Top Atheist Richard Dawkins Has Made a BIG Mistake

Sorry, atheists: this theory is complete NONSENSE… In this video, I respond to Richard Dawkins’ claims about the Christian worldview, and discuss the glaring issues with his worldview.
Our DVD “Fire In My Bones” is available for purchase here: answersingenes...
Visit Answers.tv: All Answers in Genesis videos, live streaming, and much more-all in one place.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenes...

[@nancycrayton2738]

Richard Dawkins used to irritate and exasperate me when he debated John Lennox. However, as he ages and continues to try and answer questions about his beliefs, I find myself pitying him. I'm praying that he will live long enough to have his eyes and mind opened and will repent and believe the truth.

[@Psalm1188]

His pride will never allow him to do that…he’d have to admit that he’s wrong. ‘Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.’-Proverbs 26:12🙏🏼

[@inmybits2379]

@@Psalm1188 There is a difference between could be and have evidence for. Panspermia is a valid scientific hypothesis unlike Creationism. PS Biblical verses mean nothing to non believers and atheists.

[@inmybits2379]

@@nancycrayton2738 Too bad for you that your prayers are not working.

[@gregorymoore2877]

@@inmybits2379 How did panspermia become a valid scientific hypothesis? Did somebody observe life existing somewhere other than Earth?

[@inmybits2379]

@gregorymoore2877 The building blocks of life have been found on other planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. So it is very possible that life started elsewhere and was moved to earth but it is also just as possible that life on earth started on earth. The evidence shows that the possibility of life off earth is very high ( being microbial since we have found microbial life in places on earth that mimic other places in the solar system). That being said the possibility of life that is like us is very low since the conditions for them would be different and their evolution would be different.

[@reason2gether]

He took "kicking the can down the road" to the extreme and kicked the can across the universe!

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Well, Ken Ham did in his misrepresentation of what Dawkins said.

[@Abidingingrace-p6z]

​@@paulbeardsley4095 I'm sure that's what you would like us to believe

[@theophilus871]

That's what we thought when we saw that interview when it came out in 2008 (in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"). I just found that the full movie can be watched on KZbin, so you can see the fuller context of Dawkins' comments. It was and is a breathtaking concession, and was the point at which Dawkins lost credibility in his campaign.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@theophilus871 So you didn't understand that he was giving a speculative answer to a "what if?" question?

[@Lonewolf---]

Yet another FALSE theistic claim made by taking a video clip completely out of context! DUH!!! 🙄

[@markrogers7546]

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."

[@meccastewart2282]

Amen!

[@WizardImp]

Is that from the bible? If so... the bible's not reliable.

[@HGChaosNL]

There have been over 10.000 gods so far but only yours actually exists. The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real. 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂 Religion's greatest trick wasn't making some people believe there was a God, it was telling you you shouldn't ever ridicule the idea, that it was sacred.

[@larryclark9380]

Lord, you saved Saul of Tarsus and used him to change the world. Save Richard Dawkins. Nothing is too hard for You.

[@rachelm7525]

Amen 🙂

[@avishevin1976]

Apparently many things are too hard for him.

[@rachelm7525]

@avishevin1976 too hard for us, but never for God.

[@avishevin1976]

@@rachelm7525 Name one thing you know god did that nothing else could do.

[@larryclark9380]

Give dirt the ability to breathe and answer questions.

[@opalglass8101]

So... they think we were still CREATED, just not by God...? They just wanna run on "you don't own me", lol

[@paulbeardsley4095]

No, Dawkins does not think that.

[@Lonewolf---]

Yet another FALSE theistic claim made by taking a video clip completely out of context! DUH!!! 🙄

[@velkyn1]

poor dears, no we don't think reality was "created", and great to see you having no more truth to your lies than any other cult.

[@b-m605]

@velkyn1 isn't it time to admit that the emperor is naked. no matter how imaginative your protests, you are a silly little clay pot shouting at the potter, "You didn't make me." Nothing new under the sun.

[@8thMusketeer]

Dawkins literally ADMITTED there are signs of intelligent design. You atheists are really high off that copium.

[@cyrilnorrie8450]

Basically, the atheists are willing to believe in a creator, just not one who will hold us accountable for our actions. They also don’t care if we never have a relationship with our creator. I don’t know why some people fight so hard to say that they have no hope for the future, that we decide for ourselves what is right and what’s wrong and that we are completely at the mercy of “fate”. The Bible tells us of a creator who is just,loving and is capable of doing whatever He wants, yet is forgiving when we do wrong. There’s no contest whatsoever! Thanks for your great videos.

[@jockyoung4491]

I don't believe things because I think it's a good story. Other books tell other stories. Each person is free to choose. I hope we can ALL respect that.

[@jockyoung4491]

Richard Dawkins is not "the atheists". Atheists believe many varied things. The ONLY thing they have in common is that they don't happen to believe that gods exist. Don't put words in other people's mouths just to make yourself feel better about your own choices.

[@erikt1713]

I am not willing to believe that story, either. While the process of abiogenesis remains unknown I do not feel compelled to make up a science-fiction story. Looking at ourselves, we would seed a planet with plants or lichens, for example, not with some building blocks of life which still have to go through an oxidation crisis once some of them develop photosynthesis (as shown in very old sediments of rust).

[@jockyoung4491]

@@erikt1713 It is certainly a stretch, and Dawkins may not have been proposing it as something he actually believed. He was asked if there was any possibility that he could accept intelligent design, so he gave an example of a possibility.

[@erikt1713]

@@jockyoung4491 Alright. It goes to show that context is important.

[@barryw.gaugler3442]

As the sky is above the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

You can say anything, can’t you?

[@WandaRichardson-m2r]

Amen❤🎉😊

[@wet-read]

I don't find this comforting. I find this frightening. I think fair minded and rational people will think likewise.

[@WizardImp]

The bible's not reliable. Or good....

[@Ariella-mx3xq4cw6n]

Where did that other intelligent life in the universe come from in the first place

[@sonnypruitt6639]

Well you're not suppose to ask that question! What are you trying to do, embarrass the professor?! How dare you! He's Richard Dawkins!!

[@Ariella-mx3xq4cw6n]

@sonnypruitt6639 😂😂😂😂😂 Of course I am.

[@louwrainemyburgh8835]

Exactly

[@sonnypruitt6639]

@@Ariella-mx3xq4cw6n God bless you!

[@jockyoung4491]

@@Ariella-mx3xq4cw6n Dawkins is well aware that there had to be a beginning, as would have been clear if the video was not dishonestly edited.

[@sharonrich8298]

I had the same thoughts when I watched Expelled years ago. I wish Ben Stein would’ve asked the obvious follow up question that Ken Ham just asked, where did their life come from? I think that Ben was totally caught off guard by the answer. Richard Dawkins said that he would ask God why He hid from us or something along those lines. My question to Richard is why does he ignore God so much? He recently expressed a lament in a discussion with Jordan Peterson that God doesn’t provide for the scientist. It could be said that God is the ultimate scientist and has provided unlimited exploration for the scientist. They need only let go of the hypothesis that there is no God and look around to be blown away.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

You watched Expelled, but you didn't pick up that Dawkins was speaking hypothetically?

[@kwimms]

Yes! Let go! God is all around us, all the time, but we just don't want to see.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@kwimms It's quite the opposite. I became a Born Again Christian in the 1980s. But 20 years later, I could no longer deny the contradictions in the Bible, the fact of evolution and a very large universe that bore no resemblance to that of the Genesis account, or the bogus reasoning. It was very hard to admit that I'd been wrong. Which is why I despise the ones who say, "You just want to sin."

[@avishevin1976]

There is literally no evidence for a god, so why _wouldn't_ a person ignore it?

[@voltekthecyborg7898]

@@avishevin1976 What conclusion did you come to to believe there is "no evidence" for God?

[@vikkiterlecki4242]

Brilliant ministry Ken! God bless you and thank you.

[@WizardImp]

It was baloney. Unless that's what constitutes "brilliant ministry"....

[@avafury4584]

I feel so sorry for Richard. He may find out the hard way that he is wrong. We should pray for him. ♥️✝️

[@numberjack2286]

Yes. Thinking silly things is one thing, but broadcasting them throughout one's life to everyone in the pursuit to steal the hope and love from (potentially) believing, happy people is outright evil. We have to pray for him so he see and accept the truth in time.

[@WizardImp]

Pascal's Wager.

[@djengo77]

@@WizardImp You wrote: _"Pascal's Wager."_ You didn't even write a sentence, so why print a period?

[@WizardImp]

@djengo77 I'll look into it....

[@forrest7050]

@@djengo77 Good grief Djengo. Brush up on your English grammar. A full stop is not just used at the end of a sentence. There are many occasions where you might use it quite correctly. Full stops can correctly be used in short, clipped sentences. For example. "Stop. Just stop." In Wizard's comment, he correctly used it to suggest that there is nothing more to say on the topic, and that the rest is up to you to work out.

[@fabbrofamily7038]

hallelujah! praise the living God!

[@fiddleronthebike]

I never understood how anyone could ever take Dawkins seriously - most of what he said is so utterly stupid that even a child could not believe in it

[@johnhammond6423]

So you understand evolutionary biology better than one of the worlds experts on evolutionary biology?

[@paulbeardsley4095]

So which part did he get wrong?

[@christinemclatchie]

@@johnhammond6423 There is no such thing…

[@johnhammond6423]

@@christinemclatchie ?

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@Mario_Sky_521 There is SO MUCH that we do know about this topic. But you choose to know nothing about it.

[@MJ-xn2qp]

True fact checking using the Bible, thanks Ken! Love this

[@Lonewolf---]

LOL The Bible contains very few facts!

[@WizardImp]

Tell me this is an ironic comment....

[@charvakaelysium2414]

This video does NOT represent the views of Richard Dawkins accurately. He has had this to say : 'I was interviewed by a creationist film and the man said "can you think of any conceivable way in which life on this planet could have been intelligently designed?" 'So I said the only conceivable way I can think of is not God, which is what [he wanted] me to say, but alien seeding. But I explicitly said I do not believe in alien seeding. 'If you really press me to think of how intelligence could ever have designed life on this planet, the only possibility would be alien seeding. 'That's very different from saying I believe in alien seeding. It's been distorted possibly maliciously by a creationist.'

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Sadly, apologists have no choice but to strawclutch, and they won’t admit they’re wrong.

[@charvakaelysium2414]

@paulbeardsley4095 They clearly don't follow their own commandments. This video presents us with downright lies.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@charvakaelysium2414 Indeed.

[@TheRealVenom448]

​@@paulbeardsley4095So why not say you do not believe in intelligent design rather than give a word salad?

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@TheRealVenom448 What word salad?

[@MJ-xn2qp]

Scientist made himself look so silly. Just goofy.

[@frankguetta9529]

It was a set up.

[@jockyoung4491]

Ken Ham does that all the time.

[@statutesofthelord]

Actually, the clip in this video is from a Ben Stein movie "No Intelligence Allowed" which came out in 2008. Dawkins looks like an sad, ignorant, defiant old man in it.

[@frankguetta9529]

@@statutesofthelord Did you see that movie?

[@frankguetta9529]

@@statutesofthelord You have been tricked. It was a set up.

[@eugenehovekamp6038]

Ben Stein did a good job with that interview. The movie "Expelled" is a must watch movie. I took my son and a couple other teens to see it when it came out.

[@jockyoung4491]

He edited it dishonestly. How is that a "good job"?

[@aidanya1336]

Shame on the moderator who keeps removing all my posts... Its not my fault you edited this clip to put a different answer from a different question after this question. . Removing posts in an attempt to hide it only makes it look like you knew and did it on purpose. Shameful.

[@John-uo1qf]

"Eternal aliens" must be it! 😂😂

[@suecooper9262]

😂😂😂

[@WizardImp]

Is the idea of 'eternal god' more plausible?

[@MisMariaRosee]

l highly recommend to everyone book: Your Life Your Game by keezano 🙌 I read it, and it truly changed my life. It shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read... God bless 🙏

[@The.Rockyy007]

l totally agree

[@genegroover3721]

Obviously the book which says that the Bible promises financial success is not of Christ. Christ promises persecution and death for all who follow Him. John 15:18-20 and again in John 16:2-3. Matt 5:11.

[@WizardImp]

And now you're going to sell all your belongings and give the money to the poor. Right?

[@Matthew89Miller]

@@WizardImp Don't judge others, be the best you can be and everything will come back to you

[@ecuador9911]

So Dawkins is happy to believes in “Intelligent Design” just as long as that Intelligence ISN’T God. Rich!

[@paulbeardsley4095]

That is indeed Ken Ham's misrepresentation.

[@8thMusketeer]

@@paulbeardsley4095 That's literally what Dawkins admitted. Why else would he feel the need to come up with his alien (aka intelligent creator that isn't God) theory? What do you think he meant?

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@8thMusketeer "That's literally what Dawkins admitted." It wasn't an admission, it was a hypothetical scenario which he presented to Ben Stein when the latter pressed him to come up with one for intelligent design. As a science fictional scenario, there's nothing wrong with it. We genetically modify plants to "improve" them, so why shouldn't an advanced alien race do the more advanced equivalent? As far as we know there is nothing impossible about the scenario. On the other hand it's not at all likely, and Dawkins knows this. You've got to ask yourself, what kind of person quotes someone's idle speculation and presents it as if if were their deeply held belief. THIS is one of the reasons why we atheists are sometimes so hostile towards believers.

[@aidanya1336]

@@8thMusketeer No he didn't. Look up the original interview. This is the answer he gave to a different question. The clip is edited. When he gave this answer it was to a question: What if we found out that we (our human genome) are intelligently designed. It was given in the premise of the question. that doesn't mean he believes it.

[@8thMusketeer]

@@aidanya1336 If that's the case, then fair enough. Though Dawkins' answer still warrants criticism anyway. Pinning the origin of life on other life, just from another planet is lazy, and doesn't answer the question, because then you have to ask, "well, what about genome of the aliens?". You just going to pin that on... OTHER aliens?

[@soma4u289]

What suits their own ego at the time. Smart sometimes can be stupid.

[@OneHighwayWalker]

The fool has said in his heart...

[@WizardImp]

Watch the entire interview. And not on a channel pitched at christians....

[@windfire5380]

In the desire to NOT have a God, they just punted the problem one layer out. Did the Aliens come from aliens? How did it start? Same problem, just more convoluted. Occam's razer says this is not the answer.

[@jockyoung4491]

There is no "they." This is one guy giving an opinion.

[@forrest7050]

@@windfire5380 No windfire. The default position and thinking of "they", and all scientists in regard to OOL and universe origins (and this includes Dawkins) is " We don't know the answers yet, but we are working on it and hopefully one day we will. This is a whole lot better than just guessing. And it is infinitely better than believing the origin myths of an ancient middle eastern tribal people who had no understanding of science and believed they had a personal god helping them.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@windfire5380Dawkins didn’t say we were made by aliens. He was giving a speculative answer to a hypothetical question.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@windfire5380 Didn't assert what? Are you sure you intended your reply for me?

[@rhett_rydinhood]

In the desire to HAVE a God, they just punted the problem one layer out. Did the god come from another god? How did it start? Same problem, just more convoluted. Occam's razer says this is not the answer.

[@knockoutrat4065]

It is the same with science attempting to explain where water came from.

[@rachelm7525]

Or the non-physical part of me, for that matter. How do a soul, spirit, mind, personality or emotions evolve? 🤔

[@avishevin1976]

@@rachelm7525 What non-physical part of you has ever been demonstrated to exist?

[@rachelm7525]

@avishevin1976 the part that leaves us in death. That's a clear demonstration.

[@avishevin1976]

@@rachelm7525 That doesn't mean anything.

[@WizardImp]

Really? In what way?

[@mve6182]

Classical God of the gaps argument: scientists are not (yet) able to explain the origin of life or how abiogenesis might work, and therefor God.

[@mve6182]

@@Mario_Sky_521 1. Nobody said anything about naturalism. Atheism is not the same as naturalism. 2. We do not know abiogenesis is impossible, we just don't know how it works. 3. A theist accusing an atheist of believing impossible claims, that is rich!

[@jockyoung4491]

@@Mario_Sky_521 You are welcome to believe that abiogenesis is impossible even though we obviously can't know that. But it is still true that life evolved over the 3 billion years since then. That we do know.

[@jockyoung4491]

​@@Mario_Sky_521 You know, other people have thought of these questions before, right? You people seem to think that scientists just guessed about evolution and left it there. No, scientists aren't stupid. They ask these questions and then they go find out. There are many scientific papers written about your questions. Why don't you read some of them and think for yourself/ Think about the fact that, as you say, cells are very complicated. So it makes sense that it took a very long time to get it right. Think of the fact that there was little to no oxygen for the first 3 billion years, and multicellular life would be energetically impossible.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@Mario_Sky_521We know for certain that abiogenesis DID happen. Life cannot have existed when the Big Bang occurred, it clearly exists now. The only “debate” is whether it arose naturally or by divine intervention. Since the Miller-Urey experiment we’ve known that the building blocks of life are formed by electro-chemical reactions, and biological science has come a long way since then. The explanation of how abiogenesis happened is still a gap but it’s not getting any wider.

[@mve6182]

@@Mario_Sky_521 Just look up the definition in the dictionary, atheism is not the same as materialism. You cannot prove abiogenesis is impossible, that's a fact. FIY: I cannot prove abiogenesis either, but if neither side is able to disprove the other, abiogenesis remains a possibility. Your claim that information can only come from a mind is just silly! Information is all around us. For example: if the wind blows, there is information about the direction, strength and temperature of it. Maybe you mean it takes a mind to process the information, but the information itself is just there.....

[@userL]

I love your edits! Want to talk to me? I have been waiting for so many years. Don't hold me in suspense!

[@paulbeardsley4095]

The stupidity of some of the replies on here is frankly frightening. I've seen two posts that argue Christianity must be right because we use the A.D. calendar! And now that Ken Ham's dishonesty has been exposed (editing questions and answers to make Dawkins sound like a believer in panspermia), you'd think people would say something like, "Okay, fair enough, Ken Ham is a liar, but he's not central to my faith." But no, they are DEFENDING Ken Ham!

[@Bruce-s9f]

Thank you. It is indeed worrying to see the sort of manipulation that is going on here ; that people are willing to defend and justify practices which are in complete defiance of the teachings of their own religion ! As for the calendar, I'm glad you spotted that ! I too wrote an answer, but erased it. When we get to that level of idiocy, I can only ask myself if it is really worth trying. So thanks for having more patience and stamina than I ever shall !

[@WizardImp]

Psychologically incapable of admitting they've backed the wrong horse. Good luck with the TAB....

[@apologiajosecarlos]

Keep bringing these videos.

[@WizardImp]

Yes, please. And thank you for your services to atheism.

[@avishevin1976]

Which theory is complete nonsense? The one with hundreds of years of evidence to back it up? The one that has made thousands of successful predictions? The one that best explains _all_ the available evidence?

[@velkyn1]

and, desipte his claims, poor ol' Ken can't show that science is "nonsense". Like, most, if not all, christians, he has no problem with science when he benefits from it. He just gets cranky when it shows that his imaginary friend doesn't exist.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Well said.

[@8thMusketeer]

You know, after years of the same keyboard warrior charade from you, and you still haven't grown out of that cringe edgy tone you still have.

[@velkyn1]

@@8thMusketeer poor dear, you have yet to show me wrong, musky. Alas, no "edgy cringy tone", just your lies to try to poison the well.

[@RoyBatham]

It's Ken Ham who has made the big mistake.

[@WizardImp]

When your target-market is this uncritical, there are no real consequences.

[@AwaitingHisReturn777-z4h]

So thankful for this ministry ❤

[@WizardImp]

I bet you are.

[@jockyoung4491]

I don't know if it is Ben Shapiro or Ken Ham who was intentionally dishonest here, but this video breaks the 9th commandment.

[@aidanya1336]

and the 8th, since this clip is edited to put a different answer behind that question.

[@WizardImp]

Ohh, but we've got the NEW TESTAMENT now....

[@bevanbasson4289]

God created the universe then went off to do something else, leaving his creation split into 1000's of different beliefs and confused. Even slaughtering each other as to who is right.

[@PaulEastham]

Keep Richard in your prayers! Imagine how many souls could get saved by having him on board

[@WizardImp]

Prayer works at the rate of chance. None other than The Templeton Foundation proved it.

[@ShaneChiswick]

I can't believe what I just heard from Dawkins. What a cop out!

[@ConservativeMirror]

Go watch the entire interview. Ham is being deceptive.

[@ShaneChiswick]

@ConservativeMirror I will do!

[@deanpd3402]

@@ConservativeMirror Ephesians 4:18-19 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

[@statutesofthelord]

Actually, the clip in this video is from a Ben Stein movie "No Intelligence Allowed" which came out in 2008. Dawkins was tricked into being interviewed, but the statements made by him in this movie are all his, and there is no deception involved. Dawkins is a sad, angry, ridiculous old man. May he repent before it's too late.

[@aidanya1336]

@@statutesofthelord since you know where it is from, you must also have watched it. If you did you would have noticed that the answer in this clip is not the same as the answer he gave in that video. Its from a completely different question. So much for no deception being involved. Ill save you the search its at 1:30:10 in the original video.

[@theforcedragon3781]

Hello there!

[@mythguard6865]

General Kenobi!

[@jockyoung4491]

And even if Dawkins DID have "strange views", that obviously would say nothing about theism vs. atheism. But Ken knows that.

[@WizardImp]

Yes! THANK you! If the discipline of paleontology was turned on it's HEAD... this would do nothing to bolster religious claims. Disproving x does not prove y. y still has to stand on it's own merits.

[@fortunatoluccresi5243]

"The eye is the perfect proof of the intelligent design of God" says the man with the glasses

[@christinemclatchie]

If you don’t understand the basis of that statement, then you need to go back to school…

[@fortunatoluccresi5243]

@christinemclatchie You’re right. There is no comprehensible basis for such a bold statement from him. Science has proven him wrong many times, but he continues to claim this nonsense. Not to mention that he tried to paint Dawkins in a bad light by only allowing half of his testimony.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@Mario_Sky_521Why do you express an opinion on evolution when you don’t even know what it is?

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@Mario_Sky_521 How can I educate you about a detail of evolution when you don’t know what evolution is?

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@Mario_Sky_521 Your ignorance-based opinion is of no value.

[@teluvv66]

Amen brother Ken! 😊

[@WizardImp]

Yes. Another stitch-up.

[@darin7369]

The laws of Physics themselves are an example of information (which is immaterial) and they are characterized by order. People just take those laws for granted and they also take it for granted that those laws of physics are unchangeable. (Of course, the one who put those laws in place is not under their authority and he can act outside of those laws and perform what we call "miracles".) Now, information (which is immaterial) had to pre-exist the universe itself. It was the catalyst by which everything started. Because things don't happen without a cause. No scientist can explain, from a naturalist/humanist perspective, where that information came from or even the existence of information itself. But the Bible tells us how everything came to be. God spoke it into existence. In other words, God is the source of that information.

[@SarahBearah2023]

A m e n

[@WizardImp]

Well, I'M convinced...!

[@toothnail605]

It's amazing and mind boggling that millions believe a meth lab blew up and HERE WE ARE!

[@b-m605]

"0:13" Dawkins strokes his nose. one of the tells that a person is lying.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Ken Ham intentionally and maliciously misrepresents Dawkins. One of the tells that a person is lying.

[@b-m605]

@@paulbeardsley4095 lets see an accurate representation of dawkins' position = a billion billion billion miracles (without a miracle maker) and here we are. that sums it up nicely and accurately.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@b-m605 No miracles at all.

[@b-m605]

@paulbeardsley4095 lol ya what ever you want call the billions of happy accidenct that violate the laws of of science and probability, they are miracles.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@b-m605 Go on, then. Name one.

[@genegroover3721]

Awesome job explaining the Truth. Keep up the good job!

[@WizardImp]

He explained nothing.

[@rayboish]

I have long since stopped listening to Richard Dawkins. He makes himself look foolish with these type of utterances.

[@rayboish]

@paulbeardsley4095 🤣🤣 I have heard enough of Dawkins to know that he was not misrepresenting his views.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@rayboish No you have not.

[@WizardImp]

Watch the entire interview. On a platform not pitched at christians....

[@firecloud77]

"We are surrounded by a world of incredible complexity, and beauty actually. And everything about the living world screams design. If you look at the way a body works, look at the way a body of any animal or any plant works -- it's clearly designed, you might think." --Richard Dawkins, during an interview with The Sun, March 2020

[@VisshanVis]

And did Richard add any further statements after this to put his statement into context, or are you just simply cherry-picking and quote-mining his statements because you think it proves some point about your invisible friend??.

[@firecloud77]

@@VisshanVis You're not too bright, are you? What do you think the caveat "you might think" means?

[@VisshanVis]

@@firecloud77 Well, obviously brighter than you I at least didn't make it sound like I was pushing an invisible magical mystery man. And that's why I asked if you were going to add anything to show any further comments he made to show he wasn't pushing creation or intelligent design.

[@firecloud77]

​@@VisshanVis There is no need to add any further comments because the caveat is included in the quote, and we already know that Dawkins is an atheist. My purpose in posting the quote is to point out that even Richard Dawkins is honest enough to acknowledge the OBVIOUS hallmarks of design in biology. So to say that there is no evidence for a Creator is absurd. Obviously Dawkins thinks the design is illusory, but the fact remains that he has not proven that it is an illusion. Your use of the word "magic" to describe the actions of a Creator demonstrates that you don't understand the word "magic." People who perform magic do not violate the laws of physics, or any other scientific principle. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke's third law

[@VisshanVis]

@@firecloud77 So to say that there is no evidence for a Creator is absurd LOL you couldn't prove that a god ever created anything if you tried. Your use of the word "magic" to describe the actions of a Creator demonstrates that you don't understand the word "magic." So what you saying is that when your imaginary friend poofs things into existence from nothing it's not magic but when humans do it is is??? expalain the difference.

[@Bruce-s9f]

Let’s be perfectly clear. I am not expressing an opinion, simply exposing a wanton act of misrepresentation, designed to discredit an eminent scientist and to mislead followers of Ken Ham. 8 seconds into this video, we hear the question : “Right. How did that happen?” to which Richard Dawkins appears to answer : “It could be that, at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilisation designed a form of life...”. That was NOT the answer he gave to that question. He actually replied “I told you - we don’t know” (he had already made the same point earlier in the interview). The interviewer pressed him with : “So you have no idea how it started”, to which Professor Dawkins again repeated : “No, no. Nor has anybody”. This is diametrically opposed to the impression given by Ken Ham’s deceitful montage. I am still waiting for just one of Ken Ham’s followers to recognise that this is calumnious dishonesty.

[@guylelanglois6642]

If we have a hard time understanding earthly things how are we to understand heavenly things?

[@rachelm7525]

By His Spirit. 1 Cor. 2:14 🙂

[@Kathleen253]

Is this not called a reprobate mind when they disavow the existence of God with all their heart and soul. 🙏🙏

[@larrycarter3765]

who cares?

[@WizardImp]

Huh?

[@leonardgibney2997]

All this means nobody knows where life came from, so religionists say "God".

[@Bruce-s9f]

134K followers on this channel, I see, and 24K views of the present video, and yet not one - not a single one - of Ken Ham’s followers has the honesty, the decency or the moral fibre to say “making use of a falsified video interview in order to discredit an eminent scientist (even if we don’t like him) is unacceptable. Mr Ham should delete this video and issue an apology”. Is that your religion ? Is bearing false witness no longer a sin ? Why has not a single one of you got the guts to speak up ? Why does Mr Ham himself not intervene and say “I’m sorry. What I did was wrong. I disagree profoundly with Professor Dawkins, but I should not have misrepresented him in this deceitful manner”. I’m waiting.

[@saramuresan9305]

Indeed!

[@ErikPehrsson]

@1:08, our DNA has an imprint on it…. GOD ALMIGHTY’S imprint 🤯🤯🤯

[@WizardImp]

Illustrate for me that that is a true claim.

[@emetahava]

Comfortable home Ken......

[@timwood1987]

I pray Ayaan Harsi Ali’s testimony of recently coming to faith will be a witness to Dawkins about the truth found in Christ

[@jockyoung4491]

You people really can't seem to understand that people believe many different things. And that's OK.

[@timwood1987]

@ yes that’s fine, you have free will to believe in nothing. I also have free will to believe in the God of the Bible 😃

[@jockyoung4491]

@@timwood1987 That's what I just said. Quit thinking that Dawkins NEEDS to believe the same thing as you. Clearly he does not and that's OK.

[@timwood1987]

@ no I will not quit thinking that. Actually Dawkins does need to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ or his rejection will have eternal consequences.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@timwood1987 You can think anything you want to. As can Dawkins. I don't really care for his militant atheism either, which is why I say we ALL should be respecting other people's choices.

[@rocketscientisttoo]

The bottom line for Dawkins is that he has more enough faith (based on hearsay evidence) to believe that somewhere, somehow there are super-intelligent Beings that started the ball of life rolling; but that the God of the Bible, who will hold everyone accountable, cannot possibly exist (despite physical evidence to the contrary).

[@privatepilot4064]

Intelligent creation is more obvious than obvious! DNA is programming.

[@mve6182]

Intelligent creation is more fictional than fictional....

[@mchooksis]

No intelligence could have come up with what we have around us today. There is so much stuff that is just plain dumb. Take the human body for example..... so many mistakes that have never been corrected, but which can be fatal to life.

[@edgleason8918]

I'm a former day-stretcher who was convinced of creationism by some old videos featuring Ken Ham and Gary Parker. I just want to post a few things for consideration: One day, I realized I believed in evolution only because that was all I had been taught. Things are believed not necessarily because they're true, but because they're repeated. Once you allow an Intelligent Creator, you no longer need long periods of time for accidents to arrange themselves in order to create life.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

1. Where would an intelligent creator come from? 2. Whether or not you need long periods of time, you certainly HAVE long periods of time. 3. The creation of life was more likely chemical inevitability than accident. 4. You were taught evolution because it's beyond reasonable doubt. 5. "Things are believed not necessarily because they're true, but because they're repeated." Yes, this sums up religious beliefs perfectly.

[@edgleason8918]

​@@paulbeardsley4095 1. For anything to exist temporally, something or someone must exist eternally. That leaves us with eternal matter or eternal intelligence. The trend that is observable is that intelligence acts on matter. Birds build nests, prairie dogs dig burrows, and people people build bridges. It seems strange to me to extrapolate from what we can easily observe that matter somehow gave rise to intelligence. 2. Long periods of time are based on assumptions. The probability necessary for macro evolution to have occurred requires ever longer periods of time or multiple universes, either of which are presumed on faith. I'm well out of my depth to go much farther with this, so I'll defer to the creationist scientists who point out the assumptions factored into dating methods. These are people with earned PhDs from real universities who have different conclusions about the validity of dating methods. Before rejecting them out of hand, have you at least looked at their literature to try to understand their perspective? 3. "More likely" is simply an opinion rather than an observable fact. "Chemical inevitability" is a faith statement. No one saw chemicals inevitably create life and consciousness (along with various other emotions and qualities). Any time you or I trust someone else's information that we haven't independently verified, we're acting on faith. I haven't personally measured the distance to the moon, but we seem pretty good at landing things and people there, so I'll go with the accepted distance of about 239,000 miles. Only God has no need of faith being omniscient. 4. "Evolution" is not a simple term, and I'm sure you know that as well. No creationist doubts natural selection. The disagreement comes in what natural selection can produce. Creationists believe that canines will produce future generations of canines. Evolutionists believe canines will eventually produce whales and dolphins. This is an assumption that is "proven" through animations and repetition, not through fossils or remains of intermediary forms (which should exist somewhere even if we allow for Darwin's evasion). 5. We sort of agree. It explains nearly any widely held belief system or worldview. I came to creationism as a skeptic about short periods of time. I've sifted through the arguments to the best of my ability including reading "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man". Scripture explains the paradox of design and disease better than what I've seen or heard from Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan. Scripture also gives us hope, hope that could be yours. One final thing: my first post must have stirred you in some way for you to respond. Is this because you're a bag of chemicals responding to external stimuli, or are you something more? Dare I say, a human being with a soul? From where does your passion come?

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@edgleason8918I don’t think you know very much.

[@edgleason8918]

@@paulbeardsley4095 Okay, have a nice day.

[@edgleason8918]

@@paulbeardsley4095 Looks like KZbin deleted my reply. At least, I can't see it. Hopefully, you were able to read it before it disappeared.

[@Notofthisworld-ln9iq]

I saw a scientist say that every living thing has one thing in common, one thing that ties us all together. Of course it does, its Dust from the ground, God made every living Creator ffrom it.

[@Intellectualfreethinker]

No he didnt. Read Genesis carefully...only Adam was made from dust, and Eve from Adam's ribs.

[@Abidingingrace-p6z]

His biggest mistake is rejecting the gospel

[@VisshanVis]

Your biggest mistake is believing that it's actually true.

[@WizardImp]

The bible's not reliable. Rejecting it is prudent.

[@chrismeyer4798]

Ken is King of the straw man

[@hwd7]

Mr Ham, you have never compromised or changed your stance since I discovered your Ministry back in 1998. Because you are faithful to the word of God. The same can't be said for Richard Dawkins.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Why would Dawkins be faithful to something written by men pretending it’s the word of God? And unlike Ham, Dawkins doesn’t deliberately misrepresent people.

[@hwd7]

@paulbeardsley4095 You have over 100 comments on this Channel, it seems Ken Ham lives in your head rent free. Dawkins ideas have gotten stranger , he attributes life to lady luck and chance, except when it evolved from a volcanic vent which all came from nothing. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

[@johnhammond6423]

Sigh....ken Ham using the God of the gaps argument again I see?

[@TheLookingGlass001]

"God of the gaps" is terribly inaccurate. The Biblical God is simply the foundation that which we believe much like how atheists foundation of their beliefs is the big bang theory and such. So it isn't "I don't know, let's just say God did it", but rather, we believe God caused this, so let's understand it and learn about it. The atheists "god of the gaps" is just saying "I don't know" which has respect, don't get me wrong, however, goes to show that there is faith both sides lean on. The question from that is, who's faith is more reliable?

[@johnhammond6423]

@@TheLookingGlass001 The big bang theory is a scientific theory not just a theory. It has overwhelming evidence. Your God however has no real evidence. So 'the God of the gaps' argument is totally appropriate.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@TheLookingGlass001There is no faith involved where the Big Bang is concerned. We know there is redshift in distant galaxies, and we know there is a cosmic microwave background. The Big Bang Theory is the description that seems to fit the evidence best so that’s what we go with for now. If someone presents a theory that fits the evidence better, or finds fatal flaws in the existing theory, then we move on.

[@TheLookingGlass001]

@@johnhammond6423 The big bang is a theory regardless if you put "scientific" in it or not. That overwhelming evidence is based on observation and assumptions that cannot be tested in a lab or repeated so it simply remains a theory that's built on faith, as I said earlier. Now I cannot provide evidence of God, God is not a scientific idea but rather a theological idea. We look at the evidence found within the texts of the Bible that makes it reliable to believe that God is indeed real. For a scientific example, we can look at the Global Flood depicted in Genesis and we can find evidence in that being the case and more evidence continues to overwhelm the idea that the Bible is reliable and thus God is real. Now that still brings to the point that "the god of the gaps" is still inaccurate. Again your "god of the gaps" is just plainly the big bang as well as "I don't know"

[@TheLookingGlass001]

@@paulbeardsley4095 The big bang is in fact a faith because you cannot prove the existence (nothing in general can be provable) and the evidence of the big bang still is questionable. Easy go to questions is, what caused the big bang or how did it happen? How did non-life (matter and energy from the big bang) create life? How did chaos create order despite that being scientifically impossible? There are others but I will stop at there. The point is, there are holes in the theory of the big bang and to add, the theory of evolution. Despite these fatal flaws, there is still major dependence and confidence in these theories that still go unanswered and it doesn't seem like scientists are not moving on from it. To respectfully respond to your earlier remarks, the Redshift in galaxies is an interesting idea, however, there has been criticism and found flaws which articles can be found. The same can be said about the microwave background, there are flaws found within them. I can share links to a few documents that better explains what I mean. Now as scientists, it is about the pursuit of knowledge and truth behind the universe. We know less than 2% of the universe, so in all honesty, it is rather foolish to think that there is absolutely no possibility of God's existence. I encourage us both as we make this pursuit of knowledge, so let this just be a reminder to keep an open-mind in all things while also being wise in knowing what the facts are.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Imagine if your arguments were so intellectually pathetic that you had to delete and repost them whenever you got a reply? Well, that's jndrbts for you. He's done it about 6 times now. He's got about as much integrity as Ken Ham.

[@TickedOffPriest]

Dawkins has a lot of faith.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

What would he need faith for?

[@christinemclatchie]

@@paulbeardsley4095 Isn’t that obvious?

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@christinemclatchie Not at all. Science is based on evidence and reason. Faith is not required, at least not Faith in the religious sense.

[@TickedOffPriest]

@@paulbeardsley4095 Science is based in evidence. Evolutionism is based in faith.

[@TickedOffPriest]

@@paulbeardsley4095 Yet, evolutionists still believe that they are related to a pine tree without evidence. That is why Dawkins has amazing faith.

[@isaiahkelly9608]

If we had Eternal matter and eternal energy then why would we have the big bang? If we had Eternal matter, and eternal energy then that would mean that the Universe had to exist before it existed in order to create itself.. and besides all that, what do we do with the law of increased entropy?

[@jockyoung4491]

There is no scientific theory that claims anythign came from nothing. And none that violate the laws of thermodynamics. Scientists aren't stupid.

[@WizardImp]

Ask a physicist.

[@ClaudioIbarra]

To anyone watching the video, this is a good example of a bad faith argument. He's deliberately misrepresenting someone else's argument. It's purposeful deceit and it's wrong. Ken knows, or ought to know, the difference between saying "could" and suggesting that's what actually happened. Ken also should know what a "theory" is. Definitions for words matter. Use a dictionary. "I can't rule this out" is not the same as evidence. If you're going to be an apologist, at least try. This is embarrasing.

[@jockyoung4491]

Well, yes, misrepresenting people is Ken's job. He's been doing it for decades.

[@Hany-fu1vc]

​@jockyoung4491 what is the hogus bogus gibberish trash that you wrote that betrays the severe damage that you suffer from in your prefrontal cortex to the extent that you hardly have a vegetative mind to live with that is why you are laughable foolishness. Ken Ham just represented what the fake Ruchard Dawkins has been saying and refuted it point by point. It is you Who have reprobate minds and cannot accept that your bubblehead Dawkins have been refuted and that his atheistic thinking is laughably foolish with no evidence to.back ot up or support it. It is you who are a clear examples of satanic blindness and haughty

[@aidanya1336]

m8 its worse than that. The answer is that of a different question in the interview. They edited the clip.

[@theophilus871]

Who is that woman whose face randomly appears around 2:37? I recognise the face, but I can't recognise the point of it appearing then.

[@WizardImp]

Looks like Julia Robert's! It's not there to any good purpose. Just supposed dramatic effect! Remember...this upoad's a stitch-up.

[@aprilroberts338]

Okay... so where did the aliens come from? Where/How did that first spark of life appear? Where did matter come from?

[@tomesplin4130]

A breaking news story? Richard has obviously been on a health kick, I could swear he looks years younger.

[@tourdelance3698]

If there were other worlds and people on those worlds, Jesus would have to die again But he said “once to die then on the right hand of the Father” 🙏🏻

[@statutesofthelord]

It would be more biblical to say "If there were sinners on those worlds".

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Well, given how spectacularly wrong the Genesis accounts of the beginning of the universe are, I wouldn’t rule out people on other planets just because of the Gospels. It’s not as if Matthew and Luke can agree on Jesus’s early childhood.

[@statutesofthelord]

@@paulbeardsley4095 paul, the Holy Bible is the words of God. Please refrain from fighting God's words. It's in your best interest to believe and follow them.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@statutesofthelord Why should I believe something that’s demonstrably wrong? That is not a rhetorical question. How do you know the Bible is the word of God? Because it says so in the Bible? Why not believe other books that claim to be the word of God? Like the Koran? Again, not a rhetorical question.

[@statutesofthelord]

@@paulbeardsley4095 paul, the Holy Bible is the words of God. Please refrain from fighting God's words. Those holy words will judge you for how you lived this life Jesus has so lovingly created for you. Don't you want eternal life in glory with Jesus?

[@thegallantsaint2034]

The simulation hypothesis is the only one that makes sense. Genesis 1:1

[@marcit572]

Exactly 💯😊

[@frankguetta9529]

Exactly what?

[@Hany-fu1vc]

​@@frankguetta9529Exactly what Ken Ham has been saying in refuting the laughable foolishness said by Richard Hawkins

[@gprimeofx]

Lost it @ 02:06 🤣

[@ConservativeMirror]

You left out the question that Ben Stein posed to Richard Dawkins. Stein asked: "What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution." And Dawkins answered how "intelligent design" could be involved. Dawkins said that the alien life first evolved, and then designed life on Earth. In your video, you cut from Stein saying, "And how did that happen," to Dawkins answering a different question about intelligent design. Go watch the full interview. Ken Ham is lying to you.

[@Hany-fu1vc]

False, Ken Ham didn't cut out what Hawkins said instead he refuted Dawkins points point by point including the possibility of an alien life evolving Erich is laughable as the scientist who refused the evidence for The Almighty Creator is willing to invent aliens in.hus mind who.have no evidence to.back.up.theor existence and then believe that these aliens of his imagination are the ones whomstarted life on earth. Even a donkey could debunk this satanic farce proposed by Dawkins. Come to The Powerful Ever-Living God Jesus Christ and He will forgive you the years of lunacy, ignorance, stupidity, Blindness & satanism of unbelief with its darkness and Blasphemy, sin, filth and foolishness; and He will raise you from the spiritual death that you languish in as He raised Lazarus from the dead by The Power of His Divinity to grant whoever believes in Him eternal Life. Otherwise, you will die as miserably as you have lived and you will go to languish in hell for all eternity with your father satan as you deserve for your blasphemies and foolishness. Wake up before it is too late. In The Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit The Only One True God as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without, Amen❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@Version135]

You realize that doesn't make him look any better right?

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@Version135 Correct!

[@ConservativeMirror]

@@Version135 Which part of it?

[@elmercoblentz9432]

The will be faith as long as proof is elusive. Ken Ham has the duty of keeping it hidden. These videos don’t answer even one question people should be asking. In which language will judgment day be conducted? Two. If Apophis hits earth in 2036, there will be a judgment with no language barrier. It will expose the most evil, disgusting desire man has harbored for centuries. For a destruction over a thousand times as devastating as an asteroid can administer. One more. To believe in a judgment ‘day’, separating the good from the evil, at a rate of one per second, would take more than 250 years. (Current population) times twelve for every soul to ever take a breath. Please let me know why evolution is a problem for creationists?

[@graemeross6970]

I suspect that RD was just postulating and this very old clip was taken out of context. Surely KH would not do anything deceitful like that?

[@Bruce-s9f]

You’re absolutely right. Even by Ken Ham’s standards, this is revolting. Utterly (and knowingly) dishonest. Ben Stein asks “and how did that happen?”. The answer we then hear was not the one given by Richard Dawkins to this question. There were two other questions and answers before Ben Stein broached “the possibility of intelligent design” to which Professor Dawkins gave his answer as an illustration of what such a possibility might be.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

@@Bruce-s9f That's the moral high ground of the theists for you. What gets me is that some people who have posted here have actually seen the Ben Stein interview and STILL think Ken Ham is being honest.

[@Bruce-s9f]

@@paulbeardsley4095 There's something quite sinister about this whole AiG movement. The more flagrant the dishonesty, the more virulently they defend it by denigrating the work of Richard Dawkins and the entire scientific community.

[@WizardImp]

Ha!

[@frankguetta9529]

This is a great example of creationist deception and dishonesty The makers of this film deliberately LIED to Dawkins and co to get them to appear for these interviews. The entire film was deceitful propaganda from start to finish and beyond. If only you knew the details.

[@JesusIsKING7140]

So he did not say what was just shown? Is it AI?

[@jockyoung4491]

@@JesusIsKING7140 The point is that it is dishonest to misrepresent your intentions in interviewing someone, pestering them with leading questions, and then picking out the excerpts that make them look bad. I bet if we did that with you we could make you look really stupid. Would that be fairt?

[@aidanya1336]

@@JesusIsKING7140 The clip is edited. The question and the answer are from different parts of that interview. The answer he gave was to a question that what if we found that intelligent design better explains our (human) genome. Not the question posed in this clip Just look up the original interview.

[@JesusIsKING7140]

@aidanya1336 the whole point Ken is getting at is that he denies any existence of the one and true living God but will entertain the existence of some alien race....., Ken is showing the absurdity the man and the corrupted wicked human mind will go to to avoid the fact that there is a God and He created the heavens and the Earth and all thats in it. But praise God every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord, it's unavoidable you cannot run away from your Creator. 🙏

[@aidanya1336]

@@JesusIsKING7140 And do you think lying is the best way to achieve that goal? I don't. Lying makes it so people don't take anything that person says seriously.

[@jonprepchuk1534]

It's difficult to articulate what must be experienced in regards to a new life inside of you when you turn to Jesus Christ in faith. 🙏😇❤️

[@WizardImp]

Well, 'Jesus' should be able to give you the words. So you can abide by 1 Peter....

[@bobmac9070]

I spouse ? What kind a statement is that…. Means he does know!

[@floofydoofy3418]

Dawkins flat out admits that parts of his books contain false information and when John Lennox called him out, Dawkins is intellectually dishonest

[@WizardImp]

Citation, please.

[@rickwarner516]

Needs a light bulb

[@PietStassenAdamastor]

💥He is getting old ... and the older, the more confused.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

It’s from nearly two decades ago. SOMEONE is confused.

[@WizardImp]

There is no such thing as a "top atheist". It's not a contest. Several of the amino- acids often described as "the building blocks of life" have been found on asteroids... which have crashed to earth. 2:29 Where did 'god' come from? 2:59 Oh, yeeeah, THAT makes PERFECT sense. Entirely plausible!

[@DavidAPyles]

What’s the most parsimonious explanation? An endless stream of potential aliens?

[@jockyoung4491]

No, biological evolution can do it without any aliens at all.

[@terraloft]

It could be that..... 😅

[@WizardImp]

Well... let's find out....

[@marksmall9891]

So, where did the aliens come from?.......Oh, well, that's their problem.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

What aliens? Dawkins was speaking hypothetically.

[@kpkpm3604]

"God made it so" is an answer designed to shut you up. Why is there energy, where did that come from? Ken Ham's answer: From an eternal god. Similarly, when I asked my grandma, why are all bananas curved? She said: It is god's design, he made it so. The good thing is that scientists like Richard Dawkins and others were never shut up by such an answer.

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Well said.

[@WizardImp]

Yep. Not good enough....

[@anttisalminen1110]

He is not talking about believers God, he is talking about potential intelligent designer, but overall, we do not know from where things came, not at all, but, we can allways comfort ourselves, by believing...

[@paulbeardsley4095]

Why are apologists so bad at answering questions?

[@Bruce-s9f]

They can only repeat what Ken Ham tells them to say. Answering questions might require a little thought.

[@WizardImp]

Because they're working off a script. Often literally. An unanticipated response derails this. If the 'god' to which they allude existed, it wouldn't need apologists.

[@davewinch7677]

"Genetic code is like computer software, only far more advanced"...........Bill Gates

[@jimhughes1070]

Grade School playground guesses... Sold as "science"... We shouldn't be surprised when we let somebody else hold our money 🤑

[@Gabriel.Ponce.De.Leon.777]

Little Richard is on his first phase of approaching to God and he doesn’t know.

[@PrayingForTruth]

Richard Dawkins and Billy Carson sound like they could be besties, joined by a belief in the Anunnaki. 🙃

[@arthurqsullivan]

it's turtles all the way down

[@thewaka]

It’s aliens all the way down.

[@Michael-sl9jv]

God defines such people as foolishness 😮

[@WizardImp]

How do you know that?

[@paulinewhite3273]

The bottom line, some unbelievers cannot bear the thought that there is a God who is bigger than themselves. Human nature is such that we are born into sin, sin of pride that we think we know everything, and I sometimes think those with a clever brain fall into this category. Jesus says we should be humble ( not weak) to come as a small child. The world view is so contrary to Gods view. I think you could debate until you are blue in the face, sometimes God asks us to wipe the dust from our feet.

[@davidrexford586]

The Heaven is my Throne and The Earth is my Footstool Where is the house that ye build unto me and where is the place of my rest? Isaiah 66V1 I would conclude God is beyond our own understanding in his reach in power and glory and forever and ever.. Amen.

[@jameskelso5311]

Umm, so for the presenter of the video… Richard Dawkins is Emeritus Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Oxford University - the exact specialty we’re dealing with here, and the presenter of this video has no grounding in the subject at all… Maybe we could appellate him.. Professor of “Unproven, unreferenced Christian Something or Another??”

[@robynhefferan9561]

So ridiculous! ‘It could be that…’

[@Bruce-s9f]

It has been made to sound ridiculous by deliberately dishonest editing by Ken Ham. He has stuck an answer from Richard Dawkins onto a completely different question that had been put to him earlier in the interview. He also chopped off the first words from Professor Dawkins' reply. That is a perfect example of "bearing false witness", although I am still waiting for a single one of Ken Ham's devotees to recognise the fact.

[@twosheds1749]

What the Bible says about creation is scientifically wrong! So yes, fundamental Christians do have strange views!