Richard Dawkins with Robert Krulwich
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- With The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins helped steer evolutionary science into the 21st century.
The God Delusion catapulted him to intellectual stardom and celebrity. Polemical in his attack upon religion as an explanation of his world, he is funny, outrageous, wise and enlightening-often simultaneously. He’s just written a new memoir-Brief Candle in the Dark-and is joined by “Radiolab’s” Robert Krulwich to look back on a lifetime of tireless intellectual adventure and engagement.
Subscribe for more videos like this: bit.ly/1GpwawV
Facebook: / 92ndstreety
Twitter: / 92y
Tumblr: / 92y
Instagram: / 92ndstreety
Vine: vine.co/92Y
On Demand: www.92yondemand...
This is a great interview, the interviewer is weird in a good way, nice sense of humor, clearly did his homework, Richard looked like he was having a good time, gave some very interesting answers.
RD is a loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Agreed; very few interviewers focus on just what a sensationally good _writer_ Richard is. They compliment him on his ideas and his fame and lots of other things, but RD is an absolutely exquisite writer of prose, one of the best ever, and not just as a science writer.
Robert Krulwich is an excellent and curious interviewer. A fascinating guy in his own right.
this interviewer is awesome - intelligent, understands what themes are involved; Dawikins is just out of this world :D
RD is out of his mind.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
ruclips.net/user/shortsjvs2FZlJguQ👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻😐😐🤧🤧✌✌
The interviewer is just so weird... but overall it's another splendid Richard Dawkins dialogue. Always a delight to listen to this man!
Nothing splendid about that loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Richard, enjoying himself. Love it. Knowledge, learning, humour. Cheers SBM.
RD is just a loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Theology teaches you nothing but debate! Here is some hard hitting evidence! Here is some documented evidence! Authenticity of the Ica Stones Validated
Basiio Ushuya became a great friend of Dr. Dennis Swift and so did Dr. Javier Cabrera and he visited them over the years particularly in 2001 as both men would shortly make their departure from this world. Basilio was married with eight children to support and by Peruvian standards a poor man. He admitted to copying ancient stone that tomb looters and archaeologists had discovered in order to make money to support his family. He insisted however, that the Cabrera Collection of stones were the “Real McCoy”. When Basilio was asked by journalist Andreas Fisher why he sold fake imitations to tourists and not the ancient engraved stones, he replied, if I were to sell stones with genuine ancient engraving, I would get into big trouble with the local Indians. They take their cultural inheritance seriously and I would also end up in prison.
Authenticity of the Stones proved without a Shadow of a Doubt.
Dr, Javier Cabrera took 33 stones from his museum collection in Ica to be examined at an independent laboratory in May 1967. He took them to Luis Hochshild who had a vast knowledge as a mining engineer, being President also of the Maurico Hochshild Mining Company in Lima Peru. In June of 1967 a report came back regarding laboratory tests on the ICA Stones, signed by Eric Wolf geologist. He said these were andesite stones which had been formed under great pressure. The stones are covered with a fine patina of natural oxidation which also covers the grooves by which their age should be able to be deduced. [Thus indicating they had not been carved recently] I have not been able to find any notable or irregular wear on the edges of the incisions, which leads me to suspect that these incisions were executed not long before being deposited in the graves or other places where they were discovered. Eric Wolf Lima 8th June 1967. Dr. Cabrera again submitted stones from his collection to Professor Frenchen at the University of Bonn. He received another report back on 28th January 1969. This report confirmed the earlier laboratory tests. The stones were andesite being covered with a patina or film which covered the stones going into the grooves that illustrated the dinosaurs. This is a natural oxidation process indicating they were very old, while you cannot precisely date them they are not of recent origin. There was an impressive array of qualified experts which have attested to the fact that engravings were scratched on the stones before the patina and varnish formed as a result of biological processes. Just to add weight to the authenticity of the stones, the Nazca desert of Southern Peru is one of the most arid, dry and desolate places on earth; with no measurable moisture in some spots for decades. It takes considerable time therefore for patina to form under these conditions on these artifacts.
This information has been known for many years by those in the evolutionary community, some have passed on carrying this credible evidence with them to the grave. When evolutionary dogma is challenged, they close ranks and pull up the draw-bridge of their castle which they have built up over the years. The castle being: all their developmental evolutionary religious ideology. The doors of the citadels are closed to the “scientific method” when it comes to evolution being threatened. Evidence that provokes questions will not be tolerated. They have spent a lot of time over the years adorning and garnishing their erected Tower of Time. There is indeed a global conspiracy among the Darwinian Evolutionary Community to ignore, suppress and disregard evidence against evolution. They would have to re-write the history of man if they were to acknowledge that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans. Everything would be questioned and they cannot afford that mistake! These are not the actions of a sound and intelligent specie
The interviewer has a strange sense of humor.
Some really interesting questions, this interviewer is well read.
I was embarrassed for the interviewer when he was urging Dawkins to embrace credulity regarding magic tricks.
RD believes in magic since he has no evidence.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
He was asking if Dawkins enjoys the tricks in the same way as the rest of us or if he rejects the "wonder" of it and tries to go for a logical explanation instead, refusing to accept it otherwise.
He wasn't telling him to see things differently. It was a question.
I was waiting for him to say interweb somewhere after he uttered Macintosh computers. Anyway, this is the complete package. You'll laugh, learn, fall in love with the stories and people he encountered. I want more of this. I'm definitely going to buy his book.
Douglas Adams turned 42 in 1994 so Macintosh is about right for back then
The story at the end of Douglas Adams seating arrangement at his 42 birthday is great.
Starts around 4:40
Thanks
Absolutely excellent interview!
I am shocked how many people seem to think that logic and mathematics are synonyms. Mathematics is a simplified language designed for logical conclusions however to be good at it it's more crucial you have a talent for languages than logic itself. You can make thesis and premisses just fine using any language. It's harder and it's more difficult to communicate your findings without letting in subjective input but you can do it and philosophers and scientists have been doing that for thousands of years. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that you can be good at logic without being good at mathematics.
So you don't know anything about either logic or mathematics. OK. But then, so what? So absolutely nothing.
@@schmetterling4477 You know I will humour your idiocy a bit more than that. Programming is nothing but logical arguments using various types of languages as well specifically designed for logic and not emotion and there's thousands of them. Mathmatics is not unique and people have made logical conclusions far longer than math has existed. Not that math isn't an old language, it's very old but it's still just another language to help people exclude emotion and subjective thinking. Because some people like yourself is too irrational to do so without a helping tool.
Great comment.
@@philosophyfrog2653 You still don't know anything substantial about mathematics and logic. You do sound like a programmer with hammer/nail blindness, though.
The Most Glorious discourse of Great clarity on Rational Scientific Thought, immensely useful for all humans..Thank you Gentlemen ❤❤
Can't have a cake with the name "black man" because it's somehow racist, can't have a cake named "spotted dick" because it's somehow sexist... is it just me, or is this PC mentality of later years bloody RIDICULOUS?
+Frida Nyberg Yep. It's nuts.
+Bob Walsh Dude, you can't say "nuts" anymore.
+futureskeptic lol Sorry if I offended any nutters out there.
+Frida Nyberg as long as the cake is delicious, i would eat it no matter if it's a racist or sexist cake!
+Frida Nyberg And THIS, foremost, is what you took away from this conversation?!?
The supernatural is clinky and clunky. I unified it with a poem. The supernatural is designed to exaggerate things in the environment so you can profile it and learn. One of the things we profiled is a wheel on a train. For some reason they needed it. Grunge rock is baby music. I made clinky and clunky Grunge music with MTV music generator and police sirens went off in the video game. They stole it because they couldn't wait for me. They set up the police for discrimination and they said I gave it away. ♡
From Evolution to Creation- Professor Gary Parker’s Testimony
Professor Gary Parker is a biology teacher who received his PhD in biology with geology at Ball State University, USA, in 1973. He has been admitted to Phi Beta Kappa, an American scholastic honorary, and was elected to the American society of Zoologists and also holds a fellowship from the National Science Foundation. He has written five textbooks on biology over the years.
Professor Gary Parker’s amazing story from an evolutionary biologist perspective to a creationist has been condensed from four radio talks where he reveals his astonishing journey of discovery.
Interviewer: Dr. Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist. Is that so?
Dr. Parker: Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe while continually progressing towards grander things. Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organised everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged. As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at the very least had no more involvement than to originally create the particles and processes from which all else mechanically followed. ‘Sin’ was merely the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest, and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering. With no God to answer to and no purpose for mankind, I saw humanity’s destiny as being in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.
Interviewer: Did your faith/trust in evolution affect your classroom teaching?
Dr. Parker: It certainly did. In my early years of teaching at the high school and college levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true. I even had some creationist students crying in class. I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution. In fact, I had a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class in which I was assisting to encourage them to aim at persuading students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!
Interviewer: I thought you weren’t supposed to teach religion in the American public school system.
Dr. Parker: Well, maybe you can’t teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all teaching the ‘evolutionary religion’! I have done it myself, and I have watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person’s thoughts and consequent life. Of course, I once thought that this effect was good-liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion and making a person’s own opinions supreme.
Even if God is a delusion indulged in by people in search of security in their lives, then faith in that delusion still contributes in a positive way to the wellbeing and happiness of humanity.
Can Richard Dawkins, name six charities, or even one, set up and run by Atheist sponsored groups, anywhere in the world?
@@davidbanner6230 Thank you for your comments. Take note the atheists or should I say globalists have made the most out of the COVID to further their aims of a New World Order and One World Government. They want to bankrupt small businesses and just have large corporations running businesses around the world. They are not bothered how much pain and suffering they cause to the general populace in order to achieve their aims Kind Regards
Robert is a brilliant informed interviewer who gets the best from his interviewees. See his interviews with Neil de Grass Tyson. A perfect foil for tysons offbeat humour.
Neelix interviews Richard Dawkins.
Ha! Neelix. Brilliant! Yes. I can see the similarity.
These guys are both brilliant. Such a joy!
Without a doubt, I could aimlessly walk up to any individual anywhere in the USA, and ask them if they know the name Richard Dawkins, and for sure I would get a positive response.
Richard Dawkins as interesting and knowledgeable as ever.
33:50 - didn`t get the tie story. could someone explain?
greenscreens work by replacing the green color with whatever you want a background picture or video for example . so de greenscreen behind you turns into whatever background you want when you have green on you as well that also turns into the background and it looks like you got holes in you where the green is
@@symmetrie_bruch i do not know what Александр Докукин wants to know but i did not understand his reply to queen about second tie that he wore at queen's party
our culinary traditions and religions and cultures and dresses and arts and crafts and fictions could be thought as extended phenotype?
Not really. Phenotype can't be changed during a single generation. Everybody can be taught to like Chinese and Afghan food. :-)
Was George Orwell a prophet?
The idea that "the gene is the unit of selection", the idea that "the individual is the tool of the gene", the idea that "the body is the machine for passing on the genes that created it" - books like "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker. These are fictions that made Dawkins famous. He essentially substituted "God" for the "Gene". Fame does mean that he is true. Real solid current science backed by evidence and fact is now gradually undermining Dawkins' grand unsubstantiated speculations and instead pointing to a far more complex reality than Dawkins wants us to believe. The genome is probably more like the hard drive in a computer - full of data that is stored, and then used and processed by other controlling functions that we as yet don't fully understand, and perhaps never will. Dawkins insists that Darwin solved "the big one", that it really is "terribly simple". That is infantile, wishful thinking. Nothing in the universe is intellectually simple. Look at physics - dealing with inert DEAD matter. That should be dead simple, right? Not so, the further phycisists dive into smaller and smaller particles the stranger it gets. Why would biology be simpler?
What does 92Y mean?
Plato said reality is created in the mind and if we can change our mind we can change our reality?`
Does that not make perfect sense, in that if our reality is being held within the makeup of our brain function, and we can change that function by believing enough, or having faith, then how is that different from SOMEONE saying “If you have enough faith, you can say to the mountain cast thyself into the sea, and it shall be done”?
Now, I don’t know if it is appropriate to ask Richard Dawkins, or his sidekicks, to respond to such a genuine question, for he never comes from behind his myriads of pseudonym’s, or he says that he never debates creationists, which is a lie since he has posted videos of him doing just that. Which means all he has to do is to call everyone who asks questions “creationists” and he doesn’t have to answer any questions, apart from the Dorothea Dixers arranged for him?
ruclips.net/user/shortsjvs2FZlJguQ🤧🤧
I am listening to this while composing my paper. I think in Formulas and struggle to convert it into prose.
Show me a formula, then we talk.
@@schmetterling4477 A bit late the stuff has been published for 3 years.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 So show me a formula, three years old or not.
The kids at my school sing 'baa baa rainbow sheep have you any wool'. The teachers are told to teach this version of the song because the word 'black' is considered to be a racist remark. The word 'rainbow' is now used because that does not identify a specific colour. It applies to all colours. But... how many rainbow sheep have you actually seen? lol!
+Kev G Fucking hell...
+Kev G
"Hello sir, what can I get you?"
"Ah coffee - no milk Thanks."
"I'm sorry sir, we only have cream"
"Okay - I'll have the coffee, but hold the cream"
:0)
Kev G this ludicrous and pointless myth has been circulating for what thirty or forty years?
Darwin's words: "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished, And that is a damnable doctrine." I do not want to abide in Darwin and his words, his mantra was: "Survival of the Fittest" these words are earthly, sensual, devilish and hell is behind it. There is no hope in Darwinian Evolutionary Religion only death and destruction. Those who preach evolution as a fact of science are irresponsible; as they promote immoral behaviour by the back door. There will eventually be curfews in towns and cities; this is the beginning of sorrows, but it will all end in tears at Armageddon. On the very day of this battle; the Lord Jesus Christ will descend from heaven in order to stop man; destroying himself through selfishness and greed. Jesus will settle his account with mankind, having destroyed the Antichrist and his kingdom. Jesus said, that lightning would flash across the sky from the east unto the west on the day when the Son of man is revealed
I willingly abide in Jesus and his words, "Let him who hath ears to hear, let him hear" this was his mantra very often while teaching the people. Jesus made this statement because he knew that the majority were dull of hearing! Jesus warned men about speaking idle words, indicating he never spoke an idle word. Jesus said, love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. What an excellent moral recipe! That sounds about right to me, words of spirit and life. This is good doctrine, sound doctrine, flawless doctrine, sober doctrine etc. If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a damnable doctrine as Darwin asserts; then where does that leave "The Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races?" Kind Regards
I adore this man, but this interviewer got on my nerves.
+PhiI93 was just going to type the same when I read your comment. had to cut out after 15 mins.
I loved both the interviewer and the interviewee!!
comment by Valerie Norman's wife.
Coastal erosion can occur from rapid, short-term daily, seasonal, or annual natural events such as waves, storm surge, wind, coastal storms, and flooding.
It has been estimated that approximately 950 miles of California's 1,120 miles of coastline are actively eroding. These areas comprise 86% of the coastline. The California Beach Restoration Study (2002), states that 72% of the coast of California consists of actively eroding sea cliffs. This has been going on for only thousands of years, thus millions and millions of years are out of the equation. Think about what I have just stated, which has been observed, the truth should dawn on those who have an honest bone in their body! This is science! Think about the Sahara desert, it is increasing by about 4 miles every year; it has not been going on for millions and millions of years, just reverse the process and see where you end up.
What causes coastal erosion? Coastal erosion is typically driven by the action of waves and currents, but also by mass wasting processes on slopes, and subsidence (particularly on muddy coasts). Coastal erosion is a natural process which occurs whenever the transport of material away from the shoreline is not balanced by new material being deposited onto the shoreline. This has not been going on for millions and millions of years; otherwise the oceans would have been choked with mud due to erosion. Many coastal landforms naturally undergo quasi-periodic cycles of erosion and accretion on time-scales of days to years. This is especially evident on sandy landforms such as beaches, dunes, and intermittently closed and open lagoon entrances. This occurs over years, decades or even centuries.
Australia [Geoscience Australia’s Digital Earth]
The NSW coast has a long history of experiencing coastal erosion events dating back to 1857. Single storm events have caused coastal erosion, such as that associated with East Coast Low storms in 2015 and 2016 that damaged beachfront properties in Sydney. A series of large storm events in 1974 led to even more extensive damage to coastal properties and infrastructure in this region.
The Twelve Apostles along the Great Ocean Road are a result of landscape change and coastal erosion over millennia. There were originally 12 limestone features with 8 now remaining. These structures remain vulnerable to further erosion from waves.
Around the Australian coast, nearly 39 000 buildings are located within one hundred metres of 'soft' shorelines and are at risk from accelerated erosion due to sea-level rise and changing climate conditions (as at 2011).
The pacific coastline is at a much greater risk of flooding, cliff failures, severe storms and large scale coastal changes in the future. The study complied 13 years of seasonal beach data along 148 miles of the Pacific coastline, to determine the effect of last year’s winter storms. Ocean beach California retreated 184 feet from the shoreline, an alarming 75% more than a typical El Nino winter storm. So a typical winter storm would erode 46 feet. Explanation: 184 feet = 100% divided by 25% = 46 feet. So every winter approximately 46 feet of the California beach retreats in land. Other seriously affected areas are San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura. The coast of Willapa Bay, Washington experienced nearly 350 feet of soil erosion which destroyed a roadway. Winter 2010
This is just looking at the coast of California, as America is a huge continent. Rock and sediment erosion is taking place all over the world. Britain is shrinking in relation to its land mass quite significantly. This has not been going on for millions of years. There are approximately 300 Geo-chronological evidences that don’t agree with evolutionary dogma. Evolutionists disregard, ignore or suppress any evidences against evolution. Erosion is taking place from all the continents and islands around the world. We will talk more about this later! The goats will always head butt but the sheep will listen and learn, so they can do their own research. Kind Regards Valerie and Norman
Land masses erode away and reform all the time. So what.
This is a false equivalence! How can you compare Erosion with Evolution?
Land is forming and eroding all the time. There is no geo chronological evidence against evolution. Geologists estimate the earth to be 4.5bn years old.
+ Michael Sleight
Your posts are senseless as your evolutionary theory.
Pleasant talk, if a bit obsequious.
New post material per Lepi Doptera complaint. I reject Dawkin's god and religion. He is a profiteer regardless of whether you put his net value at $10 million or $130 million.
So much less if one than most preachers.
@@lepidoptera9337 Take your pick - Biden or Pelosi in 2022 should answer your stale militant atheist shtick. Have an original thought guys. Really, I am not at all interested in the pseudo-atheism of the 4 horsemen. I want a discussion about the real thing. Does anyone have the wit and resolve?
Humanitiy is doomed, wake up!
+Harry Howell Richard Dawkins was once three years old. Triangles have three points.
ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED
+Alex Stein Always Costa and McDonalds
If it is, then it doesn't matter if you're awake or not. Just enjoy the rest of your short crappy life
Charles Darwin, From So Simple a Beginning, Norton, 2006 page 1482
[Darwin called the gospel of Jesus Christ a damnable doctrine]
So Darwin didn’t like the idea of worshipping God that made heaven and earth; who also commanded us to love our neighbours as ourselves, in other words to serve one another in love according to the 10 commandments. Darwin utterly rejected Christianity, not because he saw any evidence in the natural world around him that made him remove himself from Christian doctrine. He never cited anything that could possibly prove evolution to be true, and what is profound and perplexing is that there is still no evidence in any field of science, but to the contrary much evidence against it! This is why many former evolutionists have become creationists: because they recognize current scientific evidence does not support the Big-Bang theory or Darwinian evolution.
Following on from Darwin, evolutionists use imagination to recreate our past; a prehistoric history of which there is no record of the event; because present data indicates a brilliant design and order to the universe, which would indicate a designer; this has to been ignored, disregarded, suppressed and dispatched. These evolutionists have the same mind-set as Charles Darwin. In the book Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells, B.D. Dyer and R.A Obar admits to imagining history. They state: “Cell and molecular biologists must construct cellular worlds in their own imaginations. Imagination, to some degree, is essential for grasping key events in cellular history.” [FACTS] For those who have been dogmatically told that evolution is a fact by teachers and professors, this statement above, when coupled with paleontological imagination related to fossil descent should be very offensive. The audacity of the evolutionary scientific community; to claim that their guesses on human origins are Fact and unquestionable even though they are based on hypothetical origins reveals arrogance that has no boundaries. Reference: B.D Dryer and R.A. Obar, Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells, Columbia University Press, 1994 pp, 2-3 Pre-historic is a word that has been invented by evolutionists; in order to describe an imaginary history of which there is no record of the event. They placed dinosaurs in this imaginary history of the world. The early pioneers of evolution dug up the first dinosaur bones around 1800 and then later invented the pre-historic time by placing dinosaurs in that period of imaginary- millions of years. Remember all they have done is dug up a pile of bones and then built up a story around them. Evolutionists are really good at story telling. Sir Richard Owen “The Father of Paleontology” was a biblical creationist who was for ever at odds with Darwin and did not support his evolutionary views. He was the one that renamed dragons’ dinosaurs in 1840, which means great and terrible lizard! In the book Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells, B.D. Dyer and R.A Obar admits to imagining history. They state: “Cell and molecular biologists must construct cellular worlds in their own imaginations. Imagination, to some degree, is essential for grasping key events in cellular history.” [FACTS] For those who have been dogmatically told that evolution is a fact by teachers and professors, this statement above, when coupled with paleontological imagination related to fossil descent should be very offensive. The audacity of the evolutionary scientific community; to claim that their guesses on human origins are Fact and unquestionable even though they are based on hypothetical origins reveals arrogance that has no boundaries.
Senior... muslim. Now are the UK trying to commit suicide, or are they trying to commit suicide? Yes or yes?
The Non Existent Geologic Column
I will lay it on the line without hesitation all dating methods for the age of the earth are subject to contamination and limitation, which are purely speculative regardless of claims. Let us look at the actual earth’s geology which they claim is made up of geologic periods, representing millions of years apart in formation. What we observe is factual wouldn’t you agree? We see bends and folds yes, even hair-pin bends, where rock strata folds back on its-self through multiple rock layers, which are supposed to be millions of years old! Here is an extreme example: Kolimalal Hills Tamilnady Easton Ghats 70 hair pin bends where the strata have been folded, before being fossilized in Southern India. This sedentary mud has been folded under pressure! Not compressed one layer upon another over millions of years! What are we actually observing here? What are the rocks trying to tell us about their history if we are prepared to listen? We observe numerous polystrate fossils [tree trunks] piercing through multiple rock layers, that are supposed to represent geologic periods of millions of years around the world? There is nothing uniform about earth’s geology in terms of “erosion marks” between each layer as it rained on the rocks for millions of years according to evolutionists. All these layers are tightly compacted together showing they were laid down at the same time. Polystrate fossils are a giveaway as sedentary mud formed around them as they stood in the upright position. This happened spontaneously not over millions of years as the trees would have rotted away being exposed to the elements. It does not take millions of years for sedentary mud to fossilize into rock, but it can happen over thousands of years! So, where does that leave your dating methods? Most people, who have been indoctrinated with the evolutionary paradigm when they hear the term fossil automatically, associate it with millions of years. This is not so! What conclusion can be drawn here without bias or prejudice by observing the facts? That evolution based on the false assumption of a geologic column is none existent. It is a fairy story which atheists cling too, because they do not want to retain God in their knowledge. How can you defend an artificial geologic column which is none existent and is only found in science textbooks? This can only be out of desperation. If they were to acknowledge the global flood of Noah, they would have to except that judgment came upon this world about 4.500 years ago because of man’s wickedness. They cannot let a divine foot in the door of their thinking, otherwise they would have to acknowledge their own personal sin and that is unthinkable! Ungodly men and women will continue to punch and kick like unruly children until the Day of Judgment; who hide the truth in unrighteousness. When it is too late for them to repent many will weep and lament over their pride and foolishness but there will be no place of solace, no place of repentance. Jesus Christ is the door of salvation which is still open them at the moment, but when that door is shut it will never be opened again. God’s love and patience towards mankind is exceptional and beyond belief! There has been a divine foot in the door from creation. You just need to recognise it! God’s footprints are all over his creation.
If you love the universe the birds will make you mentally ill so you fight with the environment to make it intelligent. Your supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God needed. God has been liberated and he is fully capable of evolving himself without any help. God don't want your worship he just wants to get married. Royal weddings is most watched thing on television. We fixed the video and audio for best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
Why the hell is the interviewer benig such a brat? Always laughing in that way (which makes that "mkkh!" sound), he sounds so childish when he does that.
He's a respected science communicator, and people like him because he's like a curious Forrest Gump of science
Good Lord that interviewer is annoying 👎