Theoretically this would happen. Listen on a bit further where he states: needless to say it doesn't happen to the same extent , after a point natural factors come to regulate the size of the population of bacteria.
He was just using an extreme example to help visualize how fast bacteria reproduce. They actually need a high natality rate to overcome their high mortality rate.
Every country, that on a regular basis cannot feed itself is overpopulated and should take drastic measures to curb g it`s population growth. China should be applauded for it`s effort.
The world isn't over populated That is a capitalist myth They use .this over population argument to get the system of the hook by indocrinating people that there is a shortage of food. It goes back to malthus's theory of population. e.g. there are hundreds of thousands of new cars standing on garage fore courts that cannot be sold, yet people are running around in old cars. The same argument applies i'e. there must be a shortage of cars!
Quite simple, if I were to show hundreds of thousands of brand new cars standing on garage fore courts which they cannot sell because of the resession, and show you hundreds of thousands of people were driving around in old bangers, would you claim that people drive around in old bangers because their is a shortage of new cars?! The same principle applies to food. We have all been indocrinated with the myth of shortage, therefore poverty and starvation is deemed as a natural phenomena.
If you were a billionaire you could buy mountains of food stuff and feed the poor. Can you not see the problem is the present monatary system under the confines of capitalism that is responsible for the starvation of millions in this world?
But not because there is a shortage of food, the system denies people food unless they have money. Suppose two people were shipped wrecked and ended up on a desert island. One takes biscuits and water, the other takes gold coins. The island has no food. The gold therefore becomes useless. Only under certain econmomic circumstances do humans give value to gold.
For gold to traded for food means people must recognise it as something other tan metal. Offer a dog a biscuit or a nugget of gold it will take a biscuit, it sees no point in the metal. Therefore humans give gold a sort of mystical quality. Gold as money must represent something. This something is human labour in the abstract. Any commodity is a product of human labour, if gold gives you food then it has to represent human labour. Money is the same i.e, human labour in the abstract.
For one person to have so much money requires that he must have been able some how to acquire other peoples labour. namely through exploitation. this is the reason people in third world countries can work 18 hoiurs a day and still be in poverty, their labour is taken off them in the form of company profit. mostly by Western Multinational companies. The poor do not get the reward of their hard labour the exploiters do.
In a word yes because if you have money you can eat. If people are starving in communist countries then they cannot be communist countries. However the capitalist media has indocrinated you into believing that they were communist, they were not, they were totalitarian. In short no human being should be hungry, not in a world where we have the means to produce in super abundance. Sadely memory is short, people forget that millions suffered destitution in the 30s in America and Europe
This led millions of people going to war, the capitalists indocrinated the working class to fight imperialist wars. in the belief that it was for their benefit. People in Europe and America are again fearful of losing their jobs, houses etc.
A world where the animals have no place, A world where we are dependent increasingly on science, to keep us fed, a world where millions are starving of hunger, is a world that`s overpopulated.
It's interesting to think, when hearing about the space analogy, that nowadays there is a telescope up there hunting for Earth-like planets, the Kepler.
Of course far as humans ever reaching those goes... first of all, is it even possible to travel such distances? And second will humanity survive that long or will it overpopulate even further and consume every resource on the planet leading to societal collapse?
And if it DOES make it to another world, will humanity still be driven by greed?
The earth isn't over populated, that is a capitalist myth. which was first put forwad by Malthus. Nissan has on its forecourts thousands of brand new cars it cannot sell, yet people are driving around in old bangers! however we don't argue that there is a shortage of cars! It is the same with food, water or any other man made commodity rid the world of poverty and you rid of greed.
for fuck sake write like that at college or uni and you would fail. This is how i might present it.
'if we compare humans to other animals then it appears that human are sensation seekers. For example we might experience the thrill of watching a fire work display. Animals clearly show signs of distress and atempt to run or hide when exposed to such displays. Many phiosopher argue that only humans can appreciate the arts. Biologists argue that the Cerebral cortex is what gives us a higher ...
...brain function .This gives rise to mankind creating art and culture. For example most animals abodes have not changed for thousands of years, a badger still lives in a set, a rabbit in a warren, a fox in a den. Compare this with the abodes humans live. in. mansions, high rise blocks, mud huts, wood huts, bamboo huts, brick houses, concrete houses etc. From this It is clear that human's possess brain functions that surpass any other creature that inhabits the earth... etc
oh, dear, I'm sorry! I didn't see the rest of your comment/quote. Very interesting, though I'm not sure if I compleatly agree about the art and culture thing just in humans (certainly to a different degree). Many animals dance, mourn, do ritual, or even have different dialects, but that's going into a whole other topic. Anyway, thanks for that.
what's the use of a baby...what a marvelous question. I believe God/science is so wasteful...all of "this" is...and that makes it so wonderful. We're all what the great mathematician called, "a pointless point."
not that it matters, but my name is Hannah too...seeing him hold the baby, feel like i've just been engulfed by the universe
So what your really saying is that we shouldn't try to learn/understand anything?! So why did the great mathematician bother to learn maths?! Thanks to science we no longer burn witches when cattle become diseased.
What?? No! I think we should learn, more and more...Science is vital and awesome. I just think the reason is something deeper than the fight for survivol. Living, in it's true nature is sonptaneous, isn't it? The math mathematician was talking about something compleatly different, i'll show name/theory later. I just don't believe in clear goal/meaning to life. If i didn't want to learn/understand anything, why would i be listening to these?? I was all night. Thanks for uploading, btw!
Survival of the fittest is the evolutionary process which gave rise to mankind. Darwin nor Dawkins implies that mankind is a prisoner of evolution. Our large brains have given us the ability to reason and form ( to some degree)civilized societies, e.g. we have health services in all European countries, people are not left to die by the side of the road.
but i still believe that there's more too it to that. Half of whatever all of science or whatever this is unprovable and that makes it all the more awesome, which is science is learning survivol, but also not caring about survivol and just have a thrill in it, which gives you a thrill for your fellow man.
Working through your comment |I think that you are arguing that survival of the fittest is still at work even in the most technological/ indusrtrialised countries. I think you need to read philosophy esp. Jean Jacques Rousseau (Man in the state of nature) Thomas Hobbes (Man in the state of natue) , Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim. Or at least wikipedia them.
i wrote that half asleep at 2AM, so sorry for it not making sense, but I do wish you would stop putting words in my mouth. You keep saying almost the exact opposite with what I am saying. All I did was agree with Dawkins about the use of science in the first place, and you argue with me as if I stated against it. Not talking survival of the fittest at all, but when you realise the point is not to just survival, you get a thrill in life, and thus thrill/care of other lives. Science is like that.
LOOK! I wasn't trying to argue! I'm just enjoying the lectures. If I was about to get in an argument with u, I wouldn't do it in a comment box. But I agree with your points, so I don't know why you think I keep saying that we are trapped in evolution, when that's not what I said at all??! Don't worry so much about it. Yes evolution is about adaptation, and sci is VITAL but I don't think that survival is the point to life. It's more of the exeperience, helping others, whether you die or not.
when u love life (or understand science), rather than just worry of survival for next genreation (eg just so we can go on)...when learning science is for that use, it does better this earth, or like you said, "ability to reason and form ( to some degree)civilized societies". In other words, Dawkins is doing something cause he enjoys science, and that enjoyment is really his cherishing of life not just making sure we survive. BTW, thx for the recommendations. Will get to them. i'm in Watts now.
Some of my faith head friends ask me why I want to know so much about the universe; to them each new discovery, while undoubtedly interesting, takes away from the mystery and the wonder of the world we inhabit. When I explain that I find my self and my consciousness elevated by the information we learn through science, they claim that the difference between us is that they are Romantics, and I am not. But that is unfair. It is our thirst for knowledge that makes us wonderful as a species.
the probability spiel is just plain tom foolery. chance doesnt work like that. this is where scientists always seem to fall down. he seems to employ awe in the same way a mystic might to demonstrate the existence of god. but we're supposed to believe in a non-god. charming
if god is true, and there is such a thing, then my car that i drive, has a mind of its own. Believing in a god is as same as believeing that your car has a mind of its own. Since they are both on the same level of logical scale, have no evidence to prove them at all, and every proof, and evidence that points out that are false. Just like for god, you can make excuses that your car might have a mind! like, give personal experiences, and etc... but doesn't make it true.
what i mean is if you say god exist, which lives out side of the physical laws, then according to that any god, anything is possible using our imagination. If you talk out side logic, and physical laws, then i can say my car can think, or the universe was started by Santa clues, or there are 1 million gods, or zombies created the world. They are all similar in that they don't have a shred of evidence, and only exist in your imagination. what's the difference between God, and Santa Clues?
WOW, i didn't even know that part. I just don't get how 4 billion people can't think like us here, and get these simple facts, and think rationally for themselves. I mean it's not that hard. If I, a 18 year old college student, with many people like me, and you can think logically like this, why can't other billions of smart, educated people do this simple thinking, and apply critical thinking, and use logic, and common sense. It really amazes me!!!!
As Dawkins srgues it's a delusion. I've known many people esp. women who will go to fortune tellers. I've even known women who have spent their house rent money on fortune tellers. It does appear that many people have a psychological yearning for wanting to believe in other worldly things.
This is nonsense. Luck had nothing to do with it. We are here. Things are what they are. All the "chances" he speaks of are hypothetical and non existent.
please, that was not his point. His point was that if one little thing went wrong with our ancestry, Apes, and other cozines, that if they had died, we wouldn't have been here now.
"His point was that if one little thing went wrong with our ancestry, Apes, and other cozines, that if they had died, we wouldn't have been here now."
His point is pointless,redundant and =
(If I were not, then I would not be here now.)
This is nonsense. Again,Luck had nothing to do with it. We are here. Things are what they are. All the "chances" he speaks of are hypothetical, non existent, and pointless.
'good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance'
If we take this definition then lucky means we have been successful. Every change throughout the evolution of our ancestors was successful. We were lucky that these changes benefited our surviaval right to the present day. Other creatures were't so lucky, they became extinct e.g. a comet hit the earth the dinosaurs became extinct. One species extinctiion was our advantage.
The dinosaurs were (from our perspective )unlucky. It has even been proposed that we could change the term 'survival of the fittest' to survival of the luckiest'. If we think of all the catastrophies the planet has been through, the number of creatures that have become extinct because of these catastrophes, then in this sense we are indeed very lucky to be here. It could easily have have been otherwise. We could easily have been wiped out. We had good fortune, we had the luck.
However I should add that luck is a subjective issue. If there were no thinking humans there we be no luck. There would simply be events. It is only from our perspective that we can regard ourselves as being lucky.
"If there were no thinking humans there we be no luck. There would simply be events. It is only from our perspective that we can regard ourselves as being lucky"
That's only if you choose to believe that sort of nonsense.
I think we agree that it's perspective, but since we too will become extinct, but we live now, we are just as lucky as the dinosaurs were, not more so.
Look here you dozey cuntI have already stated that the term luck comes from a human brain perspective, only humans have this ability to reflect on the past and anticipate the futures,so what the fuckin hell is your problem?! The irony is that a dozey twats like you will go around telling people how lucky you were to win th xmas raffle. Forget it your a waste of space.
Dude, why is this so hard for you to get. By luck he doesn't mean any super natural being helped us come to be. Granted, there is no such a thing as luck, nor chance. But as humans we call things that are rare to happen, things that happen despite the odds being against them, we call that state of being, luck! doesn't have any magical thing behind it. I know we're here, and that it, but if for some reason a flood, or something had killed our ancestry, humans wouldn't have been here now.
As far as aliens and evidence, we must remember that evidence does not need to be directly observed. Evidence can be based on probability. People get thrown in prison for this evidence all the time. Given the likelyhood of life with what we know, it seems most probably that there is life out there. Super advanced life? I would refer you to Carl Sagan to answer that.
There is no evidence for (not of earth)aliens. Eye witness statements are not evidence of aliens, they could be the mistaken observation of the observer. We would need more than eye witness accounts in order to say that aliens area scientific fact. A scientific fact is something that can be observed and measured. E.g. Gravity is a scientific fact. All the facts known about gravity through expeimentation give us gravational theory. You can argue probability of life elsewhere but it's not yetfact.
Eye witness statements are bunk. It seems we strongly agree there. I also agree that a fact (law) must be directly and unambiguously observed and measured. But such a rigid model of knowledge would all but freeze science to a stop. Probable evidence frees us to assume until proven wrong. The higher the probability, the safer the assumption. Such probabilities do need to be based on laws, though. (No, I'm not a Roswell freak, in case that's what your trying to help me with)
Probabilistic arguments are only valid in situations where we can assign probabilities based on observations. I guess that you mentioned Sagan because he discussed the Drake equation on an episode of Cosmos. Sadly, the Drake equation tells us absolutely nothing. When you multiply 7 numbers together, where at least 4 of them are based purely on speculation, the result is garbage. The only thing we know for sure is that there is at least one planet with life.
Actually, I was refering to Sagans publications in science journals, where he explains things in much more depth. But I mentioned him only in respect to hypothetical probabilities (such as the Drake Equation). The probabilities of extraterestial life are based on observable evidence. The amount of the necessary components of life that the observable universe contains would indicate a high scientific probability.
I understand what you are saying, but at the very least you must admit that we have almost no understand of how the origin of life occurs. Therefore it is impossible to assign a probability to that factor. Perhaps life emerges almost automatically when the conditions are right, or perhaps its a chance event that has only happened on earth. Until we understand the mechanism we can't rationally discuss the odds of it happening.
Yes, I agree that we need a better understanding of abiogenesis before we can make an accurate probability model. It could be something is unique about the earth. But I think we can use what we know to make a probable statement, a statement which will change as new information arrives. I think our disagreement is the line between not enough and barely enough sample data to make a statement. I can see why you have chosen the cautious side and want more information.
While i firmly believe that extra-terrestrial life is probable, there are many limiting factors that would prevent modern conceptions of alien life coming to earth from being true.
issues of technology, distances, timing, and 'intelligence', among many others.
The main reason that most people are skeptical of the claims of people who believe a specific kind of intelligent alien life visits (or visited) us at some point is the lack of real evidence. It's right up there with Bigfoot... sorry.
Believing in things without evidence can lead to a sorry state of affairs. The god or religious delusion for many has become supplanted by the notion that there must be extra terrestrial beings delusion. I.e. it always based around the notion that there must be superia beings that can guide humanity. Plus people can make alot of dosh by feeding people with delusions, just as religion does.
I read them. They are fucking shit. You take too much notice of crap like the x files and believe it to be true. Whilst the ysnky military scientists are developing stealth bombers the politicians in the US government are laughing their cocks off . The reason for thisi s they know that there are plenty of daft fuckers like you who will go around telling every one that the government is really hiding the evidence that would prove that little green men are visiting our planet.
Get serious alienmoonbase (oh yeah, it fits)! Dawkins has a reputation he's trying to build as a scientist. Think of him segwaying to ET or UFO subjects. Even the mention of those subjects would discredit his serious work. You moon-twinkies should try to enlist some other person of doubtful mental veracity.
Me too! I'd love to just disappear into the rest of the world, making the most of everyday, who says we should live our lives 9to5, by a house live in it, have children, raise them in it, get old and die in it! Well, my boyfriend does actually, I hope he would join me if I refused the status quo?
Listen carefully. He not saying a man made message is being sent.
'The smoke going into the beam represents stars,each particle of smoke represents one star, and you can think of the beam as a gigantic search light [from our sun], beamed out from space and signalling from our planet [planet/sun]in the hope that some one else from another world will pick up the message'
If our message [from the Sun i.e. light]is observed by those on another planet they will see not us but the dinosaurs.
I would admit it's a bit ambiguous on a first listening. What Dawkins is saying is imagine that the light given off by our sun and earth is a message and that it is being sent across space to other planets. If they were to see the light of our sun or earth they would be seeing light which set off from earth when the dinosaurs were roaming.
Sorry Mr. Dawkins, but if an alien civilization does pick up our signals it would see our planet as it was when we sent those signals. For an alien to recieve a signal from Earth and to look at Earth and see the dinosaurs, the signal had to have been traveling faster than the speed of light. Which, as far as we know, is impossible.
Dawkins doesnt nessesarily fully believe in "Alien" life forms. But he does not rule it out and you cant. Like any scientist he is waiting on clear cut evidence on such as well as I but I think the point is that if in our small existance as a species of life, could there have been other that evolved so much on other planets they they have evolved better than us. We cant rule it out but we are waiting for the evidence. The same evidence for a belief in the Super "GOD".
I suspect that Dawkins believes privately, 100% that intelligent life has evolved elsewhere.
When people approach this subject cautiously i wonder if they have any clue about the number of galaxies, stars and yes, planets. Multiply 200 billion stars by two hundred billion galaxies. conservatively.
There is plenty of ET live out there. Some UFOs are extraterrestrial. Get used to it.
Read up on it. The ET naysayers of today are the creationists of the 18th century.
exactly. Steven bassett: "the church tried to hide the fact that the earth was round in Gallileo's time, and now they're trying to do it again. How many mile wide crafts off the cockpit of planes are we going to see before we admit it" Laugh my ass off everytime I hear someone say "its all a load of bullshit"
These fucking aliens are meant to be flying around all over the fucking planet. We live in a multi media age, yet we still haven't had one decent photo. They always abduct some fat fucking thick yank to search for intelligent life. I mean it's never an Ethiopean! They travel billions of light years across space and then crash! They always want to communicate with a brainless turd like George Bush, it's never Iceland. Fuck sake I would be ashamed if an alien said 'take us to your leader" !
Nope Iric...The church and everyone else, including the Inuit,knew the earth was round! What the church got exited about was that Galileo's observations made certain that we were NOT at the center of the universe! Blasphemy!
Agree. The ancient Greeks worked out the circumfrence of the earth by measuring the length of shadows by a stick placed in the ground. There ain't half been some clever bastards!
Thankyou for your response, i have now watched quite a few of them. I was just looking for a DVD of most of the Christmas Lectures available. I will go to Amazondotcom. Thank you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
he says, 'after a point natural factors come to regulate the growth of the bacteria'. Sounds very intelligent to me that. Where does that intelligence come from? hmm...
Well, Doc Montague, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you're not from America. Fundamentalists may not be the majority, but the moderates don't lobby; they actually have lives to lead. Atheism is on the rise (thank God) btu that doesn't mean much to the policy makers over here. I think we are dangerously close to a theocracy in name (we pretty much already are one in practice).
BoozyBeggar. You cannot turn the clock back as regards science. Evolutionary theory will always be taught in the accredited universities.Yes I'm from the UK. Before the Iraq war our news told us night after night that we were going to be over run/swamped by asylum seekers. Come the Iraq war there is now no mention of asylum seekers, they have all mysteriously disappeared. It's propaganda news to try and scare us. I'm just waiting for the next food scare!
DrMontague, i hope to Natalie Portman (aka the One True God) that your right, and that reason will prevail over madness and hysteria. As for myself, I can't help but see a day when nuclear physicists will be held hostage and made to construct a fission bomb by radical Theists to help bring about their own religion's ideas of armageddon.
Ahh you see the scare mongering works so well and penetrates so deep. At one time it was the Soviet Union who was the threat, we never heard of Islamic extremists during the cold war. Amazing how they have found a new enemy to make you have sleepless nights. Even Dawkins has been taking in by the propaganda, it's such a powerful mind virus.
why is it that i almost cried when richard picked up that baby? our life is too significant to have been created by a murdurous being. my child was given to me by the partnership of myself, and my partner, as a gift to ourselves; it is something that we'd achieved. i hope that everyone has the ability to fathom the poetry that is woven within that idea. thanks for the video!
I agree, I hear theists in an argument about teenage pregnancy on 'The Truth About Teen Moms' on utube say 'oh I could never not believe in God after the birth of my beautiful son' but I am unmoved by such talk
freedomlivesforever. They all say that until the old man buggars off leaving the state and tax payers to bring up their off spring! Let the churches foot the bill they are worth billions, I'm sure god will approve.
Ok that was really only tongue in cheek what I wrote. I'm not a doctor. Dr Montague is a fictional character out of shirley Jackson's Novel 'The Haunting of Hill House'. It was made into a B&W film called 'The Haunting' and starred Julie Harris and Clare Bloom. The Doctor's name was changed from Montague to Markway in the film. The film was produced by Robert Wise who did The Sound of Music.
I'm a militant Atheist. I do not regard religion as a threat to science as Dawkins and his fans seem to be so paranoid about. Science has won the battle. Science is in stronger position then it has ever been in the history of mankind. Since the down fall of the Eastern block countries the west had to find a new enemy to frighten the masses, religious fundamentalism was to fill this vacuum. So Dawkins and his support lie awake at night fearing they are going to be taken over by Muslims et al.
BTW I love the Dawkins lectures and he is a brilliant educator. Most people I know have never heard of Dawkins or the god delusion. I don't hear anyone going around saying ban the teaching of evolutionary theory. In short most people are simply getting on with their lives and don't give a shit.
The British government have a big arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Is Saudi Arabia a Democracy? The truth is they don't care who they sell weapons to as long as they make a hefty profit. Again this notion of liberating people is really a smoke screen for imperialism.
America and the west want an excuse to invade and exploit the resources of these countries. To do so they have to tell lies to their citizens . For example, Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. I wasn't fooled by this at all but millions were.
Most people in Iran or Iraq want to live in peace. They do not want to go to war. They simply want to get on with life. This notion that they want to take over the world is twaddle.
Ahhh.. maybe the people of Iran don't want war - but the iran government has been funding the Hezbolah since the 1980s. It's governments that go to war. The mistake the US made is not going to war with Iran first. There was WMD, a terrorist connection, and a much more fertile group of young people who would embrace democracy. But alas, the war was really about oil anyway.
The American and British government has sponsored terrorism all over the world and put many dictators in power when it has suited their economic interests. They even backed Saddam Hussien. The west has supplied arms to several so called rogue states.
It's called, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it is not a policy unique to america, great britton, or even the roman empire. This has been a tactic that has been used for thousands of years. We were just stupid enough to try and clean up our Saddam Hussien mess instead of going to the real problem all along - THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT.
It's called, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it is not a policy unique to america, great britton, or even the roman empire. This has been a tactic that has been used for thousands of years. We were just stupid enough to try and clean up our Saddam Hussien mess instead of going to the real problem all along - THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT.
For Ydem3102Yes I agree with what you're saying in part.However the West has armed Iran and Iraq. The people of all countries should depose their governments if they are liars and manipulators. What did the UK and America do? Answer vote them back in!
Not completely true, the US has a president, but they also have a congress, and a senate - both of which lost their power during the elections to more moderate and liberal representatives. The reason the president got a second term was circumstantial.
Ok I'm not an expert of the US Political system, however in the UK it's is first past the post system. In other words the Labour Party gained more seats in parliament then any other party. I would imagine it's the same in the US i.e. Bush must have won more votes,seats, or what whatever to keep him president. If he didn't then why didn't the democrats get in?
Before the down fall of the Berlin wall you never heard of Iran or Iraq or religious fundamentalism. Please try to see it for what it really is i.e. PROPAGANDA. Western governments want us to lie awake at night and fear.
The definition of irony: a person who believes in an invisible man in the sky and then says,"Dawkins is very good at simply making something up and pretending that it actually happened."
creationists fear the uncovering of truth not Dawkins himself. Many religious people including the catholic church agree with evoluton and 'the big bang' theory but will give it a creationist slant
Religious people also fear death and also tend to be extremely self serving. Forget the fact that the most common selling line for religion is eternal damnation, but it seems for the longest time that people have always thought the the end of their time would be the end of all times--the world cant go on w/o them.
The problem with creationism is that it underminds concepts such as the soul and afterlife. At what point did we stop being apes and start being people, and gain the ability to have a soul and progress into heaven? At what cell multiplication does a foetus gain its 'soul' - the prerequisite for afterlife.
The problem with your question is that you begin with the assumption that a soul is a real thing. There is no evidence supporting the idea of a soul ... it's just a story.
Not a story but a belief that thousands of millions of humans have believed in at one time or another. tomsega has made an attempt to debunk this belief by reason. Simply making a statement that the soul does not exist without presenting some form of argument would not change peoples beliefs. They have to have a seed of doubt implanted and hopefully that seed of doubt will grow.
yeah, i gathered that D M ,my comment was'nt aimed at you either, I am but a simple humanbean .. Aren't creationists those loons who believe the Bible as utter fact? .. To me, its just a book with some good stories in it, written by dozens and dozens of authors, and slightly rewritten over time .. Dawkings could'nt have put it any clearer!!! lmao!!
why are so many people so anti Richard Dawkings? .. over the last few months i've heard so many people detest Dawkings. To me, everything he says makes perfect sense. These lectures are brilliant, he puts complex theories into an easily understood manner.
Somebody responded to this in a later post, but I wanted to make sure you got this reply cause it's quite good: "The definition of irony: a person who believes in an invisible man in the sky and then says,"Dawkins is very good at simply making something up and pretending that it actually happened.""
I don't lose any sleep over it. It purely propaganda by governments and media to try and instill fear into the general public. Since the down fall of the eastern block counties the west had to find a new enemy in order to spread panic amongst their citizens.
I wonder if Hannah the baby has watched this on youtube?
jsgg 1 year ago
@jsgg no shes a fundamentalist Christian, got repressed memories of Dawkins stealing her dummy
chrish12345 6 months ago
@chrish12345 lol very funny. Nice
BandWagon1987 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Fibonaccie 2 years ago
Theoretically this would happen. Listen on a bit further where he states: needless to say it doesn't happen to the same extent , after a point natural factors come to regulate the size of the population of bacteria.
DrMontague 2 years ago
Okay I got it :) More bacteria then atoms in the universe :)
Fibonaccie 1 year ago
Comment removed
sdarvell 1 year ago
He was just using an extreme example to help visualize how fast bacteria reproduce. They actually need a high natality rate to overcome their high mortality rate.
VerumAdNauseam 1 year ago
@Fibonaccie You would not included the atoms inside the bacteria, only the bacteria vs the rest of the atoms in the universe.
lord69z 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
antichrist
ekaluocboy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
@atheistfriends I saw your channel. Its a joke. How can you watch any of these videos and still believe so much batshit crazy stuff?
party489 1 year ago
Every country, that on a regular basis cannot feed itself is overpopulated and should take drastic measures to curb g it`s population growth. China should be applauded for it`s effort.
Philos2006 2 years ago
The world isn't over populated That is a capitalist myth They use .this over population argument to get the system of the hook by indocrinating people that there is a shortage of food. It goes back to malthus's theory of population. e.g. there are hundreds of thousands of new cars standing on garage fore courts that cannot be sold, yet people are running around in old cars. The same argument applies i'e. there must be a shortage of cars!
DrMontague 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that the food and materials are there but we simply cannot afford it? I'm sorry, I just didn't quite get the car analogy.
aryonas 2 years ago
Quite simple, if I were to show hundreds of thousands of brand new cars standing on garage fore courts which they cannot sell because of the resession, and show you hundreds of thousands of people were driving around in old bangers, would you claim that people drive around in old bangers because their is a shortage of new cars?! The same principle applies to food. We have all been indocrinated with the myth of shortage, therefore poverty and starvation is deemed as a natural phenomena.
DrMontague 2 years ago
Ah, thanks much for that explanation. Appreciate it.
aryonas 2 years ago
If you were a billionaire you could buy mountains of food stuff and feed the poor. Can you not see the problem is the present monatary system under the confines of capitalism that is responsible for the starvation of millions in this world?
DrMontague 2 years ago
Capitalism is responsible for starvation?
So people are only hungry in the USA?
No one is hungey in Communist countries?
gregrutz 2 years ago
So if I was a billionaire and I feed all the starving people of the world, what would happen.
They would get hungry next week and so would I.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
But not because there is a shortage of food, the system denies people food unless they have money. Suppose two people were shipped wrecked and ended up on a desert island. One takes biscuits and water, the other takes gold coins. The island has no food. The gold therefore becomes useless. Only under certain econmomic circumstances do humans give value to gold.
DrMontague 2 years ago
For gold to traded for food means people must recognise it as something other tan metal. Offer a dog a biscuit or a nugget of gold it will take a biscuit, it sees no point in the metal. Therefore humans give gold a sort of mystical quality. Gold as money must represent something. This something is human labour in the abstract. Any commodity is a product of human labour, if gold gives you food then it has to represent human labour. Money is the same i.e, human labour in the abstract.
DrMontague 2 years ago
For one person to have so much money requires that he must have been able some how to acquire other peoples labour. namely through exploitation. this is the reason people in third world countries can work 18 hoiurs a day and still be in poverty, their labour is taken off them in the form of company profit. mostly by Western Multinational companies. The poor do not get the reward of their hard labour the exploiters do.
DrMontague 2 years ago
You are right, we need more fucking people and cars on our freeways. >LOL
gregrutz 2 years ago
In a word yes because if you have money you can eat. If people are starving in communist countries then they cannot be communist countries. However the capitalist media has indocrinated you into believing that they were communist, they were not, they were totalitarian. In short no human being should be hungry, not in a world where we have the means to produce in super abundance. Sadely memory is short, people forget that millions suffered destitution in the 30s in America and Europe
DrMontague 2 years ago
This led millions of people going to war, the capitalists indocrinated the working class to fight imperialist wars. in the belief that it was for their benefit. People in Europe and America are again fearful of losing their jobs, houses etc.
DrMontague 2 years ago
BTW the car example was simply used to demonstrate the myth of shortage and that food shortage as is the notion of an over crowded world.
DrMontague 2 years ago
A world where the animals have no place, A world where we are dependent increasingly on science, to keep us fed, a world where millions are starving of hunger, is a world that`s overpopulated.
Philos2006 2 years ago
It's interesting to think, when hearing about the space analogy, that nowadays there is a telescope up there hunting for Earth-like planets, the Kepler.
Of course far as humans ever reaching those goes... first of all, is it even possible to travel such distances? And second will humanity survive that long or will it overpopulate even further and consume every resource on the planet leading to societal collapse?
And if it DOES make it to another world, will humanity still be driven by greed?
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
The earth isn't over populated, that is a capitalist myth. which was first put forwad by Malthus. Nissan has on its forecourts thousands of brand new cars it cannot sell, yet people are driving around in old bangers! however we don't argue that there is a shortage of cars! It is the same with food, water or any other man made commodity rid the world of poverty and you rid of greed.
DrMontague 2 years ago
that baby is the cutest thing!
slytherinspy1960 3 years ago
Almost all babies are.
Hedning1390 2 years ago
and thanks for the videos.
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
for fuck sake write like that at college or uni and you would fail. This is how i might present it.
'if we compare humans to other animals then it appears that human are sensation seekers. For example we might experience the thrill of watching a fire work display. Animals clearly show signs of distress and atempt to run or hide when exposed to such displays. Many phiosopher argue that only humans can appreciate the arts. Biologists argue that the Cerebral cortex is what gives us a higher ...
DrMontague 3 years ago
...brain function .This gives rise to mankind creating art and culture. For example most animals abodes have not changed for thousands of years, a badger still lives in a set, a rabbit in a warren, a fox in a den. Compare this with the abodes humans live. in. mansions, high rise blocks, mud huts, wood huts, bamboo huts, brick houses, concrete houses etc. From this It is clear that human's possess brain functions that surpass any other creature that inhabits the earth... etc
DrMontague 3 years ago
oh, dear, I'm sorry! I didn't see the rest of your comment/quote. Very interesting, though I'm not sure if I compleatly agree about the art and culture thing just in humans (certainly to a different degree). Many animals dance, mourn, do ritual, or even have different dialects, but that's going into a whole other topic. Anyway, thanks for that.
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
If Dawkins were a woman, I'd make sweet, sweet love with her.
IAreDunce 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yeah and she would teach you Biology right???
hehehe
makedonas86 3 years ago
Human Anatomy, actually.
IAreDunce 3 years ago
what's the use of a baby...what a marvelous question. I believe God/science is so wasteful...all of "this" is...and that makes it so wonderful. We're all what the great mathematician called, "a pointless point."
not that it matters, but my name is Hannah too...seeing him hold the baby, feel like i've just been engulfed by the universe
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
So what your really saying is that we shouldn't try to learn/understand anything?! So why did the great mathematician bother to learn maths?! Thanks to science we no longer burn witches when cattle become diseased.
DrMontague 3 years ago
What?? No! I think we should learn, more and more...Science is vital and awesome. I just think the reason is something deeper than the fight for survivol. Living, in it's true nature is sonptaneous, isn't it? The math mathematician was talking about something compleatly different, i'll show name/theory later. I just don't believe in clear goal/meaning to life. If i didn't want to learn/understand anything, why would i be listening to these?? I was all night. Thanks for uploading, btw!
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
Survival of the fittest is the evolutionary process which gave rise to mankind. Darwin nor Dawkins implies that mankind is a prisoner of evolution. Our large brains have given us the ability to reason and form ( to some degree)civilized societies, e.g. we have health services in all European countries, people are not left to die by the side of the road.
DrMontague 3 years ago
yes, i know.
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
but i still believe that there's more too it to that. Half of whatever all of science or whatever this is unprovable and that makes it all the more awesome, which is science is learning survivol, but also not caring about survivol and just have a thrill in it, which gives you a thrill for your fellow man.
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
Working through your comment |I think that you are arguing that survival of the fittest is still at work even in the most technological/ indusrtrialised countries. I think you need to read philosophy esp. Jean Jacques Rousseau (Man in the state of nature) Thomas Hobbes (Man in the state of natue) , Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim. Or at least wikipedia them.
DrMontague 3 years ago
i wrote that half asleep at 2AM, so sorry for it not making sense, but I do wish you would stop putting words in my mouth. You keep saying almost the exact opposite with what I am saying. All I did was agree with Dawkins about the use of science in the first place, and you argue with me as if I stated against it. Not talking survival of the fittest at all, but when you realise the point is not to just survival, you get a thrill in life, and thus thrill/care of other lives. Science is like that.
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
LOOK! I wasn't trying to argue! I'm just enjoying the lectures. If I was about to get in an argument with u, I wouldn't do it in a comment box. But I agree with your points, so I don't know why you think I keep saying that we are trapped in evolution, when that's not what I said at all??! Don't worry so much about it. Yes evolution is about adaptation, and sci is VITAL but I don't think that survival is the point to life. It's more of the exeperience, helping others, whether you die or not.
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
when u love life (or understand science), rather than just worry of survival for next genreation (eg just so we can go on)...when learning science is for that use, it does better this earth, or like you said, "ability to reason and form ( to some degree)civilized societies". In other words, Dawkins is doing something cause he enjoys science, and that enjoyment is really his cherishing of life not just making sure we survive. BTW, thx for the recommendations. Will get to them. i'm in Watts now.
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
Some of my faith head friends ask me why I want to know so much about the universe; to them each new discovery, while undoubtedly interesting, takes away from the mystery and the wonder of the world we inhabit. When I explain that I find my self and my consciousness elevated by the information we learn through science, they claim that the difference between us is that they are Romantics, and I am not. But that is unfair. It is our thirst for knowledge that makes us wonderful as a species.
RajahBrooke 3 years ago
i dont want to slip into the darkness
Preacha1111 3 years ago
I do that every week end!
DrMontague 3 years ago
the probability spiel is just plain tom foolery. chance doesnt work like that. this is where scientists always seem to fall down. he seems to employ awe in the same way a mystic might to demonstrate the existence of god. but we're supposed to believe in a non-god. charming
patonburns 3 years ago
if god is true, and there is such a thing, then my car that i drive, has a mind of its own. Believing in a god is as same as believeing that your car has a mind of its own. Since they are both on the same level of logical scale, have no evidence to prove them at all, and every proof, and evidence that points out that are false. Just like for god, you can make excuses that your car might have a mind! like, give personal experiences, and etc... but doesn't make it true.
Omid45 3 years ago
"if god is true, and there is such a thing, then my car that i drive, has a mind of its own."
This does not follow.
Firstly what do you mean by "god"
How does your theory that your car thinks relate to your theory of "god"
Everything you are, were, will be, have done are doing or will do is simply chemistry.
The forces of nature at work. Chemical processes have "minds"? What do you mean by that?
That is silly. "minds" do not exist. Chemistry and natural forces do.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
what i mean is if you say god exist, which lives out side of the physical laws, then according to that any god, anything is possible using our imagination. If you talk out side logic, and physical laws, then i can say my car can think, or the universe was started by Santa clues, or there are 1 million gods, or zombies created the world. They are all similar in that they don't have a shred of evidence, and only exist in your imagination. what's the difference between God, and Santa Clues?
Omid45 3 years ago
St Nicholas was real person who name was distorted to become Santa(saint) Claus (nichalCLAUS) God/s are a figment of the human imagination.
DrMontague 3 years ago
WOW, i didn't even know that part. I just don't get how 4 billion people can't think like us here, and get these simple facts, and think rationally for themselves. I mean it's not that hard. If I, a 18 year old college student, with many people like me, and you can think logically like this, why can't other billions of smart, educated people do this simple thinking, and apply critical thinking, and use logic, and common sense. It really amazes me!!!!
Omid45 3 years ago
As Dawkins srgues it's a delusion. I've known many people esp. women who will go to fortune tellers. I've even known women who have spent their house rent money on fortune tellers. It does appear that many people have a psychological yearning for wanting to believe in other worldly things.
DrMontague 3 years ago
Wow, that's just crazy!! i'm just glad i'm not part of those people.
Omid45 3 years ago
He states "we are lucky to be alive"
This is nonsense. Luck had nothing to do with it. We are here. Things are what they are. All the "chances" he speaks of are hypothetical and non existent.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
please, that was not his point. His point was that if one little thing went wrong with our ancestry, Apes, and other cozines, that if they had died, we wouldn't have been here now.
Omid45 3 years ago
"His point was that if one little thing went wrong with our ancestry, Apes, and other cozines, that if they had died, we wouldn't have been here now."
His point is pointless,redundant and =
(If I were not, then I would not be here now.)
This is nonsense. Again,Luck had nothing to do with it. We are here. Things are what they are. All the "chances" he speaks of are hypothetical, non existent, and pointless.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
Here's a dictionary defination of luck.
'good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance'
If we take this definition then lucky means we have been successful. Every change throughout the evolution of our ancestors was successful. We were lucky that these changes benefited our surviaval right to the present day. Other creatures were't so lucky, they became extinct e.g. a comet hit the earth the dinosaurs became extinct. One species extinctiion was our advantage.
DrMontague 3 years ago
The dinosaurs were (from our perspective )unlucky. It has even been proposed that we could change the term 'survival of the fittest' to survival of the luckiest'. If we think of all the catastrophies the planet has been through, the number of creatures that have become extinct because of these catastrophes, then in this sense we are indeed very lucky to be here. It could easily have have been otherwise. We could easily have been wiped out. We had good fortune, we had the luck.
DrMontague 3 years ago
However I should add that luck is a subjective issue. If there were no thinking humans there we be no luck. There would simply be events. It is only from our perspective that we can regard ourselves as being lucky.
DrMontague 3 years ago
"If there were no thinking humans there we be no luck. There would simply be events. It is only from our perspective that we can regard ourselves as being lucky"
That's only if you choose to believe that sort of nonsense.
There are only events.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"It has even been proposed that we could change the term 'survival of the fittest' to survival of the luckiest'."
Again, no luck involved. The planet experiences events, all predictable with sufficient information. Things live and die as they always have.
"We could easily have been wiped out. We had good fortune, we had the luck."
The human species will run it's course as all do. "luck" is a human subjective notion.
"We could easily have been wiped out."
Imaginary poppycock.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
I think we agree that it's perspective, but since we too will become extinct, but we live now, we are just as lucky as the dinosaurs were, not more so.
KingofNH 3 years ago
"'good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance'"
There is no such thing as "chance" It's a myth.
Good fortune, advantage, and success are subjective.
"We were lucky that these changes benefited our surviaval right to the present day"
No luck was involved.
It could be no other way. We are proof.
Other creatures simply lived and died like all things do. This is fact.
Creatures do not become extint, they die.
Species become extinct.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
Look here you dozey cuntI have already stated that the term luck comes from a human brain perspective, only humans have this ability to reflect on the past and anticipate the futures,so what the fuckin hell is your problem?! The irony is that a dozey twats like you will go around telling people how lucky you were to win th xmas raffle. Forget it your a waste of space.
DrMontague 3 years ago
Dude, why is this so hard for you to get. By luck he doesn't mean any super natural being helped us come to be. Granted, there is no such a thing as luck, nor chance. But as humans we call things that are rare to happen, things that happen despite the odds being against them, we call that state of being, luck! doesn't have any magical thing behind it. I know we're here, and that it, but if for some reason a flood, or something had killed our ancestry, humans wouldn't have been here now.
Omid45 3 years ago
As far as aliens and evidence, we must remember that evidence does not need to be directly observed. Evidence can be based on probability. People get thrown in prison for this evidence all the time. Given the likelyhood of life with what we know, it seems most probably that there is life out there. Super advanced life? I would refer you to Carl Sagan to answer that.
KingofNH 3 years ago
There is no evidence for (not of earth)aliens. Eye witness statements are not evidence of aliens, they could be the mistaken observation of the observer. We would need more than eye witness accounts in order to say that aliens area scientific fact. A scientific fact is something that can be observed and measured. E.g. Gravity is a scientific fact. All the facts known about gravity through expeimentation give us gravational theory. You can argue probability of life elsewhere but it's not yetfact.
DrMontague 3 years ago
Eye witness statements are bunk. It seems we strongly agree there. I also agree that a fact (law) must be directly and unambiguously observed and measured. But such a rigid model of knowledge would all but freeze science to a stop. Probable evidence frees us to assume until proven wrong. The higher the probability, the safer the assumption. Such probabilities do need to be based on laws, though. (No, I'm not a Roswell freak, in case that's what your trying to help me with)
KingofNH 3 years ago
Probabilistic arguments are only valid in situations where we can assign probabilities based on observations. I guess that you mentioned Sagan because he discussed the Drake equation on an episode of Cosmos. Sadly, the Drake equation tells us absolutely nothing. When you multiply 7 numbers together, where at least 4 of them are based purely on speculation, the result is garbage. The only thing we know for sure is that there is at least one planet with life.
Snootwaller 3 years ago
Actually, I was refering to Sagans publications in science journals, where he explains things in much more depth. But I mentioned him only in respect to hypothetical probabilities (such as the Drake Equation). The probabilities of extraterestial life are based on observable evidence. The amount of the necessary components of life that the observable universe contains would indicate a high scientific probability.
KingofNH 3 years ago
I understand what you are saying, but at the very least you must admit that we have almost no understand of how the origin of life occurs. Therefore it is impossible to assign a probability to that factor. Perhaps life emerges almost automatically when the conditions are right, or perhaps its a chance event that has only happened on earth. Until we understand the mechanism we can't rationally discuss the odds of it happening.
Snootwaller 3 years ago
Yes, I agree that we need a better understanding of abiogenesis before we can make an accurate probability model. It could be something is unique about the earth. But I think we can use what we know to make a probable statement, a statement which will change as new information arrives. I think our disagreement is the line between not enough and barely enough sample data to make a statement. I can see why you have chosen the cautious side and want more information.
KingofNH 3 years ago
Why did he say the universe was 14 thousand million years old. I thought it was 13.7 billion.
Was that the view back in 1991?
theapostasy45 3 years ago
Isnt a thousand million a billion?
manchester26m 3 years ago
Oh yeah. Sorry, bad math.
theapostasy45 3 years ago
While i firmly believe that extra-terrestrial life is probable, there are many limiting factors that would prevent modern conceptions of alien life coming to earth from being true.
issues of technology, distances, timing, and 'intelligence', among many others.
The main reason that most people are skeptical of the claims of people who believe a specific kind of intelligent alien life visits (or visited) us at some point is the lack of real evidence. It's right up there with Bigfoot... sorry.
avidyaavaan 3 years ago
Believing in things without evidence can lead to a sorry state of affairs. The god or religious delusion for many has become supplanted by the notion that there must be extra terrestrial beings delusion. I.e. it always based around the notion that there must be superia beings that can guide humanity. Plus people can make alot of dosh by feeding people with delusions, just as religion does.
DrMontague 3 years ago
Dawkins is the man!!! Love how he holds that baby like Jesus christ :D
villeppi 3 years ago
Great lecture. Dawkins in naive when it comes to the ET question though. He need to read some of the tens of thousands of case of UFO reports.
Earth is something between "The Truman Show" and a rest stop for multiple species of ETs.
alienmoonbase 3 years ago
I read them. They are fucking shit. You take too much notice of crap like the x files and believe it to be true. Whilst the ysnky military scientists are developing stealth bombers the politicians in the US government are laughing their cocks off . The reason for thisi s they know that there are plenty of daft fuckers like you who will go around telling every one that the government is really hiding the evidence that would prove that little green men are visiting our planet.
DrMontague 3 years ago
Yea dude! the US government was flying "stealth bombers" around IN THE DISTANT PAST.
You are sooo smart. That US government is TRICKY that way.
alienmoonbase 3 years ago
you stupid dozey yankee throw back. Depends what people were drinking or what drugs they were on when they seen lights. What you on ? Crack cocaine!
DrMontague 3 years ago
lol, who is the one doing the lecture him or you? who is smarter him or you?...I REST MY CASE no1 cares what you think you silly conspiracy nerd
hoboguru 3 years ago
Go outside and look up you stupid ape. You think that the human ape will find ET before they find us?
How ignorant can you be? We have reflected light of a blue - green planet shining thru the galaxy for 2 billion yrs!
You think nobody has seen that? or is smart enough to get here?!
Damn. Put your bug collection down and go outside away from the london lights where you can seriously ponder the universe.
Academics who talk about cosmology and don't mention the UFO phenom are just dumb
alienmoonbase 3 years ago
lol i think you have seen one too many star trek episodes...
hoboguru 3 years ago
Get serious alienmoonbase (oh yeah, it fits)! Dawkins has a reputation he's trying to build as a scientist. Think of him segwaying to ET or UFO subjects. Even the mention of those subjects would discredit his serious work. You moon-twinkies should try to enlist some other person of doubtful mental veracity.
UPCHUKKER 3 years ago
"THE RULER OF TIME"
lmao, how lame was that!
iamgenius123 3 years ago
what's funny about about Mr Lumber Jack?
DrMontague 3 years ago
Wow! That ruler apeared from nowhere.
MrWednesday101 3 years ago
that paper folding was the most boring volunteer thing ever lol
jamchew 3 years ago 5
those last words is what i`ve been telling myself for years :\
peteq1972 3 years ago
Me too! I'd love to just disappear into the rest of the world, making the most of everyday, who says we should live our lives 9to5, by a house live in it, have children, raise them in it, get old and die in it! Well, my boyfriend does actually, I hope he would join me if I refused the status quo?
NAT4TONY 3 years ago
that baby is me..... (I'm just kidding... )
jonas199127 3 years ago 3
He's not only smart, he's also a brilliant presenter and also entertaining. Thanks
PhDErvin 3 years ago 5
Listen carefully. He not saying a man made message is being sent.
'The smoke going into the beam represents stars,each particle of smoke represents one star, and you can think of the beam as a gigantic search light [from our sun], beamed out from space and signalling from our planet [planet/sun]in the hope that some one else from another world will pick up the message'
If our message [from the Sun i.e. light]is observed by those on another planet they will see not us but the dinosaurs.
DrMontague 4 years ago
I would admit it's a bit ambiguous on a first listening. What Dawkins is saying is imagine that the light given off by our sun and earth is a message and that it is being sent across space to other planets. If they were to see the light of our sun or earth they would be seeing light which set off from earth when the dinosaurs were roaming.
DrMontague 4 years ago
Sorry Mr. Dawkins, but if an alien civilization does pick up our signals it would see our planet as it was when we sent those signals. For an alien to recieve a signal from Earth and to look at Earth and see the dinosaurs, the signal had to have been traveling faster than the speed of light. Which, as far as we know, is impossible.
gydorack 4 years ago
Dawkins doesnt nessesarily fully believe in "Alien" life forms. But he does not rule it out and you cant. Like any scientist he is waiting on clear cut evidence on such as well as I but I think the point is that if in our small existance as a species of life, could there have been other that evolved so much on other planets they they have evolved better than us. We cant rule it out but we are waiting for the evidence. The same evidence for a belief in the Super "GOD".
Bigturns33 3 years ago
I suspect that Dawkins believes privately, 100% that intelligent life has evolved elsewhere.
When people approach this subject cautiously i wonder if they have any clue about the number of galaxies, stars and yes, planets. Multiply 200 billion stars by two hundred billion galaxies. conservatively.
There is plenty of ET live out there. Some UFOs are extraterrestrial. Get used to it.
Read up on it. The ET naysayers of today are the creationists of the 18th century.
alienmoonbase 3 years ago
exactly. Steven bassett: "the church tried to hide the fact that the earth was round in Gallileo's time, and now they're trying to do it again. How many mile wide crafts off the cockpit of planes are we going to see before we admit it" Laugh my ass off everytime I hear someone say "its all a load of bullshit"
IricForset 3 years ago
These fucking aliens are meant to be flying around all over the fucking planet. We live in a multi media age, yet we still haven't had one decent photo. They always abduct some fat fucking thick yank to search for intelligent life. I mean it's never an Ethiopean! They travel billions of light years across space and then crash! They always want to communicate with a brainless turd like George Bush, it's never Iceland. Fuck sake I would be ashamed if an alien said 'take us to your leader" !
DrMontague 3 years ago
Ok... No no no no
IricForset 3 years ago
Nope Iric...The church and everyone else, including the Inuit,knew the earth was round! What the church got exited about was that Galileo's observations made certain that we were NOT at the center of the universe! Blasphemy!
UPCHUKKER 3 years ago
Agree. The ancient Greeks worked out the circumfrence of the earth by measuring the length of shadows by a stick placed in the ground. There ain't half been some clever bastards!
DrMontague 3 years ago
babies r small people
conor1977 4 years ago 4
They are screaming bags of shit and piss!
Ok. I'm only joking :)
DrMontague 4 years ago
No sermon can give truth more profound than these lectures.
grubelsucht 4 years ago 3
Dawkins was soooooo hot back then
kwolf002 4 years ago 3
He sure was!:D
Anarkokommunist 4 years ago 3
Oh, he still is, just in a well aged way.
SoapSoapCrayon 4 years ago 4
Thankyou for your response, i have now watched quite a few of them. I was just looking for a DVD of most of the Christmas Lectures available. I will go to Amazondotcom. Thank you.
Richard.
TheGift73 4 years ago 2
Where can i buy the DVD's of the Christmas lectures? I would dearly love to watch them all.
DrMontague, thank you for posting these.
TheGift73 4 years ago
Check out Dawkins official website and amazondotcom. But I have uploaded them all. Simply click on my user name and then play lists.
DrMontague 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he says, 'after a point natural factors come to regulate the growth of the bacteria'. Sounds very intelligent to me that. Where does that intelligence come from? hmm...
tkmasala 4 years ago
tkmasala. You are like dog shit i.e. all over the fuckin place.
DrMontague 4 years ago
Well, Doc Montague, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you're not from America. Fundamentalists may not be the majority, but the moderates don't lobby; they actually have lives to lead. Atheism is on the rise (thank God) btu that doesn't mean much to the policy makers over here. I think we are dangerously close to a theocracy in name (we pretty much already are one in practice).
BoozyBeggar 4 years ago
BoozyBeggar. You cannot turn the clock back as regards science. Evolutionary theory will always be taught in the accredited universities.Yes I'm from the UK. Before the Iraq war our news told us night after night that we were going to be over run/swamped by asylum seekers. Come the Iraq war there is now no mention of asylum seekers, they have all mysteriously disappeared. It's propaganda news to try and scare us. I'm just waiting for the next food scare!
DrMontague 4 years ago
And lets not forget bird flu that was all the rage last year, now I've forgotten that they ever talked about it
sillywalks924 4 years ago
Aides was going to wipe out the whole of humanity within a few years.
DrMontague 4 years ago
DrMontague, i hope to Natalie Portman (aka the One True God) that your right, and that reason will prevail over madness and hysteria. As for myself, I can't help but see a day when nuclear physicists will be held hostage and made to construct a fission bomb by radical Theists to help bring about their own religion's ideas of armageddon.
BoozyBeggar 4 years ago
Ahh you see the scare mongering works so well and penetrates so deep. At one time it was the Soviet Union who was the threat, we never heard of Islamic extremists during the cold war. Amazing how they have found a new enemy to make you have sleepless nights. Even Dawkins has been taking in by the propaganda, it's such a powerful mind virus.
DrMontague 4 years ago
why is it that i almost cried when richard picked up that baby? our life is too significant to have been created by a murdurous being. my child was given to me by the partnership of myself, and my partner, as a gift to ourselves; it is something that we'd achieved. i hope that everyone has the ability to fathom the poetry that is woven within that idea. thanks for the video!
marklethanarkle 4 years ago 2
I agree, I hear theists in an argument about teenage pregnancy on 'The Truth About Teen Moms' on utube say 'oh I could never not believe in God after the birth of my beautiful son' but I am unmoved by such talk
freedomlivesforever 4 years ago
kudos.
marklethanarkle 4 years ago
freedomlivesforever. They all say that until the old man buggars off leaving the state and tax payers to bring up their off spring! Let the churches foot the bill they are worth billions, I'm sure god will approve.
DrMontague 4 years ago
Just curious DrMontague what background gave you this name and what is your opinion on religion?
freedomlivesforever 4 years ago
Ok that was really only tongue in cheek what I wrote. I'm not a doctor. Dr Montague is a fictional character out of shirley Jackson's Novel 'The Haunting of Hill House'. It was made into a B&W film called 'The Haunting' and starred Julie Harris and Clare Bloom. The Doctor's name was changed from Montague to Markway in the film. The film was produced by Robert Wise who did The Sound of Music.
DrMontague 4 years ago
I'm a militant Atheist. I do not regard religion as a threat to science as Dawkins and his fans seem to be so paranoid about. Science has won the battle. Science is in stronger position then it has ever been in the history of mankind. Since the down fall of the Eastern block countries the west had to find a new enemy to frighten the masses, religious fundamentalism was to fill this vacuum. So Dawkins and his support lie awake at night fearing they are going to be taken over by Muslims et al.
DrMontague 4 years ago
BTW I love the Dawkins lectures and he is a brilliant educator. Most people I know have never heard of Dawkins or the god delusion. I don't hear anyone going around saying ban the teaching of evolutionary theory. In short most people are simply getting on with their lives and don't give a shit.
DrMontague 4 years ago
Like the neo-cons? Adam Curtis's film series the power of nightmares?
freedomlivesforever 4 years ago
That's the one But I knew this before I watched it the series because I'm study sociology at University.
DrMontague 4 years ago
Ah right yes some politicians like scare stories to increase votes
freedomlivesforever 4 years ago
Well DrMontague, I have to say from what I have read of your comments you absolutely speak the truth and it is refreshing to see on YouTube.
xTheLostProphetx 4 years ago
The British government have a big arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Is Saudi Arabia a Democracy? The truth is they don't care who they sell weapons to as long as they make a hefty profit. Again this notion of liberating people is really a smoke screen for imperialism.
DrMontague 4 years ago
America and the west want an excuse to invade and exploit the resources of these countries. To do so they have to tell lies to their citizens . For example, Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. I wasn't fooled by this at all but millions were.
DrMontague 4 years ago
Most people in Iran or Iraq want to live in peace. They do not want to go to war. They simply want to get on with life. This notion that they want to take over the world is twaddle.
DrMontague 4 years ago
Ahhh.. maybe the people of Iran don't want war - but the iran government has been funding the Hezbolah since the 1980s. It's governments that go to war. The mistake the US made is not going to war with Iran first. There was WMD, a terrorist connection, and a much more fertile group of young people who would embrace democracy. But alas, the war was really about oil anyway.
dem3102 4 years ago
The American and British government has sponsored terrorism all over the world and put many dictators in power when it has suited their economic interests. They even backed Saddam Hussien. The west has supplied arms to several so called rogue states.
DrMontague 4 years ago
It's called, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it is not a policy unique to america, great britton, or even the roman empire. This has been a tactic that has been used for thousands of years. We were just stupid enough to try and clean up our Saddam Hussien mess instead of going to the real problem all along - THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT.
dem3102 4 years ago
It's called, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it is not a policy unique to america, great britton, or even the roman empire. This has been a tactic that has been used for thousands of years. We were just stupid enough to try and clean up our Saddam Hussien mess instead of going to the real problem all along - THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT.
dem3102 4 years ago
For Ydem3102Yes I agree with what you're saying in part.However the West has armed Iran and Iraq. The people of all countries should depose their governments if they are liars and manipulators. What did the UK and America do? Answer vote them back in!
DrMontague 4 years ago
Not completely true, the US has a president, but they also have a congress, and a senate - both of which lost their power during the elections to more moderate and liberal representatives. The reason the president got a second term was circumstantial.
dem3102 4 years ago
Ok I'm not an expert of the US Political system, however in the UK it's is first past the post system. In other words the Labour Party gained more seats in parliament then any other party. I would imagine it's the same in the US i.e. Bush must have won more votes,seats, or what whatever to keep him president. If he didn't then why didn't the democrats get in?
DrMontague 4 years ago
Before the down fall of the Berlin wall you never heard of Iran or Iraq or religious fundamentalism. Please try to see it for what it really is i.e. PROPAGANDA. Western governments want us to lie awake at night and fear.
DrMontague 4 years ago
divider.
laburger 4 years ago
The definition of irony: a person who believes in an invisible man in the sky and then says,"Dawkins is very good at simply making something up and pretending that it actually happened."
crucci8 5 years ago
:D Excellent!
ChrisCummins 5 years ago
creationists fear the uncovering of truth not Dawkins himself. Many religious people including the catholic church agree with evoluton and 'the big bang' theory but will give it a creationist slant
DrMontague 5 years ago
Religious people also fear death and also tend to be extremely self serving. Forget the fact that the most common selling line for religion is eternal damnation, but it seems for the longest time that people have always thought the the end of their time would be the end of all times--the world cant go on w/o them.
There should be a word in the DSM for it LOL
noneofyerbiznezz 5 years ago
noneofyer biz, there is a DSM entry and it is called Fantasy Prone Personality if I remember correctly ;)
stoltobot 4 years ago
The problem with creationism is that it underminds concepts such as the soul and afterlife. At what point did we stop being apes and start being people, and gain the ability to have a soul and progress into heaven? At what cell multiplication does a foetus gain its 'soul' - the prerequisite for afterlife.
tomsega 5 years ago
The problem with your question is that you begin with the assumption that a soul is a real thing. There is no evidence supporting the idea of a soul ... it's just a story.
htoromjr 5 years ago
Not a story but a belief that thousands of millions of humans have believed in at one time or another. tomsega has made an attempt to debunk this belief by reason. Simply making a statement that the soul does not exist without presenting some form of argument would not change peoples beliefs. They have to have a seed of doubt implanted and hopefully that seed of doubt will grow.
DrMontague 5 years ago
yes you r correct in your view point
see my comments in 'climbing mount improbable 2 of 8'
sometimes I'm ruthless with creationists.
Sometimes u have to be cruel to be kind
DrMontague 5 years ago
Hi bonnie43uk. My aove comment was aimed at creationists (warriorprince1010) not Dawkins.
DrMontague 5 years ago
yeah, i gathered that D M ,my comment was'nt aimed at you either, I am but a simple humanbean .. Aren't creationists those loons who believe the Bible as utter fact? .. To me, its just a book with some good stories in it, written by dozens and dozens of authors, and slightly rewritten over time .. Dawkings could'nt have put it any clearer!!! lmao!!
bonnie43uk 5 years ago
why are so many people so anti Richard Dawkings? .. over the last few months i've heard so many people detest Dawkings. To me, everything he says makes perfect sense. These lectures are brilliant, he puts complex theories into an easily understood manner.
Thanks DrMontague for putting these on youtube.
bonnie43uk 5 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is very good at simply making something up and pretending that it actually happened.
warriorprince1010 5 years ago
read a book about evolution. forget about Dawkins.
amarbleinspace 5 years ago
just reading a book may be a start
bryn100 4 years ago
Somebody responded to this in a later post, but I wanted to make sure you got this reply cause it's quite good: "The definition of irony: a person who believes in an invisible man in the sky and then says,"Dawkins is very good at simply making something up and pretending that it actually happened.""
dem3102 4 years ago
Creationists are a waste of space. Forget them. I don't know anyone who takes them seriously. After 6000 years science has won the argument!
DrMontague 4 years ago
dont, they will take over the world, we are supposed to convert as many as possible we need to kill religoun as much as possible
metalgearsolidrulez 4 years ago
I don't lose any sleep over it. It purely propaganda by governments and media to try and instill fear into the general public. Since the down fall of the eastern block counties the west had to find a new enemy in order to spread panic amongst their citizens.
DrMontague 4 years ago
I really appreciate your uploading of these old lectures! I could listen to Mr. Dawkins all day.
bleedingsnow 5 years ago
likewise
2Dlion 5 years ago
so good, thanks for showing me Richard Dawkings i think i'm going to biy his book.
duckpower121 5 years ago