Richard Dawkins VS Nick Cowan Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 окт 2015
- Richard Dawkins, a professor in Oxford university and devout atheist, debates with Nick Cowan, a chemistry teacher from a high class British school and devote creationist, about religion.
Игры
I think Dawkins should be awarded the Nobel prize for patience.
@J w Nick Cowan should be awarded Nobel Prize for ignorance.
@J w possibly but being arrogant doesn't mean you are wrong
@J w science does not just say believe , it says test it and decide for yourself. You just qualified for an idiot . Congratulations
Evolution never happened lol.
Where are all these animals that are still.evolving?
There is NO WAY I would allow this guy to teach my kids science.
When parents see this they should complain strongly to his head teacher.
I wouldn't want that cretin teaching my children.
I would not want Dawkins teaching my kids either. All that mythical stuff.
@@pap2-371
"I would not want Dawkins teaching my kids either.
Of course not, you want them to be as ignorant as you are.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv The irony of that statement is unbelievable, only a true degenerate would make it .
@@patrick7775
"The irony of that statement is unbelievable,
Thanks for yet another self description. You are unbelievably ignorant. Except that unlike you I go on evidence and I understand that you are that willfully ignorant.
"only a true degenerate would make it .""
Only a degenerate would tell a lie that stupid.
You are willfully ignorant, pat. You have never shown any error at all by me. You just plain incompetent.
Thanks for proving it yet again.
I CAN produce evidence, you cannot, well except evidence that you are ignorant. Here have a disproof the Flood. Unlike Dr. Tour, I don't need a strawman.
Here have one of many disproofs of the Flood. Please note that dating is NOT relevant nor needed in this so the usual ignorant rants about dating are not relevant to this disproof. Yes I BLEEPING know that there is dating in this post but its not needed for the disproof. Ranting about the dating will not change the disproof which is based on layering.
Here you go Creationists, disproof of the Bible all based on well understood and undeniable science. The layers, even without any dating of any kind, fully disprove the Great Flood that never happened. They simply cannot be laid down the way they are in a dozen floods much less one. No Creationist has ever shown an error this. Few have even tried to deal what I am actually posting. The data is from:
GRAND CANYON Explorer kaibab org
The same layer structure can be on on nearly any site about the Grand Canyon. Most of the writing is mine except some of the specifics on the layers. So far no one has shown any real error in this and I have posted it many times. IF the Flood was a real as you claim then the over 30,000 geologists in the US alone would HAVE to use Flood theory to do their job.
They don't, and the do their job anyway. No mining or oil company would hire someone that used a theory that was that far off from reality.
IF the Bible was a source of special knowledge, that is from a god, there would be clear evidence of the Great Flood. There is none. Yes there are fish fossils on mountains, from around 200 million years ago. The ones in question are often those first discovered by Charles Darwin. They are evidence that the world is old that moutains can rise from the ocean floor. The mountains to the north of me have risen about twenty feet in two earthquakes in my lifetime alone.
I do not have to know everything to know that there was no such flood. I only have to be sure about what can be tested. Life evolved and all the evidence supports that. The nonsense Creationists push is disproved by the utter lack of evidence for the Flood. And no, ancient flooding cannot prove a recent flood. Nor can multi million year old fossils prove a flood from 4400 years ago.
In REAL science a theory is checked against reality. You look at the theory and see what should be if the theory is real. Evolution is supported by evidence so lets look at the Flood.
By using internal evidence in the Bible it can be dated. The usual date is around 4400 years ago. That is disproved by actual written history. However this is about the geology as Creationist just deny known history. The dating for the layers is irrelevant for this as the layers themselves, and the meanders cut into them, could not have formed this way in a whopping great flood. This can be seen by anyone that goes to the Grand Canyon. ANYONE.
IF there was flood there should be sediment sorted by density vs cross section as that is how suspended matter settles out of a water column. That is actual physics that anyone can test with dirt and glass of water. But that is not what we find at the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon would have this order of sediment.
Lime
Dust
Fine sand
Sand
Gravel
Boulders
Granite base as there wasn't enough time or flooding to have a major sediment base under the flood boulders. Unless you think Jehovah made the Earth as lie. In which case why not the Bible as the lie instead of simply being the result of ignorance as it is. A god that deceives in geology is a god that would deceive in writing.
What you actually get is:
Limestone - water based both of those layers formed over millions of years not in a flood.
More limestone different color - water based then:
Sandstone - from sandunes which means NOT from water and thus not from the Flood.
Shale which is finer grained than sandstone and is from water and that shows the Flood didn't occur right there But wait there is more as there is sandstone that is on top of top of mixed shale and limestone. Does not fit flood either. Next:
Redwall Limestone - marine limestone - hmm how could that be below the sandstone if it was formed in the Flood instead of millions of years ago as real science shows. Can't happen the Creationist way.
Temple Butte Limestone - Fresh water - Can't have the fresh below the salt in Flood Nonsense. But reality shows there was no flood in yet another layer.
Muav Limestone - composed primarily of limestone that is separated by beds of sandstone and shale. Again can't have formed in single whopping great flood. s not have much in the way of fossils, some trilobites and brachiopods. Which means marine again and now below fresh water limestone.
Bright Angel Shale - marine animals such as trilobites and brachiopods. Which somehow aren't in the higher limestone. Again not fitting Flood Nonsense. And not one fish among them as would be the case if the Bible was true.
Tapeats Sandstone - this a marine sandstone.
Then the really old stuff.
Sixtymile Formation - This tan colored layer is composed primarily of sandstone with some small sections of shale.
Kwagunt Formation - This layer is composed primarily of shale and mudstone with some limestone- Fossils to be found in this layer are those of stromatolites, the oldest fossils to be found anywhere in the Grand Canyon. Which form near the surface yet are the bottom. And no trilobites. Which all fits reals and evolution and completely fails Flood Nonsense again. And again no fish as should be there as ALL life that exists now should have existed at the beginning of the flood.
Galeros Formation - This layer is composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone and shale. Impossible in a single whopping great flood. Again Fossil stromatolites also exist in this layer and no trilobites nor fish nor whales nor any fossils that we know evolved much later.
Nankoweap Formation - This layer averages about 1,050 million years old and is composed of a coarse-grained sandstone. Well at least is below limestone.
Cardenas Lavas - not exactly a flood thing. Can't form as it exists there while underwater. You would have pillow lava.
Dox Sandstone - This layer averages about 1,190 million years old, is composed of sandstone interbedded with shale.
Shinumo Quartzite - This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed of sandstone
Hakatai Shale - This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed primarily of shale with some sandstone.
Bass Formation - This layer averages about 1,250 million years old and is composed primarily of limestone with some interbedded shale Woops now the sandstones in Nankoweap ARE above limestone. None of this fits Flood Nonsense.
Vishnu Schist and Zoroaster Granite - This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. Which does not fit a world that was just 1600 years old or a whopping great flood.
Nor can the entrenched meanders of the flood form in whopping great flood. Nor could the river flow ACROSS the slope of the land as it does instead of downhill in multiple rivers to the Gulf of Mexico as it would have if there had been a whopping great flood.
So the Grand Canyon fits real science and Henry Morris and Dr. Brown just plain LIED about such things fitting Flood Nonsense.
So with the Bible's Flood fitting right in the middle of the Egyptian Pyramid building era just how does ANYTHING fit the Flood?
Start dealing WITH reality instead of telling silly lies about it.
Ethelred Hardrede
The only true miracle in society is how Dawkins endured this and an hour listening to Wendy Wright
@William Monroe My hand rarely wants to punch a face, but I had to sit on it during Wendy.
Yeah right!! I think the opposite....
@@jedfloydteniedo9267 opposite of what?
Wendy Wright vid would make Ghandi smash his phone up
To compare this man & this discussion to the Wendy Wright debacle is grossly unfair & unreasonable. My opinion is that Creationism is incredulous though this man was honest & eloquent.
I watched this entire dialogue as a learning exercise in how to be a complete gentleman whilst listening to a moron. Prof. Dawkins is a paragon of listening skills, decorum, respect, and reason, all in the face of sheer stupidity. Thank you, Prof. Dawkins.
How would your opinion change if you learned Dawkins is actually wrong? You do realize he isn't automatically right just because he's on the side that is the current consensus, right?
Both sides of the debate are faith-based. Given we can't go back in time and verify what happened... so it's all faith-based, not conclusive scientifically.
Dawkins side relies heavily on the accuracy of provably inaccurate dating methods.
@@lightbeforethetunnel So I did a quick google search for the Nobel prize awarded to the person who conclusively disproved dating methods and you are never going to believe this, but it HASN'T happened?!
If dating methods were provably inaccurate, it would take literally one person to conclusively evidence it. That person would immediately be in position for a Nobel prize and the MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS in prize money for turning science upside down. Strange that no one has taken that easy million isn't it...
And to touch on your claim that we can't verify what happened in the past. When I drop my morning shit tomorrow, you can bet a first year Coprology student could give me a damn accurate list of the foods I ate just by studying my chocolate log.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Both faith based? One side of the debate is based on evidential facts and our best understanding of them. The other is faith based and dismisses logical conclusions that in any way conflict with an archaic ideology that was used in a time when science didn't exist.
The scribes who wrote the bible about 600AD didn't understand how almost anything worked so used a deity to fill the gaps. In fact, what they wrote wasn't even original, there were many religions with virgin births and resurrections before the bible, it's just a copy cat religion. As time passed the scriptures have had to be reinterpreted and cherry picked to remain in any way relevant today.
That guy is really struggling with this and thinks the earth is 5000 years old, he's completely brainwashed! It's kind of sad to see now that I've given it more thought.
@@addz17 If you're thinking the theory of Evolution is based on "evidential facts" ... can you provide an example of Macro-evolution being observed in the lab? And I mean Macro-evolution, not just speciation falsely labeled as Macro-evolution.
If you can't provide that (given even mainstream academia acknowledges they havent observed it) can you provide an example of *increasing genetic complexity* being observed in a lab? I ask because that's essentially what Evolution is.
If you can't provide evidence for these processes being observed by scientists... then they're imaginary faith-based process... not "evidential facts."
As for Creation theory, it relies on all the same processes as the theory of evolution, such as Micro-evolution, speciation, adaptation, natural selection, etc... just with the processes we have never observed such as Macro-evolution taken out.
Creation theory posits that the various kinds of life were created separately by something beyond the 3d material realm (beyond the limits of the science to study) and since then the various kinds of life have been going under Micro-evolution, speciation, adaptation, natural selection, etc... but NOT Evolution.
100% of scientific evidence matches with Creation theory. All we have ever observed is one kind bringing forth after its kind.
We have never observed one kind producing anything other than its kind. Yet, Evolution theory requires this occured countless times in the distant past... because, obviously, a single cell organism would have to produce something other than a single cell organism if all the various complex life forms alive today are related to a single cell organism if you go back far enough
Personally I think it's a mental illness to believe you're related to a mosquito. There's no scientific reason to assume that. We've never even observed the processes that would make that possible. Evolution is VERY anti-scientific. It's a faith-based religion clothed in scientific terms.
Evolution is even self-falsifying as it requires the violation of its own rules of monophyly.
This comment is years old at this point but it will never ever ever not be relevant.
Richard Dawkins patience is a miracle in itself
the same with Mr Cowan...he is patient and courteous and reflective, and quite articulate and confident in his own delusion which he will constantly be proving to himself forever...he needs it. too bad
Not as much a Jesus has.
I lost my patience at 2:56.
@7788Sambaboy very appreciative that you would raise this point. The fact you aren’t necessarily in agreement with mr. Cowan, but are willing to considering mr. Cowan’s mind set - that’s a rarity to hear online; someone being so considerate of other points of view on the internet while still making your own point fairly. Case in point: Mr Cowan, who himself tries hard to remind you on several occurrences that he isn’t an “American Right Wing *insert noun*”. I myself am very much not that, I’m not even American, I’ve just lived here for a decade. But the argument over here is incredibly tired, and asks you to chose a ‘team’ while never being allowed to discuss the other. I think overall, Mr. Cowan is an idiot, but I’d feel ashamed if I didn’t at least consider his opinion!
Indeed! Did you watch that interview with the creationist woman(can't remember her name) that refused to look at evidence, but asserted it doesn't exist.
When he genuinely believed there was a 250 year old skull of a Neanderthal I cringed
13:30 "We start with a belief" Yes, that's the problem. It's the other way around, belief should be the conclusion, not the starting point and even then no belief should be an imposed dogma.
Haurenox,
They both use their beliefs as a start and they both end up with a belief system!
@@joeyfeliciano9199 Oh? And what is Dawkins' belief system?
Well spotted
I agree I noticed that too, I’m surprised Dawkins didn’t pounce on him when he said that!
@@j.n924 Dawkins belief system is in the absurd, NOT based on science.
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
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
_"I'm an atheist when it comes to all other religions."_
Gotta love it when these hypocrites point out their hypocrisy with absolutely no sense of irony. Facepalm! 🙄
How is that hypocritical - he made a truth claim and verified it. Perhaps you'd like to explain?
@@sandypidgeon4343 if you don't get it then you're probably one of them. Facepalm! 🤦♂️
@@magnetiktrax You didn't answer my question; rather, you were flippant and unscientific. Answer the question. To whom do you refer as to "one of them"? That is a de-humanizing statement but common among atheists. GOD Bless
@@sandypidgeon4343 So you _are_ one of them. Double facepalm!
@@magnetiktrax So, you again didn't answer my question, or perhaps, you can't. Perhaps those repeated facepalms are resulting in concussions resulting in a degradation of your cognitive abilities, ne's pas? GOD Bless.
Nick Cowan is proof that intelligent people can be totally blinded by religion
If you found that interesting try the series of Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath
to see how people with brains got caught in a crazy cult.
he is probably schizophrenic.
onpsxmember le
Martin Ward yes, he put great effort into the construction of his reality. Too bad that such ppl are allowed to teach.
Martin Ward But is he intelligent?
"i don't brainwash the children in chemistry class," i brainwash them in history class.
When science appears to favor religion, they believe it without question. When it disproves, they believe it is "flawed".
Which religion? The religion of Scientism? The religion of Evolutionism? The religion of Naturalism / Materialism / Atheism?
@@lightbeforethetunnel I know this might come as a surprise, but non-religious people don't see every field of study as a religion... because they aren't.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Btw, what in the actual fuck is "scientism?" 😂
It's almost impressive in a weird way how people like this guy can delude themselves in such a profound and specific way. It's like they deliberately hold a hand over one eye and then manage to genuinely convince themselves that they haven't and can still see fine out of both eyes.
Could you be doing that with irrational blind faith in Naturalism / Materialism?
If no, why not?
A physicist who thinks that evolution violates thermodynamics has not understood thermodynamics.
And an evolutionist who thinks it doesn't understands nothing.
Graham Rogers would you care to explain how it does?
The law of thermodynamics that is “violated” apparently is that the total entropy of a closed system (a system in which energy cannot enter/leave the system) cannot decrease, however there are some issues with that in that A) the sun is an energy source that adds energy to the “closed system” of the planet
B) energy can leave the planet and does quite often in the form of EM radiation
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. Another case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. Unndirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup would most likely break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks. The truth is students need to be taught just the bare facts of science and allowed to make up their own mind.
Graham Rogers what you’re forgetting to account for here is time, whilst yes in most cases undirected energy does lead to the breaking of bonds it is also the case that in some cases it leads to the formation of bonds and given enough time it is possible that the randomness of entropy could make something capable of directing energy, and once that is the case then the rest follows. Also in nothing that you have said have you given a reason that evolution would violate the second law of thermodynamics, whilst yes open systems have a tendency towards because of the nature of an open system it is still possible for there to be areas of low entropy as long as there is not a net decrease in entropy in the universe. It might not be the case that standing in the sun too long makes you more complex but funnily enough it does cause mutations, which can be seen in the formation of skin cancer. Those mutations in something that was a single cell organism would have profound effects on the nature of that organisms. complex amino acids have been found to arise in space and it would’ve take a large leap to get DNA from that. Whilst it is true we need sophisticated machinery to make our own DNA that’s because we want to do it quickly, of course it would take some sophisticated machinery to do something that takes millions of years to occur naturally in a few days/weeks. What constitutes the bare bones of science? If you aren’t willing to accept something like evolution where do we draw that line between what we can and can’t teach? Children are taught what the majority of evidence suggests is correct (this takes a while to catch up with modern evidence sometimes due to the nature of the education system and is obviously not the case as soon as religion gets involved) building from the the basics to the most complicated as deemed adequate that they can then continue to build on that in higher education so that scientific understanding can be furthered. If you don’t teach science you don’t make scientific progress
I believe the earth was created 3000 years ago by fairies that live in my garden. I think the children deserve to learn this alternate hypothesis.
Erich Haemmerle nice one
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. I agree lets teach that hypothesis. You made me laugh.
yes we should teach all theories
Erich Haemmerle yes but the bible has been scrutinised and tested and it passes at all levels, the bible was the only book to correctly say that the earth hangs in space
Damn. Didn't think of that one. I'll be converting to Christianity tomorrow...
Ive had to stop half way through from gritting my teeth! How Dawkins can stand and listen and be so polite for so long is currently beyond me 😰🥵
It is him. He's so indoctrinated he can't even listen to conflicting worldviews without gritting his teeth.
There isn't a single independently verifiable observation which confirms Old Earth Evolutionism over Young Earth Creationism.
Both use the exact same set of observable evidence, so it isn't a difference of scientific validity. The only difference is the philosophical worldview the observations are interpreted through.
Presuppositionalism (the argument) actually provides a logical proof the Christian worldview is the only true worldview, with a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews.
In other words, Dawkins is wrong. The Creationist is right and this is objectively true... with as much certainty as 2+2=4.
Only problem is, it isn't mainstream. The only reason anyone believes theories like Old Earth and Evolutionism is NOT because it's been scientifically verified, it's because they've been socialized into it by an academic community that explicitly excludes all research that isn't Materialistic in its presuppositions.
Unfortunately, you guys have been indoctrinated into the biggest cult in the world.. and you just haven't noticed because it's mainstream and widely accepted / popular.
However, popularity is not how truth is determined.
Dawkins's charm and patience never cease to amaze me.
It's scary that this man is allowed to teach.
+Richard Hill x Yes you bigot. It statements like these which get peoples backs up aggressively against the devoutly religious. Your book preaches nothing but divisiveness and hatred. There are trees older than 6000 years which have been dated with dendrochronolgy. Therefore YEC are demonstrably wrong and this man shouldn't be allowed to teach his PERSONAL beliefs in science classes. He should teach the actual science. Evolution!
+Andy Coombes
Well good. I agree. Let's leave sexual indoctrination instruction and also Creation vs Darwinism *out of the public schools*.
This man Nick Cowan has resigned as a teacher. No? He probably couldn't stomach shoving that evolution-only indoctrination in his classroom.
Sorry, but for me, actual science can be medical, biological, genetic etc.
But "guessing" (theorizing) that a fish genome from millions of years ago had acquired random and mostly useless or hap-hazard (no intelligence involved) mutations (millions of years for each one ) and then further so-called "natural selection process" lasting millions of more years "sorted out" all of that mutated and damaged (Dawkins says that the "vast majority of mutated DNA has damage") is a ridiculous notion.
How could that already ridiculous possibility be compounded further to an even more ridiculous notion? Because any such a mutated fish as that would have become less capable of surviving at all. Whether it be in the water (with that extra weight and mass of any extra mutated lung tissue growth slowing it down and reducing maneuverability) or trying to clumsily practice "walking on land" (before it wold have been quickly picked out as another creatures next slow moving meal).
I suggest that you add in a little common sense practicality as you engage in your *critical thinking* session.
And if you care to hide behind atheism as your "security blanket" then that is your problem to deal with.
Richard Hill
In what way is that bigoted. Its factual. Being openly homophobic like you is bigoted, and its sad that the only reason you act like a savage is because of an old book. People like you hold the rest of the world back. Also, you are so sheep-like you follow the same script that all apologists use. Oh you atheists are angry. Nope, nothing about my post was angry, read it again. I was alluding to the flagrant way you throw away actual evidence and invoke special pleading. However, you fundies with your bigoted views are angry because you openly oppress people and you aren't getting your way anymore.
+Andy Coombes
Homophobic, maybe. But perhaps for a few good reasons. Kids already have enough to be concerned with. Confusing them at school with sexual ideas is not appropriate at all. It is sexual abuse, and even if it were to be only heterosexual.
>
It might seem like evidence to you, but it does not logically appear to be do-able. And what evidence have you, yourself seen?
Which scientists do you listen to that agree with your preconceived and prejudiced notion of how biological life came about?
Richard Hill
I have no presuppositions, I grant belief tentatively based on evidence. When its as overwhelming as it is for evolution to the point where the idea has graduated to the point of being a theory, its undeniable to any rational person. You also use the phrase 'how biological life came about' which demonstrates you know jack all abut what evolution actually is. Its separate from abiogenesis, which has been proven possible in the lab, but its unknown whether this is the way it happened on earth. All it means is that there is proof its possible which puts it way out in front of creation claims which are flat out wrong e.g. when they say things like plants came before the sun. Evolution is an indisputable fact, the abiogenesis event is the only point of contention and scientists have never claimed knowledge of this. What you have demonstrated is the need for better education, both in biology so you could actually understand evolution properly and sex ed to get rid of admitted bigots like yourself. I don't know why I am ever bothering to give someone as scummy as you a moment of my time.
Cowan does NOT belong in a science classroom!
He was fired long ago.
Are u more qualified than him?
@@deficrypto1234 My toaster would be more qualified then him.
@@leon_noel1687 U wish. What do u do for work? A more respectable profession than him?
@@deficrypto1234 I'm a science student. Everybody who does nothing at all does a better job then teaching creationism.
Dawkins showing once again why he is such an inspiration to all . This teacher is a nice guy and dawkins knows that but it ends there. dawkins listening respectfully but replying with pure fact and educating this dude at same time .....
How certain are you Dawkins is replying with "pure fact" and not just his beliefs? 100%?
He is not an inspiration to all he is just a leader of the gullible and unquestioning
@@grahamrogers3345 Oh the irony..what you said applies to the religious side
@@FactStorm So which is the 'religious' bearing in mind that most practitioners of traditional religion unquestioningly accept the evolution fable? Some of the most prominent opponents of the evolution fable on the other hand are not religious at all.
@@grahamrogers3345 "EvOlUtIOn FaBlE"
This is all I need to know about you and your wretched willful ignorance.
The cameraman deserves a raise
Two people having an open, equal, and courteous sharing of ideas with neither interrupting or demeaning the other. How refreshing.
He's the first creationist not to shout over dawkins.. still bat shit crazy though
If he was an American right winger he would have been more hostile.
It's because he's British. Very polite people
@@jerryking296
Thank you. We really are. 🇬🇧
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 indeed. Who's turn is it to brew the tea ?.......
@@deepinuranus3433
Tomorrow morning it's mine. Good *Assam* loose leaf tea brewed properly in a pot. Come over about 9 a.m..
Sixty years ago when in a Catholic secondary a supply teacher told us about Darwin theory of evolution which made sense to me; when the regular teacher came back he told us to forget about ‘the nonsense’ that the supply teacher had told us.
I never did and, and it made me even more curious, so I read a lot about it.
It was the fact that I was told to forget it that made me study it.
@Gerard
Yes my original sin 🙏🏻 forgive me father for I have sinned.
He was my chemistry teacher at the Liverpool Bluecoat School. To be fair he was a pretty good teacher and got kids interested in science with dramatic experiments. He was infamous for his explosions and hardcore prayer group.
I've heard excellent things about him. He's clearly a very intelligent man and understands science very well. But what really sets him aside as special is his willingness to speak the truth when it's inconvenient.
@@lightbeforethetunnel what really sets him apart is his glaring blindspot when it comes to the drivel he was taught as a malleable child, and his terrible decision to teach the same drivel to other malleable children.
if you cut his brain in half he would still be 100 times more intelligent than me yet it's he who has the imaginary friend...funny old world..........
Are you sure this wasn't the gym teacher?
The caretaker knows more than this bozo
+hatter00 Award winning comment
Saying that discredits all the intelligent gym teachers out there. This guy is just an idiot. The people I worry about are the ones who allow him to teach.
I must say that he was my chemistry teacher and was actually a great teacher. I don't share his religious views and nor did he bring them up regularly in lessons apart from the odd comment here and there but they were rather tongue in cheek.
U r wrong thats the janitor’s assistant
Some people believe that the earth is flat. Should we teach that controversy in the class room or do we correct the child's incorrect thinking?
Why not teach that? It's no worse than your comment.
netzoned
Why not teach that some people think the earth is flat? Because it's flat out wrong, it's scientific incorrect. You don't teach that there is a controversy when there is no controversy.
+Darryl Elam
I knew my point would go over your head.
My point: Make a better argument for your point.
Your comment was too old and already worn out over a century ago. :-p
netzoned
What do you mean by my 'comment is too old and already worn out' what the hell does that even mean?
Maybe you should learn how to write in a way that others can understand you.
+Darryl Elam
Are you always so thin skinned? Relax.
"Your comment was too old and already worn out over a century ago."
You really cannot comprehend that? Heh heh. Maybe you should learn English comprehension. Or your school thought that was controversial and did not teach English comprehension. :-p
I can't make it thru one of these. Dawkins is amazing. Such a standard-bearer. I would have lost it.
The fact this guy is allowed to teach Science classes dumbfounds me! Thank goodness for Dawkins exposing his incompetence! I hope something is done to train the guy better or remove him.
Alright. "children must have the right to see the other side". So you, as a chemistry teacher, think that should be alchemy classes too, so children can "decide" what they prefer?
Luis Di Vasca alchemy is chemistry the only difference is healing potions made using alchemy are just renamed to antibiotics
That and the removal of 90% of teachings, like the Azoth, the Philospher stone, Homoculi, ect.
Lol luis
Let's see christurds defend teaching Karl Marx's great masterwork "Das Capital" in school.
Let's see christurds defend teaching about animal rights & veganism & antinatalism in school.
If you haven’t learned alchemy yourself, who are you to say?I doubt you have worked with and have positively affected as many lives as that man you’re mocking. I hope you will one day learn to see good in the world. God bless.
"I started with faith", "personal revelation", "it wasn't logic in the end, it was faith".... therefore, all his comments about there being evidence to support his claims are completely disingenuous.
Scary that he's actually teaching children.
Not sure how Prof. Dawkins kept his cool in the face of such vacuous stupidity.
I love the way the camera man is switching angles too whoever is speaking, it puts pressure on whoever's talking which is good.
"The bible is true because they are some predictions that come true"
Then the simpson is true too, it have predicted a whole lot more than the bible.
Guess I am leaving atheism and turning into Simpsonist
I agree...The Simpsons predicted Trump would be POTUS years before he did........Go Homer you are the chosen one.
And Nostradamus.
Your an idiot the Simpsons is fiction, but don't feel alone a hell of a lot of people can't distinguish fiction from REALITY. that is the cause for all the stupidity in this world.
@@musicauthority7828 it's satire. You are making a fool out of yourself.
@@alejrandom6592 You are the fool who can't distinguish fiction from REALITY. I suggest you go back to playing your video games and stay out of the intelligent conversations.
if he says "both sides of the controversy" again, i'm gonna have to write him a strongly worded letter of disappointment.
Smashing interview. The creationist advocate seems a really pleasant and sincere guy. A lot nicer than some of those right wing lunatics in America. I respect his beliefs but he shouldn't be promoting pseudo science mysticism to kids in science classes.
You losers are all about teaching lies as you pretend to care about science.
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
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Short message in defence of Nick Cowan:
He taught in my school and was a very inspirational and lovingly eccentric teacher. He wore his Christian beliefs on his sleeve but was very happy for students to challenge him. He did not try and indoctrinate anybody into his way of thinking. Like Dawkins, I find it incredible that a clearly scientific mind could end up going down a religious road. Let this clip be an example of two completely contrasting viewpoints disagreeing in a civil manner and not resorting to the sort of mudslinging found on Twitter.
But it isnt a contrast, nick is talking nonsense to fit his beliefs, of course he can believe what he wants but do it outside the classroom.
I believe Nick is intelligent, but still he is wrong. Good that he does not shove this in his students faces.
How can Richard Dawkins stay so cool - as he always is.... where does he get his composure??? Greatest respect.
It's because he doesn't think much.
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
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
He’s British.
@@deltanovember1672 he's still a nitwit as I showed.
His red face tells us different, he's quite angry under the collar.
Dwindling is an idiot and he usual gets angry.
Mental illness is not an excuse to lie to children.
+beatonthedonis47 God is a scientist. Debate over!
+beatonthedonis47
Dawkins tells his own brand of muddied up half-truths.
Dawkins is a bitter man desperately clinging to his shallow atheism as he coasts on his college degree and rides on the coat tails of Darwin's one time curiosity.
Notice how at peace with himself Nick Cowan is. You see that same peace of mind in Richard Lumsden on his youtube video.
Dawkins probably looses sleep dreaming up new ways to ridicule the mere notion of the existence of a God/creator.
+Richard Hill Haha, haven't read the comments on this video for a few days and come back to see someone's taken my job of replying to all of them. I can't believe what some people can say about a man with his own views.
+Denneth “TheRobo-T” Elihpodeap
Yes... at times it may be better to just say nothing and let the chips fall where they may.
And then at other times we must jump in and say something that may be helpful to someone. I do get crude at times but it is only to address a given level of mindset.
Kind Regards-
+Richard Hill Dawkins "bitter"? He's astonishingly good natured, considering the drivel he has to listen to for much of the time. Is NC at peace with himself or self-deluded?
Jolly good debate. I love this kind of friendly banter.The obvious temptation is to dismiss a person's opinion on every subject if only one or a few points are unacceptable. That's why most humans remain nobodies with narrow minds.
This is SO painful to watch. Time and time again the great scientific intellect of Richard Dawkins is roadblocked by lesser - and wilfully stubborn - minds that resist his arguments. If you wish to debate - fine - but dodging questions, squirming like a fish on a pole, and offering no empirical or rational evidence to support your assertions does not constitute a real debate. It's amazing that Professor Dawkins can engage in these conversations and not have a breakdown in the face of such breathtaking stupidity.
Im sorry. But that man should not be allowed to teach our children.
Abhorrent
Fek The First I agree!
Fiona Gregory
🌹😘
How many children do you have?
S
2
Fek The First I'e got 50. he can teach mine
3 : 30 -
'why teach the biblical form ? why not teach the hindu version or any other ....?'
'thats my belief .. '
Dark Because of the heavy evidence for the truth of the Bible and the lack of it for all others.thanks
Jo man that could be the dumbest thing I've ever read
fivestar:Then you should refute the dumbest thing you ever read with evidence instead of just calling it the dumbest thing you have ever read.
Also Hinduism is just nonsense
, Hinduism can be atheistic, deistic, or even nihilistic. With such diversity included under the title “Hindu,” one may wonder what makes them “Hindu” in the first place? About the only real issue is whether or not a belief system recognizes the Vedas as sacred. If it does, then it is Hindu. If not, then it is not Hindu.
The Vedas are more than theology books. They contain a rich and colorful “theo-mythology,” that is, a religious mythology which deliberately interweaves myth, theology, and history to achieve a story-form religious root. This “theo-mythology” is so deeply rooted in India's history and culture that to reject the Vedas is viewed as opposing India. Therefore, a belief system is rejected by Hinduism if it does not embrace Indian culture to some extent. That would be my reason to reject Hinduism very contradictory thus made up.thanks
Jo man please explain the virgin birth and your EVIDENCE. merry Christmas. Lol
Five:Merry Christmas or Christ Mass or Jesus communion. My take on the virgin birth would be that the Holy Spirit{God}
came upon Mary and that was the part that made Jesus 100 percent God,Mary supplied the part that made Jesus also at the same time 100 percent man. Prophecys of virgin birth as much as 1500 years before Jesus:
Genesis 3 verse 15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Explained:
This prophecy, known as the Protevangelium, comes from the most ancient oracle known to man-the oracle that the Lord pronounced when He found our first parents, Adam and Eve, guilty of sin. The Lord is speaking to Satan, who has enticed "the woman," Eve, into disobeying the Lord's command against eating fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He is saying that Satan will someday be crushed and utterly defeated by the seed of the woman.
The pronoun used to designate the seed is "his" (in "his heel"). In place of "it" (in "it shall bruise"), the more accurate translation is "he" (1). Therefore, the coming conqueror must be a single man. But why is He called the seed of a woman? A child is ordinarily regarded as the seed of his father and forefathers. The striking and unnatural character of the expression "her seed" suggests that it is a uniquely fitting name for the victor over Satan. Unlike other men, He would be the seed of a woman only. He would not be a man's seed. A virgin would conceive Him without losing her virginity.
Then in Isaiah probably 7oo years before the actual virgin birth:
Isaiah 7 verse 14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Immanuel so they say means {God with us} That's what makes it so amazing,God was with us.
The first for sure miracle was the creation of the universe,out of nothing God created everything,that to me had to be a miracle and could not have happened naturally as we know it.If God could do that,virgin birth was easily also done.
Isaiah 9 verse6 also
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Thanks
Surely to claim to be a scientist and a creationist is the ultimate oxymoron?
Like peacekeeper missles or jumbo shrimp.
This is how a debate between gentleman should look like, really enjoyed listing to it
"Im not a fundamentalist" He said. So what is your answer to the diversity of life. "Magic". L O L
And as he said " You start with a belief". No moron. You start with evidence, then you get to a belief.
Why are you answering yourself? Scizo?
Im not. Im adding to my original post. Shame this was above your thinking capacity.
A shame you can't spot irony :-)
He has no idea how science works, really. You don't start with the conclusion. That's just dishonest.
Painful to watch what a sad word when you get people that think our world is only 6,000 years old 🤣🤣
I could ask the same to you about why you think the world is flat, and why you believe the government is lying to you about it. Excet for the fact that the earth is ya know, a globe obviously even the ancient astronomers knew that like fuck buddy go back to school man.
Any justification tim?
THE ADVANCE DESIGNS HAD TO COME FIRST. LET'S TAKE A BIRD AS A EXAMPLE. A BIRD HAVING THE MOST ADVANCE DESIGN OF HAVING WINGS. ENABLES THEM TO FLY UP INTO THE TREES FOR SHELTER AGAINST PREDATORS. IT ALSO MAKES ITS NEST HIGH UP IN THE TREE BRANCHES WHICH SUSTAINS THE EXISTENCE OF THE SPECIES. IF BIRDS HAD TO WAIT MILLIONS OF YEARS TO GROW WINGS AS EVOLUTION SUGGESTS. BIRDS WOULD HAVE BEEN A THANKSGIVING DAY TURKEY FOR THE ANTS. THE ADVANCE DESIGNS HAD TO COME FIRST FOR ALL TYPE OF SPECIES. WITHOUT THEM THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER SURVIVE PREDATORS NOR THE HARSH ELEMENTS. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CREATOR AND HE IS ALSO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. I WAS AN ATHEIST YEARS BACK UNTIL I WENT TO SECURE A RECORD CONTRACT. WHAT SHOCKED ME WAS THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL HIMSELF. IT HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE EVERY SHAPE AND FORM. WHEN I REJECTED IT AND TOOK MY PLACE WITH GOD/CHRIST IT CAME AFTER ME. LIKE THE STORY OF "JOB" IN THE BIBLE IT CANNOT TOUCH YOU DIRECTLY. ONLY WITH PERMISSION FROM GOD IS THE DEVIL ALLOWED TO TOUCH YOU. SINCE IT WAS A HANDS OFF POLICY SATAN HAD LAW ENFORCEMENT THE NYPD COME AFTER ME AND FRAME ME AND ARREST ME. WHERE THEY TOOK ME WAS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE JEWS THEY TOOK TO THE DEATH CAMPS. THEY TOOK ME TO THE SUB BASEMENT OF A MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND PUT ME IN A JAIL CELL AND 40 FEET AWAY DOWN IN THIS DREAEY BASEMENT. YOU SAW 2 BIG OPEN DOORS AND YOU HEARD THE BOILER RUNNING. ASK YOURSELF WHAT IS A JAIL CELL DOING ON THE SAME LEVEL NEXT TO A BOILER ROOM. IF THE BOILER EXPLODED OR IF IT SPEWED OUT SMOKE YOU ARE DEAD. IT WAS BUILT OBVIOUSLY FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.OUTSIDE THOSE DOORS WAS A BIG FELLOW WEARING A TANK TOP TATOOED ALL OVER HIS BODY UP THE SIDE OF HIS FACE. IT WAS LIKE MID EVIL TIMES IN ENGLAND OF THE HATCHET MAN THAT CHOPPED YOUR HEAD OFF. AS I LOOKED OVER TO THE OPEN DOORS LISTENING TO THE BOILER RUNNING. THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT CAME INTO MY HEAD WAS: "THEY ARE GOING TO BURN ME ALIVE IN THE BOILER". AT THAT MOMENT THE DEVIL APPEARED AS A MAN THIS TIME AND SAID THESE WORDS: "BELIEVE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU IT IS REAL". I JUST LOOKED A SATAN RIGHT IN THE FACE WITH ITS HATRED. AFTER THE DEVIL LEFT 8 PLAIN CLOTHES NYPD COPS CAME INTO THE JAIL CELL AND SURROUNDED ME. THE REST OF THIS STORY IS IN MY BOOK. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE ALMIGHTY GOD PROTECTING ME. THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE BURNED ME TO A CRISP THE SAME WAY THE NAZI'S BURNED THE JEWS ALIVE IN THE OVENS. YOU PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP REAL QUICK. WHAT I WROTE HERE YOU CAN'T MAKE UP. IT IS A SMALL PART OF A TREMENDOUS STORY THAT THE DEVIL DOESN'T WANT ME WRITING. BOTH GOD AND THE DEVIL EXIST.
One of my coworker is a jeovha witness and he belive that the world is 7000 year old because " 1 day for god is 1000 " i tried to explain why he is wrong he wont listen
@@JP-ec3st And I thought you were going to come out with something original .
Respect to both of them for having such a civilised discussion from opposite sides of what is more typically a more heated debate. The world would be a much better place if people could have such conversations with their “opponents”....
absolutely not....debate, discussion, criticism is futile in the absence of reason. fuck this idiot & his horseshit.
@@dyschromotopia as an atheist married to a Muslim, I can guarantee that you won't get far with that mindset and approach
I love the part where Dawkins talks about how evolution is not random and it's the minority of mutations that actually are beneficial to the species. And the guy just ignores it. That says it all right there. It's like his head just says, "I'm going to ignore what you just said and keep talking about what I think is important".
Evolution is only not random if you presume it occurred.
@@lawrence1318 An overwhelming body of science suggests evolution has occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur.
@@pappy9473 You don't know what you're talking about. Evolution has no generative mechanism and is therefore false. God created us and that is that.
@@lawrence1318 Are you referring to evolution or the existence of a god(s) or are you conflating both?
I always looked up to my teachers since i thought they must be intelligent members of society while growing up. This just shows how deluded they can be in a scary way and it relates to a lot more basic morals too
I mean, if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, it kind of doesnt qualify you for a rational discussion
THE ADVANCE DESIGNS HAD TO COME FIRST. LET'S TAKE A BIRD AS A EXAMPLE. A BIRD HAVING THE MOST ADVANCE DESIGN OF HAVING WINGS. ENABLES THEM TO FLY UP INTO THE TREES FOR SHELTER AGAINST PREDATORS. IT ALSO MAKES ITS NEST HIGH UP IN THE TREE BRANCHES WHICH SUSTAINS THE EXISTENCE OF THE SPECIES. IF BIRDS HAD TO WAIT MILLIONS OF YEARS TO GROW WINGS AS EVOLUTION SUGGESTS. BIRDS WOULD HAVE BEEN A THANKSGIVING DAY TURKEY FOR THE ANTS. THE ADVANCE DESIGNS HAD TO COME FIRST FOR ALL TYPE OF SPECIES. WITHOUT THEM THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER SURVIVE PREDATORS NOR THE HARSH ELEMENTS. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CREATOR AND HE IS ALSO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. I WAS AN ATHEIST YEARS BACK UNTIL I WENT TO SECURE A RECORD CONTRACT. WHAT SHOCKED ME WAS THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL HIMSELF. IT HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE EVERY SHAPE AND FORM. WHEN I REJECTED IT AND TOOK MY PLACE WITH GOD/CHRIST IT CAME AFTER ME. LIKE THE STORY OF "JOB" IN THE BIBLE IT CANNOT TOUCH YOU DIRECTLY. ONLY WITH PERMISSION FROM GOD IS THE DEVIL ALLOWED TO TOUCH YOU. SINCE IT WAS A HANDS OFF POLICY SATAN HAD LAW ENFORCEMENT THE NYPD COME AFTER ME AND FRAME ME AND ARREST ME. WHERE THEY TOOK ME WAS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE JEWS THEY TOOK TO THE DEATH CAMPS. THEY TOOK ME TO THE SUB BASEMENT OF A MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND PUT ME IN A JAIL CELL AND 40 FEET AWAY DOWN IN THIS DREAEY BASEMENT. YOU SAW 2 BIG OPEN DOORS AND YOU HEARD THE BOILER RUNNING. ASK YOURSELF WHAT IS A JAIL CELL DOING ON THE SAME LEVEL NEXT TO A BOILER ROOM. IF THE BOILER EXPLODED OR IF IT SPEWED OUT SMOKE YOU ARE DEAD. IT WAS BUILT OBVIOUSLY FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.OUTSIDE THOSE DOORS WAS A BIG FELLOW WEARING A TANK TOP TATOOED ALL OVER HIS BODY UP THE SIDE OF HIS FACE. IT WAS LIKE MID EVIL TIMES IN ENGLAND OF THE HATCHET MAN THAT CHOPPED YOUR HEAD OFF. AS I LOOKED OVER TO THE OPEN DOORS LISTENING TO THE BOILER RUNNING. THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT CAME INTO MY HEAD WAS: "THEY ARE GOING TO BURN ME ALIVE IN THE BOILER". AT THAT MOMENT THE DEVIL APPEARED AS A MAN THIS TIME AND SAID THESE WORDS: "BELIEVE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU IT IS REAL". I JUST LOOKED A SATAN RIGHT IN THE FACE WITH ITS HATRED. AFTER THE DEVIL LEFT 8 PLAIN CLOTHES NYPD COPS CAME INTO THE JAIL CELL AND SURROUNDED ME. THE REST OF THIS STORY IS IN MY BOOK. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE ALMIGHTY GOD PROTECTING ME. THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE BURNED ME TO A CRISP THE SAME WAY THE NAZI'S BURNED THE JEWS ALIVE IN THE OVENS. YOU PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP REAL QUICK. WHAT I WROTE HERE YOU CAN'T MAKE UP. IT IS A SMALL PART OF A TREMENDOUS STORY THAT THE DEVIL DOESN'T WANT ME WRITING. BOTH GOD AND THE DEVIL EXIST.
Can you prove that the earth is not 6000 years old?
TOPSOIL ACCUMILATES AT 1cm EVERY 100 years. ON AVERAGE THE TOPSOIL IS 2 FEET. SINCE THERE IS ROUGHLY 30 cm IN A FOOT. 2 X 30 = 60 X 100 - 6000 YEARS.
IF THE EARTH WAS OLDER.
300,000,000 FOREST AS CLAIMED BY SCIENTISTS/100 LIFE SPAN OF TREE = 3,000,000 TREES HAD TO REPRODUCE FOR THAT 1 TREE TO HAVE SUSTAINED ITSELF TO MODERN DAY AND THERE ARE MILLIONS OF OTHER TREES IS THAT VERY SAME FOREST THAT HAVE DONE THE SAME. THE AMOUNT OF BIOMASS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN CALCULATIONS OF KILO TONS IS ASTOUNDING. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BIOMASS? WITHOUT QUESTION ITS A YOUNG EARTH.
@Jim Sirette, EVOLUTION IS A FARCE. WITHOUT THE ADVANCE DESIGNS IN SPECIES COMING FIRST, THEY WOULD HAVE ALL BECOME EXTINCT. SECONDLY SINCE THE FOOD CHAIN IS PREDATORY IN NATURE. MEANS LIFE WOULD HAVE BECOME EXTINCT FROM THE START. THEY EVOLVED FROM EACH OTHER AND THEN ATE EACH OTHER. LIKE THE NORTH AMERICAN LYNX AND THE SNOW SHOOT HARE WHICH BOTH HAVE THE IDENTICAL SKELETAL BONE STRUCTURE WHERE THE SNOW SHOOT HARE IS MUCH SMALLER IN SIZE WHICH BY EVOLUTIONARY STANDARDS MEANS THEY EVOLVED FROM EACH OTHER. WITH EVOLUTION THE BULLSHIT NEVER STOPS.
Of course it can, and by virtue of true speech within your dialogue or discussion you will _learn_ new ideas and be dissuaded from holding your old opinions.
This idea that ignorant people should be excluded is the very antithesis of the enlightenment and the rational age,.
"Yes I had a personal revelation, but only because I was searching for something. "
Well.... you don't say....
Dawkins is amazingly patient. I also like how he leaves no question on what he thinks of a 6,000 year old Earth.
As harmless as this chap may appear he would be one of the last people I'd want to teach my kids.
This person that Professor Dawkins is talking to should be ignored and shouldn't be given a platform.
That would be awesome if he didn't have a platform but he does as a teacher.
The zoom at 15:29 makes it look like an episode of The Office hahaha
Fascinating to observe people who have this kind of psychology
🤦♀️ oh my Darwin! What the hell is this! I feel so sorry for Richard putting up with this nonsense.
You pretty
For Hitchens sake!
you know why he's pissed off about evolution because evolution made his hairline recede
Basic old age does that , it's called devaluation.
god's pranking him. Like shaving a bit of eyebrow off every night.
Yes but in his infinite wisdom god created Rogaine.
His title says it all.... chemistry teacher and creationist. An excellent example of mutually exclusive!!!
Every time Nick Cowan says "evolution," pretend he says "round Earth."
"evidence from scriptures"
To me that seems like a very relaxed use of the word "evidence".
Just what I thought and was amazed Dawkins didn’t ask for proof of that “ evidence “
After every single answer Richard Dawkins gives, this guy immediately changes the subject und just says something entirely different.
Regardless of which side of the fence you are on. This is a very respectful debate.
If more people could discuss differences of opinion in a calm and respectful manner like this we would all be better of.
His mind was so open to all these creationist ideas his brain fell out. Unfortunately Dawkins couldn't help him find it.
Why do the creationists who Dawkins interviews always laugh when presented with factual evidence that disproves their beliefs? Perhaps it's just nervous laughter, but it seems very rude, and serves to highlight their ignorance.
I noticed that too. Wendy Wright did it several times.
I think all creationists do that
Because they're assholes
He was outwardly laughing at the mans point of views, "disarmed"? Maybe from the sheer audacity of being so flagrantly intellectually dishonest.
Tim Webb - wow, did you even watch the video? Dawkins wasn't "disarmed" by anything. He just seemed shocked that a chemistry teacher (of all people) could believe in such wacky things that obviously contradict all of the best scientific evidence.
I am now an Athiest. It was not easy to understand for me. I was convinced that life was so miraculous, that there had to be a unifying Consciousness. It was not easy for me to understand the flaws in that way of thinking. Now I get it, i find it hard to understand what was so difficult. The tipping point for me was asking myself what I honestly, really know about anything. We are extremely ignorant, and arrogant by nature . We know not much of anything, but assume we are so special. Our brightest minds are actually not much brighter than the average Joe. Actually they are only just bright enough, to summon the intelligence to lead a small few of us out of belief and superstition. The rest are doomed to drag down future generations into fuzzy thinking and fear of scientific thinking.
Much respect to Dawkins, he attempts to understand the other guy, while the other guys just waiting for a turn to spew bs vocally.
You can tell this guy is severely intimidated by Dawkins, notice how he constantly shifts from eye contact then quickly away, like a lying child.
Love how he uses "american" as an insult.
He actually uses 'right wing fundamentalist American' as an insult, which it is.
dawkins was very respectful and unchallenging to cowan. he could have DESTROYED him like all the others who fell before him. mercy is true power.
Destroy him then, let us see you magnum opus of ideas. I'm genuinely interested in your complete takedown of evolutionary science.
-The proteins essential to life require only 20-40 amino acids actually
I know you meant well with all that, but it would be extremely time consuming explaining all these things point by point to you. I didn't even see the word prokaryotes mentioned in there when you're trying to explain the beginning of life? Nothing about the 6 key beginning elements on earth at the time of the beginning of life( They are oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus by the way)? C'mon man, please do your research. The most I can do at this point is link you to a site that makes complex scientific theories easier to understand because i don't think i can get through to you.
www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life_early.html
I encourage you to go through each page and try to understand each concept and not try to rationalize a deity in somewhere. Try being objective for once in your life.
Best of Luck Tim, I think i'm done with your dishonest ways.
He always is. The man seemed very nice and polite, no reason to be anything else in return.
I remember Sagan saying that the best discussion is no discussion at all sometimes.
Every time I hear a creationist with an English accent I'm completely amazed. It's surprising enough to me to meet an English adult under 60 years old that even goes to church.
Creationist: Here's my point.
Dawkins: Here's a shitload of evidence, logic and common sense to the contrary
Creationist: Well...that's as may be, but here's another random point.
Dawkins: Rinse and repeat.
I know this is probably going to fall on deaf ears, you seem quite invested in shoving your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALA" by your replies on a number of comments here, but for my own personal enjoyment, I suppose I'll respond.
I'd love to know what your definition of propaganda is and why scientific facts fit that definition.
He's spent decades debating and researching the merits of evolution, what personal experience are you talking about? He was religious when he was younger and has likely a far deeper understanding of it than you do. What in the world is the point you're even trying to make here?
He has a Masters and Doctorate degree in Zoology (I should mention, because I'm really struggling to think you know what that is, Zoology is not the study of public Zoos, please google it). He's an Evolutionary Biologist that was also awarded a Doctorate of Science Degree from Oxford and was their Professor for the Public Understanding of Science for over 10 years. Here's a list of honorary degrees he's earned: the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, University of Valencia. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University. Hell, you've literally called one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society "not a scientist" LOL.
You're either entirely ignorant of the man you're attempting to discredit, or you know he is, in fact, a scientist and you've chosen to spread falsehoods to somehow reaffirm the insecurity in your faith he's brought on.
To the first point: Use Google next time, you'll look less foolish. (Not by much)
To the second: If you have to lie to make yourself feel better about your religion... perhaps it's wrong?
Tim Webb... Sorry, but every sentence you wrote is completely incorrect.
+Tim Webb Man get over it. Joey showed your incapability of being a serious part in any conversation of this sort. There is no based argumentation, just shouting out the thoughts in written form (which means you had the possibility to double check and still decided to make this exact point...). please educate yourself because ignorance and absence of knowledge is a huge problem in the today's world's society and only leads to war and injustice...
@@HeadiestOne
I am not discrediting the man, but to believe that everything was came from nothing is lunacy, that is the reason I call him Lunatic Dawkins.LOL
Do you know what he said when he can't answer a simple question? Ready???
OH MY GOD! 😅🖕
@@joeyfeliciano9199 Science is understanding more and more now how something CAN come from nothing. There's a difference between something being untrue because it is untrue...and something being untrue because you don't understand how it works.
Religion is poison. Ruined what probably is an otherwise great teacher.
I doubt it, he seems to lack all sorts of critical thinking mechanisms...
Scott: That man doesn't look ruined to me at all.thanks
He's not doing that though, he is keeping his lectures on chemistry and his own personal beliefs completely separate, as almost all of his students attest too. Nice try though
@Tim Webb that would be well and good if there were two "sides" to choose from. Science class is a place to learn about science. Not magic and woo-woo.
Tim Webb “Both sides” assumes there are just 2, which is false. “Teaching alternate theories” would need to include the creation story of every religion.
Both of them are so Civil and nice to watch..
Richard Dawkins:- is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.
I love how when Dawkins explains his misconceptions he just says that it doesn't matter. So much for truth
'it takes just one piece of evidence to disprove evolution' yet he fails to apply that to religion
Exactly. The most compelling argument against the genesis story: Adam was created before Eve, and yet, Adam has rudimentary breast nipples. Boom, genesis explodes from the inside. And with the genesis also the whole remainings.
He actually comes across as a very kind person, seems a true gentleman.
But still delusional
@@mashbury massively
There is a certain deep satisfaction I get from these type of conversations, consistently watching Richard Dawkins get handed his own ass.
This guy is really nuts.
Don't talk about Richard Dawkins like that.
Graham Rogers He is not.
Graham Rogers maybe he means that he's nuts because he bothered to engage in a debate with someone like this
Tim Webb
Finally you have one thing right.
Tim Webb
If your delusion last more than four hours, consult your local Atheist.
LOL, "personal gods" is nothing more than adult versions of childrens "invisible friends".
The difference between desire for facts vs desire for an outcome
The problem with teaching creationism in schools is that it will be too expensive given the thousands and thousands of creationist stories that must be treated as 'valid' and taught as such. Science is literally agnostic in this sense. You can freeze water anywhere in the world and the results will be the same regardless of the culture/belief system involved.
anyone notice how he switched from biology immediately to physics once he realized the person I was talking to has a better understanding of science than what he's used to
Tim Webb got a kicking?? Did you watch the same footage?
How can he be allowed to be a science teacher ?
Ha Ka must be a shortage of good ones
nick cowan's voice sounds so much like a voice i remember from some early 80's cartoons, i cant quite remember which it was but i think it was a voice i remember narrating a cartoon.
This camera view makes me feel like I'm a character in a Bethesda game talking to an NPC.
I wish Dawkins wouldn't give these people a platform they don't deserve to debate. This guy should not be a teacher.
I actually agree with you Tim, he does have a right to say all these things and debate them. Actual scientists and reasonable people understand he is wrong of course but he still has the right. Tim he says over and over again that he never mentions his religious belief in the classroom, so he actually doesn't teach this. Glad you understand that those are strictly nicks opinions though, and you can discern them from actual fact
This guy's hair didn't fall out, it fell in and clogged his brain.
L M A O
I genuinely laughed at that and just woke everyone up 😐
It all boils down to what one believes.... but the problem with faith is that it is simply a belief without an evidence. Say, you can have faith that there are fairies, but again there is no plausible evidence for that.
Richard Dawkins clearly has good knowledge with apt evidence on God and religion, against Nick and religion in general. Big appreciator of his (Richard's) work on evolutionary biology.
Atheistic types have faith....BLIND faith since it has NO evidence that we can get all this naturally on its own.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I had a disagreement with my boss at work, I was wondering how I can show up to work and manage myself in future.
Now that I have seen this video, I can confirm that my life is far easy.
This is like a rap battle
Yeah, like Eminem vs Machine Gun Kelly. And I won't mention which one represents Dawkins because we already know.
@@bskee001 Dawkins would be Vanilla Ice
Information: backed by mathematical experiments that can be recreated. Opinion: backed by a really old book that's has more versions than 'Batman'.
It’s nice to see people who do not agree enjoying a debate with each other
When he says both sides, he means his side with a few scientific words sprinkled in where they seem to fit.
13:32 "We start with a belief, and I believe in a transcendent God..." from that presumption this man then leads the evidence, instead of following the facts. Sorry example of a "scientist".
@Tim Webb BIG BANG EVOLUTION IS A MASONIC LIE HIDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN. ISAAC NEWTON CHARLES DARWIN AND ALBERT EINSTEIN NEVER PROVED A DAMN THING ALL BOGUS THEORIES AND FREE MASONS LIES INCLUDING THE FAKE DINOSAURS WE WERE TAUGHT ABOUT AT SCHOOL ALL MADE FROM PLASTIC BONES GIRAFFES KNECKS BONES DEAD ANIMALS AND MAMMALS REPTILE BONES ETC STRAIGHT OUT OF JURASSIC PARK A TOTAL HOAX CAN YOU IMAGINE THESE HUGE GREAT UGLY BEASTLY SCARY GHASTLY REPUGNANT LOOKING CREATURES CHASING US HUMANS ALL OVER THE PLACE COME ON WAKE UP PEOPLE WE HAVE TAUGHT THIS NONSENSE FOR OVER 150 YEARS SPREAD ACROSS EUROPE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. ANTHONY FLEW A WORLD RENOWNED FORMER ATHEIST SCIENTIST OF 50 YEARS WHO PASSED AWAY IN 2010 WROTE A BOOK ON THIS SUBJECT MATTER ENTITLED THERE IS A GOD HE BELIEVED IN THE GOD OF ARISTOTLE I.E DEISM IT MAKES ALOT MORE SENSE. THERE IS TOO MUCH ORDER COMPLEXITY ORGANISATION PERFECTION DESIGN IN OUR UNIVERSE AND ALL LIVING MATTER FOR THERE NOT TO BE A INTELLIGENT DESIGNER A CREATOR BEHIND ALL LIVING MATTER. HE ANTHONY FLEW WEIGHED ALL THE EVIDENCES AND THE SHERR COMPLEXITY OF OUR HUMAN.DNA WAS ANOTHER REASON FOR HIS CONVERSION I WONDER WHATS STOPPING MR DAWKINS?
@@mohammedjamil2277 your religion says everything about your opinion. The follower of a backward belief even worse than paganism. How can anyone listen to a person who believes Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horsed. Where’re your proof? You accuse three of the most intelligent beings in history of having proved nothing and have the audacity to come on here with the ramblings of a religious fanatic.
Tell me he didn't just say that Neanderthals were alive in the 1700s
He did
+Kaiser Wilhelm II 😩
GoGamerz GnO I'm sorry, some people are just THAT stupid
+Kaiser Wilhelm II ignorance more than anything else
GoGamerz GnO yeah
It's as simple as this: People are terrified of giving up their belief in a deity at all costs due to a feeling of trepidation about what if they're wrong. Nobody truly knows one way or the other. One thing is for sure however, the world in which we live is truly remarkable.
I personally see where this man is coming from, but still, facts are what matter more than anything above all!!!