Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ต.ค. 2009
- Complete video at: fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Daw...
Biologist Richard Dawkins identifies what he views is the single most compelling fact to refute Creationism -- but states that the real problem lies in convincing Creationists to listen to the evidence. "What they do is simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'La la la,'" says Dawkins. "You cannot argue with a mind like that."
-----
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion created a storm of controversy over the question of God's existence. Now, in The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins presents a stunning counterattack against advocates of "Intelligent Design" that explains the evidence for evolution while keeping an eye trained on the absurdities of the creationist argument.
More than an argument of his own, it's a thrilling tour into our distant past and into the interstices of life on earth. Taking us through the case for evolution step-by-step, Dawkins looks at DNA, selective breeding, anatomical similarities, molecular family trees, geography, time, fossils, vestiges and imperfections, human evolution, and the formula for a strong scientific theory.
Dawkins' trademark wit and ferocity is joined by an infectious passion for the beauty and strangeness of the natural world, proving along the way that the mechanisms of the natural world are more miraculous -- a "greater show" -- than any creation story generated by any religion on earth. - Berkeley Arts and Letters
Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned evolutionary biologist and author. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and, until recently, held the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His first book, The Selfish Gene, was an instant international bestseller, and has become an established classic work of modern evolutionary biology.
He is also the author of The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil's Chaplain, The Ancestor's Tale The God Delusion, and most recently, The Greatsest Show on Earth.
Professor Dawkins's awards have included the Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London (1989), the Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science (1990), The International Cosmos Prize (1997) and the Kistler Prize (2001).
He has Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
frrr *Another beautiful one from the same Einstein:* _Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble._
Are you down to only 14 trolling accounts now, were the others closed by TH-cam because of your constant violations?
And an other one about Einstein that he probably thought: _I don't have any evidence for any god_
Well he didn't say it but that doesn't excuse you from forgetting that little detail. Do you anything else than quotes that don't do anything?
“If you type anything in quotation marks on TH-cam, people will flock to it immediately, without ever fact checking the quote.” - Genghis Vanderbilt III
Yer funny.
I've read that somewhere else and can confirm it's true.
@@onafehts - You sound just like Dawkins 😉
I was actually there when Genghis said that, but because he didn't use quotation marks, I didn't believe him. Now I just feel stupid.
@@paulakennedy2085 - The OP was quite insightful. It made coming to this [absurd] video worthwhile.
*Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe rtrdtion. For instance, the 65 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"2ndchookie" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno.*
v12f *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"2ndchookie" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
"A mind like that is a disgrace to the human species!"
I knew I came here for a reason ;)
You gotta love this guy. Smite the ignorant with wit and intelligence.
And good old British upper class. Seems like a very nice guy. I saw him in person once; he spoke about the ministers who were renouncing their faith--had a couple of them with him, and was utterly astounded that neither of them had a lick of formal thological education. Both were either HS grads or HS dropouts. But that's typical of US southern bible preachers. It was fascinating how he didn't even know that. He always assumes people know more than they do, because he himself knows so very much and he doesn't seem to want to assume anyone is really that much less informed.
Jillian Smith
Your so stupid, it frightens me.
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1
Must be true then if it's in the bible, right?
Because the bible says the bible is true.
(Meanwhile, the koran says the koran is true.)
You fucking moron.
vbvv *Another beautiful one from the same Einstein:* _Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble._
Senile.
*Simply beautiful and deep one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
Tell us what you are doing here every minute of every day of your miserable failed life?
Tell us what motivates you to be here 24/7/365 for two decades?
A smart man will read a lifetime worth of books and still admit he knows nothing. A delusional, superstitious man will read one particular book and think he has everything he needs to know.
Even if this clever little statement was in anyway true, it would still condemn someone like Dawkins who may have read many books but still makes the same claims.
Ricahrd P'Brien
""""""""" I wonder why every Christian-affiliated college in the US , except those of the strict fundamentalist variety, teaches that evolution is correct and valid science?"""""""""
It's called "deception"!!
Do you have such a list that I can review? I'm unaware of which Christian colleges support evolution and which ones don't.
Blue Chief Awesome Woe to the unwise man who does not head the words of that book.
Dan Shelton 🤣
*Absolutely beautiful and deep one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
Why do emus have wings?
Because everything is 'perfect' to someone's eyes, it means one of the 4000 religions is true? It means that a dead man can resurrect? It means that a man can walk on water and multiply bread and fish? Sorry but religion, as history shows, is always an excuse for kings and rulers to justify why they should own everything. That's what they told the people in america, in the Philippines and everywhere. That 'god' gave the kings the right to own the world.
@@orlandocarrillo7132 Brilliant deconstruction!
eee *A nice one from Einstein:* _The fanatical atheists are like s-laves_
You are much more a slave to your Master, get down and grovel harder.
Why do I have a feeling that you invented that one? Surely you didn't, you're too honest for that
*Absolutely beautiful and true saying from Pasteur:* _Too little science leads away from God, while too much science leads back to Him_
Why do emus have wings?
Mae Culpa: Yes I did say that Dawkins cannot answer, because Dawkins never answers, regardless of the competence of his interviewers, he always rides above reality, like a man thinking a snow-drift is reality, while inserting infantile supersitions to fit in with the persona he has conned his sycophants into believing they are seeing who he is…..?
@@davidbanner6230 *Who fckd ur skull so badly?*
Inspirational quotes doesn't mean shit. Hard data is where it's at, stop trying to appeal to emotion.
@@davidbanner6230 Righhhhht! ~ So you accuse Dawkins of not answering a question that has, as yet, no answer ~ .... A question that you, yourself, have no answer to!! ~ Sighhhhhhhhhhh!
"Professing to be wise, they became fools"
Should have quoted the whole scripture. I wonder if they would have recognized themselves.
ExtantFrodo2, you wrote, "Yes, so many religious people professing to be wise. Sucks, doesn't it?"
So many anti-Christian people professing to be wise. Sucks, doesn't it? Have you read this?
_"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -- Ps 14:1-3 KJV_
That cuts the self-righteous atheist off at the knees. LOL!
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools
I often wonder who it is that militant atheists are trying to convince.
:oP
@@steveaustinaustin7173, you wrote, "I often wonder who it is that militant atheists are trying to convince."
Perhaps Einstein had them pegged:
_"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."_
[Guy H. Raner, 1949, quoting Einstein, in Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?". Skeptic, Vol.5, No.2, 1997]_
_"Einstein tended to be more critical of the debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he explained in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who- in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."_
[Walter Isaacson, "Einstein: His Life and Universe." Simon & Schuster, 2007, pp.388-389]
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools *" Have you read this? "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."*
Who knows if there is a god? I only state the truth as I see it - that those who profess a god exists haven't presented any convincing evidence to support their claim.
*"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."*
Wait a minute. Doesn't the god of the bible say that EVERYONE is bad and that NONE have done good? Why NOW single out unbelievers?
*"The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -- Ps 14:1-3 KJV"*
Oh yes, yes indeed it does. Thanks for providing that for me.
dfdf *A nice one from Einstein:* _The fanatical atheists are like s-laves_
Senile.
Senile.
Senile.
*Simply beautiful from Anro Penzias, Nobel laureate in physics, co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background:*
_The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five Books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole_
*andrew "ergonomover" eldridge" is not only a great actor, but also an amazing biologist. He insisted that Kiwi birds have no wings.*
I didn't make those claims and you are a privacy violator, according to TH-cam.
Why not close all your sock accounts since you refuse to follow the rules?
@@ergonomover *How am I a privacy violator if YT ignored your accusations, cc-rree-t in?*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Once again, posting a user's first and last name without consent is a violation of TH-cam privacy rules, look it up.
*A reminder for sane, honest people, you can see that in this comment section we deal with a cc-rr-eeee-t in: the ballet dancer andrew "ergonomover" eld-ridge (aka "senor reasonable"/"scientist flanders"/"devil monkey"/joseph fiore") who said he is an actor and the id io-t thinks that if someone mentions the name of an actor, that someone violates the YT guidelines. At the same time, he called me multiple times "Oscar Larsen". That says some thing.....*
*And he told us that the morning-after pills are used for...terminating pregnancies.*
if he's wearing a ridiculous tie, he's probably a genius
Would a bowtie and long unkempt hair make him more intelligent? -- lol.
#billnye #richarddawkins
@Joseph Henderson Or non-conformity.
Another data point in favor of the 'Absurd Cravat Theory'.
He may be a genius, but not in choosing ties.
bmy *Since the 66 year old b-a-llet dancer A. Eldridge (aka "ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/flandiddlyanders"/"docreasonable"/"EnlightenedByKnowledge"/"yeshuaisjoshua" /dougwalker said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" (I captured this sublime moment in my last v1de0), I started to think that he walks only on his fours.....*
Kid, your brainless repetition is telling everyone who suffers from "rtrdtion" here. You actually think a 66 year old man would spend 22 hours a day (between his ballet leaps and spins) to animate "countless" _superbly differentiated_ accounts, just to fool poor little you?
Step back from your bubble of paranoid delusions to see how insane that is.
"on his fours": I think you meant "only on all fours", please learn proper English someday instead of wasting your time posting your paranoid and narcissistic delusions.
nmki *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"yeshuaisjoshua"/"dougwalker"/"AI-CREATARD" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
xzd *By the way, the r-trd (an a-theist in theory) said that I am owned by unclean spirits. That's because he acrually knows he is in that situation, my beautiful v3de0s show it.*
What was the proof? I must of missed it ..
@Epsensieg 18 A patient at a loony bin was over heard saying "I must be here because I'm not all there."
Or the video sucked and didn’t explain it very well..
@@BigDaddy-vr2ut Perhaps you don't know what "nested hierarchy of earth's species" means.
@@ExtantFrodo2 The fact is that evolution has no scientific foundation. Just because similar dna is found in organisms does not mean they all came from one ancestor. No physical evidence suggests that one family of organisms can change into another. The carbon 14 and other radiometric dating methods evolutionists use are scientifically proven to be completely false. The origin of the universe stumps atheists so bad that they don't even have theories on what could have happened. (Some claim they do, but they are all based on pure speculation with no standing in facts) The fact is evolution is accepted by faith, not science. Evolution in reality is a wrong philosophy of the how the world works.
ExtantFrodo2 perhaps
_The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five Books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole_
*Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate in physics, co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background*
Did Moses lead Penzias to any scientific discoveries? Take you time, I'll wait.
*Simply beautiful and powerful one from James C. Maxwell:* _Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created._
The DNA and gene codes of plants and animals look so similar and yet they produce so vastly different organisms.
Therefore trying to find a "common" ancestor based on DNA (aka INFORMATION) similarities is just a s-tup id idea.
@@user-pc4uo3df5i
LUCA.
@@YeshuaisnotJesus *This we were trying to explain to you, Eldridge. There cannot be any LUCA. Sorry if we were too subtle for your intellect.*
@@user-pc4uo3df5i Screeching "nuh uh" won't change reality, little troll.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Oh, after "yeshuaisnotjesus" you came with another t-rolling account "PhD" 😂 to tell us how the things really are because your expertise as a b-allet dancer (in real life) recommends you, Eldridge. So far we got from you that water contains molecules of oxygen, the solar circle is a think tank and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno. Anything else that you want to add?* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*Simply beautiful one from Max Planck - founder of modern science, read it carefully:* _As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom._
_Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter_
Why do kākāpōs have wings, ...... after all, they are parrots, ..... or are they owls?? ~ Either way, they can't fly.
fvv5 *As I said, believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe rtrdtion. For instance, the 65 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"FlandiddlyandersFRS" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno.*
Do U p into Ur own m0uth?
Severe rtrdtion is thinking everyone on TH-cam is one old guy who is out to get you!
@@ergonomover *U have no shame, otherwise u would have left yt long time ago, crcture.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 My responding to a lying troll who smears my family name will stop when the lies and smearing stop. What in the world is a "crcture"? Must be a vile word for you to butcher it so. Why so much hate?
@@ergonomover*Me, lying troll? My beautiful v2de0s show a crcture who l-ies more than s-tn.*
*Unforgettable one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
I'm still waiting for an Evo to explain in detail how new genes form. Human's have 47,000 of them.
But all the Evo's do is change the subject.
Mockery, erroneous conclusions and a hatred of Jesus Christ…That’s all the Evo’s got.
a gene can duplicate and change to form a new gene sometimes
To be fair, if you really want to learn then that's a great question. To understand the answer, start by looking into how genes get passed from parents down to offspring. Once you get to understand how that works then it's not too big a step to get to the answer to your question. But certainly start by learning about how genes get inherited. Once you understand what "diploid" means in that context then you'll be part way there.
@@davegaskell7680 *At one moment there was no parent to pass the genes from....keep belueving in nonsense.*
Genes can be duplicated. If you take a piece of dough with some sprinkles in it and split it in half, chances are that one side will have a bit more dough than the other. And chances are that the colors of sprinkles in the two halves will be a bit different, and more in one half.
*Absolutely beautiful this one from Lord Kelvin says the same thing as all other greatest scientists:* _If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God._
Why do emus have wings?
You’re mentally ill
@@spikefunakoshi5667 *The rtrds have no chance to find the right one.*
@@spikefunakoshi5667 None of the above. ~~ Unkulunkulu!! ... The Zulu's are right!
@@spikefunakoshi5667 *The rtrds have no chance to find the right one.*
*My last v1de0 shows how a 65 year old b-allet dancer insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno and then he denied it, lying shamelessly that I said all these....*
You said "all these" what? All your claims that I'm everyone on YT are lies? Yes they are.
*Simply beautiful and motivational this one from Kelvin:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
🛑, GET HELP!
dfew *Since the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge (aka "ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/flandiddlyanders"/"docreasonable"/"EnlightenedByKnowledge"/"yeshuaisjoshua"/"dougwalker" said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" (I captured this sublime moment in my last v1de0), I started to think that he walks only on his fours.....*
You think b-allet involves walking on all fours? You actually think a 66 year old man would spend 22 hours a day (between his ballet leaps and spins) to animate "countless" _superbly differentiated_ accounts, just to fool you?
Step back from your bubble of paranoid delusions to see how insane that is.
"only on his fours" = not English, who watches your videos besides you?
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” Proverbs 18:2 ESV
the kind of religious belief that causes a person to block out all evidence and reason, in favor of some fantasy? that's not something I want to understand.
To those who only believe what they can "see", contemplate this science; Since I cannot see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, only the visible light spectrum is real. Everything else is an opinion or does not exist to me.
Scientific fact is humans can only "see" about 1% of the EM wave spectrum.
The more scientists search for "truth", the more they find that the less they truly understand it.
@@stephenmartinez1 perhaps is evidence and reason that leads someone to believe ?
@@nobodyknows3180 I’ll grant u that most people believe because of personal revelation. Though that’s fine but there’s plenty that do offer evidence and that evidence sometimes was the thing that converted them
@@nobodyknows3180 Yh the problem with that is Dawkins has to step in my worldview to argue his case
*It's easy to know who the real creator is, just see who the one attacked by d-emons is.*
Yahweh is the demonic entity, as any moral observer can plainly see.... Tr0LL.
'The LORD shall roar on high against ALL the inhabitants of the earth (that includes Y0U, t0ad). Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth. The slain of the LORD shall be from one end of the earth unto the other end of the earth; they shall be dung upon the ground.' Jer 25
There are several people here, demons are mythical. My condolences for the loss of your humanity.
*Very beautiful one from Max Planck - founder of modern science, read it carefully:* _As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom._
_Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter_
'we must assume'... That's completely opposed to how a scientist should work. Scientists do not assume. They hypothesize and work on proving those hypotheses. But that's the result of brainwashing. I have many friends who studied medicine with me and even though the profession demands living under the rules of the scientific method, they are devote believers. Which makes no sense at all. Its either you're a scientific or religious
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”
MATTHEW 6: 5-7
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - Gregory House (TV character played by Hugh Laurie)
Never watched House', but what a simple yet brilliant quote.
Funny cos it's true.
you know way i laugh at people that do not believe in God first off it is the odds live could be done with out a creator the odds are 1/2.850.000 x10 against such b.s. seeing how 1/30 x1000 is an impossibility WITCH SCIENTIST HAVE STATED THAT IS THE NUMBER PAST ALL PROBABILITY (2) if you look at qubed math and the 3,6,9, math Tesla used you begin to see how complex every thing is ,SO I HAVE MORE REASON TO LAUGH AT evolutionist l seeings how there religion is faith based as well NO MY DEAR CHRISTIANS EVEN THOUGH FAITH HAS REVEALED GOD TO YOU AND TRULY IS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW GOD ,THERE IS SO MUSH MORE TO GOD THEN FAITH AND IF MATH DOES NOT CONVINCE THEM THEN GOD HAS NOT CHOSEN THEM BEST YOU MOVE ON
Mike Myr are you for real? Do you even understand what you are actually saying?
*Mike Myr*
The probability that any god, much less yours, exists is 0.0625%.
May god b-less. ; )
I heard it as "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people".
*A beautiful and true one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
To all creationists,.....
Dark Matter and Dark Energy ! ~ Care to discuss ?
*For the moment you don't even know that ostriches have no wings, now u want to discuss about dark matter energy, rtrd?*
Absolutely beautiful one by Max Planck: "Faith in miracles must yield ground, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the forces of science, and its total defeat is indubitably a mere matter of time."
--Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (Williams and Norgate, 1950), p. 155
Maybe he was a theist, but he predicted the total defeat of faith in miracles. oops
(The creationist "stupidrelig" has Planck's face in his avatar.)
2:00 In other words: "If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong."
What arrogance!
Update: I am baffled by the number of people who automatically think I am speaking out against religion. You should only have an issue with this comment if reality contradicts your faith. If you faith aligns with reality, if there is *NO* contradiction, then there is no problem.
If you feel that nothing can cause you to lose your faith then then you are saying that no evidence, no matter how compelling, will convince you that your faith is wrong.
I have heard many many people make this proclamation, as if it is something to take pride in. It is not. There is *ALWAYS* a chance you might have made an error in your world view. If you have made a mistake, wouldn't you want to know?
The fact you are troubled by my comment makes me think you know your faith contradicts reality. If you feel that way, why are you behaving as if it is reality that is wrong?
Reality and science say that sandcastles don't erode into existence because INTELLIGENCE IS NECESSARY FOR THAT LEVEL OF ORDER since mindless forces exemplified by erosion lack the mental power of discrimination which means they will never preserve any order mindlessly made, to build upon it, such that your regressive and mindless system is always overwhelmingly destructive and an utterly hopeless alternative to intelligence which you reject for no good reason whatsoever. But now you will be arrogant and disagree with the facts I pointed to here.
You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality.
As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles.
But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle?
What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging *REALITY* to be wrong is arrogant.
A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith."
You you say this statement applies to you?
If so, you would also agree, "If reality contradicts my faith reality is wrong." because you are saying that no matter what I encounter that shows you are wrong, you will never be convinced you are wrong.
You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality.
@@erictaylor5462 "You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality.
"
NON SEQUITUR. If I don't defend my religion, atheists say I can't. When I do, they complain no matter what. No way to please you, but it is not the intention.
"As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles.
But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle?
"
You're moving the goalpost. Looks like is not the issue. It's about order level, period.
And if you agreed with that order level of any sandcastle requiring intelligence, as SCIENCE SAYS ALL THE TIME IN EVERY BEACH WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you would agree that greater order also necessarily was intended, but that would make you a theist, not an atheist, but you are an atheist, denying this science, closing your eyes to the patent truth.
[[[ What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging REALITY to be wrong is arrogant.
A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith."
You you say this statement applies to you?
]]]
I'm me, not them. Deal with my arguments, not irrelevant ones.
I don't make their weak arguments so don't try to associate me with them.
"You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality."
Total NON SEQUITUR. No reality contradicts my faith. It is totally rational. Atheism is antithetical to the science of erosion, yet you remain an atheist despite admitting I am right about that science: "As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles."
*NON SEQUITUR. If I don't defend my religion, atheists say I can't. When I do, they complain no matter what. No way to please you, but it is not the intention.*
How is the statement, ""If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." attacking your religion? Are you admitting that your faith contradicts reality?
*"As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles.
But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle?*
How does the statements "If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." in *ANY WAY* address sand castles? However, to answer your question: Yes, natural processes can lead to structures that look like sand castles, along with many other forms.
*You're moving the goalpost. Looks like is not the issue. It's about order level, period.*
I'm not moving anything. At what level do you consider something to be a sand castle? Is this a face :^) or does it just look like a face?
*And if you agreed with that order level of any sandcastle requiring intelligence, as SCIENCE SAYS ALL THE TIME IN EVERY BEACH WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you would agree that greater order also necessarily was intended, but that would make you a theist, not an atheist, but you are an atheist, denying this science, closing your eyes to the patent truth.*
First off, you are *ASSUMING* I am atheist. Nothing so far has told you explicitly that I am an atheist. It is irrelevant that it happens to be true.
Science doesn't have beaches. It has *BRANCHES.* I think you have a gross misunderstanding of many aspects of science, and possibly even a weak grasp of English. But your grasp of English does not necessarily correlate to your intelligence, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not a native English speaker.
That said, you need to learn some science before you can argue scientifically. Learn it from scientists, not from Creationists. Creationists distort and misrepresent science, especially evolution, saying things like "It is random:" It is not.
*What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging REALITY to be wrong is arrogant.
A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith."
You you say this statement applies to you?*
Sorry, That should have been "Would this apply to you?" My mistake. Thank you for clarifying your position.
So, what evidence, if presented would convince you that God does not exist.
*"You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality."
Total NON SEQUITUR. No reality contradicts my faith. It is totally rational. Atheism is antithetical to the science of erosion, yet you remain an atheist despite admitting I am right about that science: "As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles."*
Okay, a "non sequitur" is a statement that does not fit the question. For example, this child's answer, "I like turtles" is a non sequitur.
th-cam.com/video/CMNry4PE93Y/w-d-xo.html
If reality doesn't contradict your faith, then my comment would not apply to it.
The fact you felt moved to defend your faith when I made my original comment indicates you think it does.
My comment said nothing at all about sand castles, evolution, or God. You read all of that into my comment on your own.
@@erictaylor5462 [[[ How is the statement, ""If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." attacking your religion? Are you admitting that your faith contradicts reality?
]]]
Your already-refuted notion of reality is not the same as reality. My faith I proved right in the series aforementioned which you have not refuted, so stop implying I am irrational for faith, and start proving your insinuation.
"I'm not moving anything."
Liar. It's about order level as I clarified but you pretend resemblance, something so vague that the stars in relation to each other can resemble a bull, was the criterion. It's not. So stop moving the goalpost. Your tactic failed.
"At what level do you consider something to be a sand castle?"
You tell ME. You reached the level of a toddler, haven't you?
You may as well ask me to define the word "sand" in this context of erosion being mentioned. I'm not going to play along with your acting stupid. You are grasping at straws, obviously.
"First off, you are ASSUMING I am atheist. Nothing so far has told you explicitly that I am an atheist. It is irrelevant that it happens to be true."
I don't limit my understanding to what is explicitly expressed to me. I have this thing called deduction. I take context into account, such as you watching and supporting this shitty atheist propaganda I destroyed in a recent video, and you attacking theistic faith as irrational, which is proof you are an atheist which includes agnostics who are a subcategory of them.
I was an atheist like you when I was a baby. Then I grew up. It takes no intelligence to be an atheist. :-) Don't get offended now, since you insult your own intelligence by pretending to be too stupid to know what a sandcastle is. I'm annoyed because you're wasting my time with your pretending to be dumber than a toddler. :-)
I set the bar extremely low, but you give any pretext for not jumping the little hurdle, because you can't, and no atheist ever could, since science is always shitting on atheism by always proving intelligence is necessary for the order level of ANY sandcastle, no matter how simple. I explained why there is no chance of it happening, so you have nothing to stand on for your blind faith in mindlessly arrived at order at that puny level so by extrapolation, your being an atheist is delusion since after the proof is served to you on a silver platter, you just start acting so stupid you pretend to be dumber than a toddler who knows the difference between a drawn smiley face, and a real human face, and the difference between a sandcastle and your shit.
Atheists claim DNA was possibly ultimately unintended yet they can't even prove a puny little sandcastle could be unintended! You claim you can jump to the moon but you can't even get out of your crib! Paper tiger atheists. And evolution depends on DNA to exist, so you can't use the woman's womb to account for that woman.
"Science doesn't have beaches. It has BRANCHES."
Science studying beaches is what I obviously referred to, you who commit a strawman fallacy here based on your own deficiency or pretending to be deficient in grasping my message.
When I said that the science of erosion proves intelligence is needed for the level of order of a sandcastle, I did not say anything about science having beach-front property or anything like that. You are quite desperate to be trying to change the parameters of my arguments all the time. That's called LYING, but you don't blush because you're just another atheist preacher with no integrity.
"I think you have a gross misunderstanding of many aspects of science, and possibly even a weak grasp of English."
You are a hypocrite since I never said anything about science owning earth or anything in it. So if someone has a problem with English, it is you, not the English teacher teaching his second language. Just today some Asians told me "bury" has to Rs, and then after checking on their devices, I was proven right. Not that I am always right. Many words are so rarely used, that when they come to mind, they look a bit unfamiliar, and English orthography is infamous for being retarded. Are you English? Sorry about your language being the worst. :-)
But your grasp of English does not necessarily correlate to your intelligence, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not a native English speaker."
You didn't find a flaw in my English, you pretentious shithead. Don't be acting like you have the edge in this language. I live because I wield this language here in Asia. I have corrected Anglo-Saxons before in their own language, and it was very satisfying. I lived in the US most of my life, and know my English is better than most in the entire world who have it as their native tongue. You can be one of those pedantic types, but give me your best shot. I want to laugh some more. Si quieres hablar en español, está bien conmigo. Mi idioma natal lo prefiero sobre el más inconsistente e ilógico de todos.
"That said, you need to learn some science before you can argue scientifically."
Stupid AD HOMINEM fallacy based on the PETITIO PRINCIPII fallacy of the implied accusation that I am wrong about science. Prove it, because your word is worthless.
"Learn it from scientists, not from Creationists."
Prove I'm wrong about science, because your false dichotomy between scientist and creationist is just an appeal to the majority which is another of your shitty stupid atheist fallacies proving you are an idiot. Also, that's the AD VERECUNDIAM fallacy.
You pretend I'm stupid but in your attempt to show it, you are showing how stupid YOU are. :-) So many damn fallacies in such a short amount of words you spewed there.
"Creationists"
Deal with me, not others, moron trying to change the subject and conflate. Pathetic loser.
"So, what evidence, if presented would convince you that God does not exist."
I told you to prove my religion wrong by showing footage of a sandcastle eroding into existence. Instead of proving theism is illogical, you turn a blind eye to science proving that atheism is totally retarded, since science says it takes intelligence for less order than our own, so ours requires intelligence by extrapolation, duh.
"My comment said nothing at all about sand castles, evolution, or God. You read all of that into my comment on your own."
You don't dictate what arguments I can give against atheism and for theism. What I said was to prove my case. You see the proof, and you just ignore it, changing the subject, or rather, trying to, since I bring the attention back to the argument no atheist can logically deal with. And that's just one of my arguments for theism.
*Very beautiful and deep one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
@@2ndchookie919 *You need to grow up, rtrd buhahaAndrewEldridge.*
@@user-tu1co9xl1k
Says the _M@R@N_ who's a recipient of the *_'Best Pathetic Troll of All Time'_* award!!!
Buwahahahahahahahahahaha, ........ splutter, ... burp, .... cough, cough, ..... ahahahahahahahahaha, ....... sighhhhhhhhh!
*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
1600's ?? ...... mmmmm! _"Out Of Date'_ by 300+ years!!
*Get With The Program Cteard !!!!!* ~~ Buwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
jki *My v5de0s show a character who is more evil than s-tan and more s-tp1d than a baby snail.*
*Unforgettable one from Newton:* _We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure remarks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever._
*Newton*
*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
Ah, Newton. The Alchemist.
*From the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
Newton spent more time trying to make sense of the Bible than he did working on Physics. In the end, he failed ... and had nothing insightful to contribute. His mountainous notes on the subject exist and have little to contribute to his above statement.
@@persimmontea6383*Newton did in science more than all your b-washers together.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 speaking of brainwashed. project much?
then howcome the mud isnt evolving into single cell organisms all the way to dinosaurs right now?
Why did yhwh destroy the world?
If god made you from dust, why is there still dust?
@@devilmonkey427 everyuthing on earth is made from earth material, duhrrrrrrrrrrr what did god make u out of alien dna?
@@yeshuaisjoshua if the bible is true howcome arabs+jews are canaanite DNA proven, and y are canaanites aka jews+arabs in the promised land right now against gods words instead of humble serving the older brother as god commands? fake
@@anniemarie-5150 Can you explain Tumfrico's Period Experiment without god?
*Another beautiful one, from Max Planck - founder of modern science:* _There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls_
Oh yes we all know how extremely religious Einstein was
@@DonutOfNinja *Einstein l-aughed at Aronra's cult and acknowledged an intelligent creator.*
@@user-pc4uo3df5i got any source for this?
Einstein famously wrote that "... I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly..." in a letter to a friend on 24th of march 1954
Source: Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side.
@@DonutOfNinja *A nice one from Einstein:* _The fanatical atheists are like s-laves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are c-reatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres._
@@DonutOfNinja *I quote Einstein:* _The f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are c-reatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres._
*Simply beautiful, from Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*The poor Andrew is so excited by my last v1de0 that he reports and visits it all day long.*
No, I do not. Please stop lying. However, posting my first and last name without consent, is a violation of my privacy.
Thanks for showing everyone just how low some creationists will stoop.
TV's Ancient Aliens is less ridiculous than Darwin's short island adventure.
Why? Because you can't simply deny the theory of evolution?
*Take the 7-8 pieces of the simplest puzzle, bring them wherever you want on this planet, shuffle them and let any natural force act upon them. It will never fit the pieces together, but id-iots are dreaming that it can put together many billions of dynamic parts, each with its own set of functions, all interconnected.*
There is a mistake in your reasoning. The pieces of the puzzle you are referring to, are the DNA parts. They were not assembled the way they are by randomness but by nature. Its the conditions of nature that pushed them, through billions of years of evolution and not just an empty coincidence. Why are there black people where is sunny and white people where it snows? Evolution shaped humans, their DNA that way.
*I really love this quote:*
_This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being._
*Newton*
Newton realized he was mistaken, fctard.
@@DocReasonable _A-theism is so senseless and o-dious to mankind_ *Newton*
i would make shit up as well if i knew the crazy church and its followers would kill me for speaking the truth
You love how Newton suffered religious brain-lock when challenged by Jupiter's secondary gravitational tug? We had to wait hundreds of years for French scientists Legrand and Laplace to elaborate "perturbation theory". The natural answer was always out there, but Newton gave up trying to find it. Hardly something to celebrate.
@@ergonomover *When Newton speaks it's advisable that a ballet dancer like you whose intellectual level is "the solar circle is a think tank" and "250-237 means an increase of 23" to be silent!*
nvmy *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"Lexi"/"yesguaisjoshua" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
*I really enjoy science. Because science brings you closer to God as all the greatest scientists of this planet admitted.*
And god is energy and matter…….No beard or robe
@@terrymckenzie8786 *Energy/matter cannot create itself according to the laws of physics and cannot create information and codes according to reality and evidence.*
That's absolutely false. To think that, you must first believe enough in a God to forget all the methodology you use in science ...
So, believing scientists may say what you quoted but not rationalist, even out of their domain, scientists.
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 According to observation that's what happens: energy and matter are able to create codes, etc.
And don't forget this: E = MC² equivalence between matter and energy.
Atheism is not a religion , it's just rationalism.
@@BlackSun3Tube *As a matter of fact all the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator. I know it takes you by surprise. And as a matter of fact nature creating information and codes and order from disorder and everything from nothing was not spotted in the wild and is discounted by real science.*
vvcv *Absolutely beautiful and motivational this one from Kelvin:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*Quoting the 65 year old rtrd ballet dancer A. Eldridge (aka "creationists-arecrybabies", "flandiddlyanders") from his account "docreasonable"* _OK fine! I'll admit that captainatheist9855 is my trolling account (it's where I make rtrded comments)_
*The sad truth is that all his comments from all his trolling accounts are rtrded....* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The sad truth is that I use ONE account and you melted down completely.
_I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism._
*Lord Kelvin*
Kelvin also said: "Radio has no future. X-rays will prove to be a hoax"
@@DocReasonable *Kelvin is one of the greatest scientists of this planet and l-aughed at your doctrine. You are a ballet dancer who insisted that the solar circle is a think tank and 250-237 means an increase of 23, and-rew "ergonomover" eldr-idge.*
@@user-ry9te3ov2u Kelvin also insisted: "Radio has no future. X-rays will prove to be a hoax"
@@DocReasonable *Kelvin was a great scientist who p-iss-ed on your doctrine, ballet dancer andrew "ergonomover" eld-ridge.*
@@user-pc4uo3df5iI never had the job of "ballet" dancer, it's not in the CV you posted, why lie about it all day every day? What is the point of that?
*And he spent the New Year....trolling and wishing "Happy New Year" to his other trolling accounts.*
nb99 *Since the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge (aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandiddlyandersFRS") said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" (I captured this sublime moment in my last v1de0), I started to think that he walks only on his fours.....*
*Absolutely beautiful, from Max Planck - founder of modern science:* _There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls_
Why do emus have wings?
@@2ndchookie919 : HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAmmmmmm HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
@@davidbanner6230 I know they are strange looking birds, but hilarity to that extent? ~ Gets over excited by the mundane, ... A bit touched perhaps! ~ mmm
@@2ndchookie919 What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, if he loses his sanity?
@@davidbanner6230sanity is in the eye of the beholder.
*One must be incredibly s-tup id to say that codes are random and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno. That's the case of the 65-year old ballet dancer A-ndrew Eldridge*
nb39 *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"Lexi"/"yeshuaisjoshua"/"davidbanner" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
*Btw, whenever he goes full rtrd he signals that by locking the caps.*
"Insert 100+ Year Old Quote Here" - Insert Famous Guy Here
ha, brilliant
@@JustOffTheRegister Thanks!
Evolution wasn't true 100 years ago and it still isn't true today. The majority of evidence for evolution from Darwin's day has been discarded. In another 150 the majority of today's evidence for evolution will also be discarded.
@@hwd71 Thanks for this
@@hwd71 Did you even listen to what Dawkins said? There is ton of evidence and evolution is an undeniable fact. Take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Don't be a fool.
*Very beautiful and motivational this one from Kelvin:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
1800's ?? ...... mmmmm! "Out Of Date' by 100+ years!!
Get With The Program Cteard !!!!! ~~ Buwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
@@2ndchookie919 *You insisted that ostriches have no wings, quite outdated I would say.* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@user-pc4uo3df5i Nope, .... not me dingbat!
@@user-pc4uo3df5i *_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
*Very beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
*After the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable" said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" I started to think that he walks only on all fours...*
Dawkins said "Observing the patterns of resemblance you see when comparing the genes from plants and animals they form a perfect hierarchy" How on earth does this refute creationism? You still need to explain how those genes came into existence from time, matter and chance which originated from a source of nothing. Richard Dawkins has even stated that he is not absolutely certain that God doesn't exist which kinda undermines his whole argument
@Rory Forbes I think he's arguing about the refutation of creationism, not evolution. Anyhow, I am trying to understand the refutation deeper, perhaps you can help fill in the gap for me. So it starts by saying that genes are similar in structure. That if a being created the genes and animals, they should not be similar in structure. Great similarities in structure are deceptions or made to deceive. I'm not sure why there cannot be great similarities if there was a creator. Can you tell me?
@@Pomorchik I guess Hitler wasn't evil then as he was just an organism following the evolutionary process of natural selection for the dominant species
@@pesmergaserene7988 i will try to explain a bit differently: the claim of creationism is actually several claims - 1. That living beings were created not evolved, 2. That they are perfect in their creation (complete without defect), 3. That they are serving a purpose (part of a divine plan). What Dawkins says, therefore, undermines these three claims because: 1. When you compare at the DNA level (and S J Gould compared at the physical level), you can see that DNA has changed over time and that change can be witnessed by comparing animals or plants. And if a change is evidenced, then creationism is debunked because it claims for "permnanecy" since creation day, 2. When you compare and explore DNA, you can find imperfections and "remains" of former genes that no longer are relevant. This debunks the perfect claim in creationism. 3. When you compare and explore DNA you can see how genes correspond with the environment and those that succeeded either were those that carried on or had to evolve... This debunk the claim of creationism that what was created was for a purpose (since that purpose is eternal). But the DNA comparison shows that genes are acting and reacting and therefore the evolutionary claim is not that the created being is ITSELF the purpose, but that the purpose is to live - and therefore if it is better surviving in water, it explains why the nostril turned into a blowhole (in water living mammals)... This debunks the creationist idea that dolphin was created for a puprose. The dolphin evolved from an ancestor that was living on land.
@@Pomorchik I would think death itself has claimed the most human lives
@@ahboaz Okay, you've created in essence a strawman by saying creationists make claims 2 & 3 which are false, the only one you got right was the first claim and you didn't even address it. Can you explain how nothing created everything?
*Simply beautiful, from Dawkins, he has my respect for it:* _A serious case could be made for a deistic God._
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Saying similarities automatically prove ancestry is the most ridiculous lack of good judgement I wouldn't expect from a scientist what a stupid thing to say please tell me you also think that way
@@antoniobrown6210 : You must be joking? Only Dawkins would embarras himself by making such grovelling statments....
@@antoniobrown6210 *I totally agree and actually many people in this comment section spotted the same thing.*
Mae Culpa: Yes I did say that Dawkins cannot answer, because Dawkins never answers, regardless of the competence of his interviewers, he always rides above reality, like a man thinking a snow-drift is reality, while inserting infantile supersitions to fit in with the persona he has conned his sycophants into believing they are seeing who he is…..?
Christianity and the Common Law:
The history of the English common law, from which, the American, Australian and other common law jurisdictions originated, owes much to the influence of Christianity in its origins and development. It is indeed not possible to grasp the full development of the common law without first exploring its profound religious dimensions, and its motivating faith. Until at least the early 19th century, the common law was heavily influenced by Christian theology. This theology holds that there is a natural or divine reason for the existence of basic laws, and that these laws stand above human legislation, thus reflecting universal and unchangeable principles according, to which, everyone ought to live. - Source: Rediscovering the Christian Roots of the Common Law Legal System (Published by Hein Online Legal Resources).
I'm so glad our laws aren't based on Creatards.
asaa *Another example of inhuman ridiculousness with Eldridge praising himself from his account "docreasonable":* _Mr Ergonomover is a dapper-looking chap, full of personality, wry humour, wit and wisdom - with a million fascinating life stories to tell_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I really like how he condensed all that into one sentence
Even though it is a false premise. You can look at the similarities and say it points to a common creator just as easily.
@@vistuscaine you didn't get the video.
The idea of ”vestigial relics” of genetic information, also called “junk DNA”, that Dawkins meant to be the most important fact to prove evolution true, is not considered a fact anymore. When it was discovered in the 1970’s that most part of the human genome does not code for proteins, the rest of the DNA was soon declared to be useless left overs of random evolutionary processes. However, recent studies have shown that the non-protein-coding parts of DNA, do code for other necessary processes in living organisms. The study of these “junk” parts of the genetic information has already proved to be a gold mine of information, among other things about diseases and their treatment, and most certainly more is to follow. Richard Dawkins made himself a “disgrace”, to cite his own word, in perpetrating that unintelligent, unscientific idea that the origin of life can best be explained by declaring the most part of genetic information as junk. Today it sounds like a joke.
Actually, he condensed it into one word only : "Hallucination" !
I guess I must have been "hallucinating" for more than 45 years by now, then.
It was more than one sentence....
*An unforgettable and beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I am looking for how does Richard Dawkins explain the Cambrian explosion?
Why?
How does the Bible/Quran explain the Cambrian Explosion?? Do they say In the Beginning God created Trilobites...?
@cppdev2729
You mean because it has more vertebrates and crustaceans evolved, we find more fossils
........and because jellyfish don't fossilize so well.
.
Creatards don't think so well.
He explains it as a great example of evolution. After 500 million years of animal evolution, and a 40-million year fuse of molecular evolution, the 'explosion' was ripe.
An extinction event at the beginning of the Cambrian left 'the small shellies', among the first animals with shells, the trend continued because ocean calcite-levels had risen.
10-20 million years for novel body-plans to appear was not too short a time.
We have precursors to the Cambrian phyla which include Pikaia, Cloudina, Haikouella, Saccorhytus.
Some creationist made you think explaining the Cambrian is difficult? I'm no expert, but it's not that hard.
@@devilmonkey427, ah, but they do fossilize. Sorry.
dfc *You could have thought that once he turns 66, the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge will stop trolling. But look at his account "AI-CREATARD". He's gone full r-trd!*
U R the AI creatard, obviously.
*Beautiful one from Einstein:* _the f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*God kills half a million of his own chosen people... no explanation given*
"God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. And the children of Israel fled before Judah: and God delivered them into their hand. And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men." 2 Chronicles 13:15-17
why not just fanatical and atheist? why f-anatical and a-theists?
*Absolutely beautiful, quoting the ballet dancer Eldridge, the most c-rr-tt in ous troll of the century:*
*he:* _An entire human digitized genome = 3.436687 Gb. My computer could hold 330 of them._
*he again:* _That's an argument for the superi0rity of humans over god_
*Right, because unlike his computer, a human body holds.....30 trillion copies of a genome!!!!!!* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*Stop lying, learn English and ffs grow up, fool!*
meaningless
@@counterculture10 *ur existence, yes.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 LOL, good one!
*When the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/"yeshuaisnotjesus" said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" I started to think that he walks only on his fours...He must be a wonder of evolution.*
Why do penguins have wings and not flippers?
*Surprisingly, "ergonomover" seems to be friend with all the trolling accounts here: he said he had "the honour" to talk over skyyyype with "scientist flanders"/"flandiddlyandersFRS". Then when he missed the time zone of "his friend" "docreasonable" (comparing to what "his friend" "docreasonable" claimed) we could have thought it was a mistake, but now "mayling", another friend of Eldridge, got it wrong about Eldridge' profession when "she" was knowing so many details about "her" friend Eldridge???!!!*
I have plenty of TH-cam friends, many a team players, something you know nothing about and you seem real jealous.
Why not show more respect to everyone, including your fellow creationists who you disrespect constantly?
Btw, David Banner is definitely a Christian, your _Drewdar_ is totally skewed, as it has always been.
*Notice that 100% of the comments of the rtrd are l-ies or fallacies because that's the ONLY way Aronra's doctrine can be defended.*
Every time a Christian tries to convert me, I ask them this:
4,200 religions in the world, what made you choose Christianity?
Agreed! Yours too!
Its a great question. I'm a Christian and whenever I run into a person of faith I ask them the same question. Most of the time I just hear something like, "I prayed about it and feel at peace." or something like that. I then say, "well if I ask the mormon or the muslim that, they will say the same as you, so tell me again why you believe your religion is true and the others are not."
★Modern Physics Reveals an Intelligently Constructed Universe ★ rd th-cam.com/video/D0GOgoHelFI/w-d-xo.html
Many theories, why did you choose evolution
I always use - there are 4200 religions in the world so you’re almost as atheistic as me, I don’t believe in 4200 and you don’t believe in 4199 making our religious outlook 99.999% the same.
*It was so sad to see that the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/"yeshuaisjoshua"/"AI_CREATARD" spent his entire birthday trolling. Almost as sad as when he was wishing "Happy New Year" to his own trolling accouns!* 😂😂😂😂😂😂
*Damn, a ballet dancer who added "PhD" to his tr-olling account and who insisted that the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno and that the living cell doesn't contain the whole genome because "No, there is NOT, dunce.... that's like saying there's a copy of the entire Encyclopedia Britannica inside every page of the Encyclopedia Britannica.". This is what we're dealing with.*
Damn, you can't tell two people apart and applaud your ignorance by dishonestly upvoting your lies?
*I made screenshots showing that the 65-year-old ballet dancer A-n-d-rew Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"FlandiddlyandersPhD"/"creationists-arecrybabies" spent his New Year's Eve....trolling, carrying imaginary dialogs to his own t-rolling accounts and wishing them "Happy New Year!". This is what it means to be enrolled in Aronra's cult.*
*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
*Funny thing, A. Moir would think that there is really another person with the username "docreasonable" who can speak like that about the "wonderful" "ergonomover.". Fortunately not everyone is that naive.*
Funny thing that A Moir is smarter than you, and that you actually think a 66 year old man would spend 22 hours a day (between his ballet leaps and spins) to animate "countless" _superbly differentiated_ accounts, just to fool you. Step back from your bubble of paranoid delusions to see how insane that is.
*"Creationists-AreCryBabies"/"YeshuaisnotJesus"/"FlandiddlyandersFRS" are few of the countless trolling accounts of the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge, basically the most s-tu-p id t-roll I have encountered, he told us that water contains molecules of oxygen and the solar circle is a think tank. But that's the best his cult has.*
*I wanted to see how a rtrd looks like, so I came here and I met the 65-year-old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"ergonomover"/"yeshuaisjoshua" who told us this:*
_Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA!_
Can you rewrite that in English. 😂😂😂
What about common descent:
The evolutionary theory of common descent implies that all species have derived from a common ancestor, which was first put forward Charles Darwin who asserted his ideas from Carlos Linnaeus. Carlos Linnaeus assumed that all varieties of creatures held a distinct characteristic that related each group of creature into the same phylum or group by way of genealogical descent. The idea of common descent led Linnaeus to include human beings with quadrupeds, thus giving rise to the term, primate. The term, primate, is a pseudo-definition, because human beings are not quadrupeds, nor can any human being procreate with a quadruped. Procreation is a copying process that is limited by a set of parameters that act as a set of rules, such as the rule that no quadruped can successfully breed with an organism that is bipedal, or the rule that a bipedal organism will derive from a bipedal organism, rather than a quadruped.
These rules are applicable to procreation in that a species can only be defined as breeding group or phylum, while anything outside of the breeding group will be defined as a separate species or kind. So, because each group of humans can procreate, it will mean that mankind is only one species, which in turn, defines mankind as only one kind. Common descent by the evolutionary theory assumes that all life has evolved from a common ancestor. The evolutionary assumption of a common ancestor that relates all creatures into a single phylum or family tree has been rejected by modern genetic research on the basis that there is no such creature that can house all genetic traits. DNA RNA transcription is a copying process, and the rule with any copying process is that each copy must derive from an original copy, because only the original copy will have all of the information for variation. This implies that all life began as complex with separate ancestors in terms of a phylum, because if the physical features that an organism has were not with the first copy that its genome began replication with, then there would be nothing for the copying process to select from in terms of physical traits.
So, for this reason, speciation leads to a reduction in terms of variability, because all of the information for variation has derived from an original copy that its genome began replication with, which cannot be a bacterium, because a bacterium does not include a set of genetic traits that can be expressed by every organism. When variability is passed down to the offspring hereditarily, there will always be a loss of variability due to the copying process by definition of the fact that a variant is only a variety within a kind. This means that speciation leads to a reduction in variability on the basis that a variant cannot express all of the information for variation, while the original copy does. And this also proves that each kind of creature has not derived from a common ancestor, but from distinct groups instead, because the DNA RNA copying process limits the amount of variation that an organism can express in terms of a standard.
So, in order for a standard to occur in terms of a species, then a biological kind is also required, because it is the word "kind" that will define a group of species in terms of a common ancestor. The term, phenotype, is in relation to a variant from the genotype, which means that a phenotype cannot exist unless there is a genotype first. Carlos Linnaeus attempted to divide all groups of creatures into a phylum of separate species, thereby establishing the Linnaean classification system as being based on separate kinds. And though Linnaeus' description of separate kinds allowed for the introduction of multiple species within a kind, he also asserted that separate kinds were of common descent, such as apes and humans. Charles Darwin took this approach one step further by asserting that all species have derived from one kind of creature despite the fact that no one creature contains all of the physical characteristics that each creature has, which would be required in order for diversification to occur due to the limitations of the copying process of biological reproduction.
This means that all living creatures are broken up into different kinds with separate species within a kind so that an open breeding population is favoured over a closed breeding population. So, because DNA RNA transcription is a copying process, it will mean that all of the physical characteristics of a species are relative to a particular kind that its genome began replication with, because it is the kind of creature that implies a standard version or genotype, while a species is simply a version or variety of the standard in place. So, a biological kind is any standard version that will speciate over time into distinct varieties, which proves that not all creatures have derived from a common ancestor. While a group of species within a particular kind have derived from a common ancestor by reason of deduction, because there is a standard version in place, from which, speciation has occurred.
So, for this reason, a species cannot be defined unless a particular kind has been identified first, because a group of species will always be the result of a biological kind, rather than the cause of one. The pseudo-scientific practice of merging every kind of creature into a single phylum or family tree is essential to the theory of evolution, rather than biology, because it is the evolutionary theory that assumes common descent without first providing a single example of how a species could have occurred without a biological kind in place first. A biological kind acts as a standard for speciation to occur, which means that a group of species can only derive from a particular kind, so that kinds are broken up into different groups the same as species are broken up into different groups. The reason that a species cannot give rise to a particular kind is entirely due to the copying process of transcription which defines each successive copy as a variant of its original, so that a species must derive from a biological kind, because it is the biological kind known as a genotype that will specify for the phenotype, rather than a genotype deriving from the phenotype. Biological reproduction can only occur as long as there is a standard in place first, because it is a biological kind that is incorporated, while a species is singular.
The definition of reproduction from Oxford Languages is defined as: 1) "The action or process of copying something. Similar: copying" 2) "The production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process. Similar: breeding." So, from the OED we find that biological reproduction is a copying process, which means that the rules of a copying process must apply to biological reproduction. And the first rule with any copying process is that all of the information for variation will be with the first copy and none other, which in turn, defines each successive copy as a variant of its original, which is self-explanatory.
This means that a species must derive from an ancestor that was similar to itself, which does not include placing quadrupeds into the same phylum as humans, nor does it include the wild assertion that all species have derived from a single ancestor, because the copying process of biological reproduction limits a species to being a variant within a kind, so that a biological kind will have all of the information for variation, while a species only contains a portion of the total amount of variation that a particular kind can express. And yes, I am indeed stating the obvious here, but unfortunately for the evolutionists, the obvious stands in the way of an unworkable theory. And evolution is an unworkable theory for reasons relating to ordered complexity, which cannot derive at random, leaving only one other alternative, which is by design.
Simply put, LUCA.
@@yeshuaisjoshua According to the encyclopedia, LUCA is "hypothetical" rather than literal. Poor you.
Last Universal Common Ancestor by Wikipedia:
The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is the hypothesized common ancestral cell from which the three domains of life, the Bacteria, the Archaea, and the Eukarya originated.
"Biological kind" is an oxymoron. Please define "kind" without using examples.
@@ergonomover A kind is relative to a group of species that share the ability to interbreed because if the ability to interbreed was not in place then they are of another kind. This means very definitively that a biological kind for each species of creature must have existed prior to the existence of species in general, because it is the genotype that specifies for the phenotype, and the other way around. And a perfect example of a biological kind would be mankind.
@@user-rr8cf4mv1f I asked you politely to avoid using examples. Mankind is one species, whereas the bird "kind" is 10,000 species. A bird cannot interbreed with all other birds. The bible wrongly groups bats with the bird "kind", whereas bats are mammals, whether or not you deny the existence of mammals. Is there a dove "kind", and a raven "kind"?
fded *Since the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge (aka "ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/flandiddlyanders"/"docreasonable"/"EnlightenedByKnowledge"/"yeshuaisjoshua"/"AI-CREATARD"/"dougwalker" said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" (I captured this sublime moment in my last v1de0), I started to think that he walks only on his fours.....*
*Beautiful one from Einstein:* _Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind._
Science without religion is fascinating. It's impressive enough learning about the world and how it works without adding in fairy tales to explain the difficult parts.
@@deenadamico2673 : "Satan thou aret but a dunce, the harlot was a virgin once" :W Blake..... Now yoy will be wondering what is the relivence of that quote, because you are so shallow.......
hgt *Since the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge (aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandiddlyandersFRS"/"yeshua is joshua" said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" (I captured this sublime moment in my last v1de0), I started to think that he walks only on his fours.....*
You meant "walks on all fours", what you posted is still gibberish. You actually think a 66 year old man would spend 22 hours a day (between his ballet leaps and spins) to animate "countless" _superbly differentiated_ accounts, just to fool you?
Step back from your bubble of paranoid delusions to see how insane that is.
ffd *It's enough to know Eldridge, to know that s-tan is real. By the way, he celebrated his 66th anniversary.trolling*
*Absolutely beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Reported as hate-speech.
*Absolutely very beautiful and true one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
Be forewarned. You could have your channel completely deleted without warning or opportunity of getting it back for repeating yourself as you’ve done in this feed if someone reports you…esp. you do it elsewhere as well.
@@NaturesInfiniteWELLth-fo6rs *Are you ok, Eldridge?* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
gtyy *Since the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge (aka "ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/flandiddlyanders"/"docreasonable"/"EnlightenedByKnowledge"/"yeshuaisjoshua" said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" (I captured this sublime moment in my last v1de0), I started to think that he walks only on his fours.....*
*Andrew and his trolling account "ergonomover":* _Senor Reasonable lives at Greenwich +12, I am at +1, we are two different people, Scientist Flanders is on Greenwich mean time, in England while I'm in France._
*Andrew and his trolling account "senor reasonable":* _Like I told you, gargoyle, my country is 8 hours ahead of Europe_
*What type of comments would you expect from a 65-year-old adult? I quote a comment of one of them, the rtrd A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"creationists-arecrybabies":* _Creatarrrrds..... come out to PLAY-ee-AY_
*Also, on New Year's Eve he wished "Happy New Year!" to....his other trolling accounts* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*_"SQUAAAAAAARK!!!! .... CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER!! , ..... SQUAAAARK!!"_*
*_"SQUAAAAAAAAARK!!!! ...... DUMBASS CRETARD!! , ....... SQUAAAAAARK!!"_*
This argument is ridiculous.
Man is an intelligent designer and all of mans creations share so many basic characteristics.
All land vehicles from the bycicle to wheelbarrows even every aeroplane all have wheels, made from metals and so on.
An intelligent designer can make many different things from the same basic ingredients very easily and readily.
Just as a chef 👨🍳.
This is not a refutation of anything.
Nonsense is still nonsense even when it’s spoken by intelligent people.
Epsensieg 18
The point is not whether man designed God or not. If you believe man designed God then may you live long and prosper.🖖
However the real point is the utter absurdity that similarities must mean evolution.
This is pointedly proven false every single day by human ingenuity and creativity.
All the different foods made in a kitchen have markedly similar characteristics yet they did not evolve from each other.
Nor did cars to the movies we watch and so on.
This example can be used on anything intelligently designed.
Even the different Gods in human mythology from Zeus to whoever all share similar characteristics but they were intelligently designed.
They did not evolve or mutate from each other.
Common sense anyone?
Whether you are religious or atheist it’s always a good idea to Keep a nugget of common sense around.
I agree with man being an intelligent designer....but everything supposedly started with a BANG and then an Evolutionary process......if MAN the intelligent designer is a product of this....did evolution pass that intellect and ability to consciously reason on to man?
@horror I think creationism does quite well with diversity and differences. It doesn't need similarities as a crutch.
@Karl Pagan 'festering garbage'.... Where is the empathy in such a statement... As I was told multiple times here about the empathy of the non-religious....so....energy just existed and is eternal....and was not created but was the catalyst of creation and all eventual life......becareful Karl.... Wouldn't want that theory to start sounding too much like God.... who is eternal... Was not created but is the creator and just existed from the beginning... The different is that He is a conscious and intelligent being...unless of course this energy you speak of had intellect and consciousness.....then I would say to you... You're getting warmer Karl..
intellectual being
@Karl Pagan Your argument was blown apart the moment you retorted Nazi propaganda, in the form of calling those of opposing viewpoints subhuman, we lost millions to end that, fuck off with bringing it back. But, I'll indulge you, energy is not sentient as far as anyone knows, but what it makes up, is, you're using a strawman argument to justify hatred and apathy toward empathy, which is wrong, and a sign of sociopathic tendencies.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html&ved=2ahUKEwiUz-qgw77kAhVGXq0KHegcD6YQFjAEegQICxAL&usg=AOvVaw0X3udLuYDd4oxyR565Dn8_
You claim the Big Bang was never stated to be an explosion, which is half correct, it was stated to be an expansion CAUSED by an explosion, but this was refuted as was most of the Big Bang, it's a Pseudoscience, a theory, most people agree the universe is constantly expanding, but the Big Bang is not agreed to be the cause anymore, it's considered go be to grand, and lacking to be true. Tell me, how did the Big Bang create time, or space? You can't because the Big Bang is not accepted anymore.
iiii *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"2ndchookie" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
fhfh *When the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/"yeshuaisnotjesus" said "Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA" I started to think that he walks only on his fours.....Pretty sure he has horns too.*
*Very beautiful one from Einstein:* _the f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I’m quite free now that I’m awake to the non-sense. Thank you❣️💝
@@NaturesInfiniteWELLth-fo6rs Good for you, happy travels!