Evolution Is Real, Creationism Is Stupid! Richard Dawkins & Matt Dillahunty

[@Pangburn]

Full discussion here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5CYmImka6ySZ7s

[@WayneLynch69]

Chapter 4 of The God Delusion begins with Dawkins attacking brilliant physicist/atheist Fred Hoyle's, "life occurring naturally on earth is as probable as a hurricane assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747 going through a junkyard". Dawkins patiently explains that Hoyle fails to appreciate the magnificence of "natural selection". NS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONVERTING INANIMATE OBJECTS TO LIFE...NOTHING!! The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes it evrywhere, always, forever. Dawkins adulteration of Darwin to conform to his religion is malpractice. "Numerous, successive, slight modification" doesn't apply to steel, glass, vinyl... I could literally go on & on regarding Dawkins idiocy; most notably "infinite regress". kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKjVi2Oifa2fjLM

[@italophile2011]

Hello Pangburn. It seems you have blocked my responses in the conversation, which were reasoned and factual. Please reconsider especially if your interests are scientific and educational.

[@WayneLynch69]

"Something so beautiful as life could come into being..." says Dawkins adulterating Darwin "The mystery of the beginning of all things(life) is insoluble" Charles Darwin "numerous, successive, slight modification(6th Chapter, "On the Origin...") could NEVER exist in this universe of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics amongst inanimacy...NEVER Dawkins is deluded which benfits him greatly in selling delusion...for the $10s of millions he's made kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKjVi2Oifa2fjLM

[@BristleHiffyn]

Evolution is stupid.Ezra 10 New International Version The People’s Confession of Sin 10 While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a large crowd of Israelites-men, women and children-gathered around him. They too wept bitterly. 2​@@italophile2011

[@Three-Chord-Trick]

Darwin admits in a footnote to the SECOND edition of "Origin" that Aristotle DID come up with the idea - Physicae Auscultationes, 2, 8, 2: 'Why should not nature work, not for the sake of something, not because it is better so, but just as the sky rains, not in order to make the corn grow, but of necessity? 'What is drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water and descend, the result of this being that the corn grows. 'Similarly if a man's crop is spoiled on the threshing-floor, the rain did not fall for the sake of this - in order that the crop might be spoiled - but that result just followed. 'Why then should it not be the same with the parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity - the front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for grinding down the food - since they did not arise for this end, but it was merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which we suppose that there is purpose? 'Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come to be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish.'

[@4dojo]

I went to a Christian school and I remember that my “science” textbook actually said that evolution isn’t true. It’s was literally a pseudoscience textbook and I have no idea why it was allowed to be used. My “science” teacher also taught all sorts of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. I didn’t even learn about evolution until I went to college.

[@tombriggs5348]

Same here. I was berated by a religious school teacher for independently reading about human evolution and bringing it up in class. Once in college studying biology I was astonished daily by what I was learning, especially regarding evolution.

[@4dojo]

tomsbiggs5248 You were very brave to do that. If you brought anything about evolution into my school you would have been sent to the principal’s office and probably suspended.

[@turkeyleg201]

Same. But what’s even crazier is now my son goes to public school and his text book says that men can be women. It seems that whoever is in charge will shape whatever narrative they want regardless of what is true. What’s more important is integrity and humanity on the part of the teacher, rather than whatever ideology that teacher holds.

[@NA-vz9ko]

@@turkeyleg201I mean, people who are identified as men at birth can later socially identify as women. There’s no reason to be so aggrieved about it.

[@joehorn1762]

​@@turkeyleg201you're a liar.

[@johnczerney7772]

If I was intelligently designed, I'd like to send that intelligence my medical bills.

[@marculatour6229]

I have often been told that God also created atheists. But why? Quite simply for confused souls, out of sympathy: God convinced people that he himself was uncreated. Atheists therefore have a divine quality. They are just as godless as God. God believes in nothing! Not even in the devil. Just like atheists.

[@colinfarrell33]

@@johnczerney7772 weak argument. Evolution explains that away.

[@slang1517]

@@colinfarrell33 I think you missed the point of that 'argument.'

[@les2997]

"Mutations are alterations to a DNA sequence. If one thinks of the information in DNA as a series of sentences, mutations are errors in spelling the words that make up those sentences." Errors do NOT create immune systems. Errors do NOT create error correction. Errors do NOT evolve Irreducibly Complex systems.

[@slang1517]

@@les2997 There's no such thing as irreducible complexity. Michael Behe just made that up. Mutations are not 'errors' in the sense you're using the word. There is no 'correct spelling' of DNA. Blue eyes are a mutation. That doesn't mean blue eyes are 'incorrect.' They aren't errors, they are changes. Changes can be beneficial.

[@dariolemos4583]

Some comebacks against the “you weren’t there” argument: 1- We “weren’t there” but our DNA was, and it tells the whole story of how we got to here (this one works best if you point at the creationists skin cells while talking) 2-most of us weren’t at the scene of crimes that were later solved using DNA sequencing tests.. 3- None of us “were there” when dinosaurs were around, yet the fossils prove they existed at a time when we didn’t 4- we “weren’t there” when thousands of asteroids hit the moon and Earth itself, yet we can see the craters 5- we “weren’t there” when stone tools were first made, yet we know at one point they started to be produced, 6- we “weren’t there’ when the continents separated from each other, yet we know for a fact it happened 7- we “weren’t there” when sapiens and Neanderthals mated, yet many of us carry their gene variants 8- (this one’s cheeky) You weren’t there when you were conceived, yet if you had doubts about who your parents are, a DNA test would reliably tell you who your mom did it with. Provided she’s your biological mom. You can thank science for not having to have witnessed that. Wink wink

[@adjehd7069]

You are admitting you weren't there

[@PoorCreationists]

​@@adjehd7069 You obviously don't have the foggiest idea what counts as evidence.

[@electricmanist]

Isn't it enlightening to learn that every action you make is not YOUR responsibility-- So that any crime you commit, is nothing more than the actions of you DNA ! Blame it on your DNA. Whoopee ! So Hitler, Stalin and thousands of others did what they did simply because of their DNA history. Well well! Maybe the game Monopoly should also replace its "get out jail free" card, and replace it with a DNA get out card !!

[@panchopuskas1]

Good post..... funny but informative.....

[@electricmanist]

@@panchopuskas1 Informative and a learning opportunity. One of many life presents us !

[@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj]

Dawkins is goated forever. One of the best advocates for Darwinism. His content on evolution is under appreciated, I feel like people focus more on his atheism advocacy but I actually much more have enjoyed his content on evolution. There’s a great 3 hour documentary he did called The Genius of Charles Darwin.

[@tabularasa0606]

Not since he went full transphobic.

[@AndySmith4501]

@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. Charles Darwin What a lovely fellow

[@Turgz]

Darwinism doesn't account for the existence, or beginning, of life as it depends on life to have existed in the first place for it to evolve.

[@italophile2011]

Dawkins is a man of faith in Evolution, telling of how he learned this faith from his father as a young boy, and he has never questioned this faith. He presents no evidence that evolution must be the means of our organized world, and claims that positing a creator is illogical, when it is actually logical from the processes we see at work in everyday life, without demonstrating that it is illogical. HIs arrogance from people telling him how great he is prevents him from looking at the logical problems of evolutionary theory posed significantly by the stability of the species and the most recent genetic research. And many more recent scientists are giving up on Darwinism because 150 years later the fossil record and genetics are demonstrating the stability and the discreteness and the sudden appearance of the species in the geological record.

[@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj]

@ 🤣 Please explain how a “creator” could design life if he doesn’t have a brain, sensory organs, arms, or fingers. Did he just say “let there be life” and it appeared? Superstitious nonsense.

[@ToddBurns-q2o]

The best way to rid the world of religion is through education and enlightenment

[@rl7012]

Atheism is a religion too.

[@scottanderson8099]

As in, through more religion

[@slang1517]

@@scottanderson8099 You think education and religion are synonyms?

[@Jake-mv7yo]

The way we get rid of religion is through a higher standard of living. As people feel more secure about their lives they are less likely to feel levels of stress that they need to turn to superstition to cope with. People don't need to be educated to not be religious they just need their life to not suck.

[@flashgordon6670]

The Laws of Cause and Effect, Self Evident Craftsmanship, Thermodynamics and all knowable Real Science = Intelligent Design. Wild Imagination, Nonsense, Smoke, Mirrors and Lies = Magic Evolution. There’s no gradation of the fossils, it’s all in your Monkey Brains. 🙈🧠 Come on over to the Standing For Truth channel for debates and Real Science presentations, if you’ve got what it takes? 🐥

[@musicauthority674]

Richard Dawkins is so brilliant, and Matt Diligunty his logic and knowledge. makes these two the perfect ones to explain this.

[@James-ll3jb]

Except they both fsil for lack if intellectual honesty. Or haven't you heard.

[@James-ll3jb]

😅😅😅

[@James-ll3jb]

In his book Dawkins lied in saying "All the ancient historians believed Jesus did not actually exist." None of them is recorded stating that.... Dillahunty has said that if God Himself demonstrated His own existence to him satisfying all the evidential criteria he, Dillahunty, would require to know God existed as a fact, he STILL wouldn't believe the existence of God true.... Neither of these men are honest!

[@musicauthority674]

@James-ll3jb Neither are you, quite typical a religious freak.

[@oliviawilliams6204]

Dawkins at this point is an old hack. I don’t know why we keep giving him a platform. He’s peddling science denials about trans people all the time. He’s cozying up with right wing grifters.

[@roscius6204]

The first and most important fact... Evolution is real regardless of Creationism. Anyone denying that fact should simply be excluded from any debate about Creation.

[@electricmanist]

Have you ever considered that evolution is part of Creation ?

[@garygasson9422]

​@@electricmanistCreation is everything, everywhere all at once in the space of 6 days. Some say god's time is variable, but right at the start of Genesis a day is clearly defined. There is no logical or rational process for that, only magic. Evolution is the very slow process of tiny changes over billions of years...if every aspect is not yet understood, it is a far more rational option.

[@roscius6204]

@@electricmanist I don't see it personally... but.. That would be your starting point... Now you need to make a case for creation that doesn't undermine reality.

[@electricmanist]

@@garygasson9422 If knowledge is infinite, (as it appears is the universe), how would you think evolution should be defined in Biblical terms? Hours, days, weeks, years, Millions of years ? Or perhaps beyond our understanding ? Crossing the T's or dotting the I's wont help.

[@OpinionFactChecker]

"Evolution is real regardless of Creationism"? Are you saying the two are coincidental-parallel, that both are fact?

[@user-um4di5qm8p]

"non-random survival of random variations" - evolution summed up beautifully.

[@electricmanist]

Have you forgotten /overlooked the enormous power within each and every atom of matter--- continually and intelligently in operation too ? All from nothing or nowhere ? Wow !! (So do you come from nowhere too ?)

[@rickmartin7596]

@@electricmanist "All from nothing" is not something said by anyone who actually understands the science. Please learn about a subject before trying to criticize it.

[@electricmanist]

@@rickmartin7596 Ah yes ! Science. You quote science as if that is the defining line between ignorance and understanding. Tell me, wasn't it the scientists who developed the special poisonous gas used by the Nazis to murder thousands in the concentration camps ? (gas chambers) Wasn't it the scientists who developed the atomic bombs which were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, killing and maiming tens of thousands ? (There are thousands of other examples) You really seem to view science through rose colored glasses and conveniently forget that science has enabled some to murder thousands of others ! So please don't quote science to me as if its something to be held up as an example that we might all follow. It has good and bad aspects-certainly - but most importantly, it is the users of scientific methods (inventions) who decide its purpose. People of all shapes and sizes ! And you expect me not to criticize science ? ! Ha ! You were joking of course ? Best not to sit on a high horse, -- the fall can be more dangerous !!

[@realityishardtodigest9128]

Yep, that's what these Evo Bs talk about all freaking Day

[@electricmanist]

@@realityishardtodigest9128 Go on to 'You Tube' then open up 'Near Death experiences. Learn something !

[@brianmonks8657]

Creationism could have been easily supported if the DNA of different species had been unrelated to the DNA of other species, if the sequences of genomes did not lead to an interconnected tree. The problem for creationists is that all the new evidence discovered since Darwin supports evolution, not creationism, but it would have if creationism was actually true.

Case in point; finding any animal with cell walls.

[@italophile2011]

Actually the white paper on the genetic analysis of 100,000 species that came out in 2018 shows that the species are distinct and do not have a common original source. This was the most comprehensive genetic study ever done.

[@tombriggs5348]

@@brianmonks8657 Yes, the central premise of evolution, descent with modification, makes a falsifiable prediction of what will be found in comparative genetics. It predicts that across diverse species the genome will display a hierarchical distribution of genes. This is how genetic distance to a common ancestor is measured between species. Were this not the case, evolution would be falsified. In thousands of tests it has never been falsified. Those who are untrained in the scientific method don’t realize the importance falsifiability in determining the validity of a claim. One must be able to clearly distinguish which circumstances would falsify your claim and which would not.

[@Midnight.Wisdom.]

​​​@@italophile2011You are blatantly lying.. The paper you are referring to spoke on the use of mtDNA to better define species.. It did not at any point conclude that these species are genetically unrelated.. Please stop spreading misinformation... For anyone interested, the paper is titled: "Why should mitochondria define species?"..

[@Captain101-x1o]

@@italophile2011 Poor interpretation, that is not what is shows at all.

[@MALEXI10]

The irony is that Evolution has created man's desire to believe in the supernatural 😂

[@Turgz]

Evolution cannot "create" anything as it relies on the thing evolving to have already existed in the first place. That's what the word means.

Except it didn't, there's nothing supernatural about change over time.

[@NA-vz9ko]

I assure you, the poisonous desire to believe in the supernatural has always burdened mankind. The theory of evolution has only made those who love belief in the supernatural angrier and louder.

[@Turgz]

@@NA-vz9ko Could you explain how evolution can account for the beginning of life when evolution is dependent on life already existing? Calling something that you misunderstand doesn't warrant you calling it poisonous. That's very disengenuous on your part sir.

[@popeyefreeze2541]

@@Turgz it can. It’s called abiogenesis. We’ve created living things from non living materials. Look up the Miller Urey experiment

[@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj]

23:42 🤣🤣 I’ve literally had people say things like this to me. Someone told me before that they don’t think I can explain the evolution of the spider-tailed horned viper, specifically how it’s tail mimics a spider. It’s like they think I’m supposed to be omniscient and know off the top of my head the exact explanation for every single feature of every species out of millions of species that exist on Earth. I CAN broadly explain off the top of my head most of the major evolutionary steps for most systems of the human body. But if you ask me the explanation for some random thing like that, I can’t give you a detailed explanation and that’s not because it couldn’t evolve, it’s just because it’s a random thing idk about. 🤣🤣🤣

[@James-ll3jb]

In his book Dawkins lied in saying "All the ancient historians believed Jesus did not actually exist." None of them is recorded stating that.... Dillahunty has said that if God Himself demonstrated His own existence to him satisfying all the evidential criteria he, Dillahunty, would require to know God existed as a fact, he STILL wouldn't believe the existence of God true.... Neither of these men are honest!

[@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj]

@ Which book? Dawkins has many books. And I doubt that Dawkins said that because I’ve seen an interview of him before where someone asked him if he thought Jesus existed and he said that he thought that Jesus probably did exist. And when did Matt say that because I think you’re probably misrepresenting whatever he said. And what’s tricky about that scenario of “God” appearing to us is that even if that happened, how would we know it’s God? Even if someone appeared to me and said they were God, they might be lying. And even if they demonstrated to me that they could do various miracles like walking on water and rising from the dead, that would only prove that they are capable of doing some things that an ordinary human couldn’t do, not that they are all powerful, capable of doing anything.

[@James-ll3jb]

@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj Truth hurts, diesn't it? Just ask these two! (1) Dawkins: Atheist Dawkins admits to LIE(S): kzbin.infoXHhW2uR6U7k? kzbin.info/www/bejne/o2aom3Rjf7OcjM0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4Hco6ONateoes0 --------------‐--------------- Dawkins' statement had the clear intention to deceive: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4Hco6ONateoes0 kzbin.infoWGwu_O7Nt1c? (Then he compounds his lie by sneakily saying "there was one or two" ancient historians who maintained Jesus never existed. There are in fact none.) ------------‐--‐----------‐--‐--‐---- Dawkins admits the universe as it is constructed is good evidence for God's existence: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWbbmJ9pprdgmdE ------------------------------------- Dawkins' disingenuousness kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKeqkGutoNybqJI (2) Dillahunty: "Evidence for the existence if God is not confirmation of the existence of God." (??lol!!): kzbin.infoiqEHxF5RGqg? Later: kzbin.infoYjv-wCHiGRU?si=zumuhfu0yB_nbFBs (Note how he dodges the clincher question at the end. But here he says he'd believe "on evidence with reasoned argument." But another time, above, he said he'd accept no evidence even if directly from God (!). He's intellectually disingenuous.

[@billwalton4571]

Oh yeah wise guy, then whats your explanation for a beaver knowing to build a dam without parenting?

[@James-ll3jb]

@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj (1) Dawkins: Atheist Dawkins admits to LIE(S): kzbin.infoXHhW2uR6U7k? kzbin.info/www/bejne/o2aom3Rjf7OcjM0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4Hco6ONateoes0 --------------‐--------------- Dawkins' statement had the clear intention to deceive: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4Hco6ONateoes0 kzbin.infoWGwu_O7Nt1c? (Then he compounds his lie by sneakily saying "there was one or two" ancient historians who maintained Jesus never existed. There are in fact none.) ------------‐--‐----------‐--‐--‐---- Dawkins admits the universe as it is constructed is good evidence for God's existence: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWbbmJ9pprdgmdE ------------------------------------- Dawkins' disingenuousness kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKeqkGutoNybqJI (2) Dillahunty: "Evidence for the existence if God is not confirmation of the existence of God." (??lol!!): kzbin.infoiqEHxF5RGqg? Later: kzbin.infoYjv-wCHiGRU?si=zumuhfu0yB_nbFBs (Note how he dodges the clincher question at the end. But here he says he'd believe "on evidence with reasoned argument." But another time, above, he said he'd accept no evidence even if directly from God (!). He's intellectually disingenuous.

[@jhljhl6964]

Creationism: A god who knowingly created a world of want and suffering and demanded an eternity of worship .

[@baselbob8012]

Exactly. One child born with Tay-Sachs who turns into a vegetative state in its first 3-5 years is enough to see if there is a god it is not worth admiring. The Epicurians nailed this around 300 BCE: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[@theriveroffaith852]

@@baselbob8012 Or perhaps God is willing and able, but refrains from seeking control over us?

@@theriveroffaith852 That is in no way an answer to the point brought up by @theriveroffaith852...

[@simonrae3048]

IndeedAnd how do the cockroaches feel. They have rights too

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

Or simply set up this mathmatically discernable universe and created tje highly complex coded information we find in life then let's his creations play out. Kinda like scientists and engineers do everyday. Did the,creator of the Steam engine wrench on all the trains that that,followed his initial invention. 😂😂😂

[@quincg1288]

Point made at 18:08 ish about fish walking, do we not swim? Dont know what is so amazing if you do not underestimate other species.

[@garygasson9422]

You can't breath in water, this fish can do both.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Evolution is a prolonged and detailed examination of living and dead organism resulting in a conclusion based on visible evidence. Creationism is an ancient story written by unknown members of a Hebrew tribe. There is no contest.

[@rl7012]

Evolution has scant evidence. No transitional fossils that haven't been debunked. No ability of life itself to generate brand new genetic information which is what is required for new body plans and species evolution. No evidence that life came from non life. What evidence does evolution have? Evolution is a just a fairy tale for atheists. Its a great story, but that is all it is, a story.

[@FishFlags1780]

Deism?

[@charlescossel7948]

@@FishFlags1780 Why?

[@electricmanist]

It would seem that your concept suggests that everything (repeat everything) came from nowhere. Even the entire universe, just happened to spring from nowhere. ! So the power within each and every atom (imaging how many there are in the entire universe) suddenly came/comes from nowhere ? Continually !! If you can think of a source (coming from nowhere remember !) and capable of creating and maintaining continually, remember, --please share your wisdom.

[@robinharwood5044]

@@electricmanist How do you get to that conclusion? Evolution is the process which le@ds to different species of organisms. How do you jump from that to the idea of the universe springing from nowhere?

[@pjj.1318]

What was the name on this video?

[@No2AI]

Unless ‘creationism’ is in fact the ‘simulation theory’ .

[@chiefsilverstacker1176]

A Canine is still a Canine…. They can all interbreed with each other. When people have an issue with Evolution it’s the different types of species that are similar but cannot breed, and why is that?

[@reuben8856]

@0:22 THEN WHY DO YOU SAY BACTERIA INSTEAD OF BACTERIUMS?

[@pizzaboy4463]

Yes, we speak English, which is derived from several languages, including Latin. With plurals, original and Anglicised forms are often acceptable. And Dawkins would never say the plural of ox is oxes not oxen, so he makes a stupid point here.

[@charlesseiderman29]

Evolution just makes more sense.

[@gsp3428]

to people avoiding God

[@charlesseiderman29]

@gsp3428 I believe in evolution, I also believe in God.

[@gsp3428]

@@charlesseiderman29 thats fine, I am pretty sure God exists and evolution is false. But to each there own.

[@rl7012]

@@charlesseiderman29 I used to be like you, I believed in both God and evolution. What changed my mind was studying science. Once I studied science for a few years it became more and more apparent that abiogenesis and evolution are a crock of bs.

[@counterculture10]

@@rl7012 A few years, eh? I can only quote Neil. "One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong".

[@track1949]

The continual evolution of SARS-Cov2 fails to teach enough people that evolution is real.

[@counterculture10]

Yep, or updates for antibiotics or pesticides.

[@ricksneed4171]

This is some seriously fabulous dialogue going on here. Much respect for the double DS, Dawkins and Dillahunty.

[@James-ll3jb]

DS=dishonest stooges😅. In his book Dawkins lied in saying "All the ancient historians believed Jesus did not actually exist." None of them is recorded stating that.... Dillahunty has said that if God Himself demonstrated His own existence to him satisfying all the evidential criteria he, Dillahunty, would require to know God existed as a fact, he STILL wouldn't believe the existence of God true.... Neither of these men are honest!

[@electricmanist]

Oh yes, just think no-one takes responsibility for anything. Imagine standing up in court before a judge and coming out with- " I'm not personally guilty of any crime M'Lord, my genes made me do it " !

[@kmonsense8716]

“Men who leave the beaten track are innovators, and those who blindly persist in it hamper scientific progress.” Claude Bernard in "An Introduction of the Study of Experimental Medicine."

[@annecurtis630]

I wish they would say that creationists are making museums for creationists. Making up lies basically

[@electricmanist]

So by all means, carry on believing/thinking that everything'/all that - is nothing more than something "Made Up". Just think--- you're not responsible for anything.

[@flashgordon6670]

The Laws of Cause and Effect, Self Evident Craftsmanship, Thermodynamics and all knowable Real Science = Intelligent Design. Wild Imagination, Nonsense, Smoke, Mirrors and Lies = Magic Evolution. There’s no gradation of the fossils, it’s all in your Monkey Brains. 🙈🧠 Come on over to the Standing For Truth channel for debates and Real Science presentations, if you’ve got what it takes? 🐥

[@realityishardtodigest9128]

Anyone who says, "Theyre so Brainwashed and they dont seem to understand Basic English...bla bla bla...." as Matt said here at 3:35~, is already a loser in my opinion. That person is ruthlessly arrogant.

[@LM-jz9vh]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei (Especially the first six paragraphs) *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Bible Contradiction **#134**. Which Ten Commandments?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@SuperJohnmusic]

Billy Carson oompah loompah stories..

[@johns1625]

Toilet noises? Is that you?

[@James-ll3jb]

BS😅

[@FarkasUhl]

Chill Son

[@James-ll3jb]

@FarkasUhl You need to understand why liars arouse contempt for human nature, boah!

[@deano888red]

Considering my postgrad degree in zoology… I figure I’m doing better than most including you. God could have created beings with free will. He could have also saw that they always chose to do the right thing. So a just God could have created a world in which we had free will AND also had no torture, murder, or cruelty. But he didn’t. Also, if God is all-knowing, he would know what we are going to do in the future. But if he knows this, then we do not actually have free will. You can’t have it both ways But let’s just say that free will is ‘good’ and compatible with an omniscient God. If so, I dare you to argue that free will is so good that it justifies all the evil in the world that results from it. As far as Eskimos? First, nobody calls them that anymore. Super racist actually. Second, if you actually read your 8th grade science text book, you’d maybe be able to grasp the concept of evolution and you might understand something about how certain phenotypes appear, are maintained and are influenced by environment. But… you don’t. That said…given how long it is taking for religious fanaticism and misunderstanding of the physical world to become extinct, maybe i’m wrong after all. Maybe ignorance has some adaptive advantage and if so, I’m sure you’ll be blessed with a looooong life good sir.

[@planetdog1641]

Darwin cautioned not to use his theory unless the fossil record showed EXTREMELY gradual changes.

No he fucking didn't...

[@italophile2011]

Exactly. And Darwin stated this was the hurdle the theory needed to overcome, that there must be a record of species gradually morphing into other species. The fossil record shows that species appeared at once and biology and genetics know that species are stable and cannot interbreed. Darwin was not doctrinaire unlike his successors. Who looked not for science but for ways to ridicule their opponents and for money for their endless experiments that lead nowhere.

[@Midnight.Wisdom.]

​​​@@italophile2011This is incorrect.. We have a vast catalog of ape species fossils showing an extremely gradual change to what is recognised as modern human.. Also, Darwin, at the time he formulated his theory, was unaware of genetics.. Which since has confirmed his theory as well in that all life on Earth share genetic markers.. Which is exactly what would be expected and predicted given the refined theory...

[@Captain101-x1o]

⁠@@italophile2011The fossil record shows no such thing, that’s blatant erroneous assertion. For starters the fossil record is not even 1 billionth complete! It’s a few minuscule snapshots of millions of years of life on earth. Darwin was just the father of the theory of evolution, thousands have studied and worked on this theory using observations, experiments and other peer reviewed scientific methods to create the current excellent understanding we have today. So Darwin’s cautions are irrelevant, he just sowed the seed, he didn’t set the rules, our knowledge of evolution is so much more advanced now.

[@slang1517]

@@italophile2011 What you just said is completely false. The fossil record is full of apparent transitional forms. We see horses gradually losing toes and gaining hooves. We see whales gradually losing their hind legs, and moving their nostrils up onto their backs. Biology and genetics have directly observed speciation occur multiple times. Evolution doesn't require different species to interbreed, it requires a single species to diverge into many. Which we have seen.

[@bk7278]

I’m open to the idea of a creator when there are mathematicians and scientists who say there’s just way too many factors that have to fall perfectly in place for life to exist you have to be open to the idea that something could’ve created it after all we can create life so perhaps life is self perpetuating on many different scales. The idea that we are unique is arrogant, and the fact that our cells have literal engines inside them and communication systems. We haven’t even begun to understand. How could we suggest that it’s random in anyway?

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

Piltdown man just shows how easy it is to fool the willing.

Yes, creationists wanting so bad to disprove anything will always fall for piltdown man because they are told to believe piltdown man was never debunked by the actual scientists they despise lol.

[@slang1517]

Piltdown man was debunked by 'evolutionists' because it was not consistent with evolution theory. So, no it doesn't show that at all.

[@garygasson9422]

It was debunked very soon afterwards by scientists, but by then the media and public had got on board. Scientists back then did not want to get involved with that circus, so the debunking of it didn't get the publicity.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

@@garygasson9422 It was on display as a link for decades

[@neuromancer845]

@@garygasson9422 I wouldn't think taking 41 years to debunk is "very soon afterwards".

[@alexgoslar4057]

Richard Dawkins, how do you amass the mental energy to provide an answer to utterly stupid questions.

[@electricmanist]

Merely by being equally stupid. Dawkins reality ends at the tip of his nose.

[@chiefsilverstacker1176]

Who made physical law? Answer that please. If you can’t then scrap the talk about no higher being.

[@brucealmberg]

The watchmaker argument is easily refuted. No "maker" is required. Physical laws, with a maker or without a maker, are identical either way. If there is a maker, who made the maker? Is it makers all the way down? Or maybe it's turtles. There's a huge mountain of evidence supporting natural physical laws occurring without a maker and zero evidence for a maker. This is a partial list of refutations, and the evidence supporting each one buries any argument for a maker, which is solely based on belief and faith without a shred of evidence.

[@Dan16673]

Nah

[@AncelP23]

Is there any observable evidence for Darwinian evolution of one species evolving to another type of species?

[@Manfred-ml1oq]

There is no god ,case closed

[@electricmanist]

So you came from nowhere, with absolutely no meaning for your existence whatsoever . How amazing !

[@Manfred-ml1oq]

@@electricmanist Show me god.,,you cant? What a suprise.there IS No god

[@Manfred-ml1oq]

@@electricmanist your reality ends with one book😘

[@royhuijsmans6117]

@@electricmanist Eh...you didn't pay attention. LOL.

[@electricmanist]

@@Manfred-ml1oq So (you think) there is no God.? So everything (all that is) came from nowhere in an imaginary universe. So let's forget the constant atomic energy within each and atom of matter, not only throughout the entire universe, but even within the cells of your own body. How clever,--you must really be a magician to produce everything (all that is) from nothing and from nowhere.

[@katherandefy]

There is one good thing for me in that religion and science say such different things. When I was looking at religion which I was steeped in, it never impressed me as right but full of holes and glaringly massive gaps in reason. The stores were interesting even fascinating but they never seemed true but disjointed and erroneous. Our world does not operate in such ways. People don’t act that. Etc. None of it made sense to me. All this led me to hold it at arms length. I merely waited and looked at it all with a side glance while reading people like Austen who was actually from Darwin’s country and lived in the same era. I found it hard to relate to the people in the Bible. The authors were a very odd bunch. And by the time I got to Darwin in college, it was very relatable. Somebody explaining in coherent terms the things I recognize and making sense. So of course now I’m not religious at all.

[@electricmanist]

OK so maybe you think that everything comes from nowhere with no meaning whatsoever . (But don't forget that concept also applies to you !) So maybe it's time to stop pulling various religions apart and look deeper into what we term 'reality' .

[@dottedrhino]

It baffles me how Dawkins refuses to see that chance does play a (big) role in evolution.

[@tombriggs5348]

Yes you are baffled. Educate yourself and that will go away.

[@chriswills9437]

See 8:16

Evolution acts on chemical reactions in our bodies and thus isn't chance but the outcome of physics...

[@Captain101-x1o]

I expect a lot of things baffle you!

[@adjehd7069]

Yes he is a con man?

[@XYisnotXX]

Hey Pagburn, who or what is Arden Harte?

[@N1tr063nFr05trhym3]

I'm very sad for some of the dipshit stances Dawkins decided to take in the last few years. It's like a scientific cautionary tale

[@slang1517]

Aw, you mean like 'men can't have periods?' What a dipshit stance.

[@N1tr063nFr05trhym3]

@slang1517 if that's your way of saying "refusing to read any scientific literature on the topic of sex and gender, refusing to debate it publicly, taking money from and being hosted by transphobes on television and KZbin where he just repeats conservative talking points without a shadow of an explanation (a thing unprecedented in his whole career) and repeatedly misrepresenting science in a weird Jackill/Hide character swap" than yes, as you say. Periods and whatnot

[@slang1517]

@@N1tr063nFr05trhym3 The distinction between sex and gender is not scientific. It's purely semantic. Until John money created the term gender identity in the 70s, it was universally accepted that your gender is determined by your sex. What conservative talking points does he repeat?

[@stevekap8]

Maybe you should write book and explain what you mean.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

Ahh. The old time of the gaps argument.

[@gsd086]

Their ARROGANCE is REAL and STUPID.

[@royhuijsmans6117]

No, it is about supporting knowledge/science based minds. The only truth -as far as we know at this moment-around, and we have PROVE to back it up. Religions are just fairytales to control people, by religious institutions, who gain power over people , without delivering any proof for the last 1000's of years! Instead a lot of opponents have been jailed, tortured, killed, also from other religions. We still allow your opinion, and yes sometimes we laugh about it, so that's arrogance, ok LOL.....Keep defending creationism as truth is just utterly stupid. And yes off course I laugh at it. * Atheists deny all religions, religious people deny all religions except their own.* And there are around 10,000 distinct religions in the world...Who is arrogant and stupid ?

[@Voidling-l7i]

Facts don't care if you like them or not

[@gsd086]

@Voidling-l7i Is that a fact ??

[@rl7012]

Why have some creatures not evolved at all and are still the same as they were when they first appeared in the fossil record whereas others have changed form several times already?

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Read The Selfish Gene or some other book on the subject, why would things endlessly evolve and change?

[@SuperJohnmusic]

Matt; my wife and I like to go to the aquarium “, Instead of saying ; “ my husband and I “.

[@frankwebster9110]

A lot of children trolling in the comments here

[@popeyefreeze2541]

I don’t get it

[@frankwebster9110]

@popeyefreeze2541 its the kids that get beat down on Matt's show or sit on hold for 45 minutes to say something racist and get banned.

[@popeyefreeze2541]

@@frankwebster9110 😂

[@stephenzaccardelli-thyself]

Social science selection

[@carogame]

what bothers me is Dawkins using the term darwinian evolution when Darwin taught racism and sexism. the sad thing is the evil that the theory has caused.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

2 guys who can't figure out that evolution is impossible. There might be enough brain power to light a dim bulb.

[@therealURBS]

It couldn’t be impossible since it happened and happens. Fossils and genetic evidence bear this out.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Genetics is not evidence for evolution. Genomic similarities between humans indicates relatedness between people because of the fact that genetic information is passed down from parents to offspring. However, genetic information is not being passed between species. Therefore there is no scientific reason for claiming that genomic similarities between species indicates relatedness between species. Fossils don't show evidence for evolution.

[@FahadAyaz]

We've literally seen in happen between species in lab conditions. We've literally caused it to happen through artifical selection or genetic engineering. What do you have to claim that it's impossible?

[@Turgz]

Evolution is very real but it has no creative possibility because evolution is dependent on the existence of life in the first place.

[@rhisadavid7325]

@@Turgzwhich is why Abiogenesis is a separate and highly specialised field in its own right. Evolution does not answer that question because it does not seek to explain why there is life- only how diversity and complexity arises from uniformity and/or simplicity. It does this both thoroughly and elegantly and is one of the most well evidenced mechanisms in all of science.

[@teemuntubetus]

29:30 The priests can’t have sex anymore. Dawkings: ”Not with the women anyway” 😆

[@gsp3428]

Kind of like Matt.

[@danmayberry1185]

2:42 .. unprepared for Dawkins' American impression

[@Arthur_The_Viking]

LOL whenever a Brit does an American impression he's always a cowboy lol

[@paulburger2963]

Dillahunty and Dawkins will bow

[@popeyefreeze2541]

Bow to who? 😂

[@popeyefreeze2541]

You’re just mad there’s zero evidence for a god let alone the specific god you believe in 😂

[@Amanita._.Verosa._.]

Now to which Godd? You can't say the only or true, as there's thousands of other reIigious people as convinced as you are that they like you are correct.

[@paulburger2963]

@@Amanita._.Verosa._. all the other prophets are dead and in their graves but the tomb of Jesus is empty . There has been no mistake

[@sujoyteslesl]

Being threatened into bowing to a supposedly all-loving God. Sounds like, "You will love me or else." It's weird to support such a fascistic idea.

[@paradigmbuster]

There is no way descent with modification can generate the same artifacts as an intellectually designed life form. If you experimented for eternity you would never get there.

[@counterculture10]

AI says you're wrong: Descent with modification and an intellectually designed life form are fundamentally different processes, but they can produce similar artifacts in certain contexts, especially when considering complex organisms. Here’s a breakdown: Descent with Modification: This process refers to the way species evolve over generations through natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. Over time, small changes accumulate, resulting in new traits, functions, or even entirely new species. This process does not involve conscious intent but is driven by environmental pressures and the survival and reproduction of organisms. Evolution often leads to highly adaptive, intricate structures and behaviors that can appear as if they were designed, though they emerge through the interaction of genetic variation and natural selection. Intellectual Design: In contrast, an intellectually designed life form implies conscious, intentional creation by a designer with specific goals in mind, like creating an organism to perform certain functions. This can involve applying knowledge of biology, engineering, and other sciences to deliberately shape the characteristics of the organism. Can Descent with Modification Generate Similar Artifacts? Yes, descent with modification can result in structures or behaviors that resemble those of an intellectually designed life form in certain ways. For example: Optimized Structures: Through evolution, life forms can develop highly specialized features, such as wings for flight, eyes for vision, or fins for swimming. These can appear as though they were "designed" to serve specific functions, though they arose through natural processes. Complexity and Functionality: Over long periods of time, evolution can produce complex systems (e.g., the human eye, or the symbiotic relationships between species) that serve specific functions, similar to how an engineer might design a machine to fulfill a particular task. However, key differences exist: Purpose and Intent: Intellectual design is guided by a clear purpose and deliberate planning, whereas evolution works without foresight or intentional direction, relying on randomness and survival. Constraints and Optimization: Evolution is constrained by the genetic variability available in a population and by the environment, leading to compromises in design (e.g., vestigial structures). An intelligently designed life form might not have such constraints and could be made to be more "ideal" for a given purpose. In summary, while both processes can result in similarly complex and functional life forms, the key distinction lies in the intentionality behind intellectual design versus the natural, undirected mechanisms of evolution.

[@chiefsilverstacker1176]

He looks exactly like someone that would believe in macro evolution

[@stevekap8]

The two men look quite different…. so…..

[@totalfreedom45]

_There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works._ -Stephen Hawking *_1_* The three greatest scientific theories so far, passing *_all experimental tests_* with flying colors, are evolution, special/general relativity, and quantum mechanics; we venture beyond them at our own peril. *_2_* Abiogenesis, the foremost scientific hypothesis today, proposes that the transition from nonliving to living things was an evolutionary process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet. *_3_* Evidence from chemistry, geology, and biology helps explain how RNA emerged, leading to the first life, soon after Earth formed: 4.568 bya, solar system forms; 4.53 bya, Earth forms; 4.51 bya, Moon forms; 4.47 bya, impact of planetesimal forms reducing atmosphere; 4.46 bya, Earth cools enough to form land and water; 4.35 bya, beginning of RNA; 2.7 bya, beginning of earliest eukaryotes. 💕☮🌎🌌

[@gsp3428]

Dawkins seems like he will be meeting God very soon.

[@maxqueue5211]

life is created all the time at hydrothermal vents it is not difficult or rare

[@rl7012]

Lol... You have no idea how ridiculous your comment is.

[@maxqueue5211]

@@rl7012 my comment is still true and evelution is still going on

[@maxqueue5211]

@@rl7012 my comment is true

[@rl7012]

@@maxqueue5211 No it is total lies and it shows your shocking ignorance of how complex and sequence specific even the simplest cell is. Only someone totally ignorant of basic biology could write an ignorant comment like yours.

[@rl7012]

@@maxqueue5211 Nope, you can't prove it. You are shockingly ignorant and brainwashed and deluded.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

:-( This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now. P

[@slang1517]

A shadow is the opposite color of the object that made it? What?

[@robertmcclintock8701]

@slang1517 that how pigments work. You can't just use black to make a shadow. The first artist to master white on white was Norman Rockwell.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

@slang1517 pigments have different rules than light. The first artist to figure it out and master white on white was Norman Rockwell.

[@joelsterling3735]

A serious question: if it's these small events like monkeys discovering tools or fire and such, that sparked the evolution of man.... Why can't we put a set of Craftsman tools, a spark igniter, and perhaps some magic mushrooms in the middle of the jungle, and kickstart another human race?

[@danmayberry1185]

Cavemen skeletons were discovered not long ago, which led to insights about their habits. Brain matter doesn't fossilize, and the temporal lobe was developed enough to almost guarantee language. Animal teeth were carefully drilled to suggest ornamentation such as necklaces. I'm sure psilocybin or other 'shrooms or magic berries existed then. To populate a remote area with feral children, tools - maybe some antibiotics and mosquito repellent - yes, they might do very well.

[@djsUltra]

Dawkins is one of the most eloquent people on the planet.

[@klaxoncow]

Indeed, Darwin's approach to explaining natural selection is so beautifully done - I guess he had 20 years to think it over before he published - that I have no idea why this isn't, in fact, the way natural selection is always taught. As Dawkins captures, Darwin first talks about dog breeding, pigeon fancying, the domestication of plants and so forth. Something understood by all. That offspring inherit partly from their mother and partly from their father - "he has his father's eyes", "he has his mother's sense of humour". And dog breeders and pigeon fanciers exploit this by choosing the breeding pairs. Choose the largest-sized dogs and breed those, so their children inherit being large in size. Then do this again, and again. And you can guide - "intelligently design", dare I say - the process to breed all the diverse range of dog breeds there are. Like, none of that is complicated nor controversial, and understood by everyone. And, really, all Darwin does - the little twist in the narrative - is kick away the stool. Okay, but if there were no dog breeder to choose the breeding pairs, then what happens? Well, the dogs choose their own partners. They breed themselves. And the female dog might prefer to choose - sexual selection - a large, strong and aggressive partner, as that's the kind of dog that can protect her and their offspring. Her choice of partner, by whatever criteria dogs find sexually attractive, takes over the dog breeder's role. You don't need the dog breeder to choose the breeding pairs. The dogs will choose their own pairings and breed. Naturally, of their own accord. And, really, that's it. Simple. Obvious. Not an inch of controversy in any of the statements. If you can understand that children inherit from their parents, and how you can exploit this in dog breeding or pigeon fancying or domesticating bananas, then that's all you need. Darwin paints that picture and then kicks away the stool - what does this same situation look like without the dog breeder? Let's take them away. Well, the dogs still breed. They still have children. All the mechanisms are still there. All we're losing is the guided choice of breeding pairs - but, left to their own devices, these animals will choose their own pairs. Or, with plants, they'll throw their seed on the wind and let chance decide. Or tempt a bee with nectar to deliver the pollen to another flower for them. When I read this in Origin of Species, I felt Darwin had nailed it. He'd found the perfect way to clearly explain natural selection to pretty much anyone, in the most obvious and simple way imaginable. But, for some odd reason, schools and academics have ignored this perfect good example from Darwin himself and teach it in all sorts of complicated ways that open the door to debate and controversy. I've never understood why.

[@japallo1]

Again, a reminder of the name of Charles Darwin’s book: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

[@Chriscrash1985]

There's adaptation but nothing even coming close to proving evolution

[@japallo1]

Reminding you of the name of one of Charles Darwin’s books: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

[@poleviatia5372]

Are these guys still around? I thought they were thrown out along with some of their Thiest counterparts.

[@RedFox0333]

So, if we use artificial selection extremely but don't make a new species - how can you hypothesize something that has failed to be validated with a test?.. sure, there are examples of plants because a single plant can make 100 seeds and those can be grown in a year's time - but animals tend to want to maintain their integrity by not interbreeding and maintain stability with socialization, so the wolf can still breed with dog - but why? the wolf typically stays with other wolves.

[@budd2nd]

Human beings have used artificial selection to produce numerous different brand-new species. The ancestor of cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, kale and broccoli was a common wild mustard plant. Those are defined a NEW species. Researchers have multiple lines of evidence including genetic and archaeological evidence showing this. These new species all have extra/new unique genetic information that is not shared with the others or with the ancestor. Therefore it is evidence of new genetic information causing speciation, what you call macro evolution.

[@draxthemsklonst]

Craig Venter has created a new species.

Species is purely a human concept - should the two strains continue to evolve until interbreeding is almost impossible, then we may well declare these to be different species. But the concept of species is merely a human classification

[@budd2nd]

Yes, I totally agree all descriptions of nature are completely human concepts. They are just a way to make it easier for us to describe what is going on within nature. But biologists have clearly defined these words. So using the biological definition of species we have breed many new species that are totally distinct (genetically) from their ancestral species.

[@imawake805]

Yeah basic science class teaches species as a fairly black and white thing. If I held up every generation you would be able to see the change over time but you wouldn't be able to point to one generation and say "ah that's a new species"

[@pjj.1318]

@4dojo No. I haven't been listening to, as you've said, "Answer in Genesis." I'm using terminology that can simply explain how genetic variety can change what you see in various situations. Macro-evolution cannot produce "life." For this belief to work, something has to be there to work. “Natural Selection:” You need something there to select from.

[@baddogma]

Ben Stein was the interviewer.

[@michaelloach9461]

Richard Dawkins is a highly intelligent Man who know s what he talks about! He does not do this for 'fame' or 'money'...The Man is a Teacher & when he knows the things that he teaches are the truth (& can be proven) then he will talk about them with passion! Mr Dawkins is also a very patient Man who will explain things in a basic way, He does not have many tours left (I think he told me 6 more after Cambridge) so go to one of his lectures.........

[@nathanvandermeer]

Great discussion

[@XYisnotXX]

"With me the horrid doubt always arises wheter the convictions of a mans mind which has been derived from the minds of the lower animals is of any value or at all trustworthy, would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkeys mind if there are any convictions in such a mind" Charles Darwin.

[@collinsanyanvoh7988]

We are not contending against flesh, but powerful rulers of the dark, who are a bit greater than earthlings. Why do you find it difficult to believe that humans are not the only intelligent beings in the universe? Dogs have a measure of intelligence, but because humans are far more intelligent, we can control them to our do our bidding; although they think we are partners. The key is to be humble and genuinely look for answers concerning any doubts you may have about religion.

[@theriveroffaith852]

When it comes to survival, our mindset changes. Perhaps this is key for discovering wether or not God is alive today?

[@sujoyteslesl]

Back in the days when everyone got along.

[@lacegemneye2839]

It is ripely’s aquarium though

[@frozentspark2105]

Just a big thanks to Pangurn. Great debates, well done and informative.

[@James-ll3jb]

In his book Dawkins lied in saying "All the ancient historians believed Jesus did not actually exist." None of them is recorded stating that.... Dillahunty has said that if God Himself demonstrated His own existence to him satisfying all the evidential criteria he, Dillahunty, would require to know God existed as a fact, he STILL wouldn't believe the existence of God true.... Neither of these men are honest!

[@frozentspark2105]

@James-ll3jb why don't you research Christianity origins before you talk. There is zero evidence of any kind for any Jesus or God's. None, zip, zero, nada. It's willfully ignorant on your part to say what you said. Read books, good luck

[@James-ll3jb]

@frozentspark2105 I have two advanced degrees and have published three books on these matters, yoyo. I doubt you can even read Greek lol! Dillahunty, meanwhile, brags about never having read an entire book his entire life. Dawkins is just a liar. I'd be curious to know what you think YOU know about "Christianity origins" [sic].

[@frozentspark2105]

@@James-ll3jb you don't know Jack about any of it. Your statement proves it. Christianity came from multiple mythologies, Egyptian, grecko-roman traditions by deifying emperor's, Hellenistic culture and pantheons just to name a small few. If you knew any of that (which you should since you're a self proclaimed "ScholaR") then you would know that what Dawkins and MD said are acceptable and accurate. That's your cue to see yourself out of this conversation

[@joehorn1762]

Nobody believes your obvious lies.​@@James-ll3jb

[@gsp3428]

Dawkins doesnt even know how bad a philosopher he is.

[@gsp3428]

How would a mindless process be able to create a wing, first you would have to know that air exists, because without air there would be no purpose to having wings, but evolution doesnt have knowledge of anything, then it would have to make these wings so perfect, have all the bones tendons ligaments and feathers perfectly formed to make it fly. Even with minds it took the Wright brothers years and years to make something that could fly, yet Dawkins believes this mindless process made it. It really is absurd when you think about it. But of course, atheists will do anything to get rid of God.

[@gybx4094]

It's fine to lambast literal religious creationism, but they should equally ridicule the Alien series "Prometheus" which has Biological Engineers who intelligently designed life on Earth. Just be consistent rather than prejudicial.

[@I_am_Mister_Y]

Yeah, well, I saw that movie in theater and I hated it for that and other reasons, but the movie is harmless except for not being very good.

[@slang1517]

lol, what? It's not inconsistent to treat fictional stories and pseudoscience (pushed as truth) differently. That's like saying if you lambast flat earthers, you should also lambast 'the lion King' because lions don't talk.

[@PoorCreationists]

Where did "The Designers" come from?

[@I_am_Mister_Y]

@@PoorCreationists I don't wanna be the Comic Book Guy from _The Simpsons,_ but the engineers are just powerful and distant aliens in the film. In the design stage and the early scripts they were a "spiritual" thing and Jesus was one of them. And the Alien franchise has been trash since Alien 3.

[@AbadaleRavnic]

Creationists are right, we were created by a creator and that creator is Evolution.

[@rl7012]

Who created evolution?

[@nedcassley5169]

"for my wife and ME"

[@JosephOliva-q3x]

Evolution? Things, body's, may change some but they Do Not just GROW New. Parts! New parts don't appear from nothing. What is here has always been here Complete.

[@robertnobles8189]

The humor here is so refreshing! 😂

[@marculatour6229]

Here you get more of it! I have often been told that God also created atheists. But why? Quite simply for confused souls, out of sympathy: God convinced people that he himself was uncreated. Atheists therefore have a divine quality. They are just as godless as God. God believes in nothing! Not even in the devil. Just like atheists.

[@nanplabwern]

I want those chairs.

[@OldPainlessSR-71]

God for sure gave a big middle finger to evolutionists when he created the duck billed platypus...

[@althea_is_smokin_hot]

Sirs,the surprise is that billions of people prefer to be stupid.

[@XYisnotXX]

My wife and I? Is this fool for real? What is he on about?

[@Madocthevindicator]

Two of the smartest complete idiots I have ever witnessed on one stage. How sad.

[@VeggiesOutFront]

I was expecting Dinesh not Dawkins lol. Threw me for a loop

[@rl7012]

Dumb and Dumber

[@robertmcclintock8701]

( ・ε・) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.

[@PoorCreationists]

Calm down. The nurse will be along shortly with your medication

[@adude9882]

We're not necessariily 'the best'. Somebody who doesn't have children now might do so as a rejection of the environment.

[@flashgordon6670]

The Laws of Cause and Effect, Self Evident Craftsmanship, Thermodynamics and all knowable Real Science = Intelligent Design. Wild Imagination, Nonsense, Smoke, Mirrors and Lies = Magic Evolution.

[@counterculture10]

Many of the world's top physicists and cosmologists don't follow that line of reasoning. For example, men like Sean Carroll say that the Law of Thermodynamics is not violated by the Big Bang nor does the cause-effect argument hold up at quantum levels, only in our local realities. Another way of putting it is that these dilemmas that are posited, largely by theists, are meaningless dilemmas if you know enough physics.

[@rl7012]

@@counterculture10 Sean Carroll is full of it. He is such a blinded atheist he tries to twist the universal laws to fit his prejudices. Don't listen to Sean Caroll as he is a tunnel visioned pea brain.

[@counterculture10]

@@rl7012 AI says: Sean Carroll is widely regarded as a brilliant physicist and a prominent figure in theoretical physics, particularly for his work on cosmology, quantum mechanics, and the foundations of physics. He is known for his clear and engaging explanations of complex scientific topics and has authored several books that aim to make science accessible to the general public. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that Carroll "twists the laws to fit his prejudices." Like many scientists, he interprets data and applies his understanding of theoretical principles to explore various scientific questions. He is a strong advocate for the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning. However, like many prominent intellectuals, his views and interpretations on certain topics, especially those outside of pure science (e.g., the role of science in society or the relationship between science and philosophy), may be controversial and subject to criticism. This is a normal part of academic and intellectual discourse, where different perspectives can emerge. In short, Carroll is generally seen as a highly respected scientist, and while his interpretations might not align with everyone's views, they reflect his expertise and commitment to advancing our understanding of the universe.

[@counterculture10]

@@rl7012 AI says: Sean Carroll is known for his secular and scientific views, but it would not be accurate to describe him as a "blinded atheist." While he has expressed his atheism and has often spoken about his belief in a naturalistic view of the universe-one in which science and reason provide the best means of understanding the world-his stance is based on thoughtful reasoning and intellectual inquiry rather than blind adherence to a particular worldview. In his work and public discussions, Carroll emphasizes the importance of evidence, reason, and the scientific method. He often addresses the intersection of science, philosophy, and religion, arguing that science can provide a deeper understanding of the world without invoking supernatural explanations. However, he also advocates for an open-minded approach, emphasizing that we should be willing to revise our views in the face of new evidence or better arguments. While his views may be perceived as challenging to religious or theistic perspectives, Carroll does not promote a dogmatic or close-minded rejection of religion. Instead, his position reflects a commitment to empirical inquiry and a naturalistic framework for understanding existence. In his view, atheism is not about rejecting religion out of prejudice but about accepting the lack of empirical evidence for supernatural claims.

[@anguspure]

Time is very big! If you think last week was a long time ago then it is nothing compared to the age of the world! 😂

[@Par-Blindspot]

So everything in our solar system is perfect for us to exist, even the fkin moon is the only thing that is the perfect size to make an eclipse. There is no way there was no Creator. What would be the explanation for the beginning of Energy? Did nothing become something?

[@MrFireman164]

God is energy

[@counterculture10]

It's "perfect" now for us to exist. It wasn't "perfect" for the first 10 billion years of the universe's existence and, given that the Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course with us and given the rate at which cosmic acceleration is occurring, it won't be "perfect" in the future. You have to ask yourself at some point: Why wouldn't an All-Powerful God create a stable universe for life to flourish in the blink of an eye? Also, take a look around at all the lifeless planets and empty space. The universe certainly isn't "perfect" for the vast preponderance of planets, collapsing stars, dead solar systems, and billions of other galaxies. In fact, the overwhelming majority of it seems to be quite inhospitable for life. Most serious physicists and cosmologists do not believe that energy (or the universe) had a beginning. The Big Bang is simply regarded as the first moment in time. Physicists like Sean Carroll believe that energy existed before the Big Bang in a state of extreme heat and instability. So, there's no reason to assume that there ever was a state of absolute nothingness. Nothingness might just be the way our minds operate in terms of negating phenomena.

[@MrFireman164]

@@counterculture10 🙌🏻

[@gsp3428]

People avoid God like the plague. Run but you cant hide.

[@Par-Blindspot]

@@counterculture10 Many points here I respectfully disagree with. There is no Logical frame work I have seen that can suggest energy does not have a beginning. Time also needs a starting point in my opinion. The Universe is Perfect for Human Experience. We are all designed to die but I do not believe death holds any form of partnership with death. I do not know what you mean by "serious" physicists are how you got your numbers to claim most of them do. I can, however, mention many scholar much more intelligent then me who do agree with intelligent design. Now on your point of Morbid Reality. There are many interpretations to what the Creator(God) intends for his creation. I cannot tell you which one is true as I myself do not know. I read as much as I can with an open mind but there are somethings which humans have done that I cannot rationalize. Also the theories of the Age of Humanity are mostly theoretical as far as I know. I would recommend diving into the rabbit hole of maths to see how precise things really are in the universe.

[@gsp3428]

Evolution is real, of course it is. Who would dare doubt that my direct ancestor was a fish 2 billion years ago as Dawkins says, or that lizards grew wings and became birds or that a land animal went in the ocean and somehow survived and evolved into a whale. How dare we doubt that, its so obvious my great grandfather 2 billion years ago was a fish. And atheists think Noah's ark is crazy, but somehow thinking your direct lineage that you come from a fish is so obviously true.

[@counterculture10]

Yet we share 70% of the same genes as zebrafish...gee, what are the odds?

[@curtis_ny90]

9:05 Conway’s game of life

[@michelbougie6175]

In recent years, atheists have lost a lot of ground and are no longer followed as they were 10 to 20 years ago. I can appreciate someone like Jordan Peterson far more than those two (referring to prominent atheists). I understand he comes from a completely different perspective, but you gain much more from listening to Jordan when it comes to matters of faith than to Richard Dawkins. You don't have to believe in God, not at all, but an atheist truly offers you nothing of value. As far as I can tell, there's not much left of the "Four Horsemen," except for Dawkins, who remains a brilliant biologist. I don't find Dillahunty particularly interesting. The Peterson-Dawkins debate was much more engaging than these other discussions.

[@Chriscrash1985]

As humans we create more humans.We don't evolve humans.We create them so where is evolution in that we create So therefore we were created Everything happened.My chance is absolutely ridiculous.Nonsense didn't happen by accident

[@cooperc4060]

Like most who argue against the fact, like yourself, obviously have a lack of understanding on how it works. Your statement speaks for itself.

[@daveblock]

Ok cooper, show us where humans are in the process of evolving into a new form. It’s you that lacks understanding

[@counterculture10]

@@daveblock Haha, yeah Dave. Always questions that are impossible to answer. As if that's a "win." Show us where God answers prayers. Give scientific evidence for Adam and Eve and a Garden of Eden. Explain how a 500 year old man could build an Ark, capture all the animals, and transition them safely. Show us that there is evidence for a global flood. Show us evidence that snakes can talk. Break it down, step by step, how something (God) can exist outside of time and space. I want this all explained in scientific terms. Go ahead.

[@daveblock]

@@Chriscrash1985 The science showing life was created is proven.

[@counterculture10]

@@daveblock AI The idea that life was created by God is a matter of faith and philosophical belief rather than scientific proof. It coexists with, but operates differently from, scientific inquiries into the origins of life.

[@frogandspanner]

I wonder if Dawkins says datums

[@blondecaveman9100]

Well the thing is it is quite obvious that the universe is intelligent, because we have intelligence and so does every other thing. They all know what they are doing and work together. The Sun and it's solar system is an example of the universe being intelligently designed. I 100% believe in evolution but I believe that it is intelligently designed, just as parents would design a life for themselves, just as the solar system is designed for the planets.

[@vapourmile]

I don't which is more boring and pointless, watching those combative religion v atheism "debates" or watching mutual masturbation like this. Verdict: Both are equally depressing.

[@endofdaysprophet]

EVERY SCIENTIST BELIEVES IN THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE!!! THAT IS CREATION!!!

[@brucealmberg]

No. Wrong.

[@endofdaysprophet]

@brucealmberg HAHAHA... you guys are so stupid!!! Your preaching CREATION!!! DO you believe that at first there were plants , then animals, then humans??? You are PREACHING THE BIBLE!!! HAHAHA

[@zfortyounce]

I am not sure that there is a person who I agree with more and dislike less than Richard Dawkins.

[@LetMaseCook]

Show us the missing links 😂😂😂😂

[@marculatour6229]

I have often been told that God also created atheists. But why? Quite simply for confused souls, out of sympathy: God convinced people that he himself was uncreated. Atheists therefore have a divine quality. They are just as godless as God. God believes in nothing! Not even in the devil. Just like atheists.

[@popeyefreeze2541]

@@LetMaseCook we have a plethora of sub species of humans. Also humans share genetically 98% of genes with other great apes

[@slang1517]

If I show them to you they aren't missing. The correct term is 'transitional form.' We have thousands.

[@LetMaseCook]

@ thousands? Yes show them 😂😂😂

[@slang1517]

@@LetMaseCook Go to Google and type 'transitional forms.' It's not hard. We have found over 20 different species of Hominin alone, with hundreds of individuals. Creationists have been lying to you.