Richard Dawkins - The Evidence for Evolution Lecture (1/7)
Top Comments
All Comments (29)
-
@JosephSmithUK With what the Intelligent design/creationists use as ammunition, its like trying to take down an elephant with spit-balls shot out of a plastic straw. Unfortunately, if the spit-ball touches the elephant, the creationist thinks it killed it.
-
@FinallyTheNight The last two should not really be there."truth, truthfulness" these cannot be equated with "faith"
-
On page 293 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: FAITH : acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credit, credulity, dependence, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, hope, loyalty, reliance, stock, store, sureness, surety, troth, truth, truthfulness
-
yeaaaaa, imma say this...... his view on the world and universe are very minimal i am not religous I have no religion I do not believe in adam and eve but to claim tat this is all there is seems so small to me
-
damn you bio mid term!!!!!
-
I love coming to Dawkins or any atheist type of video. It is the place on youtube where I can expect grammatical accuracy and intelligent conversation. Have you been on theist channels? Madness.
-
The best arguments I've seen Creationists come up with are 1. Teach the controversy. And 2. The origin of life is only made up of speculations. However, Creationists' goal is not to teach all sides of an argument (Within the public not scientific circle.) But they wish to influence and give their claims a scientific air when it has none. Abiogenesis is a speculative area, but it does not heed Evolution, that's like saying you need an advanced understanding of meteorology for an umbrella to work.
-
@apathy7170 Ok fair enough; I should have said that those are the two points that their arguments boil down to from my perspective then.
@JosephSmithUK -- Yes, that is because there are still many brain-dead, brain-washed, stubbornly ignorant, religulous idiots who have only read one book that was written by medieval, iron-age, fanatic lunatics! Evolution needs to be defended because those religulous idiots have managed to shuff this iron-age book into the schools' curriculum. If we let them, then two generations from now our grand children will be more ignorant and stupid then several generations before them.
boomtao 1 year ago 31
The theory of evolution still needs "defending" in 2010?!?
JosephSmithUK 1 year ago 26