I have stopped arguing with people over this . I am sure that anyone who doesn't accept evolution has ulterior motives .

@weavethehawk

Жыл бұрын

Maybe not ulterior motives, but a brain unable to form any motives at all. Richard Dawkins is a thinker, a man who can think, and form ideas out of his research. Young Earth theorists and other "thinkers" cannot get past what they have been "taught". It's called indoctrination. Those people will never recover from the malady that infects their thinking, and it will take eons, for them to recover. I personally know dozens of them. They're almost exclusively Americans, and there is no reason to think that they will ever begin to think with any degree of intelligence. We have to live with them, we have to tolerate a level of intelligence that beggars belief. But as long as you know the truth, your sanity will remain secure.

@victorjcano

Жыл бұрын

either that or they just wish to remain ignorant. It is just as easy to believe in a universe from nothing as it is to believe in a god.

@georgeelmerdenbrough6906

Жыл бұрын

@@victorjcano Easier

@henkmarks8856

Жыл бұрын

I'd say that anyone disputing this is not quite right in their faculties.

@georgeelmerdenbrough6906

Жыл бұрын

@@henkmarks8856 Their priorities are emotional even to the point of denying the obvious .

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelmingly sound that one would have to be willfully and intentionally ignorant not to believe it. Arguing creation over evolution is like arguing that water isn't wet. The story of creation is just that a story with zero evidence, that's why it's called "The Story of Creation".

@rdhallmansr

Жыл бұрын

Do you know any of the evidence for intelligent design (different but a kind of creation) as pointed to by certain PhD's who are scientist and believers? Obviously not: since you been told there is "zero evidence" and you allowed them to decide for you. Do you think reading or hearing just one side, anyone can make a honest or a good decision? When a person knows just one side, is it fair to attack, or slander the other side?

@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694

Жыл бұрын

@@rdhallmansr Provide one evidence that man was created as an adult male directly from dust (sand / clay .. from the soil of the earth) then the female was created from this male’s side, and we humans descended from these two through incest. Also show us one example of a creatures just appear (are created) out of nowhere, or did God stop creating on the sixth day of creation? Then explain all the animals that went extinct and the animals that obviously evolved from them. Explain lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats. Explain Zibras, Horses and Donkeys Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc.

@kosys5338

Жыл бұрын

@@rdhallmansr I use to be a pastor, I spent four years in the seminary. I know exactly what I'm talking about, there are many ex pastors such as myself. If you would like to educate yourself then go visit the clergy project web site. You made your assumptions of what I might and might not know out of pure ignorance. your one sided opinion also made out of pure ignorance. Your attempt to state a fact about me out of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about, you know not what you speak. Don't worry my friend this is a very common practice among the religious. You think you know what your talking about when in reality your speaking from ignorance. Now with that said provide all your so called evidence and if it is empirical evidence then the science community as well as myself will change our stance on evolution. The only reason the religious have not provided a single shred of empirical evidence is because they don't have any, plain and simple. As for me don't be making knowledge claims about me because you don't know a single thing about me. Cheers! P.S. The Clergy project, go check it out there are many testimonials there from many ex pastors such as myself. Only willful ignorance will stop you from doing so.

@kosys5338

Жыл бұрын

@@rdhallmansr Just for the record there are also PhD's who are scientist and believers who believe that evolution is a fact. Just wanted to throw that in there because I noticed you conveniently left that part out. Cheers!

@kosys5338

Жыл бұрын

@@rdhallmansr Now you can pose your question to yourself. "when a person knows just one side, is it fair to attack or slander the other side?" Because you know nothing about me yet you felt you could attack my position (the other side). Hypocrisy is no stranger to the religious, that's one reason I left the church. I was tired of being a hypocrite.

Born in 776 Basra Iraq Abo Othman bin bahar Al-Basry He talked about evolution and the reasons of it, In his book * The Book Of Animals *

@joesikic6531

Жыл бұрын

I'm going to look up / google the book of animals. Thankyou

@ItsSVO

Жыл бұрын

This is what so many people don’t realise, that many very critical thinkers had come to correct conclusions many years ago but didn’t have the capabilities or technology to prove it.

@versioncity1

Жыл бұрын

Not really, he made some very general observations about animals. very nicely written and interesting, but calling it evolution is a bit of a stretch.

"Weeping in the pliocene" should've been a lyric from Can't Stop

Thank you for posting! Fantastic!

@2fast2block

11 ай бұрын

First we need a universe that RD says came from "literally nothing" and to you that's.....Fantastic! The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

@Micca59

11 ай бұрын

@@2fast2block You are a true testimony to your God. He must be so proud of you.

@2fast2block

11 ай бұрын

@@Micca59 ok, we have a Dawkins fan showing how creation happened by "literally nothing" and got around the laws I gave by their evidence of.... "You are a true testimony to your God. He must be so proud of you." You make such a great Dawkins follower.

@mcmanustony

10 ай бұрын

@@2fast2block the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the moment of the singularity.

What is the realistic expectation of change in acceptance of facts when this video has been on KZread for 3 years yet only viewed by 10,000 people with only 196 likes and 17 comments! Video called Angel Encounters only published a year ago was viewed 97,000 times. This is just sad. I admire this educator and his patience. 21st century and adults still believed someone walked on water, another split the sea in two, one flew over the moon on a winged horse and one dropped a stick that turned into a snake. It is truly sad. It is easier to read one tax free book than to read multiple sources of facts.

@toni4729

Жыл бұрын

Well, what do you expect, he's talking to Americans.😍😘😏 They don't understand what he's talking about. They only learned about the Bible in high school.

@phillipngongo7398

Жыл бұрын

You don't force people to eat the most beautiful honey in paradise.

@jimnewcombe7584

Жыл бұрын

People can like something without "liking" it. A number of likes means less than the insects on a dog's turd.

@jima8946

Жыл бұрын

@@jimnewcombe7584 I certainly hope so

@georgeelmerdenbrough6906

Жыл бұрын

Cheap hope wins

In all of Hitchens debates against religion you can tell he talked with Dawkins a lot cause he was always exclaiming 'some design!'

I haven't heard this one yet. But I love the Dawktor, and I love book.

Top!

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Bottom. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

@jimnewcombe7584

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your indispensable and eloquent contribution.

Excellent lecture

@johnstewart4350

Жыл бұрын

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." (II Peter 2:1-2)

Richard you are amazing. Your knowledge is outstanding. If only I could remember everything I read or watch . I dont read much. I'm not to good at it if I'm honest 🤣 but while reading "The Greatest Show On Earth" some of the facts, i had also worked out this was how some things worked, which the book has also confirmed my thinking.. big thank you for your amazing work .. I hope this carries on into the ever evolving future through others eyes and great minds like yours 👍👍

@knitershift

2 ай бұрын

I recommend: Origin of Variety - Session 4 (by PhD Zoologis why rejects evolution) kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZIVqsLlyh8aWqNY.html

*Quotation: "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude after the acceptance of evolutionary theory." -Stephen Jay Gould. Former professor of paleontology at Harvard University

People spend too much time defending against anti evolution/anti science nonsense and not enough on teaching monophyletic taxonomy and the connections.

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Dawkins is anti-science. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

@georgeelmerdenbrough6906

Жыл бұрын

True

Great lecture.

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

From a F00L. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

Quotation: "With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig." -Richard Dawkins

"The earth is 10,000 years old" argument works if you consider us as only "seeing" a false reality as in Plato's cave or the dashboard theory whereby we believe what we are seeing on an airplane's dashboard of the airplane is the actual plane - instead of a representation of a generic airplane in cartoon fashion. If we could only see two-dimentional, a painting of the earth and believed it was the earth, when in fact, it is a painting, then the painting could be 10,000 years old. But if we were able to break apart the paint making up the painting, and measure the age of the molecules making up the paint, we'd likely find the molecules to be older than the painting. So it's possible and likely that all that we are able to detect with our eyes or by any other means of detection, is nonetheless, been "created" within the last 10,000 years and only made to appear to be much older; even having been composed of much older atomic particles.

@cezar211091

Ай бұрын

That's just a ridiculous assertion. "Made to look older"... emotions can really shut off logic in people.

@besreal3419

Ай бұрын

@@cezar211091 Just do a little more research into Quantum Physics to see how things are created. Keep in mind, most humans are relying on only their 5 senses to define their reality. For example in this macro field, we can see a collection of skeletons in a museum from so many different species and then a scientist will use reasoning to explain how they all took hundreds of thousands of years to evolve into those forms. Being a graduate from OSU with a BS in biology, I have accepted the hundreds of thousands of years to evolve theory. However, nowdays we know about Great Leaps in Evolution, along with cross-breeding to create new species, the foods grandparents ate or sudden environmental impacts to one generation changing future generations into intollerant of foods their older family eats, fear of certain environmental changes, etc... as when chicks run and scatter when a shadow passes over them - is an ingrained animal instinct picked up by the DNA from prior generations. Mice grand-pubs being programed to fear the smell of cherry blosoms. Therefore, how are we to say that our own bodies weren't "created" from a higher intelligence tinkering by mixing or CRISPERing? The creators of SIMULATORS are saying "This is so easy, to make things that look so real, that it's impossible to assume that a highly intelligent culture has not already evolved and created simulators that we are now living in." If you look at the Cosmic-Ouroboros; that everything in nature is fractile and takes on similar forms; from largest to smallest. Epigenetics being proven in the lab. Wild birds mimicing the sounds of outer space without their being aware of their copying behaviors consciously. Brain scientists saying our brains work more like a radio receiver; whereby our thoughts and personalities are being beamed into us from an exterior source; with us being avatars. Medatators and pass life regressionists saying we are living the fantasy program of a holodeck so that we learn spiritual lessons. Everyday we awaken in a different body, in order to learn what it is like to be them. The brain being the holder of memories that any soul can tap into much like we use to pop a movie into a VHS or CD player. So I didn't write the above out of emotions. I'm rational, like Spock.

@besreal3419

Ай бұрын

@@cezar211091 Oops, left out the (hypothesis?) that brain neurons are structured like the components of outer space.

This is a good explanation of evolution, speaking on behalf of David Deutsch.

@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095

Жыл бұрын

And all with just his voice, no slides and diagrams. {:o:O:}

❤️ hearing facts in a world of lies

@2mesense

Жыл бұрын

The lies are biblical

@Mrrossj01

Жыл бұрын

“… in a world of ignorance.”

@grahammurphy1178

Жыл бұрын

Dawkins bases his whole argument against there being a God on the evidence that evolution happened instead of Creationism. He seems to ignore or be unaware of the fact that Hinduism knew about evolution thousands of years before Darwin. Both Buddhism and Hinduism have always accepted it. Evolution can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. If I'm A 22 year old scrawny man and I lift weights every day for one hour for 10 years I will evolve muscles. This doesn't mean God either exists or doesn't exist.

@sstolarik

Жыл бұрын

@@2mesense …and sometimes just biblical in proportion! 🙄

@drizz7830

Жыл бұрын

Evolution and the Bible are both lies. Created by brainless humans. Ones theory and ones fairytale

*Quotation: "Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created." - James Clerk Maxwell James Clerk Maxwell. James Clerk Maxwell FRSE FRS (13 June 1831 - 5 November 1879) was a Scottish mathematician and scientist responsible for the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, which was the first theory to describe electricity, magnetism and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" where the first one had been realised by Isaac Newton.

Despite knowing that 100 percent obstacles..how Said. Reality. Your Right. Yes.

Richard is very cool . I like what he says . I think it is very interesting stuff and I watched most of his videos but never read one paragraph of the Bible and never intend to . I think one of Richard's books would be a fine read this winter .

@piertinence

Жыл бұрын

Dawkins is thought to be a story teller by Georgy Koentges , an authority on the subject. Georgy seems to believe that burying the argument in undecipherable pseudo-scientific gibberish is a better way to present the science fiction tales based on Darwin hallucinations

@kookamunga2458

Жыл бұрын

@@piertinence Yes but Richard is proudly arrogant . He truly believes what he is saying and that's what really matters in the end . Richard is also an atheist and one less atheist would be a big loss for humanity so I am glad that we still have him warts an all .

@piertinence

Жыл бұрын

@@kookamunga2458 Darwinist evangelist Dawkins claim that all the creatures in the creation (like elephants, boas, anacondas, giraffes, tigers, owls, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc.,) could only be designoid objects only presenting an illusion of design. The Darwinian apostle BS does not even present an illusion of making sense.

@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694

Жыл бұрын

@@piertinence Absolutely, humanity came from a single adult male that God made from the dust of the Earth, then made his female from his rib, then this male mated with himself.. I mean his wife and humanity multiplied from initial incest…

@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694

Жыл бұрын

@@piertinence If all living things were created as is during the six days of creation then explain all the animals that went extinct? Most never west extinct but evolved into other species that continue to live on earth today. Explain the similarities between lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats. Hint: they came from common ancestors. Explain Zebras, Horses and Donkeys Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc. Read about how generic fossils and ERVs present clear evidences for evolution. Today we don’t need to look for fossils to know evolution is true. Evolution is a process that started 3.7 billion years ago. That is 3.7 thousand million years or 37 million times a human lifespan of 100 years.. some genetic mutations do cause major changes in the shape of a pelvis, vocal cords, brain connection, joints etc. Other mutations are more discrete. You might wanna read about the science of evolution and why scientists make their claims about it. Also read about how evolution was used by man over thousands of years to develop the plants and animals you eat and the medicine you use. Read about its applications in the medical field. The Bible, The Quran and all other scriptures are full of science fiction, historical lies and abhorrent moralities suitable only for their time. They all allow slavery, child marriage, killing and taking the land and wealth of those you don’t follow the ‘true belief’, and the subjugation of thought, innovation and alternative thinking to what’s written in Iron Age texts. Do you think Dawkins is out there just to make you ‘believe’ in evolution vs special creation? Think again.

Just to clear up any confusion, Darwin's theory of evolution should after all this time. should be changed to Darwin's fact of evolution. because no one with a spec of a brain. can deny that evolution is the process of all life on this planet.

@eddyeldridge7427

8 ай бұрын

You need to look up what a scientific theory is

@musicauthority674

8 ай бұрын

@@eddyeldridge7427 I know what it is, in the scientific world it's as good as a fact. I said because the religious extemists are too ignorant to get it in their heads. that a theory is as good as a fact.

@eddyeldridge7427

8 ай бұрын

@@musicauthority674 So we need to dumb down science? That's your solution?

@musicauthority674

8 ай бұрын

@@eddyeldridge7427 In the case if religious freaks, absolutely yes. because they are too ignorant to understand anything else.

@DocReasonable

8 ай бұрын

Evolution has always been a fact with theory (written explanation) to describe it. @@musicauthority674

When I see you It's as if I've missed the reality. Maharaj of thought.

THANK GOD FOR RICHARD DAWKINS.

@wayneparkinson4558

Жыл бұрын

God as got nothing to do with it ?Evolution a key word natural not spiritual

@thegroove2000

Жыл бұрын

@@wayneparkinson4558 Praise the Lord.

@wayneparkinson4558

Жыл бұрын

@@thegroove2000 It must be nice to have a comfort blanket in your stressful lives

@thegroove2000

Жыл бұрын

@@wayneparkinson4558 God help us.

@thegroove2000

Жыл бұрын

@@wayneparkinson4558 Lord have mercy.

"Responding to the question, “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” posed by a science website in January 2005, Dawkins’ answer was: “I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.”*" Sounds like a religion to me.

@damienschwass9354

Жыл бұрын

If he actually said that, it sounds both reasonable and honest. Please note this quote refers to all life in the _universe_ , so any uncertainty stems from not having examples of life beyond earth to study. If it were just _this planet_ then that’s a different story: the evidence aligns with natural selection and it’s as proven as anything in science can be.

@aesopcarl

Жыл бұрын

@@damienschwass9354 Spoken like a follower of any cult leader. I'm not saying he is right or wrong but to say that there is "proof" and then say "I cannot prove" is the scheme that all cult leaders do. "Believe me because I sound like I know what I'm talking about, I believe it, and ...." Don't be naive.

@Glasstable2011

Жыл бұрын

Dawkins has stated that he believes life is very likely to occur elsewhere in the universe and he believes it will have evolved through a process of evolution by natural selection as it has here on earth. Obviously he has no proof of this but since it is how life developed on earth it seems like a reasonable assumption to make, given the lack of alternatives

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

If he had been answering the question about life on Earth, he would have given a very different answer. Because he has proof for that. But the question was about life in the universe. For that he has only conjecture.

@peteconrad2077

Жыл бұрын

There is no other explanation That fits the facts. Evolution is the only explanation that works.

Not too many in the audience have visited Williamstown, Kentucky.

@byteme9718

Жыл бұрын

Kentucky, home of the most ignorant, uneducated and ignorant god so called Christians on the planet. That's why Ken Ham set up business there and had other people pay for his ridiculous, failed ark. FFS he was a failing high school biology teacher who never worked as a scientist.

What is biological entropy and how is it offset? A natural, or normal process, is simply the normal workings of a system in place, which means that a system cannot derive from a natural process over time, because a natural process will always be the result of a system in place, rather than the cause of one. The second law of thermodynamics states that a thermodynamic system will always be found in a state of disorder or moving towards it in accordance with entropy law, which means that the universe began as complex, rather than simple, because the progression of entropy is a state of decline from ordered complexity into disordered complexity. Any process that tends toward disorder over time cannot self-improve in a matter of time; So adding time to a biological process that tends toward disorder will only increase the level of disorder there is in due time, because a biological system is also a thermodynamic system, and is thereby subject to entropy law. The only way for biological entropy to be offset, is for the DNA proofreading mechanism to correct and delete a genetic mutation, because DNA proofreading and DNA modification is a thermodynamic instructional system that inherits genetic mistakes. So, because the DNA proofreading system is designed to correct a genetic mutation in order to maintain the systems level of efficiency, it will mean that no amount of slight mutations is ever going to improve the thermodynamic efficiency of an organism over time; Leaving the theory of evolution without a working mechanism for biological improvement. *Quotation: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” - Evolutionist Marc Kirschner, cell biologist, biochemist and the founding Chairman of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School.

It's interesting but also sad that we still have to address this issue, more than a century and a half after Darwin formulated it. There is by now sufficient and definitive evidence to make clear that evolution is no longer a "theory," it's a fact. Indeed, way back in 1968, my Geology Professor at BYU in Utah opened his first lecture by asserting that fact. It's not really even remotely controversial any more.

@donthesitatebegin9283

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's obvious and uncontroversial to any modern, thinking person. But we're dealing with age-old hopes, dreams and fears; bewilderment, the desire for easy, flattering answers and the vainglorious hope of an Afterlife. That's why they refuse to listen and think - they're motivated not to, lest their Sky-God vanishes in a puff of logic.

@thomasduncan6678

Жыл бұрын

Every single thing that evolution religion pulls out of its rear can easily be torn down. This man wouldn't last five minutes in a debate with Kent Hovind

@BenjaminGoose

Жыл бұрын

@@thomasduncan6678 Kent Hovind, the creationist? 😆

@nawazhemmuth8506

Жыл бұрын

Show us the first ape descendant that was part ape, part human. Or 10% ape, 90% monkey. Or 50% ape,50% human...

@andrewdouglas1963

Жыл бұрын

I'm sorry but science should never stop investigating and never shut down debate. There are many significant differences between Darwin's version of evolution and our modern version. There also remains a lot of unknowns and gaping holes. So no good scientist should ever assume new evidence will not arise that may challenge the current evolution hypothesis.

"It is an astounding fact that starting from nothing more complicated than rock and sand the process of evolution by natural selection gave rise to eventually us." - Richard Dawkins This is simply not true and an astounding statement for Richard Dawkins to make - evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological living creatures over successive generations and certainly cannot explain how rocks and sand started living.

@michaelanderson7715

Жыл бұрын

Your inability to discern the intent is the failing here.

@serlitotiolo2355

Жыл бұрын

no problem with that so called evolution but still it does not show there is no God.

@michaelanderson7715

Жыл бұрын

@@serlitotiolo2355 You clueless oxygen thief.

@redfaux74

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelanderson7715 - One cannot discern anything when the teachings accepts known falsehoods or changes the words to make truth undiscernable. The fact is mutations bring about death, not improvement. Even a small mutation in a creatures DNA will inevitably kill it over generations. The females will not mate with it if it continues to live. It is a dead end. There is no proof of good mutations, ever. You need evidence to prove that. Show us a before and after and study the DNA of both. Anyone who tells you life came from rocks after billions of years is an imbecile and should be avoided as a teacher. If you cannot teach what we know is true, without adding your faerie tales, you should be banned as a teacher. Same with math, reading, etc. Stick to the subject or be fired and sued.

@franklinadams7826

Жыл бұрын

Life started from rocks because, rocks have emanated all sorts of chemicals into the water and the chemical soup has evolved into organisms, from that point onwards, single-celled life forms started to evolve with minor changes over thousands of years let's say. We do not live long enough to see these changes but the changes exist whether we like it or not and over billions of years, we are the result of that Evolution. We, the Earth, and the Universe will continue to evolve forever whether you believe it or not.

Great lecture but do the Crowd laugh at everything. Goodness

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

He's a nitwit. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

It's the design of the anatomy of any life form which makes you question how it can be so perfect in design that people think its made by a higher force when in fact its the processes of 4.5 billon years of slow cooking is what as refined what we all see today and we want to throw it all away for selfish individual ego which is probably the weakest link in the whole chain the apex of intelligents man is its weakness for it over thinks its place in the scheme of things instead of just enjoying life like most species do who need to survive on each and every day

The only problem for evolution which remains, no matter how eloquently one speaks, is that the idea that complexity can come from nothing is absurd. In my thinking, the order of most likely causes for the universe and life on earth are: an intelligent designer, the flying spaghetti monster, and then a very distant third, 'nothing'.

@drsatan7554

Жыл бұрын

Evolution doesn't ever mention nothing though

@marksouthern7542

Жыл бұрын

@@drsatan7554 i understand that evolution can only occur in two ways...natural selection and mutations or changes to genes. But behind this is the big bang, something out of nothing or an undefined something (might as well be nothing). I flirted with the idea of becoming an atheist and read 'the God delusion'. It was Dawkins description of how evolution works which he sugar coated with words like 'eloquent', that i realised how weak evolution was. If that's the best we have, I am a theist, or happy to consider the flying spaghetti monster, but not nothing, and accidental processes.

@thomasthompson6378

Жыл бұрын

Nobody asserts that complexity comes from nothing. Nobody.

@BenjaminGoose

Жыл бұрын

The only ones claiming that complexity comes from nothing are creationists.

@MajorPayne175

Жыл бұрын

My brain cannot comprehend complex cosmic functions so therefore god.

Assumptions are not evidence. Evidence is observable, repeatable, and testable. That is science. Come on people think !!!

@drsatan7554

Жыл бұрын

All the evidence for evolution is observable, repeatable and testable Im willing to bet you can't cite a single article of verified evidence for evolution that isn't

Common descent and the evolutionary theory vs common sense and the law of procreation: The evolutionary theory of common descent implies that all species have derived from a common ancestor, which was first put forward Charles Darwin who asserted his ideas from Carlos Linnaeus. Carlos Linnaeus assumed that all varieties of creatures held a distinct characteristic that related certain groups of creatures as being in the same phylum or group by way of genealogical descent. This gave rise the term, mammal, which is used by the evolutionary theory to conclude that all life has a common ancestor. But what the term, mammal, does not take into account, is a species method of reproduction, which must be taken into account in order to define a breeding group in terms of a phylum. Procreation is a copying process that is limited by a set of parameters that act as a set of rules. These rules are applicable to procreation in that a species can only be defined as breeding group or phylum, while anything outside of the breeding group will be defined as a separate species or kind. So, because each group of human beings can procreate, it will mean that mankind is only one species, which in turn, defines mankind as only one kind. A common ancestor that relates all creatures into a single family tree or phylum has been rejected by genetic research on the basis that there is no such creature that can house all genetic traits. DNA RNA transcription is a copying process, and the rule with any copying process is that each copy must derive from an original copy, because only the original copy will have all of the information for variation. This implies that all life began as complex with separate ancestors in terms of a phylum, because if the physical features that an organism has were not with the first copy that its genome began replication with, then there is nothing for the copying process to select from in terms of physical traits. So, for this reason, speciation leads to a reduction in terms of variability, because all of the information for variation has derived from an original copy, which cannot be a bacterium, because a bacterium does not include a set of genetic traits that can be expressed by every organism. When variability is passed down to the offspring hereditarily, there will always be a loss of variability due to the copying process by definition of the fact that a variant is only a variety within a kind. This means that speciation leads to a reduction in variability on the basis that a variant cannot express all of the information for variation, while the original copy does. And this also proves that each creature has not derived from a common ancestor, but from distinct groups instead, because the DNA RNA copying process limits the amount of variation that an organism can express in terms of a standard. So, in order for a standard to occur in terms of a species, then a biological kind is also required, because it is the word "kind" that will define a group of species in terms of a common ancestor. Carlos Linnaeus attempted to divide all groups of creatures into a phylum of separate species, thereby establishing the Linnaean classification system as being based on separate kinds. And though Linnaeus' description of separate kinds allowed for the introduction of multiple species within a kind, he also asserted that separate kinds were of common descent, such as apes and humans. Charles Darwin took things one step further by asserting that all species have derived from one kind of creature despite the fact that no one creature contains all of the physical characteristics that each creature has. This means that all living creatures are broken up into different kinds with separate species within a kind so that an open breeding population is favoured over a closed breeding population. So, because DNA RNA transcription is a copying process, it will mean that all of the physical characteristics of a species are relative to a particular kind that its genome began replication with, because it is the kind of creature that implies a standard version, while a species is simply a version or variety of the standard in place. So, a biological kind is any standard version that will speciate over time into distinct varieties, which proves that not all creatures have derived from a common ancestor. While a group of species within a particular kind have derived from a common ancestor by reason of deduction, because there is a standard version in place, from which, speciation has occurred. So, for this reason, a species cannot be defined unless a particular kind has been identified first, because a group of species will always be the result of a biological kind, rather than the cause of one.

So many people globally who have been conditioned with the old books, they have been taught to fear god and taught that to disbelieve is a sin. They want to be good and are too frightened to question everything and many are without the global knowledge to question without fear, the key is to give them all world knowledge so they can create a global identity, they are frightened of suffering, all that is needed is the teachings of the evolution of earth! There is a spritaul world in the history books, these things did happen, but they need to evolve into the now with the evolution so they do not make the mistakes made back then.🧡💚💙💜🤎 they need to understand that the Bible has things added from all the other people that took over the world.🧡💚💜🤎 now you can be who ever earth or as you call it God wants you to be and nutured by those that have had the freedom to evolve and understand science and the spiritual world 🧡💚💙💜🤎 evolve as a person In the now. Be what earth needs you to be. 💜

@wayneparkinson4558

Жыл бұрын

Old scripture and cave paintings is more accurate than what the old history book tell you bias books of colonialist ego's reigned for many a year until being re-written by new findings all over the world?

*Christianity and the Common Law: The history of the English common law, from which, the American, Australian and other common law jurisdictions originated, owes much to the influence of Christianity in its origins and development. It is indeed not possible to grasp the full development of the common law without first exploring its profound religious dimensions, and its motivating faith. Until at least the early 19th century, the common law was heavily influenced by Christian theology. This theology holds that there is a natural or divine reason for the existence of basic laws, and that these laws stand above human legislation, thus reflecting universal and unchangeable principles according, to which, everyone ought to live. - Source: Rediscovering the Christian Roots of the Common Law Legal System (Published by Hein Online Legal Resources).

If it seems right. I will take Yes. That's right. You are

When he asks where the money comes from: The students pockets…

@wayneparkinson4558

Жыл бұрын

Someone as got to pay for the lecture even if its not always factual that's just Economics evolution in action

@piertinence

Жыл бұрын

Darwinist evangelist Dawkins made himself filthy rich by preaching a Darwinian evolutionary creation. myth

It is impossible to have a relationship with a perfect being, if one existed that is.

You real thanks making people think

제국주의의 나라였던 예전 영국은 이기적유전자가 많았던 시절이었나? 이 땅의 분열은 왜 생겼나는가? 이기적유전자의 지시가 아니었나 추측되네,... 이기적유전자책을 조금 읽다보니 생각나네,,,,

56:08 Is that Bart Ehrman? Sounds just like him

We don’t understand how we came to be created. We are familiar with the guesses. We don’t know why we are here and where we came from.

@davidkeenan5642

Жыл бұрын

What makes you say we were "created"? The theory of Evolution concludes that "we" emerged naturally. This theory is not a guess, it's a logical inference based on empirical evidence. We're here because all of ancestors successfully produced offspring that reached reproductive age. If by "we" you mean modern humans, we emerged as a species in Africa, and migrated across this planet, interbreeding with our cousin species until they, as distinct species, went extinct. No mystery.

@uneducatedchristain2963

Жыл бұрын

I HAD PARENTS..... AND I LEARNED HOW SEXUAL REPRODUCTION WORKS.... IT'S NOT MAGIC.

JBS Haldane’s quote about pregnancy was incredibly stupid. Embryogenesis is directed by modern DNA . That completely begs the question of how modern DNA formed.

If you define God as an entity beyond the natural world it’s not a falsifiable belief but it would be a weird God …the natural world is way way more fascinating than was conceived in old scriptures ..

WHO NEEDS SCIENCE THAT WORKS WHEN YOU CAN HAVE MAGIC SKY WIZARD FAIRY TALES THAT NEVER WORK.

@facundovera3227

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, pretty much. Religion: it won't work. Science: it can work.

Why are snowflakes evidence of design? In the late 18th century, German physicist and musician, Ernst Chladni, demonstrated how vibrations could be used to create striking geometric imagery by spreading fine sand across the top of a metal plate and then running a violin string along the side of its edge. Chladni’s demonstrations show that the sand will settle into distinct geometric patterns depending on the frequency that the sound waves produce by the violin string rubbing against the edge of the metal plate. When the Chladni plate, for instance, vibrates in one of its modes, a hexagonal geometric pattern appears in the sand on top of the plate, which is why geometric patterns, such as circles and triangles overlapping each other, are found in nature. Centuries later, in the 1960's, a Swiss physician named Hans Jenny built on Chladni’s experiments in an effort to study vibrational phenomena, which he called cymatics. Cymatics is a physics term which refers to the study of visible effects that sound and vibrations cause on matter, and everything that is organic or inorganic vibrates at a certain frequency, because the structure of an atom is vibrational. For example: A snowflake is born when water vapour travels through the air and condenses by changing from a gas to a solid which then forms into an ice crystal. Water is a liquid crystal that holds memory in terms of its geometric shape at a molecular level, and when water molecules are vibrated the molecule will take on the particular shape that the vibration is making, which gives each snowflake a signature pattern. Sound is not only visible in terms of geometric patterns, and is therefore deterministic, but also, the frequencies must be in tune with one another in order for a molecule to be stable within its environment, which is evidence of design due to the presence of a rhythm (or sequence) that is held in tune (or calibrated) according to a method (or standard). When musical vibrations are channelled through a malleable medium, such as a liquid or gas, the vibrations cause the medium to arrange itself into visible geometries with overlapping shapes, and this is what actually causes the unique pattern for a snowflake to form, because as the vapour is solidifying into an ice-flake, a geometric pattern is formed simultaneously, which is entirely due to the resonant vibrational frequencies that are affecting the particles at a subatomic level. So, because a snowflake can retain its geometric shape, and because the geometric shape is the result of electromagnetic vibrations, it will mean that there is a space for memory that is both vibrational, as well as electromagnetic. The arrangement of atoms to make up a molecular bond is arranged according to a set of base frequencies from the force of the vibrational resonances that are produced by the electromagnetic polar effect between the positively charged protons and the negatively charged electrons. The signature frequency of each resonant impulse according to a scale of different frequencies in ratio specifies for the arrangement of a molecular structure, which is evidence of creativity, because any set of frequencies that are in ratio with one another according to a rhythm in tune is by definition, specific. The structure of a molecule must be synchronized according to a set of base frequencies that are in ratio with one another in order for a rhythm to occur that is in tune, which is predetermined according to each figure or value that each base frequency has in terms of musical scale or notation. And atoms must be in tune with one another or they will not bond, which is why atoms were indeed created, because the stability of a molecular structure is depending upon the atoms to be in tune with one another according to a set of base frequencies that are in rhythm, (or ratio) the same as it is for musical scale when a group of instruments are working together in synchrony, or symphony. The structure of an atom is constant motion, which means that an atom must work according to rhythm in sequence so that the electrons do not collide with one another. And anything that works according to a rhythm in sequence, is by definition, specific, which is evidence of design, because there is only specified and unspecified to chose from. The structure of an atom also works according to a cycle in place that is repeatable under observation, and anything that is repeatable under observation, is also specific, which cannot occur at random by definition of the fact that anything random will be unpredictable.

Sometimes mankind itself makes made doubt evolution.....

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

Mostly I see that cartoon of creatures reaching land as humans and then devolving into office workers or NRA-supported mass shooters or some such subhuman idiot.

Are there any examples of evolution that we can observe in front of us right now?

@eddyeldridge7427

9 ай бұрын

Selective dog breeding. Agriculture. Vaccines. What exactly are you looking for?

@2fast2block

9 ай бұрын

@@eddyeldridge7427 no, that's not your goo-to-you evolution. You know, show that life came from non-life on its own that started your whole fairy tale of this all.

@eddyeldridge7427

9 ай бұрын

@@2fast2block My evolution? I'm talking about the evolutionary model used in biology. No goo. No origin of life. Evolution occurs AFTER life begins. You're getting confused with abiogenesis. That's the origin of life. Just because you have God as a catchall answer doesn't mean everyone else's worldview is so lazy. Different questions have different answers. Reality doesn't care about your convenience. So, you have to read multiple books. Boohoo.

@2fast2block

9 ай бұрын

​@@eddyeldridge7427 Abiogenesis IS part of your evolution. The rule that it’s not was made up by your side because it crushes your goo-to-you evolution from the start. Of course it has to include life that can replicate and gain more complexity from the start. That is what your idea of evolution is. That’s why your rule was made up for no reason but a ploy to try to distance yourself from reality.

@eddyeldridge7427

9 ай бұрын

@@2fast2block No, it's not. Like I said, different questions have different answers. How life started and why are there so many variations in organisms are two different questions. You want them to be the same thing because you just one to have one target to attack. But even if abiogenesis were 100% false and your god created all life exactly as the bible describes, evolution would not be affected. Evolution does not contradict the bible. It aligns more with the bible than heliocentrism. But you don't question that. Or do you?

I wonder what professor Dawkins thinks about re writing human evolution and telling the truth for we have been feed falsehood on our evolutionary path to the apex of earths most intelligent species when other got there first id be interested in his take on that?

People know its real many do not want it to be real. You cant help this

*Quotation: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. - Richard Dawkins. Fancy Quotes

How Life was created ?

@davidkeenan5642

Жыл бұрын

It wasn't "created", it emerged naturally from non living matter.

​ This shouldn't be controversial for religous peple. That Goc created the universe is not to proved nor disproved. But for life, Genesis says that God commanded the earth to bring forth life, and then for the sea to bring forth life - in that order. The HOW is not mentioned. For millenium people could not understand how the sea could create life, but now we know.

@damienschwass9354

Жыл бұрын

Yes, could have also been Gaia, Shiva or any of the other many creator gods. Can’t be proven, can’t be disproven.

@fraser_mr2009

10 ай бұрын

Your fairytales isn't evidence.

@pruephillip1338

10 ай бұрын

@@fraser_mr2009 No-one mentioned "evidence." We just say there is no evidence for a creator or a universe which created itself before it existed. It's all down to faith.

If you want people to listen to this video you are going to have to do something about thie sound because it is far too low

Arguing for evolution is good, undermining religion is better. Attack the attacker and expose the lies.

It's not just creationists that think that there are gaps in the fossil record, it Stephen J Gould. His theory of punctuated evolution rests on it. "Stasis is data."

@Dr.Ian-Plect

4 ай бұрын

"It's not just creationists that think that there are gaps in the fossil record, it Stephen J Gould. His theory of punctuated evolution rests in it. "Stasis is data." - as usual, the ignorant makes a claim on the basis of a comment decades old, since then there has been a massive addition to the fossil record. You haven't a clue.

@DavidLoveMore

4 ай бұрын

@@Dr.Ian-Plect Gould wasn't just speaking of missing links but a pattern of stasis interspersed with discontinuities. What are you claiming exactly?

@Dr.Ian-Plect

4 ай бұрын

@@DavidLoveMore Did I mention missing links?! I made the point you are citing commentary from decades ago, bring yourself up to date! - moreover, do you accept evolution occurs?

@DavidLoveMore

4 ай бұрын

@@Dr.Ian-Plect So which of the Cambrian phyla have you found precursors for?

@Dr.Ian-Plect

4 ай бұрын

@@DavidLoveMore I too can ignore your content.

One would think that anyone who does not know and understand the evidence supporting design as PRESENTED by PROPONENTS of intelligent design, has no right to express an opinion regarding ID. .

@donthesitatebegin9283

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I feel sympathy with you. In my Space-Alien Cult we have translated and learned the names of over 300 Space-Aliens. Does Dawkins know the name of even a single one? No, he doesn't. Therefore he has "no right to express an opinion".

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

@@donthesitatebegin9283 lol

@peteconrad2077

Жыл бұрын

What evidence. Despite asking, no one has ever offered evidence fir ID.

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

@@peteconrad2077 Actually the ID folks have published a couple of peer reviewed papers supposedly as evidence for design. But, ID has never tested their hypothesis. They cherry picked evidence on some meta reviewed work, but not once, not ever have they attempted to disprove their own assumptions. It is non-science.

@peteconrad2077

Жыл бұрын

@@ozowen5961 indeed. That’s fear real science.

When the unbelievers are the Muminin23 (Believers)! How the table have turned! Surprise! #science

We only have to look at the evolution of religion.

Natural selection works, but to select the fittest, not to create more complexity. Dawkins never deals with that fact: how a blind unguided change at the gene level is able to come up with more complexity, knowing that in order to gain it there are several parts involved. About the missing links in the fossil record the professor forgets all he learned about statistics and what samples mean. Centuries of collecting specimens and not a single one represents an “in-between” link between two already classified species. The continuous trend forecasted by the evolution theory has no evidence in nature, none. All are big leaps of an ever increasing complexity among the species of the tree of life. The claim that missing links is a matter of time is like doing a poll and getting 100% preference for only one candidate but still argue about the possibility of the other candidate not only to appear, but to win the race. Lastly, he doesn’t deal with the Cambrian explosion either, which is something Darwin himself left as an unsolved mystery. Sorry fellow skeptics, on this matter science just doesn’t have the answers.

@drsatan7554

Жыл бұрын

Natural selection has created more complexity. Some bacteria now are capable of digesting plastic which no lifeform could do before Absolutely all known life has 360ish distinct genes that the lifeform known as LUCA possessed. Thus proving an "in-between" link with all known life. That's why its called LUCA, last universal common ancestor Claiming there is no evidence for evolution doesn't change the fact that there is. You're clearly talking about something you know next to nothing about. Pays to do your own research as opposed to listening to bias science denying theists

@sstolarik

Жыл бұрын

Your first sentence is false from the start. You either clearly have an agenda to deny, or you are incapable of understanding. Dawkins specifically explains this many times, but his “Mountain of improbability’s” (my apologies if this name isn’t quite accurate) explains the development of complexities quite well.

@sergiocuadra2738

Жыл бұрын

@@sstolarik That mountain analogy doesn't explain anything, it's just a pears and apples explanation for the masses, you included, obviously. What I mean is that one gene has a long set of nitrogenous bases grouped in codons (set of three bases) which account for each individual amino acid in a protein through the mRNA. The average protein has 400 amino acids, which means that the average gene has 1,200 nitrogenous bases plus the codons to indicate its start and finish. The gene creation, which is blind as we know, has to be so precise that it needs to contain the blue print for the right protein. There are molecules that are not proteins, like lipids, or starch that need a set of proteins to be synthetized. Moreover, pretty much all the organelles in a cell are comprised by parts. All parts need to be in place in order to function, hence, a missing part makes the whole structure useless, and all of them come from a number of different genes. As a result, what Dawkins is suggesting is that over a long time, randomly, genes are being created (remember, more than 1,000 bases in the correct order) and kept for no reason until for some magical law of probabilities a set of genes become useful to one another to form a certain organelle, synthetizing the right protein (s) that the cell might have needed. Just like he said he has no answer for the origin of life because a DNA-generating protein needs to start the process from a thread of RNA, making the whole thing an unsolvable chicken and egg situation. Actually, the same applies to all new complexities in the cell. On the other hand, do you have an explanation for the Cambrian explosion?, and, do you believe, like Dawkins, that some time in the future paleontologists are finally going to find a missing link between any of the million species we have missing links for? (and in the process suggesting that statistics is a black magic field or something). Finally, I have only one agenda, following the truth. And I can tell BS when I see it. It amazes me to see scientists not realizing they just don't have the answers to this, but still insist in an idea that has less and less basis as the knowledge becomes greater.

@BenjaminGoose

Жыл бұрын

What exactly is an "in-between link"?

@sstolarik

Жыл бұрын

@@sergiocuadra2738 I appreciate your level of detail in your response, Sergio, but you’re missing the point. It’s not the precision that develops the complexity, but time and minute repetition that finds a successful combination, not a watchmaker. Life is more akin to dropping grains of sand on a coin standing on its edge. Any grain that manages to land on the edge of the coin wasn’t precisely placed there. Out of the millions of grains that fell, only the lucky few made it. I know this is a vulgar example of “survival of the fittest,” but apt. The mountain analogy merely illustrates the small, but great, efforts over a great amount of time to reach a more complex state. Whether it’s mutations at the gene level caused by environmental considerations, introduction of foreign coding from an external source such as a virus, etc. all DNA-based lifeforms are in a constant state of flux. Over millions of years that diversity would amount to a myriad of diverse grains of sand all aiming at staying on the edge of the proverbial coin.

Richard I luv u m8 but "please" Speak into the microphone!!!-Don't give me your "Bedroom voice"!.

Its so funny how every single presentation of evolution by anyone has a part of dogging on religions😂

@2fast2block

9 ай бұрын

It makes RD feel empowered. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

@DocReasonable

8 ай бұрын

If energy did not exist originally, WHAT GAVE GOD HIS POWERS?? Even the supernatural is powered by energy, CREATARDED fL0ggers. @@2fast2block

IF THE ARMS RACE IS FUTILITY WHERE IS THE BENEFIT? WHERE IS THE IMPROVEMENT? WHY IS THERE WORSHIP OF DARWINISIM ? WHY IS THERE SUCH HATE?

@donthesitatebegin9283

Жыл бұрын

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

Why do you think it's hate?

@peteconrad2077

Жыл бұрын

No Ken worships Darwin. The arms race has no point. It’s just an inevitability of life.

this has 90 000 views and baby shark 13 billions... very sad.

However much proof there is for evolution, or how little, it is in any case a big lot more than for the Biblical creationism. The only thing to be used for creationism is the Bible and who, with any Grey Matter, can place any trust in that?

@serlitotiolo2355

Жыл бұрын

You could debate until tomorrow about creationism and evolution or about morality which are just peripheral or collateral issues. the primary and central problem is whether God in the person of the Lord Jesus exist or not in this modern time. I can not accept the explanation from organized religion which is shallow, only based on blind faith and from atheists and skeptics which is easy to deny. May be these persons are lazy or they don't know where and how to find and meet the Lord Jesus personally.

@uneducatedchristain2963

Жыл бұрын

LIKE IN GENESIS 30 THAT CLAIMS THAT GOATS FUCKING IN FRONT OF BRANCHES PRODUCE SPOTTED GOATS? DID YOUR FAIRY TALE TALKING ANIMALS TELL YOU THAT?

@peteconrad2077

Жыл бұрын

@@serlitotiolo2355 utterly irrelevant.

Richard Dawkins…aka the Missing Link.

There's already the Whig interpretation of History, I suppose this is the Whig interpretation of evolutionary biology.

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Dawkins is a dolt, whig or not. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

@georgeelmerdenbrough6906

Жыл бұрын

No

Disproving Noah’s ark doesn’t prove evolution.

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

Disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.

One should remember while watching these flagrant and fraud proclamations that evolution explains only minor degrading changes within species, but certainly leaves unanswered real questions like the appearence of new species, the life emergence etc.

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

If you bothered to actually read anything on evolution, you would find that the appearance of new species is indeed explained. The theory of evolution is about how living organisms evolved, and does not purport to offer an explanation for the emergence of life.

@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694

Жыл бұрын

Provide one evidence that man was created as an adult male directly from dust (sand / clay .. from the soil of the earth) then the female was created from this male’s side, and we humans descended from these two through incest. Also show us one example of a creatures just appear (are created) out of nowhere, or did God stop creating on the sixth day of creation? Then explain all the animals that went extinct and the animals that obviously evolved from them. Explain lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats. Explain Zibras, Horses and Donkeys Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc…

@krypteral

Жыл бұрын

@@stevepierce6467 would you mind to share the source, any scientific paper that says that it is a fact and not a hypothesis or a theory?

@vejeke

Жыл бұрын

@@krypteral What is the difference between a "theory" and a "scientific theory"?

@krypteral

Жыл бұрын

@@vejeke Either one should be falsifiable or it is not a theory, it's a religion

These people prefer mythology over science. It's insane.

@johnbritain1790

8 ай бұрын

No, just naive.

*Quotation: “No one must think that Newton’s great creation can be overthrown in any real sense by this Theory of Relativity, or by any other theory. His clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation upon which our modern conceptions of physics have been built.” - Albert Einstein. *Quotation: "The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Sir Isaac Newton What percentage of Nobel Laureates are Jewish? 22% Of the 965 individual recipients of the Nobel Prize and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences between 1901 and 2023, at least 214 have been Jews or people with at least one Jewish parent, representing 22% of all recipients. What percentage of Nobel prize winners were Christian? 65.4% In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901-2000 about 65.4% of Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background. What percentage of Nobel prize winners were Atheist? 10.5% Nobel Prize who have self-identified as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, or otherwise nonreligious at some point in their lives. Many of these laureates earlier identified with a religion. In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 10.5% of all laureates.

@luish1498

15 күн бұрын

What percentage of Nobel prize winners get their prize because their work conclude «god did it» 0.0%

@user-rr8cf4mv1f

12 күн бұрын

@@luish1498 A better question ask is what percentage of Nobelists are atheist, because your belief has an impact on what you study. So in other words, atheists are stupid statistically speaking due to a low percentage score Nobelists.

Pierre-Paul Grassé French scientist and past President of the Academie des Sciences has said "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs." Grassé, Pierre-Paul, 1977, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, NY, pg. 8.

@ozowen5961

11 ай бұрын

Well done for citing someone who was dead by the mid 80's, was a remainer on the stump of neo Lamarckian evolution and is irrelevant given the massive expansion of evidence for Neo Darwinian evolution since he passed.

@2fast2block

11 ай бұрын

@@ozowen5961 your brain is dead. You showed how you ignore science as RD does. When you don't like evidence that shows how tiny your brain is, you make up anything you want no matter how lame. Look how clueless you love to be when shown the universe can't come about on its own... Empty you....."The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe." It's your way of ignoring evidence. You can do it with anything you don't want. We have 2 + 2 = 4 but if you don't like that, you throw it out that it may equal something else outside the universe. It's lame but lame is what you are. Then....we don't have an outside until there is something there to be outside of. As I showed, we don't have that something that can come about on its own. There can't be something there without a cause. Law of Causality - 'There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.' You just show how tiny your brain is over and over again. You want to ignore solid evidence and you have no way out of it. You have such an unsound mind, no amount of reasoning will change you, you want what you want despite the clear evidence and your lame excuses don't work.

@tgstudio85

11 ай бұрын

@@2fast2block Wow you are such loser;) You copy paste crap since like 10y and you done nothing to convince even one person;)

@2fast2block

11 ай бұрын

@@tgstudio85 wow, even more science from you that somehow got around the laws..."Wow you are such loser;) You copy paste crap since like 10y and you done nothing to convince even one person;)" Well, that didn't beat....The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

@mcmanustony

10 ай бұрын

@@2fast2block "you ignore science as RD does"- that's New College Fellow, evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins MA, DSc, Dphil, FRS, FRSL author of the most influential book in the life sciences since Darwin......THAT guy? Why do you humiliate yourself posting this infantile tripe?

How is it Richard Dawkins treats as a matter of course that there is no intelligence in the Universe/existence, yet at the same time he takes if for granted that the cells of the human brain, by exchanging information, do create intelligence? If so, then why should it be so difficult to assume that everything else in the universe (exchanging information) can also create an intelligence of some kind, even if such is beyond the understanding of Richard Dawkins, and all other human beings, to understand? By exerting his denial of the logical, Richard is, in a way, acknowledging that a probability is worthy of being denied? ‘Though it would be hard sell on the lecture circuit, so best not to have it asked by the Dorothea Dixers..

@damienschwass9354

Жыл бұрын

Because there’s no evidence for an intelligence on a universal scale. I don’t think it’s being taken as a “matter of course” that’s there no such thing, so much as he sees no convincing evidence that there is. Neither do I.

@wayneparkinson4558

Жыл бұрын

These professors are no different than anyone else its a form of protectionism hence to keep them relevant instead of being drowned out by the real truth

@davidbanner6230

Жыл бұрын

@@damienschwass9354 : It's according to where we think our reality resides, and the trigger forces we don't yet understand? After all our perception of our reality is in our consciousness so maybe there is no need for there to be anything outside of that perception?

'There is more evidence for devolution than for evolution' - Derek Prince (Philosophy teacher at University of Cambridge) 'There is not the creative impulse necessary to make me believe in macroevolution' John Lennox (Physics teacher at Oxford University)

@drsatan7554

Жыл бұрын

Nice argument from authority logical fallacies

@militaryandemergencyservic3286

Жыл бұрын

@@drsatan7554 I don;t argue with people - because I need my strength to fight Satan.

@donthesitatebegin9283

Жыл бұрын

@@militaryandemergencyservic3286 When you fight Satan don't forget to video it. You wouldn't want people to think you are delusional.

@septicwomb4394

Жыл бұрын

These aren’t even authorities lol. Why would you quote a philosopher and a physicist on biology?

@militaryandemergencyservic3286

Жыл бұрын

@@septicwomb4394 they are cleverer than most people - and you don't need intelligence to buy into the lie of macroevolution.

Evolution is a subset of the Creator intended plan we are just too incapable yet to know why…!? You are just keep on explaining it and how it works.

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

Evolution is a subset of the Blue Unicorn's intended plan......or substitute any imaginary personage for Blue Unicorn.

@BenjaminGoose

Жыл бұрын

Oh cool, how do you know this?

Dawkins seems to confuse asserting, assuming and explaining things with empirical science.

@j-sm4554

5 ай бұрын

One can only say so much in on single lecture. You need to take into consideration that what he is asseting is based on his entire life's scientific work, including many books where research, data and evidence-based information. He is not simply asserting arguments out of spontaneity...

@DavidLoveMore

5 ай бұрын

@@j-sm4554 I am making quite a strong claim. There is no experiment behind his explanations. He goes from hypothesis to fact skipping the science part where you attempt to verify your conjectures in a falsifiable way. Most of his books do not even attempt to provide evidence for what he is saying. Only his book The Greatest Show on Earth, even attempts to fill the void.

@DocReasonable

2 ай бұрын

What's the 'empirical science' behind supernatural creation, duncey?? @@DavidLoveMore

@DavidLoveMore

2 ай бұрын

@@DocReasonable The different families of animals have no common natural ancestor as can be seen through the genetics.

@Dr.Ian-Plect

Ай бұрын

@@DavidLoveMore "The different families of animals have no common natural ancestor as can be seen through the genetics" - explain how genetics demonstrates that

Good evening.. Only one question to Dr Richard Dawkins as he is expert in Biology: Dr Dawkins you know better than me the smallest genome in nature is bacterium called Carsonella ruddi have 159.662 'letters' base-pairs of DNA , so to arrange 159.662 'letters' by natural selection process how many billions years need ? Dr Dawkins you know very well even for smallest genome in nature IMPOSSIBLE assembled by natural selection..!! Please respect the our mind and science as you are expert in Biology. Thank you

@kadim6578

Жыл бұрын

@@SimSim-zf9if Please before to answer reflect of the meaning Genetic code (A C G T) for 159.662 'letters' to be arranged in sequence order by natural process

@speciesspeciate6429

Жыл бұрын

It's the same four nucleotide bases arranged in sequences due to chemical affinity with amino acids. It's not impossible, it's a directly observed fact.

@kadim6578

Жыл бұрын

@@speciesspeciate6429 I hope you know the meaning of software code of our programming in bit information: 0 1 In the genetic code of the DNA is 4 nucleotide. Let give practical example of sequence of nucleotide of dna of some bacteria (I will write the first 3 codon ) GTG CAT CTG ACT as you know every codon must be in that order to give instructions for building an organism. What is the probability only these 3 codon formed alone ? Now: The smallest genome in nature composte of 159.662 'letters' must be in perfect order to build an organism of life for the bacterium Again : What is the probability to arrange all the codon of total of 159.662 'letters ' forming alone by natural process?

@speciesspeciate6429

Жыл бұрын

DNA is not code in the sense of a computer program. You made a category error. It's not possible to calculate the odds of something happening with or without a God, it's only possible to calculate the odds of something happening. In this case we have a sample size and it is 1, so the odds are actually 1:1. You quoted some very bad work, by Fred Hoyle, that has already been disproved.

@jameswright...

Жыл бұрын

It's a good job no one in science is claiming dna just appeared then isn't it, you know being complex etc nonsense word salad! Dna comes from rna, how that comes is fairly well known. You'd do well to read research real science instead of relying on your pastor or anti science propaganda groups like answers in genisis.

Where are the evidence?

@poozer1986

Жыл бұрын

All you need to do, is look. The evidence is there

@vejeke

Жыл бұрын

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

@BenjaminGoose

Жыл бұрын

Look at the evolution article on Wikipedia.

@chickenfist1554

Жыл бұрын

Try Google.

Dawkins: Evolution is a fact. Reality: ... which remains unproven.

@Bless-the-Name

Жыл бұрын

The Cold Wind of Reality We have no direct evidence for the existence or non-existence of a God. There is, however, a mountain of indirect evidence - but indirect evidence, being subject to arbitration, allows one person to perceive the information differently to another (or even be dismissive of it). Therefore, there can only be the assertion of a "belief" that is built upon indirect evidence for or against the existence of a creator - so the demand for direct evidence is presumptuous fallacy. In short ... we are wasting our time trying to convince anyone of such a thing: especially when the scripture says we live by faith - and both atheists and theists have some semblance of faith. The question is: which faith is correct and how should it be embraced? Atheists have faith in science and mankind to self-govern - whereas theists have faith in the one who laid His life down to rule as a benevolent King. This means we need to take a pragmatic look at the options on the table if we are to move forward with efficacy toward effective resolution. The problem is: both atheists and theists are invested in their worldview - to a dogma of cognitive dissonance. Atheists claim religion has been the driving force behind the evil we see in the world - whereas the theist perceive sin is the driving force. They are both are correct - to a point - but neither are exemplifying their position when they start disparaging each other. To make matters worse - neither are aware the scripture does not sanction religion and neither are aware sin is delusion. The good news is: this can easily be broached if we break down the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: Tree = Source of information Knowledge of Good = Accurate info Knowledge of Evil = Inaccurate info Partake = Digest and believe Fruit = Ideas, beliefs etc Sin = Delusion (spiritual death) The scripture defines sin as missing the mark because it is the state of mind in which a person seeks to justify wicked behaviour; which then leads to the galvanising of hierarchy. The scripture even confirms this by highlighting the introduction of sin would cause the stronger to rule over the weaker when God said, "Your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you." The dictionary defines religion as: a belief in a superhuman controling power. However, that is merely the semblance of a faith - because religion is an institution that has established hierarchy, using doctrines, that serve the interest of those within the hierarchy (including government). This is how we know the scripture doesn't actually sanction religion. Indeed ... the New Testament testifies to the fact Y'shua (Jesus) took issue with those who create religion. ... so we can all agree - religion is bad. This means we only need to address the cause of delusion (sin) if we are to rectify the situation once and for all. This is where science can, and should, take centre stage to establish correct understanding of reality - and our place in it. Science is the process by which careful observation leads to the conclusion of analysis of information which, after formulating an idea into hypothesis or theory, is tested rigorously by experiment and peer review. This is to say: the scientific method includes the process of disproof to ensure falsifiable theories (beliefs) are not idiosyncratic. For this reason: a theory is considered a "provisional truth" because science is continually self-correcting in its pursuit of understanding as resources improve the quality of data that is assessed. This mechanism allows science to castigate the vulgar and exemplify the intellectual - but science has developed a weakness for asserting indirect evidence as direct evidence to propagate favourable theories that create a ceiling on progress. Science "should" use the scientific method to root out theories that are error: so it should never consider indirect evidence as direct evidence - because indirect evidence is subject to arbitration. Mutation, for example, is direct evidence for adaptation and, at the same time, indirect evidence for transition. This is because we have observed the genome to rearrange information and cause a living organism to look (slightly) different to its parents. This is direct evidence for adaptation - because slight change is observable. Science has never observed the genome to increase information and cause the living organism to become a different type. This is indirect evidence for transition - because drastic change is not observable. The moment science asserted mutation as direct evidence for transition - it became an idiosyncratic belief (delusion) for those who refuse to acknowledge the genome has never been observed to increase. Then the argument begins with atheists citing rock strata as evidence for millions of years (which they back-up with unreliable dating methods) - while the theists cite rock strata as evidence for rapid formation by a flood (which they back-up with hydrological sorting experiments). The point I'm making here is: we have come full circle - because indirect evidence is subject to arbitration. Somewhere within that circle is the Word of God offering a warning to avoid anything that causes delusion - and science, having the noble cause of rooting out delusion, has become the very thing that causes delusion. Perhaps I should conclude this article by offering a warning against embracing the delusional estate and encouraging everyone to embrace the eternal estate. ... but this article has already said enough for both atheist and theist to ponder. My Best Wishes 💖 To Everyone The Three Pillars lnkd.in/e8NKKpb Footnote: this article is dedicated to Richard Dawkins who coined the phrase "The Cold Wind Of Reality".

@uneducatedchristain2963

Жыл бұрын

ME; LAUGHING AS I LOOK AT A POODLE....... A POODLE THAT EVOLVED FROM A WOLF.

@uneducatedchristain2963

Жыл бұрын

@@Bless-the-Name "We have no direct evidence for the existence or non-existence of a God. " JUST LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAME FOR LEPRECHAUNS. FAIRY TALES ARE FUNNY THAT WAY. 🤣🤣😆😆🤣🤣 YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK AND PATHETIC.

Dawkins is dead wrong about the reproducibility of radiometric dating.

@BFizzi719

Жыл бұрын

No he is not. It is a staple dating method in science, and has been since 1905.

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

Nope, you are dead wrong about him being dead wrong.

@2fast2block

11 ай бұрын

@@ozowen5961 you and RD are plain slow-minded. He claims we got the universe from "literally nothing." Hey, show how that can be. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

@ozowen5961

11 ай бұрын

@@2fast2block "The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally." This fails in its basic premise. The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe. Explain how they apply outside our universe. Remember, you are talking about the conditions pre our universe. I await your usual insistence that you are right with no reason other than you cite laws of physics that we cannot insist will apply to this situation. "One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable." This is true. The physics also shows that we are in the very early stages of the universe. The state of total entropy is many, many trillions (a number that is frighteningly small for this situation) and energy will remain usable for trillions of years (again- a small number in this context) before it gets close to being at all unusable. "It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things." Scientists (not creationists) who are also believers follow the evidence. The evidence says we have no idea what preceded the Singularity. It also says that there is a huge expanse of time before energy achieves entropy. You have denied the first lot of evidence and misrepresented the second.

@2fast2block

11 ай бұрын

@@ozowen5961 "The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe." It's your way of ignoring evidence. You can do it with anything you don't want. We have 2 + 2 = 4 but if you don't like that, you throw it out that it may equal something else outside the universe. It's lame but lame is what you are. Then....we don't have an outside until there is something there to be outside of. As I showed, we don't have that something that can come about on its own. There can't be something there without a cause. Law of Causality - 'There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.' You just show how tiny your brain is over and over again. You want to ignore solid evidence and you have no way out of it. You have such an unsound mind, no amount of reasoning will change you, you want what you want despite the clear evidence and your lame excuses don't work.

P

So that is, the so called evidence for evolution?? Thank you Mr. Dawkins very much, for strengthen my faith 😂😂

@uneducatedchristain2963

Жыл бұрын

MARK 16:18 SAYS CHRISTIANS CAN DRINK POISON. AND YET EVERY CHRISTIAN HAS NO FAITH IN IT...... HOW ODD 🤒

@misterb6456

Жыл бұрын

Faith ? Because of fairy tales in religious books? what a source...

@succulentsfun

Жыл бұрын

@@misterb6456 Perhaps this is all you can see with a blinded mind, how pitiful

@misterb6456

Жыл бұрын

@@succulentsfun I see. You are seeing the truth because you read religious fairy tales. Wow. I guess the floating, invisible man in the sky is talking to you too, genius?

@succulentsfun

Жыл бұрын

@@misterb6456 That’s right, speaking of genius, who can beat a cousin of the banana 🍌🤣

😅Funny.

Takes a song and a dance to explain complex structures using random mutations and natural selection.

@roqsteady5290

Жыл бұрын

On the contrary, overly complex structures that are not fully optimised is precisely what can be expected from natural selection over billions of years. An all powerful designer with a clean slate would have done a lot better and we would hardly need to spend half our GDP on trying to remedy the many ways the human body can and does go wrong.

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

No song and dance. Just the passage of time.........a long long time!

@wayneparkinson4558

Жыл бұрын

Mutation is the key to evolution nothing stays the same really?

@roqsteady5290

Жыл бұрын

@@wayneparkinson4558 That is right - nothing stays the same because of random genetic drift, but natural selection keeps organisms from straying too far from forms that fit the particular environments an organism finds itself in.

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

@@wayneparkinson4558 You got it! Absolutely nothing stays the same. It just takes an awfully long time to change to something different, so if you are a young earth creationist, this is off limits to you.

18:14 "What we do not see in the fossil record... and this is the important point...we do not see a single fossil in the wrong place."... So we are not looking at the Cambrian explosion then? And ignoring the fact that this was a problem that Darwin knew about and thought might be filled in later. Still waiting for those Cambrian pre-cursors.

@Dr.Ian-Plect

Ай бұрын

Your ignorance shines through. Richard is talking about chronology, you are talking about discovery.

@DavidLoveMore

Ай бұрын

@@Dr.Ian-Plect The Cambrian explosion remains a problem for Darwin, whether Dawkins wants to consider it or not.

look a clown like me

The Evolution Delusion

@Dr.Ian-Plect

4 ай бұрын

substantiate your claim

@tryaluck

2 ай бұрын

It's ironic that you say that, when it's you that is delusional, or just plain stupid.

Three dimensions: Ideational; Energy or force; and the grossly physical. Evolution takes place in all of them and in their replication; the human form. Denying all except the physical, gross matter as origin is a bottom up rather than a top down of evolution. The correct, and rational, precession is devolution, evolution, involution: a circular progression. Evolution becomes linear on the ground: the worms eye view. Its origin in space: the bird’s eye view. That space, the heavens, played no role in evolution is nineteenth century thinking.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." (II Peter 2:1-2)

@MajorPayne175

Жыл бұрын

Oh hey! I love this game, post meaningless BS and pretend it has magical powers. I raise you Numbers 31:17-18....... let's kill hoes and kidnap virgins....... will you join me? Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18 I can't wait to see what verse you respond with cause there's plenty more where that came from!

@chickenfist1554

Жыл бұрын

'The sun rose on the same tidy front gardens and lit up the brass number four on the Dursleys' front door; it crept into their living room, which was almost exactly the same as it had been on the night when Mr. Dursley had seen that fateful news report about the owls'. The Vanishing Glass 2:2

Can you explain in evolutionary terms why African Americans have light skinned hands and feet but not on their tops of feet and hands.

@spatrk6634

Жыл бұрын

The same difference is in whites, but is much less obvious. not sure why tho. maybe because you could generate more vitamin D when you expose your light skinned soles and palms to the sun? i dont know. but palms and soles of all people produce less melanin then rest of their skin i think its the same with other apes

@richardgregory3684

Жыл бұрын

Because the palms and soles of the feet have an additional, very strong, tough and wear-resistant layer of skin - they have five layers, rather than the four present elsewhere. It is there to protect the hands and feet from friction. This additional layer of skin also provides additional protection from the sun's ultraviolet because it is very dense, therefore these areas do not require such a high concentration of the dark pigment found elsewhere that acts as a protection built in sunscreen. Moreover, the soles and palms are generally not exposed to the sun as much as (say) the face. A very tanned person will generally have pale palms and soles, because these p[arts of the body are turned away from the sun.

@2mesense

Жыл бұрын

Doesn't explain in evolutionary terms. Darwin posited humans are exempt from natural selection. We choose for other reasons our partners.e.g. physical attraction. Where in your explanation do you account for the difference, by human selection; the differences in in soles and palms?

@richardgregory3684

Жыл бұрын

@@2mesense It explains perfectly. Humans did not need to evolve far skins on their hands and feet, because those areas were already protected from UV - when our ancestors had fur, they did not need dark skins - but they did need the additional protective layer on their hands and feet, largely to protect those parts from wear and friction. When humans lost their furb, they evolved dark skins against the sun: but not on their hands and feet, it wasn;t necessary. _Where in your explanation do you account for the difference, by human selection; the differences in in soles and palms_ What difference? Obviously because humans have been walking only on their feet for many generations, and only using their hands for tools and so on, for a similar time, palms and soles will diverge a bit. But in terms of why dark skinned people have pale palm and sole skin - the reason is the same. Protection by dark pigment was not required, so it did not evolve.

@spatrk6634

Жыл бұрын

@@2mesensegod must've created the difference in soles and palms. for no other reason but to confuse us

Isn't that nice? They've devoted a channel to the guy who said.... "A little pedophilia isn't bad." 🤢🤮 He said that publicly. There is no depth to the wickedness of the Atheist.

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

Careful there sunshine. The scandal of ongoing paedophilia in churches (not at all just the Catholic church) makes that particular assertion reflect badly on you as well. And please don't retreat to a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

@redfaux74

Жыл бұрын

@@ozowen5961 - But common sense will tell anyone, even an Atheist without it, that you don't HIDE pedophiles like the Catholic church did and does. Any church, no matter what is denomination, would not only BAN such an one but give them over to the authorities. Jesus said in several of the Gospels "Anyone who is brutal to children should be thrown into the depths of the ocean with a large stone tied around his neck". I guess that doesn't bode well for those who encourage pedophilia. I'm betting that's not his only wicked crime anyway. He's a very hateful and wicked man.

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

@@redfaux74 Well common sense fails. In my country we had a Royal Commission into institutional child abuse and discovered it to be covered up in many churches. The Salvation Army had a ring of pedophiles that auctioned children off for sexual abuse. No church escaped. A major Pentecostal church is dealing with cover ups od child abuse right now. So, if you trust common sense then you will not be right. Or, think about it differently, humans are fallible, sinful and often can be wicked indeed. Churches always have a power structure and pedophiles gravitate to power and control. They often live double lives and hide their tracks. Churches have always been great places to hide wickedness in. They allow for powerful control of members and abuse and scapegoating. Why would pedophiles not be in churches? And the culture of trusting leaders because they are Christian leaders is a trap. I for one am openly skeptical in my churches. And my ministers know I will challenge them and call BS. I refute the culture of subjection.

@redfaux74

Жыл бұрын

@@ozowen5961- Common sense never fails. I consider myself to be a skeptic. Trust must be earned. But keep in mind, the standard God gives of being brutal to a child (or sexual abuse, rape) is given the death penalty. Without exception. To say that sexual sin cannot be in any denomination goes completely against common sense. To my knowledge no other church has openly hid and moved their perverts like the Catholic church. We expose and punish them permanently. They should be jailed and prosecuted to full to extent of the law. No exception ever.

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

@@redfaux74 I just gave ypu a specific example of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse. The Salvation Army is a much admired protestant church, and they were certainly involved in covered up paedophile rings The same was found in all the major churches, so all you are doing is denial. That is not common sense.

Where did the propensity of peahens to favour peacocks with big tail feathers, & thus promote sexual selection for that, come from ? There is a good answer but I haven't heard it it yet.

@alanthompson8515

Жыл бұрын

Bigger tail feathers = greater energy cost to male, but = a more visible display = higher chance of mating = gene survival = job done* = positive feedback, (a hallmark of sexual selection via mate choice) leading to a runaway process where a courtship signal becomes more and more extreme. *without any intention, of course. Size of display has to be the key, else the smaller (but more active and/or more gaudy) immature males would get the girls.

@TimLondonGuitarist

Жыл бұрын

@@alanthompson8515 Ok so bigger tail feathers makes them more noticeable given existing peahen genes, no need for a mutation. If a mutation arose causing peahens to be repelled by excessive plumage then presumably that wouldn't be selected because size of display is such an important signal of longevity. Unless that is: an alternative, less-expensive, signal for longevity emerges, such as grey beard ?

@georgeelmerdenbrough6906

Жыл бұрын

Its an exercise in health . It takes a strong bird to waste so much enry gust on bling .

@TimLondonGuitarist

Жыл бұрын

@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 It takes a strong but very stupid bird

@Mcfreddo

Жыл бұрын

Dude, when you were 6 weeks in the womb, you have a milk line ridge where a whole lot of nipples were forming- it's called The mammalian milk line. You started to grow a tail. That bit of tissue in the corner of your eye is third eyelid tissue, just as dogs and cats have. Your vagus nerve branch that goes yo your voice box, doesn't directly go there from your brain, but instead loops down, under you aorta, then comes up. Design sucks eh? And that's just a few examples.

I dated a rock once. Well she might get as well have been.

sorry i didnt get ANY 'evidence' to proof positivly on 'evelution' . i wouldnt have aplauded, i would tro tomatos LOL

[324] Pete Conrad@ray salmon so you've established yourself that at least one historian thinks that. I don't, so what's the point of that comment? Comments on Richard Dawkins - The Evidence For Evolution- The Greatest Show On Earth 80 Ryan McDougald The Smithsonian lnstitution's Department of Anthropology has offered the following official statement pertaining to the historical reliability of the OT:.. the historical books of the OT are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work." Not only does archaeology confirm that the Bible is historically accurate but professional archaeologists use the Bible as a guide in their work. The great Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck, who is known to be one of the top three archaeologists in history, has stated the following: "No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single, properly understood Biblical statement."

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

Glueck died in 1971. Do you have anyone more recent? Or do you rely on older commentaries so as to avoid contradiction?

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

Let me help you. Camels were not in Israel at the times reported in the Bible. There was no global flood. Some of Glueck's own discoveries have been shown to not be as he thought. There is sod all evidence for the Exodus.

@raysalmon6566

Жыл бұрын

@@ozowen5961 ill bet you looked that up on Wikipedia ..

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

@@raysalmon6566 Nope. I was looking up something entirely different when I came across the description of Glueck's discovery of King Solomon's mines and how that was since shown to be wrong. It was, as I recall, in a Smithsonian article. It was quite praising of Gluek, but that doesn't mean he is always right.

@raysalmon6566

Жыл бұрын

@@ozowen5961 i have not read any to Glueck's work Francesca Stavrakopoulou* and W F Albright are my latest any Archeologist is going to have opinions that will later be verified or dismissed most of this is due to inadequate study of known history of their inquiry there actually is more secular Archeologists going to biblical sites (minimumists) than there is church sponsored ones

Tue audacity to stand before those people and lie straight to their face.. Guy wouldn't last 5 minutes in a debate with Kent Hovind.

@yeeshuher9174

Жыл бұрын

That's because Kent Hovind doesn't debate, he just makes ridiculous claims and insults his opponent.

@doyouknoworjustbelieve6694

Жыл бұрын

Provide one evidence that man was created as an adult male directly from dust (sand / clay .. from the soil of the earth) then the female was created from this male’s side, and we humans descended from these two through incest. Also show us one example of a creatures just appear (are created) out of nowhere, or did God stop creating on the sixth day of creation? Then explain all the animals that went extinct and the animals that obviously evolved from them. Explain lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats. Explain Zibras, Horses and Donkeys Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc.

@BenjaminGoose

Жыл бұрын

"Tue audacity to stand before those people and lie straight to their face.. " You seem to be confusing an eminent scientist with a pastor.

@chickenfist1554

Жыл бұрын

Kent Hovind? 😂😂😂😂

@davidpersson250

Жыл бұрын

Kent hovind is a professionell apolegetic Who never will give up but I can give my personal testimony and that is that I have never had a personal relationship with jesus christ but instead with reality

Yahweh is just a myth.

@2fast2block

11 ай бұрын

No, the myth is you actually think. He believes we got the universe by "literally nothing" and you can't give evidence either for a natural creation. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

@eddyeldridge7427

9 ай бұрын

​@@2fast2block And what did god make the universe out of?

@2fast2block

9 ай бұрын

@@eddyeldridge7427 there was nothing to make it out of. Nothing in the natural realm existed then. That's why it had to be supernatural. I kind of mentioned that and showed that already.

@eddyeldridge7427

9 ай бұрын

@@2fast2block So thinking the universe came from nothing is silly. So we should believe what you believe: that the universe came from nothing because magic. Do you not see how silly that sounds? Now realize how much worse it is when science doesn't say the universe came from nothing. That's a lie theists came up with.

@2fast2block

9 ай бұрын

@@eddyeldridge7427 you believe it happened magically because you have NO evidence it could have happened that way. Your whole empty life is in hopes that magic did. Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."

Life did not start by Evolution , you need life first then you have something to mutate. A replicating self perpetuating system that mutates allows for diversity of a living thing. The origin of complexity has not been discovered yet. Where did bacteria come from?

@MrGreen-hx8lp

Жыл бұрын

Abiogenesis?

@alanthompson8515

Жыл бұрын

Oh dear. Talk about stating the obvious. Please take note of the following important facts re: how life started. 1. The theory of evolution provides the explanation of the observed scientific fact of evolution (i.e., that species change over time to become new species and that species alive today have shared ancestors in the past). Whether or not we have an explanation for how life first arose is irrelevant to the fact that evolution occurs and also to whether or not the theory of evolution is the best explanation for that fact. 2. The study of evolution in general (not just the theory of evolution) is only concerned with how life evolves and how it has evolved, regardless of where it first came from or how it got here. Whether that first life was the result of a slow chemical process with many precursors, whether it arrived here from some other planet on a space rock, or whether some sort of alien intelligence or deity poofed it into existence is irrelevant, since the explanation for that does not need to be known in order to study what happened after that point. 3. But there’s one other important point to consider, and that is that abiogenesis (literally “life from non-life”) is really not a theory or even a hypothesis. Instead, it’s a necessary conclusion from what we now know about the universe. After all, we now know that some 13.8 billion years ago our universe was in an incredibly hot and dense state that would have been completely impossible of sustaining any sort of life whatsoever. Matter as we now know it didn’t even exist until hundreds of thousands of years later. Therefore, regardless of how it happened or what was responsible, it has to be true that life originally arose out of non-life. BTW Even if you want to claim that God created man out of the dust of the Earth as it says in the Bible, that’s still an example of abiogenesis.

@MrGreen-hx8lp

Жыл бұрын

@@alanthompson8515 but the Bible says biblical stuff…

@alanthompson8515

Жыл бұрын

@@MrGreen-hx8lp ....biblically. So.it's gotta be true. :)

@davidb4165

Жыл бұрын

Abiogenesis is not yet solved. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are many hypothesis for how it happened, and you are welcome to give the credit to God if you want. I'm just happy you understand and believe evolution in a general sense and see its beauty. That's something we can agree on, God designed or not, evolution is amazing.

The greatest show on Earth: evidence of super-intelligent creation and a recent global flood

@vejeke

Жыл бұрын

Judgment Day Intelligent Design On Trial FULL (NOVA)

@chickenfist1554

Жыл бұрын

Nope.

@michaelanderson7715

Жыл бұрын

What is the " evidence of super-intelligent creation"?

@jonatasmachado7217

Жыл бұрын

DNA's genetic and epigenetic codes

@vejeke

Жыл бұрын

@@jonatasmachado7217 The same DNA code that shows we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? Just search for "Endogenous retroviruses".