore science, some are as smart as atheists are or as dumb.
@MrSeekLoad Dawkins is not implying that all cristians are stupid, he just beliefs that atheist and evolutionist should not have a passive attitude towards christians who are imposing their flawed logic over the overwhelming evidence of science. obviusly fundamentalist christians dont hesitate to muck the scientific comunity without having any evidence on their own claims. why scientist should shut up to avoid confrontations when they do have evidence?
@demnp I agree with all that but there is a flaw in his thinking. Because not all Christians are opposing science. The fact is that there are some Christians like me who sees science as the truth and at the same time as a way of explaining what the bible tried to explain metaphorically. I agree that some stuff in the bible are false but we have to keep in mind that the parts witch are false have bin put there by the church or is from the "old testament" witch should not be there. CONTINUING...
@demnp CONTINUING HERE: The part of Christianity which is from the "new testament" and also the part that is NOT made by the church is not wrong but metaphorical correct. The problem is "how does one decode the metaphor"? I think because science is correct that it can help to decode the metaphor. Of course at the same time we have to keep in mind that science can have flaws and part witch is wrong to. Science has not evolved to the max. CONTINUING...
@demnp CONT.HERE: Science has not evolved to the max and nether has our understanding of the the religion part witch is not made by the church.But yes some of the church part or the Christianity is humb dumb but not all.So the question is how do we know were the humb dumb and what is true? That is a hard question witch can take years of knowledge from morals,history,science,psychology and Christianity. Once you have knowledge of all of them you can mix them and see what is true and what is not.
@demnp Of course we can not be experts in all of those terms.So if we have to chose in what is more important to have expertise on from "morals,history,science,psychology and Christianity".It would be "history science and Christianity" but mostly and less "morals and psychology" although they are important to but not on the same scale.Once we understand them all and know of "history,science and Christianity" we can start decoding what is wrong or right in the bible from a neutral point. CONTIN..
@demnp CONT.HERE: Of course that at the same we all humans have some previous knowledge of something that that order so we don't really need to learn everything with a few exceptions of some idiots. So what I am saying short is that although some are (as I am) Christians we do NOT have to oppose science. The fact is that the worlds smartest people in history has gone from believing in a god and religion to atheism and then back to believing in a god and religion but in a different way.CONTINUING
@demnp CONTINUING HERE: Those Christians that do oppose science because of the church telling them so are the same as those atheist or what ever type of people who would listen to the government propaganda then to the truth. They are people that refuse to use there own brain. This type of people can be found not only in religion but everywhere, specially in politics. I know this because my family has bin "black listed rebellions" wen it comes to politics. CONTINUEÍNG
@demnp CONTINUING HERE: So in the end what I am trying to say is. Christianity does not oppose science in fact Christianity is neutral to science. It is the Christian church who oppose science and with that church the sheep follow as well as in a society the sheep follow the leather regardless of believes. It would mean we humans have to learn to use our brain with the help of knowledge before we make conclusion. CONTINUING...
@demnp I see Dawkins as a very smart man, but in his hurry of defending the science he s has missed some key factors and thrown all Christians in the same pot disregarding the fact that the Christian bible is made by three part.
That is:
1a - Old Testament
2a - New Testament
3a - The Church
And it so happens the the only true side of the bible is "2a" (the new testament) the rest should NOT be there according to Christ.And if we don't follow Christ then we should not be called Christians.
@demnp Notice how I put them in order 123.It is put so because 1a the "old testament" was first made and it also was the one that Christ ripped a part in the temple calling it FALSE.2a Is Christ own words though his apostols which has no contradiction with science but is metaphorical made if one can decode it.3a is the latest in the bible and partly true and also humbdumb (fake) made by the church.This humbdumb is truth destructive because it's made for the interest of the church not the truth.
@demnp you say "obviusly fundamentalist christians dont hesitate to muck the scientific comunity without having any evidence".We have the same problem with fundamentalist atheists who muck everybody that disagrees with them even wen it comes to new science. They try to keep the old science. In the end people like me "with an Einstein system belief" are mucked by fundamentalist christians and also by fundamentalist atheists at the same time.I think that Dawkins should wake up to this fact. CONT..
@MrSeekLoad I have literally never heard of a 'fundamentalist atheist' discrediting science because it's new, that doesn't even make fucking sense. What the hell is a 'fundamentalist atheist' anyway? Did you just make that up on the spot?
@fauxx82 Sadly, he did not make that up on the spot. There's a group of people, entire religious, who believe atheists have a cohesive belief structure.
As if atheists about Zeus (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.) are cohesive, atheists about Thor (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.), atheists about Ra (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.), or atheists about Quetzalcoatl (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.) hold cohesive beliefs.
@fauxx82 Science as a science term is not new, it is only new in what science contains. What I am saying by calling it 'fundamentalist atheist' means atheist that keep to older science and not the newest one. There is science and there is science. CONTINUING...
@fauxx82 There is old science form the 19th-18th and older century and there is new science made after the 20th century. There are things in the 20th century science that contradict the 19th and older century science. Atheist that stand strong with the old century science and refuses the new century science I call 'fundamentalist atheist'. They do the same mistake as any 'fundamentalist' but in this case with science, that is why I call them 'fundamentalist atheist'.
@MrSeekLoad a simple google search of "fundamentalist atheist" verifies my notion that the term is based in ignorance of atheism. I can only assume you want it to signify the opposite end of the spectrum from fundamentalist religion.
@fauxx82 Sort of "opposite end of the spectrum from fundamentalist religion." But at the same time not.I know my term maybe a bit wrong but now tell me what to call a atheist which contradicts the 20th century modern science witch the proof from older modern science in the name of atheism as being scientifically correct disproving the newer modern science that is contradicting the old modern science? If not "fundamentalist atheist"? Can you find a better term for those people? So I would use it!
@fauxx82 This may be a bit extreme but it is just an example of such an idiot atheist: Google "I'm an atheist who believes the world is flat? yahoo" and see for yourself.
I don't have time now for more but I will give you some more complicated examples then that idiot in this example. Okay. So see you next time I have no time now. Have to go...
@MrSeekLoad Wow you sure got out of that one! Nice dodge! Your comment gave me a vivid mental image of someone looking at their watch and mumbling about some imaginary meeting before rushing away from an argument.
You obviously know you're making things up, so stop doing it.
@AWilberforce Her we go again another fanatic atheist. I did answer your question "please show me even one person who fits this description" but now that I did so you refuse to take notice because it contradicts you. Typical "fanatic atheist" not believing in proof that make sows the bad side of them. If you were not fanatic then you would have Google what I told you and know I was not making things up. I gave you one person who fits that description of a atheist that keeps to old science.
" I'm an atheist who believes the world is flat? yahoo "
Of course if your ignorant to the answer of your question then of course you call me a liar and refuse look at the proof you asked for. You felt safe thinking I will not find any. The true open minded person is neither atheist or religions, but he is wise an curious.
That idiot in the Google search I gave you is NOT me and it will NEVER be, because I know the world is round. So don''t get any wild ideas.
@AWilberforce That idiot fits that description of an atheist that holds on to old science and ignores the new.So there you have a person to your question.
My advice:You will NEVER find the truth of anything in life (NOT talking religion) if your ignore to the proof of what contradicts you.That ignorance makes you no different from the religious people that used to burn people that contradicted them.The only diffidence is that you are doing it in the name of science and not religion.Stop it!
@AWilberforce For the third time here is the answer to your question of an atheist who ignores new science and believes in the old one:Google search and read:
" I'm an atheist who believes the world is flat? yahoo "
I will not contradict you on the existence of god at this point it is unimportant,but I will contradict you on the fact that "SOME" atheist refuse to search for proof to thing that contradict them just because.Now you refused to look at my proof and there for you became one of them.
@MrSeekLoad Hey asshole: Here's where that link leads you: "I'm an atheist who believes the world is flat? How do I get my other atheist friends from picking on me for it? I just think the whole going to the moon thing was a load- a cold war load right in the pants of humanity...this place is flatter than Flat Hat Johnson's flat hat. Are you with me?"
THIS is the link you gave us! THIS is from YAHOO ANSWERS! THIS IS A FUCKING TROLL!!!
@AWilberforce Yea he is a troll I agree,but he is an atheist troll.
All people who refuse to admit to new science and go for the old one are make a big fuss of it wen contradicted so they start trolling of it.
You just called me asshole because I got angry on you that you wen you did not look on the proof I gave you.Now you did.But why did I have to make you angry to make you look on it? That still proves you refuse to look on contradicting proof although you looked on it wen I made you angry.
@AWilberforce You want more proof here it is. As you know atheist believe in evolution as a scientific fact but evolution has a big flat flaw on science. Poof Google and read:
" Evolution Is Religion--Not Science icr.org/article/455/ "
I quote "evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true".
Wen one say that god does not exist I would say the Agnostic view may have a point not the atheist. This is why Google "Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance deism dogmatic atheism"
Also Google "Is Atheism a Religion? atheismsfallacies religion" to understand why I say so.
@AWilberforce Also Google "Commenting on Religion and Science? Understand Science thereligiousatheist"
I quote "Note Evolution remains a theory because there are still some problems with a complete explanation of creation; the ‘missing link’–the creature that links human beings with ape-like ancestors–is one."
@MrSeekLoad A theory in science means something different than in a general sense....
The Scientific Theory Of Evolution is a fact. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.
@AventadorNZ You say "Scientific Theory Of Evolution is a fact" My answer is Yes and No. Why Yes and No? Because as we in science progress something new can come and other older science proof can be erased.I hope you know that evolutionists and scientists always argue.If evolution was 100% science then they would n not have something to argue for wold they? So that is why I say that there is still things that we need to know in science and just because we think we know that does not mean we do.
@AWilberforce I believe that Atheism is irrational, because you don't have proof either way. There are a ton of accounts to suggest God does exist, and there are a ton to suggest God doesn't. Saying that you don't believe in God/causation because there is no proof is Agnostic, saying you don't believe God exits just because you don't is just being stubborn.
I believe in science, but science ca not explain everything, I attribute that to God... for now.
@MrSeekLoad To put god in the place of the unknown is OUTRAGEOUS. Do you believe in unicorns? I doubt you do because there is nothing to suggest they are real, they are just something humans conceived. God is the same. To make something completely random up, doesn't mean there is evidence for it and there doesn't need to be evidence to prove it doesn't exist, because for example there is no evidence unicorns don't exist yet you know they don't.
@AventadorNZ I know that Unicorns does not exist because they have no meaning in there existence and ether no proof of exiting other then in faritales but with God it is not the same. I will tell you why on the next comment.
@AventadorNZ We may not have evidence that god exist as the way of thinking of a religion god. But you atheists forget that the word god means maker not supernatural. That god can be a power source that science has to discover. Just because science has not discovered it it does not mean it does not exist. Think we did not discover black matter before but that did not mean it did not exist! Now we know id does. The same with god, unless you have proof god does not exist. Do you? No you don't.
@AventadorNZ Now there is one deference from unicorns and god.(OBS! I am not talking a Christian God) YouTube "Disproving Atheists in 82 seconds".
Think also of the fact that nothing can come from nothing.That would lead us to the question who made god? And what is he? I guess that we will never answer that question if we exclude him.
A unicorn has no proof of having made nothing in this world.As long as science is not omniscient I believe in a god.Unicorns has no value in it,but a god does.
@MrSeekLoad I don't completely understand what your saying (Your grammar) but:
'God' by definition is a supernatural creator.,
It's called dark matter, was theorized in the 30's because the mass of some cosmological objects and there rotation/ direction/ and speed was greater than what the visible matter that made them up would allow so , something unseeable must be contributing to their mass - dark matter, which by the way has never been proven to exist.
@MrSeekLoad And with the unicorn, God IS the same. There is no demonstrable evidence that supports the existance of either, we know that unicorns don't exist but you can't show evidence that it doesn't. There is just no reason to believe that it does exist as nothing suggest it does. God is the same.
And for the start of everything, just because we don't understand how it happened, and where 'stuff' came from, we can't put a god there to explain the unknown, it is obsurd to do so.
@AventadorNZ You also say "unicorn = God". I was not talking God but I was talking of a god. That I chose to believe in God as a Christian that is another story because I chose to believe in the morals of Jesus. So to go back to the subject of a god it means a maker. Why is that impossible? Just because somebody must have made him?Well yea but first we have to prove him (it) then we can ask that.Many scientist don't go further then the big bang but it must have bin something before the big bang.
@AventadorNZ Now I am not talking of a god as a personal God or as a person. i am talking of a god that is an "intelligent power source" like black matter but with intelligence that is why I said "it" close to him. Because it may as well not be a him but an "it", get what I am trying to say. Remember to say "him" means it has a masculine sex but an "intelligent power source" can't have a sexuality. The word "him" for a god is just a form of speech but it is actually an "it". CONTINUING...
@AventadorNZ CONTINUING HERE: Now to compare a god to unicorns.A unicorn is a horse of flesh and meat with a pointy bone on the nose.There for we know and can prove that does not exist.But do we know what a god is made of so we can prove that he does not exist and that he is equal to the story of an unicorns?No we don't.We only know what a god is but not what he is made of.So there for we can not say it is fiction. We can only say that our perspective of what a god is can be fiction,but not god.
@AventadorNZ Wen we say something is fiction like the unicorn we already know what it is. Do we know what god is? We only assume that we do, but we don't. I agree that our perspective of what it may be fiction but that has nothing to do with a gods existence.If we for a moment cut the crap of our perspective and fix ourselves that we don't know that,then he is soddenly not a fiction character.
LOLs Man now I sound like an Agnostic. Maybe I am a bit Agnostic and Christian at the same time. LOLs
@AventadorNZ And if a Christian Agnostic ways of thinking does not to exist then I am something new for this world.Hahaha Lols.
I say Agnostic Christian because I believe in a god but I am very skeptical to what he is so there for I am Agnostic.But I believe and follow Christ path because I believe in his morals and there for I am Christian at the same time.=Agnostic Christian.
Although I recon that I never realized that until now.
Hm I guess one never really knows himself until digging deep.
@AventadorNZ So that would make me an Agnostic Christian Greek Orthodox.Man it sound so confusing!You know from previous comment why I am Agnostic and Christian at the same time but why am I Greek Orthodox to?Because in my theory of Jesus morals and Gods will I consider the Greek Orthodox Jesus morals and Gods will correct.But at the same time I disprove God as the personal human God as that the Greek Orthodox sees him as.
@MrSeekLoad Well that was a long reply lol :) While some scientists disagree with others on particular things, Evolution is an observable (But not easily as it takes thousands and thousands of years) thing that can be supported through research into the genetic codes of animals, and the remains of extinct species. It is as much a fact as the fact that I'm sitting in my room right now.
@MrSeekLoad You are right in saying that aspects of what we understand in science can be dis proven if evidence for something else is found. But for something to disprove evolution would be pretty monumental. All I was saying with the unicorn is that it is obsurd to believe something with no demonstrable evidence to support it.
@MrSeekLoad And science doesnt really know what comes before the big bang, yet. We are working on it. There are theories (In a general sense now) that there are multiverses and this is where the singularity that caused the big bang began. Other theories are also around as well.
@AventadorNZ That is okay I did not take it offensive. this could prove that evolution may have a wrong part. We have measured that the age of the earth and fossils are from how much gas they give wen they are burned on a small spot. But that gas is made in time by the earths gravitation witch was thought not to change. But now we know it does change, so if it does change would that not have an effect of the age we thought that evolution was made in?CONTINUING...
@AventadorNZ Our time line measuring for evolution are based on that fact. On the fact of how much gas it is found is stone and fossils shows hows old it is wen taken in count the earths gravity. Because the more gravity it had the more time it passed and more gas it was build in it and the older the fossils is. And now we know that fact is not true because gravity changes, how come many evolutionist hold on to the idea that there time line of evolution is correct?
@MrSeekLoad Because of multiple reasons, one: the gravity of earth depends on it's mass, and over time it has not, could not have changed significantly. The forces simply aren't there. Earth leaks gas yes, ever so slightly, but gains ever so slightly through cosmic dust. And regardless, gravity forces do not affect the decay of these isotopes used in dating old fossils. Concentration would have much more effect, and that's only applicable to carbon dating which is only >50,000 years
@tweaker1bms But the earth did change in mass so there for gravity had to change with it. The biggest gravity change was wen the dinosaurs died, the moon was made by the meteor hitting the earth.After dinosaurs the earth was one moon smaller which means one moon less gravity.I think evolution did happen faster, and definitely not slower.We see the changes to day faster then we thought so why not the same with evolution? If we put a side the changes think of what I said of gravity and the moon.
@MrSeekLoad the moon was created when a planetoid the size of mars collided with the earth relatively early in earths history. the asteroid that hit the earth and killed the dinosaurs was a little bigger than mount Everest.
@Lewstherin420 Well yes and no. There are two versions of how the moon was created. One that says that the asteroid collided in diagonal with the earth and made the moon. Your version is based on the first story that says that asteroid collided fully in the earth. This diagonal collision story was made wen they found bone fragments on the moon and that outruns the old story of a full collision that did not make the moon. Sadly, we are still thought the old story in schools.
@Lewstherin420 The bone fragments or fossils story got soon transformed into bull shit that it was human bones. I never do believe in human bones. It is absurd.
@MrSeekLoad Yes, but the gain is insignificant. bautforum has a thread on this: Barker & Anders, 1968, estimated 6.12 × 1010 g/yr, upper limit of 1.48 × 1011 g/year sited by Van Rijn, not adding the atmospheric loss value, over 1 million years, the earth could accumulate 164,000 kg/day at 365 days equals 59 million kg/year ... every one million years the earths increases by 5.9 x 10^13kg ... Mass of Earth = 5.9742 × 10^24kg" subtract the two = net, gain of 1x10-11 or .000000001%
@MrSeekLoad Aside from this we're talking about radioactivity, isotopic decay, interactions at the atomic level. At the atomic level the force of gravity is already weak and insignificant compared to the other forces. Given the insignificant change in gravity over millions or years coupled with it's own insignificance in the atomic system, gravity would excuse no belief in the rates or dates being any different than established.
@MrSeekLoad Also the meteor was from deep space, not an orbiting moon, it's estimated at having been 10 km, whereas our moon is over 3400 km. This mass also would be added to earth's, not taken away. But also would still be insignificant. You get more significant changes from moving from the equator to the poles, avg. person would weigh 1/2 lb less. If I didn't mention it before, this would also be insignificant at the atomic level :P
@tweaker1bms Interesting but you seem to have read you book well that is if you did not use "copy and paste". What do you work with? By the way there is a part witch is a bit significant. Yes the meteor was 10 km but the moon was over 3400 km and it was a part of the earth so that would mean the earth was + over 3400 km before the meteor hit the earth which was 10 km big. That would result in that the earth is now - over 3400 km and + 10 km. CONTINUING
@MrSeekLoad In regards to gravity the moon is not a part of the earth though, in fact if anything it works against earths gravitational force, thus tides.
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: So even if 10 km is insignificant for the earth gravity I don't think that a loss of mass over over 3400 km - 10 km is insignificant. Additional we have to add that after the meteor hit the earth started to wobble and that before the meteor the earth was turning steady without a wobble and maybe at a different speed. So if wee add all those factors together we might get a different mass of gravity and a different gravitational pull. CONTINUING...
@MrSeekLoad There was never a loss of mass equal to the moon in the entire span of life on the earth. Thus it would have no impact on anything evolutionary. The wobble is speculation, and one could have existed before the meteors impact. Further, the spin only minutely counteracts gravity, I calculated how much back in high school, but forgot the precise formulas, they aren't hard though you could do it yourself. Still insignificant even on our scale, let alone that of atoms.
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: Then we have a second problem with the earths gravity. A super volcano will make differences in mass of gravity and a different gravitational pull this can be launched from the fact that the meteor hit the earth even if it only was 10km big. The impact it self can make not just one but many super volcanoes. That would also lead to mas deference in the earths mass of gravity and a different gravitational pull. CONTINUING...
@MrSeekLoad A super volcano will do no such thing, unless it ejects matter at a velocity sufficient to escape earth. Even so, it's speculation, and still significant in it's possible amounts of ejected matter. And I beleive no super volcano was created from the dino-killing meteor anyway.
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE LAST PART: So a combinations of ALL those factors makes the calculation wrong in our evolution book. Because the "combinations of ALL those factors" is what made the earth gravity be different not only one factor. If you put one factor a side you don't get that result. But as we all know it was not one factor but a chain of factors and that gives a totally different result.
@MrSeekLoad This combination is of factors with no evidence of existing, and if they did would still be insignificant. Gravity is incredibly weak in general and effects nothing at the atomic level. For a comparison, take a magnet and hold it over a nail and see it lift off the ground. That puny magnet has more force than that of the entire accumulative gravitational force of the earth. And there are stronger ones still. Gravity is nothing, it does not, cannot, effect isotopic decay.
@tweaker1bms I agree on may things except one,part, you said "gravity is incredibly weak in general and effects nothing at the atomic level". That is the only part you seem to be wrong. Have you ever taken a look at a particle accelerator and what happens to the particles there?
@MrSeekLoad Also to save a lot of hassle in the future, I ask you to please take some courses in physics and astronomy, you seem interested in it, and that passion's good, but speculation without proper knowledge of how things work leads to a lot of trouble.
@tweaker1bms Also you have a point that I should "take some courses in physics and astronomy" but my time is not on my side for me (I don't have time now). Now I am at courses "computer programming and engineering" at the program for "IT business scientist and programmer" at the university. CONTINUING...
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: I did make some courses but I also agree with you that I may need more. I do have some knowledge though but the problem is the knowledge that is given is not really the same. Some say this some say that. Evidence contradict each other wen putting things together. Before after school I had it clear, but school did not say everything and now the more I look into it the more the logic is incomplete. CONTINUING...
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: I did make some courses but I also agree with you that I may need more. I do have some knowledge though but the problem is the knowledge that is given is not really the same. Some say this some say that. Evidence contradict each other wen putting things together. Before after school I had it clear, but school did not say everything and now the more I look into it the more the logic is incomplete. CONTINUING...
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: I did make some courses but I also agree with you that I may need more. I do have some knowledge though but the problem is the knowledge that is given is not really the same. Some say this some say that. Evidence contradict each other wen putting things together. Before after school I had it clear, but school did not say everything and now the more I look into it the more the logic is incomplete. CONTINUING...
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: Wen I went to school I put out to the theory to the teacher the plausibility of the "magnetic field changes" (not gravity change). Back then it was thought that to be impossible.The teacher said to me "it is only speculations and there for can't be taken seriously, and probably never will". Now we know that is not speculations but reality.That has thought me that" what we learn may not always be like true in science".It made me skeptical to "some science" not all.
@AventadorNZ Sorry that my past comment was that long but I don't want to leave windows open for misunderstandings. Because as I have seen it many do misunderstand me thinking I see things simple, but I don't. So they sometimes simplify my comment in to something I do not say. That si why it was so long. Sorry for that, I will try to make it shorter in the future.
@AventadorNZ I have more such scientific proof that contradicts evolution as we know it. But I will take one step at a time I know what happened last time I took it to fast. It becomes inunderstandable. The scientific proof that contradicts evolution I have does not contradict the evolution type as a theory but it contradicts the time line and were it came from not how it was to become as it did. Now that sounds strange! But I can't find the words to explain it so I'll say you will see.
@MrSeekLoad When you mention timeline differences, I wonder which way you shoot to make the change? If you attempt to argue the evolution could've happened faster, this makes all the more case for evolution, as the changes become all the more plausible. If you say it must take longer, then it must be pointed out that noah's flood creationists have to have evolution occur 1000 times faster than evolutionists do, in order to get the diversity we see today from only 4-5k years ago.
@MrSeekLoad In the scientific community we just accept that we don't know the answer, and we seek to find it, instead of being arrogant and just putting a god there to explain what we don't understand.
@AventadorNZ This is what i agree to more then 100% You said "In the scientific community we just accept that we don't know the answer, and we seek to find it". Man I wish more atheist would say that, but sadly to many atheists are fixed on one science proof and ignores that fact.
@AventadorNZ On the other hand you say "instead of being arrogant and just putting a god there to explain what we don't understand" I partly disagree because you can put a god there without being arrogant by saying "what scientifically can be proven as the power of god?" But to say that God is an absolute is arrogant that is why I "partly disagree" with you. If you put god the right way it is not arrogance, but do it the wrong way and it is arrogance.That is why I say "I like Einstein to it".
@fauxx82 Science is not new and as a science term is not new ether.
Natural science existed since the discovery and manipulation of fire.
Modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period, during what is known as the Scientific Revolution that took place in 16th and 17th century Europe.
But they did not call it "Modern Science" until the Renaissance by a character of modern philosophy(Immanuel Kant 1724-1804) before then it was just called "Science" not "Modern Science".
@demnp LAST PART:In the end the fault is not religion or atheist or what ever.The fault is humans who like sheep listen to there leaders in beliefs, politics,ideology science and anything.Leaders that if they are TO greedy,ignorant,selfish or arrogant will do anything to have it there way no matter what the truth is.We should never listen to people like that,but that does not mean we should not listen to other people.It only means we should ask your selves what is there interest before listening
@demnp I am really SORRY it was so long (to long) but the last time I tried to make it short on another video it just come as a misunderstanding for some. So I took the longer version to explain this time. I hope I have it in a way you understand what I am saying.
Consider Onchocerciasis. It is a parasitic worm that predates on the eyeballs of people with weak immune systems - infants, children, the elderly, pregnant women, the sick, etc.
Consider how God so perfectly put this parasite in Africa, where He could maximize the devastation to the vulnerable.
Consider the claim that such a "god" is merciful....
@manonthemount ....Consider the claim that such a "god" is merciful....Credit David Attenborough
___
Duped atheists have failed to realise their true nature anti dubbed them as meaningless. They say that if this universe were governed by a Compassionate and Merciful Creator, these obnoxious occurrences would not have taken place. lie who marshals this argument tries to conclude that it would have been appropriate if man's life in this world had been trouble free.
Had it been so, man's conceit and selfishness would have led him to the conduct which would not have been in consonance with religion or his religious life. Just as you find persons nurtured in luxury and comfort who mostly forget their manhood and their state of having been brought up by somebody. They forget that they can receive some injury or sorrow or that some calamity may befall them.
They even forget whether they have to sympathise with some weak person or to pity some needy person. They are not amenable to feeling sorrow at another person's trouble or feeling compassion on the weakling or showing kindness towards troubled souls.
When, however, trouble befalls them, they feel its pinch and are then open to reason. They are awakened more than in proportion to their ignorance and folly.
They begin to act in a' way which was incumbent on them all along. If this trouble had not befallen them, the would have continued to look upon themselves as gods, to spend their lives in conceit, to have no pity or sympathy with anybody else.
Would such conduct have been in the interests of their religion and this world?
@talons2112 The theory doesn't imply that you can see something evolve in front of your eyes. Its idiotic to assume that. Go to a natural history museum, and you will see fossils. Its those that we have observed. The theory never suggested that things evolve in a matter of days, monthes, decades, or even a whole lifetime. It takes place over millions of years, which you don't seem to understand. If god created everything, why would he make so much evidence to support a theory? To confuse people?
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
@hardinmichael1981 just watch any richard dawkins video. i would suggest starting with his video "the magic of reality" to "a unverse from nothing"(haha), "enemies of reason", and work your way on down from there. dawkins is the high priest of this new religion
@talons2112 Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful. Though I'm kind of sad for your lack of understanding of those speeches, lectures, videos etc. They're really great but you just don't seem to grasp them.
@mallu000 i like to keep my feet grounded in reality instead of the make believe world that the high priest of atheism presents. i understand them perfectly well. this man is lying to everyone. dont wait until its too late for you.
@talons2112 I suppose you're christian or some kind of other theist? Or are you just stupid? If there ever was "atheist dogma" then it would mean the same as secularist dogma, humanist dogma etc. Most of all Mr. Dawkins promotes critical thinking, civil rights and freedom of religion and labeling of children. If you're opposed to that then why don't you eat your own asshole.
@mallu000 it is the same as humanist dogma. all one has to do is listen to richard itterate the atheist religion in any and all of his videos. dawkins does not promote critical thinking he uses circular reasoning,fallacies, and psychology to indoctrinate. the results of which are confused and angry people that cannot even comprehend the basics of scientific method and instead fall to the level of insults to support their side of a debate.
@talons2112 For great analysis of the facts about the Bible & other old Writ & comparative religion try also John W. Loftus, Robert M. Price, Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, Keith Parsons, Ken Pulliam, David Mills, Gary Greenberg, Bart Ehrman, Joseph Wheless, C. Dennis Mckinsey, Richard Carrier, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Israel Finkelstein, James Frazer, Jason Long, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins
This has been flagged as spam show
Natural selection produces sentient life that values it's existence.
Life is a part of the universe so sentient life is the awareness of the universe.
Evolution of life is a direct consequence of the natural laws of the universe.
Thus the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligent life forms that appreciate it.
Now why spend a whole hour trying to convince us that "why" is a silly question when there is a very sensible answer to it?
Thumbs down from me. :/
MsPerduta 1 day ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 1 day ago
However simple the lecture may be, it's a great one for it initiates thought in many of the students.
ParadoxAnonymous 1 week ago
If bananas are meant to open from the top, why do monkeys open them from the bottom?
jimmyphonghater 1 week ago
his beginning words about America becoming leaders in science again make me so sad knowing how things turned out since 2009
Nathrakh0td 1 week ago
These lectures were given at Universities???? I would expect this level at primary school.
TommyGuitarful 1 week ago
Concepts don't have to be complicated to be mature and thoughtful.
TlogicoP 1 week ago
@TommyGuitarful Well in a stupid world, you can't waste the best of your intelligence on people who won't understand it. It's best to make people mildly smarter than to give them the best of intelligence only for them to not understand it.
jimmyphonghater 1 week ago
@jimmyphonghater Indeed. I was just surprised that this level of stupidity is found at universities - although I guess just because it's held at a university doesn't mean the audience is university students.
TommyGuitarful 1 week ago
Brainyness is attractive! That's why I can't stop staring! O3O
JarvisComics 2 weeks ago
It's good that there is no purpose, or else we would be slave to that purpose ...we are free !!!
blitzravi 2 weeks ago
Jesus is teh truth the way the life
TheMessanjah 2 weeks ago in playlist songs
About that banana guy, ray, I just noticed in his lameness he sais the banana is easy to digest. Well, from all I know, the banana is really NOT that easy to digest. It kinda weighs on the stomach almost as much as a steak, but probably digests better than that, obviously I'd say. However, the middle vein of the banana is one of the most undigestable things you can eat. It literaly comes out the way it went in.
skaruts 2 weeks ago 2
I think Dawkins got it quite wrong at 36:20.
How do the displayed pictures have "nothing to do with the survival and propagation of their own genes?" They all appear to be connected with conspicuous display of people's good genes or supplying/protecting abilities in order to attract high quality mates.
Stupidxxxx 2 weeks ago
@Stupidxxxx cemeteries? playing chess? what do these have to do with survival? By survival goals, Richard Dawkins is talking about hunting for food, looking for shelter etc. Things animals do. Also, I play chess and the LAST motivation on my mind for getting good at chess is finding a mate!
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 weeks ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang What's your conscious motivation does not have anything to do with why you're doing it from an evolutionary perspective. Why do you think does your brain reward you with good feelings when you win and punish you when you lose an important game out of stupidity? One of them raises your perceived status, the other lowers it (high status means higher chance of attracting high-quality mates).
Stupidxxxx 2 weeks ago
@Stupidxxxx You're attempting to correct him on what he later explains anyway. He was talking in layman's terms, he didn't mean it literally and he was trying to make a point. In this case, he actually is right. Playing chess, music, tennis etc. does not increase the chance of survival of the person or his genes.
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
The reason why atheists like R Dawkins and Peter Atkins are wrong and why I believe in God: 1) Science and logic cannot explain everything, 2) what is the human race compared with nature and the infinite universe, thats right we are almost nothing compared with nature, 3) the purpose of the human race is stupidity, we are stupid because everything we create or invent breaks sooner or later we cannot make things that last forever. Nature is way smarter than us.
megaman7552 1 month ago
@megaman7552 Humans are a part of nature.Nature is characterized by a continuous cycle of birth and distruction.After all,we are all composed of stardust.The purpose of humans is in my oppinion, the development of science to increase our survival chances.
ageofreasson 1 month ago
@ageofreasson Nature will kill us all in the long run.
megaman7552 1 month ago
@megaman7552 therefore, god?
timkingiooo 1 month ago
@megaman7552 The trouble with that thinking is history shows a disturbing trend for it, whatever we didn't know, well then it was god. Tides in the 1500's? God. Now we know it's the moon. Planets in the night sky going retrograde (backwards momentarily)? Well that how god made it, or even that they are gods. Now we know it's a consequence of relative motion of us all going around the sun in our own orbits. So the gap for god is ever diminishing, but really does a gap lead to god? No
tweaker1bms 4 weeks ago
dx over dt equals 1st corinthians 1:10 lol
gabumonfanclubx 1 month ago
I've watched almost all of his documentaries that are here on youtube and what he says is very entertaining and intelligent, just a year ago I was on the other side sadly. smh
gabumonfanclubx 1 month ago
@gabumonfanclubx Welcome :)
tweaker1bms 4 weeks ago
@gabumonfanclubx Welcome to our side.
metalmilitia1977 3 weeks ago
@metalmilitia1977 "The force is strong with this one..." mwa ha ha >:)
tweaker1bms 4 days ago
Christian or not, everyone is pretty wack. that's God's whole point. you're all wack. you all point out other people's flaws but you dont see how wack you or your organization is. Christians do not follow Christ, scientists have not solved shit in effect. the world remains under the snare of the devil, and you're all blinded by a separation between the evil of the world and your own doing as if it aint your fault. collectively it's all of our fault so stop blaming each other and work together
Thizzmotion 1 month ago
The dislikes confirm common belief
naybobdenod 1 month ago
the retarded Dwkins said that the Bat is like a missile in homing in on a targets, WTF !!!
the Bats and insects do exist million of years before our primitive technology, he should have said the missile is like bat, not bat is like a missile
comparing biological technology in animals to our technology will put us on shame.
0000000NoName0000000 1 month ago
@0000000NoName0000000 that is an analogy, I apologize if you can't understand it!!
demnp 1 month ago
Richward dwking is fucking liar, he said at 15:00 that current banana is evolved from wild banana !! , wtf ,
those are totally different types of banana planets, both of them still present today, the domestic banana origins was from south Asia
their was no evolution in banana, another lie form evolutionist atheist
0000000NoName0000000 1 month ago
@0000000NoName0000000 Another stupidity.. the current banana came from selective breeding, that's evolution in a way. Also, if A evolved from B, it is not true to say that B "must" not exist anymore because A has evolved from B. All currently living organisms are likely to have evolved from LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), which is one species. So species can give rise to new species without itself goes into extinction.
caliga3066 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Put your trust in the scientific method. Put your faith in the scientific method, There's nothing wrong with having faith . . . there's nothing wrong with having faith in a proper scientific prediction." - Richard Dawkins
ReResearcher 1 month ago
Comment removed
ReResearcher 1 month ago
Is this guy trying to support science or get rid of religion?
CyGrGuy 1 month ago
@CyGrGuy Probably both
caliga3066 1 month ago
I took a look on "Richard Dawkins" show and I can say I agree with him. The problem is with a guy like him and like you is that you think that all Christians are as stupid as those fuckers with the banana. Man because of some stupid idiots you guys paint all Christians as stupid. Hey I can find stupid atheists to you know. That does not make every body who is an atheists stupid. The same with Christianity. Not all Christians ignore science, some are as smart as atheists are or as dumb.
MrSeekLoad 2 months ago
@MrSeekLoad Dawkins is not implying that all cristians are stupid, he just beliefs that atheist and evolutionist should not have a passive attitude towards christians who are imposing their flawed logic over the overwhelming evidence of science. obviusly fundamentalist christians dont hesitate to muck the scientific comunity without having any evidence on their own claims. why scientist should shut up to avoid confrontations when they do have evidence?
demnp 1 month ago
@demnp I agree with all that but there is a flaw in his thinking. Because not all Christians are opposing science. The fact is that there are some Christians like me who sees science as the truth and at the same time as a way of explaining what the bible tried to explain metaphorically. I agree that some stuff in the bible are false but we have to keep in mind that the parts witch are false have bin put there by the church or is from the "old testament" witch should not be there. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp CONTINUING HERE: The part of Christianity which is from the "new testament" and also the part that is NOT made by the church is not wrong but metaphorical correct. The problem is "how does one decode the metaphor"? I think because science is correct that it can help to decode the metaphor. Of course at the same time we have to keep in mind that science can have flaws and part witch is wrong to. Science has not evolved to the max. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp CONT.HERE: Science has not evolved to the max and nether has our understanding of the the religion part witch is not made by the church.But yes some of the church part or the Christianity is humb dumb but not all.So the question is how do we know were the humb dumb and what is true? That is a hard question witch can take years of knowledge from morals,history,science,psychology and Christianity. Once you have knowledge of all of them you can mix them and see what is true and what is not.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp Of course we can not be experts in all of those terms.So if we have to chose in what is more important to have expertise on from "morals,history,science,psychology and Christianity".It would be "history science and Christianity" but mostly and less "morals and psychology" although they are important to but not on the same scale.Once we understand them all and know of "history,science and Christianity" we can start decoding what is wrong or right in the bible from a neutral point. CONTIN..
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp CONT.HERE: Of course that at the same we all humans have some previous knowledge of something that that order so we don't really need to learn everything with a few exceptions of some idiots. So what I am saying short is that although some are (as I am) Christians we do NOT have to oppose science. The fact is that the worlds smartest people in history has gone from believing in a god and religion to atheism and then back to believing in a god and religion but in a different way.CONTINUING
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp CONTINUING HERE: Those Christians that do oppose science because of the church telling them so are the same as those atheist or what ever type of people who would listen to the government propaganda then to the truth. They are people that refuse to use there own brain. This type of people can be found not only in religion but everywhere, specially in politics. I know this because my family has bin "black listed rebellions" wen it comes to politics. CONTINUEÍNG
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp CONTINUING HERE: So in the end what I am trying to say is. Christianity does not oppose science in fact Christianity is neutral to science. It is the Christian church who oppose science and with that church the sheep follow as well as in a society the sheep follow the leather regardless of believes. It would mean we humans have to learn to use our brain with the help of knowledge before we make conclusion. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp I see Dawkins as a very smart man, but in his hurry of defending the science he s has missed some key factors and thrown all Christians in the same pot disregarding the fact that the Christian bible is made by three part.
That is:
1a - Old Testament
2a - New Testament
3a - The Church
And it so happens the the only true side of the bible is "2a" (the new testament) the rest should NOT be there according to Christ.And if we don't follow Christ then we should not be called Christians.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp Notice how I put them in order 123.It is put so because 1a the "old testament" was first made and it also was the one that Christ ripped a part in the temple calling it FALSE.2a Is Christ own words though his apostols which has no contradiction with science but is metaphorical made if one can decode it.3a is the latest in the bible and partly true and also humbdumb (fake) made by the church.This humbdumb is truth destructive because it's made for the interest of the church not the truth.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp you say "obviusly fundamentalist christians dont hesitate to muck the scientific comunity without having any evidence".We have the same problem with fundamentalist atheists who muck everybody that disagrees with them even wen it comes to new science. They try to keep the old science. In the end people like me "with an Einstein system belief" are mucked by fundamentalist christians and also by fundamentalist atheists at the same time.I think that Dawkins should wake up to this fact. CONT..
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad I have literally never heard of a 'fundamentalist atheist' discrediting science because it's new, that doesn't even make fucking sense. What the hell is a 'fundamentalist atheist' anyway? Did you just make that up on the spot?
fauxx82 1 month ago
@fauxx82 Sadly, he did not make that up on the spot. There's a group of people, entire religious, who believe atheists have a cohesive belief structure.
As if atheists about Zeus (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.) are cohesive, atheists about Thor (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.), atheists about Ra (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.), or atheists about Quetzalcoatl (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.) hold cohesive beliefs.
manonthemount 1 month ago
@fauxx82 Science as a science term is not new, it is only new in what science contains. What I am saying by calling it 'fundamentalist atheist' means atheist that keep to older science and not the newest one. There is science and there is science. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@fauxx82 There is old science form the 19th-18th and older century and there is new science made after the 20th century. There are things in the 20th century science that contradict the 19th and older century science. Atheist that stand strong with the old century science and refuses the new century science I call 'fundamentalist atheist'. They do the same mistake as any 'fundamentalist' but in this case with science, that is why I call them 'fundamentalist atheist'.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad and these people exist where? Show me one 'fundamentalist atheist', please.
fauxx82 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad a simple google search of "fundamentalist atheist" verifies my notion that the term is based in ignorance of atheism. I can only assume you want it to signify the opposite end of the spectrum from fundamentalist religion.
fauxx82 1 month ago
@fauxx82 Sort of "opposite end of the spectrum from fundamentalist religion." But at the same time not.I know my term maybe a bit wrong but now tell me what to call a atheist which contradicts the 20th century modern science witch the proof from older modern science in the name of atheism as being scientifically correct disproving the newer modern science that is contradicting the old modern science? If not "fundamentalist atheist"? Can you find a better term for those people? So I would use it!
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad like I said - please show me even one person who fits this description.
fauxx82 1 month ago
@fauxx82 This may be a bit extreme but it is just an example of such an idiot atheist: Google "I'm an atheist who believes the world is flat? yahoo" and see for yourself.
I don't have time now for more but I will give you some more complicated examples then that idiot in this example. Okay. So see you next time I have no time now. Have to go...
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad Wow you sure got out of that one! Nice dodge! Your comment gave me a vivid mental image of someone looking at their watch and mumbling about some imaginary meeting before rushing away from an argument.
You obviously know you're making things up, so stop doing it.
AWilberforce 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWilberforce Her we go again another fanatic atheist. I did answer your question "please show me even one person who fits this description" but now that I did so you refuse to take notice because it contradicts you. Typical "fanatic atheist" not believing in proof that make sows the bad side of them. If you were not fanatic then you would have Google what I told you and know I was not making things up. I gave you one person who fits that description of a atheist that keeps to old science.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AWilberforce Once more: Google:
" I'm an atheist who believes the world is flat? yahoo "
Of course if your ignorant to the answer of your question then of course you call me a liar and refuse look at the proof you asked for. You felt safe thinking I will not find any. The true open minded person is neither atheist or religions, but he is wise an curious.
That idiot in the Google search I gave you is NOT me and it will NEVER be, because I know the world is round. So don''t get any wild ideas.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AWilberforce That idiot fits that description of an atheist that holds on to old science and ignores the new.So there you have a person to your question.
My advice:You will NEVER find the truth of anything in life (NOT talking religion) if your ignore to the proof of what contradicts you.That ignorance makes you no different from the religious people that used to burn people that contradicted them.The only diffidence is that you are doing it in the name of science and not religion.Stop it!
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AWilberforce For the third time here is the answer to your question of an atheist who ignores new science and believes in the old one:Google search and read:
" I'm an atheist who believes the world is flat? yahoo "
I will not contradict you on the existence of god at this point it is unimportant,but I will contradict you on the fact that "SOME" atheist refuse to search for proof to thing that contradict them just because.Now you refused to look at my proof and there for you became one of them.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
Comment removed
AWilberforce 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad Hey asshole: Here's where that link leads you: "I'm an atheist who believes the world is flat? How do I get my other atheist friends from picking on me for it? I just think the whole going to the moon thing was a load- a cold war load right in the pants of humanity...this place is flatter than Flat Hat Johnson's flat hat. Are you with me?"
THIS is the link you gave us! THIS is from YAHOO ANSWERS! THIS IS A FUCKING TROLL!!!
AWilberforce 1 month ago
@AWilberforce Yea he is a troll I agree,but he is an atheist troll.
All people who refuse to admit to new science and go for the old one are make a big fuss of it wen contradicted so they start trolling of it.
You just called me asshole because I got angry on you that you wen you did not look on the proof I gave you.Now you did.But why did I have to make you angry to make you look on it? That still proves you refuse to look on contradicting proof although you looked on it wen I made you angry.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AWilberforce SORRY that I REMOVE SO MANY comments but my spelling is bad so I rewrite them.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWilberforce You want more proof here it is. As you know atheist believe in evolution as a scientific fact but evolution has a big flat flaw on science. Poof Google and read:
" Evolution Is Religion--Not Science icr.org/article/455/ "
I quote "evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true".
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AWilberforce My opinion although I am Christian:
Wen one say that god does not exist I would say the Agnostic view may have a point not the atheist. This is why Google "Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance deism dogmatic atheism"
Also Google "Is Atheism a Religion? atheismsfallacies religion" to understand why I say so.
I will give you more proof on next Comment.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AWilberforce Also Google "Commenting on Religion and Science? Understand Science thereligiousatheist"
I quote "Note Evolution remains a theory because there are still some problems with a complete explanation of creation; the ‘missing link’–the creature that links human beings with ape-like ancestors–is one."
MORE will come...
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad A theory in science means something different than in a general sense....
The Scientific Theory Of Evolution is a fact. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ You say "Scientific Theory Of Evolution is a fact" My answer is Yes and No. Why Yes and No? Because as we in science progress something new can come and other older science proof can be erased.I hope you know that evolutionists and scientists always argue.If evolution was 100% science then they would n not have something to argue for wold they? So that is why I say that there is still things that we need to know in science and just because we think we know that does not mean we do.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AWilberforce I believe that Atheism is irrational, because you don't have proof either way. There are a ton of accounts to suggest God does exist, and there are a ton to suggest God doesn't. Saying that you don't believe in God/causation because there is no proof is Agnostic, saying you don't believe God exits just because you don't is just being stubborn.
I believe in science, but science ca not explain everything, I attribute that to God... for now.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad To put god in the place of the unknown is OUTRAGEOUS. Do you believe in unicorns? I doubt you do because there is nothing to suggest they are real, they are just something humans conceived. God is the same. To make something completely random up, doesn't mean there is evidence for it and there doesn't need to be evidence to prove it doesn't exist, because for example there is no evidence unicorns don't exist yet you know they don't.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ I know that Unicorns does not exist because they have no meaning in there existence and ether no proof of exiting other then in faritales but with God it is not the same. I will tell you why on the next comment.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ We may not have evidence that god exist as the way of thinking of a religion god. But you atheists forget that the word god means maker not supernatural. That god can be a power source that science has to discover. Just because science has not discovered it it does not mean it does not exist. Think we did not discover black matter before but that did not mean it did not exist! Now we know id does. The same with god, unless you have proof god does not exist. Do you? No you don't.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ Now there is one deference from unicorns and god.(OBS! I am not talking a Christian God) YouTube "Disproving Atheists in 82 seconds".
Think also of the fact that nothing can come from nothing.That would lead us to the question who made god? And what is he? I guess that we will never answer that question if we exclude him.
A unicorn has no proof of having made nothing in this world.As long as science is not omniscient I believe in a god.Unicorns has no value in it,but a god does.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad I don't completely understand what your saying (Your grammar) but:
'God' by definition is a supernatural creator.,
It's called dark matter, was theorized in the 30's because the mass of some cosmological objects and there rotation/ direction/ and speed was greater than what the visible matter that made them up would allow so , something unseeable must be contributing to their mass - dark matter, which by the way has never been proven to exist.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad And with the unicorn, God IS the same. There is no demonstrable evidence that supports the existance of either, we know that unicorns don't exist but you can't show evidence that it doesn't. There is just no reason to believe that it does exist as nothing suggest it does. God is the same.
And for the start of everything, just because we don't understand how it happened, and where 'stuff' came from, we can't put a god there to explain the unknown, it is obsurd to do so.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ You also say "unicorn = God". I was not talking God but I was talking of a god. That I chose to believe in God as a Christian that is another story because I chose to believe in the morals of Jesus. So to go back to the subject of a god it means a maker. Why is that impossible? Just because somebody must have made him?Well yea but first we have to prove him (it) then we can ask that.Many scientist don't go further then the big bang but it must have bin something before the big bang.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ Now I am not talking of a god as a personal God or as a person. i am talking of a god that is an "intelligent power source" like black matter but with intelligence that is why I said "it" close to him. Because it may as well not be a him but an "it", get what I am trying to say. Remember to say "him" means it has a masculine sex but an "intelligent power source" can't have a sexuality. The word "him" for a god is just a form of speech but it is actually an "it". CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ CONTINUING HERE: Now to compare a god to unicorns.A unicorn is a horse of flesh and meat with a pointy bone on the nose.There for we know and can prove that does not exist.But do we know what a god is made of so we can prove that he does not exist and that he is equal to the story of an unicorns?No we don't.We only know what a god is but not what he is made of.So there for we can not say it is fiction. We can only say that our perspective of what a god is can be fiction,but not god.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ Wen we say something is fiction like the unicorn we already know what it is. Do we know what god is? We only assume that we do, but we don't. I agree that our perspective of what it may be fiction but that has nothing to do with a gods existence.If we for a moment cut the crap of our perspective and fix ourselves that we don't know that,then he is soddenly not a fiction character.
LOLs Man now I sound like an Agnostic. Maybe I am a bit Agnostic and Christian at the same time. LOLs
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ And if a Christian Agnostic ways of thinking does not to exist then I am something new for this world.Hahaha Lols.
I say Agnostic Christian because I believe in a god but I am very skeptical to what he is so there for I am Agnostic.But I believe and follow Christ path because I believe in his morals and there for I am Christian at the same time.=Agnostic Christian.
Although I recon that I never realized that until now.
Hm I guess one never really knows himself until digging deep.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ So that would make me an Agnostic Christian Greek Orthodox.Man it sound so confusing!You know from previous comment why I am Agnostic and Christian at the same time but why am I Greek Orthodox to?Because in my theory of Jesus morals and Gods will I consider the Greek Orthodox Jesus morals and Gods will correct.But at the same time I disprove God as the personal human God as that the Greek Orthodox sees him as.
MAN I must be fucked up in the head ain't I? LOLs
Or am I something new?
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad Well that was a long reply lol :) While some scientists disagree with others on particular things, Evolution is an observable (But not easily as it takes thousands and thousands of years) thing that can be supported through research into the genetic codes of animals, and the remains of extinct species. It is as much a fact as the fact that I'm sitting in my room right now.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad You are right in saying that aspects of what we understand in science can be dis proven if evidence for something else is found. But for something to disprove evolution would be pretty monumental. All I was saying with the unicorn is that it is obsurd to believe something with no demonstrable evidence to support it.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad And science doesnt really know what comes before the big bang, yet. We are working on it. There are theories (In a general sense now) that there are multiverses and this is where the singularity that caused the big bang began. Other theories are also around as well.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad By the way, when I said arrogant, that wasn't suppose to be offensive or anything, it just fitted what i was trying to say.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ That is okay I did not take it offensive. this could prove that evolution may have a wrong part. We have measured that the age of the earth and fossils are from how much gas they give wen they are burned on a small spot. But that gas is made in time by the earths gravitation witch was thought not to change. But now we know it does change, so if it does change would that not have an effect of the age we thought that evolution was made in?CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ Our time line measuring for evolution are based on that fact. On the fact of how much gas it is found is stone and fossils shows hows old it is wen taken in count the earths gravity. Because the more gravity it had the more time it passed and more gas it was build in it and the older the fossils is. And now we know that fact is not true because gravity changes, how come many evolutionist hold on to the idea that there time line of evolution is correct?
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad Because of multiple reasons, one: the gravity of earth depends on it's mass, and over time it has not, could not have changed significantly. The forces simply aren't there. Earth leaks gas yes, ever so slightly, but gains ever so slightly through cosmic dust. And regardless, gravity forces do not affect the decay of these isotopes used in dating old fossils. Concentration would have much more effect, and that's only applicable to carbon dating which is only >50,000 years
tweaker1bms 3 weeks ago
@tweaker1bms But the earth did change in mass so there for gravity had to change with it. The biggest gravity change was wen the dinosaurs died, the moon was made by the meteor hitting the earth.After dinosaurs the earth was one moon smaller which means one moon less gravity.I think evolution did happen faster, and definitely not slower.We see the changes to day faster then we thought so why not the same with evolution? If we put a side the changes think of what I said of gravity and the moon.
MrSeekLoad 3 weeks ago
@MrSeekLoad the moon was created when a planetoid the size of mars collided with the earth relatively early in earths history. the asteroid that hit the earth and killed the dinosaurs was a little bigger than mount Everest.
Lewstherin420 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrSeekLoad 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lewstherin420 Well yes and no. There are two versions of how the moon was created. One that says that the asteroid collided in diagonal with the earth and made the moon. Your version is based on the first story that says that asteroid collided fully in the earth. This diagonal collision story was made wen they found bone fragments on the moon and that outruns the old story of a full collision that did not make the moon. Sadly, we are still thought the old story in schools.
MrSeekLoad 3 weeks ago
@Lewstherin420 The bone fragments or fossils story got soon transformed into bull shit that it was human bones. I never do believe in human bones. It is absurd.
MrSeekLoad 3 weeks ago
@MrSeekLoad Yes, but the gain is insignificant. bautforum has a thread on this: Barker & Anders, 1968, estimated 6.12 × 1010 g/yr, upper limit of 1.48 × 1011 g/year sited by Van Rijn, not adding the atmospheric loss value, over 1 million years, the earth could accumulate 164,000 kg/day at 365 days equals 59 million kg/year ... every one million years the earths increases by 5.9 x 10^13kg ... Mass of Earth = 5.9742 × 10^24kg" subtract the two = net, gain of 1x10-11 or .000000001%
tweaker1bms 4 days ago
@MrSeekLoad Aside from this we're talking about radioactivity, isotopic decay, interactions at the atomic level. At the atomic level the force of gravity is already weak and insignificant compared to the other forces. Given the insignificant change in gravity over millions or years coupled with it's own insignificance in the atomic system, gravity would excuse no belief in the rates or dates being any different than established.
tweaker1bms 4 days ago
@MrSeekLoad Also the meteor was from deep space, not an orbiting moon, it's estimated at having been 10 km, whereas our moon is over 3400 km. This mass also would be added to earth's, not taken away. But also would still be insignificant. You get more significant changes from moving from the equator to the poles, avg. person would weigh 1/2 lb less. If I didn't mention it before, this would also be insignificant at the atomic level :P
tweaker1bms 4 days ago
@tweaker1bms Interesting but you seem to have read you book well that is if you did not use "copy and paste". What do you work with? By the way there is a part witch is a bit significant. Yes the meteor was 10 km but the moon was over 3400 km and it was a part of the earth so that would mean the earth was + over 3400 km before the meteor hit the earth which was 10 km big. That would result in that the earth is now - over 3400 km and + 10 km. CONTINUING
MrSeekLoad 4 days ago
@MrSeekLoad In regards to gravity the moon is not a part of the earth though, in fact if anything it works against earths gravitational force, thus tides.
tweaker1bms 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: So even if 10 km is insignificant for the earth gravity I don't think that a loss of mass over over 3400 km - 10 km is insignificant. Additional we have to add that after the meteor hit the earth started to wobble and that before the meteor the earth was turning steady without a wobble and maybe at a different speed. So if wee add all those factors together we might get a different mass of gravity and a different gravitational pull. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 4 days ago
@MrSeekLoad There was never a loss of mass equal to the moon in the entire span of life on the earth. Thus it would have no impact on anything evolutionary. The wobble is speculation, and one could have existed before the meteors impact. Further, the spin only minutely counteracts gravity, I calculated how much back in high school, but forgot the precise formulas, they aren't hard though you could do it yourself. Still insignificant even on our scale, let alone that of atoms.
tweaker1bms 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: Then we have a second problem with the earths gravity. A super volcano will make differences in mass of gravity and a different gravitational pull this can be launched from the fact that the meteor hit the earth even if it only was 10km big. The impact it self can make not just one but many super volcanoes. That would also lead to mas deference in the earths mass of gravity and a different gravitational pull. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 4 days ago
@MrSeekLoad A super volcano will do no such thing, unless it ejects matter at a velocity sufficient to escape earth. Even so, it's speculation, and still significant in it's possible amounts of ejected matter. And I beleive no super volcano was created from the dino-killing meteor anyway.
tweaker1bms 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE LAST PART: So a combinations of ALL those factors makes the calculation wrong in our evolution book. Because the "combinations of ALL those factors" is what made the earth gravity be different not only one factor. If you put one factor a side you don't get that result. But as we all know it was not one factor but a chain of factors and that gives a totally different result.
MrSeekLoad 4 days ago
@MrSeekLoad This combination is of factors with no evidence of existing, and if they did would still be insignificant. Gravity is incredibly weak in general and effects nothing at the atomic level. For a comparison, take a magnet and hold it over a nail and see it lift off the ground. That puny magnet has more force than that of the entire accumulative gravitational force of the earth. And there are stronger ones still. Gravity is nothing, it does not, cannot, effect isotopic decay.
tweaker1bms 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms I agree on may things except one,part, you said "gravity is incredibly weak in general and effects nothing at the atomic level". That is the only part you seem to be wrong. Have you ever taken a look at a particle accelerator and what happens to the particles there?
MrSeekLoad 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms You should read this:
h t t p : / / professortaboo . wordpress . c o m /tag/particle-accelerator/
h t t p : / / w w w . scienceclarified . c o m /Sp-Th/Subatomic-Particles . h t m l#b
h t t p : / / science . rank . org/pages/3095/Grand-Unified-Theory . h t m l
DELETE the spaces
MrSeekLoad 2 days ago
@MrSeekLoad Also to save a lot of hassle in the future, I ask you to please take some courses in physics and astronomy, you seem interested in it, and that passion's good, but speculation without proper knowledge of how things work leads to a lot of trouble.
tweaker1bms 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms Also you have a point that I should "take some courses in physics and astronomy" but my time is not on my side for me (I don't have time now). Now I am at courses "computer programming and engineering" at the program for "IT business scientist and programmer" at the university. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: I did make some courses but I also agree with you that I may need more. I do have some knowledge though but the problem is the knowledge that is given is not really the same. Some say this some say that. Evidence contradict each other wen putting things together. Before after school I had it clear, but school did not say everything and now the more I look into it the more the logic is incomplete. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: I did make some courses but I also agree with you that I may need more. I do have some knowledge though but the problem is the knowledge that is given is not really the same. Some say this some say that. Evidence contradict each other wen putting things together. Before after school I had it clear, but school did not say everything and now the more I look into it the more the logic is incomplete. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: I did make some courses but I also agree with you that I may need more. I do have some knowledge though but the problem is the knowledge that is given is not really the same. Some say this some say that. Evidence contradict each other wen putting things together. Before after school I had it clear, but school did not say everything and now the more I look into it the more the logic is incomplete. CONTINUING...
MrSeekLoad 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms CONTINUING HERE: Wen I went to school I put out to the theory to the teacher the plausibility of the "magnetic field changes" (not gravity change). Back then it was thought that to be impossible.The teacher said to me "it is only speculations and there for can't be taken seriously, and probably never will". Now we know that is not speculations but reality.That has thought me that" what we learn may not always be like true in science".It made me skeptical to "some science" not all.
MrSeekLoad 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms I will write more on the subject after you write back. I don't have time now
MrSeekLoad 3 weeks ago
@AventadorNZ Sorry that my past comment was that long but I don't want to leave windows open for misunderstandings. Because as I have seen it many do misunderstand me thinking I see things simple, but I don't. So they sometimes simplify my comment in to something I do not say. That si why it was so long. Sorry for that, I will try to make it shorter in the future.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ I have more such scientific proof that contradicts evolution as we know it. But I will take one step at a time I know what happened last time I took it to fast. It becomes inunderstandable. The scientific proof that contradicts evolution I have does not contradict the evolution type as a theory but it contradicts the time line and were it came from not how it was to become as it did. Now that sounds strange! But I can't find the words to explain it so I'll say you will see.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@MrSeekLoad When you mention timeline differences, I wonder which way you shoot to make the change? If you attempt to argue the evolution could've happened faster, this makes all the more case for evolution, as the changes become all the more plausible. If you say it must take longer, then it must be pointed out that noah's flood creationists have to have evolution occur 1000 times faster than evolutionists do, in order to get the diversity we see today from only 4-5k years ago.
tweaker1bms 3 weeks ago
@MrSeekLoad In the scientific community we just accept that we don't know the answer, and we seek to find it, instead of being arrogant and just putting a god there to explain what we don't understand.
AventadorNZ 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AventadorNZ This is what i agree to more then 100% You said "In the scientific community we just accept that we don't know the answer, and we seek to find it". Man I wish more atheist would say that, but sadly to many atheists are fixed on one science proof and ignores that fact.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@AventadorNZ On the other hand you say "instead of being arrogant and just putting a god there to explain what we don't understand" I partly disagree because you can put a god there without being arrogant by saying "what scientifically can be proven as the power of god?" But to say that God is an absolute is arrogant that is why I "partly disagree" with you. If you put god the right way it is not arrogance, but do it the wrong way and it is arrogance.That is why I say "I like Einstein to it".
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fauxx82 Science is not new and as a science term is not new ether.
Natural science existed since the discovery and manipulation of fire.
Modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period, during what is known as the Scientific Revolution that took place in 16th and 17th century Europe.
But they did not call it "Modern Science" until the Renaissance by a character of modern philosophy(Immanuel Kant 1724-1804) before then it was just called "Science" not "Modern Science".
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp LAST PART:In the end the fault is not religion or atheist or what ever.The fault is humans who like sheep listen to there leaders in beliefs, politics,ideology science and anything.Leaders that if they are TO greedy,ignorant,selfish or arrogant will do anything to have it there way no matter what the truth is.We should never listen to people like that,but that does not mean we should not listen to other people.It only means we should ask your selves what is there interest before listening
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
@demnp I am really SORRY it was so long (to long) but the last time I tried to make it short on another video it just come as a misunderstanding for some. So I took the longer version to explain this time. I hope I have it in a way you understand what I am saying.
MrSeekLoad 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrSeekLoad 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrSeekLoad 2 months ago
Comment removed
imcrazy85 2 months ago
Comment removed
imcrazy85 2 months ago
Nice :D
Prussiaaccount 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He is wrong because he is GOD
cheatdath 2 months ago
One of Dawkins best speeches! Excellently articulated and very to the point, wonderful work!
DaylightDigital 2 months ago
The genius of God's creative ability:
Consider Onchocerciasis. It is a parasitic worm that predates on the eyeballs of people with weak immune systems - infants, children, the elderly, pregnant women, the sick, etc.
Consider how God so perfectly put this parasite in Africa, where He could maximize the devastation to the vulnerable.
Consider the claim that such a "god" is merciful....
Credit David Attenborough
manonthemount 2 months ago
@manonthemount ....Consider the claim that such a "god" is merciful....Credit David Attenborough
___
Duped atheists have failed to realise their true nature anti dubbed them as meaningless. They say that if this universe were governed by a Compassionate and Merciful Creator, these obnoxious occurrences would not have taken place. lie who marshals this argument tries to conclude that it would have been appropriate if man's life in this world had been trouble free.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Had it been so, man's conceit and selfishness would have led him to the conduct which would not have been in consonance with religion or his religious life. Just as you find persons nurtured in luxury and comfort who mostly forget their manhood and their state of having been brought up by somebody. They forget that they can receive some injury or sorrow or that some calamity may befall them.
1tabligh 2 months ago
They even forget whether they have to sympathise with some weak person or to pity some needy person. They are not amenable to feeling sorrow at another person's trouble or feeling compassion on the weakling or showing kindness towards troubled souls.
When, however, trouble befalls them, they feel its pinch and are then open to reason. They are awakened more than in proportion to their ignorance and folly.
1tabligh 2 months ago
They begin to act in a' way which was incumbent on them all along. If this trouble had not befallen them, the would have continued to look upon themselves as gods, to spend their lives in conceit, to have no pity or sympathy with anybody else.
Would such conduct have been in the interests of their religion and this world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@talons2112 The theory doesn't imply that you can see something evolve in front of your eyes. Its idiotic to assume that. Go to a natural history museum, and you will see fossils. Its those that we have observed. The theory never suggested that things evolve in a matter of days, monthes, decades, or even a whole lifetime. It takes place over millions of years, which you don't seem to understand. If god created everything, why would he make so much evidence to support a theory? To confuse people?
anarki1211 2 months ago 2
42:42 haha.. i can totally relate to this
bf2spurgu 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
51:39 TheAmazingAtheist ???
antiteista83 3 months ago
@antiteista83 Nah. Too fat.
Pseudonym25 3 months ago
Comment removed
Zotov13 3 months ago
XD 51:55 Old lady ain't even applauding. |:<
Xsuprio 3 months ago
@Xsuprio She was thinking. "You big bully!! God did it!!!" :(
mnemoniccourier 3 months 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 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Beautiful !
Thank you Mr. Dawkins for opening our eyes !
Good luck from Romania (Europe) !
StrykeForceXBow 3 months ago 11
SUPER LECTURE!!! Think twice you, who do not know, before you said something... WATCH and LEARN:-) You HUMAN kind!
jazzybudha 3 months ago
Comment removed
jazzybudha 3 months ago
dont learn from the people promoting dawkins they are all deluded into their atheist dogma
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 there is no atheist dogma.
hardinmichael1981 3 months ago 3
@hardinmichael1981 dawkins preaches atheist dogma it every day and in every video he does
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 "atheist dogma" - such as???
hardinmichael1981 3 months ago 11
@hardinmichael1981 just watch any richard dawkins video. i would suggest starting with his video "the magic of reality" to "a unverse from nothing"(haha), "enemies of reason", and work your way on down from there. dawkins is the high priest of this new religion
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful. Though I'm kind of sad for your lack of understanding of those speeches, lectures, videos etc. They're really great but you just don't seem to grasp them.
mallu000 3 months ago
@mallu000 i like to keep my feet grounded in reality instead of the make believe world that the high priest of atheism presents. i understand them perfectly well. this man is lying to everyone. dont wait until its too late for you.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 I suppose you're christian or some kind of other theist? Or are you just stupid? If there ever was "atheist dogma" then it would mean the same as secularist dogma, humanist dogma etc. Most of all Mr. Dawkins promotes critical thinking, civil rights and freedom of religion and labeling of children. If you're opposed to that then why don't you eat your own asshole.
mallu000 3 months ago 9
@mallu000 it is the same as humanist dogma. all one has to do is listen to richard itterate the atheist religion in any and all of his videos. dawkins does not promote critical thinking he uses circular reasoning,fallacies, and psychology to indoctrinate. the results of which are confused and angry people that cannot even comprehend the basics of scientific method and instead fall to the level of insults to support their side of a debate.
talons2112 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@talons2112 Conclusion: Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.
mallu000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@talons2112 For great analysis of the facts about the Bible & other old Writ & comparative religion try also John W. Loftus, Robert M. Price, Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, Keith Parsons, Ken Pulliam, David Mills, Gary Greenberg, Bart Ehrman, Joseph Wheless, C. Dennis Mckinsey, Richard Carrier, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Israel Finkelstein, James Frazer, Jason Long, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins
zytigon 3 months ago