Comfort was on the atheist experience, where he tells everyone that he is not a scientist nor does he represent himself as one, yet he doesnt seem to be reluctant in taking a stance as an learned expert, and distributing his scientifically inaccurate misrepresentations of darwinism. He has no business distributing those pamphlets. Someone who considers the non-existence of a crockaduck to be evidence against evolution, is dangerous to a developing mind.
Just because OUR universe did not exist before the Big Bang does not have to mean that NO universes existed before OUR Big Bang. Multiverse theory would that. Our universe coming into existence in another universe.
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.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
This guy has too much vested to be bias he has devoted his life to darwinism! He won't consider any contrary evidence he only finds things to support his data.
@peacebringer4 we'll just go with "he only gives a shit about the facts..."
contrary evidence? you mean evidence made up to support an alternative idea? hmmm...interesting. it's never bias to take the side of truth over superstition.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
It is not an illusion of design that we can observe in nature. Something is either designed, or it is not. Irreducible complexity is a hallmark of design. Our bodies are irreducibley complex. The cells making up our bodies are irreducibley complex. So is a mouse trap. But no one argues the fact that a mouse trap was designed.
@youbintubinallday irreducible complexity is a HALLMARK of design? what about the wall? i can remove many bricks from a wall and it still stands, it even still serves the purpose it was designed for, i must remove a lot of bricks before the wall falls down but we wouldnt claim a wall is therefore not designed. i have a circulating fan right next to me, if i remove a few parts the fan still works to blow air but no longer rotates. in my corner i have a katana if i take off the tsuba it still cuts
"If the views expressed in my introduction...were "idiotic," why would Mr. Dawkins tell students to rip them out of the book, as he did recently?" ...Because they're "idiotic."...
It would be interesting to hear the hunch about the origin of the universe from Lawrence Krauss or Neil deGrasse Tyson. But quite frankly I'm not a least bit interested what Dawkins has to say about "pre big bang".
The track record of science gave us man on the moon, cures for hundreds of diseases, transplant surgery, flight, automobiles, electricity, and the infrastructures that we take for granted. The track record for religion is lots of crazy people fighting over whose god is the right one, homophobia, the subjugation of women, and the deliberate stifling of great scientists whose discoveries contradict official church dogmas. Science = progress; religion=primitivism.
@shizzleman8 so in the end, you got all of your messages removed for being a racist bigot and liar, and i didn't for being curious enough about the natural order of things to go into university to learn about biology and become a researcher. see, the world does have justice :-)
@thatamazinggeek Dawkins is a genius in evolutionary biology, he was a professor at Oxford for a number of years where he recieved has Ph.d before he became an evangelical atheist. The molecular cell biologist doesn't disguise his ignorance on every other subject under the sun, and if you're referring to me, I took down all my uploads, and changed my page entirely to avoid all the perjorative comments I was getting prior. I take IQ and intelligent tests everyday, thanks!
@jshowa2 All he's doing is telling you like it was, and as an evolutionary biologist that's one narrow view point of history. There is a Being you supports the laws of nature and through them all material reality. What do you think causes life to persist? Dick's dawkins? That puny thing? Good grief Charlie Brown. Here's your sign.
@SternenlichtR Order in, laws of nature, order out. If all you listen to are idiots guess what you've become. If you don't ever listen to "very serious" scientists in favor of idiots you're giving away your position, where your training and expertise lies.
@coltsrule5150 Denialism is only accepting the facts of what you already agree with and denying the evidence of all of human experience. If science had all the answers then the world would be perfect, and no scientists would ever be called to court. Do juries base their deliberations on what people believe? The USA was founded by religious separatists and we now have more than 400 years of American Jurisprudence. Maybe open a law book, and you'll find the meaning of belief, fact and evidence.
@HalfwayHouse12a Scientists are informed of changes everyday, the history and track record of natural science is no better than religion. You're still being informed by people, one wears a smock, and one a robe, I prefer the seals who wear uniforms and just recently greased bin laden. :) US Military science is 50 years ahead of science in the rest of the world this includes ACADAMIA.
@shizzleman8 "the history and track record of natural science is no better than religion" leads me to believe you aren't aware of neither the history nor track record of neither natural science nor religion
@HalfwayHouse12a Dawkins is great as an evolutionary biologist, but he's from an envirnonment that's segregated himself in the faith of naturalism. Radin Ph.d in psychology Random number generator research: DfPolis main hypothesis is that intentions can perturb the laws of nature. Over 1000 experiments confirm this to 16.1 standard deviations (odds of 3.92 x 10e57 to 1). One 12 yr study alone gave odds of 35 trillion to 1. Dean Radin proves mind over matter at 35 trillon to one. UR PREJUDICED
@ScientificBob I spelled it out already, but random number generator research is currently being conducted at over 90 labs around the world, naturalism IS a ZERO CHANCE now, 35 trillion to 1 is just ONE STUDY.This also doesn't take into account ANY other supernatural phenomenon, like God maintianing the laws of nature in existence and through them all material reality, or lfie after death experience, or miraculous events.
Random number generator research dates back 60 YEARS. U can find it
@shizzleman8 "naturalism IS a ZERO CHANCE now, 35 trillion to 1 "
35 trillion to 1 is not a chance of 0, retard.
Furthermore, that number means absolutely nothing and you have again failed to define what it means.
Give some context instead of abstract vague bullocks which clarifies nothing.
Where do these numbers come from? What do they represent? How can we verify it? Where were these studies published? Are they accepted by scientific consensus? If not, what do opposing scientist say? etc.
@ScientificBob I explained it the first time and have provided a NUMBER of references and TARGETS! Your giving me your opinions without ANY SUPPORT, any case history, or authoritative experts or even definitions for what is obviously a controversial subject for you, because YOU HAVE A BIASED opinion.
I'm not here do spoon feed your education, you're obviously working your computer well enough to impugn the experts I'm citing, read their material for yourself FIRST is all I'm saying.
@shizzleman8 Dude, I came late to this discussion and don't feel like reviewing a few thousand posts. Give me a break please. All I'm asking is for you to simply define what the number represents. The chance of a universe coming into existance? The chance of life forming? The chance of humans existing? The chance of our solar system forming? What does it represent? Until you clarify that, I see no reason to dig deeper.
@ScientificBob My last post was #290, and I just joined this discussion and brought up random number generators 6 days ago, only 5 pages back. This is what happens Bob, I supply you with a target, "hey look at this conclusive data here that supports a supernatural phenomena", and you assail it with, "Hey, that's nonsense, everything in the universe can be understood with only natural science". 35 TRILLION:1 loses everytime to prejudice. Don't want to serve on a jury, tell them your views!
@shizzleman8 "hey look at this conclusive data here that supports a supernatural phenomena" WHICH supernatural phenomena? Again: I don't feel like going through a few hundred posts to try and find it. Why is it so hard to answer that simple question? Why the stubborness?
@shizzleman8 "35 TRILLION:1 loses everytime to prejudice" Only someone who doesn't have a clue about probabilities would say that. 32 trillion to 1 would be 'extremely improbable' if you only have 1 trial.
But if you have 100 trillion trials... this isn't "extremely improbable", but rather almost inevitable. Not once, not twice, but THREE times.
Probability figures ONLY make sense when put into context. Which is why I ask you WHAT this figure is supposed to represent.
@shizzleman8 "you assail it with, "Hey, that's nonsense, everything in the universe can be understood with only natural science""
Well... It's not like I've never heared the "this probability figure says X is impossible" argument in context of abiogenesis, evolution, big bang, cosmological constant, etc etc etc.
And all of those arguments are simply fallacious bullshit. Seeing as how you are unwilling to provide context for your number, I can only conclude my first assessment was very correct.
@ScientificBob What's the alternative to purpose, order, and God? Accident, random, and chaos? What's the probability that a tornado swept through a junkyard and assembled a 747 jumbo jet that has intentionality and awareness? How does natural selection find traction with awareness? It has nothing to test or select for, and can't improve intentionality! Natural science is great but it doesn't provide for all of human experience, that's why IT'S the FAITH, not the supernatural. Peace.
@ScientificBob You're not familiar with Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, and his attempts to overcome the improbability of natural selection using a computer model? Are you familiar now that I've supplied you with TARGTETS?
Life can test and select for free will, intentionality and awareness? Show me in the human genome.
@shizzleman8 "Life can test and select for free will, intentionality and awareness?" It seems you have no clue what natural selection is. The test is simply survival and reproduction. If you manage to do it, your genes are "selected" for the next generation. It's not rocket science.
Obviously, awareness/reasoning skills is a neat thing to have as a survival skill. "Free will" is just a fancy wording for being able to make reasoned decisions.
@ScientificBob A naturalist who maintains only natural explanations are the only explanations, how novel.
An agent's intention in performing an action is his or her specific purpose in doing so, < This has NOTHING to do with survival and reproduction's specific purpose, the two ACTIONS couldn't be any more INCOMPATIBLE. Natural selection can find NO traction to test and select for intentionality.
huh? What I determine to do is a trait carried in my DNA? REEeeAAaalYyy? < NOT free will!
@shizzleman8 "A naturalist who maintains only natural explanations are the only explanations" I've allready told you that I have no issues with any kind of explanation as long as there is evidence for it. Prove the supernatural exists in a meaningfull and testable way, demonstrate that it plays a role in a certain phenomena and THEN you'll be allowed to use said supernatural thing as part of your explanation and not a second sooner.
@shizzleman8 "An agent's intention in performing an action is his or her specific purpose in doing so" Wtf are you talking about dude? I have no idea what your point is and I suspect we are talking about different things. That, or you are just full of it. Is the "agent" you speak of the creature that makes a certain decision? If yes, then it is the agent that is subject to evolution and his actions/decisions/etc are irrelavent to this discussion. If no, then WHAT are you talking about?
@ScientificBob Because natural selection can't test, select or improve intentions or free will.
abiogenesis, evolution, big bang, cosmological constant < You're bringing a lot of RANDOM information on theories! If you can't make your point and fit it on a matchbook cover I don't want to hear it.
@shizzleman8 "Because natural selection can't test, select or improve intentions or free will." You're again not making any sense. Natural selection has influence on the composition of the brain, which in turn has influence on behaviour. Therefor, behaviour IS subject to natural selection, albeit indirectly. It seems you still can't grasp the concept of an IMMERSIVE property. You have it because you have a brain. And you have a brain tnx to natural selection. It's not rocket science.
@shizzleman8 "What I determine to do is a trait carried in my DNA" What you determine to do is a decision made as a result of a reasoning process. This process is made possible by the neural network in your brain. That network is dependent on the composition of your brain. That in turn IS regulated by your DNA. Just like the composition of your stomach is regulated by your DNA. The brain is an organ, in case you didn't know. Reasoning facilities are properties emerging from that organ.
@ScientificBob Just say "I'm a naturalist", and go take a hike!
Bob, for the 4th or 5th time, I get it! I know what the neurophysiology of the brain accounts for. Last month I read 4 books on the brain, and 1 on the afterlife. I do go back and read comments, all of them in some cases. Your limiting yourself to one side of an argument/position and refusing to examine any other point of view but your own. I told you, "Prejudice never accepts any evidence it doesn't already agree with!!!"
@shizzleman8 "Just say "I'm a naturalist" I prefer the term 'rationalist'. Again, I'm open to supernatural things... if you can prove they exist.
Ok... So I take it that you are unwilling to tell me which 'supernatural phenomena' is 'proven' by this vague probability figure your keep throwing around? I guess we are done here then. Too bad, I'ld have loved handing you your ass by pointing out all the flaws.
Perhaps you have time to read 300+ messages but some people have jobs.
@ScientificBob I prefer the term rationalist I'm open to natural explanations . . . .if you can prove they exist.
See how ridiculous that sounds. What's been proved? Here friend, go to my channel and click on my first recommended channel, Open Philosophy and watch his #15 video Scientific proof of God, Evidence, or something like that. Dennis Polis is a Ph.D in Theoretical Physics and taught most of his career at U. of Delaware. He's 70 years old now.
@shizzleman8 "What's been proved" Nothing supernatural.
"Dennis Polis " A catholic philospher with a bias, what a surprise. I've actually looked up these experiments from PEAR, Radin etc. If you want to call that a "success", then be my guest but excuse me for not being impressed. Here's a good piece of advice for you: read what the opposing scientists have to say and stop with this confirmation bias.
@ScientificBob science is objective, the fact that the study and findings of science fall along philosophical lines of difference only PROVES my position.
I'm not trying to impress you Bob. lol I'm only hoping that you'll stop accepting your view as the only gospel truth of all knowledge.
RNG research dates back 60 years, and Dean Radin Ph.d held appointments at Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, and several Silicon Valley think-tanks, including Interval Research Corporation and SRI International, where he worked on a classified program investigating psychic phenomena for the US government. BSEE degree in electrical engineering, magna cum laude and with honors in physics, from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and then an MS in elec eng.
@shizzleman8 "Free will" is, imo, quite a void concept. It's pretty ridiculous even. What does it really mean? In essence, it merely means that your behaviour is not regulated by a third external party. A car does not have free will. It only does what the driver commands it to do. In this sense, EVERY CREATURE has free will as NONE of them are controlled by an external party. The entire concept is pretty much a "state the obvious" exercise, put forward by religitards as if it is "unique".
@shizzleman8 Time for you to realise that 'awareness' is nothing more or less then the way the neural networks in your brain are wired. It's all brain chemistry. Evolution is not random... Mutation is random, selection is not.
Stop making up shit and buying into pseudo-scientific bullocks that obviously doesn't make any sense.
Every time you see someone give any number of probability of 'life', you should instantly know that dishonesty and misinformation will follow.
@shizzleman8 "You've solved the mind-body problem" There never was such a problem, there's nothing to solve. Only people who desperatly tried to create such a problem to gain traction with their religious agenda. Religion necessarily need the concept of "souls" for their mythology to make any shred of sense. In reality, nobody ever observed a mind without a body. It's painfully obvious that "mind"/"awareness" is an immersive property of a brain, not the other way round.
@shizzleman8 Consider a nice looking rock with crystals. What were the chances that all the atoms would line up that way? You see? It's completely meaningless.
Even IF we would accept your number of 35 trillion in 1 that life forms spontanously, then it STILL would be inevitable to happen. The earth had TRILLIONS of testtubes all around the globe during hundreds of millions of years, each tube doing thousands of trials per minute. Life in that setting is INEVITABLE.
@ScientificBob I know what you know, I understand how the complexity of life evoloved on earth, but you're not following anything I've written. You're a naturalist whose only explanation for everything is natural science, you're eliminating the whole of human experience. That's special pleading. You're saying natural science said it, I believe it, and that settles it, WITHOUT investigating the facts. 60 years of random number generator research CAN'T be wiped away as nonsense! C Forensic Sci
@shizzleman8 "You're a naturalist whose only explanation for everything is natural science" Wrong. I'm simply against 'inventing' indefendable things to explain 'away' something that needs an actual explanation. I'ld have no problem including the supernatural in a scientific explanation. But only on condition that the supernatural could actually be proven to exist AND shown to play a role in the phenomena that is being explained. Until that happens, it belongs in the tin-foil-hat category.
@shizzleman8 "you're eliminating the whole of human experience" Please show me one human experience that is demonstrably tied to the supernatural.
"That's special pleading" Please look up what special pleading is. Even if I were ignoring your vauge 'human experience' thing, it wouldn't be special pleading. Special pleading is making an explicit irrational exception to make your argument work. Like creationists saying "everything needs a cause. no, not my god - he doesn't need a cause".
@shizzleman8 "You're saying natural science said it, I believe it, and that settles it,"
Eum, no. Over here in the real world, it's more like this:
Science investigates/observes; forming of hypothesis to explain observation, testing, publication, peer review, retesting, scientific consensus achieved, upgraded to theory, adopted by engineers to build technology, technology used around the world.
I accept theory of relativity, because my GPS works. Not because "science said it".
as a student of molecular cell biology, i've got to say that 98% of science graduates would happily accept a free copy of On The Origin Of Species from ray comfort's foundation. of course we would rip out the first few pages and use them as toilet paper, but the saddest part is that people are actually still having a discussion about this in 2011 - a long time since desert mythologies from the middle east were a popular, credible thing. come on, humanity. live up to that intelligence you've got.
@shizzleman8 oh no please you think i dont know that the middle east is full of blindminded and brainwashed kids? and you think i dont know that america is a breeding ground for fundamental religiosity? you can take your birth accident and your insecure, ex-bullied pedigree and stick it up my my arse for all i care. carebear. careface. hey, i'm an outdated unimportant military brat so i rule you yak yak verbal diarrhea - so antisocial of you to even say that behind anonymity of the internet :o)
@shizzleman8 next time dont bother pointing out the obvious, and perhaps point out the argument that you do not like. nobody's sure about what your problem is - it seems your reply to my comment was just a speakerphone for your social status of coming from the sperm cell of one of some person employed by the government.
@shizzleman8 are you sure you are referring to the right post? perhaps you are not commenting on my post, but accidentally copied my name as a reference? no ideology was ever stated by me, and im sure i didnt say anything unintelligent. i think to qualify what i said as 'idiotic' would be doing the human race a disservice, young man.
p.s. i dare you to present your bluff and tell me what exactly a petri dish is used for. :------)
@shizzleman8 that's right, my dad can't operate an AK47 like yours. yeah, let's feed your juvenile ego some more =D by the way, thanks for pointing out what your problem is: you value faith over reason :-) discussion over, i dont want to hear how your zeus or allah or yahweh or apollo are 'symbolicated' in reality. i get enough shit from creationists on the internet, do you think i really want to spend time replying to all the religiofreak high school kids that want to deal with me (violently)?
@shizzleman8 yes, at least 5,000 years of faith has actually brought us as far as the dark ages and some of the periods of worst living conditions ever. neglect that! and only less than 200-300 years of science have gotten you a radiator, a computer, and among others, formidable advance in medicine (you don't even know how lucky you are to not die of vitamin deficiency and diarrhea, as people did back in the days when your theocracy was still something more than turd - aka. what it is now). /win
@shizzleman8 right when you said i have no proprietary claim to science, i knew i was wasting my life away ever replying to you. i have sen the light. now be a good boy and dont reply. thankz
@sinprelic Methodological naturalism redirects to naturalism at wiki is the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Just one 12 year study proved mind over matter at 35 trillion to 1, you're positive that you have evidence that's more substantiating than wiki and this reference that you're not intelligent enough to find?
Creatard? When a person's position lacks merit they..
@shizzleman8 you think a mind cannot exist in a natural world? well, since you are so bright and have read books on cognitive neuroscience, you know that the mind is an emergent properly of the immense complexity of the organ that we call the brain. the 'mind', have you noticed, becomes more capable and intelligent in proportion to brain size? the reason why you are so stupid is because you actually believe that a ratio of a couple trillion to one can be calculated using a longitudinal study xD
@sinprelic You're saying that it has to be longitudinal because I believe that a ratio of a couple THIRTY FIVE tirillion to one can't be calculated any other way? < I'd watch the name calling if I were you.
If what you had was so great, why not just keep it to yourself? A thief scores big dollars and swag from being a second story man, they don't advertise where they keep their treasure. "Come on people". Give it a rest, I'm all stocked up here with naturalist's opinions.
@shizzleman8 oh this is fun though, i don't think creatards will ever get boring. they, after all, demonstrate the power of the human mind to resist observation ;> it's actually a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance, it's a psychological phenomenon. it exists for religion, for UFO sightings, for doomsday predictions, and all that hilarious jazz that comes with it. see for yourself, go to uni! it's fun!
@shizzleman8 6 day war = proof of god. come on, this is a creatard's standard of proof. gotta do better than that to get past first year bachelor study, let alone appease the people who are interested in the real nature of things. by all mean though, continue with the creatard standards, i cannot hide the fact that this conversation is hilarious to the bone
6 day war = proof of god. this is the creatard standard of proof we've come to expect of you. by all means, continue with this hilarity, unless you want to get down and serious for a while - that's cool with us scientists too. but yes! your standards of proof are worthy of a well spent evening, laughing and enjoying the surrealist humor :--)
@shizzleman8 sorry no redneck here. i'm just a plain old guy who values evidence. sry, we wont be getting along together. now please stop, really, i have better things to do than explain that winning wars is not proof of god. notice how every nation ever has ascribed victories to having a supportive god on their side? well, we've grown up. some of us. evidently. hihihih.. get it?
@shizzleman8 most jews are normal, but when u say that the jews are the superrace that own everything (banks, people, myself and my finances included, etc - you did mention these things EXPLICITLY) then a) your brain is miswired and b) satire is in place for ya. stop replying, i have no interest in your fairy tales, religion or creationism. you have no interest in philosophy, science, reality, and truth. we dont belong together </3 so get out of my face :--------)
"Radin Ph.d in psychology Random number generator research: DfPolis main hypothesis is that intentions can perturb the laws of nature. Over 1000 experiments confirm this to 16.1 standard deviations (odds of 3.92 x 10e57 to 1). One 12 yr study alone gave odds of 35 trillion to 1. Dean Radin proves mind over matter at 35 trillon to one." --> shizzleman8 <--
this is how creatards cite pseudoscience. creatards must be great trolls. :o)
@sinprelic I'm not orthodox otherwise you'd go your whole life believing what you learned at university was the way the whole world works. You only have a voice hear because you're too chicken shit to share what you believe, naturalism, in a wold with humans who have experienced the supernatural. You've lived your life in classrooms, well I walk through the valley of the shadow of DEATH, and I fear no evil because I'm the meanest mother fucker in the valley. I can voice my opinon in REALITY.
@sinprelic Are you so dense as not to realize the Jews who hold a tiny piece of land in the middle east, rule the world? We populate only 3% of the USA and yet comprise 20% of the very rich. < That's not a myth!
@haggbard Comfort gets the last word? Bah... < You did! < Now, I just did! You don't want a new heart, you're happy with the one you have? Keep it to yourself.
@thatamazinggeek Just pick one of his books (he writes you know....really, he can!)... I'm sure you can think of something to write about it without even reading it! lol
@thatamazinggeek These are the same types of people that banned Shakespeare about fifty years ago. Nothing surprises me. "Stupid is as"..... can't do it,...hated that flick...lol
I love the idea of having that little introduction to The Origin Of Species. I think the bible should have the same sort of introduction. "Why reading on may be hazardous to your mental health...." Hell, the introduction would be longer than the bible itself.
"...one thing he will never question is the legacy of charles darwin..."
that's nonsens a scientist always questions each hypothesis or even theory and some of the beliefs of darwin himself have given way to new explanations, in the theory of evolution, of some specific issues due to more evidence.
@sn3192 - It is not really that important but I think he meant not questioning how important his legacy is. I don't think he meant not questioning his work.
I understand that's never how Dawkins could have meant it. but the way the interviewer said it, you could have thought he meant to say he would question just about anything, but never question DARWIN, as if that were his religion or something...i found that rather misleading.
@sn3192 - Well as an Atheist myself I do of course pray five times a day towards Down House in Kent where he wrote "On the Origin of Species" (our Holy Book) and also carry a piece of the "one true HMS Beagle" with me at all times. I better stop in case theist believe me.
u got me all wrong. i do not believe this of evolution or darwin or dawkins. i just thought this is either how the interviewer must feel about it, or the impression he wished to make on the viewers. he could have phrased it differently, if he would have wanted to avoid such a misleading interpretation. that's all.
@sn3192 - No I understood your position and was simply having a little joke with you as to how Atheists would need to behave for theists to think it was a religion. You are right, one can not be too careful as they will jump on anything.
All you need to know about Christians and their fairytale beliefs is that they were responsible for burning innocent women ALIVE as being witches--and the "good book" tells them to do it. The Bible is the same hate-filled bullshit today as it was thousands of years ago. Science moves civilization forward; religion holds it back, and it does that with threats, torture and murder. READ A HISTORY BOOK!
i like dawkins but it's not 'an idea' or a 'theory' - that's for physics etc this is biology! it is 100% fact and evidence is there for all to see for all time - darwin i'm sure was not the first to notice(in fact a german dude just before him or dutch - but that's beside the point)to notice that life in the plant and animal kingdoms are fairly inter-related, oh and guess what humans do look strikingly similar to monkeys just as elephants look similar to mammoths - it's obvious and all around us
@rugbyboy198127 theory doesn't mean hypothesis, it is a collection of evidence to support what was once a hypothesis. Just like the theory of relativity.
@rpsmith014 hehe yes you're right sorry mate - making me look silly here lol! but it was the way he said it's an idea etc made it seem not concrete to me etc, whereas of course as i'm sure you know it is most certain! that's all - we need to be very accurate as there are lots of crazy wierdo's out there who'll jump upon anything if it helps them to deny evolution! an 'idea' feels more like a 'hunch' to me, but you're right I shouldn't have used word theory, but dawkins didn't-used the word idea!
@rugbyboy198127 haha no big deal. At least you don't have to still keep seeing this debate on the news every week (assuming you live in the UK), I'm embarrassed that most Americans still think this way.
Did anyone notice this? At the end he says "around half way thu that interview you may have heard Dawkins refer to Ray Comfort.."... but actually it was not Dawkins who raised the matter of Comfort at all. Go back and listen.. What Dawkins said was not very kind but it is his view. The fact that Comport was given the last word when it was not even his interview and Dawkins didn't set out on an ad hominen attack is a little odd don't you think?
Ray Comfort thinks the students of Richard Dawkins have "faith" in the theory of evolution. Ray should read the definition of the word faith. Ray Comfort is being intellectually dishonest.
@kaduisaui Here's the definition for the word naturalism from wiki: Naturalism is the BELIEF that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world.
I have faith in The Theory of Evolution, but none in Richard Dawkins or his students. He's not a very imposing figure. He reminds me of people who only use one piece of equipment at the gym, the one that turns weak men into pussies.
@shizzleman8 Like I said before, Ray Comfort claims that students of Richard Dawkins have faith in the theory of evolution as if it were the same as having faith in God. I say he is being dishonest.
I don't understand your post about certain gym equipment having negative effects on weak men.
I love Dawkins but I think he is evasive about not admitting that the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life. I think he fears that will give ground to the evangelicals, who are so eager to point out that fact.
@Triploblast1 Try paying some attention to the video. Dawkins is very specific that evolution does not explain the origin of life and is not evasive at all.
@dbjuggling He is old-school British. Born and raised in a colony surrounded by servants and his lack of displayed emotion can come across as smug, arrogant or even irritated. I don't think he is though, he isn't worried about disagreeing with people and couple that with his stiff upper lip it can seem like seething rage. I think he is trying to be a jolly nice fellow but is ill equipped to communicate that side of himself.
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a serious scientist not an idiot"
- Richard Dawkins
Quote of the year. All of this is way beyond Comforts understanding...anti science like Comfort are a laughing stock and all his efforts were futile.
Hunches can lead to hypothesis, then investigation, which lead leads to evidence, which leads to an answer, whether its what you wanted or not, so I say hunches are actually important. Never stop asking yourself 'what if'. I really hope even if its by the time I'm 50 (it'll probably only be the 1st trimester of my life, the way technology is going) that every human has abandoned looking for the persona of god, and try to come out with tech that describes his attributes. Reality warping, etc.
if you believe that you are the sum of your parts then your belief is a consequence of your parts reacting to their environment, and so is everyone else's belief. so you can't really get mad at someone for believing something because their belief is just a consequence of the environment they are reacting to. at the same time your anger is just a reaction that is a consequence of everything your parts have ever been subjected to as well so i guess you had no choice.
Mr. Comfort truly is an idiot. "..that would strengthen students faith in the theory of evolution.", the point of the theory of evolution is that it is based on empyrical evidence, as such, no faith is necessary or relevant.
"Here's where I stand. I believe in God. I believe science is the observation of what God has created.... the disput for me,? is HOW God done it."
Hello This Avatar!
There is no God! God is an invention of man! Repeat after me! There is NO GOD! Incidentally, if you believe in God, then you cannot ask "How God Done It?" God, supposedly, is so powerful that he doesn't have to reveal how "he done it". Tch, tch....tryin to squeeze "how you did it" out of god!
"ContrAVOHSpy"
theSicilianToe 3 weeks ago
I like the part where he called ray comfort an idiot
thinkboutit 3 weeks ago
Comfort was on the atheist experience, where he tells everyone that he is not a scientist nor does he represent himself as one, yet he doesnt seem to be reluctant in taking a stance as an learned expert, and distributing his scientifically inaccurate misrepresentations of darwinism. He has no business distributing those pamphlets. Someone who considers the non-existence of a crockaduck to be evidence against evolution, is dangerous to a developing mind.
Johnf85 1 month ago
I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins but the number of times he blinks is sometimes unignorable.
LaCerca 2 months ago
Just because OUR universe did not exist before the Big Bang does not have to mean that NO universes existed before OUR Big Bang. Multiverse theory would that. Our universe coming into existence in another universe.
dave5158 3 months ago
there is no faith with the theory of evolution.
It is rational decisions formed through critical thought and based on evidence.
He said rip out the first 54 pages because if you do you've got a perfectly good copy of the origin of species.
WeGameAlotSir 3 months ago 4
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
boecxyec 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 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 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This guy has too much vested to be bias he has devoted his life to darwinism! He won't consider any contrary evidence he only finds things to support his data.
peacebringer4 3 months ago
@peacebringer4 we'll just go with "he only gives a shit about the facts..."
contrary evidence? you mean evidence made up to support an alternative idea? hmmm...interesting. it's never bias to take the side of truth over superstition.
iPriestHolmes 3 months ago in playlist More videos from AtheistMediaBlog
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
It is not an illusion of design that we can observe in nature. Something is either designed, or it is not. Irreducible complexity is a hallmark of design. Our bodies are irreducibley complex. The cells making up our bodies are irreducibley complex. So is a mouse trap. But no one argues the fact that a mouse trap was designed.
youbintubinallday 6 months ago
@youbintubinallday irreducible complexity is a HALLMARK of design? what about the wall? i can remove many bricks from a wall and it still stands, it even still serves the purpose it was designed for, i must remove a lot of bricks before the wall falls down but we wouldnt claim a wall is therefore not designed. i have a circulating fan right next to me, if i remove a few parts the fan still works to blow air but no longer rotates. in my corner i have a katana if i take off the tsuba it still cuts
tuseroni 4 months ago
@youbintubinallday Why are you comparing a biological structure to an inanimate object?
al1511 4 months ago
"If the views expressed in my introduction...were "idiotic," why would Mr. Dawkins tell students to rip them out of the book, as he did recently?" ...Because they're "idiotic."...
NightmareCinemaChild 6 months ago
one problem: "hunches aren't interesting". that is bull.
aslekay 6 months ago
@aslekay Yes and no, I guess.
It would be interesting to hear the hunch about the origin of the universe from Lawrence Krauss or Neil deGrasse Tyson. But quite frankly I'm not a least bit interested what Dawkins has to say about "pre big bang".
So I actually respect his answer.
Pawlit360 5 months ago
"It would be interesting to know what your hunch is though"
"No it wouldnt, hunches arent interesting"
bucketheadkfc 6 months ago
4:45 has me rofling
AndysEdits 6 months ago
The track record of science gave us man on the moon, cures for hundreds of diseases, transplant surgery, flight, automobiles, electricity, and the infrastructures that we take for granted. The track record for religion is lots of crazy people fighting over whose god is the right one, homophobia, the subjugation of women, and the deliberate stifling of great scientists whose discoveries contradict official church dogmas. Science = progress; religion=primitivism.
MinstrelKrampf 7 months ago 13
@MinstrelKrampf Virtual highfive!
al1511 4 months ago
"If there were a refutation to Darwinian evolution, it would come from a serious scientist, not an idiot." PWWWWWWWWWWWNED
superwowie111 7 months ago 35
@shizzleman8 so in the end, you got all of your messages removed for being a racist bigot and liar, and i didn't for being curious enough about the natural order of things to go into university to learn about biology and become a researcher. see, the world does have justice :-)
sinprelic 7 months ago
@sinprelic I removed 'em to so that you would only have your own content to examine for value.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Dawkins is a genius in evolutionary biology, he was a professor at Oxford for a number of years where he recieved has Ph.d before he became an evangelical atheist. The molecular cell biologist doesn't disguise his ignorance on every other subject under the sun, and if you're referring to me, I took down all my uploads, and changed my page entirely to avoid all the perjorative comments I was getting prior. I take IQ and intelligent tests everyday, thanks!
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@thatamazinggeek You'd be an expert in idiocy then? I'll certainly take your opinion under advisement.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
He's not a rotweiller, I doubt he could take a poodle in a fight!
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@jshowa2 All he's doing is telling you like it was, and as an evolutionary biologist that's one narrow view point of history. There is a Being you supports the laws of nature and through them all material reality. What do you think causes life to persist? Dick's dawkins? That puny thing? Good grief Charlie Brown. Here's your sign.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
"If there was a refutation against evolution, it would come from s very serious scientist... not an idiot."
*zing*
SternenlichtR 8 months ago
@SternenlichtR Order in, laws of nature, order out. If all you listen to are idiots guess what you've become. If you don't ever listen to "very serious" scientists in favor of idiots you're giving away your position, where your training and expertise lies.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
definition of faith:to believe in something without fact
coltsrule5150 8 months ago
@coltsrule5150 Denialism is only accepting the facts of what you already agree with and denying the evidence of all of human experience. If science had all the answers then the world would be perfect, and no scientists would ever be called to court. Do juries base their deliberations on what people believe? The USA was founded by religious separatists and we now have more than 400 years of American Jurisprudence. Maybe open a law book, and you'll find the meaning of belief, fact and evidence.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
"No it wouldn't; hunches aren't interesting. Only informed science."
HalfwayHouse12a 8 months ago
@HalfwayHouse12a Scientists are informed of changes everyday, the history and track record of natural science is no better than religion. You're still being informed by people, one wears a smock, and one a robe, I prefer the seals who wear uniforms and just recently greased bin laden. :) US Military science is 50 years ahead of science in the rest of the world this includes ACADAMIA.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "the history and track record of natural science is no better than religion" leads me to believe you aren't aware of neither the history nor track record of neither natural science nor religion
HalfwayHouse12a 7 months ago 7
@HalfwayHouse12a Dawkins is great as an evolutionary biologist, but he's from an envirnonment that's segregated himself in the faith of naturalism. Radin Ph.d in psychology Random number generator research: DfPolis main hypothesis is that intentions can perturb the laws of nature. Over 1000 experiments confirm this to 16.1 standard deviations (odds of 3.92 x 10e57 to 1). One 12 yr study alone gave odds of 35 trillion to 1. Dean Radin proves mind over matter at 35 trillon to one. UR PREJUDICED
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 You aren't making much sense. What's with these meaningless numbers you are quoting? What are they supposed to mean?
FYI: only a chance of zero means that something is impossible. Anything else is "improbable" at best.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob I spelled it out already, but random number generator research is currently being conducted at over 90 labs around the world, naturalism IS a ZERO CHANCE now, 35 trillion to 1 is just ONE STUDY.This also doesn't take into account ANY other supernatural phenomenon, like God maintianing the laws of nature in existence and through them all material reality, or lfie after death experience, or miraculous events.
Random number generator research dates back 60 YEARS. U can find it
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "naturalism IS a ZERO CHANCE now, 35 trillion to 1 "
35 trillion to 1 is not a chance of 0, retard.
Furthermore, that number means absolutely nothing and you have again failed to define what it means.
Give some context instead of abstract vague bullocks which clarifies nothing.
Where do these numbers come from? What do they represent? How can we verify it? Where were these studies published? Are they accepted by scientific consensus? If not, what do opposing scientist say? etc.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob I explained it the first time and have provided a NUMBER of references and TARGETS! Your giving me your opinions without ANY SUPPORT, any case history, or authoritative experts or even definitions for what is obviously a controversial subject for you, because YOU HAVE A BIASED opinion.
I'm not here do spoon feed your education, you're obviously working your computer well enough to impugn the experts I'm citing, read their material for yourself FIRST is all I'm saying.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 Dude, I came late to this discussion and don't feel like reviewing a few thousand posts. Give me a break please. All I'm asking is for you to simply define what the number represents. The chance of a universe coming into existance? The chance of life forming? The chance of humans existing? The chance of our solar system forming? What does it represent? Until you clarify that, I see no reason to dig deeper.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob My last post was #290, and I just joined this discussion and brought up random number generators 6 days ago, only 5 pages back. This is what happens Bob, I supply you with a target, "hey look at this conclusive data here that supports a supernatural phenomena", and you assail it with, "Hey, that's nonsense, everything in the universe can be understood with only natural science". 35 TRILLION:1 loses everytime to prejudice. Don't want to serve on a jury, tell them your views!
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "hey look at this conclusive data here that supports a supernatural phenomena" WHICH supernatural phenomena? Again: I don't feel like going through a few hundred posts to try and find it. Why is it so hard to answer that simple question? Why the stubborness?
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "35 TRILLION:1 loses everytime to prejudice" Only someone who doesn't have a clue about probabilities would say that. 32 trillion to 1 would be 'extremely improbable' if you only have 1 trial.
But if you have 100 trillion trials... this isn't "extremely improbable", but rather almost inevitable. Not once, not twice, but THREE times.
Probability figures ONLY make sense when put into context. Which is why I ask you WHAT this figure is supposed to represent.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "you assail it with, "Hey, that's nonsense, everything in the universe can be understood with only natural science""
Well... It's not like I've never heared the "this probability figure says X is impossible" argument in context of abiogenesis, evolution, big bang, cosmological constant, etc etc etc.
And all of those arguments are simply fallacious bullshit. Seeing as how you are unwilling to provide context for your number, I can only conclude my first assessment was very correct.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob What's the alternative to purpose, order, and God? Accident, random, and chaos? What's the probability that a tornado swept through a junkyard and assembled a 747 jumbo jet that has intentionality and awareness? How does natural selection find traction with awareness? It has nothing to test or select for, and can't improve intentionality! Natural science is great but it doesn't provide for all of human experience, that's why IT'S the FAITH, not the supernatural. Peace.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "alternative to purpose, order, and God?" natural laws
"747 jumbo " How is that relevant? Is that supposed to be an analogy to evolution or something? Go back to high school.
"How does natural selection find traction with awareness" How about: by defenition.
"It has nothing to test or select for" Eum... the test is 'life'. The selection is 'reproduction'. Durrrrr.
"doesn't provide for all of human experience" Give me some examples.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob You're not familiar with Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, and his attempts to overcome the improbability of natural selection using a computer model? Are you familiar now that I've supplied you with TARGTETS?
Life can test and select for free will, intentionality and awareness? Show me in the human genome.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "Life can test and select for free will, intentionality and awareness?" It seems you have no clue what natural selection is. The test is simply survival and reproduction. If you manage to do it, your genes are "selected" for the next generation. It's not rocket science.
Obviously, awareness/reasoning skills is a neat thing to have as a survival skill. "Free will" is just a fancy wording for being able to make reasoned decisions.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob A naturalist who maintains only natural explanations are the only explanations, how novel.
An agent's intention in performing an action is his or her specific purpose in doing so, < This has NOTHING to do with survival and reproduction's specific purpose, the two ACTIONS couldn't be any more INCOMPATIBLE. Natural selection can find NO traction to test and select for intentionality.
huh? What I determine to do is a trait carried in my DNA? REEeeAAaalYyy? < NOT free will!
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "A naturalist who maintains only natural explanations are the only explanations" I've allready told you that I have no issues with any kind of explanation as long as there is evidence for it. Prove the supernatural exists in a meaningfull and testable way, demonstrate that it plays a role in a certain phenomena and THEN you'll be allowed to use said supernatural thing as part of your explanation and not a second sooner.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "An agent's intention in performing an action is his or her specific purpose in doing so" Wtf are you talking about dude? I have no idea what your point is and I suspect we are talking about different things. That, or you are just full of it. Is the "agent" you speak of the creature that makes a certain decision? If yes, then it is the agent that is subject to evolution and his actions/decisions/etc are irrelavent to this discussion. If no, then WHAT are you talking about?
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob Learn to use fewer words, and say MORE!
A human (agent) intention is NOT subject to evolution. Your wanting it to be so to prove your argument isn't sound reasoning.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "A human (agent) intention is NOT subject to evolution" Then why is it relevant to a discussion about natural selection?
Why are you yapping about 'human intention'? What intention? In context of what?
You aren't making ANY sense at all. How did you get here from your vague probability figures and the 747 bullshit?
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob Because natural selection can't test, select or improve intentions or free will.
abiogenesis, evolution, big bang, cosmological constant < You're bringing a lot of RANDOM information on theories! If you can't make your point and fit it on a matchbook cover I don't want to hear it.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "Because natural selection can't test, select or improve intentions or free will." You're again not making any sense. Natural selection has influence on the composition of the brain, which in turn has influence on behaviour. Therefor, behaviour IS subject to natural selection, albeit indirectly. It seems you still can't grasp the concept of an IMMERSIVE property. You have it because you have a brain. And you have a brain tnx to natural selection. It's not rocket science.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob intention, choice, and free will aren't behaviors and they're not immersive. It's far more complicated than astrophysics.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "What I determine to do is a trait carried in my DNA" What you determine to do is a decision made as a result of a reasoning process. This process is made possible by the neural network in your brain. That network is dependent on the composition of your brain. That in turn IS regulated by your DNA. Just like the composition of your stomach is regulated by your DNA. The brain is an organ, in case you didn't know. Reasoning facilities are properties emerging from that organ.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob Just say "I'm a naturalist", and go take a hike!
Bob, for the 4th or 5th time, I get it! I know what the neurophysiology of the brain accounts for. Last month I read 4 books on the brain, and 1 on the afterlife. I do go back and read comments, all of them in some cases. Your limiting yourself to one side of an argument/position and refusing to examine any other point of view but your own. I told you, "Prejudice never accepts any evidence it doesn't already agree with!!!"
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "Just say "I'm a naturalist" I prefer the term 'rationalist'. Again, I'm open to supernatural things... if you can prove they exist.
Ok... So I take it that you are unwilling to tell me which 'supernatural phenomena' is 'proven' by this vague probability figure your keep throwing around? I guess we are done here then. Too bad, I'ld have loved handing you your ass by pointing out all the flaws.
Perhaps you have time to read 300+ messages but some people have jobs.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob I prefer the term rationalist I'm open to natural explanations . . . .if you can prove they exist.
See how ridiculous that sounds. What's been proved? Here friend, go to my channel and click on my first recommended channel, Open Philosophy and watch his #15 video Scientific proof of God, Evidence, or something like that. Dennis Polis is a Ph.D in Theoretical Physics and taught most of his career at U. of Delaware. He's 70 years old now.
For the 5th time, 12 YEARS RNG!
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "What's been proved" Nothing supernatural.
"Dennis Polis " A catholic philospher with a bias, what a surprise. I've actually looked up these experiments from PEAR, Radin etc. If you want to call that a "success", then be my guest but excuse me for not being impressed. Here's a good piece of advice for you: read what the opposing scientists have to say and stop with this confirmation bias.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob science is objective, the fact that the study and findings of science fall along philosophical lines of difference only PROVES my position.
I'm not trying to impress you Bob. lol I'm only hoping that you'll stop accepting your view as the only gospel truth of all knowledge.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
RNG research dates back 60 years, and Dean Radin Ph.d held appointments at Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, and several Silicon Valley think-tanks, including Interval Research Corporation and SRI International, where he worked on a classified program investigating psychic phenomena for the US government. BSEE degree in electrical engineering, magna cum laude and with honors in physics, from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and then an MS in elec eng.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@ScientificBob I read 10 times as fast as you do.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shizzleman8 "I read 10 times as fast as you do."
That's because you don't pay attention to what you read.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "Free will" is, imo, quite a void concept. It's pretty ridiculous even. What does it really mean? In essence, it merely means that your behaviour is not regulated by a third external party. A car does not have free will. It only does what the driver commands it to do. In this sense, EVERY CREATURE has free will as NONE of them are controlled by an external party. The entire concept is pretty much a "state the obvious" exercise, put forward by religitards as if it is "unique".
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 Time for you to realise that 'awareness' is nothing more or less then the way the neural networks in your brain are wired. It's all brain chemistry. Evolution is not random... Mutation is random, selection is not.
Stop making up shit and buying into pseudo-scientific bullocks that obviously doesn't make any sense.
Every time you see someone give any number of probability of 'life', you should instantly know that dishonesty and misinformation will follow.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob You've solved the mind-body problem? Write a paper Plantinga.
I'd tell you what I think about you like you've insulted me here but the difference between us is I'm a nice guy.
Please do your own research, and not address me with any more questions posed as declarative statements.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "You've solved the mind-body problem" There never was such a problem, there's nothing to solve. Only people who desperatly tried to create such a problem to gain traction with their religious agenda. Religion necessarily need the concept of "souls" for their mythology to make any shred of sense. In reality, nobody ever observed a mind without a body. It's painfully obvious that "mind"/"awareness" is an immersive property of a brain, not the other way round.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 Consider a nice looking rock with crystals. What were the chances that all the atoms would line up that way? You see? It's completely meaningless.
Even IF we would accept your number of 35 trillion in 1 that life forms spontanously, then it STILL would be inevitable to happen. The earth had TRILLIONS of testtubes all around the globe during hundreds of millions of years, each tube doing thousands of trials per minute. Life in that setting is INEVITABLE.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@ScientificBob I know what you know, I understand how the complexity of life evoloved on earth, but you're not following anything I've written. You're a naturalist whose only explanation for everything is natural science, you're eliminating the whole of human experience. That's special pleading. You're saying natural science said it, I believe it, and that settles it, WITHOUT investigating the facts. 60 years of random number generator research CAN'T be wiped away as nonsense! C Forensic Sci
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "You're a naturalist whose only explanation for everything is natural science" Wrong. I'm simply against 'inventing' indefendable things to explain 'away' something that needs an actual explanation. I'ld have no problem including the supernatural in a scientific explanation. But only on condition that the supernatural could actually be proven to exist AND shown to play a role in the phenomena that is being explained. Until that happens, it belongs in the tin-foil-hat category.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "you're eliminating the whole of human experience" Please show me one human experience that is demonstrably tied to the supernatural.
"That's special pleading" Please look up what special pleading is. Even if I were ignoring your vauge 'human experience' thing, it wouldn't be special pleading. Special pleading is making an explicit irrational exception to make your argument work. Like creationists saying "everything needs a cause. no, not my god - he doesn't need a cause".
ScientificBob 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "You're saying natural science said it, I believe it, and that settles it,"
Eum, no. Over here in the real world, it's more like this:
Science investigates/observes; forming of hypothesis to explain observation, testing, publication, peer review, retesting, scientific consensus achieved, upgraded to theory, adopted by engineers to build technology, technology used around the world.
I accept theory of relativity, because my GPS works. Not because "science said it".
ScientificBob 7 months ago
as a student of molecular cell biology, i've got to say that 98% of science graduates would happily accept a free copy of On The Origin Of Species from ray comfort's foundation. of course we would rip out the first few pages and use them as toilet paper, but the saddest part is that people are actually still having a discussion about this in 2011 - a long time since desert mythologies from the middle east were a popular, credible thing. come on, humanity. live up to that intelligence you've got.
sinprelic 8 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 oh no please you think i dont know that the middle east is full of blindminded and brainwashed kids? and you think i dont know that america is a breeding ground for fundamental religiosity? you can take your birth accident and your insecure, ex-bullied pedigree and stick it up my my arse for all i care. carebear. careface. hey, i'm an outdated unimportant military brat so i rule you yak yak verbal diarrhea - so antisocial of you to even say that behind anonymity of the internet :o)
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 next time dont bother pointing out the obvious, and perhaps point out the argument that you do not like. nobody's sure about what your problem is - it seems your reply to my comment was just a speakerphone for your social status of coming from the sperm cell of one of some person employed by the government.
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 are you sure you are referring to the right post? perhaps you are not commenting on my post, but accidentally copied my name as a reference? no ideology was ever stated by me, and im sure i didnt say anything unintelligent. i think to qualify what i said as 'idiotic' would be doing the human race a disservice, young man.
p.s. i dare you to present your bluff and tell me what exactly a petri dish is used for. :------)
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 that's right, my dad can't operate an AK47 like yours. yeah, let's feed your juvenile ego some more =D by the way, thanks for pointing out what your problem is: you value faith over reason :-) discussion over, i dont want to hear how your zeus or allah or yahweh or apollo are 'symbolicated' in reality. i get enough shit from creationists on the internet, do you think i really want to spend time replying to all the religiofreak high school kids that want to deal with me (violently)?
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 yes, at least 5,000 years of faith has actually brought us as far as the dark ages and some of the periods of worst living conditions ever. neglect that! and only less than 200-300 years of science have gotten you a radiator, a computer, and among others, formidable advance in medicine (you don't even know how lucky you are to not die of vitamin deficiency and diarrhea, as people did back in the days when your theocracy was still something more than turd - aka. what it is now). /win
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 right when you said i have no proprietary claim to science, i knew i was wasting my life away ever replying to you. i have sen the light. now be a good boy and dont reply. thankz
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "naturalism is a belief" standard creatard outfit i see :-)
sinprelic 7 months ago
@sinprelic Methodological naturalism redirects to naturalism at wiki is the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Just one 12 year study proved mind over matter at 35 trillion to 1, you're positive that you have evidence that's more substantiating than wiki and this reference that you're not intelligent enough to find?
Creatard? When a person's position lacks merit they..
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 you think a mind cannot exist in a natural world? well, since you are so bright and have read books on cognitive neuroscience, you know that the mind is an emergent properly of the immense complexity of the organ that we call the brain. the 'mind', have you noticed, becomes more capable and intelligent in proportion to brain size? the reason why you are so stupid is because you actually believe that a ratio of a couple trillion to one can be calculated using a longitudinal study xD
sinprelic 7 months ago
@sinprelic You're saying that it has to be longitudinal because I believe that a ratio of a couple THIRTY FIVE tirillion to one can't be calculated any other way? < I'd watch the name calling if I were you.
If what you had was so great, why not just keep it to yourself? A thief scores big dollars and swag from being a second story man, they don't advertise where they keep their treasure. "Come on people". Give it a rest, I'm all stocked up here with naturalist's opinions.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 oh this is fun though, i don't think creatards will ever get boring. they, after all, demonstrate the power of the human mind to resist observation ;> it's actually a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance, it's a psychological phenomenon. it exists for religion, for UFO sightings, for doomsday predictions, and all that hilarious jazz that comes with it. see for yourself, go to uni! it's fun!
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 6 day war = proof of god. come on, this is a creatard's standard of proof. gotta do better than that to get past first year bachelor study, let alone appease the people who are interested in the real nature of things. by all mean though, continue with the creatard standards, i cannot hide the fact that this conversation is hilarious to the bone
sinprelic 7 months ago
6 day war = proof of god. this is the creatard standard of proof we've come to expect of you. by all means, continue with this hilarity, unless you want to get down and serious for a while - that's cool with us scientists too. but yes! your standards of proof are worthy of a well spent evening, laughing and enjoying the surrealist humor :--)
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 sorry no redneck here. i'm just a plain old guy who values evidence. sry, we wont be getting along together. now please stop, really, i have better things to do than explain that winning wars is not proof of god. notice how every nation ever has ascribed victories to having a supportive god on their side? well, we've grown up. some of us. evidently. hihihih.. get it?
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 "Cognitive dissonance doesn't have anything to do with resisting observations"
:D
"My relatives invented banking you haven't begun to pay your student loans"
:D
science and humanities and social studies fail..
such fantastical fail in knowledge means its time to make a joke
:----) jew smile, get it? get it? joke!
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 most jews are normal, but when u say that the jews are the superrace that own everything (banks, people, myself and my finances included, etc - you did mention these things EXPLICITLY) then a) your brain is miswired and b) satire is in place for ya. stop replying, i have no interest in your fairy tales, religion or creationism. you have no interest in philosophy, science, reality, and truth. we dont belong together </3 so get out of my face :--------)
sinprelic 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizzleman8 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sinprelic Read your own comments.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Radin Ph.d in psychology Random number generator research: DfPolis main hypothesis is that intentions can perturb the laws of nature. Over 1000 experiments confirm this to 16.1 standard deviations (odds of 3.92 x 10e57 to 1). One 12 yr study alone gave odds of 35 trillion to 1. Dean Radin proves mind over matter at 35 trillon to one." --> shizzleman8 <--
this is how creatards cite pseudoscience. creatards must be great trolls. :o)
sinprelic 7 months ago
WE HAVE A LOOSE-MOUTHED JEW ON THIS COMMENT BOARD
--> shizzleman8 <--
sinprelic 7 months ago
@sinprelic I'm not orthodox otherwise you'd go your whole life believing what you learned at university was the way the whole world works. You only have a voice hear because you're too chicken shit to share what you believe, naturalism, in a wold with humans who have experienced the supernatural. You've lived your life in classrooms, well I walk through the valley of the shadow of DEATH, and I fear no evil because I'm the meanest mother fucker in the valley. I can voice my opinon in REALITY.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@sinprelic Are you so dense as not to realize the Jews who hold a tiny piece of land in the middle east, rule the world? We populate only 3% of the USA and yet comprise 20% of the very rich. < That's not a myth!
shizzleman8 7 months ago
Faith in evolution?! Really? Is that like faith in gravity?
mushroomstone 9 months ago
@mushroomstone More like faith in anti-gravity.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
Richard Dawkins É O SATANAS EM PESSOA.
djangoba 9 months ago
@djangoba I think you're the first person I agree with on this page!
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 Obrigado!
djangoba 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djangoba Christopher Hitchens É O SATANAS EM PESSOA.
Right? 8D
shizzleman8 7 months ago
Comfort gets the last word? Bah...
haggbard 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haggbard Comfort gets the last word? Bah... < You did! < Now, I just did! You don't want a new heart, you're happy with the one you have? Keep it to yourself.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@thatamazinggeek No thank you... My mind is scrambled enough as it is. lol
skywize 9 months ago
@thatamazinggeek "Hello, I am kent Hovind".... Thank you, that's the first time I've smiled today, lol.
skywize 9 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Just pick one of his books (he writes you know....really, he can!)... I'm sure you can think of something to write about it without even reading it! lol
skywize 9 months ago
@thatamazinggeek These are the same types of people that banned Shakespeare about fifty years ago. Nothing surprises me. "Stupid is as"..... can't do it,...hated that flick...lol
skywize 9 months ago
@skywize & @thatamazinggeek You two should get a room and 69 each other.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
I love the idea of having that little introduction to The Origin Of Species. I think the bible should have the same sort of introduction. "Why reading on may be hazardous to your mental health...." Hell, the introduction would be longer than the bible itself.
skywize 10 months ago
"...one thing he will never question is the legacy of charles darwin..."
that's nonsens a scientist always questions each hypothesis or even theory and some of the beliefs of darwin himself have given way to new explanations, in the theory of evolution, of some specific issues due to more evidence.
that is not unquestioning faith
sn3192 11 months ago
@sn3192 - It is not really that important but I think he meant not questioning how important his legacy is. I don't think he meant not questioning his work.
WillShakespeare2007 11 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007
I understand that's never how Dawkins could have meant it. but the way the interviewer said it, you could have thought he meant to say he would question just about anything, but never question DARWIN, as if that were his religion or something...i found that rather misleading.
sn3192 11 months ago
@sn3192 - Well as an Atheist myself I do of course pray five times a day towards Down House in Kent where he wrote "On the Origin of Species" (our Holy Book) and also carry a piece of the "one true HMS Beagle" with me at all times. I better stop in case theist believe me.
WillShakespeare2007 11 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007
u got me all wrong. i do not believe this of evolution or darwin or dawkins. i just thought this is either how the interviewer must feel about it, or the impression he wished to make on the viewers. he could have phrased it differently, if he would have wanted to avoid such a misleading interpretation. that's all.
sn3192 11 months ago
@sn3192 - No I understood your position and was simply having a little joke with you as to how Atheists would need to behave for theists to think it was a religion. You are right, one can not be too careful as they will jump on anything.
WillShakespeare2007 11 months ago
All you need to know about Christians and their fairytale beliefs is that they were responsible for burning innocent women ALIVE as being witches--and the "good book" tells them to do it. The Bible is the same hate-filled bullshit today as it was thousands of years ago. Science moves civilization forward; religion holds it back, and it does that with threats, torture and murder. READ A HISTORY BOOK!
thedrake1954 11 months ago
i like dawkins but it's not 'an idea' or a 'theory' - that's for physics etc this is biology! it is 100% fact and evidence is there for all to see for all time - darwin i'm sure was not the first to notice(in fact a german dude just before him or dutch - but that's beside the point)to notice that life in the plant and animal kingdoms are fairly inter-related, oh and guess what humans do look strikingly similar to monkeys just as elephants look similar to mammoths - it's obvious and all around us
rugbyboy198127 11 months ago
@rugbyboy198127 theory doesn't mean hypothesis, it is a collection of evidence to support what was once a hypothesis. Just like the theory of relativity.
rpsmith014 10 months ago
@rpsmith014 hehe yes you're right sorry mate - making me look silly here lol! but it was the way he said it's an idea etc made it seem not concrete to me etc, whereas of course as i'm sure you know it is most certain! that's all - we need to be very accurate as there are lots of crazy wierdo's out there who'll jump upon anything if it helps them to deny evolution! an 'idea' feels more like a 'hunch' to me, but you're right I shouldn't have used word theory, but dawkins didn't-used the word idea!
rugbyboy198127 10 months ago
@rugbyboy198127 haha no big deal. At least you don't have to still keep seeing this debate on the news every week (assuming you live in the UK), I'm embarrassed that most Americans still think this way.
rpsmith014 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4:54 was... so sexy. That's the only way I can describe it.
Kuriku24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot"
omfg! So fucking elegant!
Pulsar1988 1 year ago
Did anyone notice this? At the end he says "around half way thu that interview you may have heard Dawkins refer to Ray Comfort.."... but actually it was not Dawkins who raised the matter of Comfort at all. Go back and listen.. What Dawkins said was not very kind but it is his view. The fact that Comport was given the last word when it was not even his interview and Dawkins didn't set out on an ad hominen attack is a little odd don't you think?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Ray Comfort thinks the students of Richard Dawkins have "faith" in the theory of evolution. Ray should read the definition of the word faith. Ray Comfort is being intellectually dishonest.
kaduisaui 1 year ago 13
@kaduisaui Here's the definition for the word naturalism from wiki: Naturalism is the BELIEF that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world.
I have faith in The Theory of Evolution, but none in Richard Dawkins or his students. He's not a very imposing figure. He reminds me of people who only use one piece of equipment at the gym, the one that turns weak men into pussies.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 Like I said before, Ray Comfort claims that students of Richard Dawkins have faith in the theory of evolution as if it were the same as having faith in God. I say he is being dishonest.
I don't understand your post about certain gym equipment having negative effects on weak men.
kaduisaui 7 months ago
I love Dawkins but I think he is evasive about not admitting that the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life. I think he fears that will give ground to the evangelicals, who are so eager to point out that fact.
Triploblast1 1 year ago
@Triploblast1 Try paying some attention to the video. Dawkins is very specific that evolution does not explain the origin of life and is not evasive at all.
kaduisaui 1 year ago 6
@Triploblast1 yes, Abiogenesis is a problem for chemists really not bioloigsts. I suppose biochemists have the best hope of cracking it.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Richard, stop saying you don't believe in fairies!
Every time you say you don't believe in fairies...
A FAIRY DIES!!! :(
DearBossMusic 1 year ago 3
Some students wont be intelligent enough to understand that the introduction is bullshit.
RPKGameVids 1 year ago 3
richard dawkins rocks
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave it up,they have no holidays.
MrAssbaron 1 year ago
"If the opinion is idiotic why encourage students to rip them out?"
The answer is very much in the question, idiot.
jacksawild 1 year ago
@jacksawild Agreed. If Dawkins wanted to waste the time of his students he could ask them to read a 54 page story about Santa Clause.
halonone 1 year ago
what was before the big bang? the black holes won and the game reset
majikninja07 1 year ago
richard dawkins seems so.... angry all the time
dbjuggling 1 year ago
@dbjuggling no he doesnt
GBJ83 1 year ago
@GBJ83 at least irritated lol
dbjuggling 1 year ago
Not at all. He merely expresses himself using calm statements and rational logic to make theists look like bloody idiots.
5anthonys 1 year ago
@5anthonys yeah hes pretty calm here, but ive seen him pretty angry before xDD its really funny!!!
dbjuggling 1 year ago
@dbjuggling He is old-school British. Born and raised in a colony surrounded by servants and his lack of displayed emotion can come across as smug, arrogant or even irritated. I don't think he is though, he isn't worried about disagreeing with people and couple that with his stiff upper lip it can seem like seething rage. I think he is trying to be a jolly nice fellow but is ill equipped to communicate that side of himself.
jacksawild 1 year ago
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a serious scientist not an idiot"
- Richard Dawkins
Quote of the year. All of this is way beyond Comforts understanding...anti science like Comfort are a laughing stock and all his efforts were futile.
kenster1 1 year ago
"it would come from a serious scientist, it wouldn't come from an idiot" LOL
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
really rotten "logic" there by Ray Comfort
braydenbeautiful 1 year ago
What happened before Big Bang? "Before" and "after" are concepts of time. There is no time "before a big bang." Don't ask a silly question.
Snookimichev 1 year ago
Hunches can lead to hypothesis, then investigation, which lead leads to evidence, which leads to an answer, whether its what you wanted or not, so I say hunches are actually important. Never stop asking yourself 'what if'. I really hope even if its by the time I'm 50 (it'll probably only be the 1st trimester of my life, the way technology is going) that every human has abandoned looking for the persona of god, and try to come out with tech that describes his attributes. Reality warping, etc.
IAmTheCthulhu 1 year ago
if you believe that you are the sum of your parts then your belief is a consequence of your parts reacting to their environment, and so is everyone else's belief. so you can't really get mad at someone for believing something because their belief is just a consequence of the environment they are reacting to. at the same time your anger is just a reaction that is a consequence of everything your parts have ever been subjected to as well so i guess you had no choice.
theradwun 1 year ago
test
thenmyheadexplodes 1 year ago
This guy should be a comedian.
MathematiclObjection 1 year ago
i think he told them to rip it out because it is idiotic
sanytsan 1 year ago
Mr. Comfort truly is an idiot. "..that would strengthen students faith in the theory of evolution.", the point of the theory of evolution is that it is based on empyrical evidence, as such, no faith is necessary or relevant.
MvNPTI 1 year ago
@ThisAvatar
"Here's where I stand. I believe in God. I believe science is the observation of what God has created.... the disput for me,? is HOW God done it."
Hello This Avatar!
There is no God! God is an invention of man! Repeat after me! There is NO GOD! Incidentally, if you believe in God, then you cannot ask "How God Done It?" God, supposedly, is so powerful that he doesn't have to reveal how "he done it". Tch, tch....tryin to squeeze "how you did it" out of god!
junkyardpolester 1 year ago