The whole interview is on TH-cam,The interviewer is never rude and always calm with his questions. He does adress in the beginning that he's not on the same intellectual standing as Dawkins and he should come back and have a go on some of the more educated people. The interviewer is honestly interested and never acts like people like Bill O Reily.
In all fairness the interviewer, although he lacked a understanding of biology (which he admits) he is never rude to Dawkins and continues to ask questions that are usually not asked by such people, so if he takes it on and continues to think about such things, I am sure he could come to a more realistic mindset.
Just watched start of the full interview. I understand now. Howard Conder is an incredibly nice and respectful man who had a close relative die in the week leading up to this interview. The way he conducts himself is also very refreshing to anyone who has been watching other creationist videos. I actually recommend watching a few minutes of the beginning of the interview, I feel as if I can understand and empathize with this guy.
how did this man get this job? how did he get to the point when he's seated in front of a world famous scientist and writer, an Oxford professor while clearly not knowing basic facts about the world? did he go to school?
I'm using the term "natural" to mean in accordance with the laws of nature, whatever those laws may be at the time. That is, to differentiate from the "supernatural" which includes ghosts, gods, magic, etc. At time t=0, or even t
An incredible thing happened near where I live: There was a terrible earthquake and many buildings were damaged. But in an area where there were some tumbled down buildings, as a result of the earthquake, a beautiful 2 story building appeared, with doors and windows, all in perfecr order and it even looked as if it had been just painted. Everybody was amazed.
The part that most amazes me is that the stories we know of as the Old Testament were never taken to be literal for thousands of years. Then people decided to. From legend into fact... this is the opposite direction from every other story I know of. A giant leap backwards.
I don't know what you mean by "recombination". I was referring to fission where the energy released comes from the reduced binding energy as the nucleus is reduced in size towards iron. Whether the atom is in an excited state or the ground state has no effect on the nuclear forces. Two identical atoms under identical conditions will decay at different times with no cause or influence to explain it.
Yes, I see what you're getting at, if it didn't exist how could we give it a name. The same problem occurs if we change it to "before time existed", since the word "before" infers the existence of time already. These types of paradoxes can only be resolved by consideration of other realms outside of time.
"is or reeking of "gravity is random" caliber stupidity." I would love someone to make a video of screen shots of this guy's comments. That "pink elephants" song from Dumbo strikes me as a fitting sound track.
"WE LOVE YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO, BUT IT'S NOT WORKING." Not with that guy, that's for sure! lol. I like to think that the value in his work is that there are less obtuse people watching and perhaps he's going to impact them. Plus he provides material and inspiration for us who like to fight the good fight ourselves.
"Logic is something creationists fail to use" That is further highlighted buy the fact of us being dirty inefficient shit machines would be an argument AGAINST a perfect design, not for it.
Those will be the people whose parents in all sincerity said the words "Thank God!" when their newborn child was saved by a highly skilled team of doctors and nurses pushed to their limits for hours to save the childs life via Caesarean section.
Dr Wilder-Smith. Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry, Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences, D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences. Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. He has published over 70 scientific papers . He is recognised as one of the most brilliant minds of the last century. Take a look at some of his papers.
The outcome may be predictable based on the velocity of the ball after it leaves the croupier's hand but that initial velocity is completely random if we accept the concept of free will. In a completely deterministic universe, of course, this discussion would be moot. I'm also not sure that even the potential predictability of the game in play is significant since this information is not available to the casino in question when they configure the odds to favour the house.
I follow that line of reasoning but there's a problem. We use the term "natural" to describe events that take place within the already existing universe, however, at time =0 there was no universe so "natural" doesn't really apply.
In your post 2 weeks ago you said "there is no situation known in the universe where an event occurred without a cause, so if the universe is all that exists it could not have self created". It is true that, as you state today, the fact that we don't know the cause of an event like the decay of a single atom doesn't mean that there isn't one. If we accept your premise that the decay of an atom may have an unknown natural cause then the same could be said for the creation of the universe.
Well perhaps I didn't use the correct scientific term, it's been a while. The decay of radio active isotopes is completely predictable, in fact radio carbon 14 is used to date things from antiquity. The half life is a statistical representation of this phenomenon measuring the overall effect of decay on a large sample. Because we are not able to measure this on a single particle due to Heisenberg and do not know why the times to decay vary, it does not infer no cause.
I can only hope that when this guy said "We stumbled around in the dark" he meant our VERY distant primitive animal ancestors were in the dark. I wish Dawkins had said, YES our most very distant ancestors like bacteria and single celled amoeba in the sea were mostly in the dark.. but early on some developed simple primitive photosensitive cells. As life evolved to be more complex, the photo-cells were in small indentations that became primitive "eyes" that further evolved in prehistoric fish
He may do those things by promoting his religious beliefs, but he did none of those things by asking the question, which is what we were talking about.
Sequencing of the whole of the genome:- Anyone who believes in ‘simple’ bacteria should look at the genome map for Haemophilus influenzae - it should cure them for good. Furthermore, if a prokaryote such as a typical bacterium were to be transformed into a human over some billions of years, one has to add the information for about a further 100,000 genes - an impossible task for mutations to achieve.
I can't agree with this. A large group of individually unpredictable events can have a statistical likelihood of favoring one outcome over another with predictable results. An individual game of roulette is completely unpredictable but with a large enough number of games a casino is statistically likely to win more than they lose and will do so consistently.
I wish Dawkins had simply and quickly explained how worms urinate, then how fish urinate, then how amphibians urinate, then how reptiles urinate, then how primitive mammals urinate, then how primates urinate, then how people urinate. It's pretty much a continuum;.
Decay of radio active particles occures as the energy of the excited particle is given up in recombination. Because this occurance is too chaotic to predict doesn't meant it occurs without a cause. Quantum mechanics contradicts much of what mainstreem science tells us and may be a clue to the true nature of reality.
Quantum mechanics doesn't contradict mainstream science, it has become mainstream science. What it contradicts is classical physics as well as our intuition about, and observation of, the macroscopic world. You are absolutely correct that it provides the clues to the true nature of reality. It's just that this reality of how the universe functions at the most basic sub-atomic level is not, and never will be, intuitively understood in any way that "makes sense".
So are you proposing that man came from worms, reptiles, fish ... bha bhhaa bhaahahaha bhhahahahahahahahahahahahha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH
The guy's question wasn't THAT terrible in itself; it just showed his ignorance of the theory of evolution, which is not a crime. The real problem was that only moments earlier Dawkins had explained to him how the eye evolved, and how each intermittent stage did perform the required function, doing the job better and better as time went on.
"it just showed his ignorance of the theory of evolution, which is not a crime. " Promoting fear, ignorance, parochialism and barefaced insincerity is a crime if the word means anything. I think it's a crime against our civilization and its children.
Indeed. It takes a very well educated person to realize that he actually knows very little in the grand scheme of things. Which makes it even more baffling to such a person if someone else, overconfident in his lack of knowledge, makes completely unfounded assertions with such preposterous certainty.
"as a laymen I had to come to terms with how did we -" stop there. As an idiot, you'd dream up whatever you 'felt' was right based on limited evidence, and convince yourself it's true. That's religion. As an intelligent person, you'd collect, test and verify as much evidence possible before formulating a hypothesis. Then test and share that hypothesis for others to test - until a valid, testable, informed, well-supported, and non-contradictory conclusion can be made. That's science.
It's not an injury, we are wired slightly differently that's all. Generally Dyslexics are of normal or above intelligence and have distinguished themselves. Einstein himself is said to be dyslexic.
I had a creationist on one of my videos argue that evolution was false because it would have been more efficient for us to evolve some way of recycling our waste internally....
From inside a soda bubble one could determine the nature of a glass of cola. Does that mean there was nothing that made the bubble and that the only explanation is a all knowing all loving omnipotent glass of sugar drink?
Well yeah. We already have a fair number of people who think Stonehenge and the great pyramids were built by aliens "because humans couldn't possibly have done that". It's the same concept.
If the organism is small enough, waste would be released as a liquid, not as a solid. Maybe this is what the theist was focusing on? He should really be more specific. Even single celled organisms can release waste.
If events occurring en-mass result in a completely predictable and reproducible result as with the half life, you can hardly claim that the individual events leading to this are random and without cause as this would leads to "inconsistency" in the theory.
The decay of radioactive isotopes occurs at random times with no cause. Virtual particles appear and disappear within the "empty" vacuum of space with no cause other than the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not allow a perfect absence of energy to exist. That's two examples of where science and physics says that events do happen without a cause. I suggest reading books by Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind if you want further information. If you'd rather not know then, obviously, don't.
It just shows that a world class biologist can get it wrong. The drive to be popular is very powerful: that's why there are so many hoaxes and half truths.
"Dawkins has nothing but speculation to go on." And fossils and reason and genetics and bio-geographical distribution, etc, etc... The man's question is utterly senseless.
The evidence for me is the beauty, the design, the colours, the harmony, the power and how everything just seems to fit together. Rain, clouds, sunshine, the seasons, H20. Don't you think all this had to be there from the word 'go', otherwise there would be total caos and absolutely no meaning to anything. I just simply believe the creator did it and He has to be eternal. You may call it assumption; I call it faith.
Even if you had all the required information and a super-computer you could still only predict where the ball would land after all the variables you list had been determined. There is no way to even hypothetically predict how the croupier will throw the ball before he does so. That is the truly random bit. How hard does he decide to throw the ball? At what angle? How much spin? Does he sneeze? Does a hot chick distract him at the last second? None of these factors are predetermined.
I am a natural speed reader - read a novel in one evening, can't spell most of the words. Turns out reading for me is done in one part of my brain and spelling in another. Tested years ago when I scored way too high on an IQ test but I could not write a book report - obviously I have overcome it but knowing what the problem is was the key. Numbers - ya tough for me too, and names . Fortunately the compensation is I understand anything I read and can correlate the knowledge.Seems you can too
"I'm a simple man."
Indeed you are.
The whole interview is on TH-cam,The interviewer is never rude and always calm with his questions. He does adress in the beginning that he's not on the same intellectual standing as Dawkins and he should come back and have a go on some of the more educated people. The interviewer is honestly interested and never acts like people like Bill O Reily.
ivan zalac: That is true but it does mean I would feel bad calling him an idiot.
I don't think this man understands Evolution.
One thing is for sure, he is still waiting for his brain to develop. I think he needs another million years.
In all fairness the interviewer, although he lacked a understanding of biology (which he admits) he is never rude to Dawkins and continues to ask questions that are usually not asked by such people, so if he takes it on and continues to think about such things, I am sure he could come to a more realistic mindset.
Poor Dawkins. There's one idiom in hindi language which says Bhais ke age bin bajana. Which means in layman's term - you are wasting your time.
The first shit must have been amazing.
Our ancestors invented sewer systems. Does he not know that.
Just watched start of the full interview. I understand now. Howard Conder is an incredibly nice and respectful man who had a close relative die in the week leading up to this interview. The way he conducts himself is also very refreshing to anyone who has been watching other creationist videos. I actually recommend watching a few minutes of the beginning of the interview, I feel as if I can understand and empathize with this guy.
"Does this man understand that [insert anything]?"
No.
Oh thank you for posting this. I'm still laughing an hour later. Priceless.
how did this man get this job? how did he get to the point when he's seated in front of a world famous scientist and writer, an Oxford professor while clearly not knowing basic facts about the world? did he go to school?
i sure do love how he makes sure to tell us he's a layman. for a minute there, i was thinking he was a biology professor at oxford.
ROFLMAO! This has got to be one of the stupidest questions ever uttered by a homo sapiens!
"It's a simple question, but I'm a simple man."
obviously.
LOL!
Waiting for excretory organs to evolve.
That's why there's always a long queue outside certain restrooms.
Poor Dawk.
Tide goes in, tide goes out.
I'm using the term "natural" to mean in accordance with the laws of nature, whatever those laws may be at the time. That is, to differentiate from the "supernatural" which includes ghosts, gods, magic, etc.
At time t=0, or even t
Sometimes "layman" is just a polite euphemism for "f*cktard".
double face palm.
An incredible thing happened near where I live: There was a terrible earthquake and many buildings were damaged. But in an area where there were some tumbled down buildings, as a result of the earthquake, a beautiful 2 story building appeared, with doors and windows, all in perfecr order and it even looked as if it had been just painted. Everybody was amazed.
Good analogy. The man working on silicon probably did not envision it being conscripted into a GPS by the evolution of science.
The part that most amazes me is that the stories we know of as the Old Testament were never taken to be literal for thousands of years. Then people decided to. From legend into fact... this is the opposite direction from every other story I know of. A giant leap backwards.
FACEPALMED SO HARD I KNOCKED MYSELF OUT! What day is it, how long have I been out?
Thank you for making me laugh! You have a wonderful sense of humor! :)
There is no mistake... that is a simple man with a simple mind.
I don't know what you mean by "recombination". I was referring to fission where the energy released comes from the reduced binding energy as the nucleus is reduced in size towards iron. Whether the atom is in an excited state or the ground state has no effect on the nuclear forces.
Two identical atoms under identical conditions will decay at different times with no cause or influence to explain it.
Oh, my goodness. That's truly painful.
Dyslexia doesn't make you stupid. He remembers him bible fine.
Yes, I see what you're getting at, if it didn't exist how could we give it a name. The same problem occurs if we change it to "before time existed", since the word "before" infers the existence of time already. These types of paradoxes can only be resolved by consideration of other realms outside of time.
Its like explaining the correlation between the light switch and the lamp lol! This guy reminds me of Ray (the banana man) Comfort.
Although "random", is sometimes used to denote unpredictability, ("pseudo random") my use of it was as stated earlier, an event without a cause.
"is or reeking of "gravity is random" caliber stupidity."
I would love someone to make a video of screen shots of this guy's comments. That "pink elephants" song from Dumbo strikes me as a fitting sound track.
......What?
I love the look on Prof Dawkin's face.
What Dawkins says is "Did you find that convincing, what I said about the eye?" And the reply was "Well,...not really."
"WE LOVE YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO, BUT IT'S NOT WORKING."
Not with that guy, that's for sure! lol. I like to think that the value in his work is that there are less obtuse people watching and perhaps he's going to impact them. Plus he provides material and inspiration for us who like to fight the good fight ourselves.
"Logic is something creationists fail to use"
That is further highlighted buy the fact of us being dirty inefficient shit machines would be an argument AGAINST a perfect design, not for it.
Those will be the people whose parents in all sincerity said the words "Thank God!" when their newborn child was saved by a highly skilled team of doctors and nurses pushed to their limits for hours to save the childs life via Caesarean section.
but their mind is *Get it?*
What on earth 😆
"How the hell does he think that the lower orders get rid of waste?"
Via magic, obviously... duh! :)
Dr Wilder-Smith. Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry, Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences, D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences. Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. He has published over 70 scientific papers . He is recognised as one of the most brilliant minds of the last century. Take a look at some of his papers.
There are more biologists named Harjinder than those who deny evolution.
Richard should have said the belly button was an asshole back in the day XD
The outcome may be predictable based on the velocity of the ball after it leaves the croupier's hand but that initial velocity is completely random if we accept the concept of free will. In a completely deterministic universe, of course, this discussion would be moot.
I'm also not sure that even the potential predictability of the game in play is significant since this information is not available to the casino in question when they configure the odds to favour the house.
I don't know what to say, the link works. The interview is there.
I follow that line of reasoning but there's a problem. We use the term "natural" to describe events that take place within the already existing universe, however, at time =0 there was no universe so "natural" doesn't really apply.
In your post 2 weeks ago you said "there is no situation known in the universe where an event occurred without a cause, so if the universe is all that exists it could not have self created".
It is true that, as you state today, the fact that we don't know the cause of an event like the decay of a single atom doesn't mean that there isn't one. If we accept your premise that the decay of an atom may have an unknown natural cause then the same could be said for the creation of the universe.
Well perhaps I didn't use the correct scientific term, it's been a while. The decay of radio active isotopes is completely predictable, in fact radio carbon 14 is used to date things from antiquity. The half life is a statistical representation of this phenomenon measuring the overall effect of decay on a large sample. Because we are not able to measure this on a single particle due to Heisenberg and do not know why the times to decay vary, it does not infer no cause.
I've just watched the full version. Congratulations Richard for sitting through this bullshit! You are a fucking star.
To be honest. If I thought THAT was evolution, I would believe too.
oh... and creatures (or buildings in this case) don't select, they are selected.
If this guy is confused with "which came first: urine or the bladder?", I can only imagine his head would pop off if he heard the original idiom...
Tried that first. It goes to a non-existent video.
My bad. I was hearing "proffessor mumble mumble" instead of "what I said about the eye"
MILLIONS of times every day. And basically all of them are doomed to eternal torture as well. Let us not forget the scale of his "good".
There is no time = 0. It has to be a positive number.
This guy was just trolling Dawkins with dumb questions.
I can only hope that when this guy said "We stumbled around in the dark" he meant our VERY distant primitive animal ancestors were in the dark. I wish Dawkins had said, YES our most very distant ancestors like bacteria and single celled amoeba in the sea were mostly in the dark.. but early on some developed simple primitive photosensitive cells. As life evolved to be more complex, the photo-cells were in small indentations that became primitive "eyes" that further evolved in prehistoric fish
He may do those things by promoting his religious beliefs, but he did none of those things by asking the question, which is what we were talking about.
Sequencing of the whole of the genome:- Anyone who believes in ‘simple’ bacteria should look at the genome map for Haemophilus influenzae - it should cure them for good. Furthermore, if a prokaryote such as a typical bacterium were to be transformed into a human over some billions of years, one has to add the information for about a further 100,000 genes - an impossible task for mutations to achieve.
I can't agree with this. A large group of individually unpredictable events can have a statistical likelihood of favoring one outcome over another with predictable results.
An individual game of roulette is completely unpredictable but with a large enough number of games a casino is statistically likely to win more than they lose and will do so consistently.
I wish Dawkins had simply and quickly explained how worms urinate, then how fish urinate, then how amphibians urinate, then how reptiles urinate, then how primitive mammals urinate, then how primates urinate, then how people urinate. It's pretty much a continuum;.
It's like a 3 year old asking Einstien to explain the theory of relativity. Dawkins most have regretted accepting this interview.
That would be a ridiculous excercise!
Decay of radio active particles occures as the energy of the excited particle is given up in recombination. Because this occurance is too chaotic to predict doesn't meant it occurs without a cause. Quantum mechanics contradicts much of what mainstreem science tells us and may be a clue to the true nature of reality.
Quantum mechanics doesn't contradict mainstream science, it has become mainstream science. What it contradicts is classical physics as well as our intuition about, and observation of, the macroscopic world.
You are absolutely correct that it provides the clues to the true nature of reality. It's just that this reality of how the universe functions at the most basic sub-atomic level is not, and never will be, intuitively understood in any way that "makes sense".
"Sincerely, people with at least half a brain" -- FTFY :)
So are you proposing that man came from worms, reptiles, fish ... bha bhhaa bhaahahaha bhhahahahahahahahahahahahha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH
George Carlin: 'Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.' lol :)
"But I don't take on Creationists..."
- Dawkins on why he won't debate William Lane Craig
The guy's question wasn't THAT terrible in itself; it just showed his ignorance of the theory of evolution, which is not a crime. The real problem was that only moments earlier Dawkins had explained to him how the eye evolved, and how each intermittent stage did perform the required function, doing the job better and better as time went on.
I'm pretty sure that is the basic question Richard had for his publicist.
I can hardly wait a minute to pee lol
LOL!!!!! ''I know its a simple question, but im a simple man.'' ... Really should be ''I know its a stupid question, but im a stupid man''
"it just showed his ignorance of the theory of evolution, which is not a crime. "
Promoting fear, ignorance, parochialism and barefaced insincerity is a crime if the word means anything. I think it's a crime against our civilization and its children.
Indeed. It takes a very well educated person to realize that he actually knows very little in the grand scheme of things. Which makes it even more baffling to such a person if someone else, overconfident in his lack of knowledge, makes completely unfounded assertions with such preposterous certainty.
"as a laymen I had to come to terms with how did we -" stop there.
As an idiot, you'd dream up whatever you 'felt' was right based on limited evidence, and convince yourself it's true. That's religion.
As an intelligent person, you'd collect, test and verify as much evidence possible before formulating a hypothesis. Then test and share that hypothesis for others to test - until a valid, testable, informed, well-supported, and non-contradictory conclusion can be made. That's science.
It's not an injury, we are wired slightly differently that's all. Generally Dyslexics are of normal or above intelligence and have distinguished themselves. Einstein himself is said to be dyslexic.
Educated versus Uneducated.... FIGHT!
Sorry, I posted the new link there but forgot to take the dead one out. Fixed.
I had a creationist on one of my videos argue that evolution was false because it would have been more efficient for us to evolve some way of recycling our waste internally....
From inside a soda bubble one could determine the nature of a glass of cola. Does that mean there was nothing that made the bubble and that the only explanation is a all knowing all loving omnipotent glass of sugar drink?
Well yeah. We already have a fair number of people who think Stonehenge and the great pyramids were built by aliens "because humans couldn't possibly have done that". It's the same concept.
If the organism is small enough, waste would be released as a liquid, not as a solid. Maybe this is what the theist was focusing on? He should really be more specific. Even single celled organisms can release waste.
Peeing: how does it work?
If events occurring en-mass result in a completely predictable and reproducible result as with the half life, you can hardly claim that the individual events leading to this are random and without cause as this would leads to "inconsistency" in the theory.
Maybe out there there is a giant top hat that he pulled himself out of? You can't disprove it so it must be true.
That is because they don't know what is going on. Hardly surprising.
I thought there were no such thing as stupid questions, apparently I was wrong.
There is no reanoning with stupidity!
He tries to explain a number of things in that interview. That guy couldn't care less what educated people actually think.
The decay of radioactive isotopes occurs at random times with no cause. Virtual particles appear and disappear within the "empty" vacuum of space with no cause other than the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not allow a perfect absence of energy to exist.
That's two examples of where science and physics says that events do happen without a cause. I suggest reading books by Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind if you want further information. If you'd rather not know then, obviously, don't.
It just shows that a world class biologist can get it wrong. The drive to be popular is very powerful: that's why there are so many hoaxes and half truths.
The only thing an understanding of science lessens is ignorance. It is as elegant as any fairytale and is true on top of that! :)
"Dawkins has nothing but speculation to go on."
And fossils and reason and genetics and bio-geographical distribution, etc, etc...
The man's question is utterly senseless.
The evidence for me is the beauty, the design, the colours, the harmony, the power and how everything just seems to fit together. Rain, clouds, sunshine, the seasons, H20. Don't you think all this had to be there from the word 'go', otherwise there would be total caos and absolutely no meaning to anything. I just simply believe the creator did it and He has to be eternal. You may call it assumption; I call it faith.
Even if you had all the required information and a super-computer you could still only predict where the ball would land after all the variables you list had been determined. There is no way to even hypothetically predict how the croupier will throw the ball before he does so. That is the truly random bit. How hard does he decide to throw the ball? At what angle? How much spin? Does he sneeze? Does a hot chick distract him at the last second?
None of these factors are predetermined.
Thank you, but I really have to credit Richard Feynam for the thought.
I am a natural speed reader - read a novel in one evening, can't spell most of the words. Turns out reading for me is done in one part of my brain and spelling in another. Tested years ago when I scored way too high on an IQ test but I could not write a book report - obviously I have overcome it but knowing what the problem is was the key. Numbers - ya tough for me too, and names . Fortunately the compensation is I understand anything I read and can correlate the knowledge.Seems you can too