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 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Like him or not, Dawkins is doing his part on trying to get the world rid of all that fundamentalist (and thus tendencious to anti-intellectualism) religion around the world, and we all know some religions have more cons than pros.
You got to be blind or deaf (or both) if you didn't notice how very religious people tend to know less than not so much religious people, and these people, if properly directed could be helping develop our scientific, medical and technological progress.
Dawkins is refreshingly clear about what he DOESN'T know. How many people do you know that "bookend" their statements with self-critical skepticism when discussing concepts outside of their expertise? Intellectual honesty for the win!
Speaking of the origins of life, I highly doubt the god of the Bible is capable of baking a pie. This god is suppose to ALL POWERFUL that his only option to get rid of the evil (it came back) on Earth is the drown everybody and fail? Why not just make them disappear in a flash? He alters languages instead of just scattering people throughout the world to stop the Tower of Babel (somehow he can't stop NASA). If there is a god, he must be smarter than Yahweh.
Sorry Richard but that explanation of the crane/sky-hook analogy you gave here was rather weak. That's a shame cause it actually is a very useful analogy, if conveyed properly.
A crane has a boom and a base. You can clearly see how energy is being transferred in order for the crane to do it's lifting.
A sky-hook on the other hand, lacks the boom and base. It's lifting capabilities are unexplained.
@kmetze The cranes, sky-hooks, & universal acid were borrowed from Dan Dennett's Darwin Dangerous idea (1995). The book is quite a good as popular science for the public but it did get some stick from biologists, H. Allen Orr wrote a very cruel review of the book.
when she says the analogy doesn't work because a crane looks very much like a skyhook... I think thats the whole point. they do look very much the same and are very easy to get the two confused. however, once you stand back a certain distance and can look objectively, one can see the crane for what it actually is. at least this is my interpretation of the analogy.
@mark1962ish What's the matter dummy, can't you read? Do you know who Carl Sagan is? Duhh???
He used the term star stuff, which is perfectly valid. Every single atom on earth and in your body came from stars that blew up (supernova) more than 5 billion years ago.
Now, why don't you tell us about your fairy tale big daddy up in the sky?
How can someone not get Dennett's distinction between a crane and a skyhook? I thought it made perfect sense.
Anyway I do enjoy Dawkins' discussion of these topics. He is always very clear and concise, and the fascinating nature of the origin of life makes it all the more enthralling.
OH... Its my favorite Bible irony. Moses comes down the mountain with the Ten Commandments, one of which is Thou shalt not kill." What's the first thing he does? KILLS people with the tablets, no less. lol
Key word: SPECULATION = The foundation on which evolution is constructed.
Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
Why does he talk about cranes, elevators, escalators, and sky hooks thoses are all man made devices. How could a man made device be responsible for evelution? I didn't get what he was talking about. There were no cranes, elevators, escalotors or sky hooks to cause evolution.
By sky hook he means a crane, but the sky hook is undetectable. You can see the crane moving things, but you cant see the sky hook moving things. The sky hook is the gods and the crane is evolution.
Why is the universe intelligable mathematically? - because everything is. Mathematics is the language of everything. Its an incredibly elegant language, and what facinates me about it is that if somthing doesnt exist, we just define it and it gives rise to a whole new branch of mathematics. For eg, We cant do the square root of negative numbers, so we just define i^2 = -1 and bam, we now have complex analysis.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
dude, many scientists and micrbiologists have confirmed that the simplest of cells have not evolved and never did, because they were always the way they were.
there are also many fossiles of creatures which were very much complex,...very complex.
"many scientists and micrbiologists have confirmed that the simplest of cells have not evolved and never did, because they were always the way they were."
Hey you know something? That's pretty big of you to admit you were wrong. Kudos to you for doing what so many others refuse to, instead flying in the face of blatant evidence. I salute you, sir! :)
Thanks for saluting me. I have no need in fooling myself if the evidence is saying otherwise.
I remember a quote from an old islamic jurist who said something like: I hope when I'm in discussing with my advesary, that the truth is spoken through his tongue.
@AtheistBrit Evidence yes.... I'm afraid you will be digging for it for a very long time and yes Atheism or evolution is faith because you need a ton of it to trust the so called 'evidence' Happy digging old chap and send our ancester my regards if you meet him ..HA HA HA !
@mark1962ish Evidence... ooh let me see... how about opening the Journal of Biological Sciences or even most biology textbooks for starters! Pretty much the whole of modern biological science is underpinned by the theory of evolution. Had a vaccine? Heard of MRSA? That's evolution at work right there, buddy. It's no skin off my nose if you don't believe it, it's fact.
So, tell me, does it take faith to believe that unicorns don't exist? If not, why not?
@JayDee98765 I dunno, in the vain hope someone might listen? It's fun? There are a few reasons but probably none of them valid lol.
Ooh I love that book! My husband owns a copy and it was one of the first books of his I read shortly after we first met 8 years ago. He did Physics at university and it was highly recommended in the department. :)
@AtheistBrit 'They' remind of what morpheus talks about in the movie the matrix, something about how after a certain amount of time, a mind is beyond saving and that the people will fight to protect the very system they have become to hopelessly dependent on. I digress lol But I share similar optimism. I've got my girl friend into this whole debate by buying her a copy last Christmas :D Ahhh the joys of rational thought.
@AtheistBrit Evidence yes.... I'm afraid you will be digging for it for a very long time and yes Atheism or evolution is faith because you need a ton of it to trust the so called 'evidence' Happy digging old chap and send our ancester my regards if you meet him ..HA HA HA :)
Now now we can't thumbs down because we disagree! He actually does make a semi logical point, it is however the only logical creationist argument, let's not take it from them.
Xorinite, if it was so pathetic, it would be laughable that you maintain that Luke was dead before the Gospel of Luke was written and that the gospel or good new was the "good news about Luke." ABSOLUTELY NOT...the Gospel of Luke is NOT about Luke!
The gospel called "Luke" was written no earlier than 110, and possibly much later.
It was not written in the geographical area that the character Luke was claimed to live in, nor in the language Luke was supposed to know.
Again I repeat. Bible scholars, christian and secular have been in agreement for many many years, that the gospels were not written by the disciples they are named after.
Most scholars today will tell you that both Matthew and Luke were based upon Mark, and that Mark was based upon an earlier and now lost document called "original mark"
Moses never mentioned Jesus Christ, if you want to say the prophecy in Genesis was about him, it referred to a wound to the heel not a crucification, so again you can say it is not about him. Where is any passage written by Moses about him? I don't know of any.
And Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen's) death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
1 Corinthians 15:3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
What were the more than 500 brethrens names? If someone said over 500 people saw Elvis and he was still alive, wouldn't you have to include their names to varify it? How do you know they didn't see a Jesus or Elvis impersonator? I saw someone dressed to impersonate Elvis in a bar but I know it wasn't Elvis because Elvis is dead.
There are several references from the Apostles of their interaction with the risen Christ -- here is one:
I Cor 15:5-8 "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me (Paul) also, as of one born out of due time."
sorry, mark. If 500 people saw fairies or the lochness monster, would it be valid? No. The number of people seeing whatever does nto hold a significance.
Especially when you are citing from the Bible, one of the world's greatest blunders.
ohhh but you are forgetting all the other mounds of evidence! internal and external evidences for the truth of the Bible. Do your research rather than putting all your efforts into fruitlessly trying to search for misinterpreted "evidence" which contradicts the truth.
@markpianoman, We're not even sure who shot JFK and we have that on film. I pity the fool who believes scripture written decades after the events took place could be an accurate record of anything. I think the real utility of religion is that it asks people to love a brutal tyrant like the god of Abraham to save their own souls. It says a lot about someone willing to do that. Sort of like flypaper for scumbags.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am.
It is commonly believed that, when a general persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero, about A.D. 64, under pretence that they had set Rome on fire, both St. Paul and St. Peter then sealed the truth with their blood; the latter being crucified with his head downward; the former being beheaded, either in A.D. 64 or 65, and buried in the Via Ostiensis.
The buzzing noise from bees are caused by their wings, and that Nero 'fiddled' while rome burned. Neither of which are true. I do not care for what is "commonly believed" I care for what is true and can be demonstrated to be true with evidence.
However, since you have not mentioned the gospels authors or when they were written am I to take it that you have conceded that you were wrong on those issues?
Because there is little point in moving onto another item if you cannot finish with the first one you brought up. Its just changing item of discussion to avoid admission or conclusion.
When the gospel records were written is of little consequence...what matters is that they were written by apostles who had been with the Lord and who were eye-witnesses to the resurrection. There are multiple references within the Gospels and from St. Paul to eye-witness accounts of the resurrection.
"When the gospel records were written is of little consequence..."
If they were not written in a time frame which would allow them to be first hand accounts then their 'evidence' is second hand heresy and would be inadmissible in any court in the land.
However the fact that you claimed that they were valid due to their eye-witness status, yet now claim that it doesn't matter shows that your pride is such that you cannot admit being wrong. Not impressive to anyone.
Luke writes that his sources were people who knew Jesus. "Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (Luke 1:2).
When the question of the validity of the bible itself is in question, you cannot use the bible as evidence to validate itself.
It would be like me writing a paper on how hydrogen bonds explain why water is a liquid, and then claiming that the evidence that this is true is the paper I wrote.
No sorry....you wrote that using the Bible for evidence when the bible itself is in question is like you writing a paper and then claim that your paper itself is the evidence.
NO...bad example. Your paper would be one paper written by one individual. Some 40 different individuals wrote the various books of the Bible over 1,400 years. It has considerable validity the comparison of various books within the Bible... internal evidence. Look at the site I already sent for a list of external!
It is a perfect example. You cannot use the text which makes the claims, as evidence that its claims are accurate. (unless its something like; these are words)
"Look at the site"
I have looked at many chrisitian apologetics websites. None have yet presented anything new, the one you sent me hasn't either.
If you can stand to challenge what you believe, try a search on infidels. The evidence you claim exists is scant, and there is less than there is for bab.
I gave you the bible verses. The father of Joseph is different in the different gospels. Now, regardless of what excuses you will try to find apologetics give, this is a contradiction between the texts. It exists.
i agree. to be an atheist, you need mental courage. investigative couriocity. a need to understand the world you live in and rational honesty. lot's of theists i meet on youtube for instance, aren't honest debaters. they often come up with some sorts of trickery, i mean to be religious, you have to ignore the knowledge of everything else.. and they lie..
It's not about having "morals" it's about following the absolute of God-given morals. What if I told you, "yeah, I have morals too, and one of mine is that I kill anybody who ticks me off." Would that be OK....? Why or why not?
Well, we could start with the Egyptian he killed, before he had to run to the home of Jethro, or the 3,000 Hebrews he killed after Mt. Saini and they worshiped a Golden Calf, or the old man he murdered after he gathered fire-wood on the sabbath, or his invention of genocide against the Medianites (Numbers Ch31, v15-19), since you ask.
@gamesbok Well, what you don't seem to remember is that "thou shalt not kill" was for the individual...but not for any number of sins God's people (Israel) were to execute swift judgement in the form of capital punishment...per the Law given by the Creator of heaven and earth - God himself.
@gamesbok Moses was not a perfect individual...and the Bible is very honest in pointing out the imperfections of it's key individuals. The only perfect one who ever lived was Jesus Christ. Jahweh of the Old Testament was swift to exercise judgement against certain sins. Moses handled as instructed by God. God is not now in the business of issuing swift judgement over sin, but is stretching for his hand of saving grace through faith in Jesus Christ who paid our debt of sin on the cross.
@gamesbok I dont think its a fair analysis to say moses inspired the holocaust. It was caused by fascism, racism and scientific innacuracies. I know Hitler evoked god at times, but I dont think his christianity motivated him. But Im no historian so could be wrong. Be interested to read a book on this
@markgg1 Read Mein Kampf, it will become quite clear he evokes God many many times. It's akin to saying the 9/11 hijackers weren't evoked by the Quran. Always "taken out of context" so they say. The problem is context that is dependant on the reader, who is a fallible human. If this person is derranged than the end result of a genocidal bible or quran verse leads to the "logical conclusion", the reader believes it means what is expressed. Genocide is okay under glorification of your faith.
You completely fail to show that your assessment is warped because you leave out that fact that Moses was a man of God who followed the Lord's specific guidance in those circumstances as evidenced by one phrase which is repeated though these passages in the book of Numbers -- "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying." Directly guided by the creator of the universe to handle as he did.
@gamesbok Moses only followed the instruction given directly from Jahweh. Knowing anything about the Old Testament laws regarding capital punishment and swift justice under the instruction from God almighty it's clear that Moses was not a psychopath but a God fearing leader of Israel.
Jahweh wasn't invented until Hesikah, but let that pass.
Moses claim to be instructed by God is transparently absurd, and would require extraordinary evidence to support it. We have no such evidence, and further, many of the people he killed were innocent children.
If it walks like a Nazi, and it talks like a Nazi..............
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'."
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I HAVE SCIENTIFIC,LOGICAL,AND UNDISPUTABLE PROOF of the exsistance of god,this is recently discovered and the reason why more and more scientists are now believers in God.I dont believe in Faith,and thank god i have found a logical way of proving his exsistance and i can show anyone who is interested the proof so they too can have a logical understanding.I was an atheist most of my life and i spent my time studying science and after 18 years I finally figured out the truth. PEACE!!!!!
As a young specious, we can not know or understand everything that exists today. This is why we will find areas in science as weird. As we continue to grow in knowledge we will tear the skins of the weirdness away and understand the subject as we do today. I wish I could be living in the future just to see where man has gotten with science as long as religion does not interfere with its progression.
Sorry fayazmiraz, you DON'T understand Evolution. But you have a lot of company, there are HEAPS of people who think they understand it but really have a very shallow grasp I'm afraid. I don't want to be unkind but you shouldn't say such things in a public forum if you don't have your facts straight.
The "intelligence" is merely survival of the fittest. You can think of that as a sort of intelligence but it has no consciousness so I think it falls short of the definition of intelligence.
In the Skyhook/Crane discussion I thought he was going to say that a crane is in a closed system, the lifting is transferred back to the ground through the cranes body, whereas a skyhook has no visible support which, if you think about it, has a few deeper meanings.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
that ugly bitch keeps staring into the camera and distracting me. She's posing her ugly mug and probably isn't even following the arguments of the doc. What a smug little grin she has on her face ugh.
problem of got is that it is a Skyhook and problem of evolution is that it is a Escalator with many Skyhooks in the background. Such as "Natural Selection" - where the hell this one came from at the beginning of evolution and continued till now?
That's the thing, natural selection is the explanation itself, not an entity to be explained. Helpful phenotypes will improve the organism's chance to pass along genes, so those are the genes that get passed down. That IS natural selection - successful genes get passed down, where success is measured by reproduction. Very simple idea, very powerful results.
AKPhilosopher, that was what they said about *things falling down* before Newton. Then he came and said that even *Things falling down* needs reasoning/explanation. So he discovered *Gravitational Force*.
Sorry pal, I do understand Evolution Theory. So I understand that for *Evolution by means of Natural Selection* to even be a remote possibility, there needs to be an intelligent system. And nature is just to dumb to do it by itself.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Apparently you don't...
Imagine an environment of 20 gazelles and 5 lions. 5 gazelles get eaten - which ones get eaten? Well naturally, the ones that are slower than the others. The other 15 pass on their genes to offspring - the faster gazelles are "naturally selected". This IS the explanation. There is a stiff competition for resources, and death comes from all around - those who are best suited for their environment will pass on their genes.
Ya may be AKPhilosopher, that should explain everything, shouldn't it?
Well unfortunately it doesn't. And by the way this is a very common example, even a school boy knows this. Giving this example shows that you have no clue what I was talking about.
The thing is, when you have a running and active system it is very easy to give a lot of explanation about how the system is running. Some of them are correct, some are partially correct (like your example) and others are incorrect.
I'm saying your example is partially correct cause that doesn't explain why the more stronger creatures vanished.
However, that was not my point. None of these explains where the *system itself* came from. So, what you can do is, you can go much farther and deeper. So to explain *Evolution Theory* (or should I say hypothesis!), at some point you will bring up Big Bang Theory.
So then the question will arise, where the Big Bang came from, which will be unanswered for some time.
It means the *Sky hook* (unexplained/ unexplainable) will always be their in the background.
By the way *AKPhilosopher*, I do appreciate your way of explaining things.
Not like *kmrastegar*. Just making a blind comment that I lack some understanding - is meaningless. It only shows your lack of prudence to explain things.
"However, that was not my point. None of these explains where the *system itself* came from"
We don't need an explanation for that. At some point, you're going to have to accept that SOMETHING either came into being on it's own, or has always existed. The question is: is it more likely that this "something" is an all knowing, all powerful, super-intelligent entity, or that this "something" is simply matter/energy.
Ockhams Razor - simple logic - tells us it's the latter.
@c6gunner: Unfortunately *Ockhams Razor* doesn't tell that. For it to that, your *later* has to be simple and correct at the same time. Something can't be true just because it is simple, it also has to be logical.
Obviously matter/energy doesn't create themselves, neither they have the potential to. So it would be illogical for that SOMETHING to be matter/energy.
@c6gunner: I think science within a 1000 years will be able to confirm some properties, that SOMETHING has to have; And I believe those properties will match the definition of God in monotheistic Religions, especially Islam.
Sorry - if you think the idea of a super-complex entity popping into existence from nowhere is more "logical" than the idea that energy/matter have always existed, then you're an idiot.
No matter how unlikely it is for matter/energy to have spontaneously come into being, it is infinitely more improbable for a complex entity to have done the same. If you can't grasp that very basic concept, there's nothing else for me to say to you. You're simply too stupid to debate with; end of discussion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You athiests are so good at calling other idiot. I rather be an idiot than a fool. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'."
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman why are you here? "trying to save us?" Leave these comments, go preach your dying religion elsewhere, you are out of your element here. You crazy kook.
OK...I'm crazy! It is a scientific principle (and also a Biblical one) that life always comes from life. And yet the evolutionist has to argue that life came from non-living material. How scientific is that? Has it ever been observed?
Yes it has been observed in various species that were the basis of experiments, from birds to fruit flies, your "evidence" was 'written' before science, do you honestly believe they knew anything about origin of life? Before Darwin. They thought earth was flat and we were the center of the universe, just because you can say 'god did it' is NOT evidence or true, science can break down life into chemistry, you are made of chemistry, if you don't think that is true stop eating vitamins.
Don't be biased, don't pick sides, simply look at all the evidence, I don't have time or patience to talk about this anymore, I would rather go learn something.
Yes, in fact He has been observed. He came to this earth 2,000 years ago to live and die to pay your sin debt which fulfilled many Old Testament prophesies about Him.
Because the book says so? It had also been observed that the earth is flat. Do you believe that too? It's the same kind of alleged proof as your one. The "observation" is nothing more than: "it says so in this book" or "some guy told me"! You people are incapable of even understanding what evidence means.
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 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Like him or not, Dawkins is doing his part on trying to get the world rid of all that fundamentalist (and thus tendencious to anti-intellectualism) religion around the world, and we all know some religions have more cons than pros.
You got to be blind or deaf (or both) if you didn't notice how very religious people tend to know less than not so much religious people, and these people, if properly directed could be helping develop our scientific, medical and technological progress.
carlosewm 9 months ago 14
Comment removed
carlosewm 9 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 9 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 9 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 9 months ago
is that a shemale at 6:33 blonde hair in the background ewwwwwwwww
ch0m3c0 10 months ago
Dawkins is refreshingly clear about what he DOESN'T know. How many people do you know that "bookend" their statements with self-critical skepticism when discussing concepts outside of their expertise? Intellectual honesty for the win!
Lesardah 10 months ago 3
@Lesardah yeah sometimes it seems to me that people believe in god cause they are too ashamed to admit they dont know shit
R2rGangstaFC 8 months ago 2
is tthe interviewer really an idiot or is she playing the role of the idiot?
ahm319 11 months ago
@ahm319
No she's not an idiot and no she's not playing the role of an idiot. Are you an idiot?
wilox1 10 months ago
Hook hanging down from the sky? - Hook hanging down from a crane!
pklukepk 1 year ago
Speaking of the origins of life, I highly doubt the god of the Bible is capable of baking a pie. This god is suppose to ALL POWERFUL that his only option to get rid of the evil (it came back) on Earth is the drown everybody and fail? Why not just make them disappear in a flash? He alters languages instead of just scattering people throughout the world to stop the Tower of Babel (somehow he can't stop NASA). If there is a god, he must be smarter than Yahweh.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@minanda01 It seems thats how all playlists go on youtube.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@mark1962ish LOL!!!!
What a moron. Looks like you're the ape.
Please, we really want to hear more about your big sugar daddy up in the sky.
goog2k 1 year ago 2
Keep digging......and stay duped if that's the way you want to be:)
mark1962ish 1 year ago
Keep digging......
mark1962ish 1 year ago
What idiots...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
STAR DUST?
GET REAL !!!!
mark1962ish 1 year ago
Sorry Richard but that explanation of the crane/sky-hook analogy you gave here was rather weak. That's a shame cause it actually is a very useful analogy, if conveyed properly.
A crane has a boom and a base. You can clearly see how energy is being transferred in order for the crane to do it's lifting.
A sky-hook on the other hand, lacks the boom and base. It's lifting capabilities are unexplained.
kmetze 1 year ago 4
@kmetze The cranes, sky-hooks, & universal acid were borrowed from Dan Dennett's Darwin Dangerous idea (1995). The book is quite a good as popular science for the public but it did get some stick from biologists, H. Allen Orr wrote a very cruel review of the book.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Maybe the old fashioned "Deus ex Machina" term would serve better than "skyhook"
mikeyman211 1 year ago
I really think Dawkins had had a few splifs before this talk ;) He is slurring his words and his eyes look blurry.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks
He was trying to replicate an experiment by Carl Sagan.
kitchenaut 1 year ago
Escalator? There are many escalators in the big mall in the sky.
muzikman182 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they fucked like crazed monkeys in a cave afte the interview. she sucked him, but he did not suck her.
jackasslobo 1 year ago
when she says the analogy doesn't work because a crane looks very much like a skyhook... I think thats the whole point. they do look very much the same and are very easy to get the two confused. however, once you stand back a certain distance and can look objectively, one can see the crane for what it actually is. at least this is my interpretation of the analogy.
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
Throwing Dennett under the bus are we mr. Dawkins? ;)
But yeah I always thought the skyhook analogy wasn't extremely clear ^^
megamarsvin 1 year ago
Sagan said, "We are star stuff" and "a way for the cosmos to know itself."
All the atoms on earth and in our bodies came from supernova that blew up over 5 billion years ago.
Aren't we all just walking, talking stardust -- this cosmos become AWAKE and looking back at itself? -- and aren't we intimately connected to it all?
We are this wonder called life become AWAKE
Please enjoy the dance.
And ultimately there's nothing that separates us from others in this grand mystery. Please be kind.
goog2k 1 year ago 4
@goog2k ha ha ha ha ha ha..........Star stuff ..ha ha ha ha ha ha
Oh you mean star dust ..ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Don't let Dawky make a monkey out of you:)
mark1962ish 1 year ago
@mark1962ish What's the matter dummy, can't you read? Do you know who Carl Sagan is? Duhh???
He used the term star stuff, which is perfectly valid. Every single atom on earth and in your body came from stars that blew up (supernova) more than 5 billion years ago.
Now, why don't you tell us about your fairy tale big daddy up in the sky?
LOL!!!
goog2k 1 year ago 3
@goog2k Hmmm...I say folks, this poor duped fellow has a giant chip on his shoulder:)
mark1962ish 1 year ago
I feel the same way, the crane is on the ground, it makes perfect sense.
Ronni3no2 1 year ago
How can someone not get Dennett's distinction between a crane and a skyhook? I thought it made perfect sense.
Anyway I do enjoy Dawkins' discussion of these topics. He is always very clear and concise, and the fascinating nature of the origin of life makes it all the more enthralling.
BlankVellum 1 year ago 7
OH... Its my favorite Bible irony. Moses comes down the mountain with the Ten Commandments, one of which is Thou shalt not kill." What's the first thing he does? KILLS people with the tablets, no less. lol
FaulkMonster 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Key word: SPECULATION = The foundation on which evolution is constructed.
Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
sphereofinfluence247 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
The question about "Tillich and Bonhoeffer" refers to Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
QuasiRandomViewer 2 years ago
At 2:20 he needs to just say "baby steps." Evolution is baby steps of reasoning instead of giant leaps of faith.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
@ananiasacts Evolution is FAITH...a giant leap of faith into nothing....ha ha
mark1962ish 1 year ago
Why does he talk about cranes, elevators, escalators, and sky hooks thoses are all man made devices. How could a man made device be responsible for evelution? I didn't get what he was talking about. There were no cranes, elevators, escalotors or sky hooks to cause evolution.
hydrolito 2 years ago
@hydrolito
By sky hook he means a crane, but the sky hook is undetectable. You can see the crane moving things, but you cant see the sky hook moving things. The sky hook is the gods and the crane is evolution.
DanishFusion 2 years ago
he was using it as a Metaphor but was also quoting someone else and trying to break it down for the interviewer so she could understand it.
TBrogren 2 years ago
look up Dan Dannett's lecture at AA (2006 I think) he came up with the idea and the explanation.
cheburashka1326 2 years ago
plz to google the following words: 'metaphor', 'simile', and 'idiot'.
andrewridgway 2 years ago
Great interviewer
ArcadianGirl 2 years ago
Why is the universe intelligable mathematically? - because everything is. Mathematics is the language of everything. Its an incredibly elegant language, and what facinates me about it is that if somthing doesnt exist, we just define it and it gives rise to a whole new branch of mathematics. For eg, We cant do the square root of negative numbers, so we just define i^2 = -1 and bam, we now have complex analysis.
paulio2293 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dude, many scientists and micrbiologists have confirmed that the simplest of cells have not evolved and never did, because they were always the way they were.
there are also many fossiles of creatures which were very much complex,...very complex.
arabie2006 2 years ago
"many scientists and micrbiologists have confirmed that the simplest of cells have not evolved and never did, because they were always the way they were."
Sources please? :)
AtheistBrit 2 years ago 5
I've changed my mind, I thought so, because I relied upon the irreducible complexity, but that was refuted long ago by kenneth miller.
So in that case I withdraw my comment 3 weeks earlier.:)
arabie2006 2 years ago 70
Hey you know something? That's pretty big of you to admit you were wrong. Kudos to you for doing what so many others refuse to, instead flying in the face of blatant evidence. I salute you, sir! :)
AtheistBrit 2 years ago 57
Thanks for saluting me. I have no need in fooling myself if the evidence is saying otherwise.
I remember a quote from an old islamic jurist who said something like: I hope when I'm in discussing with my advesary, that the truth is spoken through his tongue.
arabie2006 2 years ago 3
@AtheistBrit What evidence? Don't let Dawk make a monkey out of you!
mark1962ish 1 year ago
@mark1962ish Hahahaha! "What evidence"! That's a good one!
Only the entirety of modern biology, plus a few extra disciplines thrown in for good measure.
AtheistBrit 1 year ago
@AtheistBrit Evidence yes.... I'm afraid you will be digging for it for a very long time and yes Atheism or evolution is faith because you need a ton of it to trust the so called 'evidence' Happy digging old chap and send our ancester my regards if you meet him ..HA HA HA !
mark1962ish 1 year ago
@mark1962ish Evidence... ooh let me see... how about opening the Journal of Biological Sciences or even most biology textbooks for starters! Pretty much the whole of modern biological science is underpinned by the theory of evolution. Had a vaccine? Heard of MRSA? That's evolution at work right there, buddy. It's no skin off my nose if you don't believe it, it's fact.
So, tell me, does it take faith to believe that unicorns don't exist? If not, why not?
AtheistBrit 1 year ago
@AtheistBrit Why do you bother arguing with him? lol Instead, allow me to recommend a nice book, In search of Schrödingers cat :)
JayDee98765 1 year ago
@JayDee98765 I dunno, in the vain hope someone might listen? It's fun? There are a few reasons but probably none of them valid lol.
Ooh I love that book! My husband owns a copy and it was one of the first books of his I read shortly after we first met 8 years ago. He did Physics at university and it was highly recommended in the department. :)
AtheistBrit 1 year ago
@AtheistBrit 'They' remind of what morpheus talks about in the movie the matrix, something about how after a certain amount of time, a mind is beyond saving and that the people will fight to protect the very system they have become to hopelessly dependent on. I digress lol But I share similar optimism. I've got my girl friend into this whole debate by buying her a copy last Christmas :D Ahhh the joys of rational thought.
JayDee98765 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@AtheistBrit Evidence yes.... I'm afraid you will be digging for it for a very long time and yes Atheism or evolution is faith because you need a ton of it to trust the so called 'evidence' Happy digging old chap and send our ancester my regards if you meet him ..HA HA HA :)
mark1962ish 1 year ago
@arabie2006 Great respect to you sir/madam
3xxiled 1 year ago
Hell yeah, man.
Mitsuraga 1 year ago
@arabie2006 Much respect!
lormendi 11 months ago
Look up Abiogenesis.
kennegun 2 years ago
Now now we can't thumbs down because we disagree! He actually does make a semi logical point, it is however the only logical creationist argument, let's not take it from them.
ancientworlds 2 years ago 2
i think dawkins has slightly misinterpreted dan dennetts analogy of cranes and sky hooks
fergal33 2 years ago
Congrats.. You've done a very good job in editing this interview.. Thanks a lot..
sidiqmk 2 years ago
Xorinite, if it was so pathetic, it would be laughable that you maintain that Luke was dead before the Gospel of Luke was written and that the gospel or good new was the "good news about Luke." ABSOLUTELY NOT...the Gospel of Luke is NOT about Luke!
markpianoman 2 years ago
The gospel called "Luke" was written no earlier than 110, and possibly much later.
It was not written in the geographical area that the character Luke was claimed to live in, nor in the language Luke was supposed to know.
Again I repeat. Bible scholars, christian and secular have been in agreement for many many years, that the gospels were not written by the disciples they are named after.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Most scholars today will tell you that both Matthew and Luke were based upon Mark, and that Mark was based upon an earlier and now lost document called "original mark"
Xorinite 2 years ago
Jesus Christ said in John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
Christ said that Moses wrote of Him!
markpianoman 2 years ago
Moses never mentioned Jesus Christ, if you want to say the prophecy in Genesis was about him, it referred to a wound to the heel not a crucification, so again you can say it is not about him. Where is any passage written by Moses about him? I don't know of any.
hydrolito 2 years ago
Acts 8:1
And Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen's) death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
markpianoman 2 years ago
1 Corinthians 15:3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Since it is the very validity of the bible which is in question, quoting the bible will not sustain your position.
Xorinite 2 years ago
What were the more than 500 brethrens names? If someone said over 500 people saw Elvis and he was still alive, wouldn't you have to include their names to varify it? How do you know they didn't see a Jesus or Elvis impersonator? I saw someone dressed to impersonate Elvis in a bar but I know it wasn't Elvis because Elvis is dead.
hydrolito 2 years ago
There are several references from the Apostles of their interaction with the risen Christ -- here is one:
I Cor 15:5-8 "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me (Paul) also, as of one born out of due time."
Remarkable record considering no tabloids.
markpianoman 2 years ago
sorry, mark. If 500 people saw fairies or the lochness monster, would it be valid? No. The number of people seeing whatever does nto hold a significance.
Especially when you are citing from the Bible, one of the world's greatest blunders.
xXshinzoXx 2 years ago
ohhh but you are forgetting all the other mounds of evidence! internal and external evidences for the truth of the Bible. Do your research rather than putting all your efforts into fruitlessly trying to search for misinterpreted "evidence" which contradicts the truth.
markpianoman 2 years ago
a murder does not requires 500, one is enough
Shaunthesushi 2 years ago
@markpianoman, We're not even sure who shot JFK and we have that on film. I pity the fool who believes scripture written decades after the events took place could be an accurate record of anything. I think the real utility of religion is that it asks people to love a brutal tyrant like the god of Abraham to save their own souls. It says a lot about someone willing to do that. Sort of like flypaper for scumbags.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
exactly -- and that is why this is overwhelming evidence...among others.
markpianoman 2 years ago
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am.
markpianoman 2 years ago
It is commonly believed that, when a general persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero, about A.D. 64, under pretence that they had set Rome on fire, both St. Paul and St. Peter then sealed the truth with their blood; the latter being crucified with his head downward; the former being beheaded, either in A.D. 64 or 65, and buried in the Via Ostiensis.
markpianoman 2 years ago
"It is commonly believed that"
The buzzing noise from bees are caused by their wings, and that Nero 'fiddled' while rome burned. Neither of which are true. I do not care for what is "commonly believed" I care for what is true and can be demonstrated to be true with evidence.
Xorinite 2 years ago
However, since you have not mentioned the gospels authors or when they were written am I to take it that you have conceded that you were wrong on those issues?
Because there is little point in moving onto another item if you cannot finish with the first one you brought up. Its just changing item of discussion to avoid admission or conclusion.
Xorinite 2 years ago
When the gospel records were written is of little consequence...what matters is that they were written by apostles who had been with the Lord and who were eye-witnesses to the resurrection. There are multiple references within the Gospels and from St. Paul to eye-witness accounts of the resurrection.
markpianoman 2 years ago
"When the gospel records were written is of little consequence..."
If they were not written in a time frame which would allow them to be first hand accounts then their 'evidence' is second hand heresy and would be inadmissible in any court in the land.
However the fact that you claimed that they were valid due to their eye-witness status, yet now claim that it doesn't matter shows that your pride is such that you cannot admit being wrong. Not impressive to anyone.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Luke writes that his sources were people who knew Jesus. "Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (Luke 1:2).
markpianoman 2 years ago
"Luke writes that"
No, sorry. Luke was dead before the "gospel" or "good news" of Luke was written. (it basically means its a 'good news' story about Luke)
However, I can state that my sources are people who knew Moses, and they tell me your god is not real.
to reiterate; Since it is the very validity of the bible which is in question, quoting the bible will not sustain your position.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Yes, it is clear to me that you would love to exclude the historical record of the Bible.
markpianoman 2 years ago
When the question of the validity of the bible itself is in question, you cannot use the bible as evidence to validate itself.
It would be like me writing a paper on how hydrogen bonds explain why water is a liquid, and then claiming that the evidence that this is true is the paper I wrote.
Xorinite 2 years ago
No sorry....you wrote that using the Bible for evidence when the bible itself is in question is like you writing a paper and then claim that your paper itself is the evidence.
NO...bad example. Your paper would be one paper written by one individual. Some 40 different individuals wrote the various books of the Bible over 1,400 years. It has considerable validity the comparison of various books within the Bible... internal evidence. Look at the site I already sent for a list of external!
markpianoman 2 years ago
"NO...bad example"
It is a perfect example. You cannot use the text which makes the claims, as evidence that its claims are accurate. (unless its something like; these are words)
"Look at the site"
I have looked at many chrisitian apologetics websites. None have yet presented anything new, the one you sent me hasn't either.
If you can stand to challenge what you believe, try a search on infidels. The evidence you claim exists is scant, and there is less than there is for bab.
Xorinite 2 years ago 5
You're dumb....................
JonplaysDrums27 2 years ago
Your argument seems to boil down to "We know the bible is true and accurate, because the bible says it is, and we know the bible is true and accurate"
I also presented to you a clear contradiction in the gospels, which you ignored. Perhaps this is you conceding that they are inaccurate?
Xorinite 2 years ago 2
I'll get back to you about your "clear contradiction in the gospels" after I research it.
markpianoman 2 years ago
I gave you the bible verses. The father of Joseph is different in the different gospels. Now, regardless of what excuses you will try to find apologetics give, this is a contradiction between the texts. It exists.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Dislike Atheists how much you want but keep in mind that Atheists are living life just like a human should do.
nils4545 2 years ago
I think the women host has a thing for intelligent men, she looks like shes having wet dreams with professor dawkings.
nils4545 2 years ago
Atheists in general are just plain rude because they are without God and morals.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Every Atheist I know has more morals than any religious person I know.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
i agree. to be an atheist, you need mental courage. investigative couriocity. a need to understand the world you live in and rational honesty. lot's of theists i meet on youtube for instance, aren't honest debaters. they often come up with some sorts of trickery, i mean to be religious, you have to ignore the knowledge of everything else.. and they lie..
carryall69 2 years ago
It's not about having "morals" it's about following the absolute of God-given morals. What if I told you, "yeah, I have morals too, and one of mine is that I kill anybody who ticks me off." Would that be OK....? Why or why not?
markpianoman 2 years ago
Moses killed everyone who 'ticked him off'.
gamesbok 2 years ago
That's a crazy statement -- what is your specific example? And what were the circumstances? And was Moses following God's instruction to him?
How about the specific Bible verses to back up your unfounded claim...?
markpianoman 2 years ago
Well, we could start with the Egyptian he killed, before he had to run to the home of Jethro, or the 3,000 Hebrews he killed after Mt. Saini and they worshiped a Golden Calf, or the old man he murdered after he gathered fire-wood on the sabbath, or his invention of genocide against the Medianites (Numbers Ch31, v15-19), since you ask.
The guy was a homocidal psychopath.
gamesbok 2 years ago
And you failed to answer my question -- "And was Moses following God's instruction to him?"
And was Moses carrying out the law as he was supposed to as the leader of the Jews?
markpianoman 1 year ago
I seem to remember a commandment to the effect 'Thou shalt not kill', but I doubt that Moses invented hyprocrisy.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Well, what you don't seem to remember is that "thou shalt not kill" was for the individual...but not for any number of sins God's people (Israel) were to execute swift judgement in the form of capital punishment...per the Law given by the Creator of heaven and earth - God himself.
markpianoman 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but Moses was an individual. The 'any number of sins' actually amounts to 632, ie anything that 'ticked Moses off'.
The Nazi rampage that Moses inspired included children and babies yet unborn.
If Moses was inpired by God you have to face the fact that your God is a genocidal, racist Nazi.
Jesus wouldn't have done that.
My point still stands.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Moses was not a perfect individual...and the Bible is very honest in pointing out the imperfections of it's key individuals. The only perfect one who ever lived was Jesus Christ. Jahweh of the Old Testament was swift to exercise judgement against certain sins. Moses handled as instructed by God. God is not now in the business of issuing swift judgement over sin, but is stretching for his hand of saving grace through faith in Jesus Christ who paid our debt of sin on the cross.
markpianoman 1 year ago
@markpianoman interesting theory
markgg1 1 year ago
@markpianoman
Jesus tacitly approved of slavery. lolololololol
imnotbncre8ive 1 year ago
@gamesbok I dont think its a fair analysis to say moses inspired the holocaust. It was caused by fascism, racism and scientific innacuracies. I know Hitler evoked god at times, but I dont think his christianity motivated him. But Im no historian so could be wrong. Be interested to read a book on this
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1
I too am doubtful that he was particularly motivated by his religion. But the Catholic Church was certainly complicit in his crimes.
imnotbncre8ive 1 year ago
@imnotbncre8ive Catholic church has a lot to answer for in regards to the holocaust.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Read Mein Kampf, it will become quite clear he evokes God many many times. It's akin to saying the 9/11 hijackers weren't evoked by the Quran. Always "taken out of context" so they say. The problem is context that is dependant on the reader, who is a fallible human. If this person is derranged than the end result of a genocidal bible or quran verse leads to the "logical conclusion", the reader believes it means what is expressed. Genocide is okay under glorification of your faith.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak I agree... Im not someone of faith
markgg1 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak Sorry clicked wrong "reply"
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamesbok
"I seem to remember a commandment to the effect 'Thou shalt not kill', but I doubt that Moses invented hyprocrisy."
HAHA quoted for epicness.
imnotbncre8ive 1 year ago
@imnotbncre8ive Maybe God forgot to mention as long as they are egyptians and you bury them in the sand it's okay in the 10 commandments :)
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@gamesbok
You completely fail to show that your assessment is warped because you leave out that fact that Moses was a man of God who followed the Lord's specific guidance in those circumstances as evidenced by one phrase which is repeated though these passages in the book of Numbers -- "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying." Directly guided by the creator of the universe to handle as he did.
markpianoman 1 year ago
I know that Moses claimed to be a man of God, but then many psychopaths make that claim.
In his invention of genocide no such claim is made.
If it walks like a Nazi, and it talks like a Nazi..............
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Moses only followed the instruction given directly from Jahweh. Knowing anything about the Old Testament laws regarding capital punishment and swift justice under the instruction from God almighty it's clear that Moses was not a psychopath but a God fearing leader of Israel.
markpianoman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jahweh wasn't invented until Hesikah, but let that pass.
Moses claim to be instructed by God is transparently absurd, and would require extraordinary evidence to support it. We have no such evidence, and further, many of the people he killed were innocent children.
If it walks like a Nazi, and it talks like a Nazi..............
gamesbok 1 year ago
@markpianoman even hitler couldn't stand a chance against Yahweh, perhaps the most petty, racist, and genocidal being in all of written fiction.
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
Dude saying a statement like this just shows how ignorant you are.
JonplaysDrums27 2 years ago
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'."
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Excellent.
Professor RICHARD DAWKINS is the wise man of the 21th century.
mohfoz77 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
who's thelican bon heuffer?? am i spelling it right?
malayneum 3 years ago
I think its Bonhoeffur and I believe he was a German christian who fought against the Nazis but was executed.
dunsedog 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I HAVE SCIENTIFIC,LOGICAL,AND UNDISPUTABLE PROOF of the exsistance of god,this is recently discovered and the reason why more and more scientists are now believers in God.I dont believe in Faith,and thank god i have found a logical way of proving his exsistance and i can show anyone who is interested the proof so they too can have a logical understanding.I was an atheist most of my life and i spent my time studying science and after 18 years I finally figured out the truth. PEACE!!!!!
Nickspasic 3 years ago
As a young specious, we can not know or understand everything that exists today. This is why we will find areas in science as weird. As we continue to grow in knowledge we will tear the skins of the weirdness away and understand the subject as we do today. I wish I could be living in the future just to see where man has gotten with science as long as religion does not interfere with its progression.
stevethul1 3 years ago
Theres a merchandising section to RD's website???? COOL!
fr3d420 3 years ago
i was naked while I watched this video! r
LauraAnneHemingway 3 years ago
That's super.
jamesjohnking 3 years ago
I dont believe. 'Where is the video proof?
arielwollinger 3 years ago
Sorry fayazmiraz, you DON'T understand Evolution. But you have a lot of company, there are HEAPS of people who think they understand it but really have a very shallow grasp I'm afraid. I don't want to be unkind but you shouldn't say such things in a public forum if you don't have your facts straight.
The "intelligence" is merely survival of the fittest. You can think of that as a sort of intelligence but it has no consciousness so I think it falls short of the definition of intelligence.
warren52nz 3 years ago
proconsulaugustus grow up! How would you feel if someone said something like that about you? I think she's rather attractive by the way.
warren52nz 3 years ago
In the Skyhook/Crane discussion I thought he was going to say that a crane is in a closed system, the lifting is transferred back to the ground through the cranes body, whereas a skyhook has no visible support which, if you think about it, has a few deeper meanings.
warren52nz 3 years ago
Lol, long question short; 'Richard, you started a cult'.
Brilliant =D
gotank 3 years ago
What we really need to do is get the hell off this planet and leave the Christians here to kill each other
xlioilx 3 years ago
Hahaa! This is a fascinating debate but I'm just laughing at what "proconsulaugustus" just said.
grobbledonk 3 years ago
skyhook
antiyank4u 3 years ago
who thinks that lady just fell in love with richard. you can see it in her eyezzzzzzzz
skatebawd 3 years ago
Excellent session!
astat1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that ugly bitch keeps staring into the camera and distracting me. She's posing her ugly mug and probably isn't even following the arguments of the doc. What a smug little grin she has on her face ugh.
proconsulaugustus 3 years ago
Ooopps! typo. *got => GOD
fayazmiraz 3 years ago
problem of got is that it is a Skyhook and problem of evolution is that it is a Escalator with many Skyhooks in the background. Such as "Natural Selection" - where the hell this one came from at the beginning of evolution and continued till now?
fayazmiraz 3 years ago 4
That's the thing, natural selection is the explanation itself, not an entity to be explained. Helpful phenotypes will improve the organism's chance to pass along genes, so those are the genes that get passed down. That IS natural selection - successful genes get passed down, where success is measured by reproduction. Very simple idea, very powerful results.
AKPhilosopher 3 years ago
AKPhilosopher, that was what they said about *things falling down* before Newton. Then he came and said that even *Things falling down* needs reasoning/explanation. So he discovered *Gravitational Force*.
Sorry pal, I do understand Evolution Theory. So I understand that for *Evolution by means of Natural Selection* to even be a remote possibility, there needs to be an intelligent system. And nature is just to dumb to do it by itself.
fayazmiraz 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Apparently you don't...
Imagine an environment of 20 gazelles and 5 lions. 5 gazelles get eaten - which ones get eaten? Well naturally, the ones that are slower than the others. The other 15 pass on their genes to offspring - the faster gazelles are "naturally selected". This IS the explanation. There is a stiff competition for resources, and death comes from all around - those who are best suited for their environment will pass on their genes.
AKPhilosopher 3 years ago
Ya may be AKPhilosopher, that should explain everything, shouldn't it?
Well unfortunately it doesn't. And by the way this is a very common example, even a school boy knows this. Giving this example shows that you have no clue what I was talking about.
fayazmiraz 3 years ago 2
The thing is, when you have a running and active system it is very easy to give a lot of explanation about how the system is running. Some of them are correct, some are partially correct (like your example) and others are incorrect.
I'm saying your example is partially correct cause that doesn't explain why the more stronger creatures vanished.
fayazmiraz 3 years ago 2
However, that was not my point. None of these explains where the *system itself* came from. So, what you can do is, you can go much farther and deeper. So to explain *Evolution Theory* (or should I say hypothesis!), at some point you will bring up Big Bang Theory.
So then the question will arise, where the Big Bang came from, which will be unanswered for some time.
It means the *Sky hook* (unexplained/ unexplainable) will always be their in the background.
fayazmiraz 3 years ago 2
By the way *AKPhilosopher*, I do appreciate your way of explaining things.
Not like *kmrastegar*. Just making a blind comment that I lack some understanding - is meaningless. It only shows your lack of prudence to explain things.
fayazmiraz 3 years ago 4
"However, that was not my point. None of these explains where the *system itself* came from"
We don't need an explanation for that. At some point, you're going to have to accept that SOMETHING either came into being on it's own, or has always existed. The question is: is it more likely that this "something" is an all knowing, all powerful, super-intelligent entity, or that this "something" is simply matter/energy.
Ockhams Razor - simple logic - tells us it's the latter.
c6gunner 3 years ago
@c6gunner: Unfortunately *Ockhams Razor* doesn't tell that. For it to that, your *later* has to be simple and correct at the same time. Something can't be true just because it is simple, it also has to be logical.
Obviously matter/energy doesn't create themselves, neither they have the potential to. So it would be illogical for that SOMETHING to be matter/energy.
fayazmiraz 3 years ago 3
@c6gunner: I think science within a 1000 years will be able to confirm some properties, that SOMETHING has to have; And I believe those properties will match the definition of God in monotheistic Religions, especially Islam.
fayazmiraz 3 years ago
Sorry - if you think the idea of a super-complex entity popping into existence from nowhere is more "logical" than the idea that energy/matter have always existed, then you're an idiot.
No matter how unlikely it is for matter/energy to have spontaneously come into being, it is infinitely more improbable for a complex entity to have done the same. If you can't grasp that very basic concept, there's nothing else for me to say to you. You're simply too stupid to debate with; end of discussion.
c6gunner 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You athiests are so good at calling other idiot. I rather be an idiot than a fool. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'."
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
"You athiests are so good at calling other idiot"
Thank you.
"I rather be an idiot than a fool."
The two are not mutually exclusive, as you've just handily demonstrated.
c6gunner 2 years ago 10
markpianoman why are you here? "trying to save us?" Leave these comments, go preach your dying religion elsewhere, you are out of your element here. You crazy kook.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
OK...I'm crazy! It is a scientific principle (and also a Biblical one) that life always comes from life. And yet the evolutionist has to argue that life came from non-living material. How scientific is that? Has it ever been observed?
markpianoman 2 years ago
Yes it has been observed in various species that were the basis of experiments, from birds to fruit flies, your "evidence" was 'written' before science, do you honestly believe they knew anything about origin of life? Before Darwin. They thought earth was flat and we were the center of the universe, just because you can say 'god did it' is NOT evidence or true, science can break down life into chemistry, you are made of chemistry, if you don't think that is true stop eating vitamins.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
Dr. Norm Geisler's and Frank Turek's book entitled I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Don't be biased, don't pick sides, simply look at all the evidence, I don't have time or patience to talk about this anymore, I would rather go learn something.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
The Bible is the only book which give any meaningful light on abiogenesis! Read it, and become informed.
markpianoman 2 years ago
I have read the bible and that is why Im a fucking Atheist
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
"the evolutionist has to argue that life came from non-living material. How scientific is that? Has it ever been observed? "
Has god ever been observed?
byteresistor 2 years ago
Yes, in fact He has been observed. He came to this earth 2,000 years ago to live and die to pay your sin debt which fulfilled many Old Testament prophesies about Him.
markpianoman 2 years ago
"Yes, in fact He has been observed"
Because the book says so? It had also been observed that the earth is flat. Do you believe that too? It's the same kind of alleged proof as your one. The "observation" is nothing more than: "it says so in this book" or "some guy told me"! You people are incapable of even understanding what evidence means.