You mean POST TRUTH. Once his models had suceeded in shutting down christian free speech in public the models were inflicted on ALL FREE SPEECH. You class Mr Dawkins as a Biologist ? Well no form of law has prevented what people THINK since the witch trials until Richard Dawkins - the founding father of modern thought crime stopped christians from thinking. NOW YOU - ME - EVERYONE. We are only allowed to think what we are told to. Its NOT so smart to suck up to Dawkins. Whilst Atheists ( not new atheists ) - knew it was a scam as soon as they opened their mouths nearly 20 years ago. I.E the practical atheist already KNEW that closing down christians would be too dangerous. BTW only christianity was banned by police in public no other religion. And in any case a separate abrahamic religion was shipped in to replace them ( sigh ) You've been cheering on your own life being shut down.
@@cameroncameron2826 Why lie? Atheist are the ones fighting for equality and freedom of speech and inclusion. It's theist who deny equality and shut down other opinions. It's theist trying to control how we live what we say and the medical care we need. We only want the religious to question their own myths and leaders that push them. You didn't know it was a scam because it's not. The scam is what makes you so dishonest. Your religion!
The last statements by Richard have enabled me to feel so much better about how I see the human race in this turbulent and frightening time. He is a glimmer of hope in a very dark cave.
Dawkins is one of the few human beings alive in our time who actually feels like a normal, intelligent person when I hear him speak or read the pages of his books. Sensible, rational, and eloquent. A mind worth engaging with. The vast majority of discourse online is so insultingly child-like, it's rather depressing. That's why I started reading books like Dawkins'. They're a sort of intellectual oasis.
Well i'm sorry but hes one of the main designers of that dystopian nightmare. The models Dawkins designed to shut down christian speech were successful. The only problem is the same models now shut down YOURS / MINE / EVERYONES. There has been no dogmatic destructive & despotic like the dawkinsian models since Matthew Hopkins enforced the witch trials. Yes i know Dawkins marches around like the cat that got the cream, has permanently got that smug grin on his face & just bought a huge mansion in chipping norton. But i'm afraid that it is HIS anti christrian models thats turned us all into sense offenders like in the film Equilibrium - not allowed to define ourselves by Biology anymore etc etc and these Dawkins based thought crimes are growing in number. FACE IT - any kind of model that would prevent any type of human from what they believe peacefully WAS NEVER GOING TO END WELL. Once any ''you are not allowed to say or think ball gets rolling against anyone ( christians included ) - its going to unleash its psychological violence against EVERYONE in the end and has. Thats all the Dawkins / New Atheist fanatic people managed to achieve. They cheered on the formulation/formation/foundation of modern thought crime and gave visible public consensus to banning christian THOUGHT. There was no sense that this would become nails in their own coffin. New atheist followers were told all this was to protect freedom from christians. No - dawkins et al were designing thought crime that would manifest against YOU & should have been left WELL. ALONE. Thus he manipulated his disciples to help him obtain his palace in chipping the posh political village by drawing up thought crime design that would be used against them - NICE. What idiots - its really hard to understand how stupid the new atheist is considering that every normal responsible atheist saw all this coming soon as dawkins et al opened their mouths years ago.
He devised the first thought crime models since the witch craft trials and after banning christians from a variety of public activities they are now banning everyones free speech.
What when dawkins designed anti christian models that have since mutated on & cancelled your freedom of speech AND we've sen a separate abrahamic religion replace them into the bargain? None are more BLIND that a new atheist fanatic i.e the most stupid genre based race on earth.
I honestly think that this individual is on another level of intelligence. There is something about the way that he thinks,speaks and keeps a ballance of objectivity on different subjects and discussions...that just makes you try your hardest to grasp every bit of information,in order to make your own rational decision on the matter. Thank you,sir! Art of Conversation top tier right there
As usual, Professor Richard Dawkins... stating and making logical assessments, in a world so plagued by dogmatic irrational nonsense. As an active Member/Atheist of the said "Cat Herd." I say... Meow!😻
The atheistic pretension that reason comes from non-reason [ dead matter ] is at least as much "irrational nonsense" as the assumption of a rational origin of the world is highly reasonable and plausible. 😅😅😅
@@marie-jeanne_decourroux What was Adam made out of according to the bible? Oh... dead matter--- dirt! LOL Religious people are amazing at shooting down their own religions claims.
"Liberated from Religion" ? Is the author really so stupid to think that there is a human being without "religion" ? The dumbest of all religions and worldviews, whether theistic or atheistic, is the one that thinks it isn't one. Everyone lives with their own personal dogmas: axiomatic (unprovable) assumptions, e.g. with legal conventions, moral principles, metaphysical judgments, aesthetic standards, etc. etc. Whether you like it or not, everyone has their dogmas, and Chesterton is right when he points out that anyone who wants to abolish one is already in the process of replacing it with another (usually his own). Only very few things that a person or a society relies on or has to agree upon - from the state constitution over civil laws to forms and rules of coexistence - can be derived empirically or justified scientifically. Almost everything is based on culturally determined norms, conventions, civil obligations, and legal rights (which in western countries are mostly of Christian origin). In particular, the atheistic pretension to be without metaphysical prejudices is as nonsensical as the assumption of a rational origin of the world is reasonable. Chesterton says it with his usual brilliance: "Religion [ in the most general sense of the personal worldview ] is exactly the thing which cannot be left out - because it includes everything. The most absent-minded person cannot well pack his Gladstone-bag and leave out the bag. We have a general view of existence, whether we like it or not; it alters or, to speak more accurately, it creates and involves everything we say or do, whether we like it or not. If we regard the Cosmos as a dream, we regard the Fiscal Question as a dream. If we regard the Cosmos as a joke, we regard St. Paul's Cathedral as a joke. If everything is bad, then we must believe (if it be possible) that beer is bad; if everything be good, we are forced to the rather fantastic conclusion that scientific philanthropy is good. Every man in the street must hold a metaphysical system, and hold it firmly. The possibility is that he may have held it so firmly and so long as to have forgotten all about its existence." And don't forget: The number of victims of all atheistic "isms" of the 20th century (Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, National Socialism, Pol Pot's and other Kim Jong xxx's) by far exceeds that of all "holy wars" of all times. As Viktor Orbán said: "The most evil things in modern history were carried out by people who hated Christianity."
You are a very confused person. If I have my own beliefs, this is not a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs that is considered absolute truth for all Humanity and is imposed on others (Christians, for example, spent centuries persecuting and killing Jews and other Christians who believed differently. Catholics and Protestants killed each other). PS: Atheism killed ZERO people, since Atheism is not a religion: it does not teach anything. Thus, it does not command to do anything.@@etienne_laforet
Very much enjoying these. And Prof. Dawkins' constructive, accessible and engaging broadcasting, brought to new audiences via social media. I would love to hear a podcast on the topic of climate change, from the perspective of a biologist. This comment comes after a recent conversation with my father (83), who denies climate change, it turns out, under the assumption that changes which occur on earth do so over millions of years. 'How could we possibly affect things so rapidly?' I would love to be able to send him a full and clear explanation of what the hell is going on, and why. As a layperson, and my father's youngest child, I haven't the words to convince him, and others like him. I realise now just how many people do feel like he does. It's hard to join the dots between using Democracy for change, institutional, social and personal responsibility, and the fact that the fields behind his house flood far more consistently than they used to! Best x
If i were you i'd be loyal to your father instead of an elitist toerag who hides behind biologist cred, but models thought crimes for cabalists using religion as the conduit. Hes moving into a mansion in chipping norton. His anti christian model got them banned from showing their father in public ( the only religion who were treated that way ) Since his model has moved onto its true purpose I.E shutting down everyones free speech. Don't waste your time of that evil treacherous misanthropist filth and look after ur dad you fool. The Sun will continue to expand and heat up this planet as it does every x thousands of years. After that i'll start the cool down cycle & there nothing unity can do about that either. Its a cosmological phenomenon and no amount of robbing the people for a climate tax will change that. Well not that it even CAN be spent on improving the climate. So really such a tax would pay people who design models for dictators & they'll buy mansions with that tax. THE EMPIRiCAL EVIDENCE is that new atheism claimed they had a model that could prevent religious people from violating other peoples FREEDOM. The empirical evidence is that consequently only christians had laws passed against them - plus ? Well a separate major abrahamic religion was shipped in to replace them after their decline & fall and the churches were looted by aristocrats for their vast wealth. Now what would occams razor say about that outcome ? Furthermore then the empirical evidence is that new atheisms models now threaten all of us to regard ourselves as non biological entities since the same model now supplies THAT THOUGHT CRIME. Also there is thev potential to be arrested for thought crime if in denial of infinite genders. The same logic ( not by Dawkins / but same post truth logic ) hasd it that all white people are racists / cannot deny that / to deny is aggression. < An abuse of double bind psychology combined with an abusive set of logical fallacies yes. Nevertheless its becoming the bedrock of critical race theory / white fragility )
Dear Richard Dawkins,I read your few books including 1.Selfish gene2.The extended phenotype 3The god delusion 4The greatest show on earth.Ever since I finished reading these books,I view this world through the perspective of genetic evolution and cultural evolution.And I am lot happier to view this world from scientific perspective.And I agree with you that there is nothing more beautiful than scientific truth.I have understood the rationale of existence of nonhuman and human life on our planet earth.Thank you very much for waking up people from deep slumber.Virender Bhalla
A wonderful discussion. I think this is from March 2009, as Prof. Dawkins refers to Christopher Hitchens' debate with Lennox (29:41). That debate, BTW, is on TH-cam.
Those future endeavours would no doubt include even more thought crime models against the free speech of everyone & again be dealt while hiding behind anti religion & social justice. Did new the new atheist followers really think that preventing christians from worshipping in public by law would end there ? It didn't - these were the first thought crimes since the witch trials and were always going to move to inflict tyranny on those they were designed to = the MAJORITY. Its ludicrous that you people were lured into giving consensus & support for this & still cannot see what he is doing even now - beyond belief. He even has the brass neck to respond as if butter would not melt, but its his models that swapped biology to Essentialist Metaphysics with A. C. Grayling claiming that that is the appropriate way to run a search of the universe when its clearly impossible to run an empirical experiment = & Dawkins is fine with this psychic remote viewing.
Those ties are extremely useful. If I see a short clip, and I want to see the whole talk or interview, I zoom in on which tie Richard is wearing and seek it out.
I'm glad I'm evolved and equipped with the aural equipment [👂] necessary to be able to transform Richard Dawkins' stream of spoken words - into electrical signals - who in turn enables my neural network [🧠] into translating this stream of words into a kind of 'cognitive music' that I could listen to for _hours_ on end! . . . . 🙏
@@kennypowers1945 I hear you loud & clear brother! . . . (And, come to think of it; If _ever_ there were the *_remotest_* possibility for the existence of a 'heavenly daddy', I'd say that weed _definitely_ would be one of the first things 'He'd' succeeded in making - that would *perfectly* fit the bill - *''intelligent'' design!* 😜👌)
I've been thinking, since I deconverted from Christanity, and considering the universe could have started over and over for eternity, and considering so many planets are in the universe, that it makes sense that at least one planet would bring forth life and the only way we know there is life at all is because we are here.
Speculating about life and earths fortuitous position and circumstances as being unique is superfluous because many different life forms and planetary circumstances can exist… also some life forms may very likely can be snuffed out by cosmic events.
Richard Dawkins, you are a guardian against misinformation and a beacon of enlightenment in a world often clouded by ignorance. If Science was a religion you'd be High Oracle of Rational Inquiry
What good is that when his models designed to shut down christian rights are now closing down everyones free speech? He is the first person to interfere with what people are allowed to THINK since Mathew Hopkins. Nobody is allowed to say what a woman is anymore for instance. The reason ? - DAWKINS the father of modern thought crime. Models used to shut christians up in public now running a dystopian post truth era concerning all of us.
Ohh really ? And i thought the following happened : Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
If there is its not manifesting out of richard dawkins - the founding father of modern thought crime. His models first shutting down public christian belief & the new atheist followers were 'Horray!!! But later the same model begins to attack aspects of everyone elses freedom of speech.
True, however in British English the word has extended useage. It can refer to any data represented as a series of numbers... I guess dna can essentially be viewed in this way. It is also pretty simple to convert it to typical 0 1 format when analysing it or storing the information. I guess it is developing terminology but I have heard it described like this previously.
@@sensis3235 I gathered that yea and also taking into account his experience with computer programming, he probably views it from that angle. Personally I’d probably refer to DNA as quaternary, in the same way that I’d call it conserved instead of high fidelity. Of course, he’s speaking to the public here and not people with science backgrounds.
@@mervinprone yeah he is speaking for general public, I still enjoyed that you called out the technicality. 😂 Edit: rabbitwholed.. I have looked into it now and it does seem that the word digital is used to describe DNA more than just in public speaking and for a couple decades.. the abstracts refer to a gene coding for a protein being one form of digital information or a gene being regulated as another form. I cant access these full articles but assume this is more of a gene switch on or off, or codes one particular protein or doesn't, so digital is not referring to the nucleotides or the actual sequence.
As in the way DNA is not an analog I.E has all degrees of freedom to communicate with itself. Arguably the human brain does this too although inhibits / governs itself to states below its potentials pre learning / evolution. DNA however does not and it always efficient. Secondly Dawkins is trying to hustle for Dennett / publicise an outlook to help it sell. Even though Dennett was a fierce anti consciousness critic ( same as Dawkins ) - he now wants to exploit its literary market and is trying to develop consciousness models. They'll probably crypto radical marxist ones like everything Dawkins does. Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
It's digital but not binary. Digital refers to the fact that at each position in the DNA molecule there are exactly four possibilities. It can never be 3.5 or 1.2 which could only be if it was an analog value. That's all there is to it.
The Skyhook and The Crane explained by Prof Richard Dawkins🙌🏻💛 [25:00 - 37:00] "The terminologi is not mine, its coined by philosopher Daniel Clement Dennett III, and what he means by it, The Sky Hook, is an explanation which is sort of like a great hand, coming out of the sky and fiddling with things and you're left without an explanation from where this great hand comes from. So basically [insert deity, God, Allah, Shiva etc], is a "Skyhook", a fairy is a skyhook, spells, incantations, Wizards, witches and warlocks and turning frogs into prince's - none of that has any explanation, it's all done by Skyhooks. When a fairytale allows you to wave a magic wand and make things like that happen that's a "Skyhook," [a deity] is a skyhook. A 'Crane' is the *opposite* of a skyhook. The crane is an explanation that really does explanatory work. Evolution by natural selection is the Crane par excellence because evolution by natural selection starts with primordial simplicity and works up by slow and gradual, intelligible, understandable degrees to ever increasing levels of complexity. Until you reach levels of complexity that couldn't conceivably happen by luck, skyhooks are a kind of an inadequate rationalisation of luck. A Crane is a true explanation that does work up gradually. Dan Dennetts' terminology from that point of view [of Skyhooks] is unfortunate. A proper terminology would be an escalator, instead of a crane. Natural selection is a superb example of an escalator. The problem with [god; religion] is that it is a skyhook, and the advantage of evolution by natural selection is that it's an *escalator* - end quote. Thank you, Professor 💖🙏🏻
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
Regarding the “directed panspermia” idea, it’s interesting to think IF this were true, then it’s possible we would come across a future advanced alien civilization that is actually very much like us in genetic code, maybe even human like. Simply because we are their “offspring” as it were. They could have seeded the entire galaxy with their kind to broaden their horizon. So in that case we are the aliens we’d be looking for, actually foreign to this solar system. A fun idea would be that they were on the brink of extinction and send out pods of bacteria in a last ditch effort to continue their legacy and by now they are long gone.
There is a backstory in SF author Ursula Leguin's works, of a Hainish universe, the Hain being an ancient race of aliens who, hundreds of thousands of years ago, 'seeded' (populated) many planets in the universe, including Earth. This resulted in in subsequent parallel evolutions, and explains why the alien races she writes about are similar in appearance (one head, 2 eyes, two arms, 2 legs, upright, etc.)
No I don’t think that’s how it works. Panspermia would be for example a fungi spore, being the foundation of other life forms to evolve from it. It is certainly not a human like life form. When life begins it takes whatever form necessary for survival. It took many millions of years for human life forms to evolve on earth.
The 'TRUTH" ? From Dawkins of all people Really. ? Had you not noticed that the dawkinsian anti religious dogma was an attack on fre speech that would inevitably be set upon everyones free speech ? No. You must mean the post truth era. Yes Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place. Crafty isn't he ? - butter would not melt. Anthropic this & evolution that OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN YET ? What you got was a POLICE STATE. 'Truth' my foot!!! And as for the alleged shining diaphanous intellect of this monster ? - how do fanatics make THAT OUT?. The practical atheist such as myself knew that new atheism was designing this nightmare for the cabalists as soon as they opened their mouths nearly 20 years ago.
I recommend people looking at the way Dawkins seems to be this great magnanimous social entity, but in fact has caused everyones free speech to be shut down. He disguised it within an anti religion movement. But after closing down free speech in Christianity, his models are now being used to shut us all up. OPEN YOUR EYES.
Read Dawkins' landmark book "The Selfish Gene." It elaborates, or extend the subject of evolution by natural selection to posit that the level at which evolution operates is, as the title indicates, the gene, as opposed to the individual organism, a tribe, a species, etc. That if we start from the basis of genetic material that self-replicates, and all life are really just machines or vehicles of the replicators, we can explain the evolution of life.
@@UnchainedEruption It rreally does not take much to write a book like TSG as it deals with a 50/50 toss regarding the mind body problem. / & only then posits a gene theory. ( simple ) Any eminent member of the 3 rd reich would have been capable of writing that book as i hope you know that as a literary piece it is extremely simplistic. Such idea have been as common as muck & anyone that bought that old rope isn't educated very well. I think even Dawkins himself , the founding father of modern thought crime, was shocked at how stupid people were with that book. It only recycles ideas that existed for thousands of years. Furthermore very time humans have been defined in that way it results in an essentialist driven genocide given such statement only defaults to playing god (or satan) regardless.
@@solymi Only besotted disciples that continuously gush and praise jesus dawkins would fail to recognise what a rewrite of hundreds of other books it is. Furthermore you just do not understand that fundamentally the book acts as if it has solved the mind body problem firstly just so it can move onto dismissing consciousness & assign human being machines controlled at a genetic level.Thus its METAPHYSICS inasmuch it guesses the solution to the mind body problem whilst offering no justification / evidence for that other than the way Dawkins justs wants to do it for the cash Therefore a most crass childish book & its YOUR problem you find it 'genius' or 'fabulous' or whatever insane effect and hold such a silly book has over you. Perhaps you read it multiple times but still haven't grasped what he is claiming via this demented piece of nonsense. Dawkins even that long ago had decided he was important enough to move into a post truth era where NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP HIS ASSERTIONS were to be required. I'd fancy you have decided its 'The Truth' - when its more of a radical marxist reification or fantasy given that no bone fide scientist wouild thrust such an expectation on readers by first forcing the assumption that the mind / body debate was solved via new atheist Metaphysics..
As far as I know, all the nucleotide bases needed to build RNA have been found on meteorites but I haven't heard that RNA itself has been found (unlike proteins such as *hemolithin)* - however we know that such nucleotides will *self-assemble* on catalytic templates such as Montmorillonite Clay and even volcanic glass. Polymerizatinio doesn't seem to be a problem. Some recent research *"Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network"_ shows that such an assembly could be at the start of life. Lee Cronin has found that Auto-Catalytic Sets based on Molybdenum salts can arise in the right conditions.
As a layman I am a bit confused. We are told time and again that the origin of life anywhere else in the universe is inevitable because the basic building blocks are floating all over even on asteroids. So if it is so easy to start new life, then it must originate on earth several times, even billions of years apart as all the conditions are conducive here. And what prevents it from happening right now! But all life that ever existed here is same, using the same design, the nucleic acids, proteins etc. and evolution is linear, suggesting a single origin even on our planet. Can Dr Dawkins enlighten us on this paradox?
Excellent question, I have always wondered about this too. May be it does start, but it becomes extinct. Or may be the initial ingredient or spark is what’s very rare…. Improbable.
Dennett argued with all his might that such outlook was KOOK. But now with his influence waining hes trying to break into the digital consciousness market with Penrose. What hypocrite, but thats why Dawkins is dropping such hints. Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
when you dream, you travel into a parallel universe where the laws of physics are different. That's why you can fly for instance. And if you meet Puff the magic dragon, and hold his paw, you can't travel into other parallel universes. My next move is to launch the famous "You can't prove that's not true". Which is meaningless.
Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
Why? What has he said to pain you so? He has explicitly made it clear that he would use the preferred names and pronouns of trans individuals, what more could one ask for?
@@robinhood20253trans people should have their own country and leave everyone else alone. All LGBTQ agendas and politics are a generational gateway to pedophilia. Pretty soon it will be LGBTQP+. Leave the kids alone when it comes to ANYTHING trans
interesting comment about trading Muslims for Christians (around 49:00). The same can be said about economics, where Dr Thomas Sowel says "there is no solution, only tradeoffs". I've seen Richard's politics ignore this reality. In politics as in economics, tradeoffs must be made. The road to hell is paved with idealism. You must PICK the lesser of all evil, not push some idealism which will end up helping the greater of the evils.
From what I’ve heard, religion has indeed been declining here in America. I don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a new church open. I distinctly recall hearing stats or studies that show an increasing number of atheists and a growing number churches that are closing down here in America. Things are going in the right direction but it is happening very slowly. I think it’s time for the professor to give us a bit of credit for slowly “Turning the ship around” rather than painting a picture of America being this country of monolithic religious people.
Oh! I thought it was going to be more about what evolution might have shaped life elsewhere to look like. For example, whether a lifeform could have evolved a limb extremity that functions like a wheel to get it around on land?
Those who use the earth being perfect for life as proof of god are looking at things from the wrong direction. It's the equivalent of someone looking at a puddle of water and marvelling at the depression in the earth and saying 'what a coincidence, that hole in the ground is just right for that body of water'
Anyone hanker for alien "alien" lifeforms? Try Adrian Tchaikovsky, Children of Time series... As an entomologist, he bases many of his aliens on insects...
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairytale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
How can RD say life exists else where with out proof ? Unless he has seen aliens he cannot say that :( By the by, my theory is that life exists on zillion places around the universe, however each star so vastly distant from other that it is impossible to do interstellar travel, so Even if life exists, one will never know for sure, that is universal law by (god's ?) design
@@johnrangi4830 because when someone reject anything spiritual, which is supernatural, then my close relatives who have died are only body and are gone forever. For me there is no hope in that idea. What does dogma have anything to do with it?
@@RM-lu1kx ok but if someone reject spiritual it doesn't necessarily mean hope is lost. I realise it can be difficult to understand or accept somebody else's personal position, but that is not necessarily removing hope. I realise you might feel that way because you probably miss your relatives but that doesn't mean you have to give up hope. Maybe your relatives were hoping you would have a good life. I know that is what I hope for my kids, I don't want to have to see them suffer and I hope you believe the same for your family and friends.
@@johnrangi4830 Of course i can say, i hope you are okay, i hope you enjoy yourself, i hope you live long, i hope you are rich, beautiful , healthy and prosperous. If i were a good person i should have that hope for you and everybody else. But still there is no ultimate hope. So actually i have to have hope for you that after this short life, your supernatural soul, the unique person in your body, does not disappear but lives on in true happiness. Those who teach secular ideas take away that ultimate hope. That is painfull.
The question is not "design or random (pure chance)" but "a creator or only dead matter"? And this question is often approached (and particularly by Dawkins) with a very naive idea of a creator. The french philosopher and Nobel Prize winner Henri Bergson, in his major work 'Creative Evolution', shows that creation, as far as life is concerned, is necessarily evolutionary. A first essential point that is often overlooked in this context is that creation necessarily involves a self-restraint of the creator. Because without the transfer of autonomy, which can be observed, for example, in the spontaneity of life or the freedom of man, but which is evident already in the laws of nature, a new reality of its own cannot arise at all. Without any autonomy, creation would at best be something like a 'prosthesis': a kind of extended arm of the creator. It is in the logic of creation that to the extent that it becomes autonomous reality, the Creator necessarily limits his 'scope for action' - especially when there is life within. A second feature is closely related to this first character of creation. Despite (or precisely because of) its obviousness, it is often forgotten (which then apparently leads to a contradiction to biological evolution [1]): As creation proceeds in time, it increasingly becomes a wrestling with material, a grappling with the autonomy and peculiarities of the already existing - all the more so when this is alive - i.e. spontaneous or free. This affects every kind of creation. For example, once a painter has decided to paint an oil painting, he must take into account the characteristics of the paints he has mixed, which require different techniques than, for example, watercolours. These qualities offer a certain 'resistance' to his work. Henri Bergson speaks of the 'résistence de la matière brute', the 'resistance of raw matter'. In God's creation, this resistance can show itself, for example, as natural law, as the spontaneity of life, or as a result of human freedom. As a Creator, God eo ipso accepts that paths are blocked or detours are forced on him. All of this obviously has an impact on what the proverbial 'omnipotence' of the Creator can NOT mean: When Jesus Christ says: "Nothing is impossible for God", this obviously does not mean that every "non-thing" - anything that contradicts the inner logic of creation - is possible. The Christian God is not an architect or a handworker and creation is not the implementation of a ready-made plan, because for God planning and creating are one and the same. Nor is God a great 'magician' who rules the world with hocus-pocus. He is the Logos [Jn. 1.1]: in his creation things happen 'logically'. Which of course doesn't mean that we understand everything. Many misunderstandings and accusations against God 'almighty' (especially in the context of evil and suffering) are based on a magical image of God and an unreflected understanding of creation and omnipotence. [1] Bergson, in his major work 'Creative Evolution', shows that creation, as far as life is concerned, is necessarily evolutionary. This essentially follows from the second feature of creation mentioned above. Therefore, it is not a contradiction to creation, when for example whales exhibit anatomical relics of land mammals. Worth reading: Henri Bergson, »L'évolution créatrice«, recently retranslated into German as »Schöpferische Evolution«, Meiner-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-7873-2688-4 ] [ English is not my first language, please excuse my mistakes ]
Actually - *so-called "Little Green Men"/Anunnaki Beings DID "Create" us (Homo sapiens sapiens) [up] from our grunting, hunter-gatherer Homo erectus Forebears. The era was around the time, c. 445,000. Read the numerous Cuneiform Tablets (held in the various Musuems around the world: ~ for Sumerian/Babylonian, very strict and precise detail.
As my grandad used to say, there is more in heaven than earth. I am sure there are life forms on the inaccessible parts of our planet, that we would describe as alien? We have discovered crustaceans and bacteria that live in the depths of our oceans around superheated vents. Possibly the most inhospitable place to expect life to exist, yet it does and flourishes. That leads me to believe, that life could exist on even the most inhospitable planet, which has the basic building blocks of life.🙂
Life probably does exist, but much like the anaerobic bacteria, it's not exactly a form of life we would consider intelligent or capable of interacting with. Hardly the "little green men" of cinema.
probability of life iis quite high. estimates suggest that there are 2-3 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. we dont know how big the universe is, so that number goes up. a galaxy in average has about 300 billion stars. Numbers of planets in our own galaxy vary a lot with estimates from 50 billion to 8 trillion. But even with the lower estimate there could be around 500 million habitable planets in our milky way alone. 500million x 3 trillion would give the rough number of habitable planets in our observable universe. It would be foolish to think there is no life elsewhere in the universe. If it is intelligent life and if it is right now or died out already or much more advanced than ours is anther question but there should be a lot of life in our universe right now.
MATERIALISM contradicts itself and proves God 1. Materialism assumes reality is composed of only MATTER and ENERGY 2. INFORMATION is always instantiated in or on matter or energy 3. So materialists assume information originates from mass + energy 4. But from Claude Shannon information is a COMMUNICATION of MEANING ENCODED in a LANGUAGE 5. But language only comes from a MIND 6. So matter + energy cannot be the source of information 7. Therefore the origin of information can only be a mind 8. Therefore if nature includes information we know it originated from a mind 9. DNA's only function is to store, transmit and copy information 10. Therefore that mind must be outside of our reality ie *GOD!*
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairytale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
evolution is not a history lesson, it continues though our intellect. unfortunately its like, the more you learn the less you know, which is probably the correct prosses. as a atheist i base myself form knowledge not belief, tho i do believe that tomorrow will dawn a better human, smarter faster longer living, as soon as we get over ourselves.
Well Mr. Dawkins, while I agree with you about many things, INTELLIGENT LIFE else where in the universe is not one of them! There are just too many things that have to happen for it to be true. To list them all would take too much time so I will give you one word and maybe two, the first would be SNOWFLAKES and the other, FINGERPRINTS.
the point on the religiously active people having better might have better mental help because especially in the united states there's a lack of "third places" which church provides.
Are you not “religiously active”? E.g. in the sense that Wolfgang Pauli meant when he said: “Yes, our friend Jason has a religion. And the creed of his religion is: 'There is no God and Jason is his prophet.'" 😅😅😅
All new atheists need a shrink for cheering on their free speech being closed down by Dawkins. What do you THINK you are observing via him - i'll tell you. You observed someone design the first anti thinking model since the witch trials. He used two control groups and ran a public experiment - 1 New Atheist Followers - 2 Christians.Dawkins over 20 years tested and demonstrated that specific laws against THOUGHT could be policed. Thus ? - the beta experiment was enacted & christians are the only religion in europe not allowed to practice it in public - its ILLEGAL. New Atheists CHEER right ? Same models are now shutting down ALL FREE SPEECH & a Post Truth Era has been created. Coincidently ? - the wealth of the churches was looted. Funny that. But worse that was not enough & now mysterious high security fences / no go areas are appearing in the national parks like Dartmoor - The Lake District - The Derbyshire Peaks et al / across europe and the concept of Common Land / Public Wealth appears to have been abolished. Oligarchs taking over the environment for private ownership and pushing to make it compulsory for us to carry a fone / card s we can be tracked to be charged by the hour to ? GO OUT. Just for going ANYWHERE You idiots.
Listening to this talk makes me doubt the existence of intelligent life, although I am usually a proponent of it. Compare this with the great philosophers of the east, the great medieval philosophers, and the Greeks, ancient and modern. We have fallen on hard times. Materialism is giving us a worm’s eye view of reality, we are being dumbed down. The Cosmic view is not lost however, there are many proponents of it out there who understand, see, and experience reality other than just grossly physical which we now know is also energy, electromagnetism, and magnetism itself, not understood yet. Vibration since the Big Bang is not understood, how light carries information, most of that awaits us in the future but it is intuitively understood by many who are holding the fort. In ancient times those who could only comprehend matter were confined to working as laborers. Only those who understood finer forces, consciousness, mind etc. were allowed to be intellectuals. That is not the case today, obviously.
About the issue of god. Under the possibility of the existence of god i think it odd that who woyld have created nature, in case he had, which is able to create life just yo later create life himself. As spwculation, it is far more ontriguing and sophisticated to create a reality that had to be challenged but could breed singularity, to call it something appealling, than the strang simplistc idea of a hat trick, which is to easy. Llok, if god exists hes immortal, why would he create life in a weekend just to return to boredom? Ablut the inexistence of god, we have to consider that the mechanis that turn organic momecules into life might ton be within our grasp. Intelligence and Logos does appear to be the same thing. Logos is nature. The laws are inteligence, they might even not be intelligent but tgey are intelligence, because they are coherant to the balance of the comlmexoty of all. Nothong is misplaced at the unicerse. capable of hindering their own identity. they never betray each other and are incorruptible. This demands a harmony that demands that the mass has the premise of being convertible into energy, because balance demands the application, or rather, the consumption of energy, even if it only manifests itself in the matter as vibration, a slight change in its resonance and the The perfectly symmetrical geometric organization of a molecular arrangement takes on another arrangement, in a design that even uses the energy in dispersion in the loop that makes up its counterform. It's bad I'll listen to you.
About human ibtelligence, it is created by the biology of our body, lets say, tge vrain. Therefore language is a perceotion of the real that has to be codefied, for matter is not information, it is just the manifestation of itself. But our ibteligence, at least our reason depends on cognition, for intelligence is the discernment of what makes sense, abd this is pure math, meaning, logics, but so commited to truth under the perspectiv of validation, that it stablishes the limits of the cognition itself with a rule, which we know as Roussea's paradoxo, that is the signature of logos, meaning it provided the reasoning proceedure for stablish concrete cognition, which results in knowledge, or understandment with an gift of reliace, like, look wgat hapowbs when we create a logical paradoxo, um cant stablish validation, but logics have provided, you are inmune to lies. If you follow the rules it will work 10o% of times, no exception, therefore, its a law of phisics, at least in the exclusivity of this fidelity, because the paradox is not illogical or irracional, it only stablish an uthical imlerative: logics wont provide logos' truth, only intelectual truth, meaning the conclusion is correct but if you started by making a mistake, no assistance to correct it will be provided. This isnot Logos, logos is what reality is and reality is always true. The duality that iniciates information could provide parts whose some are less then the whole.
And lrofessor, it is indeed that rare. Did we ever work on the possibility that we had two independent origins of life on our planet? Did the same origin happebed at least twice. Or does everything comes from one single event that, just consider, was perhaps only not as rare as it would have being fragile to not be sistained by its own replication. Specially if, which I doubt, the conditions to produce this sparkle was the so extreme like to destroy it once it was alive. What is more fragile than life?
@@jameswright... Suppose that depends on what might be considered harm by the earth itself. The earth might quite like our modifications, especially compared to those irritating microbes that turned it purple
I see that Richard has a religion. Namely the same religion that Wolfgang Pauli [ the Nobel Prize winner in physics ] meant when he said [ here replacing the addressed person with “Richard” ]: “Yes, our friend Richard has a religion. And the creed of his religion is: 'There is no God and Richard is his prophet.' "😂😂😂
And its central tenets consist of thought crime models. Once Dawkins thought crime modekls had shut down christianity in public, the models were used to attack ALL FREE SPEECH. There is nothing more stupid than a new atheist disciple cheering Dawkings the founding father of modern thought crime on. All Dawkins has to do is come out with the same old tired lines about the anthropic principle / etc etc etc. Excellent subjects and very stimulating BUT!! - they won't realised Dawkins has also closed down their free speech once his anti christian models escaped from their cage and its not even possible to define a woman by Biology because of them.
@@jameswright... FACT - Richard Dawkins et al worked tirelessly to have christian free speech BANNED = SUCCESS = THOUGHT CRIMES = REPLICATION OF THE MODEL into the rest of society @ large. We are NOT ALLOWED to say quite a lot now & are ORDERED to say others. EVERYONES free speech is now under attack due to the model Richard Dawkins first designed against Christians there is no question.
@@cameroncameron2826 Bull! Literally every word you say is a lie! Richard like all secular humanists want free speech and equality for all regardless of religion denomination male female black white gay straight. It's religion that bans equality and free speech. Your just a plain liar! Pray has never been banned but religion has banned many things. Your just butt hurt your lie can't shut people down anymore.
Whether or not life was designed by God or a little green man, it is designed. In reality, the evidence that there are elements of design within the natural world is overwhelming. The mathematical improbability of so many supposed 'coincidences' evident in terms of life on Earth and the physics of the wider universe belies the likelihood of a purely materialistic reality.
@@jameswright... There is when it comes to the design of thought crime models by Dawkins. They shut down Christian rights first & are now the models causing everyones free speech to close down. ask yourself then - what good is being a fanboy when the man is having your life closed down via his other purposes. There is no way to deny that he devised the first rules against SPEECH since Mathew Hopkins. There has not been any law against what anyone wanted to THINK until Dawkins had christians shut down in public ( praying etc ). New atheist disciples cheer ofc lol - but are cheering and giving consensus to further use of these models such as it now being technically illegal to say what defines a woman. The price everyone is now paying to listen to this social engineer spouting off is huge - YOU have lost YOUR free speech & had been promised by new atheism that they were fighting against religion to preserve it. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@LudJud@davidluzgin5055 What, exactly, makes that 'obvious'? To me, the state of this planet is exactly what you would expect if there is no such entity. Everybody and their dog comes up with a siIIy story to explain what they don't understand and then fight over it. Nine million children die before their fifth birthday through natural disasters. It's obvious to me there is no ultra-powerful being looking after us.
When you collect your noble prize for proving all of science wrong I'll start listening 😂 Abiogenisis is well understood even with the gaps in knowledge. We know chemicals under certain conditions form chemical biology leading to things like amino acids which rna forms itself from and self replicates, we know that rna makes dna. The rest follows to 110% confirmed evolution my fellow ape.
@@MrWeedWacky no, I read Charles Darwin's "warm little pond" and everything else since then, which isn't as difficult as it might seem since scientists avoid the abiogenesis subject and when they are compelled to mention it they are quick.
@@sentientflower7891 tell me that you are clueless about evolution being different from abiogenesis without saying you are clueless about evolution being different from abiogenesis... Darwin, wrote about evolution... not abiogenesis... And reading books over a century old, does not constitute taking a degree and doing research in a lab...
@@MrWeedWacky Abiogenesis is not evolution by definition since Abiogenesis is the origin of life. Charles Darwin imagined that it happened in a "warm little pond" without explaining as to how it happened. In 2023 scientific thinking has advanced so little that Abiogenesis still wastes all its time arguing about location without providing any method.
@@Apistevist Rofl, the reason i concluded it to be true is based on my model from witness testimony, video and so on. The variables in the cases I've looked at are pointing in such a way that there is no reasonable alternative explanation, without getting into some absurdly unlikely conspiracy territory. One of the greatest pieces of direct video evidence I've seen is the Las Vegas backyard footage. I'd say I'm about 98% sure in my claim that they are indeed already here.
Witness testimony isn't evidence and most people even if being honest don't know what they're looking at then jump to conclusions. So your position is baseless and irrational.@@treetoon_
Prof Dawkins has written books based on lies lies lies- just to make money - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !! How does he know if there is a God or no God ? He needs to respect people with faith and what's his problem ?
Do you mean Dawkins designed a Fascist model that first shut down religious free speech and is now closing everyones free speech ? After all he did devised the first ANTI THINKING laws since the witch trials.his constant drivel about 'freethinking' are simply nonsense as nobody has done more to violate free speech than Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins at his best. A true gift to humanity.
I respect your honesty Richard. To value truth is a very fine thing.
You mean POST TRUTH. Once his models had suceeded in shutting down christian free speech in public the models were inflicted on ALL FREE SPEECH. You class Mr Dawkins as a Biologist ? Well no form of law has prevented what people THINK since the witch trials until Richard Dawkins - the founding father of modern thought crime stopped christians from thinking.
NOW YOU - ME - EVERYONE. We are only allowed to think what we are told to.
Its NOT so smart to suck up to Dawkins. Whilst Atheists ( not new atheists ) - knew it was a scam as soon as they opened their mouths nearly 20 years ago. I.E the practical atheist already KNEW that closing down christians would be too dangerous. BTW only christianity was banned by police in public no other religion. And in any case a separate abrahamic religion was shipped in to replace them ( sigh )
You've been cheering on your own life being shut down.
@@cameroncameron2826
Why lie?
Atheist are the ones fighting for equality and freedom of speech and inclusion.
It's theist who deny equality and shut down other opinions.
It's theist trying to control how we live what we say and the medical care we need.
We only want the religious to question their own myths and leaders that push them.
You didn't know it was a scam because it's not.
The scam is what makes you so dishonest.
Your religion!
The last statements by Richard have enabled me to feel so much better about how I see the human race in this turbulent and frightening time. He is a glimmer of hope in a very dark cave.
well said
Dawkins is one of the few human beings alive in our time who actually feels like a normal, intelligent person when I hear him speak or read the pages of his books. Sensible, rational, and eloquent. A mind worth engaging with. The vast majority of discourse online is so insultingly child-like, it's rather depressing. That's why I started reading books like Dawkins'. They're a sort of intellectual oasis.
Well i'm sorry but hes one of the main designers of that dystopian nightmare.
The models Dawkins designed to shut down christian speech were successful. The only problem is the same models now shut down YOURS / MINE / EVERYONES. There has been no dogmatic destructive & despotic like the dawkinsian models since Matthew Hopkins enforced the witch trials. Yes i know Dawkins marches around like the cat that got the cream, has permanently got that smug grin on his face & just bought a huge mansion in chipping norton. But i'm afraid that it is HIS anti christrian models thats turned us all into sense offenders like in the film Equilibrium - not allowed to define ourselves by Biology anymore etc etc and these Dawkins based thought crimes are growing in number.
FACE IT - any kind of model that would prevent any type of human from what they believe peacefully WAS NEVER GOING TO END WELL. Once any ''you are not allowed to say or think ball gets rolling against anyone ( christians included ) - its going to unleash its psychological violence against EVERYONE in the end and has.
Thats all the Dawkins / New Atheist fanatic people managed to achieve. They cheered on the formulation/formation/foundation of modern thought crime and gave visible public consensus to banning christian THOUGHT. There was no sense that this would become nails in their own coffin. New atheist followers were told all this was to protect freedom from christians. No - dawkins et al were designing thought crime that would manifest against YOU & should have been left WELL. ALONE. Thus he manipulated his disciples to help him obtain his palace in chipping the posh political village by drawing up thought crime design that would be used against them - NICE.
What idiots - its really hard to understand how stupid the new atheist is considering that every normal responsible atheist saw all this coming soon as dawkins et al opened their mouths years ago.
@@UnchainedEruption well said
There is only one hope in this life and it most certainly isn't dawkins . Its Jesus Christ
Thank you for your work, Richard Dawkins.
He devised the first thought crime models since the witch craft trials and after banning christians from a variety of public activities they are now banning everyones free speech.
What when dawkins designed anti christian models that have since mutated on & cancelled your freedom of speech AND we've sen a separate abrahamic religion replace them into the bargain?
None are more BLIND that a new atheist fanatic i.e the most stupid genre based race on earth.
A Masterpirce discourse with Superb Clarity....Rationality of thought in search of Truth...Thank you Sir Richard Dawkins...
I honestly think that this individual is on another level of intelligence. There is something about the way that he thinks,speaks and keeps a ballance of objectivity on different subjects and discussions...that just makes you try your hardest to grasp every bit of information,in order to make your own rational decision on the matter. Thank you,sir! Art of Conversation top tier right there
As usual, Professor Richard Dawkins... stating and making logical assessments, in a world so plagued by dogmatic irrational nonsense. As an active Member/Atheist of the said "Cat Herd." I say... Meow!😻
The atheistic pretension that reason comes from non-reason [ dead matter ] is at least as much "irrational nonsense" as the assumption of a rational origin of the world is highly reasonable and plausible. 😅😅😅
@@marie-jeanne_decourroux
What a irrational thing to think and say...
Just look at nature, a lot of it is irrational and non thinking.
@@marie-jeanne_decourrouxYou did not give any reason for your claim
@@marie-jeanne_decourroux What was Adam made out of according to the bible? Oh... dead matter--- dirt!
LOL Religious people are amazing at shooting down their own religions claims.
@@marie-jeanne_decourroux You have just crashed everything that have base in irrational religion.
I recommend the books “Liberated from Religion” and “Wasting Time on God”.
they sound like Douglas Adams books...... Blasphemous rubbish, i believe in Terry pratchett
I also recommend:
Worship me or I will torture you for eternity, by Jezuz. And, Gad, is busy right now... can we help?, by Religion. 😅
@@josmith9662
Lol 😂
"Liberated from Religion" ? Is the author really so stupid to think that there is a human being without "religion" ? The dumbest of all religions and worldviews, whether theistic or atheistic, is the one that thinks it isn't one.
Everyone lives with their own personal dogmas: axiomatic (unprovable) assumptions, e.g. with legal conventions, moral principles, metaphysical judgments, aesthetic standards, etc. etc.
Whether you like it or not, everyone has their dogmas, and Chesterton is right when he points out that anyone who wants to abolish one is already in the process of replacing it with another (usually his own). Only very few things that a person or a society relies on or has to agree upon - from the state constitution over civil laws to forms and rules of coexistence - can be derived empirically or justified scientifically. Almost everything is based on culturally determined norms, conventions, civil obligations, and legal rights (which in western countries are mostly of Christian origin). In particular, the atheistic pretension to be without metaphysical prejudices is as nonsensical as the assumption of a rational origin of the world is reasonable.
Chesterton says it with his usual brilliance: "Religion [ in the most general sense of the personal worldview ] is exactly the thing which cannot be left out - because it includes everything. The most absent-minded person cannot well pack his Gladstone-bag and leave out the bag. We have a general view of existence, whether we like it or not; it alters or, to speak more accurately, it creates and involves everything we say or do, whether we like it or not. If we regard the Cosmos as a dream, we regard the Fiscal Question as a dream. If we regard the Cosmos as a joke, we regard St. Paul's Cathedral as a joke. If everything is bad, then we must believe (if it be possible) that beer is bad; if everything be good, we are forced to the rather fantastic conclusion that scientific philanthropy is good.
Every man in the street must hold a metaphysical system, and hold it firmly. The possibility is that he may have held it so firmly and so long as to have forgotten all about its existence."
And don't forget: The number of victims of all atheistic "isms" of the 20th century (Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, National Socialism, Pol Pot's and other Kim Jong xxx's) by far exceeds that of all "holy wars" of all times. As Viktor Orbán said: "The most evil things in modern history were carried out by people who hated Christianity."
You are a very confused person. If I have my own beliefs, this is not a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs that is considered absolute truth for all Humanity and is imposed on others (Christians, for example, spent centuries persecuting and killing Jews and other Christians who believed differently. Catholics and Protestants killed each other). PS: Atheism killed ZERO people, since Atheism is not a religion: it does not teach anything. Thus, it does not command to do anything.@@etienne_laforet
Very much enjoying these. And Prof. Dawkins' constructive, accessible and engaging broadcasting, brought to new audiences via social media.
I would love to hear a podcast on the topic of climate change, from the perspective of a biologist.
This comment comes after a recent conversation with my father (83), who denies climate change, it turns out, under the assumption that changes which occur on earth do so over millions of years. 'How could we possibly affect things so rapidly?'
I would love to be able to send him a full and clear explanation of what the hell is going on, and why. As a layperson, and my father's youngest child, I haven't the words to convince him, and others like him. I realise now just how many people do feel like he does. It's hard to join the dots between using Democracy for change, institutional, social and personal responsibility, and the fact that the fields behind his house flood far more consistently than they used to!
Best x
If i were you i'd be loyal to your father instead of an elitist toerag who hides behind biologist cred, but models thought crimes for cabalists using religion as the conduit.
Hes moving into a mansion in chipping norton. His anti christian model got them banned from showing their father in public ( the only religion who were treated that way ) Since his model has moved onto its true purpose I.E shutting down everyones free speech.
Don't waste your time of that evil treacherous misanthropist filth and look after ur dad you fool. The Sun will continue to expand and heat up this planet as it does every x thousands of years. After that i'll start the cool down cycle & there nothing unity can do about that either. Its a cosmological phenomenon and no amount of robbing the people for a climate tax will change that. Well not that it even CAN be spent on improving the climate. So really such a tax would pay people who design models for dictators & they'll buy mansions with that tax.
THE EMPIRiCAL EVIDENCE is that new atheism claimed they had a model that could prevent religious people from violating other peoples FREEDOM. The empirical evidence is that consequently only christians had laws passed against them - plus ? Well a separate major abrahamic religion was shipped in to replace them after their decline & fall and the churches were looted by aristocrats for their vast wealth.
Now what would occams razor say about that outcome ?
Furthermore then the empirical evidence is that new atheisms models now threaten all of us to regard ourselves as non biological entities since the same model now supplies THAT THOUGHT CRIME. Also there is thev potential to be arrested for thought crime if in denial of infinite genders. The same logic ( not by Dawkins / but same post truth logic ) hasd it that all white people are racists / cannot deny that / to deny is aggression. < An abuse of double bind psychology combined with an abusive set of logical fallacies yes. Nevertheless its becoming the bedrock of critical race theory / white fragility )
Dear Richard Dawkins,I read your few books including 1.Selfish gene2.The extended phenotype 3The god delusion 4The greatest show on earth.Ever since I finished reading these books,I view this world through the perspective of genetic evolution and cultural evolution.And I am lot happier to view this world from scientific perspective.And I agree with you that there is nothing more beautiful than scientific truth.I have understood the rationale of existence of nonhuman and human life on our planet earth.Thank you very much for waking up people from deep slumber.Virender Bhalla
A wonderful discussion. I think this is from March 2009, as Prof. Dawkins refers to Christopher Hitchens' debate with Lennox (29:41). That debate, BTW, is on TH-cam.
Lenox Lewis ?
@stevefromsaskatoon830 lmao
@@Stevros999no lol he debated some Christian guy
watch@39:30 this is such a good answer to a question that will never have an answer. Religion poisons everything.
Very enjoyable "discussion" as always, full of wisdom and reason, Bravo sir. Best of luck in future endeavours.
Those future endeavours would no doubt include even more thought crime models against the free speech of everyone & again be dealt while hiding behind anti religion & social justice. Did new the new atheist followers really think that preventing christians from worshipping in public by law would end there ? It didn't - these were the first thought crimes since the witch trials and were always going to move to inflict tyranny on those they were designed to = the MAJORITY.
Its ludicrous that you people were lured into giving consensus & support for this & still cannot see what he is doing even now - beyond belief. He even has the brass neck to respond as if butter would not melt, but its his models that swapped biology to Essentialist Metaphysics with A. C. Grayling claiming that that is the appropriate way to run a search of the universe when its clearly impossible to run an empirical experiment = & Dawkins is fine with this psychic remote viewing.
Those ties are extremely useful. If I see a short clip, and I want to see the whole talk or interview, I zoom in on which tie Richard is wearing and seek it out.
thank you for this most inspiring talk!
I'm glad I'm evolved and equipped with the aural equipment [👂] necessary to be able to transform Richard Dawkins' stream of spoken words - into electrical signals - who in turn enables my neural network [🧠] into translating this stream of words into a kind of 'cognitive music' that I could listen to for _hours_ on end! . . . . 🙏
I’m grateful for the very same thing lol . Also I’m grateful for weed cause it’s making the speech even more mind blowing than it already is to me 🤣
@@kennypowers1945 I hear you loud & clear brother! . . .
(And, come to think of it; If _ever_ there were the *_remotest_* possibility for the existence of a 'heavenly daddy', I'd say that weed _definitely_ would be one of the first things 'He'd' succeeded in making - that would *perfectly* fit the bill - *''intelligent'' design!* 😜👌)
I've been thinking, since I deconverted from Christanity, and considering the universe could have started over and over for eternity, and considering so many planets are in the universe, that it makes sense that at least one planet would bring forth life and the only way we know there is life at all is because we are here.
Could be a few other planets. But likely not many out of the trillions of possible planets
Carl Sagan said that. I agree that it is a very valid argument.
Paula Kirby should do audiobooks.
This discussion is so much better.
Speculating about life and earths fortuitous position and circumstances as being unique is superfluous because many different life forms and planetary circumstances can exist… also some life forms may very likely can be snuffed out by cosmic events.
👍brilliant Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins, you are a guardian against misinformation and a beacon of enlightenment in a world often clouded by ignorance.
If Science was a religion you'd be High Oracle of Rational Inquiry
What good is that when his models designed to shut down christian rights are now closing down everyones free speech? He is the first person to interfere with what people are allowed to THINK since Mathew Hopkins.
Nobody is allowed to say what a woman is anymore for instance. The reason ? - DAWKINS the father of modern thought crime. Models used to shut christians up in public now running a dystopian post truth era concerning all of us.
Ohh really ? And i thought the following happened :
Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
This is so fascinating!! wow!
We have yet to discover if there is INTELLIGENT life on Earth!
If there is its not manifesting out of richard dawkins - the founding father of modern thought crime. His models first shutting down public christian belief & the new atheist followers were 'Horray!!! But later the same model begins to attack aspects of everyone elses freedom of speech.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
What does he mean by digital DNA? The fact that the base pairs can form any sequence? I always saw digital as meaning 1 and 0.
True, however in British English the word has extended useage. It can refer to any data represented as a series of numbers... I guess dna can essentially be viewed in this way. It is also pretty simple to convert it to typical 0 1 format when analysing it or storing the information. I guess it is developing terminology but I have heard it described like this previously.
@@sensis3235 I gathered that yea and also taking into account his experience with computer programming, he probably views it from that angle. Personally I’d probably refer to DNA as quaternary, in the same way that I’d call it conserved instead of high fidelity. Of course, he’s speaking to the public here and not people with science backgrounds.
@@mervinprone yeah he is speaking for general public, I still enjoyed that you called out the technicality. 😂 Edit: rabbitwholed.. I have looked into it now and it does seem that the word digital is used to describe DNA more than just in public speaking and for a couple decades.. the abstracts refer to a gene coding for a protein being one form of digital information or a gene being regulated as another form. I cant access these full articles but assume this is more of a gene switch on or off, or codes one particular protein or doesn't, so digital is not referring to the nucleotides or the actual sequence.
As in the way DNA is not an analog I.E has all degrees of freedom to communicate with itself. Arguably the human brain does this too although inhibits / governs itself to states below its potentials pre learning / evolution. DNA however does not and it always efficient.
Secondly Dawkins is trying to hustle for Dennett / publicise an outlook to help it sell. Even though Dennett was a fierce anti consciousness critic ( same as Dawkins ) - he now wants to exploit its literary market and is trying to develop consciousness models. They'll probably crypto radical marxist ones like everything Dawkins does.
Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
It's digital but not binary. Digital refers to the fact that at each position in the DNA molecule there are exactly four possibilities. It can never be 3.5 or 1.2 which could only be if it was an analog value. That's all there is to it.
Incredible
The Skyhook and The Crane explained by Prof Richard Dawkins🙌🏻💛 [25:00 - 37:00] "The terminologi is not mine, its coined by philosopher Daniel Clement Dennett III, and what he means by it, The Sky Hook, is an explanation which is sort of like a great hand, coming out of the sky and fiddling with things and you're left without an explanation from where this great hand comes from. So basically [insert deity, God, Allah, Shiva etc], is a "Skyhook", a fairy is a skyhook, spells, incantations, Wizards, witches and warlocks and turning frogs into prince's - none of that has any explanation, it's all done by Skyhooks. When a fairytale allows you to wave a magic wand and make things like that happen that's a "Skyhook," [a deity] is a skyhook.
A 'Crane' is the *opposite* of a skyhook. The crane is an explanation that really does explanatory work. Evolution by natural selection is the Crane par excellence because evolution by natural selection starts with primordial simplicity and works up by slow and gradual, intelligible, understandable degrees to ever increasing levels of complexity. Until you reach levels of complexity that couldn't conceivably happen by luck, skyhooks are a kind of an inadequate rationalisation of luck. A Crane is a true explanation that does work up gradually. Dan Dennetts' terminology from that point of view [of Skyhooks] is unfortunate. A proper terminology would be an escalator, instead of a crane. Natural selection is a superb example of an escalator. The problem with [god; religion] is that it is a skyhook, and the advantage of evolution by natural selection is that it's an *escalator* - end quote.
Thank you, Professor 💖🙏🏻
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life
Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started.
Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
Did he only say this 2 weeks ago? 🤯 Operating on old information Charlie boy... 😬
When is it that someone has said nothing? When they've said more than was ever necessary to say! Richard Dawkins has mastered the art of this.
Regarding the “directed panspermia” idea, it’s interesting to think IF this were true, then it’s possible we would come across a future advanced alien civilization that is actually very much like us in genetic code, maybe even human like. Simply because we are their “offspring” as it were. They could have seeded the entire galaxy with their kind to broaden their horizon. So in that case we are the aliens we’d be looking for, actually foreign to this solar system. A fun idea would be that they were on the brink of extinction and send out pods of bacteria in a last ditch effort to continue their legacy and by now they are long gone.
There is a backstory in SF author Ursula Leguin's works, of a Hainish universe, the Hain being an ancient race of aliens who, hundreds of thousands of years ago, 'seeded' (populated) many planets in the universe, including Earth. This resulted in in subsequent parallel evolutions, and explains why the alien races she writes about are similar in appearance (one head, 2 eyes, two arms, 2 legs, upright, etc.)
Humans are not bacteria.
No I don’t think that’s how it works. Panspermia would be for example a fungi spore, being the foundation of other life forms to evolve from it. It is certainly not a human like life form. When life begins it takes whatever form necessary for survival. It took many millions of years for human life forms to evolve on earth.
Scientists have found RNA on meteorites. I wonder if that would qualify for panspermia or not. RNA is one of the pieces of DNA.
Great facts to understand _-_ truly THANKS🌐♾️
The 'TRUTH" ? From Dawkins of all people Really. ?
Had you not noticed that the dawkinsian anti religious dogma was an attack on fre speech that would inevitably be set upon everyones free speech ?
No. You must mean the post truth era. Yes Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
Crafty isn't he ? - butter would not melt. Anthropic this & evolution that OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN YET ? What you got was a POLICE STATE.
'Truth' my foot!!! And as for the alleged shining diaphanous intellect of this monster ? - how do fanatics make THAT OUT?. The practical atheist such as myself knew that new atheism was designing this nightmare for the cabalists as soon as they opened their mouths nearly 20 years ago.
39:30 what a fascinating question! Could anyone recommend works on that particular subject? (maths/evolution)
I recommend people looking at the way Dawkins seems to be this great magnanimous social entity, but in fact has caused everyones free speech to be shut down.
He disguised it within an anti religion movement. But after closing down free speech in Christianity, his models are now being used to shut us all up.
OPEN YOUR EYES.
Read Dawkins' landmark book "The Selfish Gene." It elaborates, or extend the subject of evolution by natural selection to posit that the level at which evolution operates is, as the title indicates, the gene, as opposed to the individual organism, a tribe, a species, etc. That if we start from the basis of genetic material that self-replicates, and all life are really just machines or vehicles of the replicators, we can explain the evolution of life.
@@UnchainedEruption It rreally does not take much to write a book like TSG as it deals with a 50/50 toss regarding the mind body problem. / & only then posits a gene theory. ( simple ) Any eminent member of the 3 rd reich would have been capable of writing that book as i hope you know that as a literary piece it is extremely simplistic. Such idea have been as common as muck & anyone that bought that old rope isn't educated very well. I think even Dawkins himself , the founding father of modern thought crime, was shocked at how stupid people were with that book. It only recycles ideas that existed for thousands of years. Furthermore very time humans have been defined in that way it results in an essentialist driven genocide given such statement only defaults to playing god (or satan) regardless.
@@cameroncameron2826 you obviously never read that book.
@@solymi Only besotted disciples that continuously gush and praise jesus dawkins would fail to recognise what a rewrite of hundreds of other books it is. Furthermore you just do not understand that fundamentally the book acts as if it has solved the mind body problem firstly just so it can move onto dismissing consciousness & assign human being machines controlled at a genetic level.Thus its METAPHYSICS inasmuch it guesses the solution to the mind body problem whilst offering no justification / evidence for that other than the way Dawkins justs wants to do it for the cash
Therefore a most crass childish book & its YOUR problem you find it 'genius' or 'fabulous' or whatever insane effect and hold such a silly book has over you. Perhaps you read it multiple times but still haven't grasped what he is claiming via this demented piece of nonsense. Dawkins even that long ago had decided he was important enough to move into a post truth era where NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP HIS ASSERTIONS were to be required.
I'd fancy you have decided its 'The Truth' - when its more of a radical marxist reification or fantasy given that no bone fide scientist wouild thrust such an expectation on readers by first forcing the assumption that the mind / body debate was solved via new atheist Metaphysics..
I’m curious to know more about RNA findings on meteorites. Is RNA too primitive to be a seed of life so to speak?
As far as I know, all the nucleotide bases needed to build RNA have been found on meteorites but I haven't heard that RNA itself has been found (unlike proteins such as *hemolithin)* - however we know that such nucleotides will *self-assemble* on catalytic templates such as Montmorillonite Clay and even volcanic glass. Polymerizatinio doesn't seem to be a problem. Some recent research *"Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network"_ shows that such an assembly could be at the start of life. Lee Cronin has found that Auto-Catalytic Sets based on Molybdenum salts can arise in the right conditions.
cmon where was the clapping after his final comment about school unis?
As a layman I am a bit confused. We are told time and again that the origin of life anywhere else in the universe is inevitable because the basic building blocks are floating all over even on asteroids. So if it is so easy to start new life, then it must originate on earth several times, even billions of years apart as all the conditions are conducive here. And what prevents it from happening right now! But all life that ever existed here is same, using the same design, the nucleic acids, proteins etc. and evolution is linear, suggesting a single origin even on our planet. Can Dr Dawkins enlighten us on this paradox?
Excellent question, I have always wondered about this too. May be it does start, but it becomes extinct. Or may be the initial ingredient or spark is what’s very rare…. Improbable.
Please explain how you get a ribosome with 1600 nucleic acid bases, by guessing.
By making a lot of guesses. Why 1600?
Was this talk held in 2023?
On the mathematical brain versus simpel computer analogy can we state that
consciousness is just computational sense of context ? (advanced equations)
Dennett argued with all his might that such outlook was KOOK. But now with his influence waining hes trying to break into the digital consciousness market with Penrose. What hypocrite, but thats why Dawkins is dropping such hints.
Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
when you dream, you travel into a parallel universe where the laws of physics are different. That's why you can fly for instance. And if you meet Puff the magic dragon, and hold his paw, you can't travel into other parallel universes.
My next move is to launch the famous "You can't prove that's not true".
Which is meaningless.
I love Richard. His statements in trand issues pained me. Still love to hear him speak on the wonder of the natural world.
Happy to hear he makes you feel threatened.
Dawkins constantly lead his disciples to a promised land of intellectual luxury away from dogma SO HE RECKONED. This life would be as if in paradise with MORE FREEDOM away from the vices of religion. In reality - that place is a thousand times worse than how things were being in the grip of a state of affairs where POLICING OF EVERYONES THOUGHT according to HIS MODELS now takes place.
Why? What has he said to pain you so? He has explicitly made it clear that he would use the preferred names and pronouns of trans individuals, what more could one ask for?
@@Vasilefs_Terranorum wow. Just wow.
@@robinhood20253trans people should have their own country and leave everyone else alone. All LGBTQ agendas and politics are a generational gateway to pedophilia. Pretty soon it will be LGBTQP+. Leave the kids alone when it comes to ANYTHING trans
interesting comment about trading Muslims for Christians (around 49:00). The same can be said about economics, where Dr Thomas Sowel says "there is no solution, only tradeoffs". I've seen Richard's politics ignore this reality. In politics as in economics, tradeoffs must be made. The road to hell is paved with idealism. You must PICK the lesser of all evil, not push some idealism which will end up helping the greater of the evils.
From what I’ve heard, religion has indeed been declining here in America. I don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a new church open. I distinctly recall hearing stats or studies that show an increasing number of atheists and a growing number churches that are closing down here in America. Things are going in the right direction but it is happening very slowly. I think it’s time for the professor to give us a bit of credit for slowly “Turning the ship around” rather than painting a picture of America being this country of monolithic religious people.
Oh! I thought it was going to be more about what evolution might have shaped life elsewhere to look like. For example, whether a lifeform could have evolved a limb extremity that functions like a wheel to get it around on land?
It is possible but highly improbable. In all the billions of years on earth it doesn't seem to have occurred.
Whoosh@@Zigmeister67
Those who use the earth being perfect for life as proof of god are looking at things from the wrong direction. It's the equivalent of someone looking at a puddle of water and marvelling at the depression in the earth and saying 'what a coincidence, that hole in the ground is just right for that body of water'
Which year was this.
I could listen to this guy reading a phone book.
nervous laughter from audience during the last four minutes
I disagree with you but you are a great man Dawkins.
Anyone hanker for alien "alien" lifeforms? Try Adrian Tchaikovsky, Children of Time series... As an entomologist, he bases many of his aliens on insects...
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life
Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairytale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started.
Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
Science- CLARITY
Religion- CONFUSION
How can RD say life exists else where with out proof ? Unless he has seen aliens he cannot say that :( By the by, my theory is that life exists on zillion places around the universe, however each star so vastly distant from other that it is impossible to do interstellar travel, so Even if life exists, one will never know for sure, that is universal law by (god's ?) design
He who tries to prevent people from having hope has to explain himself one day
Nonsense statement to make.
Hope is impossible to remove but dogma seems to be impossible to remove.
How did you get the idea that anybody wants to remove hope?
@@johnrangi4830 because when someone reject anything spiritual, which is supernatural, then my close relatives who have died are only body and are gone forever. For me there is no hope in that idea. What does dogma have anything to do with it?
@@RM-lu1kx ok but if someone reject spiritual it doesn't necessarily mean hope is lost.
I realise it can be difficult to understand or accept somebody else's personal position, but that is not necessarily removing hope.
I realise you might feel that way because you probably miss your relatives but that doesn't mean you have to give up hope.
Maybe your relatives were hoping you would have a good life.
I know that is what I hope for my kids, I don't want to have to see them suffer and I hope you believe the same for your family and friends.
@@johnrangi4830 Of course i can say, i hope you are okay, i hope you enjoy yourself, i hope you live long, i hope you are rich, beautiful , healthy and prosperous. If i were a good person i should have that hope for you and everybody else. But still there is no ultimate hope. So actually i have to have hope for you that after this short life, your supernatural soul, the unique person in your body, does not disappear but lives on in true happiness. Those who teach secular ideas take away that ultimate hope. That is painfull.
The question is not "design or random (pure chance)" but "a creator or only dead matter"? And this question is often approached (and particularly by Dawkins) with a very naive idea of a creator.
The french philosopher and Nobel Prize winner Henri Bergson, in his major work 'Creative Evolution', shows that creation, as far as life is concerned, is necessarily evolutionary.
A first essential point that is often overlooked in this context is that creation necessarily involves a self-restraint of the creator. Because without the transfer of autonomy, which can be observed, for example, in the spontaneity of life or the freedom of man, but which is evident already in the laws of nature, a new reality of its own cannot arise at all. Without any autonomy, creation would at best be something like a 'prosthesis': a kind of extended arm of the creator. It is in the logic of creation that to the extent that it becomes autonomous reality, the Creator necessarily limits his 'scope for action' - especially when there is life within.
A second feature is closely related to this first character of creation. Despite (or precisely because of) its obviousness, it is often forgotten (which then apparently leads to a contradiction to biological evolution [1]): As creation proceeds in time, it increasingly becomes a wrestling with material, a grappling with the autonomy and peculiarities of the already existing - all the more so when this is alive - i.e. spontaneous or free.
This affects every kind of creation. For example, once a painter has decided to paint an oil painting, he must take into account the characteristics of the paints he has mixed, which require different techniques than, for example, watercolours. These qualities offer a certain 'resistance' to his work. Henri Bergson speaks of the 'résistence de la matière brute', the 'resistance of raw matter'. In God's creation, this resistance can show itself, for example, as natural law, as the spontaneity of life, or as a result of human freedom. As a Creator, God eo ipso accepts that paths are blocked or detours are forced on him.
All of this obviously has an impact on what the proverbial 'omnipotence' of the Creator can NOT mean: When Jesus Christ says: "Nothing is impossible for God", this obviously does not mean that every "non-thing" - anything that contradicts the inner logic of creation - is possible. The Christian God is not an architect or a handworker and creation is not the implementation of a ready-made plan, because for God planning and creating are one and the same. Nor is God a great 'magician' who rules the world with hocus-pocus. He is the Logos [Jn. 1.1]: in his creation things happen 'logically'. Which of course doesn't mean that we understand everything.
Many misunderstandings and accusations against God 'almighty' (especially in the context of evil and suffering) are based on a magical image of God and an unreflected understanding of creation and omnipotence.
[1] Bergson, in his major work 'Creative Evolution', shows that creation, as far as life is concerned, is necessarily evolutionary. This essentially follows from the second feature of creation mentioned above. Therefore, it is not a contradiction to creation, when for example whales exhibit anatomical relics of land mammals.
Worth reading: Henri Bergson, »L'évolution créatrice«, recently retranslated into German as »Schöpferische Evolution«, Meiner-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-7873-2688-4 ]
[ English is not my first language, please excuse my mistakes ]
"a creator or only dead matter"?
What utter bullshit... this is called a false dichotomy!
Actually - *so-called "Little Green Men"/Anunnaki Beings DID "Create" us (Homo sapiens sapiens) [up] from our grunting, hunter-gatherer Homo erectus Forebears. The era was around the time, c. 445,000. Read the numerous Cuneiform Tablets (held in the various Musuems around the world: ~ for Sumerian/Babylonian, very strict and precise detail.
I would but I'm allergic to nuts.
As my grandad used to say, there is more in heaven than earth. I am sure there are life forms on the inaccessible parts of our planet, that we would describe as alien? We have discovered crustaceans and bacteria that live in the depths of our oceans around superheated vents. Possibly the most inhospitable place to expect life to exist, yet it does and flourishes. That leads me to believe, that life could exist on even the most inhospitable planet, which has the basic building blocks of life.🙂
Wow! Your grandad was Hamlet?😮
@@stoobydootoo4098 No. But he used to enjoy Hamlet cigar. Perhaps that’s where he got his inspiration. 🙂
Life probably does exist, but much like the anaerobic bacteria, it's not exactly a form of life we would consider intelligent or capable of interacting with. Hardly the "little green men" of cinema.
Salvador freixiedo explain the religions alien creators raquets to destroy hunanity
I dont find it very plausable. I agree its an scape from the origin. It have to had happen someway.
probability of life iis quite high. estimates suggest that there are 2-3 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. we dont know how big the universe is, so that number goes up. a galaxy in average has about 300 billion stars. Numbers of planets in our own galaxy vary a lot with estimates from 50 billion to 8 trillion. But even with the lower estimate there could be around 500 million habitable planets in our milky way alone. 500million x 3 trillion would give the rough number of habitable planets in our observable universe. It would be foolish to think there is no life elsewhere in the universe. If it is intelligent life and if it is right now or died out already or much more advanced than ours is anther question but there should be a lot of life in our universe right now.
Professor, sonetimes i think you are saying that I an a mutante.
Aliens are here - living in Washington, DC. 😊😊😊😊
MATERIALISM contradicts itself and proves God
1. Materialism assumes reality is composed of only MATTER and ENERGY
2. INFORMATION is always instantiated in or on matter or energy
3. So materialists assume information originates from mass + energy
4. But from Claude Shannon information is a COMMUNICATION of MEANING ENCODED in a LANGUAGE
5. But language only comes from a MIND
6. So matter + energy cannot be the source of information
7. Therefore the origin of information can only be a mind
8. Therefore if nature includes information we know it originated from a mind
9. DNA's only function is to store, transmit and copy information
10. Therefore that mind must be outside of our reality ie *GOD!*
Why is the question always if Jesus existed? Why don't we ask if Abraham ever existed, or if Moses ever existed!
Any sufficiently advanced aliens are indistinguishable from gods.
칼부림 사건을 보면 외계인,신,그리고 귀신은 없답니다.
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life
Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairytale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started.
Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
evolution is not a history lesson, it continues though our intellect. unfortunately its like, the more you learn the less you know, which is probably the correct prosses. as a atheist i base myself form knowledge not belief, tho i do believe that tomorrow will dawn a better human, smarter faster longer living, as soon as we get over ourselves.
Well Mr. Dawkins, while I agree with you about many things, INTELLIGENT LIFE else where in the universe is not one of them! There are just too many things that have to happen for it to be true. To list them all would take too much time so I will give you one word and maybe two, the first would be SNOWFLAKES and the other, FINGERPRINTS.
the point on the religiously active people having better might have better mental help because especially in the united states there's a lack of "third places" which church provides.
Are you not “religiously active”? E.g. in the sense that Wolfgang Pauli meant when he said: “Yes, our friend Jason has a religion. And the creed of his religion is: 'There is no God and Jason is his prophet.'" 😅😅😅
All new atheists need a shrink for cheering on their free speech being closed down by Dawkins. What do you THINK you are observing via him - i'll tell you. You observed someone design the first anti thinking model since the witch trials. He used two control groups and ran a public experiment - 1 New Atheist Followers - 2 Christians.Dawkins over 20 years tested and demonstrated that specific laws against THOUGHT could be policed. Thus ? - the beta experiment was enacted & christians are the only religion in europe not allowed to practice it in public - its ILLEGAL.
New Atheists CHEER right ?
Same models are now shutting down ALL FREE SPEECH & a Post Truth Era has been created. Coincidently ? - the wealth of the churches was looted. Funny that. But worse that was not enough & now mysterious high security fences / no go areas are appearing in the national parks like Dartmoor - The Lake District - The Derbyshire Peaks et al / across europe and the concept of Common Land / Public Wealth appears to have been abolished. Oligarchs taking over the environment for private ownership and pushing to make it compulsory for us to carry a fone / card s we can be tracked to be charged by the hour to ?
GO OUT. Just for going ANYWHERE
You idiots.
there are groups of atheists that get together, it's called the humanist society
Listening to this talk makes me doubt the existence of intelligent life, although I am usually a proponent of it. Compare this with the great philosophers of the east, the great medieval philosophers, and the Greeks, ancient and modern. We have fallen on hard times. Materialism is giving us a worm’s eye view of reality, we are being dumbed down.
The Cosmic view is not lost however, there are many proponents of it out there who understand, see, and experience reality other than just grossly physical which we now know is also energy, electromagnetism, and magnetism itself, not understood yet. Vibration since the Big Bang is not understood, how light carries information, most of that awaits us in the future but it is intuitively understood by many who are holding the fort.
In ancient times those who could only comprehend matter were confined to working as laborers. Only those who understood finer forces, consciousness, mind etc. were allowed to be intellectuals. That is not the case today, obviously.
About the issue of god. Under the possibility of the existence of god i think it odd that who woyld have created nature, in case he had, which is able to create life just yo later create life himself. As spwculation, it is far more ontriguing and sophisticated to create a reality that had to be challenged but could breed singularity, to call it something appealling, than the strang simplistc idea of a hat trick, which is to easy. Llok, if god exists hes immortal, why would he create life in a weekend just to return to boredom? Ablut the inexistence of god, we have to consider that the mechanis that turn organic momecules into life might ton be within our grasp. Intelligence and Logos does appear to be the same thing. Logos is nature. The laws are inteligence, they might even not be intelligent but tgey are intelligence, because they are coherant to the balance of the comlmexoty of all. Nothong is misplaced at the unicerse. capable of hindering their own identity. they never betray each other and are incorruptible. This demands a harmony that demands that the mass has the premise of being convertible into energy, because balance demands the application, or rather, the consumption of energy, even if it only manifests itself in the matter as vibration, a slight change in its resonance and the The perfectly symmetrical geometric organization of a molecular arrangement takes on another arrangement, in a design that even uses the energy in dispersion in the loop that makes up its counterform. It's bad I'll listen to you.
About human ibtelligence, it is created by the biology of our body, lets say, tge vrain. Therefore language is a perceotion of the real that has to be codefied, for matter is not information, it is just the manifestation of itself. But our ibteligence, at least our reason depends on cognition, for intelligence is the discernment of what makes sense, abd this is pure math, meaning, logics, but so commited to truth under the perspectiv of validation, that it stablishes the limits of the cognition itself with a rule, which we know as Roussea's paradoxo, that is the signature of logos, meaning it provided the reasoning proceedure for stablish concrete cognition, which results in knowledge, or understandment with an gift of reliace, like, look wgat hapowbs when we create a logical paradoxo, um cant stablish validation, but logics have provided, you are inmune to lies. If you follow the rules it will work 10o% of times, no exception, therefore, its a law of phisics, at least in the exclusivity of this fidelity, because the paradox is not illogical or irracional, it only stablish an uthical imlerative: logics wont provide logos' truth, only intelectual truth, meaning the conclusion is correct but if you started by making a mistake, no assistance to correct it will be provided. This isnot Logos, logos is what reality is and reality is always true. The duality that iniciates information could provide parts whose some are less then the whole.
And lrofessor, it is indeed that rare. Did we ever work on the possibility that we had two independent origins of life on our planet? Did the same origin happebed at least twice. Or does everything comes from one single event that, just consider, was perhaps only not as rare as it would have being fragile to not be sistained by its own replication. Specially if, which I doubt, the conditions to produce this sparkle was the so extreme like to destroy it once it was alive. What is more fragile than life?
Impossible biological machines with Richard Dawkins.
Only 'Improbable'.
How old is this, that haircut is from the 90's
Let's hope only Earth is contaminated by life.
Why?
Not all life is bad, only humans do harm here.
@@jameswright... Suppose that depends on what might be considered harm by the earth itself. The earth might quite like our modifications, especially compared to those irritating microbes that turned it purple
You mean "intelligent" life?
@@stormriderkaos life is never intelligent. . that's a cosmic joke.
Imagine a planet full of Dogs ans little puppys. that would be so awesome!
🦒
I see that Richard has a religion. Namely the same religion that Wolfgang Pauli [ the Nobel Prize winner in physics ] meant when he said [ here replacing the addressed person with “Richard” ]: “Yes, our friend Richard has a religion. And the creed of his religion is:
'There is no God and Richard is his prophet.' "😂😂😂
And its central tenets consist of thought crime models. Once Dawkins thought crime modekls had shut down christianity in public, the models were used to attack ALL FREE SPEECH.
There is nothing more stupid than a new atheist disciple cheering Dawkings the founding father of modern thought crime on. All Dawkins has to do is come out with the same old tired lines about the anthropic principle / etc etc etc. Excellent subjects and very stimulating BUT!! - they won't realised Dawkins has also closed down their free speech once his anti christian models escaped from their cage and its not even possible to define a woman by Biology because of them.
Iiar!
Atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of, it's a rejection of faith.
And atheist have no leaders!
@@cameroncameron2826
It doesn't matter how many times you copy and paste your lie it's still a lie!
@@jameswright... FACT - Richard Dawkins et al worked tirelessly to have christian free speech BANNED = SUCCESS = THOUGHT CRIMES = REPLICATION OF THE MODEL into the rest of society @ large. We are NOT ALLOWED to say quite a lot now & are ORDERED to say others.
EVERYONES free speech is now under attack due to the model Richard Dawkins first designed against Christians there is no question.
@@cameroncameron2826
Bull!
Literally every word you say is a lie!
Richard like all secular humanists want free speech and equality for all regardless of religion denomination male female black white gay straight.
It's religion that bans equality and free speech.
Your just a plain liar!
Pray has never been banned but religion has banned many things.
Your just butt hurt your lie can't shut people down anymore.
Whether or not life was designed by God or a little green man, it is designed. In reality, the evidence that there are elements of design within the natural world is overwhelming. The mathematical improbability of so many supposed 'coincidences' evident in terms of life on Earth and the physics of the wider universe belies the likelihood of a purely materialistic reality.
There's no evidence for design...
Quite the opposite!
don't be absurd, you just like to feel important... accept that you are not.
@@jameswright... There is when it comes to the design of thought crime models by Dawkins. They shut down Christian rights first & are now the models causing everyones free speech to close down. ask yourself then - what good is being a fanboy when the man is having your life closed down via his other purposes.
There is no way to deny that he devised the first rules against SPEECH since Mathew Hopkins. There has not been any law against what anyone wanted to THINK until Dawkins had christians shut down in public ( praying etc ). New atheist disciples cheer ofc lol - but are cheering and giving consensus to further use of these models such as it now being technically illegal to say what defines a woman.
The price everyone is now paying to listen to this social engineer spouting off is huge - YOU have lost YOUR free speech & had been promised by new atheism that they were fighting against religion to preserve it.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complete b.s!
Only Christianity well religion shuts down free speech and equality.
No one in the west has banned pray.
Why lie?
God dose look like Darwin
What a sick person!
Please expand.
@@L.Ron_Dow willfully ignoring the obvious, makes him a fool!
@@LudJudWhat is he ignoring that, to you, is obvious - and *why* is it obvious?
@@L.Ron_Dow the presence of God
@@LudJud@davidluzgin5055 What, exactly, makes that 'obvious'? To me, the state of this planet is exactly what you would expect if there is no such entity. Everybody and their dog comes up with a siIIy story to explain what they don't understand and then fight over it. Nine million children die before their fifth birthday through natural disasters. It's obvious to me there is no ultra-powerful being looking after us.
First 😊
Really? You want a cookie 🍪
Do you have cookies?@@DreiSkins101
@@judymiles7186 @dreiskins101 i'd also like cookies
@@jaskbi 🍪
If it’s made by intelligent design, I want a cookie too
English peoples has one haircut for both gender? Ahah
Dawkins is seriously lost and should not be taken seriously.
Abiogenesis is Impossible not merely on the Earth but everywhere else. Even in an infinite Universe.
of course, you are an expert on the matter of abiogenesis having read the bible and gone to church, rather than studied biology and been in a lab.
When you collect your noble prize for proving all of science wrong I'll start listening 😂
Abiogenisis is well understood even with the gaps in knowledge.
We know chemicals under certain conditions form chemical biology leading to things like amino acids which rna forms itself from and self replicates, we know that rna makes dna.
The rest follows to 110% confirmed evolution my fellow ape.
@@MrWeedWacky no, I read Charles Darwin's "warm little pond" and everything else since then, which isn't as difficult as it might seem since scientists avoid the abiogenesis subject and when they are compelled to mention it they are quick.
@@sentientflower7891 tell me that you are clueless about evolution being different from abiogenesis without saying you are clueless about evolution being different from abiogenesis...
Darwin, wrote about evolution... not abiogenesis...
And reading books over a century old, does not constitute taking a degree and doing research in a lab...
@@MrWeedWacky Abiogenesis is not evolution by definition since Abiogenesis is the origin of life. Charles Darwin imagined that it happened in a "warm little pond" without explaining as to how it happened. In 2023 scientific thinking has advanced so little that Abiogenesis still wastes all its time arguing about location without providing any method.
Aliens have been here for a few thousand years :]
Where's your evidence. I don't want words I want video, RADAR and so on.
@@Apistevist Rofl, the reason i concluded it to be true is based on my model from witness testimony, video and so on. The variables in the cases I've looked at are pointing in such a way that there is no reasonable alternative explanation, without getting into some absurdly unlikely conspiracy territory. One of the greatest pieces of direct video evidence I've seen is the Las Vegas backyard footage. I'd say I'm about 98% sure in my claim that they are indeed already here.
Witness testimony isn't evidence and most people even if being honest don't know what they're looking at then jump to conclusions. So your position is baseless and irrational.@@treetoon_
Prove it?
Prof Dawkins has written books based on lies lies lies- just to make money - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !! How does he know if there is a God or no God ? He needs to respect people with faith and what's his problem ?
God’s dead! Capitalism is God‼️🙏👹‼️
you can not kill something if it never existed.
Do you mean Dawkins designed a Fascist model that first shut down religious free speech and is now closing everyones free speech ?
After all he did devised the first ANTI THINKING laws since the witch trials.his constant drivel about 'freethinking' are simply nonsense as nobody has done more to violate free speech than Dawkins.
Of course, something like evolution, is infact evolution by definition, albiet by different means and in different ways.
Gibberish.