Atheist's have highjacked science in an attempt to eradicate believe in God and his very existence.
Many respected scientific believers of god have no problems finding scientific answers with 100% accuracy .The difference being that they give reverence to god the creator who made it.
Its this last gesture that riles those who have an issue with religion (because of false religions/bad experiences) so they attempt to massage and twist what we can clearly see!.
@FlashmoreGash atheists have not highjacked science. Science is just a mechanism for solving problems. However as scientific research became more advanced it became more obvious that a God was not needed for the state of the world as it is today. If there is no need for a god or a reason to believe in one why believe in one.
@FlashmoreGash Scientists that believe in god can produce accurate science, but they used the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, and as long as those conclusions are reasonable and supported by experiments they will be accepted. God cannot be proven though the scientific method because their is no data concerning god,
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
This empty void that is psychologically manifested in the removal of one from possessing control over autonomous-self in giving up an individual identity for a group identity allows for greater success of survival for the individual but creates the altered-self which may induce or manifest hallucinations as the psyche seeks balance, thus creating a projected-self or god image.
The leadership-void-filled theory of father, God replacement:
The patriarchal peoples psychological need, to replace father relationship with God religion as an individual passes from childhood to adulthood. Patriarchal leadership often oppressive resulted in damaged or altered since of autonomy to child resulting in a continued dependent mentality that seeks a replacement value of self.
@MissSaharaja "Ad hominem" is a name. It denotes a certain rhetorical pattern. I did not assign the name, I am not responsible for the fact that it is rooted in the Latin language. I am just using the proper term for what I want to express. When there is a well known name for a concept that I want to express, I will use that name, no matter what language it came from.
I don't find the terrain rough. Consistently reproducible results, it's as simple as that.
@MissSaharaja "Ad hominem" is the - actually quite well-known - name of a rhetorical pattern that you used. I was about to explain it, but then I found that Wikipedia does a much better job at this.
I recognize your apology, but I am very certain that it was not a mere misunderstanding. Here is what you wrote: "I can totally understand why you want rich white scientists to justify it, how politically naive."
This proves that you totally did not get my point. And I don't know what else to say.
@MissSaharaja The individual researcher and his agenda does not matter. Only the whole body of evidence matters, which has been compiled by lots of mutually independent researchers, all with or without their own agendas. The stuff that consistently works and produces useful results becomes canon. All the rest, no matter how nice a speculation it may be, will not be accepted by the majority.
You have an agenda though. Implying that I am racist disqualified you as a reasonable discussion partner.
@MissSaharaja The questions I asked, and the arguments I put forward, are perfectly valid. If they are not, counter my arguments in a reasonable way. But now you've gone ad hominem, which for me is always a sign that someone has noticed that the arguments of the other side are better, but does not want to acknowledge it.
Changing your mind, changing your opinions, is a hard thing to do. But I made it, and you can make it as well. Wishful thinking is the biggest obstacle in this process.
@MissSaharaja It's not enough for just me to try out. There has to be a documented procedure which can be carried out by others as well. Then, other researchers around the globe will do experiments and publish their results. This is how the scientific process really starts - not with just one person trying out stuff, but with many people working in concert and producing tons of evidence.
Do you have any reproducible, well documented method?
@MissSaharaja Religion is based on faith (wanting to believe), whereas science is based on evidence (denying that which cannot be proven). Science is geared towards results that actually work on a big scale (medicine, computers, modern architecture, and many more). There is nothing religious about that.
So, what exactly are you involved in? Are there any processes that can be yield testable, reproducible results?
@MissSaharaja Sorry, I'm not into all of this. I am only interested in that which can actually be proven in a scientific way. Phenomena like the ones you mentioned have been subject to countless scientific studies, and there has never been a positive conclusive result. If someone manages to heal cancer through prayer in a reproducible manner, I'm the first to jump on board. But before that, it is just speculation and fantasy for me.
@MissSaharaja Depends. If "mystical" is just supposed to mean just "we don't know how it works (yet)", then there is surely a lot of mystery around us. But if it's supposed to mean roughly the same as what can also be referred to as "paranormal" or "occult" - no, I don't have any reason to believe in that stuff. Never seen a good solid proof for any of that. And I have a strong tendency to base my beliefs on evidence.
Absolutely beautiful intellectual discussion. As for the sound quality, stated in your other video, it is actually quite alright. Thank you for the videos and please expect an email from me.
EVERYONE: I WILL DEPOSIT 50,000 AUS dollars to thundefoots BANK ACCOUNT if he or who ever else can CREATE living matter.
it could be as simple as a (ANT) that no one has ever seen BEFORE, after all no intelligence was required in the begging for creation, should make the task a piece of cake. And if you do achieve this: I WILL DENOUNCE a CREATOR and give thunderfoot 50,000
U ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE THUNDER-FOOT?
I would like to see a VIDEO from you challenging me?
@pamuk7 your logic is wrong. just because something happend without intelligence doesn't mean it is easy. Stars supernova all the time for natural reasons, yet asking someone to make a star supernova under unnatural circumstances would be fairly difficult. We are not sure how life originated but if it did originate without a creator that wouldn't mean that it is easy to do.
@pamuk7 You are beyond idiocy in your challenge, how about you take his challenge to PCS and come up with some amazing prediction from the bible ( or whatever bigoted book you go by) or even some valid form of evidence for a creator (let alone an intelligent one). I'm disappointed that you live Australia but I doubt you're a majority which is comforting. By the way, the Zionism swastika is cute but just as ludicrous ( and ironic) as your challenge. You poor misguided fool...
did you just say "i think i'll contest that" to richard fucking dawkins??
good on you sir. that takes some balls. i respect the both of you immensely. I just think it's great to see two smart people disagreeing. Is there any better way to understand a subject?
cool vid. In this case I am however not convinced that your explanation of religion is correct. I would say religion can be explained without having to attribute it any utility, religion could be simply an evolutionary Spandrel. Steven J Gould would say Thunderf00t is "telling stories".
THUNDERFOOT! religion may be one of many things that can bind people together but that doesnt address the potential for the nature of the things theyre being told. if your argument is that religion can be a good thing because it unites people under something, then why are serial killers uniting, or organised crime, not good things? nationalism can have a dark side also but religion can potentially charge fanatic masses in the worst, possessed kind of way. ..
@fluentinsound .... its because they think theyve got a god behind them, thats what can potentially turn so many normal people so into insane aryan-ist assholes and the worst part is theyre wrong anyway. and they always end up getting taught a harsh lesson in time, but only by war with different circles. religion is a concept that swallows all facets of life in its path. ....
@fluentinsound .... the word religion does not only mean personal spirituality anymore, its been manipulated to include, public organisations, politics, law, total pinpoint government of every citizen (in some countries), education., everything. religion claims to override EVERYTHING, to have an automatic authoritarian say on every aspect of human life. not dangerous then.. thunderfoot???? It blackmails all into submission, including politicians (the psychological threat is too crippling). ...
Here is why an athiest can never be convincing; Dawkins says @ 2:50 "before we had scientific revelations to answer those sort of questions" However, science provides nothing more than speculation of the origin of the universe and of man. You have, in effect, turned science in to a 21st century faith based religion and scientists are your gods.
I been saying this to creationists for a while now, their answer is "well, I like good science that brings me technology, but I hate bad science like Evolution"
You fail to realize that you don't HAVE to believe in evolution to bring forth advancements in science. Raymond Vahan Damadian was the co-inventor of MRI, AND a young earth creationist. That's the main problem that I find with many of thunder00t's video.
@Neueregel yes everyone agrees with that. but how did evolution help science and technology? what does evolution have to do with real science? except for slowing it down in some cases. what benefits do we have from evolution theory?
@moosepok if you were on a quiz show and your life depended on you getting the question technically right. i.s right, in reality. and the question was, was jesus christ a character from a fictional novel?. and you could only answer once, i bet anything you would say yes in the moment where you life was on the line.
@fluentinsound spiritual people dont need religion. that 'god' (metaphor for the unknown, beyond) ..is and never was anything to do with human religion. it doesnt need stories and cartoon characters to accompany it. religion is dangerous when it goes public and forms lobby groups, not when its just for personal recreation. secularism must play a dominant role if western culture is to survive. politically religion means to turn superstition into law. thats why we have democracy and not theocracy.
Sorry ran out of room to post. Although I share the general optimism of the wider internet community. It would be unwise to discount locked chat rooms, cypher usage and the 100 and 1 other ways separated groups with a similar ideal can quietly communicate on the internet. Only the agitators are standing up to be challenged. It would be helpful to ascertain the numbers of quiet acceptors. How you would go about doing something like that without bias, is a tricky question.
1400 This is kind of cool so what is being said here here is that successful genetics and memes have an environmental limiting effect on new genetics and memes that may emerge? Logical and arguably a highly effective feedback loop for creating complimentary clusters. 2950 Interesting, there is a "good in lets the bad in" problem with the entire "accepting authority figures" predisposition. One which critical thinking and education would help to guard against. Not sure the trait is innately bad.
Damn. I pretty much fangirled like a Twilight or Jonas Brothers fangirl over the Thunderf00t--Richard Dawkins duo.
Well....you COULD say that Dawkins is pretty much my idol. And I'm pretty jealous that Thunderf00t had a chance to speak with him! But then and again, Thunderf00t IS one of my YouTube (and overall Internet) idols.
So seeing two of my idols together is satisfying enough :D
Are you familiar with Emile Durkheim's writing on religion, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life"? If not, I would highly suggest looking at it if you have the time. Durkheim's premise is that religion is an entirely social phenomenon that serves the purpose of uniting a group of people and giving them rules to live by. I'm led to believe this is the dominant view of religion in sociology, rather than the idea that religion attempts to explain nature.
Oh nice, I see the new video with improved audio is not available because....
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Shawn ******"
It's time to stop pissing around and inform youtube, that twat is acting like a child, abusing copyright laws like a child smacking another child in a playground.
I don't think 'right or happy' is a very good question in itself. Generally, being wrong induces a sense of unhappiness. So I don't see that this is a real choice that could ever be made, i.e I don't see it as possible that one could be knowingly wrong in one's belief and happy at the same time. Ignorant and happy, on the other hand, is definitely possible.
I'd rather be right and happy also, but if I could hypothetically only choose one (which was what they were talking about in the video), why not choose happiness? If being right and being happy were mutually exclusive, what benefit is there to being right?
Dawkin's drug analogy was horribly flawed. Drug addicts will feel happy very early in there drug use, but that happiness is wears off quickly as they develop a tolerance to the drugs eventually ruin their lives.
But, regarding drug use, your ability to correctly predict what will lead to future happiness is dependent on being (to at least some degree) right about how the world works.
This question is merely a thought experiment. In reality, being right and being happy are intimately connected.
If you're wrong about the world, the risk of you making a decision that will lead to loss of happiness (e.g. deciding to shoot some heroin) is greatly increased.
You are right. Being right and being happy are almost always intimately connected in the real world and Dawkins brought that up in the video. However the thought experiment proposed by Thunderf00t clearly stated that they were mutually exclusive.
In that hypothetical case, I would choose happiness. I was amazed that Dawkins and Thunderf00t said they would rather be right. I consider that absurd. What is the point of being right if it doesn't bring you happiness.
I've just commented in some forum that a true critical thinker doesn't surrenders to personality cult and worships somebody, but rather appreciates his or hers ideas... now, to be honest, If I had been there in the presence of Dawkins, I would have giggled and squeaked like a teenage girl in a jonas brothers concert. I know, I should be ashamed of myself, but what can I say, I'm only human. Do what I say, not what I do :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
its sad that all of you guys look up to these 2 men. you listen to the words of others who you believe are smart instead of studying and forming your own opinions. Why fight something that you know nothing about. Learn all thre is to know about every religion before you knock the religious.
@MastaChefSteve Assuming that you mean atheists/realists by whom you simply refered to as "you", I can tell you: If you believe that those two guys are the only ones that make atheist or scientific publications, then man wow how far off you are. All of science is so very much more interesting and astonishing than all religious teachings of all religions taken together. This is much more than just boring, repetetive human imagination and whishful thinking.
Nice to see Richard down in the trenches with Thunderf00t. I liked the conversational style. More close ups would be nice (every bodies a fucking critic)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Terrible interviewer! Blunderfoot speaks quite a bit more than does Dawkins who is the one being interviewed.... supposedly! Major blunder!
A more intelligent man would have previously prepared a written list of questions. For which the time would have been made to carefully & thoughtfully edit them into a short but effective form
The amateur status is obvious, thus, there was no need to forgo having a clipboard in hand which would have possibly resulted in provoking a semi-pro discussion
I like Thunderf00t 's videos , they make you think. And swinging an interview with Dawkins...Good show mate...But however what I would really like to see is ...Tf showing his sence of humor...Maybe a spoof of himself .Now that I would pay for..LOL
It seems that thunderf00t's "Sheep" have completely ignored the fact that thunderf00t got debunked and destroyed by Ray Comfort. Thunderf00t was too slow, ray kept coming in debunking everypoint that tf00t tried to make
Lol no he didn't you moron ray just kept dancing around his questions just like the rest of you do. Ray Comfort is an asshole for what he did with the origin of species. If you were a ''truthful christian'' you would know that.
No he didn't debunk anything. I'll debate him anyday and win even when I'm not as educated on the subject as thuderf00t is. It's not that hard really, it's called having an education not indoctronation. All I have to know is the basics of evolution and the scientific method to win the debate. Something Ray does not understand. Such as what a scientific theory is. And that evolution is not just pure chance.
@TruthfulChristian Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. LOL. Thinking people laugh at you. Please keep this up, I simply can't conceive of the hilarious notions you creationists come up with to defend your myths.
@koldkase77 Thunderfoot was in a different country, on his own, in someone elses studio when he was arguing with the banana douche guy. Im not sure where he is in this video but they werent very friendly to him in the other banana guy videos.
So who was it that called the banana man out? Thunderf00t! It was his idea. And your excuses are lame, he knew what he was up against and just wanted to get noticed. He ended up looking like a buffoon! Sad really, being OWNED by the banana man.
You are both two men with an OPINION, there is no TRUTH in the big picture you are trying to display here, the big question DOES GOD EXIST lends no further hand to Theists or Atheists, its just a bunch of people with an opinion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
your opinion is respected genericmeatunit, as is mine that there is one Truth... it is the Word. And the Word is Jesus Christ, who derailed in his very existence the conclusion that all that we see IS reality.The scientific mind that does not stay open to the possibility of God, denies an element of existence that is self evident in the walking and talking current pools of DNA.Unless I do not actually exist...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TFoot...I appreciate your intellect but....darkness is not an entitiy, it is only the abscence of light. You men are in the dark.And apparently only at your death will you realize the Truth
moreSmartLessStupid - my sentiments too. And if I were to hold a discussion with Dawkins, and people made comments similar to yours, I'd self-harm. Dawkins can dominate people on Sunday morning shows, and or course Bill O'Reilly, but put him amongst some academic peers - people like Koselleck (if he didn't die), historian Justin Champion and, most fittingly, Karl Popper (again, his death gets in the way...), and he'd get ruined.
I'm an EE major, a student. Though, I don't see how it's relevant. Historian, EE, or cotton candy vendor we all subscribe to the same reality. In that reality, speciation via natural selection of random mutations has been observed and reproduced. Just as it takes no faith to accept that an apple will fall once you drop it, it doesn't take faith to accept evolutionary biology.
You spent a lot of time on that, didn't you, Khronofox! That's your 3rd attempt at that message! Anyway, my telling you what my sphere of expertise is was due to you saying that I had no idea what I was talking about - I let you know about the research I have previously done and I think we can now let this matter rest. We subscribe to the same reality, yes, but with different perceptions of it. This is what we're talking about, no? Perceptions of reality? Ideas of what's fact and what's not?
I guess I do. But no matter how I type my comment to ogirv101, my comment never gets through. It's really annoying, I even waited a day and I still can't do it. And, I'm not sure if you have my comment confused with someone else's, but I never said you had no idea what you're talking about, the comment saying I was an EE is a reply to ogirv101. Anyways, yes we the reason we're conversing in the first place is because we both think our the other's perception of reality is flawed.
sounds good enough to follow, that's what counts. The vid is a good job and i remember thinking when i first saw your previous vids how cool it would be if you two met up and I wasn't wrong! thank you sirs.
Well Done Thunerf00t, and good on you. I have no doubt that getting an interview with one of the most respected Human beings ever was hard to get. Richard Dawkins is Fantastic and your points were well brought forward. Keep up the fantastic work.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But it likewise ought to disappoint those who have relied on supposedly useless, supposedly virus-derived DNA as raw material employed by some imaginary evolutionary process to engineer ever-more-complicated life forms. Instead, it looks like all DNA is useful, which suggests that its host creatures were designed on purpose.4
That statement isn't supported by the facts. It's not even supported by the claims you're making about erv dna.
"which suggests that its host creatures were designed on purpose"
It may suggest that if you were already absolutely convinced of design through religious prejudice beyond the point where even overwhelming evidence to the contrary would sway you, but that has nothing to do with science or objectivity.
This means transposons did not come from ancient viruses and therefore can no longer be used to support the idea that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor that was infected by a virus.3
This discovery will likely disappoint a generation of evolutionary scientists who based human-chimp ancestry and therefore broad-scale evolution on the false assumption that retrotransposons and the like were from viral infections.
But you may be missing the actual point of the conclusion of common ancestry, which based not on the explanation of the simliarities but rather on the EXISTENCE of the similarities, which is totally unaffected by the explanation at the molecular level. Just because there may be a different explanation of the root of the transposons has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that we share so many similarites with chimps. Unfortunately you can't use one to disprove the other: they ae mutually exclusive
Hey, BigDaddy, what do you define as a "link"? Are you talking about genome similarities? Are you talking about parent/child? You're asking us to define something without specification of the definition.
The researchers found that between 6 and 30 percent of active RNA transcripts use retrotransposon sequences.1 These transcripts carry regulatory information from the DNA to the rest of the cell. They also found that different sections of retrotransposon sequences are accessed by different tissues. Thus, at least some, and perhaps all, of the sequences carry important information for certain cells to use.
This is currently one of evolutions best arguments.
But the argument rests squarely upon the premise that these long DNA repeat sequences came from ancient viruses. Creation scientists predicted that not all—and perhaps not any—retrotransposon activity was viral or random, but instead was part of a well-designed, originally created cellular process.2 The new Nature Genetics study has confirmed this creation prediction.
Evolutionists have argued that they must have been introduced by the same virus before the two species diverged from a (presumably) ape-like ancestor. Thus, each species retains today a remnant of the same ancient viral infection.
This is often cited as strong evidence that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry, and therefore that broad-scale evolution is true―that single cells can eventually develop into humans through random natural forces.
Retrotransposon sequences had been almost dogmatically interpreted by evolutionary scientists as remnants of ancient viruses. These viruses supposedly infected the host organism long ago, and it was assumed that the viral DNA became incorporated into one or more of its chromosomes.
Intriguingly, chimpanzees and humans share some almost identical repeated sequences that look as though they were formed by retrotransposons.
functionless, non-coding sequences with which evolution can tinker. But a new study published in Nature Genetics found that they actually contain functional code that is accessed for use in specific tissues.1 Scientists recently discovered that DNA which came from transposons can regulate the expression of gene products.
One class of transposons, called retrotransposons, is formed when DNA is copied into RNA, which is then reverse-copied back into DNA.
Transposons are segments of DNA that utilize cellular machines to replicate themselves and then splice the copies back into the host DNA, thus inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that resulted from this process. About 44.4 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, with perhaps most from transposons.
Many scientists still believe that these repeated segments contain nearly random,
Transposons are a class of mobile genetic elements that operate within the DNA of living organisms. For years, macroevolutionary proponents have claimed that their presence undoubtedly supports Darwinian evolution. But a recent investigation showed that transposons have been wrongly interpreted, changing macroevolutions best argument into its worst nightmare—an almost complete lack of genetic material for it to tweak into newly selectable features.
embarrassing, isnt it. All I'm asking for is something to tell me it's fact and not theory, and all they can come up with are insults. Not one person has yet come up with 1 link between species, let alone 10!
1 Corinthians 3:19 is true..."For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, "God catches those who think they are wise in their own cleverness."
I asked you why you brought religion in because you asked question about evolution, which is a theory in the field of biology, not theology.
And you do know that there are both theists and non-theists who understand and accept the theory of evolution, so what's your point?
So I guess you are just trolling here, right? You don't really want to discuss evolution or want to look at what would constitute answers to your questions?
@MrBigDaddyT In other words, "an old poem in this old book I really like says you're a fool for not believing my set of superstitions". Nice.
Evolutionary theory is by far the most plausible explanation for how life diversifies, whether that's how God does it or how nature does it is irrelevant to science.
Oh and since we're quoting the Bible... Lev 20:10 "and the adulterer shall surely be put to death". Command of a loving God, or product of the culture and beliefs of the time?
god is real because it says so in the bible, and the bible is real because it's from god, who is real because it says so in the bible, which is real because it's from god, who is real because it says so in the bible, which is real because it's from god, who is real because it says so in the bible, which is real because it's from god,
Notice any sort of pattern there? Like a sort of circular pattern?
Thunderf00t is terrible. It's embarrassing to watch this discussion.
TweekDash 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my latest video... i highlight how Bill O'reilly suggests a weak god.
jocylean 2 months ago
Atheist's have highjacked science in an attempt to eradicate believe in God and his very existence.
Many respected scientific believers of god have no problems finding scientific answers with 100% accuracy .The difference being that they give reverence to god the creator who made it.
Its this last gesture that riles those who have an issue with religion (because of false religions/bad experiences) so they attempt to massage and twist what we can clearly see!.
FlashmoreGash 3 months ago
@FlashmoreGash atheists have not highjacked science. Science is just a mechanism for solving problems. However as scientific research became more advanced it became more obvious that a God was not needed for the state of the world as it is today. If there is no need for a god or a reason to believe in one why believe in one.
uaintgotnopankakemix 3 months ago
Comment removed
FlashmoreGash 3 months ago
@FlashmoreGash Scientists that believe in god can produce accurate science, but they used the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, and as long as those conclusions are reasonable and supported by experiments they will be accepted. God cannot be proven though the scientific method because their is no data concerning god,
uaintgotnopankakemix 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This empty void that is psychologically manifested in the removal of one from possessing control over autonomous-self in giving up an individual identity for a group identity allows for greater success of survival for the individual but creates the altered-self which may induce or manifest hallucinations as the psyche seeks balance, thus creating a projected-self or god image.
JusticeIsWhere 5 months ago
The leadership-void-filled theory of father, God replacement:
The patriarchal peoples psychological need, to replace father relationship with God religion as an individual passes from childhood to adulthood. Patriarchal leadership often oppressive resulted in damaged or altered since of autonomy to child resulting in a continued dependent mentality that seeks a replacement value of self.
JusticeIsWhere 5 months ago
thunderf00t, your great but... YOU LUCKY BASTARD! for convercing with Richard Dawkins ^^
henkjansmazaag 5 months ago
@MissSaharaja "Ad hominem" is a name. It denotes a certain rhetorical pattern. I did not assign the name, I am not responsible for the fact that it is rooted in the Latin language. I am just using the proper term for what I want to express. When there is a well known name for a concept that I want to express, I will use that name, no matter what language it came from.
I don't find the terrain rough. Consistently reproducible results, it's as simple as that.
MadocDoyu 6 months ago
@MissSaharaja "Ad hominem" is the - actually quite well-known - name of a rhetorical pattern that you used. I was about to explain it, but then I found that Wikipedia does a much better job at this.
I recognize your apology, but I am very certain that it was not a mere misunderstanding. Here is what you wrote: "I can totally understand why you want rich white scientists to justify it, how politically naive."
This proves that you totally did not get my point. And I don't know what else to say.
MadocDoyu 6 months ago
@MissSaharaja The individual researcher and his agenda does not matter. Only the whole body of evidence matters, which has been compiled by lots of mutually independent researchers, all with or without their own agendas. The stuff that consistently works and produces useful results becomes canon. All the rest, no matter how nice a speculation it may be, will not be accepted by the majority.
You have an agenda though. Implying that I am racist disqualified you as a reasonable discussion partner.
MadocDoyu 6 months ago
@MissSaharaja The questions I asked, and the arguments I put forward, are perfectly valid. If they are not, counter my arguments in a reasonable way. But now you've gone ad hominem, which for me is always a sign that someone has noticed that the arguments of the other side are better, but does not want to acknowledge it.
Changing your mind, changing your opinions, is a hard thing to do. But I made it, and you can make it as well. Wishful thinking is the biggest obstacle in this process.
MadocDoyu 6 months ago
@MissSaharaja It's not enough for just me to try out. There has to be a documented procedure which can be carried out by others as well. Then, other researchers around the globe will do experiments and publish their results. This is how the scientific process really starts - not with just one person trying out stuff, but with many people working in concert and producing tons of evidence.
Do you have any reproducible, well documented method?
MadocDoyu 6 months ago
@MissSaharaja Religion is based on faith (wanting to believe), whereas science is based on evidence (denying that which cannot be proven). Science is geared towards results that actually work on a big scale (medicine, computers, modern architecture, and many more). There is nothing religious about that.
So, what exactly are you involved in? Are there any processes that can be yield testable, reproducible results?
MadocDoyu 6 months ago
@MissSaharaja Sorry, I'm not into all of this. I am only interested in that which can actually be proven in a scientific way. Phenomena like the ones you mentioned have been subject to countless scientific studies, and there has never been a positive conclusive result. If someone manages to heal cancer through prayer in a reproducible manner, I'm the first to jump on board. But before that, it is just speculation and fantasy for me.
MadocDoyu 6 months ago
@MissSaharaja Depends. If "mystical" is just supposed to mean just "we don't know how it works (yet)", then there is surely a lot of mystery around us. But if it's supposed to mean roughly the same as what can also be referred to as "paranormal" or "occult" - no, I don't have any reason to believe in that stuff. Never seen a good solid proof for any of that. And I have a strong tendency to base my beliefs on evidence.
MadocDoyu 6 months ago
my bad? lol
asseeninYOURDREAMS 6 months ago
How can complaining about inanimate objects be considered "Stimulating?"
Piccolo7126 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins is always on the edge...of a seat.
DarknessKingCoH 8 months ago
2 heroes
1 vision
YOUGUYSFUCKINRAWKYO!!!!!!
sonykroket 9 months ago
@sonykroket
2 phonies
1 dillusion
YOUGUYS....
BASSonSTEROIDS94 8 months ago
@BASSonSTEROIDS94
Why don't you take some more steroids, fartface
sonykroket 8 months ago
@sonykroket
perhapsmy statement was a bit brash but it was the truth....
BASSonSTEROIDS94 8 months ago
@BASSonSTEROIDS94
Your "truth", not mine
What is it with you idiots and the word truth? I guess you don't see what an arrogant condescending dumbass you are
sonykroket 8 months ago
Must have been amazing
fcpictures 10 months ago
wow.. i am jealous lol
Macham88 10 months ago
Absolutely beautiful intellectual discussion. As for the sound quality, stated in your other video, it is actually quite alright. Thank you for the videos and please expect an email from me.
snyder561 11 months ago
RD looks bored and annoyed throughout the whole thing
xenomann442 1 year ago
EVERYONE: I WILL DEPOSIT 50,000 AUS dollars to thundefoots BANK ACCOUNT if he or who ever else can CREATE living matter.
it could be as simple as a (ANT) that no one has ever seen BEFORE, after all no intelligence was required in the begging for creation, should make the task a piece of cake. And if you do achieve this: I WILL DENOUNCE a CREATOR and give thunderfoot 50,000
U ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE THUNDER-FOOT?
I would like to see a VIDEO from you challenging me?
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 your logic is wrong. just because something happend without intelligence doesn't mean it is easy. Stars supernova all the time for natural reasons, yet asking someone to make a star supernova under unnatural circumstances would be fairly difficult. We are not sure how life originated but if it did originate without a creator that wouldn't mean that it is easy to do.
xenomann442 1 year ago
@pamuk7 You are beyond idiocy in your challenge, how about you take his challenge to PCS and come up with some amazing prediction from the bible ( or whatever bigoted book you go by) or even some valid form of evidence for a creator (let alone an intelligent one). I'm disappointed that you live Australia but I doubt you're a majority which is comforting. By the way, the Zionism swastika is cute but just as ludicrous ( and ironic) as your challenge. You poor misguided fool...
tisuisse 1 year ago
Dick is really closed minded here
TheSmithersy 1 year ago
this discussion is irrefutable evidence that atheism will never catch on like wildfire.
I can imagine anyone struggling through life getting motivated by meme chat LOL
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
9 min of my life wasted. this said nothing. It just looked like an attempt to later say "look ma! I talked to RD!"
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Thunderf00t you lucky bastard. Fuck you.
ebingen 1 year ago
OMG You and Dawkins? This is great! ))
sukablianah2 1 year ago
did you just say "i think i'll contest that" to richard fucking dawkins??
good on you sir. that takes some balls. i respect the both of you immensely. I just think it's great to see two smart people disagreeing. Is there any better way to understand a subject?
avedic 1 year ago
cool vid. In this case I am however not convinced that your explanation of religion is correct. I would say religion can be explained without having to attribute it any utility, religion could be simply an evolutionary Spandrel. Steven J Gould would say Thunderf00t is "telling stories".
SensiStarToaster 1 year ago
"So what are you up to thunderf00t?"
"Nothing really, just sitting around, chilling with Richard Dawkins..."
caius112 1 year ago
THUNDERFOOT! religion may be one of many things that can bind people together but that doesnt address the potential for the nature of the things theyre being told. if your argument is that religion can be a good thing because it unites people under something, then why are serial killers uniting, or organised crime, not good things? nationalism can have a dark side also but religion can potentially charge fanatic masses in the worst, possessed kind of way. ..
fluentinsound 1 year ago
@fluentinsound .... its because they think theyve got a god behind them, thats what can potentially turn so many normal people so into insane aryan-ist assholes and the worst part is theyre wrong anyway. and they always end up getting taught a harsh lesson in time, but only by war with different circles. religion is a concept that swallows all facets of life in its path. ....
fluentinsound 1 year ago
@fluentinsound .... the word religion does not only mean personal spirituality anymore, its been manipulated to include, public organisations, politics, law, total pinpoint government of every citizen (in some countries), education., everything. religion claims to override EVERYTHING, to have an automatic authoritarian say on every aspect of human life. not dangerous then.. thunderfoot???? It blackmails all into submission, including politicians (the psychological threat is too crippling). ...
fluentinsound 1 year ago
Here is why an athiest can never be convincing; Dawkins says @ 2:50 "before we had scientific revelations to answer those sort of questions" However, science provides nothing more than speculation of the origin of the universe and of man. You have, in effect, turned science in to a 21st century faith based religion and scientists are your gods.
moosepok 1 year ago
@moosepok without science you wouldn't be able to view this message in you Science-made PC right now. Think deeper.
Neueregel 1 year ago 7
@Neueregel
I been saying this to creationists for a while now, their answer is "well, I like good science that brings me technology, but I hate bad science like Evolution"
*HEADDESK*
edd77 1 year ago
@edd77
You fail to realize that you don't HAVE to believe in evolution to bring forth advancements in science. Raymond Vahan Damadian was the co-inventor of MRI, AND a young earth creationist. That's the main problem that I find with many of thunder00t's video.
Kalen1457 1 year ago
@Kalen1457 There are different fields of science; there are theist in science, but however you can mix theism into science though.
kamikazeroniner 1 year ago
@Neueregel yes everyone agrees with that. but how did evolution help science and technology? what does evolution have to do with real science? except for slowing it down in some cases. what benefits do we have from evolution theory?
icsvortex665 4 months ago
@moosepok if you were on a quiz show and your life depended on you getting the question technically right. i.s right, in reality. and the question was, was jesus christ a character from a fictional novel?. and you could only answer once, i bet anything you would say yes in the moment where you life was on the line.
fluentinsound 1 year ago
@fluentinsound spiritual people dont need religion. that 'god' (metaphor for the unknown, beyond) ..is and never was anything to do with human religion. it doesnt need stories and cartoon characters to accompany it. religion is dangerous when it goes public and forms lobby groups, not when its just for personal recreation. secularism must play a dominant role if western culture is to survive. politically religion means to turn superstition into law. thats why we have democracy and not theocracy.
fluentinsound 1 year ago
@moosepok You do realise without science you would likely be dead or deathly ill right now?
jimjamgumbob 1 year ago
Sorry ran out of room to post. Although I share the general optimism of the wider internet community. It would be unwise to discount locked chat rooms, cypher usage and the 100 and 1 other ways separated groups with a similar ideal can quietly communicate on the internet. Only the agitators are standing up to be challenged. It would be helpful to ascertain the numbers of quiet acceptors. How you would go about doing something like that without bias, is a tricky question.
clymangus 1 year ago
1400 This is kind of cool so what is being said here here is that successful genetics and memes have an environmental limiting effect on new genetics and memes that may emerge? Logical and arguably a highly effective feedback loop for creating complimentary clusters. 2950 Interesting, there is a "good in lets the bad in" problem with the entire "accepting authority figures" predisposition. One which critical thinking and education would help to guard against. Not sure the trait is innately bad.
clymangus 1 year ago
Cool video, but thunderf00t should have let Richard do more of the talking.
lachamania 1 year ago
You met Professor Dawkins.
You sir are my hero.
Darkmage1293 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Darkmage1293
Thunderf00t and richard dawkins, two incoherently inunderstandable people. The british accent is hard to understand. Try enunciating
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
FISHING ANYONE
Beneath the waves I spied for me a sea school of flying fish,
oh to have that energetic life if only I wish.
And I marvelled at the way that they all moved as one man,
so pristine like they ffashed on by this marine like silver band.
Jesus Christ said that God was he who made these silver creatures,
but Mr. Dawkins and his cohorts say that they are better teachers.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
2 morons getting together to discuss their strategy to defeat the retards. you guys must be so proud.....
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@oiuoiu988
Richard Dawkins is not an atheist. He's an anti-theist liberal. The difference between him and a rational person is a 180 degree turn.
Only smart people will only understand this joke.
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian
Hey buddy, don't be mad.
Even if you can't be right AND happy, you should cut your losses and take the happy road.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
First off that joke is pretty retarded. And I did love how you made a grammatical error at the end, talking about smart people.
tomsfriend 1 year ago
Damn. I pretty much fangirled like a Twilight or Jonas Brothers fangirl over the Thunderf00t--Richard Dawkins duo.
Well....you COULD say that Dawkins is pretty much my idol. And I'm pretty jealous that Thunderf00t had a chance to speak with him! But then and again, Thunderf00t IS one of my YouTube (and overall Internet) idols.
So seeing two of my idols together is satisfying enough :D
ZaraMikazuki 1 year ago
Thunderf00t - Dawkins.
Shouldn't this collision of minds have created a black hole or something?
KaliberKing 2 years ago
indeed
TrollCatcher2010 2 years ago
RIGHT=HAPPY. That's the point.
ICANGO247 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 fuck are you doing posting that shit here? Go sell yourself somewhere else, this is a video for adults.
ShadowOfTheWave 2 years ago
Comment removed
c0sm0l0gist 2 years ago
thunderf00t,
Are you familiar with Emile Durkheim's writing on religion, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life"? If not, I would highly suggest looking at it if you have the time. Durkheim's premise is that religion is an entirely social phenomenon that serves the purpose of uniting a group of people and giving them rules to live by. I'm led to believe this is the dominant view of religion in sociology, rather than the idea that religion attempts to explain nature.
schrodingasdawg 2 years ago 3
*screams and fangirls* dawkins is my idol
BriBri897 2 years ago
Oh nice, I see the new video with improved audio is not available because....
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Shawn ******"
It's time to stop pissing around and inform youtube, that twat is acting like a child, abusing copyright laws like a child smacking another child in a playground.
Tell YT, get him perm-banned!
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
I don't think 'right or happy' is a very good question in itself. Generally, being wrong induces a sense of unhappiness. So I don't see that this is a real choice that could ever be made, i.e I don't see it as possible that one could be knowingly wrong in one's belief and happy at the same time. Ignorant and happy, on the other hand, is definitely possible.
klankius 2 years ago
VenomFangX strikes again with another DMCA.
Jallenbah 2 years ago
Faulse DMCA gone mad, this video doesn't even mention him does it?
ajuk1 2 years ago
Shawn Karon. Well, we now know the little psychopath's surname. Someone, please take action.
Atheocracy 2 years ago
DMCA claim by shawn on the cleaned uop version, it's not available
Retlaww 2 years ago
Shawn Karon has filed a DMCA claim against the video with the clean audio.
EuthanizeReligion 2 years ago
Who´s Shawn Karon and how can he have a valid claim on the video?
threedotsdead 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I would rather be right than happy." Now that's a dumb thing to say.
rnvogel05 2 years ago
@rnvogel05
Only to idiots.
Droogface 2 years ago
@rnvogel05 most people are delusional. they have way bigger asperations about the future than are realistic.
sulthus 2 years ago
@rnvogel05 Not at all. I'd rather be right than happy. I'd also rather be both right and happy, than happy and wrong.
PlaguedMan 2 years ago
I'd rather be right and happy also, but if I could hypothetically only choose one (which was what they were talking about in the video), why not choose happiness? If being right and being happy were mutually exclusive, what benefit is there to being right?
Dawkin's drug analogy was horribly flawed. Drug addicts will feel happy very early in there drug use, but that happiness is wears off quickly as they develop a tolerance to the drugs eventually ruin their lives.
rnvogel05 2 years ago
But, regarding drug use, your ability to correctly predict what will lead to future happiness is dependent on being (to at least some degree) right about how the world works.
This question is merely a thought experiment. In reality, being right and being happy are intimately connected.
If you're wrong about the world, the risk of you making a decision that will lead to loss of happiness (e.g. deciding to shoot some heroin) is greatly increased.
YourXavier 2 years ago
You are right. Being right and being happy are almost always intimately connected in the real world and Dawkins brought that up in the video. However the thought experiment proposed by Thunderf00t clearly stated that they were mutually exclusive.
In that hypothetical case, I would choose happiness. I was amazed that Dawkins and Thunderf00t said they would rather be right. I consider that absurd. What is the point of being right if it doesn't bring you happiness.
rnvogel05 2 years ago
A better chance at surviving so that you might be happy later, or at least that future generations might benefit and be happy?
N7a7v7i 2 years ago
Not surprising
V
Acuraintegraman1 2 years ago
I've just commented in some forum that a true critical thinker doesn't surrenders to personality cult and worships somebody, but rather appreciates his or hers ideas... now, to be honest, If I had been there in the presence of Dawkins, I would have giggled and squeaked like a teenage girl in a jonas brothers concert. I know, I should be ashamed of myself, but what can I say, I'm only human. Do what I say, not what I do :)
Baalcebub 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its sad that all of you guys look up to these 2 men. you listen to the words of others who you believe are smart instead of studying and forming your own opinions. Why fight something that you know nothing about. Learn all thre is to know about every religion before you knock the religious.
much love
MastaChefSteve 2 years ago
@MastaChefSteve Assuming that you mean atheists/realists by whom you simply refered to as "you", I can tell you: If you believe that those two guys are the only ones that make atheist or scientific publications, then man wow how far off you are. All of science is so very much more interesting and astonishing than all religious teachings of all religions taken together. This is much more than just boring, repetetive human imagination and whishful thinking.
MadocDoyu 2 years ago 23
i have to agree with Beeker here, i too am jealous of you. to meet such a brilliant mind i think i could only gawk in awe. lol
ivorywolf68 2 years ago 2
You had an interview with Richard Dawkins?! Fuck You Thunderf00t, I'm so jealous! XD
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago 76
Nice to see Richard down in the trenches with Thunderf00t. I liked the conversational style. More close ups would be nice (every bodies a fucking critic)
DrawingYou 2 years ago
The audio works fine for me. It's not an interview though, it should be titled "Thunderf00t delivers a monologue of conjecture to Dawkins.".
dorbie 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Terrible interviewer! Blunderfoot speaks quite a bit more than does Dawkins who is the one being interviewed.... supposedly! Major blunder!
A more intelligent man would have previously prepared a written list of questions. For which the time would have been made to carefully & thoughtfully edit them into a short but effective form
The amateur status is obvious, thus, there was no need to forgo having a clipboard in hand which would have possibly resulted in provoking a semi-pro discussion
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Its not an interview.
SilverTonguedSnake 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No matter what you wish to call it, still, "terrible" correctly precedes it's name!
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
If you look at the title of this video its a discussion not just an interview, fuck off and complain somewhere else.
Rhaux 2 years ago
Shut your face. Think you could do any better? Make a video then!
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Congrats Thunderf00t. You put a lot of effort into your videos and you deserve to be credited for it by people such as Dawkins. :)
newfagscanttrif0rce 2 years ago 4
ugh.... i can't understand anything! Dam you cheap microphones
nowandforever117 2 years ago
Lol Dawkins is just chillin with him! So cool
SevenRiderAirForce 2 years ago
I'd say this is a step up from Banana man. Thanks for making this! I've been reading "The Selfish Gene", it's terrific.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
I like Thunderf00t 's videos , they make you think. And swinging an interview with Dawkins...Good show mate...But however what I would really like to see is ...Tf showing his sence of humor...Maybe a spoof of himself .Now that I would pay for..LOL
nojob60 2 years ago
Science is God and Richard Dawkins is His Prophet
transfixedtornado 2 years ago
wow, thats pretty revealing about people who go for this crap...
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
@oiuoiu988
It seems that thunderf00t's "Sheep" have completely ignored the fact that thunderf00t got debunked and destroyed by Ray Comfort. Thunderf00t was too slow, ray kept coming in debunking everypoint that tf00t tried to make
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
Lol no he didn't you moron ray just kept dancing around his questions just like the rest of you do. Ray Comfort is an asshole for what he did with the origin of species. If you were a ''truthful christian'' you would know that.
NeroTheAtheist 1 year ago 6
Ray Comfort refuted someone? RAY COMFORT?!
No he didn't debunk anything. I'll debate him anyday and win even when I'm not as educated on the subject as thuderf00t is. It's not that hard really, it's called having an education not indoctronation. All I have to know is the basics of evolution and the scientific method to win the debate. Something Ray does not understand. Such as what a scientific theory is. And that evolution is not just pure chance.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. LOL. Thinking people laugh at you. Please keep this up, I simply can't conceive of the hilarious notions you creationists come up with to defend your myths.
BlitzerkidSix 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian Name one point that Ray debunked.
Hobble 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian dont you have some books to burn TruthfulChristian?
miclovin15 1 year ago
in regards to the audio, perhaps you could add subtitles? I think an interview with Richard Dawkins is special enough for the effort
jioann00 2 years ago 4
If there was a god would he/she let the toast land butterside down........ I think not
CosmicAuthor 2 years ago
LOVED the way Richard compared the presence of religion to the presence of "incest avoidances". Great interview.
iamthe1337est 2 years ago 2
I find it funny that old THUNDERFOOT don't stutter here, whereas he couldn't help but stumble over his words in the BANANA MAN discussion.
koldkase77 2 years ago
@koldkase77 Thunderfoot was in a different country, on his own, in someone elses studio when he was arguing with the banana douche guy. Im not sure where he is in this video but they werent very friendly to him in the other banana guy videos.
0121ryanh117 2 years ago
So who was it that called the banana man out? Thunderf00t! It was his idea. And your excuses are lame, he knew what he was up against and just wanted to get noticed. He ended up looking like a buffoon! Sad really, being OWNED by the banana man.
koldkase77 2 years ago
what are you on about?
pubuman 2 years ago
Your pathetic attempts at smearing him makes you look like the buffoon...
heretic98 2 years ago
no, i think it worked. thunderfoot's an idiot, i just looked up all the videos on youtube that refute his idiotic views of government.
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
You are both two men with an OPINION, there is no TRUTH in the big picture you are trying to display here, the big question DOES GOD EXIST lends no further hand to Theists or Atheists, its just a bunch of people with an opinion.
ramio1983 2 years ago
Thanks for making this interview. Richard Dawkins is the man.
Wizard4592 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your opinion is respected genericmeatunit, as is mine that there is one Truth... it is the Word. And the Word is Jesus Christ, who derailed in his very existence the conclusion that all that we see IS reality.The scientific mind that does not stay open to the possibility of God, denies an element of existence that is self evident in the walking and talking current pools of DNA.Unless I do not actually exist...
ottojaws 2 years ago
@ottojaws religious dude forgot his 10 commandments, is a shame sinner that you disgrace your own as such.
tubehax 2 years ago
@ottojaws Dont fool yourself.
0121ryanh117 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TFoot...I appreciate your intellect but....darkness is not an entitiy, it is only the abscence of light. You men are in the dark.And apparently only at your death will you realize the Truth
ottojaws 2 years ago
It should be pointed out that there is no universal "Truth" which is deserving of a capital letter.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago 3
Subtitles please?
questionsamson 2 years ago 4
painful to watch, Dawkins seems out of your league.
moreSmartLessStupid 2 years ago
moreSmartLessStupid - my sentiments too. And if I were to hold a discussion with Dawkins, and people made comments similar to yours, I'd self-harm. Dawkins can dominate people on Sunday morning shows, and or course Bill O'Reilly, but put him amongst some academic peers - people like Koselleck (if he didn't die), historian Justin Champion and, most fittingly, Karl Popper (again, his death gets in the way...), and he'd get ruined.
zpra024 2 years ago
yeah and the twonks on bbc news 24 etc r in his league then
maybe we should get hawkings to do the interview, it can be hawkings vs dawkings
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago
I'm an EE major, a student. Though, I don't see how it's relevant. Historian, EE, or cotton candy vendor we all subscribe to the same reality. In that reality, speciation via natural selection of random mutations has been observed and reproduced. Just as it takes no faith to accept that an apple will fall once you drop it, it doesn't take faith to accept evolutionary biology.
Khronofox 2 years ago
You spent a lot of time on that, didn't you, Khronofox! That's your 3rd attempt at that message! Anyway, my telling you what my sphere of expertise is was due to you saying that I had no idea what I was talking about - I let you know about the research I have previously done and I think we can now let this matter rest. We subscribe to the same reality, yes, but with different perceptions of it. This is what we're talking about, no? Perceptions of reality? Ideas of what's fact and what's not?
zpra024 2 years ago
I guess I do. But no matter how I type my comment to ogirv101, my comment never gets through. It's really annoying, I even waited a day and I still can't do it. And, I'm not sure if you have my comment confused with someone else's, but I never said you had no idea what you're talking about, the comment saying I was an EE is a reply to ogirv101. Anyways, yes we the reason we're conversing in the first place is because we both think our the other's perception of reality is flawed.
Khronofox 2 years ago
Comment removed
Khronofox 2 years ago
sounds good enough to follow, that's what counts. The vid is a good job and i remember thinking when i first saw your previous vids how cool it would be if you two met up and I wasn't wrong! thank you sirs.
intermender 2 years ago
OMG THIS BLOWS MY MIND!!!
paulusmagirl 2 years ago
Oh this is good.
Great stuff Mr F00t.
Thanx for posting this.
faunflynn 2 years ago
"one man army." pu-lease...
Acuraintegraman1 2 years ago
GEEK-GASM!!!!!!!!!!
alixinthemiddle 2 years ago 2
multiple geek-gasm!!!! i hope i can last the distance.
intermender 2 years ago
this is great! thank you!
you should have offered him tea. or if it were christopher hitchens, scotch :-P
5 secular stars
EndTheAfter 2 years ago
THUNDERF00T, You are my Hero !!! :D
XazorozaX 2 years ago
Two brains at work, gotta love it.
wexarexthexStorm 2 years ago
Comment removed
Khronofox 2 years ago
Well Done Thunerf00t, and good on you. I have no doubt that getting an interview with one of the most respected Human beings ever was hard to get. Richard Dawkins is Fantastic and your points were well brought forward. Keep up the fantastic work.
Well Done 10/10
lucas83yoda 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But it likewise ought to disappoint those who have relied on supposedly useless, supposedly virus-derived DNA as raw material employed by some imaginary evolutionary process to engineer ever-more-complicated life forms. Instead, it looks like all DNA is useful, which suggests that its host creatures were designed on purpose.4
Watergun5880 2 years ago
@Watergun5880
"it looks like all DNA is useful"
That statement isn't supported by the facts. It's not even supported by the claims you're making about erv dna.
"which suggests that its host creatures were designed on purpose"
It may suggest that if you were already absolutely convinced of design through religious prejudice beyond the point where even overwhelming evidence to the contrary would sway you, but that has nothing to do with science or objectivity.
m3141592 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
This means transposons did not come from ancient viruses and therefore can no longer be used to support the idea that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor that was infected by a virus.3
This discovery will likely disappoint a generation of evolutionary scientists who based human-chimp ancestry and therefore broad-scale evolution on the false assumption that retrotransposons and the like were from viral infections.
Watergun5880 2 years ago
But you may be missing the actual point of the conclusion of common ancestry, which based not on the explanation of the simliarities but rather on the EXISTENCE of the similarities, which is totally unaffected by the explanation at the molecular level. Just because there may be a different explanation of the root of the transposons has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that we share so many similarites with chimps. Unfortunately you can't use one to disprove the other: they ae mutually exclusive
MrLDStephens 2 years ago
Hey, BigDaddy, what do you define as a "link"? Are you talking about genome similarities? Are you talking about parent/child? You're asking us to define something without specification of the definition.
ThatNateGuy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The researchers found that between 6 and 30 percent of active RNA transcripts use retrotransposon sequences.1 These transcripts carry regulatory information from the DNA to the rest of the cell. They also found that different sections of retrotransposon sequences are accessed by different tissues. Thus, at least some, and perhaps all, of the sequences carry important information for certain cells to use.
Watergun5880 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is currently one of evolutions best arguments.
But the argument rests squarely upon the premise that these long DNA repeat sequences came from ancient viruses. Creation scientists predicted that not all—and perhaps not any—retrotransposon activity was viral or random, but instead was part of a well-designed, originally created cellular process.2 The new Nature Genetics study has confirmed this creation prediction.
Watergun5880 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolutionists have argued that they must have been introduced by the same virus before the two species diverged from a (presumably) ape-like ancestor. Thus, each species retains today a remnant of the same ancient viral infection.
This is often cited as strong evidence that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry, and therefore that broad-scale evolution is true―that single cells can eventually develop into humans through random natural forces.
Watergun5880 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Retrotransposon sequences had been almost dogmatically interpreted by evolutionary scientists as remnants of ancient viruses. These viruses supposedly infected the host organism long ago, and it was assumed that the viral DNA became incorporated into one or more of its chromosomes.
Intriguingly, chimpanzees and humans share some almost identical repeated sequences that look as though they were formed by retrotransposons.
Watergun5880 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
functionless, non-coding sequences with which evolution can tinker. But a new study published in Nature Genetics found that they actually contain functional code that is accessed for use in specific tissues.1 Scientists recently discovered that DNA which came from transposons can regulate the expression of gene products.
One class of transposons, called retrotransposons, is formed when DNA is copied into RNA, which is then reverse-copied back into DNA.
Watergun5880 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Transposons are segments of DNA that utilize cellular machines to replicate themselves and then splice the copies back into the host DNA, thus inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that resulted from this process. About 44.4 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, with perhaps most from transposons.
Many scientists still believe that these repeated segments contain nearly random,
Watergun5880 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Transposons are a class of mobile genetic elements that operate within the DNA of living organisms. For years, macroevolutionary proponents have claimed that their presence undoubtedly supports Darwinian evolution. But a recent investigation showed that transposons have been wrongly interpreted, changing macroevolutions best argument into its worst nightmare—an almost complete lack of genetic material for it to tweak into newly selectable features.
Watergun5880 2 years ago
Blind leading the Blind?
geedup415 2 years ago
embarrassing, isnt it. All I'm asking for is something to tell me it's fact and not theory, and all they can come up with are insults. Not one person has yet come up with 1 link between species, let alone 10!
1 Corinthians 3:19 is true..."For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, "God catches those who think they are wise in their own cleverness."
MrBigDaddyT 2 years ago
Why do you bring religion in? It's not a matter of religion you fool...
Plus, evolution is fact, and a theory, just like gravity. Never heard that one before?
Or perhaps you don't believe in gravity either?
hugopelland 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why bring foolishness into it?
Read Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. "
MrBigDaddyT 2 years ago
@MrBigDaddyT
Foolishness? where? why?
I asked you why you brought religion in because you asked question about evolution, which is a theory in the field of biology, not theology.
And you do know that there are both theists and non-theists who understand and accept the theory of evolution, so what's your point?
So I guess you are just trolling here, right? You don't really want to discuss evolution or want to look at what would constitute answers to your questions?
hugopelland 2 years ago 3
@MrBigDaddyT In other words, "an old poem in this old book I really like says you're a fool for not believing my set of superstitions". Nice.
Evolutionary theory is by far the most plausible explanation for how life diversifies, whether that's how God does it or how nature does it is irrelevant to science.
Oh and since we're quoting the Bible... Lev 20:10 "and the adulterer shall surely be put to death". Command of a loving God, or product of the culture and beliefs of the time?
MagicofAramis 2 years ago 3
Now, now - I think you would agree that the true fool is he who believes things with no evidence
MrLDStephens 2 years ago 2
@MrBigDaddyT
"Read Psalm 14:1"
god is real because it says so in the bible, and the bible is real because it's from god, who is real because it says so in the bible, which is real because it's from god, who is real because it says so in the bible, which is real because it's from god, who is real because it says so in the bible, which is real because it's from god,
Notice any sort of pattern there? Like a sort of circular pattern?
You tool.
m3141592 2 years ago 10
@m3141592 so you agree god is real
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago
"so you agree god is real"
No, I was describing what other people believe. I don't think god is real, I think it's fictitious.
m3141592 2 years ago
They don't believe it, they KNOW it to be true.
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago