Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
He is of course totally correct in everything he says, but extremely naïve in understanding the effects of the devastation his words wreak on the minds of those he might see as lesser beings. A great thinker but not a great feeler, we need someone better than this to connect to those with less logical minds.
@keepthefunk Dawkins doesnt tell lies, HE EXPOSES THEM. Some people would just rather ignore the truth and keep their fairy tales. Religious people and their fairy tales is like a baby with its blankey
dawkins does not really feel passionately about atheism or religion , he wrote those books knowing that they provoke and sell well. he did it for the MONEY.
@keeyk118b Haha yeah you might be onto something. You should write a book criticising him on this matter. It's a very interesting observation which I don't think has been articulated before.
@keeyk118b Where is your evidence for this? Why shouldn't a scientist feel passionate about his field of study, which is denied by nearly half of americans due to religion?
I can prove god is evil and based off of pagan rituals like drinking and eating metaphorical blood and body. That's because Christians used to. And if don't believe that, well the Christians should do something they never do and that's read the bible. Read leviticus, chapters 1-9 are about demanding animal sacrifice and "blood sprinkling on altars" the bible also teaches how to disembowel your sacrifice.
that Wishart woman is the exemplar of everything that is wrong with atheism. Instead of maintaining the dignity of what is essentially a somewhat logical position, she makes cheap jokes and allows herself to be drawn into childish pointscoring, consequently coming across as smug and ignorant.
Richard dawkins is one of the biggest con atist on earth. He knows that he's simply selling a lie. Richard knows that evolution never happened, but he also knows that he is very popular, and if he wirtes a book to appeal to his fans way of thinking he will reap from the profits.
@RespectMyHate "He knows that he's simply selling a lie. Richard knows that evolution never happened, but he also knows that he is very popular, and if he wirtes a book to appeal to his fans way of thinking he will reap from the profits.He's an evil genius. "
Sounds like Constantine in 391AD when they put together your bible you love so much. Also, im curious on your experiments done under the scientific method to prove evolution didnt happen, since you so boldly stated it didn't. Hmmmmm???? :)
Brilliant. This clearly is a book where Dawkins has addressed some of the claims of the more lunatic religious types, while also making it not offensive to the mainstream religious person. I can't wait to read it.
Yeah, a Magic Man in the sky creates everything in 6 days, man out of clay and woman out of man's rib. Yes this makes sense! How dumb and ignorant could Naturalists and Scientists be! The culmination of Human intelligence over the last 150 years has been completely fictional, stupid fucking humans. Yes! We must blindly follow a book that contradicts its self on almost every page, and has hundreds of different versions that say different things!
oK lets see how this goes,you mock Jesus Christ,but in the end we believe with earnest that Jesus is not just anyone but He is the Son of God the Prince of Peace the Bright and morning Star.Lord of Lords and King of Kings,that every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord ,so you think he nothing so we strongly disagree!sorry about the name calling I hope I don't do that again,lets see what you say about this though? 1 day ago
I love Dawkin's clear thinking & courage when it comes to helping people understand evolution & natural selection. There should be no place in public and intellectual life for creationism.
After reading Richard Dawkins 437 pages of "The Greatest Show on Earth the Evidence for Evolution", I was struck by the number of times the subjunctive mood, of suppositions about the Theory are used.
There are 800 uses of 'if', 'maybe', 'perhaps', 'possibly', 'might', 'suppose', 'could', 'suggests', in Darwins 429 page Origin of the Species.
But, Richard surpasses his high priest of Materialism, with 1,079 such suggestions he admits, are used to "seduce" us to accept guesswork as "fact"??
@KenEdMurray Because of your citation of the number of uses of 'if' and 'maybe' etc. you have single handlely refuted Darwin, the Origin of Species, the entire Theory of Evolution and especially Richard Dawkins.
As in, honestly, what did you think you were proving?
@KenEdMurray Serious scientists very rarely speak in absolutes. It is more or less only the mathematicians who really can do that safely. Good science is not about saying "I am right, this evidence proves it" but rather it is saying that "I have a theory, and this evidence supports it, but you are welcome to try and disprove me, if you can". That is, of course, assuming that the person who will try to disprove the theory is equally objective and dispassionate.
What a great man Dawkins is! He can explain all these principles and answer objections to them, while sitting in what looks like the least comfortable chair ever seen on a stage.
Evolution, be it of organism or of mind, of subatomic matter or of the cosmos as a whole, reflects the pervasive role of process which is central both to the nature of our world and to the terms in which it must be understood. Change pervades nature.The passage of time leaves neither individuals nor types (species) of things statically invariant.
Evolution is still a hard one to really prove itself as a fact, but what I can't stand is when people say its not evolution we were created, or we wern't created, it must be evolution, looking at the two i am more strong towards evolution because the world being 10000 years old and human beings being made from a rib from God, which came from a book written ages ago where we had no idea why we are here at the time, kind of dumb
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of Londons Natural History Museum):
You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line — THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument.
David B. Kitts (Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University):
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM
@Halkipalas Argumentum ad vericundiam. I hope you know what a logical fallacy is. You're argument holds no weight. All you did is quote a couple of random guys. And FYI there is plenty of evidence showing intermediate forms. Just that idiot creationists' definitions of "intermediate" is continuously shifting to avoid the evidence.
The first quote is very true if you think about it.How can we get fossils of the little proteins and RNA that were the first living things derived from non organic matter? So that statement does not discredit evolution a bit.
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A TRANSITION FROM TERRESTRIAL TO MARINE MAMMALS. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO THE IMAGINARY EVOLUTION OF FLYING MAMMALS.
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM CHIMPS TO HUMAN BEINGS.
No matter what Dawkins may maintain and no matter what kind of a transition he may espouse, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EXISTS that might confirm it.
LIVING THINGS NEVER CHANGED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS
Your right! There are no transitional fossils pointing to a passage from chimps to human beings. We didn't come from chimps! We share a common ancestor. And we have those fossils.
It's obvious you don't understand the theory. At all. Why are you so sure of your conclusion?
Also Transitional fossils are not the only type of evidence of evolution. There's the geological record, DNA, even the common Banana.
Just because you type in all caps doesn't mean your right.
Thank you for setting Halipalas straight in my absence--I had to write a paper for my Bus. Comm. class (and in my off time, I had to read an EXCELLENT book entitled "The Greatest Show on Earth." I highly recommend it...I'm now reading "The Selfish Gene," which was R.D.'s first book, I think (it's nice to know three GREAT things happened the year it was written: 200 years of the U.S., R. Dawkins writes down his brilliance in book form, and ME) ;)
So, whales, for which we have loads of fossil evidence pointing to them evolving from land mammals back into sea mammals, they don't count?
And (someone has already set you straight on this, but I'm still going to reply anyway), there won't be a transitional fossil between chimps and humans because we are "cousins," not "parent" and "child" species.
(I know this might not be the right analogy, but I'm trying to make it very simple for those of you that have been "Expelled."
I argue that Science is just a means of understanding the cosmos, but when science is used to such extremes (just as Carl Sagan warned) we have to remember that we are not the Gods of this world, nor of nature. We must remember that just because we are an intelligent species (as all are) does not entitle us the right to dominion over all things.
At 38:25, Dawkins says, "just about everybody would question the morality of breeding humans". Indeed, but it happens. I've read that the parents of Houston Rockets basketball player Yao Ming, both former professional basketball players, were strongly encouraged to marry.
Women seeking sperm select it based on the traits of the donor, which the clinic records. Richard talked to a group of women about this once. Funny enough, you might think they went for things like "intelligence" and "athletic ability", but most of them went for "sense of humor" and "kindness" (that should be a wake-up call to douchebags of the world).
About the narrative imagination: its hard to answer questions live. I get confused and forget what i was about to say, but the answer to me seems easy enough. We are naturally good at remembering stories because thats how we learn what to do in the past. If we see someone get eaten by the shark we know to avoid sharks. Now we are social animals that live in tribes and tribes that would have story telling could teach other people better ergo aiding survival ergo evolution of narration
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Homology does not prove common ancestry. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees
How can someone that seems so intelligent post such an inane statement Halkipalas?
75% gene match does not necessarily mean that humans are 75% identical to a worm, and well you know it. Don't be a simpleton; evolution is a FACT, natural selection looks to be the best driver of evolution.
Instead of trying (and failing) to make Dawkins look like a fool, why don't you go take that obviously high intelligence and find evidence to the oppose the ideas you find abhorent?
@KLinZ3 Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of Londons Natural History Museum):
You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line — THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument.[5]
David B. Kitts (Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University):
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
While many evoluts proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimps DNA, few would lie by idly an allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps.2002 resech study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different fr chimps—and that number will continue to grow
Receiving a transplant INTERspecies doesn't mean that the organ being transplanted will not reject, and last time I heard, all humans had 100% the same genetic makeup, so your contention is misleading.
Also, I would love the specifics on this 2002 study that you sited as showing a 5% difference in chimp/human genome--I'm wondering why this study's findings haven't made their way into the most current textbooks on the subject.
@Halkipalas You're a fool! :) The reason tehy don't use chimp transplants for organs is because WE ARE TOO CLOSELY related. The chance of diseases crossing over is simply too large. For this reason tehy use more distantly related species like Pigs organs (which are anatomically similar enough for a transplant)... a lot of fucking retard lying bitches who are creationists try to twist this fact and make it seem that pigs are more closely related to us -- AND THEY ARE NOT.
@rlinfinity Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of Londons Natural History Museum):
You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line — THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument.[5]
David B. Kitts (Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University):
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM
@Halkipalas and your point? once again everyone: WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM CHIMPS! we only share a common ancestor. We don't generally tend to take whole organs from any animal, just other humans. We can use parts of organs, heart valves and whatnot, because we are related to every mammal. Since you bother to look up stuff about how different we are, why don't you check on the same DNA research that proves Evolution? Creation is a myth like every other origin story told.
Yeah, he can read me the bible! I heard that's a really great fairy tale and in the morning we can laugh at it and mock the merits of religion while sipping on nice hot tea :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Halkipalas, you rock! Do not listen to these idiot and ignorant people who consider themselves animals and their forefathers being worms, monkeys or pigs or whatever they come up with. They are not going to follow even if you show them a thousand miracles to prove the existence of God The Almighty and Excalted. They do not care how many times people misguide them cheat them in the name of Science and Evolution. Even if they know, they do not want to admit.
You don't need to show us a thousand miracles. One would suffice.
Of course, you need to provide actual evidence for one, not just hearsay.
And even if you can convince me to believe in God, you also need to convince me why your god is the real one, but not any of the other thousands of gods and goddesses people have worshiped and are still worshiping.
Thanks for posting this video! I would have liked to be at the book festival myself, but unfortunately couldn't make it. It was great to be able to experience your reading nevertheless! I'm currently reading 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and am absolutely fascinated by all the facts presented. Makes me want to read on about evolution. This book already is one of my favourite and most beloved books!
This is as close as I have heard Dawkins come to endorsing human biodiversity. The question is not should society be ruled by Darwinian competition. The question is do human differences matter. If you accept a genetic contribution to intelligence and that genes like MAOA cause violent behavior, then core liberal ideas simply will not work. Dawkins' obsession with creationists makes it seem like he is avoiding the tougher, deeper issues.
I think the woman introducing Richard has a great sense of humor, and I would like to read more about her. I didn't catch her name in the beginning, though. Could someone here enlighten me?
He wasn't endorsing Hitler. Nor did Hitler even have the right idea. And Dawkins had mentioned going against darwinian evolution by taking care of those most vulnerable. Learn to listen.
yes he is he is a dangerous little man, he riducules, the caring, he demounces the weak and the sick and advocates their elimination, he is fervent about replacing christisn values by market forces.
He says in this video he favours ruthlessness calousness
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
lol this man gets angry when confronted with questions he couldnt answer. i want to ask him certain questions if i ever see him, maybe he will punch me or something
write a book that he can plagiarize, "jazz up" and take credit for, that makes him happy.
George C. Williams, "Adaptation and Natural Selection", 1966. Introduces a concept that does not once refer to the word "Selfish", yet apparently this angle sells, as does original sin.
It's funny the extreme level of hate theists have for Dawkins. Threatened? You must be. the best way to see if a person is clever or not is to let them keep talking. example: "He is a dangerous idiot, a little knowledgde [sic] is a dangreous [sic] thing..."
did you mean that?
Knowledge is only dangerous to people who benefit from other people's ignorance. Knowledge is what has given us all the modern luxuries of life. Electricity, medicine, computers, these came about from a quest for knowledge.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
lol threatened by what? his idiotic beliefs that god doesnt exist? ofcourse god exists!! u may believe in dawkins the biologist, but i think i believe hawkins, kaku, and enistein that there is god the creator. to top it up, my professor in electronics. dont get knowlegde mixed up with beliefs
Ah, you have to love the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, especially when it outright misrepresents the authority is appeals to.
Einstein was about as religious as Dawkins is. Einstein was a pantheist, he didn't believe in a creator or a personal god. There is nothing to suggest he didn't believe in evolution. His "god" was the universe itself.
Not that any of this matters, we don't evaluate truth based on who believes in a thing. We look at the evidence, this book is about that.
yea, there's no reason that god and science can't coexist. it's all too often that people DO impose god on science and vice versa. a very literal interpretation of religion is based on faith, something inherently opposed to what science is based on (which is evidence).
a christian scientist is an oxymoron. i don't understand WHY the religious seek to validate their religion in the arena of science. can you offer a repeatable, rigorous experiment to test the existence of a god? the answer is no because these experiments would have to be subject to a review by the entire scientific community and they'd be ripped apart. science is based on evidence. religion is based on faith.
I haven't met a single dead person who could actually offer the evidence of God's existance. (all the dead people I've spoken to, had no evidence, I'm afraid to say)
also, no accredited quality, top tier university (top 100) offers a degree in "christian science" because christian science is theology and that's offered at a religious school. get your terms correct.
"you get your evidence of God's existance when you die. Scientists consider all the evidence including that after death, fool Hawkins does not cos he is an evil piece of pompous shit."
do you read the words you type? scientists consider all evidence that can be obtained from an experiment. if, using your example, you are true, then the only way to experiment to prove god exists is to die. how are you going to report what happens after you die? you've developed an experiment that can't happen.
i can't tell if you are serious or joking...i assume joking, haha, so yea, i guess that if there is a god, he must enjoy watching us rip each other apart
Of course not Sir!!! Did I win...oh you mean just claiming things doesn't make them so?
Einstein didn't believe in a god in the way you think, but that nature itself is god. He was a pantheist. Secondly it doesn't matter what Einstein believed, it doesn't automatically make it true. Appeal to authority, look it up.
And it doesn't matter Dawkins believes, I'm an atheist because it is the most logical and reasoned position.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
how can someone in the right mind say, not believing in a creator because it is the most loigical thing to think. its crazy. the universe and the way it is geared is so mind boggling that one must be convinced that there is god the creator. what drives the forces of nature, explain to me how we got from single cell bacterias to humans. infact how did bacterias begin its existence in the first place. moreover explain the fundamental force of black hole, where no time or space exists=no existence
You don't solve (your) ignorance by postulating a God, because it only shifts the problem, i.e. how could such an entity exist? It certainly couldn't be the Christian kind, because it is inherently flawed because of the attributes that are ascribed to it. It's far more logical to start from ignorance, such that characterizes the scientist position, and do experiments on the basis of hypotheses.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i have less to lose than you. when i die maybe i go to heaven. but when u die, u will go to hell. let it be your choice. i wana see how science can explain what happens to our mind after death, also to explain PROVEN paranormal activities. dont get it confused my friend, iam also a man of science (engineering in particular) aswell as a man of faith
A man of science would understand the scientific method and that when you don't know an answer you simply say "I don't know" not "It must have been magic". Secondly your threats are empty to us. The boogeyman is going to get you if you don't agree with me! Did I scare you?
Please point to these "PROVEN paranormal activities".
"science can explain what happens to our mind after death"
Another argument from ignorance. We don't have an answer so magic man done it. Look up logical fallacies.
All of what you said is called an argument from ignorance. Look that up too. Not knowing the origins of everything doesn't mean you can impose a god. You need evidence for that. Plus the same argument can be made for your god. Who made it? Must be a higher god.
The Norse created the god Thor to explain thunder and lightning, get my point?
Some of the things you're asking have been or are close to being answered, I'd suggest you go and learn about them because you just look ignorant right now.
"selective breeding by humans ... always produced inferior, look at pedigree dogs for example.
They are always less healthy than mongrol dogs and have more health problem"
ALL dogs are selectively bred, ultimately from wolves. The artifical selection of dogs was one of the cornerstones of Darwin's theory, that's why he called it Natural Selection. The fact that foolish humans can breed in bad characters for the sake of their whims just underlines the plasticity of the organism over generations.
I hate people who reason like this: If we made a superior race of humans they would exterminate us... "by superior i mean super healthy and smarter than us" but.. would you consider einstein to have been a smart person? ye.. and he didnt want to exterminate humans.. and when you feel healthy.. do you feel an urge to exterminate the human race? NO :D its so stupid.
If you think her perfectly normal Scottish accent is funny, you should go to America and listen to the accents there. They'll have you in stitches... oh wait, you are a Yank! ;-) lol
Christians follow a bible that commands them suffer not a witch to live Google 'what's the harm? (kenyan edition)' to see a video of Christians in Africa BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE today. Atheists dont follow a book that commands them to kill others, and condemn dictators like Hitler and Stalin for their use of violence to achieve their political ends, just as we condemn Christians for killing for religious reasons. Christians don't condemn these burnings as that would be against their religion.
Richard Dawkins is a good scientist for looking at all points of view seriously. but if a person ( or group ) repeatedly talk at the crockduck level stop listening. for the health of your brain. stop.
I first discovered Richard Dawkins when South Park took the piss out of him a couple of years ago. I've since come to love him as much as any heterosexual man can love another heterosexual man.
My biggest fear in life is that one of us will die before I get the chance to meet him in person. I pray, in a metaphorical sense of course, that we each survive long enough for me to actually meet this outstanding man face to face.
Thanks for making this video available on YouTube.
Ahahahah...the beginning was just right.
TheBlackmentos94 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
LMAO!
virtualguitarist 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
@8yankee Finally found it. She was bang out of order, and he put her right.
TheChipmunk2008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
he loves his crocoduck tie XD!!!!! i do too love it hahahah
freiheitsalv 6 months ago
He is of course totally correct in everything he says, but extremely naïve in understanding the effects of the devastation his words wreak on the minds of those he might see as lesser beings. A great thinker but not a great feeler, we need someone better than this to connect to those with less logical minds.
BaalZobel 7 months ago
@BaalZobel A C Grayling and Daniel Dennett, both philosophers, are very kindly individuals. How about them?
ritchloui 7 months ago
@BaalZobel truth and logic are devoid of kindness
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl
telling lies is no solution
keepthefunk 7 months ago
@keepthefunk Dawkins doesnt tell lies, HE EXPOSES THEM. Some people would just rather ignore the truth and keep their fairy tales. Religious people and their fairy tales is like a baby with its blankey
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl
I think you got me wrong - I was replying to Baalzoels "truth and logic are devoid of kindness". Dawkins is the man!
keepthefunk 7 months ago
@keepthefunk That was my line, about truth and logic having no inherent kindness. And yes, Dawkins is the man.
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@BaalZobel Your point does have merit but... at what point does that switch to 'dumbing down'? It's a difficult balance to achieve
TheChipmunk2008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BaalZobel Your point does have merit but... at what point does that switch to 'dumbing down'? It's a difficult balance to achieve
TheChipmunk2008 4 months ago
On 7:56 mising link, it guy on the left with long hair!
Just jocking.
zigifrojd 8 months ago
creationists are mentally retarded anyways
Battery9876 8 months ago
dawkins does not really feel passionately about atheism or religion , he wrote those books knowing that they provoke and sell well. he did it for the MONEY.
keeyk118b 9 months ago
@keeyk118b Haha yeah you might be onto something. You should write a book criticising him on this matter. It's a very interesting observation which I don't think has been articulated before.
BRussellspouts 9 months ago
@keeyk118b Where is your evidence for this? Why shouldn't a scientist feel passionate about his field of study, which is denied by nearly half of americans due to religion?
mattb9362 8 months ago
I can prove god is evil and based off of pagan rituals like drinking and eating metaphorical blood and body. That's because Christians used to. And if don't believe that, well the Christians should do something they never do and that's read the bible. Read leviticus, chapters 1-9 are about demanding animal sacrifice and "blood sprinkling on altars" the bible also teaches how to disembowel your sacrifice.
ThePublicIsInsane 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be Naughty with people near you benaughtyman.info
mandakiniization 1 year ago
that Wishart woman is the exemplar of everything that is wrong with atheism. Instead of maintaining the dignity of what is essentially a somewhat logical position, she makes cheap jokes and allows herself to be drawn into childish pointscoring, consequently coming across as smug and ignorant.
MadOldPete 1 year ago
Richard dawkins is one of the biggest con atist on earth. He knows that he's simply selling a lie. Richard knows that evolution never happened, but he also knows that he is very popular, and if he wirtes a book to appeal to his fans way of thinking he will reap from the profits.
He's an evil genius.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate "He knows that he's simply selling a lie. Richard knows that evolution never happened, but he also knows that he is very popular, and if he wirtes a book to appeal to his fans way of thinking he will reap from the profits.He's an evil genius. "
Sounds like Constantine in 391AD when they put together your bible you love so much. Also, im curious on your experiments done under the scientific method to prove evolution didnt happen, since you so boldly stated it didn't. Hmmmmm???? :)
seanturpin01 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate YOUR A FUCKIN LOONY!!!
zencat999 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate
-"...knows that evolution never happened..."-
Apparently Christians can read thoughts, how spooky.
JonathanTheAlchemist 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate
YOU ARE A TWAT!
morgandude2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@morgandude2 you make yourself look bad.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate omg before reading that comment i was a dawkins believer but know you have totally convinced me. thank you so much science is so evil
TheCrappyaccount 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate I think the person you are thinking of is every liar who ever made an edit on the bible.
torontoBluejays87 11 months ago
That woman at the beginning was AWESOME! As usual, Richard is the man!
Accessdenied89 1 year ago 5
I wish Richard Dawkins was my dad.
fractalzooms 1 year ago
Is Dawkins wearing a 'Croca-duck' tie? He is so awesome.
straube819 1 year ago
@straube819 yes he is, you can buy them online :)
laurenjeroen 1 year ago
Amazing how from 55:40 video I saw 22 seconds...
maistortrichko 1 year ago
Thank "god" Dawkins exists....i have an undestanding of my life better than being religious...
VOD713 1 year ago
Ha ha... well, we haven't even sent any people beyond the moon, so we haven't even left the patio, much less the 'backyard' of the solar system.
crocswsocks 1 year ago
Ruth Wishart gave a wonderful and funny introduction. Pity Dawkins called her a "chairman".
siamese63 1 year ago
the book was amazing, I just could not stand to read the part on embryology, though I understood its main point
bfoaliali 1 year ago
this man is a god
ThePointlessAtheist 1 year ago
Brilliant. This clearly is a book where Dawkins has addressed some of the claims of the more lunatic religious types, while also making it not offensive to the mainstream religious person. I can't wait to read it.
CrixMakin 1 year ago
Yeah, a Magic Man in the sky creates everything in 6 days, man out of clay and woman out of man's rib. Yes this makes sense! How dumb and ignorant could Naturalists and Scientists be! The culmination of Human intelligence over the last 150 years has been completely fictional, stupid fucking humans. Yes! We must blindly follow a book that contradicts its self on almost every page, and has hundreds of different versions that say different things!
coololdskool 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oK lets see how this goes,you mock Jesus Christ,but in the end we believe with earnest that Jesus is not just anyone but He is the Son of God the Prince of Peace the Bright and morning Star.Lord of Lords and King of Kings,that every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord ,so you think he nothing so we strongly disagree!sorry about the name calling I hope I don't do that again,lets see what you say about this though? 1 day ago
majorl31 1 year ago
that lady was pretty funny in the beginning lol dawkins was awesome as usual
OrGaZmO666 1 year ago
I love Dawkin's clear thinking & courage when it comes to helping people understand evolution & natural selection. There should be no place in public and intellectual life for creationism.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Ive got a feeling that when science has "figured everything out," creationists will say "OH SEE THIS IS HOW GOD DID IT"
...there fucking morons...
sulthus 2 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
After reading Richard Dawkins 437 pages of "The Greatest Show on Earth the Evidence for Evolution", I was struck by the number of times the subjunctive mood, of suppositions about the Theory are used.
There are 800 uses of 'if', 'maybe', 'perhaps', 'possibly', 'might', 'suppose', 'could', 'suggests', in Darwins 429 page Origin of the Species.
But, Richard surpasses his high priest of Materialism, with 1,079 such suggestions he admits, are used to "seduce" us to accept guesswork as "fact"??
KenEdMurray 2 years ago
@KenEdMurray
Shut the fuck up with your creationist crap.
truckcompany 1 year ago 4
@KenEdMurray Because of your citation of the number of uses of 'if' and 'maybe' etc. you have single handlely refuted Darwin, the Origin of Species, the entire Theory of Evolution and especially Richard Dawkins.
As in, honestly, what did you think you were proving?
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@KenEdMurray Serious scientists very rarely speak in absolutes. It is more or less only the mathematicians who really can do that safely. Good science is not about saying "I am right, this evidence proves it" but rather it is saying that "I have a theory, and this evidence supports it, but you are welcome to try and disprove me, if you can". That is, of course, assuming that the person who will try to disprove the theory is equally objective and dispassionate.
Amphibiot 1 year ago
Stand up, people. Seriously, stand the fuck up.
tyruk 2 years ago 52
What a great man Dawkins is! He can explain all these principles and answer objections to them, while sitting in what looks like the least comfortable chair ever seen on a stage.
juliuschas 2 years ago 58
Evolution, be it of organism or of mind, of subatomic matter or of the cosmos as a whole, reflects the pervasive role of process which is central both to the nature of our world and to the terms in which it must be understood. Change pervades nature.The passage of time leaves neither individuals nor types (species) of things statically invariant.
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago 3
Evolution is still a hard one to really prove itself as a fact, but what I can't stand is when people say its not evolution we were created, or we wern't created, it must be evolution, looking at the two i am more strong towards evolution because the world being 10000 years old and human beings being made from a rib from God, which came from a book written ages ago where we had no idea why we are here at the time, kind of dumb
reidstuff92 2 years ago
Holy shit. He was there and I didn't know?
inkstersco 2 years ago 2
Looks like Halkipalas got his Eductaion at a 'Bible Belt School'.
MikeyHNCC1701D 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But FYI there's no love lost between me and Dawkins either. He's a militant atheist moron, who has none of the true humility of a real scientist.
rlinfinity 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of Londons Natural History Museum):
You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line — THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument.
David B. Kitts (Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University):
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM
Halkipalas 2 years ago
@Halkipalas Argumentum ad vericundiam. I hope you know what a logical fallacy is. You're argument holds no weight. All you did is quote a couple of random guys. And FYI there is plenty of evidence showing intermediate forms. Just that idiot creationists' definitions of "intermediate" is continuously shifting to avoid the evidence.
rlinfinity 2 years ago 4
The first quote is very true if you think about it.How can we get fossils of the little proteins and RNA that were the first living things derived from non organic matter? So that statement does not discredit evolution a bit.
Sorry try again Halkipalas.
Cheers!
Xirbtt 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A TRANSITION FROM TERRESTRIAL TO MARINE MAMMALS. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO THE IMAGINARY EVOLUTION OF FLYING MAMMALS.
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM CHIMPS TO HUMAN BEINGS.
No matter what Dawkins may maintain and no matter what kind of a transition he may espouse, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EXISTS that might confirm it.
LIVING THINGS NEVER CHANGED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS
Halkipalas 2 years ago
Your right! There are no transitional fossils pointing to a passage from chimps to human beings. We didn't come from chimps! We share a common ancestor. And we have those fossils.
It's obvious you don't understand the theory. At all. Why are you so sure of your conclusion?
Also Transitional fossils are not the only type of evidence of evolution. There's the geological record, DNA, even the common Banana.
Just because you type in all caps doesn't mean your right.
Cheers!
Xirbtt 2 years ago
Thank you for setting Halipalas straight in my absence--I had to write a paper for my Bus. Comm. class (and in my off time, I had to read an EXCELLENT book entitled "The Greatest Show on Earth." I highly recommend it...I'm now reading "The Selfish Gene," which was R.D.'s first book, I think (it's nice to know three GREAT things happened the year it was written: 200 years of the U.S., R. Dawkins writes down his brilliance in book form, and ME) ;)
(I also carry the obnoxious gene) ;)
KLinZ3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dumbass!
Nilguiri 2 years ago
Halkipalas,
So, whales, for which we have loads of fossil evidence pointing to them evolving from land mammals back into sea mammals, they don't count?
And (someone has already set you straight on this, but I'm still going to reply anyway), there won't be a transitional fossil between chimps and humans because we are "cousins," not "parent" and "child" species.
(I know this might not be the right analogy, but I'm trying to make it very simple for those of you that have been "Expelled."
KLinZ3 2 years ago 3
'LALALALAL I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALA' -
Halkipalas - Youtube 2009
Asgath 2 years ago
did you even watch?
MrJohnthedoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
h...->moron
quosmo1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
useless jerk
Halkipalas 2 years ago
thats not very holy of you is it ? :)
quosmo1 2 years ago 2
Haaahahaha, one of the best jokes I ever heard! XD
haerverk 2 years ago
Denis Dutton wrote a book about art from an evolutionary perspective. It is called The Art Instinct.
Eshto 2 years ago
I argue that Science is just a means of understanding the cosmos, but when science is used to such extremes (just as Carl Sagan warned) we have to remember that we are not the Gods of this world, nor of nature. We must remember that just because we are an intelligent species (as all are) does not entitle us the right to dominion over all things.
tantrangle 2 years ago
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
Eshto 2 years ago
"i argue that ...." - i wonder who it is your arguing with.
quosmo1 2 years ago
At 38:25, Dawkins says, "just about everybody would question the morality of breeding humans". Indeed, but it happens. I've read that the parents of Houston Rockets basketball player Yao Ming, both former professional basketball players, were strongly encouraged to marry.
gbeauregard 2 years ago
Women seeking sperm select it based on the traits of the donor, which the clinic records. Richard talked to a group of women about this once. Funny enough, you might think they went for things like "intelligence" and "athletic ability", but most of them went for "sense of humor" and "kindness" (that should be a wake-up call to douchebags of the world).
Eshto 2 years ago
About the narrative imagination: its hard to answer questions live. I get confused and forget what i was about to say, but the answer to me seems easy enough. We are naturally good at remembering stories because thats how we learn what to do in the past. If we see someone get eaten by the shark we know to avoid sharks. Now we are social animals that live in tribes and tribes that would have story telling could teach other people better ergo aiding survival ergo evolution of narration
princeofexcess 2 years ago
look up super cows! they are super awesome example of artificial selection :)
princeofexcess 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Homology does not prove common ancestry. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees
Halkipalas 2 years ago
How can someone that seems so intelligent post such an inane statement Halkipalas?
75% gene match does not necessarily mean that humans are 75% identical to a worm, and well you know it. Don't be a simpleton; evolution is a FACT, natural selection looks to be the best driver of evolution.
Instead of trying (and failing) to make Dawkins look like a fool, why don't you go take that obviously high intelligence and find evidence to the oppose the ideas you find abhorent?
Good luck.
KLinZ3 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KLinZ3 Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of Londons Natural History Museum):
You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line — THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument.[5]
David B. Kitts (Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University):
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM
Halkipalas 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
While many evoluts proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimps DNA, few would lie by idly an allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps.2002 resech study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different fr chimps—and that number will continue to grow
Halkipalas 2 years ago
Receiving a transplant INTERspecies doesn't mean that the organ being transplanted will not reject, and last time I heard, all humans had 100% the same genetic makeup, so your contention is misleading.
Also, I would love the specifics on this 2002 study that you sited as showing a 5% difference in chimp/human genome--I'm wondering why this study's findings haven't made their way into the most current textbooks on the subject.
KLinZ3 2 years ago
@Halkipalas You're a fool! :) The reason tehy don't use chimp transplants for organs is because WE ARE TOO CLOSELY related. The chance of diseases crossing over is simply too large. For this reason tehy use more distantly related species like Pigs organs (which are anatomically similar enough for a transplant)... a lot of fucking retard lying bitches who are creationists try to twist this fact and make it seem that pigs are more closely related to us -- AND THEY ARE NOT.
rlinfinity 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rlinfinity Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of Londons Natural History Museum):
You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line — THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument.[5]
David B. Kitts (Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University):
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM
Halkipalas 2 years ago
@Halkipalas and your point? once again everyone: WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM CHIMPS! we only share a common ancestor. We don't generally tend to take whole organs from any animal, just other humans. We can use parts of organs, heart valves and whatnot, because we are related to every mammal. Since you bother to look up stuff about how different we are, why don't you check on the same DNA research that proves Evolution? Creation is a myth like every other origin story told.
coololdskool 1 year ago 3
I wish Richard Dawkins would read stories to me before I'd go to sleep, I'd sleep like a baby :)
I love hearing him speak!
Pull0utBoy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol, do you like fairy tales? then subscribe Dawkins he got a lot,
Halkipalas 2 years ago
Yeah, he can read me the bible! I heard that's a really great fairy tale and in the morning we can laugh at it and mock the merits of religion while sipping on nice hot tea :)
Pull0utBoy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Halkipalas, you rock! Do not listen to these idiot and ignorant people who consider themselves animals and their forefathers being worms, monkeys or pigs or whatever they come up with. They are not going to follow even if you show them a thousand miracles to prove the existence of God The Almighty and Excalted. They do not care how many times people misguide them cheat them in the name of Science and Evolution. Even if they know, they do not want to admit.
Otafayz 2 years ago
You don't need to show us a thousand miracles. One would suffice.
Of course, you need to provide actual evidence for one, not just hearsay.
And even if you can convince me to believe in God, you also need to convince me why your god is the real one, but not any of the other thousands of gods and goddesses people have worshiped and are still worshiping.
Eshto 2 years ago 5
You sound like you've got a smart head on you and know what you're on about... which is more that can be said about 90% of Youtube users. :)
lisa89 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
halkipalas, you rock. You are absolutely right about them.
Otafayz 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this video! I would have liked to be at the book festival myself, but unfortunately couldn't make it. It was great to be able to experience your reading nevertheless! I'm currently reading 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and am absolutely fascinated by all the facts presented. Makes me want to read on about evolution. This book already is one of my favourite and most beloved books!
BattleBea 2 years ago
I love how she seems so unamused by her own jokes! Makes it twenty times funnier...:)
bruisesandcandy 2 years ago 6
Yay for old people again!!!
MattHunX 2 years ago
@MattHunX show some respect faggot, Dawkins is amazing.
Pull0utBoy 2 years ago
Before resulting to name calling like a child...you should take a good look at my channel and my comments.
I respect Dawkins very much.
And my comment was meant to the woman.
MattHunX 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this was not made clear :O
Pull0utBoy 2 years ago
yesss Sarah Palin joke
brinx3125 2 years ago
Ended up watching this instead of turning up to an evolution and molecular systematics lecture. Dawkins rocks!
OldManMahoney 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How come Dawkins can't explain creation if he is so clever?
I think the needs to before he can mock others.
He isl like an armchair critic slagging off top atheletes when he is a fat useless cunt himself.
Whayt a fucking hypocrite!!
ufewl 2 years ago
I'm not sure, but i can be sure that "god did it"s not the answer.
babner 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Christ this fool should be locked up he is a dangerous retard. someone shoot him for humanities sake.
He only got where ie is cos of falimily money born elsewhere he would be dealinlg drugs and raping old women.
ufewl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hawkins is a dangerous man who will be eliminated by evolution :O)
ha ha ha
needless to say God gets the last laugh.
ufewl 2 years ago
you believe in your god so why do you need to validate him? that implies that you're belief in him isn't secure enough.
Gilgamesh417 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
islam answers all your questions!evolution theory is for those who believe in satan or christianity!
samgee2007 2 years ago
sounds like special pleading/case. what the hell are you talking about.
Gilgamesh417 2 years ago
This is as close as I have heard Dawkins come to endorsing human biodiversity. The question is not should society be ruled by Darwinian competition. The question is do human differences matter. If you accept a genetic contribution to intelligence and that genes like MAOA cause violent behavior, then core liberal ideas simply will not work. Dawkins' obsession with creationists makes it seem like he is avoiding the tougher, deeper issues.
n00ffensebut 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you talk a,load of wank
ufewl 2 years ago
If by 'wank' you mean a stuff that you are too stupid to understand then yes, he is indeed talking a load of wank.
...You muppet
OldManMahoney 2 years ago 3
I think the woman introducing Richard has a great sense of humor, and I would like to read more about her. I didn't catch her name in the beginning, though. Could someone here enlighten me?
Thanks!
Brand0ni0 2 years ago 3
@Brand0ni0 Ruth Wishart
nastler 2 years ago
Great Video!
OmiXel 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PO FACED CUNT RICHARD DAWKINS!
Has the blood of 6 million Jews on his shitty hands.
SHUN THIS DANGEROUS AND EVIL IDIOT.
ufewl 2 years ago
What the bloody hell are you on about?!
Thohi 2 years ago 2
He wasn't endorsing Hitler. Nor did Hitler even have the right idea. And Dawkins had mentioned going against darwinian evolution by taking care of those most vulnerable. Learn to listen.
CriticalAtheist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes he is he is a dangerous little man, he riducules, the caring, he demounces the weak and the sick and advocates their elimination, he is fervent about replacing christisn values by market forces.
He says in this video he favours ruthlessness calousness
ufewl 2 years ago
When did ever say any of this? Are we watching the same video?
CriticalAtheist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution does not advocate being a cruel selfish bastard in the first place, he thinks so cos he a dangerous and cretinous cunt.
ufewl 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol this man gets angry when confronted with questions he couldnt answer. i want to ask him certain questions if i ever see him, maybe he will punch me or something
ganteng133 2 years ago
write a book that he can plagiarize, "jazz up" and take credit for, that makes him happy.
George C. Williams, "Adaptation and Natural Selection", 1966. Introduces a concept that does not once refer to the word "Selfish", yet apparently this angle sells, as does original sin.
alSation81 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is wong about selective breeding by humans, it always produced inferior, look at pedigree dogs for example.
They are always less healthy than mongrol dogs and have more health problem
In reality Dawkins is not very clever, he is where he is because of a rich and privilidged background,
He is also wrong about God.
He is a dangerous idiot, a little knowledgde is a dangreous thing and Richard proves it, as did Hitler.
Shun the dangerous fool!!
ufewl 2 years ago
It's funny the extreme level of hate theists have for Dawkins. Threatened? You must be. the best way to see if a person is clever or not is to let them keep talking. example: "He is a dangerous idiot, a little knowledgde [sic] is a dangreous [sic] thing..."
did you mean that?
Knowledge is only dangerous to people who benefit from other people's ignorance. Knowledge is what has given us all the modern luxuries of life. Electricity, medicine, computers, these came about from a quest for knowledge.
peterpaulson 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol threatened by what? his idiotic beliefs that god doesnt exist? ofcourse god exists!! u may believe in dawkins the biologist, but i think i believe hawkins, kaku, and enistein that there is god the creator. to top it up, my professor in electronics. dont get knowlegde mixed up with beliefs
ganteng133 2 years ago
Ah, you have to love the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, especially when it outright misrepresents the authority is appeals to.
Einstein was about as religious as Dawkins is. Einstein was a pantheist, he didn't believe in a creator or a personal god. There is nothing to suggest he didn't believe in evolution. His "god" was the universe itself.
Not that any of this matters, we don't evaluate truth based on who believes in a thing. We look at the evidence, this book is about that.
peterpaulson 2 years ago 5
yea, there's no reason that god and science can't coexist. it's all too often that people DO impose god on science and vice versa. a very literal interpretation of religion is based on faith, something inherently opposed to what science is based on (which is evidence).
Gilgamesh417 2 years ago
and, besides, god's existence, to a scientist, would need evidence/proof
Gilgamesh417 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not to a Christian scientist.
ufewl 2 years ago
a christian scientist is an oxymoron. i don't understand WHY the religious seek to validate their religion in the arena of science. can you offer a repeatable, rigorous experiment to test the existence of a god? the answer is no because these experiments would have to be subject to a review by the entire scientific community and they'd be ripped apart. science is based on evidence. religion is based on faith.
Gilgamesh417 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you get your evidence of God's existance when you die.
Scientists consider all the evidence including that after death, fool Hawkins does not cos he is an evil piece of pompous shit.
ufewl 2 years ago
I haven't met a single dead person who could actually offer the evidence of God's existance. (all the dead people I've spoken to, had no evidence, I'm afraid to say)
fred10538 2 years ago 6
That's not the point! Where did you get YOUR evidence of God's existence from?
fred10538 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
from the holy spirit.
ufewl 2 years ago
I can see that the Holy Spirit has really cleaned up your language ufewl and convinced you to treat others as you would like to be treated.
fred10538 2 years ago
also, no accredited quality, top tier university (top 100) offers a degree in "christian science" because christian science is theology and that's offered at a religious school. get your terms correct.
Gilgamesh417 2 years ago
"you get your evidence of God's existance when you die. Scientists consider all the evidence including that after death, fool Hawkins does not cos he is an evil piece of pompous shit."
do you read the words you type? scientists consider all evidence that can be obtained from an experiment. if, using your example, you are true, then the only way to experiment to prove god exists is to die. how are you going to report what happens after you die? you've developed an experiment that can't happen.
Gilgamesh417 2 years ago
Or god could make another zombie like jesus and put the whole squabble to rest. He would never do that, the alternative is too much fun. right?
babner 2 years ago
i can't tell if you are serious or joking...i assume joking, haha, so yea, i guess that if there is a god, he must enjoy watching us rip each other apart
Gilgamesh417 2 years ago
"ofcourse god exists"
Of course not Sir!!! Did I win...oh you mean just claiming things doesn't make them so?
Einstein didn't believe in a god in the way you think, but that nature itself is god. He was a pantheist. Secondly it doesn't matter what Einstein believed, it doesn't automatically make it true. Appeal to authority, look it up.
And it doesn't matter Dawkins believes, I'm an atheist because it is the most logical and reasoned position.
CriticalAtheist 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how can someone in the right mind say, not believing in a creator because it is the most loigical thing to think. its crazy. the universe and the way it is geared is so mind boggling that one must be convinced that there is god the creator. what drives the forces of nature, explain to me how we got from single cell bacterias to humans. infact how did bacterias begin its existence in the first place. moreover explain the fundamental force of black hole, where no time or space exists=no existence
ganteng133 2 years ago
You don't solve (your) ignorance by postulating a God, because it only shifts the problem, i.e. how could such an entity exist? It certainly couldn't be the Christian kind, because it is inherently flawed because of the attributes that are ascribed to it. It's far more logical to start from ignorance, such that characterizes the scientist position, and do experiments on the basis of hypotheses.
Brand0ni0 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i have less to lose than you. when i die maybe i go to heaven. but when u die, u will go to hell. let it be your choice. i wana see how science can explain what happens to our mind after death, also to explain PROVEN paranormal activities. dont get it confused my friend, iam also a man of science (engineering in particular) aswell as a man of faith
ganteng133 2 years ago
"PROVEN paranormal activities"??? Such as?
babner 2 years ago
A man of science would understand the scientific method and that when you don't know an answer you simply say "I don't know" not "It must have been magic". Secondly your threats are empty to us. The boogeyman is going to get you if you don't agree with me! Did I scare you?
Please point to these "PROVEN paranormal activities".
"science can explain what happens to our mind after death"
Another argument from ignorance. We don't have an answer so magic man done it. Look up logical fallacies.
CriticalAtheist 2 years ago 4
Man???
reddragonready 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not sure, but i can be sure that "god did it"s not the answer.
babner 2 years ago
All of what you said is called an argument from ignorance. Look that up too. Not knowing the origins of everything doesn't mean you can impose a god. You need evidence for that. Plus the same argument can be made for your god. Who made it? Must be a higher god.
The Norse created the god Thor to explain thunder and lightning, get my point?
Some of the things you're asking have been or are close to being answered, I'd suggest you go and learn about them because you just look ignorant right now.
CriticalAtheist 2 years ago 2
Wow your electronics professor believes in god!?!!? I'm converted!
Sorry, but appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. As is proof by assertion.
OldManMahoney 2 years ago 5
"selective breeding by humans ... always produced inferior, look at pedigree dogs for example.
They are always less healthy than mongrol dogs and have more health problem"
ALL dogs are selectively bred, ultimately from wolves. The artifical selection of dogs was one of the cornerstones of Darwin's theory, that's why he called it Natural Selection. The fact that foolish humans can breed in bad characters for the sake of their whims just underlines the plasticity of the organism over generations.
Hugh7777 2 years ago
Dawkins might be wrong.. however based on evidence and pure logic he seems to be absolutely right.
barbarash 2 years ago 2
LOL @ 2:05, even the brits make fun of Palin. How embarassing.
MrDustandechoes 2 years ago 4
haha he's wearing his crocoduck tie!!
amishsprinter 2 years ago 3
I hate people who reason like this: If we made a superior race of humans they would exterminate us... "by superior i mean super healthy and smarter than us" but.. would you consider einstein to have been a smart person? ye.. and he didnt want to exterminate humans.. and when you feel healthy.. do you feel an urge to exterminate the human race? NO :D its so stupid.
MrBlamemeforit 2 years ago 2
If you think her perfectly normal Scottish accent is funny, you should go to America and listen to the accents there. They'll have you in stitches... oh wait, you are a Yank! ;-) lol
sexistpig 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Christians follow a bible that commands them suffer not a witch to live Google 'what's the harm? (kenyan edition)' to see a video of Christians in Africa BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE today. Atheists dont follow a book that commands them to kill others, and condemn dictators like Hitler and Stalin for their use of violence to achieve their political ends, just as we condemn Christians for killing for religious reasons. Christians don't condemn these burnings as that would be against their religion.
alien8ted 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins is a good scientist for looking at all points of view seriously. but if a person ( or group ) repeatedly talk at the crockduck level stop listening. for the health of your brain. stop.
lordrazi111693 2 years ago 2
audio mixing fail. The introducer is far too quiet.
anthonzi 2 years ago
I love the Crocoduck tie!
HANK0000 2 years ago 2
I first discovered Richard Dawkins when South Park took the piss out of him a couple of years ago. I've since come to love him as much as any heterosexual man can love another heterosexual man.
My biggest fear in life is that one of us will die before I get the chance to meet him in person. I pray, in a metaphorical sense of course, that we each survive long enough for me to actually meet this outstanding man face to face.
Thanks for making this video available on YouTube.
thomasnonsense 2 years ago 7
thomasnonsense - that was really funny. I enjoyed that. Wish more people had a sense of humor.
BeatleEDs 2 years ago 2
Is the guy at 07:56 wanking?
campru1 2 years ago
science ftw
8tripsaweek 2 years ago
richard dawkins, you are not only hero but you are the prophet of the mdern times.
you rule by knowledge, while the prophets and sons of gods of ancient era ruled by superstition, ignorance and illetracy.
zulfitareen 2 years ago 3
I hope "illetracy" et al were deliberate...
thomasnonsense 2 years ago 2
omg hearing Dawkins lecture biology is just awesome- brilliant as hell
robotaholic 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins is my favorite rock star!
robotaholic 2 years ago 2