Dr. Richard Dawkins with Dr. Michael Shermer-The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

[@jonjosenna5581]

This is Dawkins at his best, just a great interview well worth listening too.

[@2fast2block]

His best is not even good. 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.

[@bobwilkinson2008]

@@2fast2block You cannot be so breathtakingly blinkered or is it blind in your reasoning. Have you actually watched this clip? When there is no evidence for any gods, you deny science in favour of "faith" (= belief when there's no proof).

[@2fast2block]

@@bobwilkinson2008 I need to inform your doofus tiny brain that you gave nothing to prove me wrong as you are so afraid of it you totally ignored it. It's what ALL you nitwits do in your empty lives going nowhere but doom.

[@woody7652]

The greatest guest on Earth. Richard Dawkins!

[@TBOTSS]

@Woody They should have invited WLC. Dawkins would have ran away.

[@woody7652]

@@TBOTSS WLC has been put in his place many times, and his kalam argument is bankrupt.

[@WayneLynch69]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rnqrfqF6Z6t3m7s THIS is the GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH!! Venter, Hartwell AND Altman, Nobel laureates/Medal of Freedom ALL use the word "IMPOSSIBLE" that humans will EVER know life's origin. Dawkins sits MUTE/DEAF/MORONIC as his CREDAL belief is traduced. WTF!? Still...better than his first paragraph of Chapter 4 of the "TGD". He demeans Fred Hoyle for failing to recognize natural selection in his "hurricane in a junkyard" metaphor. HOLY F!! Natural selection NEVER APPLIES to non-life. THEN he disallows "God" on the basis of "infinite regress". "IG" is THE 1ST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!! It applies ONLY to the natural. NOT Dawkins SELF-DEFINED "SUPER-NATURAL" GOD....

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

Yes, your "god who worships Satan Dawkins-The Devil Delusion truerevival.yolasite.com/dawkins---the-devil-delusion.php

[@2fast2block]

The greatest guess. 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.

[@jerklecirque138]

I've been enjoying listening to (sometimes for the second time) these old talks. Thanks for the great content.

[@2fast2block]

Great liars. 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.

[@berryvwjnr6481]

Love both Dawkins and Shermer, learn from them, subscribed, thanks 👍🏽

[@2fast2block]

You're then as empty as they are. 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.

[@bobanrajowic]

I wonder why this channel has such great guests, but so few views. It deserves more.

[@BikingVikingHH]

Because it’s controlled opposition cat food, if you think this is groundbreaking conversation you probably think NPR is unbiased 😂

[@DrTWG]

@@BikingVikingHH He he ! Assumptions , strawman , laughs at own [non-existent] wit , vacuous metaphor . Full fucking house !

[@chaccaron4321]

Because it's no longer 2005 lol. Aatheism' is completely irrelevant in 2020. This is why you don't see guys like Sam Harris going on about shit like this anymore.

[@patrickcompton1483]

I always think this

[@pseudonayme7717]

Because 90+% of people still believe in the nonsense they were taught as children and are not interested in learning new things.

[@MrLuridan]

Nice! Two of my favourites!

[@2fast2block]

Both empty. Wow. 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.

[@sydneymorey6059]

Richard Dawkins, a man worth believing in, once you have found him never let him go. Cheers SBM.

[@2fast2block]

Only dolts like you hold on to him. 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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/

[@alaskavaper966]

No matter how many times iv'e watched this, it is never tiring.

[@2fast2block]

Because you're a doofus like them. 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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/

[@user-yh7cl9kj8k]

Why only 53 thousand views? Should be 53 million❤❤

[@charlesrock2746]

Thank you both for your amazing contributions to humankind's knowledge of the evolutionary process and for providing us with the beauty of the Scientific Method and the Skeptics Mind! The negative comments here are the usual ignorant rants of the hypocritical religious Trolls!

[@2fast2block]

You're as much of a joke as Richard is. 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.

[@darrenleelayton6052]

@@2fast2block lol

[@2fast2block]

@@darrenleelayton6052 you make a fantastic Dawkins follower because you are clueless and have nothing to prove me wrong.

[@2fast2block]

@Comtesse Commange "Perhaps" is not science. If your "perhaps" had science to back it up, then you'd support it with science that got around the science I gave.

[@2fast2block]

@Comtesse Commange yes, it is science. This is way beyond what your small brain can handle but for those that can think, laws of nature can prove if certain events happened naturally or not. If naturally lost by the evidence, then supernaturally won by default. To losers though, naturally wins no matter what.

[@patrickcompton1483]

at 51;10 they discuss emotion and empathy and how it is not darwinian, however examples of compassion are seen in many other species. I believe empathy is deeply seeded, inherent in any species with tribe forms.

[@fizzmoe9846]

You’re right, but what I think, specifically, he is talking about in that case is empathy and compassion being shown to anonymous, random individuals. This makes little sense in the Darwinian model. At least to the extent that we display these traits.

[@Gamerproinc]

Nature has beauty in chaos. Theology has chaos called beauty.

[@Owl350]

Richard Dawkins is the best !

[@stormbringer_7774]

Dawkins introduced me to reality🙌🇬🇧

[@2fast2block]

Shut up, you don't know reality any more than Dawkins. 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.

[@fizzmoe9846]

@@2fast2block who created god then? He can’t come from nothing anymore than anything else can.

[@2fast2block]

@@fizzmoe9846 You are a graduate of Loser University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you losers, that one STU--P1D question is your cure-all. So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.

[@fizzmoe9846]

@@2fast2block the question who created god does not imply any sort of natural-supernatural relation. though, if you want to argue that, then it could easily be stated that there was a god that created god from their super supernatural realm. the question who created god is philosophical one which points to the massive hole in the argument that YOU presented, that being something can't come from nothing. therefore, if something cannot come from nothing, then there has to be an infinite number of gods creating gods in order to not run into the problem of, at some point, something coming from nothing. typical theist to result to insults rather than any coherent thought processes. the god you believe in only exists for you because your parents instilled it in your nubile, young mind very early on. were you to have been born elsewhere, you would have a different god to worship. in this way, you are just as much an atheist as i am, i just take it one god further :)

[@2fast2block]

@@fizzmoe9846 Me previously to nitwit you...So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.\ And this is how you addressed that... (blank) You're a dolt who can only shoot blanks.

[@agh0x01]

I smirked at Dawkin's closing comment "If you want to work on sexual selection, there's plenty of people 'doing it'."

[@naturalisted1714]

Looking forward to this!

[@eddiebaby22]

I remember, this is why I subscribed and clicked the bell icon, I adore Mr D!

[@BikingVikingHH]

Have you ever taken an IQ test Eddie?

[@eddiebaby22]

@@BikingVikingHH Have you ever taken the arsehole test, you'd pass with flying colours!

[@2fast2block]

You adore being empty then. 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.

[@eddiebaby22]

@@2fast2blockWell if you know it all why are you not on a stage explaining it.

[@2fast2block]

@@eddiebaby22 let me know when you're not such a scaredy-cat running from what I wrote.

[@mj-jo8es]

LOVE Richard Dawkins!!! :)

[@2fast2block]

You love being empty then. 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.

[@MrBallynally2]

I get a tad annoyed when a 'new' video is released which turns out to be an old one reloaded. It's such a cheap trick and should be made clear by the upload a priori. I know it's in the description b that only appears after you click on it..

[@dirtkeepsthefunk]

I def agree in cases in which the poster/uploader (intentionally) doesn't supply clear date-based info, and gives the false impression that the lecture, talk, etc. is hot of the presses. In this example, the talk is 10 years old, and it's important that we know that (this isn't slightly or remotely new, unless one is thinking in geographical or evolutionary time!). However, in spite of all this, it looks like the poster did in fact put when the talk took place in the first sentence of the description. Bottom line: Hopefully we can strive for basic-better clarity and transparency, and think of this as a youtube heuristic for win-win civic communication (if I trust what you upload and/or trust your description or title info, I'm more liable to subscribe, give you a thumbs up, and return to the channel or video). Hopefully, more people will outgrow much of the whole clickbait phenomenon, so we can have an increasingly better KZbin/web experience.

[@patriciaguida4687]

@@PartlySunny74 @

[@arcanuslosanara2823]

14:00 Dawkins clearly referred to Deepak Chopra.

[@mayflowerlash11]

I would like Dawkins to discuss post-truth philosophy and analyse how it has negatively impacted society and social systems. Along with post-modernism, relative truths, relative facts etc.

[@2fast2block]

Richard cares little about truth. 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.

[@robertmajewski4486]

I know it is what it is. Great Richards - but I met him 20 years ago and he was the first to show me that learning doesn't have to be boring. I like him very much and I respect him. I know his ad is getting pathetic, I know what you mean.

[@2fast2block]

You're a dolt who loves being one. 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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/

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it, great discussion

[@2fast2block]

They are just stooo-pid. 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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/

[@articcircleado]

Richard Dawkin's law of conservation of obscurity --- I'm using that now.

[@2fast2block]

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.

[@iainrae6159]

As the latest census will show, the majority of the UK population now have no religious belief, Richard and Michael have played no small part by encouraging critical thinking, rational enquiry and the wonders of the natural world, evolution and science.

[@2fast2block]

You need to stop lying that you dolts think much. 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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/

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

The political ideas, they became in to the ends , then religions ideas, became to the existence, by new knowledge, and new philosophy, helping them to became even more stronger, this incident happened more than 2000 years, before Moses! and come forward all the way until now!

[@willboudreau1187]

Ummm, special note the speaker who tries to link atheism with Nazism - I wouldn't want to be in your debating shoes up against Christopher Hitchens, because I've seen him intellectually slice through that argument faster than a lion's claw through a christian. Just sayin'.

[@willmpet]

Would they have killed Aristotle or run him out of town for being so irreligious if he described evolution? It was very dangerous in the past not to believe in god.

[@terry4137]

You have AOC

[@MrCharlieTurbo]

My brain just grew.

[@2fast2block]

...to more emptiness believing Dawkins. 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.

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

Dawkins on detaching yourself from irrational thinking "I think I wanna eat some human burger with fries on the side"

[@2fast2block]

As if that empty person is rational. 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.

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Politics itself is a part of science,

[@darrenleelayton6052]

I particularly liked the 666 times the caption informed me the speaker was Richard Dawkins.

[@zendan37]

The quality of life of the average human being was vastly improved when he became a member of a cooperating, interdependent group of specialists. Such a group needed rules to sustain it and its advantages. That is the source of morality. Click on "menu" in www.zendan14.co.uk and read the sections on Religions for more information.

[@2fast2block]

And what's funny is, you're serious. 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.

[@naftalibendavid]

Stilll riveting!

[@laszlonemet4425]

1:00:00 and a second(a. s. o.) to examine his (and the following's) 'surrounding'.

[@irvhh143]

The power of the church is in these four words: "It's not your fault."

[@AnjuAndKafei]

“DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to it’s music” -Richard Dawkins Translation: “It’s not your fault, free will does not exist, your brain produced chemicals that made you do it”

[@irvhh143]

Religion though employs the tools of evolution. All religions have rules against birth control. This is a key aspect of evolution. There must be an over-population if some members are removed. Also, factions are divided often by small or superficial differences, the cowboys in white hats vs. The cowboys in black hats.

[@irvhh143]

@@PartlySunny74 the most powerful tool on this planet: control of the unconscious mind.

[@haroonzia2214]

@@AnjuAndKafei That's what that means to you? Free will, you realize, is based on thought? Thought itself is a product of neural impulses and neuronal connections. Those neurons firing are doing so ultimately because of instructions from the DNA in the form of genes as well as the non-coding regions of DNA. So, yea, when he says we dance to the music of DNA, he's not wrong. Give me an example of something that has free will but doesn't have DNA? And if your answer is anything like God or other fictional characters, then it's not worth replying.

[@2fast2block]

@@AnjuAndKafei tell me how DNA just is. Tell me how the universe just is. Tell me how Dawkins cares. 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.

[@Samsgarden]

Evidence for causation. Who’d have thought?

[@2fast2block]

Richard cares little about evidence. 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.

[@grantlauzon5237]

So is “quite a bit” translate to “quite a quite” or “slightly more than slightly”

[@Evitable]

Mr. Deity!

[@grantlauzon5237]

1:01:35 I’m sure they have a rag for the alter boy.

[@hancooksaram2312]

8:21 quite interesting

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

evidences always shows the true

[@2fast2block]

Richard cares little about evidence. 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.

[@ruellerz]

@1:05:33 so good

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

The sex of humanity created, before all the animals, came to the lands from the seas, and if we noticed, even the trees, produce, mail and female, seeds, and creating new trees!

[@unitedspacepirates9075]

BTW, dark energy is an illusion caused by the gravitational distortion caused by the gravitational fields of distant galaxies. Gravity from distant galaxies has a redshift effect on the frequency of light they emit in the same way that gravity can bend the path of light from a light source behind the gravitational field. The same spacial distortion bending light paths, also distorts the frequency of light emitted from super heavy distant galaxies. Hence no cosmic acceleration, no dark energy causing acceleration, no un-accounted for dark matter, and certainly, no big bang. This universe is eternal, without beginning or ending. Cosmic background microwaves are but distant galaxies who's light has been gravitationally distorted beyond your visible spectrum. Galaxies continually exchange and recycle energy and birth new stars out of old dead ones forever and ever. How do you think light escapes super heavy distant galaxies with its frequency visually unaffected by spacial distortions? Someday sapien's decendents will travel to distant galaxies and discover the return trip doesn't take require extra travel time as no acceleration is actually occuring... That is unless your craft is destroyed by war mongering violent species, leaving you marooned on their backwards hillbilly planet where its custumary to torture food, species before consuming them.

[@willmpet]

I am a rebel, but is it because I’m a younger son?

[@Erich1224]

Volume too low.

[@a.randomjack6661]

The alGodrithm loves me, it recommend this video.

[@2fast2block]

Because you're empty too. 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.

[@thileepkumars]

the last question the way she asked was weird

[@LLlap]

Impossible to listen to because of the constant laughter that is inexplicably several levels louder than the man actually speaking.

[@jonathanveale119]

I suspect you don't like being laughed at.

[@KevinUchihaOG]

14:00 sounds like he is talking about Jordan Peterson lol

[@jamesbnorman1]

how so?

[@5driedgrams]

49:31 HAHAHAHA

[@robertmajewski4486]

so .. Richard not goin to heaven ?So how will it be? Richard won't go to heaven ?! I will not meet him in heaven? this is terrible !

[@robertmajewski4486]

So how will it be? Richard won't go to heaven ?! I will not meet him in heaven? this is terrible !my heroes - I am glad that she lives in the times in which these people live. I remember, it is dark in the room and I am already lying and I have the book God Delusion. I had such a small lamp. I covered myself with a blanket and read. Richard described the ancient times and how people lived very nicely. He wrote so until I saw these markets and these apartments like in Iraq and the Middle East. I know that I use a translator - I understand English, but I still can't write it correctly. Forgive me for that. I am 41 years old and I am still learning it, you will know how difficult Polish is - heh -

[@2fast2block]

Following Richard will get you nowhere. 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.

[@robertmajewski4486]

@@2fast2block please - may i wraiting polish and use transletior ?

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

ooh- must be distinguished wearing the phalic symbol of Rome (Babylon) who you bow down to. Thanks I wear tzitziot rather because I follow the commands of Yahuah.

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR SPECIATION ( A KIND CHANGING INTO ANOTHER KIND) AS DEFINED BY DARWIN .

[@jeffmilroy9345]

$130 million net worth?

[@planetdog1641]

Evolution is a waste of time and he should be working to better the planet.

[@bc5612]

All of you should watch Bishop Barron it will change your life and silence the ignorant rants of hypocritical Scientism (that was for the uninformed mr Rock). Charles challenge yourself and read Catholic Theology by Bishop Barron, it will change your life.

[@ThatisnotHair]

Dream scrutinize predict

[@soslothful]

Way too much inane introductory yapping. Jump to 7:00 for the promised discussion.

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

I am very Skeptical when a so-called scientist breaks the cardinal rule and makes a theory an absolute fact. This Dawkins does with the "THEORY" of EVOLUTION and there is NOTHING distinguishing about that in science. Isaac Newton would have thrown the book at him.

[@fizzmoe9846]

I think you have a misunderstanding of the word theory, and the evidence there is of evolution

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

Classic! Dawkins is the king of barnum and Bailey bs.! He is selling the oldest religion known to man. The lucky rabbits foot guide to the cosmos! He is like a Neanderthal witnessing a bic lighters flame and deducing it flopped into existence bu a random lightning strike to a muddy ditch...

[@brianpetkovic4579]

IM L THIS .TU

[@aviramvijh]

Christianity as a mild religion? Lol. Have you studied eastern religions. Or may be you don't consider them a religion because they don't pass the test of being bad enough.

[@2fast2block]

God is not a religion. God kicks nitwits' A$$ES. 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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/

[@laeequenadvi4746]

(4) Evolution Or Qur'nic Account of Creation? The difficulties of the Theory. This clearly asserts that Islam is positive about the existence of such creatures earlier to man who were inferior and weaker comparatively. And it proceeded from lowly and inferior to superior and strong, ultimately culminating in man, the super most. It was no evolutionary process but was a strategy of creation. It manifests in a unity in divine scheme for its creations. The evolutionist assertion is that each species on earth came from a single common ancestor. But, the observation of nature clearly does not reveal such a continuous pictures. What emerges from the living world is that life forms are strictly sepàrated in every distinct categories.Robert Carroll, an evolutionist authority admits this fact in his Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution: " Although an almost incoprehensible number of species inhabit Earth today, they do not form a continuouss spectrum of barely distinguishable intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognised as belonging to a relatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups, with very few illustrating intermediate structure or way of life.(10) According to theory of evolution, innumerable should have lived during the immense period of time when the transformations were supposedly occurring. Darwin accepted this fact and wrote the following in the chapter of The origin of Species entitled " Difficulties of the Theory": " ... Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradation, do we not every where see innumerable transitional forms ? Why is not all defined? But, as by this theory innumberable transitional forms must have existed, why do find they embedded in countless number in the crust of the earth? ... But in the intermediate region, having intermediate condition of life why do we not now find closely-linkig intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. (11) He asserted when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing link would be found. The Question of Transitional Forms and Stasis: Despite the best efforts, of evolutionary paleontologists, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on the earth all of a sudden and fully formed. Robert Corroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries. " Despite more than a hudred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darsin's, the fossil record still does not yield the picturd of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected . (14) Another evolutionary paleontologist, K.S.Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record: " When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new chracters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in marphology and fuction appear to raise very quickly. (15) The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and totally different structures, and remained exactly the same Over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvardv University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact in late 70s. The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis- most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears, all at once and " fully formed ". (16) Further research only strengthened the fact of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that : " Most species, during during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent directio". (17) The Adequacy of the Fossil Record Some 140 years ago Darwin put forward the following argument : " Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them". Is this argument is still valid today? In other words, considering the conclusions from the entire fossil record, should we accept that transitional forms never existedor we should wait for the results of new research? The wealth of existing fossil records will surely answer this question. When we look at the paleontological findings, we come across an abundance of fossils. Despite this, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations. Niles Eldredgo, the well-known paleontologist and curator of tha American Museum of National History, expresses as follows the invalidity of Darwin's claim that the insufficiency of the fossil record is the reason why no transitional forms have been found: The record jumps , and all the evidence shows that the record is real : The gaps we see reflects real events in life's history -- not the artifact of a poor fossil record. (18) REFERENCES: (12) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge university press, 1997, p.9 (13) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p.124,125. Continue: 14) Robert Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p.25 15) K.S.Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 98 (16) S.J.Gould, ' Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol.86, May 1977. 17) S.G.Gould, and Niles Eldredge, ' Punctuated Equilibbiria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidersd', Paleobiology, 3 (2), 1977, p. 115 18) N.Eldredge and 1. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Colubia University Press 1982, p. 59 Continue: DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADWI DIRECTOR Amena Institute of Islamic Studies and Analysis A Global and Universal Research Institute Kolkata [e-mail]

[@ogaplibang7803]

So what i should do ? Suck Muhammad dick or Allah's pussy ?

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

Darwin's theories have mathematical challenges probably more than rocket science does with mass and escape velocity.

[@maxwhite3981]

Mr. Diety, what an awkward man...

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Charles Darwin, From So Simple a Beginning, Norton, 2006 page 1482 [Darwin called the gospel of Jesus Christ a damnable doctrine] So Darwin didn’t like the idea of worshipping God that made heaven and earth; who also commanded us to love our neighbours as ourselves, in other words to serve one another in love according to the 10 commandments. Darwin utterly rejected Christianity, not because he saw any evidence in the natural world around him that made him remove himself from Christian doctrine. He never cited anything that could possibly prove evolution to be true, and what is profound and perplexing is that there is still no evidence in any field of science, but to the contrary much evidence against it! This is why many former evolutionists have become creationists: because they recognize current scientific evidence does not support the Big-Bang theory or Darwinian evolution. Following on from Darwin, evolutionists use imagination to recreate our past; a prehistoric history of which there is no record of the event; because present data indicates a brilliant design and order to the universe, which would indicate a designer; this has to been ignored, disregarded, suppressed and dispatched. These evolutionists have the same mind-set as Charles Darwin. In the book Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells, B.D. Dyer and R.A Obar admits to imagining history. They state: “Cell and molecular biologists must construct cellular worlds in their own imaginations. Imagination, to some degree, is essential for grasping key events in cellular history.” [FACTS] For those who have been dogmatically told that evolution is a fact by teachers and professors, this statement above, when coupled with paleontological imagination related to fossil descent should be very offensive. The audacity of the evolutionary scientific community; to claim that their guesses on human origins are Fact and unquestionable even though they are based on hypothetical origins reveals arrogance that has no boundaries. Reference: B.D Dryer and R.A. Obar, Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells, Columbia University Press, 1994 pp, 2-3 Pre-historic is a word that has been invented by evolutionists; in order to describe an imaginary history of which there is no record of the event. They placed dinosaurs in this imaginary history of the world. The early pioneers of evolution dug up the first dinosaur bones around 1800 and then later invented the pre-historic time by placing dinosaurs in that period of imaginary- millions of years. Remember all they have done is dug up a pile of bones and then built up a story around them. Evolutionists are really good at story telling. Sir Richard Owen “The Father of Paleontology” was a biblical creationist who was for ever at odds with Darwin and did not support his evolutionary views. He was the one that renamed dragons’ dinosaurs in 1840, which means great and terrible lizard! In the book Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells, B.D. Dyer and R.A Obar admits to imagining history. They state: “Cell and molecular biologists must construct cellular worlds in their own imaginations. Imagination, to some degree, is essential for grasping key events in cellular history.” [FACTS] For those who have been dogmatically told that evolution is a fact by teachers and professors, this statement above, when coupled with paleontological imagination related to fossil descent should be very offensive. The audacity of the evolutionary scientific community; to claim that their guesses on human origins are Fact and unquestionable even though they are based on hypothetical origins reveals arrogance that has no boundaries.

[@billscannell93]

Strident? By today's standards?! Nonsense. Only in the world of religion are you considered strident for just stating facts. Poor Dawkins; once someone acquires a label, undeserved or not, boy does it stick.

[@richardhedd3080]

Me thinks there’s a troll about. A real god lover.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

If there is evolution at the elemental; (physical level) so what? Does that explain consciousness (the hard problem) and mind (does it emerge with quantum events) and magnetism (what exactly is it). Stop beating a dead horse and move on to something else. We may soon be faced with trans humanism (humans embedded with technology) and a host of other things. If the origin of life (other than physical life (and even that is uncertain as the cell is very complex) is unknown, discuss something new that will move the conversation forward. We have had evolution up to our eyeballs, it is past time to change the conversation.

[@mikebuchanan3018]

One of the greatest, fools on earth.

[@laeequenadvi4746]

ISLAM IS FOR ALL HUMANITY Almighty Allah says: و ما ارسلناک إلا رحمة للعالمين We sent thee not,but as a mercy for the all worlds.(for all creatures). There is no question now of race or nation of a " chosen people" or the seed of Abraham or the " seed of David"; of Jew or Gentile, Arab or non--Arab, European or African, White or Coloured etc. Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is mercy for all. To all men and women on the world without any exception. The principles universally apply. LO ! RELIGION WITH ALLAH IS ISLAM إن الدين عند الله الإسلام و من يبتغ غير الإسلام دينا فلن يقبل منه o Islam is دين الله (Way of Life given by Allah). How mankind should live in this world. It is not made by Muslim. It direct or has it's root in Qur'an and authentic حدیث (sayings of Prophet) Therefore Islamic laws are in broader intersts of all being. Islamic laws are better than any other man made laws of any country. Problem of Europe is that it does not understand / realise this fact. They think that theirs laws are better than Islamic laws. Almighty Allah says : The revelation of the Book is from Allah,the Mighty, the Wise. Lo! We have revealed the Book unto them (Mohammad) with truth; so worship Allah,making the دين (Deen) pure for Him (only). Surely pure Deen is for Allah only (Qur'an,39:1-3) Kindly make your mind clear that the the mankind is created by Almighty Allah -- the Master Creator. We have to study and research the Holy Qur'an sincerely. It is in broader interests of mankind. Follow Islam to make your life better in this world and in Hereafter. O Allah show us the right path of Islam. " The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go stray". (Qur'an, 1:7) DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI Ph.D. (Arabic Lit.) M.A. Arabic Lit.+Islamic Studies) Director Amena Institute of Islamic Studies & Analysis A Global & Universal Institute, Donate to developee this Institute SBI A/C30029616117 Kolkata,Park Circus Branch [e-mail] Thanks

[@learningisfun2108]

Your preaching is not welcome here. Go preach at your place of worship.

[@laeequenadvi4746]

@@learningisfun2108 It is better for you. Try to understand. Otherwise you may not enter the paradise.

[@learningisfun2108]

@@laeequenadvi4746 You don’t understand. You are deluded as there is no good reason to believe in your religion, or any religion. Until your god presents convincing evidence, I will not believe and I suggest the same for everyone. I don’t fear your hell any more than I fear the Christian god, or any other hell. Just fear monger inn by your religious teachers. Break free.

[@guydegroof9415]

Nonsense

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

What a load of rubbish Darwin doubted his own theory - it has been debunked you two dinosaurs must get back on Noah's ark and go back to the pre-flood era. Maybe you will learn something there.

[@ransakreject5221]

Nice talk. Learned a lot. But still, If this guys wrong.. gods gonna be pissed.

[@hannibalbarca8521]

Dr. Michael Sherman should be on SNL, he finds just about anything Dawkins says hilarious.

[@gerardoerese2034]

⁰⁰0⁰0⁰0⁰⁰0000⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰

[@bmoneybby]

Hahahaha good one

[@2fast2block]

@@PartlySunny74 yes, let your absurdity be aired. 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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/

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Evolution theory and especially common descent is a nice fairy tale 🧚

[@haroonzia2214]

Hmm, I find the Bible more entertaining in that regard. More magic, supernatural elements, miracles, wilder imagination - basically a lot more hocus pocus, you know? Yea.

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

@@haroonzia2214 And it is funny how scientists turn a fairy tale into science 🧪 we are supposed to have a nonexistent common ancestor with chimps just because that is what the scientists tell us. Wake up.

[@iainrae6159]

I am coming round to young earth creationism, the earth and instant creation perhaps around 8500 years BC, but come up with the problem of the massive evidence for evolution by natural selection from common ancestors, and the earth being formed around 5 billion years ago around the same time as our moon, planets and the sun Could you kindly help with any information that would support my 'young earth' belief, many thanks.

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

@@iainrae6159 And btw, natural selection does not explain the biological diversity we see in nature.

[@haroonzia2214]

@@evangelistkimpatrik Try out the science for yourself then. Read the scientific literature to see how they did the experiments and find the flaws in them if you can. Where does the Bible cite its sources about what was supposedly said and done? Also, the idea of a nonexistent ancestor isn't as outrageous when you actually compare the DNA and consider the extent of millions of years. What you're probably expecting is changes over some hundreds of years, and so no wonder, you can't grasp the concept. Further, there's evidence from fossil records and embryological studies. But of course you'd never bother to read through those, because knowledge that goes against your brainwashed thinking is too scary.

[@pearlyq3560]

BOO! Fairy tale evolution THEORY -- even the best and brightest scientists on the planet know this is garbage. This belief is the cause of racism!

[@bobanrajowic]

😂

[@cpsaleemyt]

It was God who first taught "racism" to his "chosen people" !

[@tompaine4044]

Folks, I highly recommend you examine the claims being made. Before we discuss whether those claims are true or false, we need to discuss why we care. Let me elaborate: The first claim is "the best and brightest scientists on the planet know [evolution] is garbage." The question to raise here is if the person making the claim determined "the best and brightest scientists on the planet" do, in fact, accept biological evolution, would that increase your interlocutor's confidence that evolution is true? If not, then why should the claim decrease our confidence in evolution being true? The final claim is that evolution "is the cause of racism." Notice that's not a topic presented for discussion, it's a claimed reason to believe evolution is not true. The question to ask in this case is if your interlocutor would increase their confidence in evolution being true if they determined evolution is not a cause of racism. While it can be fun to argue about these things, it's good to keep focus on _why_ we are arguing and whether there is any ground to gain by participating in the argument.

[@tompaine4044]

@Theraphim Hebraeorum I'll be around in case you decide in the future that you'd like to proffer an argument based on something other than denigration. Who knows? That might even entice some people to consider taking you seriously. Cheers! 😘

[@tompaine4044]

@Theraphim Hebraeorum Ah, my mistake. At first it appeared you might actually be interested in changing minds or helping people escape the fetters of religion. I now understand from you that your comments are about self-satisfaction, not based on empathy or common humanity. Personally, I'd consider that a major red flag that I need to evaluate my life choices, but to each their own, I suppose 😘

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR SPECIATION ( A KIND CHANGING INTO ANOTHER KIND) AS DEFINED BY DARWIN .

[@johnnycharisma162]

It takes place gradually over many thousands of generations.

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

​@@johnnycharisma162 no such thing. Dogs are still dogs , cats are cats , dragon flies are STILL dragon flies, even those your friends call millions of years old ( but really +- 6000 years ). You do know what a species is, right? We are not talking about hybrids, eg breeds of dogs but species. The bible speaks of kinds (species) which went into the ark . Still the same today.

[@johnnycharisma162]

@@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2 you’ve been duped. Citing the bible as proof is like citing Harry Potter. Clearly, the timescale of Evolution is beyond your capacity to comprehend.

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

@@johnnycharisma162 "the timescale of Evolution is beyond your capacity to comprehend." er, no the timescale your gurus submit for the dragon fly in amber is millions of years and it is still a dragonfly today as a species with no intermediate so perhaps you cannot comprehend English.

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

@@johnnycharisma162 I love the way my comments just get deleted. Shame on you! You have been duped If Darwin walked into a 21st bookshop he would probably say "Dawkins what are you doing still sitting in that tree? It was chopped down long ago. People are starting to notice. Go search in the thicket to create more "scientific theories." Dawkins again uses out-dated theories and terminology in his latest book “we find ourselves perched on one tiny twig in the midst of a blossoming and flourishing TREE OF LIFE and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random selection.” "But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as A TREE IS MISLEADING, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank". "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine." www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life These scientists have no evidence of a tree for Darwinian speciation but are trying to use a tangle thicket now to explain it but this is referring to interbreeding hybrids NOT SPECIATION EVEN ONCE AGAIN.

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

I am very Skeptical when a so-called scientist breaks the cardinal rule and makes a theory an absolute fact. This Dawkins does with the "THEORY" of EVOLUTION and there is NOTHING distinguishing about that in science. Isaac Newton would have thrown the book at him.

[@RayB1656]

....and Einstein threw Isaac Newton' book away !

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

@@RayB1656 Shame Ray how could Einstein throw away calculus and all the principles of physics that Einstein developed/explained?

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

@@RayB1656 you do know that Dawkins is not an atheist, right, but a self-confessed agnostic which means his absolutism in evolution could be rocked by the realisation that Yahuah the Creator does exist. If that happens will you blame him for your disbelief or will you blame yourself for not reading Yahuah's Word (Gen-Rev) and accepting his Son as Savior?

[@RayB1656]

@@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2 Newton lived mostly during the 17th century where gravity was described most between two objects / a few objects, which works quite fine, however, we know from Einstein' era that we lived in a curved space, a 4 dimensional space , where time plays also, a major role....where light is being curved ; science evolved and patience is required. And, the farthest and faintest objects in space are probably travelling faster than the speed of light .... With the current expansion, in 100 billions years, Space will certainly become a very, very lonely place ... naturally, not to worry, HomoSapien sapien will not be around !!

[@RayB1656]

@@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2 I have listened to Dawkins, in the past, for his animal and human evolution' explanation, on Earth... which are usually logical and if he doesn't know the answers , he is going to mention it. Evolution is complex and complicated. Certainly evolving as we speak ! Years of study are still needed. Same with Lawrence M. Krauss. Usually, with most, it is black or white ! You believe in his presentation or you do not ! It is a choice. Often it is Science against Faith ! No fun ! I wish there would be another approach/procedure which would benefit everyone.... a learning experience rather than a rival clash/conflict.

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR SPECIATION ( A KIND CHANGING INTO ANOTHER KIND) AS DEFINED BY DARWIN .

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR SPECIATION ( A KIND CHANGING INTO ANOTHER KIND) AS DEFINED BY DARWIN .

[@2fast2block]

You're right but they don't care, they love being absurd. 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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/

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR SPECIATION ( A KIND CHANGING INTO ANOTHER KIND) AS DEFINED BY DARWIN .

[@haroonzia2214]

Screaming it out loud multiple times won't help; reading a book will. Give it a try :)

[@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2]

@@haroonzia2214 Give a try finding evidence of speciation my friend. I read the bible and screaming out the truth of THAT book caused my atheist science teacher to become a believer.

[@2fast2block]

@Donk Fish ok, so to you the bible deceives. Tell me how you got past the first verse on creation. Richard sure couldn't. Then it gets worse for you empty people from there. 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.