Richard Dawkins: The Rational Revolutionary
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ค. 2016
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
In the 1960s and 70s, a revolution took place in the way we understand human nature. Out went Marx and Freud, and in came a rational, scientific approach to the way we see ourselves. At the vanguard of that revolution was Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist whose book The Selfish Gene changed the thinking not just of other scientists but of all of us, and propelled its author to intellectual stardom as the modern heir to Darwin.
To mark the 40th anniversary of The Selfish Gene and Dawkins’ 75th birthday, Intelligence Squared staged a global event, bringing together luminaries from the worlds of science, philosophy and culture to engage with Dawkins about his life and work. Steven Pinker, celebrated cognitive scientist, and Daniel Dennett, philosopher and fellow ‘New Atheist’, were beamed in live from America. On-stage guests included the illusionist Derren Brown, an avowed fan of Dawkins’ theories about the workings of the mind, the science writer Susan Blackmore, who has further developed some of Dawkins’ important ideas, and the acclaimed novelist and playwright Michael Frayn.
It was Dawkins’ understanding of the gene as the fundamental unit of natural selection that captured the popular imagination. It was Dawkins, too, who invented the word ‘meme’ to describe the cultural equivalent of a gene - an idea, belief or practice that replicates itself from person to person and is subject to the same selective pressures as genes - whether it’s an age-old religious practice or a modern fad such as the ice bucket challenge.
And on the subject of religion, the publication of The God Delusion a decade ago marked the moment when Dawkins became the patron saint of atheism. The book turned him into the world’s leading controversialist - hero-worshipped by atheists, demonised by believers. But throughout the hubbub of being the celebrity scientist and the non-believers’ poster boy, Dawkins continued his scientific studies at New College, Oxford, and in obscure corners across the world - where he honed the art of observing and writing beautifully about nature, conveying his sense of wonder at how organisms developed their complexity over the ages.
"The Volume Delusion" by iqsquared
not just me lol good
I had to download it and play it in VLC to boost the volume.
too quiet
thank you!
Ditto! I clean my ears before I seen your comments
Richard sounds far better than he did in the last video I saw of him after the stroke. It's wonderful to see how well he is recovering!
has he had stroke?
Just checking, he’d suffered that stroke Feb 2016 (his wiki page) so surprisingly recent, this being recorded July 2016
Maybe that's why he believes and says the universe came from "literally nothing." How else can someone be so lame?
Evolution is a nut job!
I grew up a in a fundamentalist church...I am thankful for Dawkins for introducing me to logic and critical thinking. please don't think the religious community is not listening and a reversal of beliefs are not possible. critical thinkers need to keep speaking out.
.. a reversal of beliefs IS not possible, not ARE not possible
I find it really depressing that as of now, 4th August 2016, there have been only 4,373 views of this post. Yet nearly ten million of a dog on a skateboard.
I hear ya.
Because most people fall into one of two categories: Those who already understand logic and don't need anyone like Dawkins to convince them of the obvious, and those who are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend the facts that make their religion obviously stupid.
How dare you put down Tyson the skateboarding Bulldog.
***** Evolution is a fact. It is conclusively proven through experiment in both the laboratory and field studies. The mechanism is understood down to the molecular level. Anyone who tells you there are flaws, or that the theory is in crisis, is either a con artist trying to make a buck from the ignorant (mostly religious) masses, or an idiot.
Why, nothing they said was intelligent, it was just garbage really.
Please try to increase the volume
Love it, but the volume is so low I've got everything up so high and I still can't hear him speaking.
No way, Richard Dawkins and Derren Brown on the same panel?!?! This is the coolest thing ever
Oh yeah, I've seen that one. Super good. I wonder if Derren will be involved in more of this stuff moving forward.
Richard's odd socks are sensational
was like the first thing i noticed hehe
richarddawkins.net/2016/04/join-the-trend-wear-odd-socks/
_I bet he's got another pair just like it at home...
*_:0)_*
willzer808 It's his protest of the ridiculousness idea that socks have to match. If you lose one, you'll need to throw the other out.
Standing on reason and evidence is far more refreshing and humble than those who favor revelation as a means of understanding the world.
How appropriate that an intellectual event such as this take place in a house of worship. Great example of repurposing! If events like this took place every Sunday I would absolutely attend. Simply superb.
+TH-cam Explorer On the subject of usurpation of a religious house of worship being used for a rational discussion. Don't worry, it'll be turned into a mosque this time next century. But by then we will both be dead.
guys you can click volume icon on windows, go to mixer, click speaker->enahncement than check loudness equalization, than apply
Ironically, it looked as though God was watching them from above (on the big screen) lol
Had to plug in ear pods for this, great to see Richard is sounding better.
What a panel! Pinker, Dennett and Dawkins together are fantastic.
Dawkins believes the creation of the universe came from "literally nothing." To you, that's "fantastic."
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block your a moron, and it is very laughable to think you know more than Richard about evolution let alone Cosmogony.
I was surprised when I saw derren brown I didnt recognise him, but Richard Dawkins is a legend im glad his mind is intact.
This is already. 6 years ago, but will remain fascinating for years to come. Great to see and hear some new (to me) names mixing it with ones I’m familiar with.
Refreshing, good questions, with no argumentative debate, for a change, though that is, perhaps sadly, still essential.
I don't like spineless panels. Ask Dawkins how creation and life can happen on their own. Let RD show just how clueless he is.
Publisher, PLEASE fix the volume. This is very difficult to hear. Thank you.
Nice to see that Richard is back! Great panel too. Awesome conversation.
Yep, RD believes we got all this by "literally nothing." To you that's awesome.
1:00:32 excellent answer by Mr. Daniel Dennett
Good discussion. Thanks for the upload.
I wish the audio was turned up a little on this, it's very quiet. Makes it even more difficult to hear the people speaking via video conference.
So God damn quiet.
This video has no sound for me on my laptop. weird because every other vid works today except this one
An excellent post - Thanks!
Happy to elevate the algorithm today. Somehow this talk had escaped my feed, previously. Two Dr. Dawkins appearances in one day--just made my weekend. --from the Midwest, US.
How can creation happen by "literally nothing" as RD claims? What evidence does RD have that life can come from non-life all on its own? There is no such evidence but to you RD made your weekend.
Awesome panel and a fascinating discussion!
Would have been nice to hear more from Darren. His first book woke me up and directed me to Dawkins’ books, which helped me find the real explanation of who and what I am.
So who and what are you? I don’t think Dawkins answers that question well compared to others, but maybe I’m missing something
It's neat that they had that talk in that hall... anyone notice the writing on the wall behind them? lol!
Thank you! I love Richard Dawkins!
It's hard to listen to even when you can hear it.
Thank you for sharing this talk.
great. but the volume is on the low side, just to say
Derren shoud have been included more. I liked how Sue turned to him to include him even though that moderator didn't give Derren much light.
Interesting and enlightening.
In my general reading of ancient texts I've come across the idea of Evolution in Boethius and a few others many centuries before the 19th century. There was a poet, too, who I was astonished to see had mention the idea of similar traits between animals and humans and the striving to survive (or thrive?), but I can't remember the name. It wasn't at all flushed out, not understood to be a process through time, missing adaptation, mutation, merely stated. It also crosses my mind that Wallace already had the idea before he went out in the field, and then used the facts to justify the idea. Darwin did it from the facts up. So I conclude that our Theory of Evolution was rather a natural idea for thousands of years within Western thought (I'm not familiar with any ancient non-Western naturalistic observations actually), and it took a culture that fostered a systematic approach and institutions that would inhale and seal the notion of the theory. I'd also add that most of this talk on religion addressees the perspective of the blind rabble while I get a sense that these atheists hardly have an epistemological aesthetic sense appropriate to, let's say, mysticism. There is to many people a realization of a Mystery that goes beyond reason and its ability to pin it down; and, for these people, the social or mythological emanations reflect a deeper humanity, passed our conscious framework, and into, perhaps, a more whole Self (in the Jungian sense), which would be as real a phenomena as anything else. And I'll end with: once someone asked the Buddha,-- "What is the meaning of life?" In response, the Buddha handed over a flower. (This is usually "understood" as synecdoche.)And Western religions are rooted in the same grounds as Eastern, realizations too lost and become, unfortunately, now so superficial that it is more than reasonable, it can be righteous, to take an anti-religion stance despite any real Truth there.
What a panel!
Mr Dawkins' final words in this presentation make me ponder.
If we humans/animals are prompted to reproduce/replicate/copy because of our innate "selfish gene", then what happens to people who end up, for X reasons and under Y circumstances, NOT to reproduce/replicate/copy?
It seems then that the key to the diversity of humans/animals lives lies in our individual ability to reproduce/replicate/copy specific items while discarding others as non-reproduceable/replicateable/copyable.
And therein lies the spark for the evolution in the human/animal species.
Essentially, it is of utmost importance to observe, understand, reflect on this diversity with the Rational method, rather than undermine/fight/dismantle it under the false pretense of IDEOLOGY, whether it be political, religious or philosophical.
Volume volume volume!
It would be nice if there were English subtitles.
I read Susan's book about consciousness. She make a few points but then throws it all together into a improbable thesis that consciousness doesn't exist. And after that she starts to ramble about Zen. She is of course an intelligent woman and I respect her, but according to me the notion that consciousness doesn't exist is rubbish. (Those who has read the book is gonna know what I'm talking about, or disagree idk)
And oh yeah, dank memes 👌🔥💯
Given the inadequacy of words and current knowledge, the only position is the one of the Agnostic. We cannot prove either case.
I presume, then, agnosticism is the only reasonable position regarding the existence of Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If one lacks the belief in a god or gods, one is an atheist. Simple. You don't have to prove anything to be an atheist. The onus of proof is on the side of the believers. Needless to say, they have been less then successful in this regard.
I've never been able to understand why so many people hide behind the "agnostic" label. Cowardice sprinkled with ignorance is my best guess.
Look at Ludwig Wittgenstein. We do not know anything. But good luck with your assuredness. There are too many people who are sure they know the answers.
Are you unwilling or just unable to appreciate the difference between "I have no faith in God" and "I know for sure God does not exist"?
And good luck to you as well my unicorn, flying spaghetti monster and tea pot agnostic.
volume is too low
This is also filmed in 2016.
Why are time constraints always so rigorously adhered to in these kinds of things. I can understand fielding the last questions for the day, but then why hurry the answers and reject others from interjecting just so you can have one guy have the last word? Are the audience desperate to get out?
53:10 put me in touch w/my grandmother
Why not make a compromise?
If the one wants to believe in God, than will the other believe that fishes can change in frogs?
Than would everyone be happy...
Richard asks why Hume hadn't got it ,etc., but Hume was close to it (Dialogues re Natural religion), Goethe was close to it , Diderot was v. close to it. Educated persons were approaching -it wasn't totally out of the blue.
n
7:30 anyone know who he's referring to with the Thatcher comments?
Friedrich Hayek
Thank you.
1:23:45 - did you hear it too? :D
Guess you can't have someone from the Guardian involved without a certain amount of fretting over 'Islamophobia' or whether the people asking questions are properly gender-balanced.
The first few observations in the video caption clearly ain't logical nor even remotely true.
Marx and Angles theory of class struggle has been, still is and will always remain grounding truth of human history.
Anyone else notice the irony of the written words above them, around the dome reads "...PINNACLE OF GOD IS WITH MEN..."? Lol! Brilliant talk and great audience Q&A!
Sound is terrible
there is no sound AT ALL
There's audio?
how old is this? I read a paper on blackmore and did an essay on her.
6:17 " Some how it has got a slightly more carlsagonish feel about it" I know i have spelt it wrong .... i can't find the word on the internet, cane someone help me? Sorry!!!!!
kai Landolt Carl Sagan was a brilliant scientist whose explanations were poetic, that is what he means.
oh, thank you!!
Yes, volume too low.Richard looks a bit shattered.....but nice to see him and his ideas honoured. I wish that woman wouldn't wave her arms about so much while she is speaking, most disconcerting, couldn't understand a word she said.She gave the appearance of someone who was talking to herself while doing the housework....
that point they made at 49:00 about taking a lot of things on faith and science becoming a priesthood I totally agree, and Richard trying to answer this just simply makes the point more valid.. for example the speed of light has been taken on faith, because there is no way to calculate the speed of light with out synchronising two clocks at the minute scale, so scientists decided on a value for the speed of light... this is not true science it is a faith,,, speed of light could be instantaneous for all we know....
Brian Musana
Actually, the speed of light has been precisely measured.
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is 299792458 metres per second(approximately 3.00×108 m/s), since the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.[2] According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all matter and hence information in the universe can travel. It is the speed at which all massless particles and changes of the associated fields (including electromagnetic radiation such as light and gravitational waves) travel in vacuum. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial reference frame of the observer. In the theory of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass-energy equivalence E = mc2.[3]
Facts were found on wikipedia.org
44:20
I dont remember the mentioning anywhere in the "old" testament that an idea of going to heaven or hell in after life as a result of obeying or not obeying the Mizvot (commandments).
Correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me a much later idea, much more in the context of Jesus than that of the Jewish ancient tradition.
Only that the society and ecology are going to flourish or decay as a result of people yes or no obedience to the Torah law, which pertains to be of divine authority, but god is evasive from the start.
When Moshe tells god "they will ask me: who is the god who sent you to us?" god says "tell them "whoever I may be" (Ehye ashe Ehye) sent me.
Besides, since the Akhnai oven event it is generally accepted in the Jewish tradition that the present rabbinical (including today's) decisions have more authority than the God himself. Which opens wide gates to renewed reforms, of the kind impossible in traditional Islam.
@@lepidoptera9337 beautifully said!
Rational revolutionary:¿¿ es broma.¿
Waves conservation of anarchy. the theory of relator is theory of anarchy that changes waves so can make love on the guitar instead of crying and people will feel affection again and dont become violent.
Does the whole 'boy girl boy girl' system not seem rather childish? This is not playschool.
If we're so concerned about unconscious bias when choosing people, wouldn't it be better to have curated questions later that don't have the names of the people at the top?
Why does the guy who introduces this programme like the sound of his own voice so much ? Some of us would prefer to hear the advertised guests voices more. Get off !
Mr Moderator next time please GET OUT OF THE WAY. Thanks
How is RD not "Sir"?
Probably because the Head of the Church of England can’t be seen to endorse an atheist.
In the beginning the host says that it is a collection of great "men" even though there is a woman sitting right next to him. I'm sure she wasn't happy about that. Also, I hate it when the audience claps when someone implies that science is a new religion or virus. It's such a stupid idea, lacking any understanding of what science is. Religion is a set of beliefs that often times completely conflicts with facts about the known world as we observe it. It survives in spit of contradicting evidence. Science is what ever perspective you get BASED on the measurement and observation of the actual world. We know that science is valid because it works since we can build working machines from it, it explains and predicts things that we can verify later, and it is repeatable by anyone regardless of belief or bias. If at any time science conflicts with the actual world it is revised or abandoned. How do people not understand how that's completely different than something that people just make up.
Father christmas: children give it up because they learn that everyone else (grown ups) think he is not real anyways
God: children don't give it up IF they are surrounded by ppl who think its REAL
easy to understand, isn't it? social pressure...pressure to fit into a group (=instinct, do what others do to fit in)
oh, and i usually am not to fond of discussions with that many ppl, they just don't have enough time to make their points (one of the hangout-guys talked what, 3 times in 1,5h?).
Deepak Chopra: Mystical revolutionary.
Remove Marx from the video description.
This idea (cropping up around minute 30) that "others can't really be religious because I know I couldn't ever really be religious" is nothing but a closed-mindedness and lack of imagination. Other people can really actually believe different (and totally crazy) shit than you believe. I'm from Alabama in the U.S., and people I've met have really disbelieved in atheism because they really believe in God so much. People like Scott Atran and this gentlemen just lack empathy and imagination despite intelligence and interest.
Scientific atheist activists astound me. The obvious reason for religion is political. Tribal societies had vague spiritual pantheistic beliefs that evolved into polytheism and formed the basis of literature and mythology by explaining the powers of the world as creator entities superior to a less proficient humanity. Their evolution into monotheism paralleled the iron age and rise of more powerful empires, so more universalistic themes that could unify empires of diverse peoples became paramount. Christianity did this through salvation - which was important for getting a growing population of restless lower class people to accept their fate in society. Islam went a slightly deviated route and emphasized a way of extending tribalism to the entire imperial caliphate - i.e. community of believers. But the conclusion is obvious and simple: It paved the way for the advancement and success of the empires that ruled Christendom and Islam. The people discarded specific nationalistic deities and rituals and were instead given more generalized ideas that facilitated their empires' unification and power.
Is it just me or does Steven Pinker look like he's floating in outer space?
'The God Delusion' is not a rational or scientific book. It is an emotional book.
You clearly haven't read it
There was nothing 'rational' about Dawkins' make-believe scenarios.
_The Selfish Gene_ was click bait. Richard Dawkins is no better than vlog and prank channels ;)
Spying is pranking. the paranormal has been pranked with absurd nightmares that makes God's universe a bad joke.
Intelligence squared. Usually featuring a panel of English pratts. How predictable.
Natural selection is wearing socks of a different colour.
Dawkins and company are offering abstract science which although true ( as far as we know ) can not replace ( nor should it strive ) the more practical day to day delusion ( although less true to a nitpicking "scientist" ) of belief in God. If God delusion is good for you and your surrounding, I would keep it and continue learning about the self. Ultimately science will play itself out, most likely without human witnesses. Till than keep the politics out of it!
а ещё тише нельзя было сделать? пздц....
I pressed like and it shows 666 now
Pause at 5:32. Han Solo in the top row.
I'm sad Pinker has gotten into the gender politics...
Is this a discussion where everyone agrees or is there dissent and a defense of one's views?
That's what I'm asking. I'm not a fan of nobody challenging ideas.
*****
Apparently.
theres no need to challenge the truth, to get what you want they would have to wheel in some angry religious nut and make sure he disrupts the discussion as much as possible.
Why didn't you read the video description?!
Wrong...I am no religious nut. I don t believe in god or religion....never did, nor did my parents.
The truth? Well I am a scientist...Dawkins left science 40 years ago, he has said he made several key mistakes in the selfish gene, including the title, the title should have been the immortal gene. Key mistake, for science.
None of his ideas or theories have ever been, approved by the science process.
He is a superstar to the atheists, not to the science community.
We, see him as a fiction novelist, a charade debater, a charlatan, an actor on staged debates for profit, a con man, just like Harris, Lane, etc. on the christian side, just looking to make millions, science is not the main issue, to them, money is.
No serious evolution biologist, would attend this charade.
Tony
Great guests; annoying moderator
An Atheists view of reality is of a Universe nearly 14 billion years old, astonishingly complex, fearsome even, but full of awe, we are but sparks in the vastness, energetic, bright but transient, brief, we are humbled before its grandeur and beauty, but against all the odds we are alive and in that life we are greater than even the most powerful Star, for we are a part of this Universe that has become conscious, we are a part of this Universe that can open its eyes and gaze upon its self in wonder, this view is more majestic, with more breath and depth than a dogma that states the Universe is younger than the original stories that describe its creation by a Bronze Age Deity, we are not the playthings of a petulant God, a God who shrinks as we grow, let go of your fear, let go of your superstitions, shake off the shackles that keep your spirit in bondage and join us, we are free to live our lives, to do good because its right, not out of fear of eternal punishment, you have one life, its yours, take responsibility for it, live, do not fear Death, the matter you are made of has been on its journey for billions of years, it has been forged in Stars, blown on Stellar winds, flown the skies and swam the Oceans and will continue after you have gone, you are unique in the Cosmos, but brief and transient, a spark in the void.
Live Your life. It is more precious than you can possibly imagine.
To say that religious people use the word "belief" (this from someone who has never professed to believe mind you) in a way entirely different from everyone else, seems to me utterly bigoted in it's judgement. How can you hope to generalize the thinking of a population you deem irrational in character? Obliviously on that basis, you can't know why they believe what they do, how they arrived at their conclusions, and the extent of their certainty. It seems to me there is no "honest investigation" of the truth here, rather science is being broadly construed to explain every facet of human life for no other purpose than to say we understand something without actually trying to, for simplicity's sake.
One of the most intelligent, rational and honest comments I ever read on youtube.
I am a scientist, not religious, not atheist. Therefore....no agenda...only the truth. Reason.....
Dawkins left science...reason...truth...40 years ago.
He himself said, the selfish gene, had the wrong title, not selfish, but immortal.
It is not a science book, a science textbook, it is a science fiction novel.
None of his ideas/theories have been approved by the science process.
He became a superstar with atheists, not with scientists.
He is brilliant at promoting himself, his books, his staged charade debates, that means zero to science.
That is why, no serious evolution biologist, I know many, would attend this charade.
His motive is to promote the atheist agenda, to sell books, tickets for the debates, etc. to make millions.
To us, he is a charlatan.
Tony
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
***** Not so. Intelligent christians....will not deny that 2 + 2 = 4.....
The problem is that people like Dawkins are not interested in showing true....undeniable science to anyone....
Evolution/natural selection is now science law....I can show it to anyone in my lab...
Dawkins ignores it....talks about Darwin...who has been proven mostly wrong...
Why? Greed....
Once shown....as clear as 2 + 2 = 4...
Then there is nothing to debate....in those
staged....charade debates....
Dawkins makes millions/year in fees from those debates...so he lies....he is a con man.....
I think God just played a practical joke with your audio.
Once upon a time, we all believed in creation. Then came the rise in secular humanism energized by the laziness of Christians to defend the truth against new "ideas" that were nothing more than replacements for one truth or another, as well as the outsourcing academic and scientific control to those who are non-believers. Then no longer did we all believe in creation, but many fell into believing that philosophical ideas from the secular world scientific because secular men of science said it was so. Today the tables are now turning, and there is a rise in the force of creationism and the Intelligent Design movement that has so greatly threatened the control over academia that secular men of science are resorting more than ever to harsh treatment of Darwinism doubters or disbelievers, that the preachers of evolutionism are now typically afraid to debate the subject of evolution and creation on college campuses for fear of being refuted in front of their own students and the media. Eugenie Scott has stated,
"If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten."
Evolution is disproved by millions of facts, such as the fact that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation. Atheists are obligated to explain how all things can exist if God does not exist. Their claim that God does not exist is in effect a statement that all that exists can come into being without God. The laws of nature about information have refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution.
Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudimentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer compression schemes.
DNA possesses thousands of 3-dimensional information hierarchies directed to the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and when it is not supercoiled, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when it is supercoiled. Genetic information when read by the cell's machinery in one direction produces different information than when it is read by the cell's machinery in the other direction. This feature of design alone is so far superior to man's computer software that it is not currently possible for us to conceive how this could have been done while making all of it's information relevant and critical to the organism. It's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences across the entire molecule. It's sequences across the entire 7 ft. long molecule are organized to conform to linguistics laws which go beyond Zipf's law of Linguistics. It contains codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other, even when they are distant from each other in the molecule.
A recent discovery is that there is a code which lies upon codes for proteins, sharing it's base pairs, and regulates how to express those sequences for proteins. If we liken the mechanical functions of the protein machines of the cell as it interacts with DNA, then the operations mirror the human language properties of phonetics, semantics, syntax, and grammar, and punctuation. The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations of proofreading, information comparison, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup and restore, all of which operate by algorithmic operations which possess "if" and "when" statements, just like computer programs. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are all immaterial nature has no potential to produce them. They are products only producible by a mind.
During an organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical light switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it.
If you want to believe in evolution because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of our creator, nobody can stop you. But doing so is to be a denialists of the discoveries of modern science - things which the outdated concept of Charles Darwin over 150 yrs ago could not have predicted. Believing in evolution today is as antiquated as it was to believe that flies arose from meat or frogs arose from mud a century prior to Darwin.
Atheists in fact hate the Scientific Method and refuse to employ it. Example: 100 years of random genetic mutation experimentation provides consistent results demonstrating that random mutations are destructive and negative to organisms, both biochemically and anatomically, and does not add anything incrementally to the anatomy of organisms. Conclusion? Mutation cannot be a mechanism for accruing change that results in macroevolution. But what does the atheist conclude despite the evidence? They continue believing that random mutation IS a mechanism for accruing change that results in mind-bending complexity, microscopic interdependent machinery, and macroevolution, not because of science, but because their worldview requires it to be, since if evolution were true, random mutation would have to be the base mechanism for evolution, since genetic information defines organisms. In this way, they refuse to come to the correct conclusion because of their paradigm, tossing out the Scientific Method and the conclusion it would require them to accept.
Examples of how atheists refuse to comply with the Scientific Method are nearly countless, and found in all fields of science. I would say that based upon this fact, atheists are incapable of being objective, responsible scientists in any field of science which relates to the universe, organic life, or history.
Anthony Flew, once the word's foremost atheist academic who's former arguments are the posters upheld by atheists today, converted to a theist and creationist because of the biological evidence. See him discuss his conversion:
th-cam.com/video/SNkxpTIbCIw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/MbKsIAib5YM/w-d-xo.html
What is really striking to me is that no one here is question that for years Professor Dawkins has been criticizing islam but hasn't even bother to read a whole chapter. This is mind boggling, I was a Dawkins fan but I don't think he is the best Atheist have to offer. If I was honest there are better advocates.
How Ironic! He talks about evaluation that modern science couldn't prove because a man over 100 years ago when science was primitive said so and even worse calls it ((rational)) ... but when people with religious views do the same thing he dare to call them((irrational))
Double standards at it's finest!!
hahahahahabahahahbahahahabaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabhaha
36;81Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the likes of them? Yes, [it is so]; and He is the Knowing Creator.
36;82 His command is only when He intends a thing , that He says to it, "Be," and it is.
38;83 So exalted is He in whose hand is the realm of all things, and to Him you will be returned. .
QURAN ( 36)
the sound is so quiet:(:(
Atheism does not result from the lack of evidence; it arises from the denial of the obvious. All men, and women, are born with an innate hatred and aversion to God and his government. Self-centered man refuses to be governed by his Creator. I am god, he tells himself, and I have the right to think and do as I please; although his nagging conscience does not agree with this summation he manages to fend off that inner irritant. This continued denial brings about a hardening process resulting in a seared and finally a dead conscience; that condition frees him up to do his own thing without any remorse whatsoever. The Bible has a term for that condition, it’s called “reprobate”; since the conscience is now dead, God no longer has access to that miserable creature.
Man is a spiritual being accountable to the Great Spirit whose name is God. God will not be mocked by sinful beings, his broken law will be defended and retribution will follow. In Rom 3:10-18 the Bible gives a description of fallen mankind:
"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now, does that not describe us sinful creatures accurately?
Now for the good news: This is where the God-Man, Jesus Christ, comes in; he bridges the gap between sinful man and a holy God. To deny and ignore God’s redemption plan is to seal one’s own eternal doom with a witness.
Ooh the sarcasm is strong with this one :)
This is completely pointless, just a bunch of Atheists agreeing with each other.
Poor Richard Dawkins he's gone so deep down the nonsense of Atheism he can't admit his wrong without severely damaging his ego.
You just said nothing...and misunderstood atheism. Congratulations.
What is "the nonsense of atheism"? Atheism is a LACK of something. Do you call "not collecting stamps" the "nonsense of not collecting stamps"?
Clown.
romans 1 verse 22... professing themselves to be wise they became fools..
when they discuss about free will they say there is none!! well there had a choice to answer the question or not that to me is exercising free will right there, and then she has the nerve to say there is no free will(well she was kind of slick in beating around the bush but that's what she meant..) these guys are making the bible so valid everyday by their actions.. they believe a computer can not create itself but when you look at something more complex like the universe they say it created itself.... if this is being a scholar or doctor then I think ill pass...
Please research predestination theory
I will check it out..
however b4 I do, I have a question..
do you have the choice to reply to me or not?
+Brian Musana I don't want to get into a debate with you about whether we have free will or not, I do have better things to be doing, and I'd probably only end up going down the rabbit hole of quantum physics, but like I said, research predestination, you might get new ideas on things, you may not but you must always explore other options before being so certain on way the universe works my friend. The truth is we don't really know yet, neither science nor the bible can give us answers, but it's good to not dismiss other theories so easily
I will do cheers mate. but I have to disagree with you that we don't know, because I a long with billions of people know we have free will...and quantum mechanics will not wriggle you out of free will..
+Brian Musana well, quantum physics is one of the biggest mysteries to modern science , there is actually a lot of stuff we don't know yet, we're not that advanced of a species, but you're welcome, hope you enjoy reading about it :)
Once you grasp the concept that aliens have influenced this planet since the year dot, many of your questions will answered. Disclosure of this fact is now slowly rolling out as there is a need to introduce this information by careful acclimatisation. Richard reminds me of a man who has swam out from the shore and is now clinging to a log, he has realised he is too far out to swim back. Hopefully the penny will drop with many of these individuals in their lifetime. We live in interesting times indeed.
the moderator is horrible