Richard Dawkins - Charles Darwin and Natural Selection

[Shokuju]

identical twins aren't identical individual- even if we toss out the whole growth and development parts they're off by a couple of somatic mutations.

[WolfProductions27]

Charles Darwin - Richard Dawkins - Stephen Hawking - Bob Dawking ?

[willbirful]

love the video really good

[xtremetom180]

some really good stuff here

[TheSpikeystuff]

interesting video and very informative

[smuggecko]

brilliant video

[FinemRespice1]

The theory of accidental creation is full of holes here is why: One, evolutionist claim the earth is 4.4 billion years old,

They have come to this conclusion using a system called carbon dating.

It has already been proven to have huge flaws in it(when used on plant and animal fossils)

and can only attribute for about 6,000 years back reliably anyway, therefore serves very little use in the theory of accidental creation.

[FinemRespice1]

@FinemRespice1 Two: There are currently no fossils that have been excavated to this day that give any signs of evolutionary stages ( not to mention the lack of explanation regarding the "Cambrian Explosion"). Three: There have also to this day been no Documented Drastic changes in any living thing such as "Species Changing". According to document linked history( Rough estimate) the earth is at most 10,000 years old. I would think that 3,000 years of hard read history would have shown.

[mikelheron20]

@FinemRespice1 There is absolutely no excuse for ignorance like yours. It has never been easier to obtain information. Stop being mentally lazy - read something other than the Book of Genesis.

[mikelheron20]

@FinemRespice1 Ignorant rubbish. Scientists acknowledge that carbon dating only takes them back so far. There are plenty of other techniques that are used. It's easy enough to find out about them. Don't be so lazy. Do some reading.

[FinemRespice1]

@mikelheron20 Where am I wrong? you gave no facts to in force your claim. And the so called scientists that you say know carbon dating is flawed still stick to their original estimate of 4.4 billion years. Instead of brushing these questions off why not answer them?

Who is being lazy? My motto: Theorys are based on facts not facts based on theorys.

Guys like Dawkins could learn from this (When he claims evolution is fact).

[FinemRespice1]

@FinemRespice1 If your going to say I should read more then give me your source so that I may inlighten myself.....

[mikelheron20]

@FinemRespice1 The estimate of 4.4 billion years (give or take) is not based on carbon dating. Lots of other techniques such as radiodating (not the same thing - are you familiar with the idea of radioactive half-life?) are used. But it isn't my job to educate you. As I said, it has never been simpler to find information. Do your own searching and reading like the rest of us. Evolution is fact. The entire scientific community - excepting a few religious fruitcakes - accepts it.

[FinemRespice1]

@mikelheron20 Look, just like anything in the "Theory" of accidental creation radio dating relies on unknown factors. Here are

some conditions we must know in order for this method to accurately work.

The amount of isotopes that was there to begin with, and the object would have to be perfectly contained to make sure no outside

contaminants were introduced or that no isotopes were lost......

Assumptions assumptions is that all this current so called science can produce?

[FinemRespice1]

@FinemRespice1 As for your institutes,(which is where your so call "Scientific Community" gets it's facts from) I've never trusted anything that comes from big organizations, just look to history or our current Big business/ Government corruption problem for the reason why.......

[sitodocambia]

@FinemRespice1 The scientific community gets its facts from carefully structured experiments and observations that were reevaluated and redone by many other scientists of many different backgrounds to avoid bias.

If you want more information about how evolution works I have three websites for you where you can read all about it.

[sitodocambia]

@FinemRespice1

To find them search "evolution and natural selection" in google. The first four results should answer most if not all of your questions.

[garmac002]

Badam16 what you call reassuring others may consider exploring ideas. What's wrong with that?

[garmac002]

Mogly52 do you have your own video?

[Badam16]

you atheists and people who lack faith...only listen to richard dawkins to reassure yourselves...why dont you ask yourselves WHY DO I NEED TO KEEP REASSURING MYSLEF? I would tell you why, but you already know....but you already know.

[winterstellar]

@Badam16 Hehe, yeah? Is it "Hell" or something again?:)

[RuneScaping101]

@Badam16 Because I like the reminder of how idiotic, ignorant, and blind religious people are.

[whiteliketar]

This man dawkins is as close to a madman as you can get - this is what happens to an individual when he is an atheist first and a true follower of a science ...a distant second.

[missionarymayn]

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing....For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdon; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and the Greeks foolishness....not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually descerned." (1Corninthians)

[MrShaziman]

Listen to this BIG BULLSHITTER talking. Anyone that jumps on this guy's bandwagon needs to have their head examined. He still believes the official version of 911. He can't see that the official explanation is bs. And he believes man visited the moon in 1967. God! Can't get any worse than this. This man is a gatekeeper. Richard Milton says that he (Dawkins) stopped him from having one of his articles published in England. Need more proof that he is not a 'gatekeeper'?

[hyrulphicsound]

@MrShaziman Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by "gatekeeper"?

[MrShaziman]

@hyrulphicsound He is a 'protector' of the system. He does not allow anything to get in that would put to threat whatever the 'scientific establishment' is teaching. Truth is not synonymous with what he is doing. Dogmatism is. Best wishes.

[Adleist]

@MrShaziman The thing is most of claims made by Richard Milton are total bullshit. Without knowing him very much I can say he claimed that telekinesis and homeopathy were both real and scientifically valid.

Plus Dawkins never actually stopped the article from being published. He only reviewed Milton's book as being ignorant bullshit.

[MrShaziman]

@Adleist I was hoping not to keep dwelling on this subject. I just want to go on to other matters of interest. I'll say this much though. Milton's book might be bullshit for him, but he (Dawkins) is entitled to have whatever opinion he wants to have on any researcher or book. That's his right. I'm entitled to mine too. Can't say if the article was finally published, but Dawkins was trying to not get it in print. Is Milton lying? I doubt it. I conclude, Dawkins is intellectually dishonest.

[anolmec]

Darwin's concept of "transformism" was stolen from "Philosophie Zoologique" published in 1809. Natural Selection stolen from "Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality", published in 1755. You can dismiss Darwin for being the thief he was and dismiss Dawkin for being a compliant stooge

[british123able]

@anolmec typical american, what do they teach you over there ? because you are wrong. you guys are almost always wrong on all subjects. VERY INTERESTING !

[DanielDeVito89]

@Beatus72, why the fuck are you commenting here? You're not welcome faggot!

[beatus72]

Evolution turned into religion? Nonsense! Other than religion any scientific theory - like the theory of evolution - is falsified or verified by evidence. It takes a long and very critical process to turn it into generally accepted fact. Yet there is always room left for new facts or theories to correct our understanding of reality. Just because someone passionately defends these established insights, this doesn't make it a religion to him.

[mynameisjonas45]

@beatus72 The Theory of Evolution is not a religion by any means, but it does have many philosophical statements in it. Which, there is nothing wrong with that.

[darkfur35]

when did the theory of evolution turn into a religion.......

[Lingerfoot]

Because it makes religion obsolete!

[darkfur35]

not likely........