So this guy thinks that scientists dont have an answer to this moronic question? Does he really think he is putting Dawkins on the spot? What happens when Dawkins gives him the answer....he IGNORES it!
I've seen the complete interview the question and answer is not distorted in any way lol this guys just a religious guy who never really looked at the evidence and came to his own conclusion like most religious people lol
The meaning of meek - adjective, meek·er, meek·est. 1. humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others. 2. overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame. 3. Obsolete. gentle; kind.
simple question, simple answer: when we didn't have excretory organs, we didn't need to excrete. when we didn't have eyesight, we really didn't need it. when we need it, we developed it. that's what evolution is.
An answer that would make me happy is one that doesn't ignore 5 lines of my comment, and doesn't nod it away as if it never existed in the first place. I want to thank you for showing my point precisely, well done, I couldn't have done it better myself.
"You also can't make a blind man know what red looks like." No, but you can convince them that something called "red" exists. To you, what does the word "dogma" mean?
Reason is, it's a Hebraic rewriting of an older Sumerian/Babylonian origins myth, which were wildly popular throughout the Ancient Near East cultures, existing in many different forms (only the names were changed). The Genesis version of the tale caught on and survived, as apparently IT was better adapted to survive compared to all the others. See, natural selection is not just for organisms, since many parallels exist in the competition of ideas (which Richard Dawkins labelled as memes).
There was an experiment done using a computer simulation that would put 100 logic gates in any order and simulate the results of two different input frequencies. The goal was to make a circuit that output logic 1 and 0 depending on input. The computer sampled thousands of circuits and they cut out the ones that made no comprehensive outputs. They then crossbred the remaining circuits. The result after 4000 generations was a circuit no human would ever design. Survival of the fittest in action.
Don't mock the gentleman with the beard. It is quite clear his practical education was non-standard. That doesn't mean he lacks intelligence. What concerns me is if the gentleman is born and bred in America, we need to take a very careful look at our school system.
"We were bumping around without eyes" does not say to me: "We were fully-developed humans without eyes." "We" , to me, means our ancestors in their evolutionary state. This is shoddy journalism.
"Red is just a color, what part of electo-magnetism made red paint red" Will someone else tell him that he doesn't know what he's talking about? He obviously doesn't listen.
"The "eye" argument is a legitimate argument for the creationist" They can argue about eyes all they want, but don't bring that simple rubbish to anyone with a basic science education and expect to be treated respectfully. The evolution of the eye is one of the best known and well understood processes in ALL of evolutionary science. Never looking it up does not make a "legitimate argument".
a magical invisible man, who has always been here, is timeless, spaceless, and loves you and everyone else, but if you don't do what he say, he will burn you an a pit of fire and lava for an eternity. clearly that's where matter came from
I love how going to the toilet was the most complex biological process this guy could come up with. Forget gene expression, neurotransmission or protein folding....nope, going to the toilet it is!
I also like how earlier in the arguement he said to that this isn't even an arguement, that this is a joke, and that I should "loosen up". This is of course in contrast to his current big talk about "defeat" and "victory".
It's not even, "if anything"! We can use genetics to make an enormous and detailed family tree. It's beyond evidence... its just drawing the whole picture.
Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon: the pigeon just knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, and struts around like it's winning.
Also, keep in mind, theists, these few points which are basic premises of Christianity: 1. God created Hell. 2. God ruled the criterias which determine if a soul goes to hell. 3. Everything is a part of his "plan" and nothing happens against his will. If we follow these very basic premises of Christianity, I think we can easily, and deductively deduce that God is one evil, evil guy.
To the one that will call Hitler to account for his choices; to the one who will call Stalin to account for his choices; to the one who will account for the Jihadist terrorists to account for their choices; to the one who will call the perpetrators of 9/11 to account for their choices; to the one who will call for all those in positions of power and choose to ignore the sufferings of their common humanity; to the one who will call to account, the rapists, mass murderers, etc who got away with it
Using this logic, you could say the car was useless until it had wheels, or the internet was useless until we had computers. This is nonsensical, as wheels and computers were around before cars and the internet. The digestive system is the same. It was around before humans evolved, existing in their ancestors. Go far enough back, and you can actually see how the digestive system evolved, and how it's changed to suit the animals lifestyle and diet.
I've no desire to read a book that advocates needless violence then claims God ordered them to do it.. nor do I wish to read a book that contradicts itself over and over. no thanks I'll stick to logic, reason and facts thanks.
I'm a Christian (not creationist per'se) and I cant believe someone posted this like it was a GOOD arguement against Dawkins. I cant believe anyone would think his response to this question puts into doubt his intellect or undermines his views. My goodness. I may not agree with Dawkins all the time but honestly only on things that can actually be refuted to a degree this is just sad and I apologise to the non theists here who are frustrated at this poor attempt to undermine such a well educated figure.
Well, he died for our sins as the ultimate sacrifice (because before God demanded animal sacrifices) so that our sins would be washed away forevermore. To do this, he endured lashings, mockery, a crown of thorns, and being nailed to a tree, slowly and painfully dying. He did this for us. So, yeah. Pretty heroic.
I apologize for any offence you may feel. It is not my intention. This tends very much a hairy subject as we are questioning each others fundimental beliefs.
Uh, I DID finish the story; it was a cliffhanger. In case you haven't noticed, many are STILL waiting for the return of Christ, who said in 32CE, "And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.". Dude's close to 2,000 yrs overdue, as everyone who was alive in 30CE can be safely assumed to be dead.
A friend of mine, when he found out that I was having this on-line discussion, pointed out a very salient truth in a very crude way: "Arguing on-line is like running in the Special Olympics; even if you win you're still retarded." However crude his analogy, I believe his point has merit. I am done with this correspondence now.
"Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." ~ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (online, 2006) "In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts." ~Kim Ann Zimerman
You're missing the point. Humans didn't need to become social animals, and they didn't need farming. It's a choice we made, and its benefitted us enough to get us where we are today. Without these things, we'd be a completely different animal. Farming and social living isn't exclusive to humans. There're many insects that do it, and they all thrive too. We just took it to an extra level, and used out intellect to advance our technology. Most animals don't need those things to be successful.
Also brother I'd like to say, that personally I never consider a single moment of learning and/or improving my overall education and knowledge base a waste of time. Especially if you have a desire to stand for truth and to debate, it's very important to know both sides of the argument back to front. "It is said that if you know your enemies as you know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles" -Sun Tzu 'The Art of War'
I have yet to see a creationist make Richard Dawkins "look like an idiot". Wendy Wright, Ted Haggard and this guy. 0 Creationists 3 Dawkins. Your move elegantphotograph.
We became more complex as we needed to. In order to survive in an ever growing hostile environment. Simple. If modern humans just took the best lesson the Bible has to teach, we'd all be a lot happier. "Treat others how you would like to be treated." A lesson learned from the Bible by an Atheist.
The more important question is how did the first cell stay alive long enough to mutate to where it could sexually reproduce. That first cell had to be able to multiply or else anytime a cell first came to exist it would become extinct soon after with no way to reproduce, which is a complex function all by itself. That is the right question.
well, we're not entirely sure. I don't know if we have fossils of the first cell, but we can stab at how it could have survived. Presumably, I think, there would have been a lot of cells that existed before it, but could never reproduce. So it was the one that -could- produce that created pretty much all life on earth,
Ronald Kelly Well how the fuck can we know? The only person who ever says to have absolute knowledge is the person who is lying through their teeth. Our evidence is how it survives NOW. We don't need proof of something's existence to have an idea of what could have existed. We don't need to record each fucking supernova of a star to know that a certain kind of nebula is the remnant of an exploded star. We don't need proof to know that people have been murdered before. We don't need proof to know that babies have been made. Just saying that "there's no proof of it!" doesn't make me wrong, because I'm not arguing for its validity. I'm saying how most scientists view the shit. So if you want me to "prove how cells first arose," which would be a monumental task and surely give me, a lowly beta manchild faggot on the internet, many rewards and prizes, then why the fuck don't you PROVE to me that jesus was resurrected. So far as I'm aware, the only thing that can resurrect a person who died of starvation is magic. And the universe cannot into magic.
ThatCamel104 How monumental must it be to c reate a living cell with all the knowledge of cells andhe fact that non intelligent matter could do it. Is dirt smarter than evolutionary "scientists" considering atheists are so emphatic about not needing an Intelligent Beingbeing necessary for life to come into existence. PLUS life needs organic matter to live but where organic matter cme from before the first creature even came into existence. Face it., Natualism is a fraud used by ateists to mislead people to believe God is not needed to explain life.
How the hell can he even say that "the information revolution, particularly in biology, is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and all chemical Evolutionary theories." If anything, the newest information we have gathered pertaining to biology is strongly supporting these two things.
"We don't hate what we don't believe to exist." double negative, removes the negatives from the problem and leaves the remainder. "We hate what we believe to exist." Is actually what you just said, just so you know. for next time.
The "slant" of this is so very absurd, and out of all context, evolution is not a myth. It is the fact of growing change in the real world, indisputable.
You're saying that the first living organisms already were complete and had all the functions they needed to be able to live. So you're agreeing with me that they didn't slowly evolve! Congratulations, we can hug now and go home.
Nature has no purposes, it just does. The reason why we are here is literally only because it's possible. Our purpose is to survive to carry on our genes. What I mean is, we set the purposes, not God. If you want to be a janitor, that's your purpose, if you want to be Batman, that's your purpose, if you want to be King of the Pirates, that's your purpose. It's up to you. Evolution doesn't say that, Atheism suggests it. It matters because I enjoy it.
That's the cute part! He doesn't even mention being religious and we can still tell from his ignorance and egotism. Yes, christian indeed. Most religions try to hide their hypocrisy. Not these people, it's like a merit badge!
Evolution doesnt have predesigned plan. Species evolve independently to fit the niche they live in. The only guarding force is survival. Cheetahs have evolved to catch gazelle, and gazelle have evolved to escape cheetahs. Early man evolved larger brains, which helped understand things like fire, farming, and social living. Cancer has evolved alongside animals. As immune systems get better, cancer gets better at getting past them. It's an evolutionary arms race, which we're currently losing
In case you aren't a troll: 1. We are not the crown of evolution. Evolution doesn't evolve TOWARDS something, it adapts in various ways to its surroundings. Currently we are not the most successful species. Bacteria pretty much rule the world. 2. There are animals that do not have problems like cancer. We are currently researching them. And that pretty much also answered your "problem". Our thing as humans is to adapt behavior, which proves to be one of the better ways to survive.
Therefore, far from bragging, I decided to take up the torch and defend the Creationist side while at the same time reign in the arrogance of the evolutionist. I even suggested that, for the BENEFIT of the atheists in the crowd, that they sharpen/strengthen their own side of their argument by educating themselves through the adoption of the German Higher Criticism approach. I was alone in this the whole time. No one helped me. I didn't realize this all meant I was arrogant.
I were dumbfounded too! Such a stupid question. What should I answer? If a child asks, I know what to say, but when mature man asks such an obvious things... I would think that he is not normal, and, as I do not know how to communicate inadequate persons, I were dumbfounded.
The interviewer is right. If an early creature in the evolutionary timescale starts to need the ability to eat, the organs for that purpose then slowly evolve (according to evolution theory) over millions of years to provide that function. This is non-sensical, if it needs to eat to survive, it's got a long wait for those vital organs! And what came first, the ability to eat or the ability to excrete waste?? One without the other is no good. And what told biology to create such organs?
As I said, we need to remove the obstacles that separate us all. We need to stop judging each other by our differences and try and find our commonalities. A comedian, Charlie Chaplin, who is known as a silent comedy genius, who came from poverty to become one of the most famous men of his time. It's ironic that this silent clown made one of the most beautiful speeches in the film "the great dictator" /watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo I hope you enjoy the vid
What do you want me to mention about the Cambrian "explosion" fossils? There was indeed a lot of advancement during the millions of years that cover the Cambrian but when the environment changes the adaption of species accelerates either to survive or take advantage. We are indeed "cousins" of the banana and everything else in the Eukaryan class. All animals, plants and fungi.
On my way to the hospital due to severe facepalm injury.
lol Dawkins was awestruck by the absolute stupidity of the interviewers question.
So this guy thinks that scientists dont have an answer to this moronic question? Does he really think he is putting Dawkins on the spot? What happens when Dawkins gives him the answer....he IGNORES it!
but how did i evolve to release waste? that was never answered!
baconater4000 Releasing waste is the final part of the digestion system which evolved from the first time animals had mouths....3.5 billion years ago.
LawoftheLandPA i was just kidding
How did cats know where to relieve themselves before the litter box was invented? Did they wait millions of years? Check and mate.
I've seen the complete interview the question and answer is not distorted in any way lol this guys just a religious guy who never really looked at the evidence and came to his own conclusion like most religious people lol
I love Richards face expressions when he is dumbfounded lmao It's like he's wondering if he is on planet Earth anymore.
The meaning of meek -
adjective, meek·er, meek·est.
1.
humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others.
2.
overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.
3.
Obsolete. gentle; kind.
Just because I say I won't be convinced doesn't mean I don't have an open mind and that I am not being rational.
I love how "faith" is SO important to religious people that they devalue it at the first convenience.
Creationists just don't realize that evolution isn't like X-men superpowers.
What is funny is that you are not facepalming to the questions. That only means you are at the same educational level in science as the interviewer.
" its that you feel that somehow your words are right and mine are always wrong"
Pretty much the same thing.
simple question, simple answer: when we didn't have excretory organs, we didn't need to excrete. when we didn't have eyesight, we really didn't need it. when we need it, we developed it. that's what evolution is.
An answer that would make me happy is one that doesn't ignore 5 lines of my comment, and doesn't nod it away as if it never existed in the first place.
I want to thank you for showing my point precisely, well done, I couldn't have done it better myself.
Poor man he thought we all hung around waiting for differents to form,no wonder Dawkins was dismayed.
And in any case, my point still stands. Atheists don't hate any gods - they're all equally imaginary in our eyes.
Translation: You don't understand, therefore whatever your mommy told you as a baby must be the true secret of the universe.
Got it.
"You also can't make a blind man know what red looks like."
No, but you can convince them that something called "red" exists.
To you, what does the word "dogma" mean?
Reason is, it's a Hebraic rewriting of an older Sumerian/Babylonian origins myth, which were wildly popular throughout the Ancient Near East cultures, existing in many different forms (only the names were changed).
The Genesis version of the tale caught on and survived, as apparently IT was better adapted to survive compared to all the others.
See, natural selection is not just for organisms, since many parallels exist in the competition of ideas (which Richard Dawkins labelled as memes).
I like this old version better. The nice piano music makes the idiocy more bearable.
There was an experiment done using a computer simulation that would put 100 logic gates in any order and simulate the results of two different input frequencies. The goal was to make a circuit that output logic 1 and 0 depending on input. The computer sampled thousands of circuits and they cut out the ones that made no comprehensive outputs. They then crossbred the remaining circuits. The result after 4000 generations was a circuit no human would ever design. Survival of the fittest in action.
Don't mock the gentleman with the beard. It is quite clear his practical education was non-standard. That doesn't mean he lacks intelligence. What concerns me is if the gentleman is born and bred in America, we need to take a very careful look at our school system.
Please, this is torture. Richard your patience is admiral, but, you need not feel an obligation to these type of Questions.
A nutjob got baptised then spread around nonsense only to agro the authorithies then to be crucified and remembered as a martyr.
Very heroic.
You didn't watch the video.
Yours truly,
The OP
"We were bumping around without eyes" does not say to me: "We were fully-developed humans without eyes." "We" , to me, means our ancestors in their evolutionary state. This is shoddy journalism.
It takes more faith to believe we got here by mere chance than it does to believe God created everything.
"Red is just a color, what part of electo-magnetism made red paint red"
Will someone else tell him that he doesn't know what he's talking about? He obviously doesn't listen.
He was dumbfounded yes, dumbfounded by the sheer stupid of the question
Religion is toxic, knowledge is power.
The Bible answers where science comes from. Proverbs 2:6 "For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding."
"The "eye" argument is a legitimate argument for the creationist"
They can argue about eyes all they want, but don't bring that simple rubbish to anyone with a basic science education and expect to be treated respectfully. The evolution of the eye is one of the best known and well understood processes in ALL of evolutionary science. Never looking it up does not make a "legitimate argument".
a magical invisible man, who has always been here, is timeless, spaceless, and loves you and everyone else, but if you don't do what he say, he will burn you an a pit of fire and lava for an eternity.
clearly that's where matter came from
I love how going to the toilet was the most complex biological process this guy could come up with. Forget gene expression, neurotransmission or protein folding....nope, going to the toilet it is!
"Why follow a god, if he's "too mysterious and timeless to understand"?"
Because that's what mommy told him to do.
I also like how earlier in the arguement he said to that this isn't even an arguement, that this is a joke, and that I should "loosen up".
This is of course in contrast to his current big talk about "defeat" and "victory".
It's not even, "if anything"! We can use genetics to make an enormous and detailed family tree. It's beyond evidence... its just drawing the whole picture.
This poor misguided chap is the reason Richard Dawkins doesn't debate with creationists, they simply have no grasp of reality.
Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon: the pigeon just knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, and struts around like it's winning.
Also, keep in mind, theists, these few points which are basic premises of Christianity:
1. God created Hell.
2. God ruled the criterias which determine if a soul goes to hell.
3. Everything is a part of his "plan" and nothing happens against his will.
If we follow these very basic premises of Christianity, I think we can easily, and deductively deduce that God is one evil, evil guy.
The bottom line is this:
The more you claim that my belief system is crap, the more I will claim that your belief system is crap.
Got it?
What's even better is that you likely don't even know what my "ends" were.
If you ask him I bet he IS an expert on foreign relations.
To the one that will call Hitler to account for his choices; to the one who will call Stalin to account for his choices; to the one who will account for the Jihadist terrorists to account for their choices; to the one who will call the perpetrators of 9/11 to account for their choices; to the one who will call for all those in positions of power and choose to ignore the sufferings of their common humanity; to the one who will call to account, the rapists, mass murderers, etc who got away with it
People that didn't hear about jesus get a free pass. We are doomed based on geography because we heard "the good news".
I think we can all agree that he is a simple minded man
Using this logic, you could say the car was useless until it had wheels, or the internet was useless until we had computers. This is nonsensical, as wheels and computers were around before cars and the internet. The digestive system is the same. It was around before humans evolved, existing in their ancestors. Go far enough back, and you can actually see how the digestive system evolved, and how it's changed to suit the animals lifestyle and diet.
I've no desire to read a book that advocates needless violence then claims God ordered them to do it.. nor do I wish to read a book that contradicts itself over and over. no thanks I'll stick to logic, reason and facts thanks.
In my experience, creationists tend to be willfully ignorant, so arguing with them usually isn't worth your time.
I'm a Christian (not creationist per'se) and I cant believe someone posted this like it was a GOOD arguement against Dawkins. I cant believe anyone would think his response to this question puts into doubt his intellect or undermines his views. My goodness. I may not agree with Dawkins all the time but honestly only on things that can actually be refuted to a degree this is just sad and I apologise to the non theists here who are frustrated at this poor attempt to undermine such a well educated figure.
Well, he died for our sins as the ultimate sacrifice (because before God demanded animal sacrifices) so that our sins would be washed away forevermore. To do this, he endured lashings, mockery, a crown of thorns, and being nailed to a tree, slowly and painfully dying. He did this for us.
So, yeah. Pretty heroic.
I apologize for any offence you may feel. It is not my intention. This tends very much a hairy subject as we are questioning each others fundimental beliefs.
Most Christians, like myself, outside the US think creationism is a joke
like he said,,,, hes a simple man
He's serious. That's a standard like they give to each other when in church and there is no one there to laugh at them.
I think "layman" is understating it a bit, don't you think?
It's worse than you say. He can't be bothered, while on youtube already, to search something and watch a 3 minute science video.
Uh, I DID finish the story; it was a cliffhanger.
In case you haven't noticed, many are STILL waiting for the return of Christ, who said in 32CE, "And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.".
Dude's close to 2,000 yrs overdue, as everyone who was alive in 30CE can be safely assumed to be dead.
If God designed us shouldn't we have the eyes of an eagle, the strength of a gorilla, the speed of a cheetah and be able to swim like a seal?
I don't think bashing the poor guy for having an honest question is really right. He didn't know when you don't know you ask questions.
A friend of mine, when he found out that I was having this on-line discussion, pointed out a very salient truth in a very crude way:
"Arguing on-line is like running in the Special Olympics; even if you win you're still retarded."
However crude his analogy, I believe his point has merit.
I am done with this correspondence now.
It's like playing the lottery.
Many thousands if not millions play, yet there are only a few winners.
"Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
~ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (online, 2006)
"In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts."
~Kim Ann Zimerman
It's not even ad hominem, it's a showing of humor.
I'm not wasting 2 hours of my day to watch all eight, but I will watch one.
In summation: I. Am. An. Atheist. Atheists. Do. Exist.
If these simple facts don't compute in your brain, that's not my problem.
"...I'm a simple man." You got that right.
You're missing the point. Humans didn't need to become social animals, and they didn't need farming. It's a choice we made, and its benefitted us enough to get us where we are today. Without these things, we'd be a completely different animal. Farming and social living isn't exclusive to humans. There're many insects that do it, and they all thrive too. We just took it to an extra level, and used out intellect to advance our technology. Most animals don't need those things to be successful.
Also brother I'd like to say, that personally I never consider a single moment of learning and/or improving my overall education and knowledge base a waste of time. Especially if you have a desire to stand for truth and to debate, it's very important to know both sides of the argument back to front.
"It is said that if you know your enemies as you know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles" -Sun Tzu 'The Art of War'
I have yet to see a creationist make Richard Dawkins "look like an idiot". Wendy Wright, Ted Haggard and this guy. 0 Creationists 3 Dawkins. Your move elegantphotograph.
"learn the difference between "it's" and "its""
Oh, I imagine he thinks he's an expert on that too. My guess is that it's not a typo.
We became more complex as we needed to. In order to survive in an ever growing hostile environment. Simple. If modern humans just took the best lesson the Bible has to teach, we'd all be a lot happier. "Treat others how you would like to be treated." A lesson learned from the Bible by an Atheist.
How did I get from videos about drawing to videos about Richard Dawkins? DAMMIT TH-cam
Hahaha I love the piano track in the background. It gives it the strangest vibe but somehow it manages to fit perfectly.
The more important question is how did the first cell stay alive long enough to mutate to where it could sexually reproduce. That first cell had to be able to multiply or else anytime a cell first came to exist it would become extinct soon after with no way to reproduce, which is a complex function all by itself. That is the right question.
well, we're not entirely sure. I don't know if we have fossils of the first cell, but we can stab at how it could have survived. Presumably, I think, there would have been a lot of cells that existed before it, but could never reproduce. So it was the one that -could- produce that created pretty much all life on earth,
ThatCamel104 NO PROOF!
Ronald Kelly Well how the fuck can we know? The only person who ever says to have absolute knowledge is the person who is lying through their teeth.
Our evidence is how it survives NOW. We don't need proof of something's existence to have an idea of what could have existed.
We don't need to record each fucking supernova of a star to know that a certain kind of nebula is the remnant of an exploded star.
We don't need proof to know that people have been murdered before.
We don't need proof to know that babies have been made.
Just saying that "there's no proof of it!" doesn't make me wrong, because I'm not arguing for its validity. I'm saying how most scientists view the shit.
So if you want me to "prove how cells first arose," which would be a monumental task and surely give me, a lowly beta manchild faggot on the internet, many rewards and prizes, then why the fuck don't you PROVE to me that jesus was resurrected.
So far as I'm aware, the only thing that can resurrect a person who died of starvation is magic.
And the universe cannot into magic.
ThatCamel104 How monumental must it be to c reate a living cell with all the knowledge of cells andhe fact that non intelligent matter could do it. Is dirt smarter than evolutionary "scientists" considering atheists are so emphatic about not needing an Intelligent Beingbeing necessary for life to come into existence. PLUS life needs organic matter to live but where organic matter cme from before the first creature even came into existence. Face it., Natualism is a fraud used by ateists to mislead people to believe God is not needed to explain life.
Google genetic depression. Google Inbreeding depression. It's like Horizontal Mutation and Horizontal Gene Transfer.
How the hell can he even say that "the information revolution, particularly in biology, is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and all chemical Evolutionary theories." If anything, the newest information we have gathered pertaining to biology is strongly supporting these two things.
I am one who believes in God and creation but I must say that the title of the video is misleading. It was definitely a silly question.
"We don't hate what we don't believe to exist."
double negative, removes the negatives from the problem and leaves the remainder.
"We hate what we believe to exist." Is actually what you just said, just so you know. for next time.
what did i just watch
"neither tempteth he any man"
"that God did tempt Abraham"
He disliked religion generally. It's nothing to do with "the church" or organization. It was what it did to peoples minds.
"I didn't say anything like that."
He knows. You are being trolled.
The "slant" of this is so very absurd, and out of all context, evolution is not a myth. It is the fact of growing change in the real world, indisputable.
I don't think you misunderstand what double negatives aren't.
You're saying that the first living organisms already were complete and had all the functions they needed to be able to live.
So you're agreeing with me that they didn't slowly evolve! Congratulations, we can hug now and go home.
Nature has no purposes, it just does. The reason why we are here is literally only because it's possible. Our purpose is to survive to carry on our genes. What I mean is, we set the purposes, not God. If you want to be a janitor, that's your purpose, if you want to be Batman, that's your purpose, if you want to be King of the Pirates, that's your purpose. It's up to you.
Evolution doesn't say that, Atheism suggests it.
It matters because I enjoy it.
I meant to say medicine benefits nothing from the evolutionary theory.
It's not difficult for him. It's impossible for him, and that has nothing to do with the information in question.
That's the cute part! He doesn't even mention being religious and we can still tell from his ignorance and egotism. Yes, christian indeed. Most religions try to hide their hypocrisy. Not these people, it's like a merit badge!
Evolution doesnt have predesigned plan. Species evolve independently to fit the niche they live in. The only guarding force is survival. Cheetahs have evolved to catch gazelle, and gazelle have evolved to escape cheetahs. Early man evolved larger brains, which helped understand things like fire, farming, and social living. Cancer has evolved alongside animals. As immune systems get better, cancer gets better at getting past them. It's an evolutionary arms race, which we're currently losing
In case you aren't a troll:
1. We are not the crown of evolution. Evolution doesn't evolve TOWARDS something, it adapts in various ways to its surroundings. Currently we are not the most successful species. Bacteria pretty much rule the world. 2. There are animals that do not have problems like cancer. We are currently researching them. And that pretty much also answered your "problem". Our thing as humans is to adapt behavior, which proves to be one of the better ways to survive.
"There is all sorts of grounds for empiricism in the Christian faith."
Really...? That's a new one.
Therefore, far from bragging, I decided to take up the torch and defend the Creationist side while at the same time reign in the arrogance of the evolutionist.
I even suggested that, for the BENEFIT of the atheists in the crowd, that they sharpen/strengthen their own side of their argument by educating themselves through the adoption of the German Higher Criticism approach.
I was alone in this the whole time. No one helped me.
I didn't realize this all meant I was arrogant.
I were dumbfounded too! Such a stupid question. What should I answer? If a child asks, I know what to say, but when mature man asks such an obvious things... I would think that he is not normal, and, as I do not know how to communicate inadequate persons, I were dumbfounded.
The interviewer is right. If an early creature in the evolutionary timescale starts to need the ability to eat, the organs for that purpose then slowly evolve (according to evolution theory) over millions of years to provide that function. This is non-sensical, if it needs to eat to survive, it's got a long wait for those vital organs!
And what came first, the ability to eat or the ability to excrete waste?? One without the other is no good.
And what told biology to create such organs?
"Dumbfounded" = "dumbstruck" + "confounded".
And you might consider watching the video again. You clearly missed something.
A rock never became a cell. Chemicals because increasingly complex.
As I said, we need to remove the obstacles that separate us all. We need to stop judging each other by our differences and try and find our commonalities.
A comedian, Charlie Chaplin, who is known as a silent comedy genius, who came from poverty to become one of the most famous men of his time. It's ironic that this silent clown made one of the most beautiful speeches in the film "the great dictator"
/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
I hope you enjoy the vid
What do you want me to mention about the Cambrian "explosion" fossils? There was indeed a lot of advancement during the millions of years that cover the Cambrian but when the environment changes the adaption of species accelerates either to survive or take advantage.
We are indeed "cousins" of the banana and everything else in the Eukaryan class. All animals, plants and fungi.