Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"

Richard Dawkins answers "the most simplest question" from a Liberty U student.

I direct all the people (primarily evangelicals) who don't get it and object that "he didn't answer the question" to my response at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_Hs-QMVLE4
UPDATE: NEW AND IMPROVED RESPONSE VIDEO 5/16/2007

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• richard
• dawkins
• lynchburg
• virginia
• va
• liberty
• what
• wrong
• juju
• atheism
• christianity
• god

[madmangtr1]

@Redeemedbylove1987 Not walking... they all have old under-developed leg bones, since they are mammals, and once walked on land. The junk DNA is just there for the ride

[Orthrus]

@Redeemedbylove1987

The fact that you consider wikipedia to be a valid source of information alone shows that you are a complete and total ignorant, moronic retard.

[Redeemedbylove1987]

@madmangtr1 We now know that “junk” DNA really run the show in organisms. Look it up on Wiki if you don’t believe me. Could you cite the example of the walking whale?

[madmangtr1]

@Redeemedbylove1987 Simpler forms of life generally have simpler DNA sequences and usually less chromosones. Fruit flies have 4 pairs, Humans (we should be able to agree here), are more advanced... we have 23 pairs. This is not a half-truth. We have a lot more DNA although much of it is accumulated junk that does not code for anything anymore, just redundant old stuff. Kind of like whale's leg bones. Why would God give whales leg bones?

[Redeemedbylove1987]

@madmangtr1 The problem with macroevolution is that mutations must account for all life ever observed and found in biology. These mutative changes should be happening all the time, and easily observable. But organisms are not adding DNA all over biology, so the theory must be changed.

[madmangtr1]

@Redeemedbylove1987 

[Redeemedbylove1987]

@madmangtr1 You are trying to similarize two different situations. DNA evidence is collected to try and prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You reproduce the event by taking DNA, hair, and fingerprint samples from the suspect. The more of this evidence you collect, the less likely the evidence is similar to other suspects.

[Orthrus]

@Redeemedbylove1987

"reproduction will never create a more complex organism

Polydactyly. Owned.

Once again, you fucking lie.

[madmangtr1]

@Redeemedbylove1987 Not true. Example forensic science. You get a phone call, your daughter was raped and killed. DNA evidence is gathered, hair-semen-blood, as well as prints. Police ID the prints, locate an ex-con living two blocks away and sample his DNA. It is an exact match. Are you telling me you would plead with the DA to NOT procecute because "since you didn't observe the crime happening, I do not think the conclusion is accurate" This would be absurd.

[Redeemedbylove1987]

@Orthrus Reproduction will never create a more complex organism.