The dominant question about evolution is? How can something exist from nothing? And what is the spirit that evolution was possible? The idea, the energy and the endless power in a process of life. We know nothing about the nature of elements, their existence and what they are. Water, minerals, air are unknown phenomena. Science describes in terms, but the secret of all existence is furthermore behind human consciousness.
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094life can easily exist from what you call nothing, because it is not nothing. Just the fact there something means life COULD exist somewhere, the world is unimaginably big and likely somewhere else is also life separate from ours, we will never be able to travel 40 million light years away but we can confirm that the universe is at very least many billions of years old. Humans are made of elements, no different than other animals so why oh why can we not be made out of "nothing" as you call it.
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094You clearly don’t understand evolution, at it’s foundation. Fundamentally, evolution explains the diversity of life, not it’s origin. We don’t know there ever was a ‘nothing’. If you’re asking from a cosmological perspective, we don’t know that the Big Bang, was an example of ‘something’ coming from ‘nothing’. All we know is what the evidence suggests, none of which asserts there was ‘nothing’ prior to t=1. Edit: If you want to focus on the question of the origin of life, look up the Miller-Yuri experiment.
I was a devout Christian growing up until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Cristopher Hitchens. Being young, the minute I began to question my faith the answers I found from scientists and journalists were so much more convincing than those my own church leaders gave me. You absolutely create atheists by challenging these ideas.
@@purepeter4737 the story of Christ simply wasn’t fulfilling nor a good explanation for our purpose in the cosmos. The message Jesus carried was too small and too outdated to feel comforting in a world of changing beliefs and ideals. Jesus said to slaves to be good slaves and treat their masters well. Our heroes told slaves to rebel and be unruly to their evil captors, I chose to listen to those who freed slaves.
I’ve always been curious to know what that’s like, to believe in god devoutly. I was like Hitchens, he never really bought it and neither did I. Even as a kid it just couldn’t stick.
@@ThomasAbeyta-np9kt You said, *"You absolutely create atheists by challenging these ideas."* But did you or do you ever challenge any of the atheist ideas. You were convinced by Hitch? As a Christian I love(d) him. I loved that he was so able to befriend Christians he thought were sincere. But, no doubt part of the love is due to the ineptness of everything or nearly everything he said against the existence of God. Even atheist admirers of Hitch could see this. Have you ever heard of CosmicSkeptic? He claims Hitch to have had a greater influence upon him than anyone else, and yet he made a video titled "The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens" You should give it a watch. I also loved his memoir "Hitch-22". Have you read it?
@@J040PL7The fact that you conflate religion with atheism only displays how very ignorant you are. I feel sorry for your narrow, smooth brain. It's clearly under fed.
I am in the UK. I had no idea about this lack of understanding of science, evolution etc. until I started to listen to TH-cam videos. My plan was to learn more about physics, quantum physics, astronomy etc. Many of these videos are from the US. Only then did I come across these issues that seem so prevalent in the US to do with lack of understanding of science and belief of creationism. I also listen to a bit of true crime, which tends be be US cases, and I see so many comments about God and praying that have absolutely nothing to do with the crime and evidence being discussed. I was and am completely gob snacked by such ideas and way of thinking. I had never come across such thinking in my life (67 years) and upbringing in the UK. I find I difficult to comprehend that creationism is actually taught as fact in some schools. I was confused because I wanted to learn more science and religion kept cropping up. I started listening to Lawrence early on and have read many of Richard’s books. I read The God Delusion first and was so relieved that it wasn’t just me that had such views. I love listening to him speak. The two of them talking together is a real treat. I had also read Christopher Hitchins book about Mother Theresa before I knew who he was. I should mention I am not from a religious back ground. I took religion with a pinch of salt, especially when aged 5-6 at school the teacher telling us bible stories it just seemed very wrong to me even then.
What annoys me the most about those true crime cases is when they are talking about a suspect and describe him as “a good honest Christian”. In a way like it is unlikely such a person could commit a crime
Hi I’m from the U.S. The amount that evolution and the Big Bang was not touched on in my small town public school is almost criminal. I was extremely unprepared when I went to college and was taught real biology. The indoctrination is deep, few of us got a real scientific education and I’m certain that it was deliberate to keep us all stupid and complacent to a heavily religious system. They don’t want us to be able to think critically.
To be honest, whilst annoying, I like the idea of these science attacking theistic sites. Theists are forced to lie about everything they say and every piece of evidence they offer which leaves, especially fence sitters, an open door to the truth on true scientific sites. It is inevitable that theism is going to undermine itself by proving they are all untrustworthy and all liars.
I was on the path of losing my belief in God and Christianity for many years, but it was in reading The Greatest Story Ever Told by Dawkns that really opened my mind to a full understanding of evolution and what a wonderous point of view it gave to life. I realized that I could shed God, which seemed so provincial at that point, for a much grander way of seeing the world we live in and my place (and connectedness) in it.
It comes and goes with me, when I was younger I definitely just left the idea of God behind. As I got older I realise some things will probably never be answered/known and the idea of a god creating the laws of physics/nature will never be ruled out. You don't need an organised religion for that.
@@shanephillips4011 God of the gaps? What do you mean by that? I always find this statement laughable because it shows a gross lack of understanding about the Christian God. But I'll let you make yourself clear before I address it further.
@@swansonz3534 Well, for me personally, belief in a god has the same value as belief in a flat earth. There is no evidence for either, just allegations, but believers feel attacked when you show them how irrational their belief is. Maybe people will start to question why they believe in the Christian god and not in Allah or Zeus. I think education is extremely important, as is the willingness to question things instead of filling in the gaps in knowledge with faith. It is no coincidence that more intelligent people are more likely to become atheists than less intelligent people.
@@GuardianSoulkeeper Yeah, i'm a troll, Dawkins is god and anyone who dares to disagree is guilty of heresay...okay, Gotcha! :) Thing is, he's only a lil pawn in a much bigger game, did you not know that....yet, here you are, flogging said dead horse so to speak! How rational is that? :) What happened to my previous comment btw? So the truth is offensive to you, is that it, you fear the truth more than anything else, even more than you fear harmless traditions, right? :) Pfffttt...grow up Goalkeeper, er sorry, soul keeper! :P
@@GuardianSoulkeeper Sorry, but i don't do these Infinite regressions into pantomime, i'll leave that sorta madness to you, Trollio. Me? I'm away tae fly ma kite, wee guy! :P Oh and mind give my regards to, 'St Richard of Simonyi', if yer passing!' :)
It's a very good side of TH-cam. This kind of "agreeable" discussion conveys a lot of information. Adversarial debates on the other hand tend to lead the participants to point-scoring. But they are also extremely valuable.
I love to watch these conversations, I always end up learning something new. Especially in the comments, watching people explain their observations is always fascinating, sometimes depressing but always interesting.
@@kevinmcinerney1959I tend to turn those combative debates off because they just end up shouting over one another without actually exchanging anything but insults. Creative insults, but semantically null. Also, I'm neurodivergent and those kind of debates ramp up my anxieties and I have to switch off to maintain calm. Rational discourse on the other hand gives me inspiration.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it”. ~ Siddhartha Gautama
If I had to pick a religion (I won't), I'd be ok with Buddhism. Not necessarily the whole pantheon, but rather the humility and desire for learning by application. It's also rather peaceful and egalitarian. It sounds much better than any of the Abrahamic religions. Jainism is also nice but perhaps goes a little overboard with its peace at all costs direction.
And a prophet of his own religion 😆😆😆 For what is a religion other than a metaphysical worldview based on dogma and shared with others? And doesn't Dawkins share with his followers a worldview based on a dogmatic claim to empirical evidence (rather than simply reason, which is the real basis of science by not ignoring the fact that there is a lot of "non-empirical" reality, such as dealt with in mathematics, e.g.) ? This is obviously a very dogmatic stance, because where the hell is the evidence that all existence is empirically evident ? It is Dawkins' faith, his religion, he believes in it without evidence. On the contrary, It is astonishingly illogical, especially for an evolutionary biologist. For obviously there is a reality beyond the horizon of Homo sapiens, just as there is beyond the horizon of Pan troglodytes. This is what is called “transcendence” - something that Dawkins seems to be completely blind to, even if it lies in the very logic of evolution. So when Dawkins finally understands that (as he said) "there is no evidence that ANY religion is true" - including his own - he has finally discovered the fact of transcendence 😆
My first real introduction to evolution was neil degrass tysons episode of cosmos- some of the things that molecules do. My high school never taught it. The first time i seen it, it made so much sense to me, and blew my mind the same way it did when I first learned about pulsars and magnetars. Most ordinary people dont seek out this knowledge after high school which is why everyone is so confused out here.
@@Reds-Card-Case This is definitely not a normal school. Are you sure it is not a school with religious financial backers? Have you looked into who is responsible for the school? The NGSS sets the standards that should be taught. And skipping biology is not a good school.
@@AcidGubba i believe its just your typical state run school. Biology teacher probley just skipped over it for his or hers own reasons, or due to being afraid of backlash or whatever. This was 2007 by the way.
I met a flatearther the other day. He said you take your measurement app on your phone line it up to the sun, it’s shows it’s 27 miles away. I said are you serious? He said yup and then carried on about density incorrectly I might add. And said gravity wasn’t real. I tried but when someone has emotionally convinced themselves of something it seems impossible to logic them out of it… lol I’ll keep trying, because I think Hitch was right. We gotta save these peoples minds rip the atheist saint!
The problem with the flat earthers and other scientific denialists is that they've already drawn their conclusions and then only look for evidence that they think confirm their conclusion. They're looking for convenience, not knowledge.
They're like any other religion, they don't care about facts, they just want to be told they won. Then like that pigeon in the joke about the chessboard, they strut about, cooing, and shitting on the board while knocking over the pieces. You can't reach people like that, you're not even playing the same game as they are.
There is only one way to solve this problem. We start taking warning labels off, and we let natural selection do its thing. Unfortunately for the time being we are stuck with them
Lol, "no child left behind" is the actual government program name. The joke about the church was "no child's behind left". I'm not sure why you said the original program name rather than the joke lol
Richard, I still wonder at the extreme complexity in biology, and at the idea of evolution. Your talks have been enormously helpful. You inspire courageous and thoughtful debate within ourselves. God as creator is fundamental in the religious narrative. It is the core of God's place within it, and of his relationship (ownership) to the creation. Evolution, not physics, is seen as dismantling the entire framework. "Evolution" creates the possibility of thinking of a universe without God. Evolution makes room for atheism, and vice versa. Richard's challenge is in trying to cover both sides at the same time. Keep up the good work, Richard. Sometimes you need a hammer when you're trying to build.
Let’s not forget that Giordano Bruno was burnt because the idea of infinity and others worlds. This big vision can be very weird for the religious understanding, even more fearful than the evolution and animal thing. And the same today. Cosmophysics is pure terror for some people. Impossible to see God in the sky after Copernico, Bruno, Galileo.
I much prefer to hear people argue one against the other. What`s the point in two pros tugging in the same direction ? I`d say the same as to listening to two Theists.
It’s confirming to reality this way, rather than feeling comfortable watching a debate that deters, we see how well two perspectives can agree and communicate. It’s respectful and slightly unnerving
The amazing contrast from low level cognative intelligence in the rest of the animal world to the ones humans posses is almost unbelievable. How is it that one species alone developed such profound mental capability?
Two thoughts: One, it is possible that some other other mammals also have very high levels of intelligence, though not as high as ours.I don’t suppose a pod of whales has any need to problem-solve as often and as desperately as a little band of Homo.Lacking hands, they cannot transform their environments. So, perhaps intelligence alone isn’t enough? The intelligence has to co-incide with the right body plan and environment? Two: Can you imagine a species of Australopithecus or Homo with the intelligence of, say, modern gorillas or chimpanzees? Big, physically strong, capable, sexually active, yet in some ways (not in hunting or gathering, though!) functioning at perhaps the problem-solving level of a four-year-old child? I suppose meeting bands of earlier and smaller-brained human apes would be like that! Perhaps had species of Australopithecus or earlier Homo survived to the present day, we would have discovered the principles of evolution earlier, don’t you think? Certainly , H. sapiens has more Neo-cortex than an ape of comparable size and body plan requires to survive in a suitable environment. I have read that just one genetic mutation-TKTL --> TKTL1 might have led to our much greater amount of Neo-cortex, and to our ability to think, communicate, problem-solve, create. I know these are suggestions of ways forward, rather than solutions to the problem you pose. But, still, I do not see any a priori reason to say that “the random, non-teleological processes of evolution cannot produce H. sapiens”. Nature does not need us, of course, but she has the means to produce us, in her general fecundity.
Heredity: I once was a tadpole long and thin, I then became a frog with my tail tucked in, I then became a monkey hanging from a tree, and now I am a professor with a PhD ! oh yes over millions of years of course.
I don't think you have to seduce anyone to your side. A common behavioral characteristic of humans is that if we feel like we're not being heard we don't want to listen. But the average human is more focused on being heard than listening and even when listening we're listening from a certain point of view rather than just listening and genuinely hearing. We're not really listening in order to hear, we're listening in order to speak. How many times have you tried to converse with someone and feel like they're not genuinely listening to you or hearing you? They're hearing their own thoughts and opinions about you but they're not really hearing or even *seeing* you (eyes glazed over like they're in a trance). I think about this kind of stuff because I'm a Meisner trained actor and our "repetition exercises" that we do teaches a whole different kind if listening that the average person doesn't have. A genuine; fully present kind of listening where you are really placing 100% of your focus on the person in front of you; get out of your own head & thoughts and just listen. So everything you do must be in *direct* response to what the other person actually said because you're *repeating* what they said but from your "pov". I think a Meisner based acting class is something that could benefit anyone and should be taught in all schools because it teaches people how to listen and you can tell when you're speaking with a Meisner trained actor because you feel like they're *really* taking you in. They're not half focused on you and half focused on something else. They are laser-like focused on you. Conversing with a Method actor on the other hand can be like talking to a brick wall. They've already decided what they're going to say; how they're going to say it and that has absolutely nothing to do with you or what you say. Meisner is in the moment. Method means being all up in your head in a world of interpretation rather than fully in the moment and genuinely listening. But anyway, that's *my* perspective.
That sounds interesting, and it makes sense that actors would be most motivated to really absorb people's personalities. However, doesn't an ulterior motive exist that's even more exaggerated? As in, to be an actor means to lie professionally, and to outcompete all the other actors for more attention, fame and glory. I don't mean to say that it's wrong to do that, and I also wonder why Krauss and Dawkins want to seduce people into believing in evolution. Sure, it's a fact, but as they mentioned early on, there are many facts that people don't believe. Presumably they think that knowing the truth feels better, but the evidence is that lies and delusions rule the majority. Maybe being comfortable with lies-the actor's domain-actually makes you more receptive to others?
I've been following your discussions for a long time now and the question of whether someone believes in god or not and the answers given have no meaning except to the extent that one attitude or the other produces positive or negative events in our society and if these events contribute or not to the development, progress, increase in degrees of freedom, well-being as well as self-realization of human beings. (And something about your book When I first read about the "selfish gene" about 30 years ago I had a strong desire to have many children)
@@steven6666600000 -- As long as it continues to be so useful to the rich and powerful, religion will continue to be promoted, and weak minds will continue to be led. Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, he would not exist in politics without this truism.
The mind will grasp on to whatever description of reality that it finds most comfortable. That may be God or science. The problem lies in once it grasps that framework it is most difficult to convince it of anything otherwise regardless of evidence or facts.
It would be great to see these two in discussion afresh now. I'd love to hear if they think that they'd gotten anything wrong. They have each, separately engaged with CosmicSkeptic. I think they both appreciate him. I'd like to see them each respond to Alex's video, titled "The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens"
Teaching physics first is just a brilliant idea. Revolutionary! It will allow minds to cope with biological evolution and the processes associated with it. I hope we can strive for this I think it will absolutely help our young be a lot more open to the wonder of evolution. Great idea, just perfect!!!
evolution cannot be true because then there would be monkeys evolving into humans all the time, have you ever seen a monkey do this? No, exactly, this is proof that evolution doesnt exist, and that God made man and monkey and all the other animals separetly
3:17 amazing, the format of public debate is aimed at entertainment and not at getting a clearer understanding of the two sides nor getting closer to the truth of the matter. I think the common format of debate is indeed entertaining but does very little for achieving the aims of justice and truth which a verbal dispute might and should achieve. I would like to suggest a rule of engagement that I have found to be tremendously supportive of these two aims which I believe are most important in a dispute, to repeat - that both sides get closer to each other and both of them to the truth of the matter at hand. I call this rule "attentive speaking" and what it means is that the speaker has to be attentive to his or her listener and allow or even invite any and every interruption from them. The observance of this rule even by only one side of the dispute keeps the discussion in a relative comfort zone without any content constraints. It also makes sure that the discussion is always about the points of disagreement.
Not only the question about the existence of god is scientific, but also the question regarding our consciousness. Unless we as a species can came up with a solid answer regarding the purpose ( if any ) for our selfawarness and our empathic ways, an answer that is different from the blunt we exist because we exist, than we cant really dream of cancelling religion worldwide. The good ghost will always be a better solution than a “we don’t know” type of attitude.
@@J040PL7 Nope. Atheism is not a religion. Religions are belief systems built of faiths. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.. At base, atheism is simply the statement that, in the absence of any evidence for or compelling argument for the existence of a god or gods, one will proceed as if there were no gods. That is not”faith”. That is not “believing in the absence of proof”. Hence it isn’t a religion. BTW, if you have any experience of these debates, you are advancing a terrible canard, and should be embarrassed.
You ought to read Dan Dennett’s book, Breaking the Spell. He is quite respectful about the role that religions play in the lives of believers. He shows how we can treat religions as natural phenomena. After all, every culture in history has produced them, and new ones pop up regularly. Some few thrive, most don’t. You speak of our “selfawareness and our empathic ways” as if these were unique in the animal kingdom. We can see such behaviour in other intelligent mammals. The cetaceans and the elephants, indeed, seem to have empathy and self-awareness without the selfishness that the human ape conti ually expresses. Can you imagine a species of Australopithecus or Homo with the intelligence of, say, modern gorillas or chimpanzees? Big, physically strong, capable, sexually active, yet in some ways (not in hunting or gathering, though!) functioning at perhaps the problem-solving level of a four-year-old child? I suppose meeting bands of earlier and smaller-brained human apes would be like that! Perhaps had species of Australopithecus or earlier Homo survived to the present day, we would have discovered the principles of evolution earlier, don’t you think? Certainly , H. sapiens has more Neo-cortex than an ape of comparable size and body plan requires to survive in a suitable environment. I have read that just one genetic mutation-TKTL --> TKTL1 might have led to our much greater amount of Neo-cortex, and to our ability to think, communicate, problem-solve, create.
@oldpossum57 all that you have said is a belief, just like it takes faith to beleave, it also takes faith to not believe, after all, if you reach the afterlife and God is real, it doesn't matter if you have evidence before or not, you're still wrong. Atheism is a religion because it's a belief system built around the faith of the absence of a god, it puts humans as the deity, and atheists themselves as the leaders of doctrines. BTW, if you have any experience in these debates you should stop using French words and pretend 3 billion people believe in just rumors lol, now that is truly embarrassing, what makes your belief better than those 3 billion?
For me this wonderful conversation just reaffirmed my opinion about the brainwashing regarding religion. As the great late George Carlin once said. "I stopped believing in god when I hit the age of reason"
Hijacked Religion is not the only victim of life's experiences. "Truth" has been hijacked since man arrived. The Greatest Conspiracy in existence is "Mortal identification" which both sides of the fence have yet to realize creates all apparent negations that plague the minds of most. Intellectualism has fought hard to acquire relevancy leaving the reliable, unlimited, and perfect Wisdom to the sincere seekers of God. The Greatest Science known to man KRIYA YOGA that brings proof of God's Reality through direct personal experience, has intensified the efforts of the Atheistic Obsessed to join the unwinnable battle against the most powerful weapon against ignorance of God ever made available. It works like mathematics. Almost Fifty years of experience in the application of Kriya Yoga meditation techniques, that brings proof of God's Reality through direct personal contact. Try it for yourself and you will know that what I say is true.
Yet another repost of the same nonsensical video, I do wish Dawkins would spend his time trying to prove evolution instead of berating theology! There are now so many more of those 'difficult questions' as Richard calls them, the longer they remain unanswered, the more disenclined people will be to believe in evolution. With so few provable facts in its favor, I suspect evolution will continue to be remain nothing more than a theory for centuries to come.
May I ask first, which theology are you so certain of? Since there are thousands of gods, and I suppose each one has many sects with strong theological differences, there must be many theologies? Inasmuch as “theology” is a study of the nature of a being whose existence is entirely theoretical-there is no objective evidence of any god or gods-isn’t theology akin to crypto-zoology or crypto-biology? I can suppose one can study gods as well as one can study the Loch Ness monster, or Sasquatch. But in the absence of any actual specimens, I should think the study is rather a game, instead of a serious pursuit. Whereas, it appears that all serious scientists accept evolution as the best -demonstrated of all scientists models. There are clutches of silly people, like the YEC fellows at AIG, who are privately funded, who try to problem solve using the Goat-Herder’s Guide to the Universe, but fail, and fail, and fail.
Please watch and share with others my five brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible, facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. And today's scientists agree with those facts!
Nope, they'll just take their seat exactly where they have chosen to be; far away from Him, so as not to see Him, while continuing sharing the same psedoscience crap, admiring each other with awe. As RD has said, even if God Himself revealed in front of him, it will be a delusion! What a scientific point of view; follow what I believe, damn the evidence!
@@THE_JOURNEYMAN_PAN What credible and verifiable evidence do you have for your god? I think it's dishonest and delusional to limit a supernatural answer for everything to just your special god. With the supernatural, ANYTHING could be possible. BTW, any all-powerful and all-knowing god worth its salt would know what it would take to convince me or any atheist that it exists. That I still have no reason to believe is not my problem. If I were to experience a supernatural vision of something, whether it was a god, leprechaun or the Tooth Fairy, I would asssume that it was a hallucination, dream or delusion of some sort and I would see a doctor. We know from scientific evidence that the brain can produce these for many reasons, such as drug/chemicals, or physical/mental illness. Such visions are not credible evidence for a god. I think that's what Dawkins was referring to.
That ought to be our human life motto , and that is , " expanding one's consciousness and realization of the universe we find ourselves in " , and the willingness to explore it's wonders that lay before us !
14:00 Dawkins wonders why Darwin's discovery didn't come earlier. But the answer is Lyell, whose book Darwin read on the Beagle. Without Lyell's demonstration of the great age of the earth, it must have been very hard to accept that life forms could undergo radical changes with time. (Dawkins mentions this later but doesn't cite Lyell). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell
44:54 very well articulated. I was an atheist with such a need and Dawkins' book made me much more confident, he brought me from an strong agnostic to a strong atheistic agnostic (I totally believe there is no god but open to the possibility that I might still be wrong).
A book is a much better vehicle for developing rich, complex ideas than a 40 minute video. I had rather give my $30 to Dawkins and his publisher than to Creflo Augustus Dollar, Jr. and his airplane mechanics.
I came to understand Evolutionary time because I was able to understand Geological time, but I didn’t have worthwhile Geological time until I had it in college. I didn’t understand it in High School at all.
12:05 by the way, I believe there is a way to combine the two options for interesting people, it is the problem oriented Popperian approach which shows both the beauty and a kind of utility in the way of understanding and solving a problem.
The issue I have with these types of discussions is that it relies on subjective experience vs. perceived objectivity. even with objectivity there is a personal subjectivity that supports your claim due to the various sensory modalities that only you can experience for yourself. If we’ve never seen the bones of a dragon, does it mean dragons never existed? Most likely, but we will never know because our senses are relegated to things that are within the (very limited) scope of our immediate vicinity. Also, the opportunity to be exposed to that has gone away as well and cannot be undone. Another example would be if you friend walks away from you and you turn your attention to something else, he absolutely could’ve walked through a portal to another dimension and there’s no way you would know that unless you experienced it. Due to previous subjective experiences though, he most likely just walked away. I guess what I’m trying to say, is that we operate within a level of certainty even though it can be disputed.
Please watch and share with others my five brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible, facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. And today's scientists agree with those facts!
35:40 amazing, perfect! This is truly a problem oriented approach which will make it interesting and create trust in students which relate to both sides.
Observations are key. Especially in biology, in tandem with notetaking and recording data. As for the Greeks, let us never forget that Socrates suggested that he did not write down his thoughts, because then he could forget about them…
not only do you have a good radio face , but, you also have a great voice for print!! which is why i have several of your books in Audible , thank you for sharing your thoughts
I think the difficulty with understanding evolution is the very scale of it. We can't see evolution in action on our tiny fractions of time. You need to wait generations to see it work sometimes. Anyone can experiment with physics when they play as children, as they get older they can experiment with chemistry, further still with biology. Evolution takes entire lifetimes to experiment with.
@@maylingng4107 indeed, fruit flies spring to mind. and there are those lizards introduced to a valley somewhere that evolved down either side of the valley such that when they met at the other end they could no longer breed. speciation via natural selection. demonstrable and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
@@chousaru I was a member (for a time) of the MSU project team in East Lansing, MI where after 30,000 generations we witnessed the emergence of a brand new species. (E-coli long term evolution experiment). It took a couple of decades to get to the finish line; but still we were able to see the mechanics of evolution in our lifetimes.
@@maylingng4107 that's fantastic, though i am surprised it took that long. i am no biologist of course, but it seems to my ignorant mind that simple organisms would adapt more quickly than complex creatures. heh! shows what i know! that being said, gratz on categorically proving the process of evolution 😃
20:55 What Laurence is talking about here was the basis of Richard Feynmans PhD thesis titled "The Principal of Least Effort in Quantum Mechanics". In a nutshell he took principles of classical physics and applied them to quantum physics but I'm not a physicist so I'm not sure I can explain it in a way that makes sense. I'm a screenwriter and the only reason I read Feynmans PhD thesis is because I'm writing a screenplay about him (which hopefully won't be as boring as the movie "Infinity", which pissed me off). I'm literally writing it out of anger, how could you make such a boring movie about the most interesting man that ever lived?
29:43 I wish to propose again what I believe is the best approach to education and to the question where we should begin and that is through problems, we should begin with what the students find problematic and develop things from there. This will keep them constantly interested because problems like heroic stories are very compelling.
"In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith)." That's the main problem: If you claim it's religious you can be as delusional as you want and it's not a mental disorder. I'm from Germany and we've had some experience with mass delusions. You can be stupid and delusional in the name of religion, but not anywhere else, isn't a productive approach.
Oh yea... those were the golden years. Unfortunately we already lost Hitchens, Dennet and Randi. Today I stumbled over a YT video from SmarterEveryDay about the rotating flagellum of certain single-cell organisms. It's a quite impressive research, but what I found most astonishing: In the final conclusion the question of 'complexity' or 'design' was put on the table. Of course SED is a science channel and puts the question in the right corner. It's an expression of the same awe and wonder that can be heard from Dawkins and Krauss. Well done guys, keep defending this curiosity. BTW I am as old as the Voyager probes, so I got a life-long realtime update abo of our universe for free ;) Isn't that gorgeous?
I went to college to become a medical laboratory technologist and during a course on immunology one of the students stood up and announced that she doesn't believe in evolution? I was baffled by that announcement since immunology is derived from revolutionary biology. We need to keep developing new vaccines and treatments because these infectious agents are evolving and developing immunity to our drugs and treatments. That kind of cognitive dissonance is dangerously ignorant. I worry that that student will end up making some very dangerous mistakes because of that dissonance.
One of the great problems in the polity,of America is how religious communities (like SBC, LDS, SDA, JW) practice tolerance for cognitive dissonance in communal settings. Any outsider to these cults is gob-smacked by the nonsense they profess. Consider the ridiculous mythology that Joseph Smith concocted about the native peoples. Yet people like Mitt Romney claim to believe it! No wonder the GOP so easily takes advantage of the American public, shovellinggwealth towards the ultra rich via tax breaks, creating the most unequal distribution of wealth in human history.
It’s not just about debating evolution -most people are focused on their basic needs. But when science proves something like evolution, it can threaten a belief system that’s been part of someone’s life for decades, and that’s not easy to let go of. Instead of diving into complex topics right away, we can show kids simple science, like how dropping a stone in a bucket displaces the same volume of water every time. That’s science too, and it’s a tool we use to understand the world. Once you grasp the tool, more complex ideas start to make sense.
I love Dawkins but telling me I'm getting the content a week late then showing me a video from 2007 (almost certainly already on youtube)is just silly. This seems to be a regular thing too.
At Harvard University they did an experiment on children They give them some food to eat and they don't tell them what to eat or what not to eat so every child eats what is good for him. Can parents do with their childrens and leave them on their own. I am not saying that they should not teach them essential things. But just essential things and let them go on their own. They don't need any religion and God which doesn't exist at all. What they need is awareness, alertness, meditation, understanding ,education , learning and I think they can do it very easily if parents, society, religion, politicians and even scientists just don't interfere with their lives. They can be far for better than what parents, society, religion, politicians, nations produce them. Just let them live on their own terms
35:09 very important to criticise the debate format but at the same tume it is important to propose a different format with clear reasoning of why it is better (liberalism instead of anarchism and despotism).
Sometimes I only want to curl up and dye. Then I open TH-cam and find this. Yeah, my proposals (from SA) never even got a reply; yeah, I’m a lone voice from deepest, darkest Africa; yeah, I will be gone without having made an impact nearly as much as I wanted to. This might have kept me alive for a few days longer.
Keep on. Even if 1 has been changed by you, it's already been worthwhile. It's very very difficult to touch someone in the sense you are trying to. But I'm sure you already did. So: keep on!
@@MrPeterschmit Remembering the aqueduct builders and Henry Wensleydale's cheese shop. Purveyor of fine cheese to the gentry and ~poverty stricken too~
Actually, Plato touches on the nave principle of natural selection in his “Republic”. In it, Plato demonstrates how animals inherits different attributes from their parents. He notes, as does Darwin, that animal breeders utilize this fact to breed for animals with more desirable qualities. However, where Darwin then ponders that there must then be a natural selection occurring on its own under the principle of the survival of the fittest, Plato thinks we ought to use this principle to breed for the most desirable members of the various social classes that he sees in his “good state”.
So long as there's consciousness specially pure consciousness, you can't kill religion. It's the experience of mysticism. To think outside the science box sometimes to create a genesis story, or whatever is the course of religion.
"Jeffrey has surrounded himself with beautiful women and young women but they’re not as young as the ones that were claimed. As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people...I don’t feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it.” - Krauss on his close relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein (2011)
I'm sorry to say that your videos are too long for me to devote the time, despite enjoying your insights & analyses immensely. Is perhaps a parallel "syllabus" if 15 minutes videos a possibility?
At the Q&A in the original video, in answer to a question on the " belief in God of people who are suffering, who have nothing, who are clinging onto life with their fingertips", RD said, " who cares what you feel like, who cares what makes you feel comforted, who cares what helps you sleep at night, what matters is what's true". Maybe that's why the Q&A has been omitted?
I really, really do enjoy and find everything this couple of Wizened-Gentlemen discuss: re Biology/Physics/Atheism--extraordinaire! I have been following them; reading them; and also watching them here for about five years. But where I part w/them is (in my humble-'opining'), it seems I never ever experience either of them bother to mention "Olden History"(c. 455,000-100,000 to 12,500 to 7,000 to 4,000BCE and such!) ::hummm, Perhaps I missed it somewhere:::. oh well. But I still do enjoy every [absolutely wonderful bio/phy/athe-thing they discuss. : )
"I was the bad cop until Christopher Hitchens came along". hahaaha
The dominant question about evolution is? How can something exist from nothing? And what is the spirit that evolution was possible? The idea, the energy and the endless power in a process of life. We know nothing about the nature of elements, their existence
and what they are. Water, minerals,
air are unknown phenomena. Science describes in terms, but the secret of all existence is furthermore behind human consciousness.
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094Who are you talking to?
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094life can easily exist from what you call nothing, because it is not nothing. Just the fact there something means life COULD exist somewhere, the world is unimaginably big and likely somewhere else is also life separate from ours, we will never be able to travel 40 million light years away but we can confirm that the universe is at very least many billions of years old. Humans are made of elements, no different than other animals so why oh why can we not be made out of "nothing" as you call it.
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094You clearly don’t understand evolution, at it’s foundation. Fundamentally,
evolution explains the diversity of life, not it’s origin. We don’t know there ever was a ‘nothing’.
If you’re asking from a cosmological perspective, we don’t know that the Big Bang, was an example of ‘something’ coming from ‘nothing’. All we know is what the evidence suggests, none of which asserts there was ‘nothing’ prior to t=1.
Edit: If you want to focus on the question of the origin of life, look up the Miller-Yuri experiment.
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094
The origin of life and evolution are two different topics.
So your question is fundamentally wrong.
I was a devout Christian growing up until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Cristopher Hitchens. Being young, the minute I began to question my faith the answers I found from scientists and journalists were so much more convincing than those my own church leaders gave me. You absolutely create atheists by challenging these ideas.
Seek Christ not religion
@@purepeter4737 the story of Christ simply wasn’t fulfilling nor a good explanation for our purpose in the cosmos. The message Jesus carried was too small and too outdated to feel comforting in a world of changing beliefs and ideals. Jesus said to slaves to be good slaves and treat their masters well. Our heroes told slaves to rebel and be unruly to their evil captors, I chose to listen to those who freed slaves.
@@purepeter4737you are really trying to have it both way huh?
I’ve always been curious to know what that’s like, to believe in god devoutly. I was like Hitchens, he never really bought it and neither did I. Even as a kid it just couldn’t stick.
@@ThomasAbeyta-np9kt
You said, *"You absolutely create atheists by challenging these ideas."*
But did you or do you ever challenge any of the atheist ideas.
You were convinced by Hitch?
As a Christian I love(d) him. I loved that he was so able to befriend Christians he thought were sincere. But, no doubt part of the love is due to the ineptness of everything or nearly everything he said against the existence of God. Even atheist admirers of Hitch could see this. Have you ever heard of CosmicSkeptic? He claims Hitch to have had a greater influence upon him than anyone else, and yet he made a video titled "The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens" You should give it a watch.
I also loved his memoir "Hitch-22". Have you read it?
_"Teaching creationism is child abuse"_
- Lawrence Krauss
The easy way I can dismiss another person's religion as false, teaches me to suspect that mine also may be wrong. --Mark Twain
Since atheism became a religion, then look inside not outside 😂
@@J040PL7Are you that dull?
@@kawag6356 are you that dull?
Wow.
@@J040PL7The fact that you conflate religion with atheism only displays how very ignorant you are.
I feel sorry for your narrow, smooth brain. It's clearly under fed.
I am in the UK. I had no idea about this lack of understanding of science, evolution etc. until I started to listen to TH-cam videos. My plan was to learn more about physics, quantum physics, astronomy etc. Many of these videos are from the US. Only then did I come across these issues that seem so prevalent in the US to do with lack of understanding of science and belief of
creationism. I also listen to a bit of true crime, which tends be be US cases, and I see so many comments about God and praying that have absolutely nothing to do with the crime and evidence being discussed. I was and am completely gob snacked by such ideas and way of thinking. I had never come across such thinking in my life (67 years) and upbringing in the UK.
I find I difficult to comprehend that creationism is actually taught as fact in some schools. I was confused because I wanted to learn more science and religion kept cropping up. I started listening to Lawrence early on and have read many of Richard’s books. I read The God Delusion first and was so relieved that it wasn’t just me that had such views. I love listening to him speak. The two of them talking together is a real treat. I had also read Christopher Hitchins book about Mother Theresa before I knew who he was.
I should mention I am not from a religious back ground. I took religion with a pinch of salt, especially when aged 5-6 at school the teacher telling us bible stories it just seemed very wrong to me even then.
What annoys me the most about those true crime cases is when they are talking about a suspect and describe him as “a good honest Christian”. In a way like it is unlikely such a person could commit a crime
Hi I’m from the U.S.
The amount that evolution and the Big Bang was not touched on in my small town public school is almost criminal. I was extremely unprepared when I went to college and was taught real biology. The indoctrination is deep, few of us got a real scientific education and I’m certain that it was deliberate to keep us all stupid and complacent to a heavily religious system. They don’t want us to be able to think critically.
@@ritchie6162 interesting to read your experience.
The evolution theory is catastrophic. Says I
To be honest, whilst annoying, I like the idea of these science attacking theistic sites. Theists are forced to lie about everything they say and every piece of evidence they offer which leaves, especially fence sitters, an open door to the truth on true scientific sites. It is inevitable that theism is going to undermine itself by proving they are all untrustworthy and all liars.
I was on the path of losing my belief in God and Christianity for many years, but it was in reading The Greatest Story Ever Told by Dawkns that really opened my mind to a full understanding of evolution and what a wonderous point of view it gave to life. I realized that I could shed God, which seemed so provincial at that point, for a much grander way of seeing the world we live in and my place (and connectedness) in it.
It comes and goes with me, when I was younger I definitely just left the idea of God behind. As I got older I realise some things will probably never be answered/known and the idea of a god creating the laws of physics/nature will never be ruled out. You don't need an organised religion for that.
@@ThatGuyXX7God of the gaps nonsense, just accept there are things we don't know yet, no need to ascribe fairytales to it.
@@shanephillips4011 you also need to accept that some things won't have answers.
@@shanephillips4011 God of the gaps? What do you mean by that? I always find this statement laughable because it shows a gross lack of understanding about the Christian God. But I'll let you make yourself clear before I address it further.
@@swansonz3534 Well, for me personally, belief in a god has the same value as belief in a flat earth. There is no evidence for either, just allegations, but believers feel attacked when you show them how irrational their belief is. Maybe people will start to question why they believe in the Christian god and not in Allah or Zeus. I think education is extremely important, as is the willingness to question things instead of filling in the gaps in knowledge with faith. It is no coincidence that more intelligent people are more likely to become atheists than less intelligent people.
Richard you are a hero amongst us and a true leader. I thank you.
Lol...worshipping Dawkins is both stoopid & desperate. :)
Grow up!
@@ShuggieEdvaldsonsays the troll
@@GuardianSoulkeeper Yeah, i'm a troll, Dawkins is god and anyone who dares to disagree is guilty of heresay...okay, Gotcha! :)
Thing is, he's only a lil pawn in a much bigger game, did you not know that....yet, here you are, flogging said dead horse so to speak!
How rational is that? :)
What happened to my previous comment btw?
So the truth is offensive to you, is that it, you fear the truth more than anything else, even more than you fear harmless traditions, right? :)
Pfffttt...grow up Goalkeeper, er sorry, soul keeper! :P
@@ShuggieEdvaldson Thanks for proving my point.
@@GuardianSoulkeeper
Sorry, but i don't do these Infinite regressions into pantomime, i'll leave that sorta madness to you, Trollio.
Me?
I'm away tae fly ma kite, wee guy! :P
Oh and mind give my regards to, 'St Richard of Simonyi', if yer passing!' :)
Wow man! Such a privilege to have had the chance of watching folks like this talk. One of greatest pleasures of my life!
It's a very good side of TH-cam. This kind of "agreeable" discussion conveys a lot of information. Adversarial debates on the other hand tend to lead the participants to point-scoring. But they are also extremely valuable.
I love to watch these conversations, I always end up learning something new. Especially in the comments, watching people explain their observations is always fascinating, sometimes depressing but always interesting.
@@kevinmcinerney1959I tend to turn those combative debates off because they just end up shouting over one another without actually exchanging anything but insults. Creative insults, but semantically null.
Also, I'm neurodivergent and those kind of debates ramp up my anxieties and I have to switch off to maintain calm.
Rational discourse on the other hand gives me inspiration.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." Victor Stenger
excellent discussion and RIP Hitchens
Hitchens died?when?😢
@@MD10559 You didn't know? Really? So you must be new in town :D
He died in 2011.
@@clorofilaazul wtf 😶
@@MD10559 yep :( Christopher died in 2011. His brother, Peter is still alive.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it”. ~ Siddhartha Gautama
If I had to pick a religion (I won't), I'd be ok with Buddhism. Not necessarily the whole pantheon, but rather the humility and desire for learning by application.
It's also rather peaceful and egalitarian.
It sounds much better than any of the Abrahamic religions.
Jainism is also nice but perhaps goes a little overboard with its peace at all costs direction.
Words cannot express the amount of gratitude to that man, he is a real prophet... a prophet of science & reason. Salute from Egypt
@@sherifaljeddawy2467 source of this information
And a prophet of his own religion 😆😆😆
For what is a religion other than a metaphysical worldview based on dogma and shared with others? And doesn't Dawkins share with his followers a worldview based on a dogmatic claim to empirical evidence (rather than simply reason, which is the real basis of science by not ignoring the fact that there is a lot of "non-empirical" reality, such as dealt with in mathematics, e.g.) ?
This is obviously a very dogmatic stance, because where the hell is the evidence that all existence is empirically evident ? It is Dawkins' faith, his religion, he believes in it without evidence.
On the contrary, It is astonishingly illogical, especially for an evolutionary biologist. For obviously there is a reality beyond the horizon of Homo sapiens, just as there is beyond the horizon of Pan troglodytes. This is what is called “transcendence” - something that Dawkins seems to be completely blind to, even if it lies in the very logic of evolution.
So when Dawkins finally understands that (as he said) "there is no evidence that ANY religion is true" - including his own - he has finally discovered the fact of transcendence 😆
My geography teacher travelled the world. Her classes were facinating 100% A passes.
My first real introduction to evolution was neil degrass tysons episode of cosmos- some of the things that molecules do. My high school never taught it. The first time i seen it, it made so much sense to me, and blew my mind the same way it did when I first learned about pulsars and magnetars. Most ordinary people dont seek out this knowledge after high school which is why everyone is so confused out here.
What kind of school did you go to if they left out such important topics? Did you go to a religious school? If so, I feel sorry for you.
@@AcidGubba nope. Completly normal public school in michigan. Wasnt from a religious family either. Evolution was just completly skipped.
@@Reds-Card-Case This is definitely not a normal school. Are you sure it is not a school with religious financial backers? Have you looked into who is responsible for the school? The NGSS sets the standards that should be taught. And skipping biology is not a good school.
@@AcidGubba i believe its just your typical state run school. Biology teacher probley just skipped over it for his or hers own reasons, or due to being afraid of backlash or whatever. This was 2007 by the way.
I met a flatearther the other day. He said you take your measurement app on your phone line it up to the sun, it’s shows it’s 27 miles away. I said are you serious? He said yup and then carried on about density incorrectly I might add. And said gravity wasn’t real. I tried but when someone has emotionally convinced themselves of something it seems impossible to logic them out of it… lol I’ll keep trying, because I think Hitch was right. We gotta save these peoples minds rip the atheist saint!
The problem with the flat earthers and other scientific denialists is that they've already drawn their conclusions and then only look for evidence that they think confirm their conclusion.
They're looking for convenience, not knowledge.
They're like any other religion, they don't care about facts, they just want to be told they won. Then like that pigeon in the joke about the chessboard, they strut about, cooing, and shitting on the board while knocking over the pieces.
You can't reach people like that, you're not even playing the same game as they are.
There is only one way to solve this problem.
We start taking warning labels off, and we let natural selection do its thing.
Unfortunately for the time being we are stuck with them
"no child left behind" LOLhe was brutal! RIP C.H.
"no childs behind left" that's why its funny 😂
Lol, "no child left behind" is the actual government program name. The joke about the church was "no child's behind left". I'm not sure why you said the original program name rather than the joke lol
@@m74d3Ah, I kind of hoped they'd spent a little more time with that subject because I was confused by the word play.
Thank you for explaining it.
these two men, in different ways, have given me lots of knowledge, and confidence to say what i say, at least in public, when necessary
It’s such a treat to watch this two incredibly interesting men have such a fascinating conversation. 👍👍
Both men hate William Lane Craig. Krauss was exposed by Craig and Dawkins ran away.
@@TBOTSS
lol 😂 you’re funny. Wrong but funny 🤣
William Lane Craig is an embarrassment to anyone’s intelligence.
@@TBOTSSyou're a very silly entity. Wlc is a total lying idiot. Dr Krause would smash him. He has before if I'm not mistaken
I'm so sorry I missed his lecture in Vancouver. I only just heard of it recently.
I teach class when this is scheduled to start but man wish I could hear it live!
You’re not missing anything I believe he said this took place in 2007 or 2008. But it was very informative.
@@simonsj15 I have heard it before but I still enjoyed listening again.
@@alisonauchterlonie8212 Yes, Richard and Lawrence are two of my favorites.
Richard, I still wonder at the extreme complexity in biology, and at the idea of evolution. Your talks have been enormously helpful. You inspire courageous and thoughtful debate within ourselves.
God as creator is fundamental in the religious narrative. It is the core of God's place within it, and of his relationship (ownership) to the creation. Evolution, not physics, is seen as dismantling the entire framework. "Evolution" creates the possibility of thinking of a universe without God. Evolution makes room for atheism, and vice versa. Richard's challenge is in trying to cover both sides at the same time. Keep up the good work, Richard. Sometimes you need a hammer when you're trying to build.
I am excited to see you in San Francisco in October!!! 😊
Let’s not forget that Giordano Bruno was burnt because the idea of infinity and others worlds. This big vision can be very weird for the religious understanding, even more fearful than the evolution and animal thing. And the same today. Cosmophysics is pure terror for some people. Impossible to see God in the sky after Copernico, Bruno, Galileo.
You have been watching 'Cosmos'. Very little of that show is historically accurate.
Nicolaus Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, and Galileo Galilei were all theists.
@TBOTSS it's true go do your research he was a cosmologist one of the first he was burned at the stake by the inquisition.
@@TBOTSSpsshh. Who TF are you to disrespect the geniuses behind cosmos? You simpleton you. Go learn something.
"Impossible to see God in the sky after Copernico, Bruno, Galileo." Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo were all theists.
2007... No one knew how these science talks will become popular on TH-cam :o
These were popular till 2016 before Taylor Swift came on the scene
Two briljant people. And The ancestor' s tale is one of the best books ever written.
I much prefer to hear people argue one against the other. What`s the point in two pros tugging in the same direction ? I`d say the same as to listening to two Theists.
Better if half the people are wrong instead of them both being right?
It’s confirming to reality this way, rather than feeling comfortable watching a debate that deters, we see how well two perspectives can agree and communicate. It’s respectful and slightly unnerving
The amazing contrast from low level cognative intelligence in the rest of the animal world to the ones humans posses is almost unbelievable. How is it that one species alone developed such profound mental capability?
Two thoughts: One, it is possible that some other other mammals also have very high levels of intelligence, though not as high as ours.I don’t suppose a pod of whales has any need to problem-solve as often and as desperately as a little band of Homo.Lacking hands, they cannot transform their environments. So, perhaps intelligence alone isn’t enough? The intelligence has to co-incide with the right body plan and environment?
Two: Can you imagine a species of Australopithecus or Homo with the intelligence of, say, modern gorillas or chimpanzees? Big, physically strong, capable, sexually active, yet in some ways (not in hunting or gathering, though!) functioning at perhaps the problem-solving level of a four-year-old child? I suppose meeting bands of earlier and smaller-brained human apes would be like that!
Perhaps had species of Australopithecus or earlier Homo survived to the present day, we would have discovered the principles of evolution earlier, don’t you think?
Certainly , H. sapiens has more Neo-cortex than an ape of comparable size and body plan requires to survive in a suitable environment. I have read that just one genetic mutation-TKTL --> TKTL1 might have led to our much greater amount of Neo-cortex, and to our ability to think, communicate, problem-solve, create.
I know these are suggestions of ways forward, rather than solutions to the problem you pose. But, still, I do not see any a priori reason to say that “the random, non-teleological processes of evolution cannot produce H. sapiens”. Nature does not need us, of course, but she has the means to produce us, in her general fecundity.
Heredity:
I once was a tadpole long and thin,
I then became a frog with my tail tucked in,
I then became a monkey hanging from a tree,
and now I am a professor with a PhD ! oh yes over millions of years of course.
Beautiful conversation, gentlemen. 👌🏽
I don't think you have to seduce anyone to your side. A common behavioral characteristic of humans is that if we feel like we're not being heard we don't want to listen. But the average human is more focused on being heard than listening and even when listening we're listening from a certain point of view rather than just listening and genuinely hearing. We're not really listening in order to hear, we're listening in order to speak. How many times have you tried to converse with someone and feel like they're not genuinely listening to you or hearing you? They're hearing their own thoughts and opinions about you but they're not really hearing or even *seeing* you (eyes glazed over like they're in a trance).
I think about this kind of stuff because I'm a Meisner trained actor and our "repetition exercises" that we do teaches a whole different kind if listening that the average person doesn't have. A genuine; fully present kind of listening where you are really placing 100% of your focus on the person in front of you; get out of your own head & thoughts and just listen. So everything you do must be in *direct* response to what the other person actually said because you're *repeating* what they said but from your "pov".
I think a Meisner based acting class is something that could benefit anyone and should be taught in all schools because it teaches people how to listen and you can tell when you're speaking with a Meisner trained actor because you feel like they're *really* taking you in. They're not half focused on you and half focused on something else. They are laser-like focused on you. Conversing with a Method actor on the other hand can be like talking to a brick wall. They've already decided what they're going to say; how they're going to say it and that has absolutely nothing to do with you or what you say. Meisner is in the moment. Method means being all up in your head in a world of interpretation rather than fully in the moment and genuinely listening.
But anyway, that's *my* perspective.
I hear music...the song of Angels! :)
Peace & God bless!
That sounds interesting, and it makes sense that actors would be most motivated to really absorb people's personalities. However, doesn't an ulterior motive exist that's even more exaggerated? As in, to be an actor means to lie professionally, and to outcompete all the other actors for more attention, fame and glory.
I don't mean to say that it's wrong to do that, and I also wonder why Krauss and Dawkins want to seduce people into believing in evolution. Sure, it's a fact, but as they mentioned early on, there are many facts that people don't believe. Presumably they think that knowing the truth feels better, but the evidence is that lies and delusions rule the majority. Maybe being comfortable with lies-the actor's domain-actually makes you more receptive to others?
I'm seeing you on tour soon! :D I'm so excited
Here for the creationist comments.
I've been following your discussions for a long time now and the question of whether someone believes in god or not and the answers given have no meaning except to the extent that one attitude or the other produces positive or negative events in our society and if these events contribute or not to the development, progress, increase in degrees of freedom, well-being as well as self-realization of human beings.
(And something about your book When I first read about the "selfish gene" about 30 years ago I had a strong desire to have many children)
he can never be sir. monarch is the head of the church of England
This was back in the day when Scientific American cared about science!!
There is no God. The evidence is overwhelming. The proposal is laughable.
You can say that all you want but it's not going to convince thiests that it's true.
@@steven6666600000 -- As long as it continues to be so useful to the rich and powerful, religion will continue to be promoted, and weak minds will continue to be led. Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, he would not exist in politics without this truism.
Overwhelming evidence for God. OMG! You'll find out sooner or later fellow mortal 😉
Atheist can easily turn this back to you, my fellow mortal.
The mind will grasp on to whatever description of reality that it finds most comfortable. That may be God or science. The problem lies in once it grasps that framework it is most difficult to convince it of anything otherwise regardless of evidence or facts.
It would be great to see these two in discussion afresh now.
I'd love to hear if they think that they'd gotten anything wrong. They have each, separately engaged with CosmicSkeptic. I think they both appreciate him. I'd like to see them each respond to Alex's video, titled "The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens"
Teaching physics first is just a brilliant idea. Revolutionary! It will allow minds to cope with biological evolution and the processes associated with it. I hope we can strive for this I think it will absolutely help our young be a lot more open to the wonder of evolution. Great idea, just perfect!!!
evolution cannot be true because then there would be monkeys evolving into humans all the time, have you ever seen a monkey do this? No, exactly, this is proof that evolution doesnt exist, and that God made man and monkey and all the other animals separetly
3:17 amazing, the format of public debate is aimed at entertainment and not at getting a clearer understanding of the two sides nor getting closer to the truth of the matter. I think the common format of debate is indeed entertaining but does very little for achieving the aims of justice and truth which a verbal dispute might and should achieve.
I would like to suggest a rule of engagement that I have found to be tremendously supportive of these two aims which I believe are most important in a dispute, to repeat - that both sides get closer to each other and both of them to the truth of the matter at hand. I call this rule "attentive speaking" and what it means is that the speaker has to be attentive to his or her listener and allow or even invite any and every interruption from them. The observance of this rule even by only one side of the dispute keeps the discussion in a relative comfort zone without any content constraints. It also makes sure that the discussion is always about the points of disagreement.
Not only the question about the existence of god is scientific, but also the question regarding our consciousness. Unless we as a species can came up with a solid answer regarding the purpose ( if any ) for our selfawarness and our empathic ways, an answer that is different from the blunt we exist because we exist, than we cant really dream of cancelling religion worldwide. The good ghost will always be a better solution than a “we don’t know” type of attitude.
What we can cancel is the obvious falsities of religion like Genesis and the age of earth.
Atheism became a religion, so don't expect them to even consider any hypothesis outside their ways of belief.
@@J040PL7 Nope. Atheism is not a religion. Religions are belief systems built of faiths. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.. At base, atheism is simply the statement that, in the absence of any evidence for or compelling argument for the existence of a god or gods, one will proceed as if there were no gods. That is not”faith”. That is not “believing in the absence of proof”. Hence it isn’t a religion.
BTW, if you have any experience of these debates, you are advancing a terrible canard, and should be embarrassed.
You ought to read Dan Dennett’s book, Breaking the Spell. He is quite respectful about the role that religions play in the lives of believers. He shows how we can treat religions as natural phenomena. After all, every culture in history has produced them, and new ones pop up regularly. Some few thrive, most don’t.
You speak of our “selfawareness and our empathic ways” as if these were unique in the animal kingdom. We can see such behaviour in other intelligent mammals.
The cetaceans and the elephants, indeed, seem to have empathy and self-awareness without the selfishness that the human ape conti ually expresses.
Can you imagine a species of Australopithecus or Homo with the intelligence of, say, modern gorillas or chimpanzees? Big, physically strong, capable, sexually active, yet in some ways (not in hunting or gathering, though!) functioning at perhaps the problem-solving level of a four-year-old child? I suppose meeting bands of earlier and smaller-brained human apes would be like that!
Perhaps had species of Australopithecus or earlier Homo survived to the present day, we would have discovered the principles of evolution earlier, don’t you think?
Certainly , H. sapiens has more Neo-cortex than an ape of comparable size and body plan requires to survive in a suitable environment. I have read that just one genetic mutation-TKTL --> TKTL1 might have led to our much greater amount of Neo-cortex, and to our ability to think, communicate, problem-solve, create.
@oldpossum57 all that you have said is a belief, just like it takes faith to beleave, it also takes faith to not believe, after all, if you reach the afterlife and God is real, it doesn't matter if you have evidence before or not, you're still wrong.
Atheism is a religion because it's a belief system built around the faith of the absence of a god, it puts humans as the deity, and atheists themselves as the leaders of doctrines.
BTW, if you have any experience in these debates you should stop using French words and pretend 3 billion people believe in just rumors lol, now that is truly embarrassing, what makes your belief better than those 3 billion?
For me this wonderful conversation just reaffirmed my opinion about the brainwashing regarding religion. As the great late George Carlin once said. "I stopped believing in god when I hit the age of reason"
Hijacked Religion is not the only victim of life's experiences. "Truth" has been hijacked since man arrived.
The Greatest Conspiracy in existence is "Mortal identification" which both sides of the fence have yet to realize creates all apparent negations that plague the minds of most.
Intellectualism has fought hard to acquire relevancy leaving the reliable, unlimited, and perfect Wisdom to the sincere seekers of God.
The Greatest Science known to man KRIYA YOGA that brings proof of God's Reality through direct personal experience, has intensified the efforts of the Atheistic Obsessed to join the unwinnable battle against the most powerful weapon against ignorance of God ever made available.
It works like mathematics. Almost Fifty years of experience in the application of Kriya Yoga meditation techniques, that brings proof of God's Reality through direct personal contact.
Try it for yourself and you will know that what I say is true.
Yet another repost of the same nonsensical video, I do wish Dawkins would spend his time trying to prove evolution instead of berating theology! There are now so many more of those 'difficult questions' as Richard calls them, the longer they remain unanswered, the more disenclined people will be to believe in evolution.
With so few provable facts in its favor, I suspect evolution will continue to be remain nothing more than a theory for centuries to come.
Gravity is another theory but I’d assume you believe that
May I ask first, which theology are you so certain of? Since there are thousands of gods, and I suppose each one has many sects with strong theological differences, there must be many theologies?
Inasmuch as “theology” is a study of the nature of a being whose existence is entirely theoretical-there is no objective evidence of any god or gods-isn’t theology akin to crypto-zoology or crypto-biology? I can suppose one can study gods as well as one can study the Loch Ness monster, or Sasquatch. But in the absence of any actual specimens, I should think the study is rather a game, instead of a serious pursuit.
Whereas, it appears that all serious scientists accept evolution as the best -demonstrated of all scientists models. There are clutches of silly people, like the YEC fellows at AIG, who are privately funded, who try to problem solve using the Goat-Herder’s Guide to the Universe, but fail, and fail, and fail.
i want to buy tickets to the san diego show but the dates arent up yet :((
Same here. Or LA if possible. I bought tickets to San Francisco just in case
@@milivanilli1979 Perhaps they should invite William Lane Craig.
Please watch and share with others my five brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible, facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. And today's scientists agree with those facts!
scientific facts in the bible? ........🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Going back to the very beginning of time, as we commonly understand it, what existed before if anything, and if there was something, what was it?
These men will stand before God one day and regret their life.
Nope, they'll just take their seat exactly where they have chosen to be; far away from Him, so as not to see Him, while continuing sharing the same psedoscience crap, admiring each other with awe. As RD has said, even if God Himself revealed in front of him, it will be a delusion! What a scientific point of view; follow what I believe, damn the evidence!
@@THE_JOURNEYMAN_PAN What credible and verifiable evidence do you have for your god? I think it's dishonest and delusional to limit a supernatural answer for everything to just your special god. With the supernatural, ANYTHING could be possible.
BTW, any all-powerful and all-knowing god worth its salt would know what it would take to convince me or any atheist that it exists. That I still have no reason to believe is not my problem. If I were to experience a supernatural vision of something, whether it was a god, leprechaun or the Tooth Fairy, I would asssume that it was a hallucination, dream or delusion of some sort and I would see a doctor. We know from scientific evidence that the brain can produce these for many reasons, such as drug/chemicals, or physical/mental illness. Such visions are not credible evidence for a god. I think that's what Dawkins was referring to.
Maybe the same will happen when you stand before Zeus.
You are a silly person.
allah akbar
Simple difference between Dawkins and the Americans is he doesn’t need to be polite to ignorance
Loved this!
That ought to be our human life motto , and that is , " expanding one's consciousness and realization of the universe we find ourselves in " , and the willingness to explore it's wonders that lay before us !
Who will be joining you in Dallas? I already have my tickets. 😊
the only question i will ever ask here is... why do you have multiple copies of the same books on the shelves behind you?
Richard is such a hero
14:00 Dawkins wonders why Darwin's discovery didn't come earlier. But the answer is Lyell, whose book Darwin read on the Beagle. Without Lyell's demonstration of the great age of the earth, it must have been very hard to accept that life forms could undergo radical changes with time. (Dawkins mentions this later but doesn't cite Lyell). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell
@53:48 It slips by so normally... but it is actually the most important observation ever (for us anyway)
44:54 very well articulated. I was an atheist with such a need and Dawkins' book made me much more confident, he brought me from an strong agnostic to a strong atheistic agnostic (I totally believe there is no god but open to the possibility that I might still be wrong).
When someone starts their video buy promoting their stuff for financial gain...that tells us a lot...no one is immune to the God of Money
A book is a much better vehicle for developing rich, complex ideas than a 40 minute video.
I had rather give my $30 to Dawkins and his publisher than to Creflo Augustus Dollar, Jr. and his airplane mechanics.
I came to understand Evolutionary time because I was able to understand Geological time, but I didn’t have worthwhile Geological time until I had it in college. I didn’t understand it in High School at all.
12:05 by the way, I believe there is a way to combine the two options for interesting people, it is the problem oriented Popperian approach which shows both the beauty and a kind of utility in the way of understanding and solving a problem.
Darwin's brilliance far outshines especially considering his theory was almost 200 years ago. Far advanced comprehension.
37:49 did Lawrence mean validate or invalidate?
I love hearing more talks on biology and nature. I know everyone wants to talk about religion but it's in no way as interesting as the natural world.
The issue I have with these types of discussions is that it relies on subjective experience vs. perceived objectivity. even with objectivity there is a personal subjectivity that supports your claim due to the various sensory modalities that only you can experience for yourself. If we’ve never seen the bones of a dragon, does it mean dragons never existed? Most likely, but we will never know because our senses are relegated to things that are within the (very limited) scope of our immediate vicinity. Also, the opportunity to be exposed to that has gone away as well and cannot be undone. Another example would be if you friend walks away from you and you turn your attention to something else, he absolutely could’ve walked through a portal to another dimension and there’s no way you would know that unless you experienced it. Due to previous subjective experiences though, he most likely just walked away. I guess what I’m trying to say, is that we operate within a level of certainty even though it can be disputed.
Please watch and share with others my five brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible, facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. And today's scientists agree with those facts!
35:40 amazing, perfect! This is truly a problem oriented approach which will make it interesting and create trust in students which relate to both sides.
I always liked Niven and Pournelle’s “Think of it as Evolution in Action”
Observations are key. Especially in biology, in tandem with notetaking and recording data.
As for the Greeks, let us never forget that Socrates suggested that he did not write down his thoughts, because then he could forget about them…
not only do you have a good radio face , but, you also have a great voice for print!! which is why i have several of your books in Audible , thank you for sharing your thoughts
Atheists are expected to give 100 per cent correct answers and they give the answers with 100 % confidence!
Even from the preface, I could not agree more. For lack of a better word, you're based as hell.
I think the difficulty with understanding evolution is the very scale of it. We can't see evolution in action on our tiny fractions of time. You need to wait generations to see it work sometimes.
Anyone can experiment with physics when they play as children, as they get older they can experiment with chemistry, further still with biology.
Evolution takes entire lifetimes to experiment with.
Not always. We can (and have) observed evolution with life forms that have a very short life span.
@@maylingng4107 indeed, fruit flies spring to mind. and there are those lizards introduced to a valley somewhere that evolved down either side of the valley such that when they met at the other end they could no longer breed. speciation via natural selection. demonstrable and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
@@chousaru
I was a member (for a time) of the MSU project team in East Lansing, MI where after 30,000 generations we witnessed the emergence of a brand new species. (E-coli long term evolution experiment). It took a couple of decades to get to the finish line; but still we were able to see the mechanics of evolution in our lifetimes.
@@maylingng4107 that's fantastic, though i am surprised it took that long. i am no biologist of course, but it seems to my ignorant mind that simple organisms would adapt more quickly than complex creatures. heh! shows what i know! that being said, gratz on categorically proving the process of evolution 😃
@@chousaru Ok, Thanks!
NICE dialog boys. i enjoy Lawrence as a Proud Catholic he is worth a listen. OPEN MIND ALLOW THE UNIVERSE TO FEED YOU KNOWLEDGE
20:55 What Laurence is talking about here was the basis of Richard Feynmans PhD thesis titled "The Principal of Least Effort in Quantum Mechanics". In a nutshell he took principles of classical physics and applied them to quantum physics but I'm not a physicist so I'm not sure I can explain it in a way that makes sense. I'm a screenwriter and the only reason I read Feynmans PhD thesis is because I'm writing a screenplay about him (which hopefully won't be as boring as the movie "Infinity", which pissed me off). I'm literally writing it out of anger, how could you make such a boring movie about the most interesting man that ever lived?
29:43 I wish to propose again what I believe is the best approach to education and to the question where we should begin and that is through problems, we should begin with what the students find problematic and develop things from there. This will keep them constantly interested because problems like heroic stories are very compelling.
Extremely interesting and informative discussion but why start with the Greeks? How about the Arabs, Indians, Chinese etc.?
Always a great discussion!
"In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith)." That's the main problem: If you claim it's religious you can be as delusional as you want and it's not a mental disorder. I'm from Germany and we've had some experience with mass delusions. You can be stupid and delusional in the name of religion, but not anywhere else, isn't a productive approach.
Oh yea... those were the golden years. Unfortunately we already lost Hitchens, Dennet and Randi.
Today I stumbled over a YT video from SmarterEveryDay about the rotating flagellum of certain single-cell organisms. It's a quite impressive research, but what I found most astonishing:
In the final conclusion the question of 'complexity' or 'design' was put on the table. Of course SED is a science channel and puts the question in the right corner.
It's an expression of the same awe and wonder that can be heard from Dawkins and Krauss. Well done guys, keep defending this curiosity.
BTW I am as old as the Voyager probes, so I got a life-long realtime update abo of our universe for free ;) Isn't that gorgeous?
I went to college to become a medical laboratory technologist and during a course on immunology one of the students stood up and announced that she doesn't believe in evolution?
I was baffled by that announcement since immunology is derived from revolutionary biology. We need to keep developing new vaccines and treatments because these infectious agents are evolving and developing immunity to our drugs and treatments.
That kind of cognitive dissonance is dangerously ignorant. I worry that that student will end up making some very dangerous mistakes because of that dissonance.
Needless to say, that student is an avowed fundamental Christian.
One of the great problems in the polity,of America is how religious communities (like SBC, LDS, SDA, JW) practice tolerance for cognitive dissonance in communal settings. Any outsider to these cults is gob-smacked by the nonsense they profess. Consider the ridiculous mythology that Joseph Smith concocted about the native peoples. Yet people like Mitt Romney claim to believe it! No wonder the GOP so easily takes advantage of the American public, shovellinggwealth towards the ultra rich via tax breaks, creating the most unequal distribution of wealth in human history.
I questioned religion at a young age but I thought it might be catholicism. When I checked out other sects I realized it was all malarkey
It’s not just about debating evolution -most people are focused on their basic needs. But when science proves something like evolution, it can threaten a belief system that’s been part of someone’s life for decades, and that’s not easy to let go of. Instead of diving into complex topics right away, we can show kids simple science, like how dropping a stone in a bucket displaces the same volume of water every time. That’s science too, and it’s a tool we use to understand the world. Once you grasp the tool, more complex ideas start to make sense.
I love Dawkins but telling me I'm getting the content a week late then showing me a video from 2007 (almost certainly already on youtube)is just silly. This seems to be a regular thing too.
Refresher dose or reality.
"This was back in the day when Scintific American cared about Science " 2:37 Scary!
At Harvard University they did an experiment on children They give them some food to eat and they don't tell them what to eat or what not to eat so every child eats what is good for him. Can parents do with their childrens and leave them on their own. I am not saying that they should not teach them essential things. But just essential things and let them go on their own. They don't need any religion and God which doesn't exist at all. What they need is awareness, alertness, meditation, understanding ,education , learning and I think they can do it very easily if parents, society, religion, politicians and even scientists just don't interfere with their lives. They can be far for better than what parents, society, religion, politicians, nations produce them. Just let them live on their own terms
Prisons around the world are full and overflowing with grown-up children who were allowed to live on their own terms.
35:09 very important to criticise the debate format but at the same tume it is important to propose a different format with clear reasoning of why it is better (liberalism instead of anarchism and despotism).
Nice. Younger Laurence has more charm. Though at one point I shunned him for his ego, he's grown on me since.
Sometimes I only want to curl up and dye. Then I open TH-cam and find this. Yeah, my proposals (from SA) never even got a reply; yeah, I’m a lone voice from deepest, darkest Africa; yeah, I will be gone without having made an impact nearly as much as I wanted to. This might have kept me alive for a few days longer.
Keep on. Even if 1 has been changed by you, it's already been worthwhile. It's very very difficult to touch someone in the sense you are trying to. But I'm sure you already did. So: keep on!
Keep writing and have faith in cheeses.
@@VaughanMcCue "blessed are the cheese makers "
@@MrPeterschmit
Remembering the aqueduct builders and Henry Wensleydale's cheese shop. Purveyor of fine cheese to the gentry and ~poverty stricken too~
Actually, Plato touches on the nave principle of natural selection in his “Republic”. In it, Plato demonstrates how animals inherits different attributes from their parents. He notes, as does Darwin, that animal breeders utilize this fact to breed for animals with more desirable qualities.
However, where Darwin then ponders that there must then be a natural selection occurring on its own under the principle of the survival of the fittest, Plato thinks we ought to use this principle to breed for the most desirable members of the various social classes that he sees in his “good state”.
So long as there's consciousness specially pure consciousness, you can't kill religion. It's the experience of mysticism. To think outside the science box sometimes to create a genesis story, or whatever is the course of religion.
A fact can be easily proven, a theory takes more experimentation and much more careful thought.
Great discussion!
I was taught Biology, Physics, and finally Chemistry. I feel I should have been taught Physics, Chemistry, and Biology.
wonderful ideas beautifully stated. sanity and reason ftw!
What happened to those allegations of Krauss by some of his female students?
"Jeffrey has surrounded himself with beautiful women and young women but they’re not as young as the ones that were claimed. As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people...I don’t feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it.”
- Krauss on his close relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein (2011)
What an incredible people. Amazing
I'm sorry to say that your videos are too long for me to devote the time, despite enjoying your insights & analyses immensely. Is perhaps a parallel "syllabus" if 15 minutes videos a possibility?
what happened to the Q&A?
At the Q&A in the original video, in answer to a question on the " belief in God of people who are suffering, who have nothing, who are clinging onto life with their fingertips", RD said, " who cares what you feel like, who cares what makes you feel comforted, who cares what helps you sleep at night, what matters is what's true". Maybe that's why the Q&A has been omitted?
@@briansmith3791 there was Q&A scheduled for last thursday but the live youtube stream was cancelled
@@mjaada Ok. The above video ( minus the Q&A) is from 2007 where RD answered in the manner i indicated.
4:39 which says a lot about the current common judicial system and how wrong and unjust it is.
Toronto 😢 not in the list
Y'all are awesome.
I really, really do enjoy and find everything this couple of Wizened-Gentlemen discuss: re Biology/Physics/Atheism--extraordinaire! I have been following them; reading them; and also watching them here for about five years. But where I part w/them is (in my humble-'opining'), it seems I never ever experience either of them bother to mention "Olden History"(c. 455,000-100,000 to 12,500 to 7,000 to 4,000BCE and such!) ::hummm, Perhaps I missed it somewhere:::. oh well. But I still do enjoy every [absolutely wonderful bio/phy/athe-thing they discuss. : )
Unmatched erudition and enlightenment. Two of the finest exponents of scientific thought and temper.