Revelation TV Interview Richard Dawkins COMMENTS

Mirrored to allow comments and ratings.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• *Revelation
• *TV
• *richard
• *dawkins
• *interview
• *comments
• *ratings

[alexwilding1]

I think Dawkins was being incredibly patient and kind because of this mans recent loss. None the less, it was interesting and I think his ramblings speak volumes.

[morningstomper123]

@investinottawa I know, the worst bit is when he drones on with his anecdote somewhere in the middle. I feel like yelling "HURRY THE FUCK UP OLD MAN!!"

[Casshyr]

@unlokia "He doesn't like ANYONE saying things that don't align with his belief" => yea, but the point is this old guy isn't even understanding evolution! Surely you would agree with me that you should at least understand the theory before you reject it! This guy had no idea what he was talking about, and what's worse, he is so blinded by his religious faith he refuses to listen to the explanations given by expert scientists!

Stubbornness + ignorance...that's a dangerous mix!

[Brekky57]

@unlokia I SAID GTFO TROLL

[unlokia]

@Brekky57 As soon as you are reduced to personal attacks, your debate is over, and any credibility is lost.

[Brekky57]

@unlokia gtfo troll

[nikolai082700]

I made it through about halfway... When the very disingenuous host asked the question about genitalia and how long humans had to wait for their junk to evolve, I realized that intelligent discussion was only going to come from Prof Dawkins. I had to stop watching when the host's personal anecdote began.

Hint: Personal experiences are not evidence.

This video is a good example of why it is sometimes impossible to have a rational, intelligent discussion with a true believer of the bible.

[unlokia]

Regardless of his sheer arrogance and lack of humility, Richard Dawkins is a clever man. He doesn't like ANYONE saying things that don't align with his belief, however. Quite ironic. God still loves him, even though he cannot see it :-)

[Hogmagandy]

@jeepster - "Don't bother replying with examples of evolution because every example that exists is only genetic variation. Not the same thing." Erm, yes it is. In fact, that's EXACTLY what evolution is. It's any genetic, heritable variance in population groups.

[jeepsterrr]

They should have had someone more knowledgable on who would have shown Richard Dawkins up for the pseudi scientist that he is. One of the foremost leaders of the bilind faith movement called evolution. Don't bother replying with examples of evolution because every example that exists is only genetic variation. Not the same thing. Jonathan Sarfarti would destroy Dawkins in a debate as would Jonathan Wells.

[setmedic]

The most amazing thing about this video is how this man got to be the age he is with the IQ he's got.

[sbergman27]

@ultim4t32 The road to Hades is paved with good intentions. This is the sort of "nice guy" who turns out to vote against, say, same-sex marriage, because he thinks it's "wrong" and goes against the teachings of his holy book. Far more damage is done by the masses of nice but ignorant people than by the smaller number of people one might classify as mean and evil.

[ultim4t32]

Let me tell you what happened in my brain at that point in time... I was thinking about the book of Genesis!!!!! That was priceless. ROFL.

[ultim4t32]

This guy is so nice, you really don't want to bother proving him wrong. Why? He is not the problem with christianity. If all christians were like him, athiests wouldn't really give a crap to debate anything.

[hellcielo]

this christian is crazy

[victoryall]

What the fudge.... The blue shirt is just rambling...! I reckon Dawkins regretted coming on this show.

Blue shirt: "Am I deluded?

Dawkins: "Probably"

[oODarkEnergyOo]

The blue shirt sounded like a stuttering, bumbling idiot ... So someone in his family died ... such is life ... the most beautiful part of our lives ... is that they'll end. Dawkins should have ripped him a new one and taught him a lesson he'll never forget ... "What about the trilobite?" ... Pfffttt ... what a tool. I bet someone else gave him that question to ask.

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename morningstomper hit the nail on the head "Science is simply a method of determining the nature of reality. That can't be restricted. Access to technologies is restricted, maybe that is where you are getting confused? Can you give an example of someone being physically refrained from conducting experiments?"

That must be where you're getting confused, because what you seem to be saying makes no sense.

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename We went to war because we believed Iraq had WMDs (which he didnt have). Where are you getting this other crap? You really think we thought they had "too much science?"

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

You're clearly either an idiot or a troll. I give up.

Bush didn't even tell the truth, what difference does it make. We went to war because a country we didn't like made some scientific advances, and some bad political decisions. That is the fact.

[bwc3821]

@Sonyoooo3 Nobody sees what you're saying.

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename What? Once again, nobody had an issue with him "having science" they war was over him having WMDs.

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

How could he possibly develop WMDs without science?

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename We fought Saddam over WMDs, nothing to do with his "smart chemists" I don't remember Bush ever referring to that. Morningstomper's original comment explains this.

[morningstomper123]

@Thirdoptionisthename Science is simply a method of determining the nature of reality. That can't be restricted. Access to technologies is restricted, maybe that is where you are getting confused? Can you give an example of someone being physically refrained from conducting experiments?

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@morningstomper123

Access to science IS restricted you idiot. And we fight wars over science...admit it!