Evolution is difficult to understand and what you do know about it scares you. The solution to being lost in the dark is more light, more truth. Take some time and read about geologic time, the mechanisms of genetic change over time and you open yourself to a world of discovery. The theory of evolution is awe inspiring.
I'm not religious at all and don't believe in any one theory of our origin. I'm wondering what proof have you seen that we, over time, turned from one species to another? None at all right? Ring species prove that species can evolve in certain ways, but in no way prove of one species turning to another in the way that evolution says we originated.
sackfrancisco49 But what is it that separates two species but more of their DNA differing? That life changes over time is a fact--we've found no cows in Jurassic rock, and there are no T-Rex's today. Evolution explains how this change happened. So if you have no problem with small changes, what problem do you have with those small changes stacked end to end until, when you zoom out, you have a big change? We've never seen the inside of an atom, we've never seen a star turn into a red giant, we've never seen a single particle being in tow physical places at the same time, yet quantum mechanics is one our most solid theories. Science isn't about what we can "see" with our eyes in real time, but it gives us a kind of sigh that extends backward and forward in time. The only assumption required is that the laws of nature stayed/will stay the same.
***** Is there any proof of one species, over time, becoming a completely different looking species? Thats my point. You cant say ''Well these werent there then'' and fill in the blanks with well it must have morphed into a completely different form and act like its anything close to fact, at least yet. I dont see any of these things you listed in your 2nd paragraph as similar in any way.
sackfrancisco49 Do you believe that yellow stars exist? If so, do you believe red giants exist? If so, do you believe the models and theories which explain their behavior and life cycle? Why do we think our star-models are correct? Because when we apply that model to what we see, it all makes sense, we see stars "frozen" in a stage of their life cycle. No one has ever seen a star turn into a red giant, takes millions of years. Evolution is the same. We know animals and plants change over time. The theory we have to explain that lets us make predictions which can be tested. For example, the way we found tiktaalik. Evolution predicted a species "between" something like a fish and something like a frog. We went looking where we knew from other evidence there was coastline in the past at the same time-period we predicted/expected the transition, and we found it. The specific attributes we were looking for and predicted were proved true. Now, put it all together. We can see life forms evolve small changes, we see it all the time. Evolution is use to predict disease outbreaks, etc. As long as the laws of nature don't change, we simply wind the clock back and those small changes which we do see, accumulate. Seeing a big change is impossible, lol, because what we perceive as a big change is really a series of smaller ones. We also cannot, and will never be able to, "see" a _single_ particle being in _two_ places at the same time. Yet, quantum mechanics is the major theory of matter, like evolution is the major theory of biology. The question you should be asking yourself is, "why do I single out evolution?" Science isn't about what we can see with our eyes in real-time, and you won't find any accepted definition of science which suggests this ;) If you think you can, paste it here or us with a link. Science also isn't in the business of absolutely proving things (again, if you disagree, provide a link)--nothing can do that, but science gets closer than anything.
***** I dont single out evolution, theres no real proof of the big bang theory either. I dont buy for a second that we have to capability to know that. And okay it isn't in the business of absolutely proving things, which is why evolution as it relates to turning into a completely different looking species is not a fact nor is big bang theory. Now, put it all together. We can see life forms evolve small changes, we see it all the time. Evolution is use to predict disease outbreaks, etc. As long as the laws of nature don't change, we simply wind the clock back and those small changes which we do see, accumulate. Seeing a big change is impossible, lol, because what we perceive as a big change is really a series of smaller ones. - True but none of these in any way tell me something can change forms over time. How is turning into a red giant in any way similar to a life form turning into a completely different looking species? Yea the amount of time may be similar but nothing more. And all Im saying is its not a fact, as you said yourself. I never said I dont believe its true, I just said I dont believe in any one specific theory of our origin because you simply cant know.
Let me say this. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, if you don't take the time and effort to extensively research the opposing argument, your opinion does not deserve any credit. How is your opinion objectively any more credible than the next person when your argument is devoid of reason, training or any kind of mental capital. It's like being a plumber giving advice to the heart surgeon who is performing a surgery, and expecting the heart surgeon to listen. Sure the plumber may understand the basic concepts of pressure and valves, but he can't even be in the same discussion as the surgeon. I'm sure a lot of you don't appreciate the years of failures, sleepless nights, writing and relentless criticism it takes to even generate an article. This article has to be peer-reviewed by critical scientists before it gets published. Then other scientists have to read this article, cite it and test it for themselves in large numbers before it gets recognition. Then finally at some point this scientific discovery that defines a portion of nature might get recognition as a theory that is presented in textbooks for the public to see if its lucky. The theory of evolution did not only become a theory, it has stood the test of time in the eyes of critical scientists. No, the modern version is not completely Darwin's original theory (Darwin could not comprehend genetics in his time). However, scientists do not have the luxury of changing our views at the whim of one person, maintaining our views just because a book said so or maintaining them because we just feel like it is right. Our guide to whether theories are right is rooted in the REALITY of nature. What is the purpose of a scientific model that doesn't predict how nature behaves? When questions arise we must address them with more knowledge and logic, not make-up rules as they become popular. This is why scientists have the ability to be coherent in our message. It isn't conspiracy. It is logic. In summary, saying the theory of evolution is JUST a theory is not acceptable as a critical argument of evolution. It is extremely offensive to criticize generations/decades of scientific work with the beliefs that you furnished from being incapable of logically questioning your own childhood teachings that are otherwise completely devoid of everything else you know of reality. Anything that you can't question and criticize isn't worth believing in. Without this questioning you are blindly loyal. Blind loyalty leads to manipulation by the party to which you are loyal. If the loyalty is well-placed, how would you know? Why do you know better than any Baptist, Catholic, Scientologist, Satanist, Pagan, Muslim or other religious person? You should be able to answer that for yourself. And when you have the answer, ask yourself why? Believing in God is fine by me (I was raised a Catholic by loving parents and a good community), but have the decency and respect to educate yourself enough to devise a good rebuttal before you start discarding what this man says as lies and deceit.
In my opinion, you should at least know: 1. The scientific method (its history and its modern definition) 2. Evolution (its history and its modern definition) 3. The history of the Renaissance and the Dark Ages (I recommend looking at the Italian Renaissance) 4. Sex, Death, and the Meaning of Life feat. Richard Dawkins (highly recommended) I of course encourage you to look at more before making a decision. However, if you feel this list is too comprehensive for you: grow up or shut up! Scientists and historians have taken the time to synthesize decades of work and hundreds of pages of articles so the layman can understand some rather complicated topics. If you want to find the truth like a true researcher, look up the original scientific articles and see if you come to the same conclusion.
Can evolution prove how life came from non life? Amino acid being struck by lightning? That one first life then passed life to billions of species? Cmon you got to be kidding
@@ariffbasri Evolution is not meant to prove how life came from non life, it is meant to prove that every living animal has a common ancestor, and that the complex biodiversity (and complex organisms like us) that we see today, come from simple beings that evolved because of natural selection and other things too. What you are referring to is abiogenesis, which is the study of life from non-life, and although all the details of this process are not fully known, it is a hypothesis that shows us that the process from life to non-life was not something instantaneous and that by chemical, geological, atmospherical processes, life may have arisen.
When I read the vast majority of the comments on Mr. Dawkins videos I get surprised, then I relax as I understand that the majority of these guys that shout on him have read neither Dawkins nor Darwin nor The Bible. But they have their opinion.
***** I've read what Dawkins says about love, clearly he's delighted about love, he can't explain it and the truth is that he doesn't want to eplain it.
***** Would be a long story and not only biochemestry is the way our brain works, what the brain portrays and what he wants to see in a specific being, place or action.
***** But the idea of philosophy is ideas that can be proved or disproved through reason and logic. Since they are almost always to do with morals/ethics, you can't really use evidence. But you can use reason and logic. Philosophy and religion are very far apart because of this.
@@semilio1 love is an emotion and it comes from part of the brain responsible for that. He shouldn’t have to explain that, your teacher at school would have explained that
From which mother the first wife the second or the thirty. He also could have some affairs with other women, and he would not care if you were molested as a child as long as you don't believe the truth.
@@MariusVanWoerden He has one daughter from his three marriages, but if you have faith in the idea that he is a monster, then he will be in your own mind. Lots of believers who don't believe in what you believe, so who is right and how do you prove it?
I have read this (and previous) book. It is in a simple language, which is easy to understand for laymen. Very elegantly written about an undeniable and evidence based fact, i.e., evolution. My deepest respect!
So show your respect. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Thank you Dawkins for giving me the confidence to think outside the box without letting religious fanatics bring me down. My life is so much more enjoyable this way.
Stop pretending you think. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
You love absurdity too. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@mutlukats that's because evolution IS a theory and will ALWAYS be a theory unless it is overturned by new and compelling scientific evidence. Scientific use of the word "Theory" does not have the same definition that the layman uses.
I LOVE MY INNER DEMONS! LETS FEAST ON BABY FLESH AND CRUCIFY THOSE WHO DISOBEY US FELLOW ATHEISTS!! YEAH! THATS WHAT WE ARE ABOUT ALL THE WAY! For fuck sake, religion is much more stupid then atheism. Its incredibly funny how religious people call us delusional, and incredibly ironic, we dont believe that a floating being made this planet, its cruelty, and its complexity with the snap of a finger, and that the planet is 6000 years old. We believe nature did, and that its billions of years instead... and we can see nature, and nature that has happened in the past (fossils etc.) Can you see your god? oops nope.... Well we see our reality. Wake up... dont send me a fucking bible verse or preach religious nonsense against this comment either, you dont change my mind. Go ahead, say ill burn in hell and use ad hominem, it wont do fuck all to me because even if the god from the bible did exist, his cruelty is limitless, and he is egotistic.. dont try and deny this, actually read the fucking bible okay? Religion gives you a land of bliss and eternal happiness after death, why wouldnt someone believe that?.... but them there are atheists, who dont want something that makes them feel happy, they want something that is true, and has some evidence to be true.
I like the way he talks. I admire his refinement, his knowledge of science, his friendly manner, and his correct diction. What he says, the content relating to Darwinism, evolution, and anti-religion...NOT so much. But I still LIKE him.
I like your comment, it's polite and you use correct grammar, a rare occurence on the internet. But still, why not? I'd be interested to hear about your view.
Henry Cookson Liking someone is based on emotion more than reason. But I am aware of Professor Dawkin's various agendas. One is science. Obviously he's a scientist, and not only that but a Darwinian scientist. I haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to Biology compared to him. So obviously he knows much more than I do. The other big axe he grinds is ANTI-Religion. There I'm a bit more in my element, closer to his level. In fact I believe my knowledge of the bible is superior to his. But I'm not anti Dawkins. I respect his stand against organized religion. I actually agree that religion has been granted far too many privileges, particularly in Western nations. I cope with my somewhat conflicted point of view by compartmentalizing, a not uncommon psychological ploy. In my view the spiritual issues of the bible are an entirely separate case from the technical and biological facts of our modern world. The gray area where they seem to overlap is difficult for me to address because I don't like personal conflict. I don't like to argue. But if you want more insight into my view all you have to do is ask, the more specific your question the better for me.
quaz imodo Well, I understand your point. But unfortunately, what he does is necessary. I've heard him saying in a speech that religion makes specific claims about the universe, and should be dealt with as such. Putting aside all other issues, religion ends up promoting scientific illiteracy and since he is a scientist, this is his area of expertise.
quaz imodo Anti religion isn't even bad. I could understand being against any belief in god whatsoever. But you don't actually need a religion to have faith in a god anyways
Because your mind is unsound also. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@carlpierce2486 how the universe created itself naturally AND got around the laws I gave by your evidence of...."2fast how did you dismiss universe creating pixies ?" RD would have been proud of you.
Richard Dawkins and his books - "The God Delusion" totally changed my Life. I was into Hinduism before but now I'm now an Atheist. I suggest everyone to go ahead and read his book, It's Witty, Fascinating, Deals with the Subject of God and has a lot of humor and Truth in it. Hope everyone gets to see through their Close Minded Religious Beliefs and wake up into accepting the Reality after reading his Book. ( You can just download an e-book on Google if you look for it )
Growing up in Germany I never really realized that some people refuse the theory of evolution. It was accepted as an established fact. Only when coming to the USA I was confronted with people who don’t believe in evolution.
While some people comment evolution to not to be a science, others are inhibited by religious indoctrination. I urge all to go through basics of cell biology, molecular biology, geological time, and then evolution. Let's open our eyes. Prof. Dawkins is not misleading anyone or telling fairy tales. He is just telling scientific truths.
if only you read darwin, precisely the part on the imperfection of the geological record you would not have said that. but, of course, it is the job of people who do not believe in an a priori manner to eliminate any probability of understanding the very thing they refute. evolution predicts the accumulation of precursors but geology predicts their extreme rarity. And the evidence FOR evolution would be overwhelming without fossils.
+L. Priebe look up Richard Dawson oh RUclips stating he was duped! He stated that DNA apeares to be CREATED , but states that whoever created it was CREATED by , Mabe aliens ? These aliens were created by accident , by evolution. But later stated he was tricked into saying it ? Somthing like that . But keep up your faith ! Don't lookup where people like him contradict themselves. Fuck that , stay with the faith! DO NOT think for yourself ! DO NOT study anything other than preapproved propaganda ! Follow the sheep ! If you don't , well ...
Jimmy Burton it's not something that can be easily shown in everyday life ..not believing in evolution has no real world consequences so it's easy for people who don't believe in it to dismiss it. Also the people who push evolution tend to be assholes like Dawkins so that could also factor in the non-acceptance of it. Most people ignore/reject people they don't like regardless if it's the truth
weiberfeind Does that meen you believe or disbelieve in evolution ? Hay I don't the have the answers . But evolutionist make me believe evolution is wrong the more I listen to them .
Jimmy Burton just pointing out the messenger is just as important as the message. Catch more flies with honey than with vinegar..the biggest obstacles for science is the scientist being assholes..from Dawkins, to Harris to Krauss(Krauss who said that children should be taken from Christians...)
First Question: It came from our natural sense of gathering and companionship. Our ancestors gathered around campfires and told stories, performed dances, etc. Second Question: /watch?v=mqTbwMmwGlw might answer your question Third Question: It depends on your definition of beauty. Our ancestors might have defined something beautiful to be useful. This "appreciation" helped them to sort out something that is useful from something that's not. I hope these answers answered your questions.
I see an incredible increase in people who are willing to investigate and learn why evolution is true. The sciences keep investigating and adjusting the theory to make it more and more accurate. This isn't saying that the theory was wrong, it's saying that it's now more accurate now.
@CAVIGS1 I've read Dan Brown's book but I was aware of the Council of Nicea long before that. As far as I remember the main item on the agenda was to decide if Jesus was the son of god as he claimed. The point is that the early christian movement was riddled with debate about which texts should be included and which were heretical. The uniformity between various authors is a result of selection and editing, nothing miraculous in that! Even so, the bible is still full of contradictions.
The ability to appreciate beauty makes life more rich and meaningful, hence increasing our desire to survive and persist in an attempt to further experience the rich tapestry of emotions that existence offers.
Not quite sure what you mean. Could you explain the bits "whoever looses their life for me" and "whoever wants to save their life" in more detail so I can get your meaning. Thanks.
I've actually experienced people refusing to believe in evolution saying something along the lines of "you put an animal in a room and come back 100 years later haha I don't think so". People really can find it difficult to wrap their head around such a large expanse of time. Claiming evolution to be fake when only examining an organism for 100 years is like claiming metal can't melt when you didn't heat it up enough.
You brought up an important point. A lot of people will argue that you don't need religion to be moral. They argue that an atheistic society would develop the same morals. The fact is, the morals that we currently employ are based in religious tradition. So, you can't say that an atheistic culture would be just as moral as a religious one, since you have no proof. On the other hand, any society that has taken on an anti religious attitude has lead to the worst atrocities in human history.
Music, poetry, and dance are all forms of art. Art is all about expression. We express ourselves through music, poetry, and even dance. Excluding Poetry, art is communication without verbal communication. It is our primary language that all people around the world can understand. The basis and foundation of our communication.
I'm new to being atheist, and as such am exploring many of its big names. I have always heard Richard Dawkins is extremely mean and aggressive. Yet, what as I watch his videos and interviews, he seems quite calm and kind. He doesn't avoid calling out what is wrong, which is were his view as aggressive might come from. On this subject, anyone have any recommendations for good books? I'm already going to read The Greatest Show on Earth, just wondering what other books are good.
if we DID evolve, how can science answer this; - where did our appreciation for for music, dance, poetry etc. evolve - where did love evolve? - what does the appreciation of beauty have to do with survival?
When I referred to Evolution, I was not referring to the concept of evolving based on one's environment. The fact that organisms can adapt to environments and change over time was not in question. I agree, that knowledge has benefit. What I was referencing was that man was not created by God, but by some other evolutionary means. These are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if I believe in evolution as the origin of man, what benefit does it have to my life over religion? That was my point.
I read "The Ancestor's Tale" before I read this book. It was full of straight science. Genetics, ecology, ect. Damn I should have read this book first. Now that I understand all these process better I have to go back and reread "The Ancestor's Tale."
I humbly accept that my PROOF is the Bible that was written quite long ago,around 3500 yrs started by Moses,but i feel it makes mores sense than other books. Written by 40 men of different backgound and who mostly didn't met or see each other, and was finished to complete 16010yrs and w/ a narratives that covered 4000 yrs.How come a book such as the Bible come to us in such a fashion and with so many enemies,come to us in shape and with such a coherent story to tell?I can just walk away &smile.
I believe that many things in the Bible are meant to be interpreted as parables. In fact, Jesus specifically used parables in the NT all the time. There wasn't a literal occasion in which ten virgins were without oil, but it was meant to teach that we must never procrastinate and always be prepared. However, there are a few things to be taken literally. I personally feel that "God created man in His own image" is meant to be taken literally, and Evolution does not allow for that.
"Imagine that we humans had created robots that eventually were able to reproduce and improve themselves according to their environment, humans died out and after millions of years the robots came up with a theory of their evolution based on bits of old machines they dug up. Their theory would not in any way disprove the existence of humans. Instead it would be a sign of a higher intelligence that bought them about"
@eckyhen "Debating evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks the pieces over, shits on the board, then flies back to it's flock to claim victory" I love it! Having just left a Christian rehab - in the deep south bible-belt no less - (let's just say I was doing "research") after 60 days, I can attest to the truth of that quote. Thanks for sharing.
@MrBeerbug then I'd like to hear your reflections because, like you, I grew up in a non-believer culture; and, emotionally, I always wanted to find God, but my reflective self got the better of me: the more I reflected, the more distant I found myself from religion. My question to you is, do your reflections have an error checking mechanism? Plenty of evidence in psychology demonstrates we're prone to errors in our deliberations. What makes you think your reflections are not way off target?
Yes it's similar to thermodynamic, however it's information instead of energy. Even an star as a source of energy doesn't contain a lot of information, because it's chaotic and the parameters (mass, composition, temperature...) is all the information contained it there. The Kolmogorov complexity (see that on wikipedia) is a good definition of what I mean by "information".
Evolution is one of the most solid scientific theories humanity uncovered. We are more certain about evolution than gravity. I would bet my life that it will not be disproved. This is how convinced I am by the evidence I have inspected so far. It is overwhelmingly convincing. Rejecting evolution is insane, given what we know.
He sure is right about the word ignorant. People use it to mean stupid and they don't even know that's not what it means. But, language evolves and changes so even though it's the wrong usage it's so common it now takes on that meaning.
@MrBeerbug so, let me get this straight. Your logic is this: 1. there are things (to be called "miracles") that happen rearely and upredictably 2. I cannot explain why they occur 3. I believe they happen independently and regardless of our intervention. Therefore, there is a sentient being who is responsible for making these things ("miracles") occur. Is this a fair summary of your logic? If not, correct me where I get it wrong.
Evolution is not just a historical theory, but a concept and a process that doesn´t even need proof, it works by definition. It´s a very simple and magnificent process that consists of trial and error and constructive feedback from the environment. It has been applied in computer programs and it works beautifuly. Peace!
The best tactic in the Evolution vs. Creationism/I.D debate is getting the message of evolution out of the Academy into the public’s field of view is the task at hand. Dawkins says that scientists are in large measure to blame for the woeful public ignorance about the ideas of evolution. I agree. In my experience, it is invariably the lack of general understanding of this relatively accessible corpus of theoretical science on this topic that allows
Please elaborate on what you mean by "external information needed in the process" in relation to Lenski's study. Please also elaborate on what you mean by "something its DNA did not contain in the first place", as it sounds like you do not understand the mechanism of genetic variation, or in fact DNA, at all.
I ended up here because of the Nightwish album 'Endless forms most Beautiful', the composer was inspired by Dawkins' work and Dawkins's voice is on the album reading some excerpts from this book. One of the best symfonic metal albums ever.
WOAH! Hey! thank you random people on internet! I've never heard that song, but thanks to you that introduce to us! And after I listened to that, it's very very very awesome! The lyrics, the song.... it's Fckin awesome when metal band meet science (and the most importantly, it's not disappointing) I couldn't imagine Richard Dawkins have a metal band 😂😂😂
The biggest contradiction is that, it is temptation to believe in something transcendental. For whatever reason you're still giving into temptations. You never believe for "gods" sake, for he gives you no more gratification than what you feel inside. Call that god ALLLLLL you want, its just a vibrational resonance that you happen to be tempted to indulge in because it feels good. So what's to say the temptations I'm supposedly damn for are any different.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...all palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould)
@KewreL This book in Professor Dawkins own words was to write a book and show the evidence for evolution. Creationism of which I have no interest in, was not the reason I read this book for. He has written about creationism in his other books and didn't need to includ it here.
Ahhhhh Richard, its not lazy journalism, you're OUR God ;) We want to hear you, not a random athiest. Your arguments are impeccable, and you hit every note. Peace to all religions, each to their own, I'd never judge you.
@dac8555 No I didn't, if you read some of the previous comments you will see that I had already mentioned WWII and that I set it aside as he didn't agree that it was religiously motivated. I agree with you that it was in part religiously motivated, but for the sake or argument I didn't include it in my list.
The Greatest Show on Earth, filled in a lot of the blanks I had in my knowledge of how evolution. Will it change the mind of one creationist? I'm afraid not. Quote (not mine) "Debating evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks the pieces over, shits on the board, then flies back to it's flock to claim victory"
'By animals that more or less resemble us, and plants that resemble us a little less' - the most ludicrous statement of all time! It is true that 'professing themselves to be wise they have become fools'.
@shinom0ri Einstein was correct to mention that we were very persistent and we are still persistent. We can't help ourselves as I have understood from your comments. His formula E=mc2 let us realize that nuclear fusion is responsible for stars to shine, not just by burning firewoods. Let's wait for another formula that would let us understand whether he was right or wrong. Otherwise, I take his quotation as a reference.
1. it came from our ancestors coming together and show their friend ship and trust, to show it they danced, made music and had fun, this strengths the group which is more likely for them to survive. 2. love is part of sexuality, our brains release chemicals to produce love. when we reproduce we want to defend our child and nurture it, love helps us do that. this helps with survival of the species as well. 3. not enough room ill reply again.
13 лет назад
I like the admission - of targeting people who have never really thought about evolution. Those that have cannot be reached precisely for the reason that they have thought about it, have reasoned it through, and drawn the sensible conclusion that macro evolution is impossible.
@mrjonno just to clarify, I don't have a problem with truths used in an non-metaphysical sense, such as when something is analytically true (e.g. a theorem in a formal system); or when you assert your hypothesis in a statistical analysis. I have a problem with truths the way you use it when you talk about science "getting closer to it". In that, metaphysical, sense, you're pretty much doing what folks have been doing for centuries - "getting closer to God", albeit in a de-personalized form.
This however begs the question: why insert a God? If it's okay for a God to exist and we don't have to question its origin, why is it not okay for the universe to just exist without us questioning its origin. And isn't that the simpler solution to the problem? And therefore, Occam's razor would have us believe, the likely one?
@TheNewCrankyWorkshop The problem is that if Professor Dawkins didn't write about religion there would be nothing for him to write about. The book was an opportunity to show the evidence for evolution. He does write about religion in other books so therefore could of omitted this subject area.
Message is more important than messenger. If the message goes through human logical mind, we don't need to know who the messenger is (Dawkins or anybody). Theists alike atheists need to study science for knowing the nature/universe. Science is not a tool to fight on whether God exists or not. The whole existence (known and unknown) itself is God and we can't deny that since we ourselves do exist. The beauty of science is that it corrects itself and never takes a dogmatic position like religion
The odds are low, I'll concede, but something would always have to happen. I mean throw a hundred dice, you have a 1 in 6^100 chance of getting that combination, but you still got it. To postulate the existence of a creator may seem tempting, but it's not supported by evidence apart from unlikelihood of chance occurrence. Take the dice again: the fact that it has that incredibly unlikely combination doesn't mean it's a "miracle". Plus, the creator's existence would also require explanation.
But my main point is: if a designer exists, the designer would Only have designed DNA. And that design has already been simplified, because in a very short timespan, amino acids can be "made" from conditions present when the Earth was young (ie: a few billion years ago) and energy (which was abundant). Just check out the Miller-Urey experiment. Nature really simplifies the Creator's job, doesn't it?
@mutlukats There's a big difference. A scientific "theory" is different from the way many people use the word "theory". A scientific theory is based on the culmination of fact and evidence - it becomes an accepted theory. The other use of the word is to express a possibility, an idea, etc. Google it...you'll get the point!
Sir Isaac Newton once said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." He researched the bible as much as he did science . His work on the bible was not published until well after his death. So that comment he made was not just a passing comment. Creation and science are the same thing. No conflict at all.
@MrBeerbug What I'd be interested in you explaining is whether the reason you feel compelled to believe in Christ over Buddhism is due to anything but your imagination (or somebody else's). If you think there's more to your choice than imagination, please be specific about what it is. For example, you may choose Christ over Buddha because you don't feel like being an outcast in a predominantly Christian social group. It just makes your life easy.
1. Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
@SLBS1234 RUclips won't let me copy-paste a previous post, so I sent it to you as a PM. You can find it on page 8 of the comments, I sent it to you 1 week ago.
@philosophyteacher And what exactly did Tacitus say about jesus? Merely that " 'Christus' was a Jew and a criminal whom Pontius Pilate had executed." as stated by biblical scholar Gerd Theissen. Tacitus (who wrote on the subject at 116 AD) curiously does not say anything about the alleged miracles, deeds, or words of jesus, but he begins his passage by saying, "Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations."
If Dawkins feels like the media perpetuated his "militant atheist" persona, then why didn't he just retreat, fall out of the media? If a movie star can do it, then there's no reason that someone as intelligent as him could do it, too.
As a specific example of improvement in quality of life based on the knowledge of evolution, the processes underlying evolution are key to research into understanding how viruses mutate and change. During the next major viral epidemic would you choose to rely on science or prayer as an antidote? Keep in mind that prayer didn't work particularly well for them during the bubonic plague.
@gupsphoo I don't know who you were addressing, it looks like a generic comment about all religious people. I am a Christian and science doesn't contradict Christianity at all.
RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
The fact is science is explained to normal people. someone who may not have seen a day in school can listen to Richard Dawkins and 'get' evolution. I know this, because education is still a big problem in Africa, but media spreads. these are exciting facts for anyone living any life
So you're for absurdity too. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
I disagree with his statement that being ignorant to evolution is the same as being ingnorant towards american football. I love sports, but education in a sport is never as important as education in an academic field. Not that you have to supress all athletic knowledge till you have aquired all the academic knowledge, I would never expect that, but one (academic) is more important than (athletic) knowledge. With the exception of keeping one's body in shape, that is important.
@MrBeerbug you're bringing up two different points that require digression into a another topic. To stick with the thread of our conversation, although I emotionally see myself being religious, I just cannot get over the hump of knowing that I'll believe in a fairy tale living my life. That's why I remain an atheist and find ways to make my life fullfilling without resorting to fiction.
"gradually mutating bit by bit" It has never been observed and never been simulated on a computer. That's pretty nice in theory, but according to probability and information theory, your most basic form of life then end up as a dead stack of atoms. Every time, even if you repeat the experience billion of times. There is no way you can avoir the intervention of a huge outside source of information.
Evolution is difficult to understand and what you do know about it scares you. The solution to being lost in the dark is more light, more truth. Take some time and read about geologic time, the mechanisms of genetic change over time and you open yourself to a world of discovery. The theory of evolution is awe inspiring.
I'm not religious at all and don't believe in any one theory of our origin. I'm wondering what proof have you seen that we, over time, turned from one species to another? None at all right? Ring species prove that species can evolve in certain ways, but in no way prove of one species turning to another in the way that evolution says we originated.
sackfrancisco49 But what is it that separates two species but more of their DNA differing? That life changes over time is a fact--we've found no cows in Jurassic rock, and there are no T-Rex's today. Evolution explains how this change happened. So if you have no problem with small changes, what problem do you have with those small changes stacked end to end until, when you zoom out, you have a big change?
We've never seen the inside of an atom, we've never seen a star turn into a red giant, we've never seen a single particle being in tow physical places at the same time, yet quantum mechanics is one our most solid theories. Science isn't about what we can "see" with our eyes in real time, but it gives us a kind of sigh that extends backward and forward in time. The only assumption required is that the laws of nature stayed/will stay the same.
***** Is there any proof of one species, over time, becoming a completely different looking species? Thats my point. You cant say ''Well these werent there then'' and fill in the blanks with well it must have morphed into a completely different form and act like its anything close to fact, at least yet.
I dont see any of these things you listed in your 2nd paragraph as similar in any way.
sackfrancisco49
Do you believe that yellow stars exist? If so, do you believe red giants exist? If so, do you believe the models and theories which explain their behavior and life cycle? Why do we think our star-models are correct? Because when we apply that model to what we see, it all makes sense, we see stars "frozen" in a stage of their life cycle. No one has ever seen a star turn into a red giant, takes millions of years.
Evolution is the same. We know animals and plants change over time. The theory we have to explain that lets us make predictions which can be tested. For example, the way we found tiktaalik. Evolution predicted a species "between" something like a fish and something like a frog. We went looking where we knew from other evidence there was coastline in the past at the same time-period we predicted/expected the transition, and we found it. The specific attributes we were looking for and predicted were proved true.
Now, put it all together. We can see life forms evolve small changes, we see it all the time. Evolution is use to predict disease outbreaks, etc. As long as the laws of nature don't change, we simply wind the clock back and those small changes which we do see, accumulate. Seeing a big change is impossible, lol, because what we perceive as a big change is really a series of smaller ones.
We also cannot, and will never be able to, "see" a _single_ particle being in _two_ places at the same time. Yet, quantum mechanics is the major theory of matter, like evolution is the major theory of biology.
The question you should be asking yourself is, "why do I single out evolution?" Science isn't about what we can see with our eyes in real-time, and you won't find any accepted definition of science which suggests this ;) If you think you can, paste it here or us with a link. Science also isn't in the business of absolutely proving things (again, if you disagree, provide a link)--nothing can do that, but science gets closer than anything.
***** I dont single out evolution, theres no real proof of the big bang theory either. I dont buy for a second that we have to capability to know that. And okay it isn't in the business of absolutely proving things, which is why evolution as it relates to turning into a completely different looking species is not a fact nor is big bang theory.
Now, put it all together. We can see life forms evolve small changes, we see it all the time. Evolution is use to predict disease outbreaks, etc. As long as the laws of nature don't change, we simply wind the clock back and those small changes which we do see, accumulate. Seeing a big change is impossible, lol, because what we perceive as a big change is really a series of smaller ones. - True but none of these in any way tell me something can change forms over time.
How is turning into a red giant in any way similar to a life form turning into a completely different looking species? Yea the amount of time may be similar but nothing more.
And all Im saying is its not a fact, as you said yourself. I never said I dont believe its true, I just said I dont believe in any one specific theory of our origin because you simply cant know.
Let me say this. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, if you don't take the time and effort to extensively research the opposing argument, your opinion does not deserve any credit. How is your opinion objectively any more credible than the next person when your argument is devoid of reason, training or any kind of mental capital. It's like being a plumber giving advice to the heart surgeon who is performing a surgery, and expecting the heart surgeon to listen. Sure the plumber may understand the basic concepts of pressure and valves, but he can't even be in the same discussion as the surgeon.
I'm sure a lot of you don't appreciate the years of failures, sleepless nights, writing and relentless criticism it takes to even generate an article. This article has to be peer-reviewed by critical scientists before it gets published. Then other scientists have to read this article, cite it and test it for themselves in large numbers before it gets recognition. Then finally at some point this scientific discovery that defines a portion of nature might get recognition as a theory that is presented in textbooks for the public to see if its lucky.
The theory of evolution did not only become a theory, it has stood the test of time in the eyes of critical scientists. No, the modern version is not completely Darwin's original theory (Darwin could not comprehend genetics in his time). However, scientists do not have the luxury of changing our views at the whim of one person, maintaining our views just because a book said so or maintaining them because we just feel like it is right. Our guide to whether theories are right is rooted in the REALITY of nature. What is the purpose of a scientific model that doesn't predict how nature behaves? When questions arise we must address them with more knowledge and logic, not make-up rules as they become popular. This is why scientists have the ability to be coherent in our message. It isn't conspiracy. It is logic.
In summary, saying the theory of evolution is JUST a theory is not acceptable as a critical argument of evolution. It is extremely offensive to criticize generations/decades of scientific work with the beliefs that you furnished from being incapable of logically questioning your own childhood teachings that are otherwise completely devoid of everything else you know of reality. Anything that you can't question and criticize isn't worth believing in. Without this questioning you are blindly loyal. Blind loyalty leads to manipulation by the party to which you are loyal. If the loyalty is well-placed, how would you know? Why do you know better than any Baptist, Catholic, Scientologist, Satanist, Pagan, Muslim or other religious person? You should be able to answer that for yourself. And when you have the answer, ask yourself why? Believing in God is fine by me (I was raised a Catholic by loving parents and a good community), but have the decency and respect to educate yourself enough to devise a good rebuttal before you start discarding what this man says as lies and deceit.
In my opinion, you should at least know:
1. The scientific method (its history and its modern definition)
2. Evolution (its history and its modern definition)
3. The history of the Renaissance and the Dark Ages (I recommend looking at the Italian Renaissance)
4. Sex, Death, and the Meaning of Life feat. Richard Dawkins (highly recommended)
I of course encourage you to look at more before making a decision. However, if you feel this list is too comprehensive for you: grow up or shut up! Scientists and historians have taken the time to synthesize decades of work and hundreds of pages of articles so the layman can understand some rather complicated topics. If you want to find the truth like a true researcher, look up the original scientific articles and see if you come to the same conclusion.
Can evolution prove how life came from non life? Amino acid being struck by lightning? That one first life then passed life to billions of species? Cmon you got to be kidding
@@ariffbasri Evolution is not meant to prove how life came from non life, it is meant to prove that every living animal has a common ancestor, and that the complex biodiversity (and complex organisms like us) that we see today, come from simple beings that evolved because of natural selection and other things too.
What you are referring to is abiogenesis, which is the study of life from non-life, and although all the details of this process are not fully known, it is a hypothesis that shows us that the process from life to non-life was not something instantaneous and that by chemical, geological, atmospherical processes, life may have arisen.
You wrote all that to get three responses lol. Evolution is mathematically impossible. 7 year later this did not age well lol.
@@coolride1401 very muddy waters and a few words can be researched, brevity and concise.
When I read the vast majority of the comments on Mr. Dawkins videos I get surprised, then I relax as I understand that the majority of these guys that shout on him have read neither Dawkins nor Darwin nor The Bible. But they have their opinion.
***** for example, what philosophical arguments he's refused to comprehend?
***** I've read what Dawkins says about love, clearly he's delighted about love, he can't explain it and the truth is that he doesn't want to eplain it.
***** Would be a long story and not only biochemestry is the way our brain works, what the brain portrays and what he wants to see in a specific being, place or action.
***** But the idea of philosophy is ideas that can be proved or disproved through reason and logic. Since they are almost always to do with morals/ethics, you can't really use evidence. But you can use reason and logic. Philosophy and religion are very far apart because of this.
@@semilio1 love is an emotion and it comes from part of the brain responsible for that.
He shouldn’t have to explain that, your teacher at school would have explained that
richard dawkins is so nice, genius and has a calm voice. I wish he was my father
Hahahah you sould told your mother to marry mr dawkins and he would be your father
I wish he were my boyfriend.
From which mother the first wife the second or the thirty. He also could have some affairs with other women, and he would not care if you were molested as a child as long as you don't believe the truth.
@@MariusVanWoerden He has one daughter from his three marriages, but if you have faith in the idea that he is a monster, then he will be in your own mind. Lots of believers who don't believe in what you believe, so who is right and how do you prove it?
@@MariusVanWoerden, what are you talking about
I have read this (and previous) book. It is in a simple language, which is easy to understand for laymen. Very elegantly written about an undeniable and evidence based fact, i.e., evolution.
My deepest respect!
So show your respect. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Thank you Dawkins for giving me the confidence to think outside the box without letting religious fanatics bring me down. My life is so much more enjoyable this way.
MR Dawkins please......
Stop pretending you think. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
it is always refreshing to hear him. I wish there were more like him .
You love absurdity too. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@mutlukats that's because evolution IS a theory and will ALWAYS be a theory unless it is overturned by new and compelling scientific evidence. Scientific use of the word "Theory" does not have the same definition that the layman uses.
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE and please COMMENT below!
He makes something as beautiful as evolution even more BEAUTIFUL!
hope there's audio books of dawkings, this is pretty relaxing to listen
pice of shit of atheist,digusting infections brain debility of his delusion
Elena Timofte
Anything else?
Is relaxing for you son of satan full with demons
Elena Timofte
So this is how Christians behave?
I LOVE MY INNER DEMONS! LETS FEAST ON BABY FLESH AND CRUCIFY THOSE WHO DISOBEY US FELLOW ATHEISTS!! YEAH! THATS WHAT WE ARE ABOUT ALL THE WAY!
For fuck sake, religion is much more stupid then atheism. Its incredibly funny how religious people call us delusional, and incredibly ironic, we dont believe that a floating being made this planet, its cruelty, and its complexity with the snap of a finger, and that the planet is 6000 years old. We believe nature did, and that its billions of years instead... and we can see nature, and nature that has happened in the past (fossils etc.) Can you see your god? oops nope....
Well we see our reality. Wake up... dont send me a fucking bible verse or preach religious nonsense against this comment either, you dont change my mind. Go ahead, say ill burn in hell and use ad hominem, it wont do fuck all to me because even if the god from the bible did exist, his cruelty is limitless, and he is egotistic.. dont try and deny this, actually read the fucking bible okay? Religion gives you a land of bliss and eternal happiness after death, why wouldnt someone believe that?.... but them there are atheists, who dont want something that makes them feel happy, they want something that is true, and has some evidence to be true.
I like the way he talks. I admire his refinement, his knowledge of science, his friendly manner, and his correct diction. What he says, the content relating to Darwinism, evolution, and anti-religion...NOT so much. But I still LIKE him.
I like your comment, it's polite and you use correct grammar, a rare occurence on the internet. But still, why not? I'd be interested to hear about your view.
Henry Cookson Liking someone is based on emotion more than reason. But I am aware of Professor Dawkin's various agendas. One is science. Obviously he's a scientist, and not only that but a Darwinian scientist. I haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to Biology compared to him. So obviously he knows much more than I do. The other big axe he grinds is ANTI-Religion. There I'm a bit more in my element, closer to his level. In fact I believe my knowledge of the bible is superior to his. But I'm not anti Dawkins. I respect his stand against organized religion. I actually agree that religion has been granted far too many privileges, particularly in Western nations. I cope with my somewhat conflicted point of view by compartmentalizing, a not uncommon psychological ploy. In my view the spiritual issues of the bible are an entirely separate case from the technical and biological facts of our modern world. The gray area where they seem to overlap is difficult for me to address because I don't like personal conflict. I don't like to argue. But if you want more insight into my view all you have to do is ask, the more specific your question the better for me.
quaz imodo Well, I understand your point. But unfortunately, what he does is necessary. I've heard him saying in a speech that religion makes specific claims about the universe, and should be dealt with as such.
Putting aside all other issues, religion ends up promoting scientific illiteracy and since he is a scientist, this is his area of expertise.
quaz imodo Anti religion isn't even bad. I could understand being against any belief in god whatsoever. But you don't actually need a religion to have faith in a god anyways
Lone Star VII agreed !
Always inspiring to listen to Dawkins.
Because your mind is unsound also. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
2fast how did you dismiss universe creating pixies ?
@@carlpierce2486 how the universe created itself naturally AND got around the laws I gave by your evidence of...."2fast how did you dismiss universe creating pixies ?" RD would have been proud of you.
Richard Dawkins and his books - "The God Delusion" totally changed my Life. I was into Hinduism before but now I'm now an Atheist.
I suggest everyone to go ahead and read his book, It's Witty, Fascinating, Deals with the Subject of God and has a lot of humor and Truth in it. Hope everyone gets to see through their Close Minded Religious Beliefs and wake up into accepting the Reality after reading his Book.
( You can just download an e-book on Google if you look for it )
Say baaaaaaa!
Growing up in Germany I never really realized that some people refuse the theory of evolution. It was accepted as an established fact. Only when coming to the USA I was confronted with people who don’t believe in evolution.
That's religion for you, lol
I've started reading this book recently, really cool so far, an amazing piece of work :) hope to buy his other books afterwards.
Have you finished the book since?
The difference between stupid and ignorance is one can be cured.
I loved this book so much! It was so poetic and informative! I reccomend this to book to everyone.
While some people comment evolution to not to be a science, others are inhibited by religious indoctrination. I urge all to go through basics of cell biology, molecular biology, geological time, and then evolution. Let's open our eyes. Prof. Dawkins is not misleading anyone or telling fairy tales. He is just telling scientific truths.
Michael Brown do you have any evidence to support your position?
if only you read darwin, precisely the part on the imperfection of the geological record you would not have said that. but, of course, it is the job of people who do not believe in an a priori manner to eliminate any probability of understanding the very thing they refute. evolution predicts the accumulation of precursors but geology predicts their extreme rarity. And the evidence FOR evolution would be overwhelming without fossils.
this man should debate kent hovind
+roger rose Hovind is as qualified to discuss evolution, science in general and biology in particular as I am to perform open-heart surgery...
It's difficult to reason someone smart
but it's impossible to reason with someone stupid
I agree.
He did. Poor Kent was humiliated. I actually felt bad for him during the debate.
No! Dawkins, a well-respected, degreed and specialized biologist shouldn't give any credence to creationist charlatans by going on a stage with him.
I think evolution is real, but i can understand why some are skeptical of it.
+weiberfeind "i think the earth is round"
+L. Priebe
look up Richard Dawson oh RUclips stating he was duped! He stated that DNA apeares to be CREATED , but states that whoever created it was CREATED by , Mabe aliens ? These aliens were created by accident , by evolution. But later stated he was tricked into saying it ? Somthing like that . But keep up your faith ! Don't lookup where people like him contradict themselves. Fuck that , stay with the faith! DO NOT think for yourself ! DO NOT study anything other than preapproved propaganda ! Follow the sheep ! If you don't , well ...
Jimmy Burton it's not something that can be easily shown in everyday life ..not believing in evolution has no real world consequences so it's easy for people who don't believe in it to dismiss it.
Also the people who push evolution tend to be assholes like Dawkins so that could also factor in the non-acceptance of it. Most people ignore/reject people they don't like regardless if it's the truth
weiberfeind
Does that meen you believe or disbelieve in evolution ? Hay I don't the have the answers . But evolutionist make me believe evolution is wrong the more I listen to them .
Jimmy Burton just pointing out the messenger is just as important as the message. Catch more flies with honey than with vinegar..the biggest obstacles for science is the scientist being assholes..from Dawkins, to Harris to Krauss(Krauss who said that children should be taken from Christians...)
what an extraordinary experience it must be to be a student in his class. whatever you believe, this is a man you can learn a lot from.
This. Tuomas of Nightwish composed a most impeccable album that showcases some readings of this man. Most brilliant.
First Question: It came from our natural sense of gathering and companionship. Our ancestors gathered around campfires and told stories, performed dances, etc.
Second Question: /watch?v=mqTbwMmwGlw might answer your question
Third Question: It depends on your definition of beauty. Our ancestors might have defined something beautiful to be useful. This "appreciation" helped them to sort out something that is useful from something that's not.
I hope these answers answered your questions.
all those genocides by the "Loving" god
I see an incredible increase in people who are willing to investigate and learn why evolution is true. The sciences keep investigating and adjusting the theory to make it more and more accurate. This isn't saying that the theory was wrong, it's saying that it's now more accurate now.
@CAVIGS1 I've read Dan Brown's book but I was aware of the Council of Nicea long before that. As far as I remember the main item on the agenda was to decide if Jesus was the son of god as he claimed. The point is that the early christian movement was riddled with debate about which texts should be included and which were heretical. The uniformity between various authors is a result of selection and editing, nothing miraculous in that!
Even so, the bible is still full of contradictions.
The ability to appreciate beauty makes life more rich and meaningful, hence increasing our desire to survive and persist in an attempt to further experience the rich tapestry of emotions that existence offers.
Just finished reading The God Delusion. Just started reading The greatest show on earth.
Not quite sure what you mean. Could you explain the bits "whoever looses their life for me" and "whoever wants to save their life" in more detail so I can get your meaning. Thanks.
I've actually experienced people refusing to believe in evolution saying something along the lines of "you put an animal in a room and come back 100 years later haha I don't think so". People really can find it difficult to wrap their head around such a large expanse of time. Claiming evolution to be fake when only examining an organism for 100 years is like claiming metal can't melt when you didn't heat it up enough.
You brought up an important point. A lot of people will argue that you don't need religion to be moral. They argue that an atheistic society would develop the same morals. The fact is, the morals that we currently employ are based in religious tradition. So, you can't say that an atheistic culture would be just as moral as a religious one, since you have no proof. On the other hand, any society that has taken on an anti religious attitude has lead to the worst atrocities in human history.
Music, poetry, and dance are all forms of art. Art is all about expression. We express ourselves through music, poetry, and even dance. Excluding Poetry, art is communication without verbal communication. It is our primary language that all people around the world can understand. The basis and foundation of our communication.
I'm new to being atheist, and as such am exploring many of its big names. I have always heard Richard Dawkins is extremely mean and aggressive. Yet, what as I watch his videos and interviews, he seems quite calm and kind. He doesn't avoid calling out what is wrong, which is were his view as aggressive might come from. On this subject, anyone have any recommendations for good books? I'm already going to read The Greatest Show on Earth, just wondering what other books are good.
I could get to sleep every night listen the Dawkins.
if we DID evolve, how can science answer this;
- where did our appreciation for for music, dance, poetry etc. evolve
- where did love evolve?
- what does the appreciation of beauty have to do with survival?
I am not sure what you are getting about here, would you mind clarifying your point?
When I referred to Evolution, I was not referring to the concept of evolving based on one's environment. The fact that organisms can adapt to environments and change over time was not in question. I agree, that knowledge has benefit. What I was referencing was that man was not created by God, but by some other evolutionary means. These are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if I believe in evolution as the origin of man, what benefit does it have to my life over religion? That was my point.
I read "The Ancestor's Tale" before I read this book. It was full of straight science. Genetics, ecology, ect. Damn I should have read this book first. Now that I understand all these process better I have to go back and reread "The Ancestor's Tale."
I humbly accept that my PROOF is the Bible that was written quite long ago,around 3500 yrs started by Moses,but i feel it makes mores sense than other books. Written by 40 men of different backgound and who mostly didn't met or see each other, and was finished to complete 16010yrs and w/ a narratives that covered 4000 yrs.How come a book such as the Bible come to us in such a fashion and with so many enemies,come to us in shape and with such a coherent story to tell?I can just walk away &smile.
I believe that many things in the Bible are meant to be interpreted as parables. In fact, Jesus specifically used parables in the NT all the time. There wasn't a literal occasion in which ten virgins were without oil, but it was meant to teach that we must never procrastinate and always be prepared. However, there are a few things to be taken literally. I personally feel that "God created man in His own image" is meant to be taken literally, and Evolution does not allow for that.
I used to support The Guardian.
How brilliant, this Dawkins!
"Imagine that we humans had created robots that eventually were able to reproduce and improve themselves according to their environment, humans died out and after millions of years the robots came up with a theory of their evolution based on bits of old machines they dug up. Their theory would not in any way disprove the existence of humans. Instead it would be a sign of a higher intelligence that bought them about"
@eckyhen "Debating evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks the pieces over, shits on the board, then flies back to it's flock to claim victory"
I love it! Having just left a Christian rehab - in the deep south bible-belt no less - (let's just say I was doing "research") after 60 days, I can attest to the truth of that quote. Thanks for sharing.
@MrBeerbug then I'd like to hear your reflections because, like you, I grew up in a non-believer culture; and, emotionally, I always wanted to find God, but my reflective self got the better of me: the more I reflected, the more distant I found myself from religion. My question to you is, do your reflections have an error checking mechanism? Plenty of evidence in psychology demonstrates we're prone to errors in our deliberations. What makes you think your reflections are not way off target?
What are the books he's reading from - Climbing Mount Improbable, plus another of his own books?
Yes it's similar to thermodynamic, however it's information instead of energy. Even an star as a source of energy doesn't contain a lot of information, because it's chaotic and the parameters (mass, composition, temperature...) is all the information contained it there. The Kolmogorov complexity (see that on wikipedia) is a good definition of what I mean by "information".
Evolution is one of the most solid scientific theories humanity uncovered. We are more certain about evolution than gravity. I would bet my life that it will not be disproved. This is how convinced I am by the evidence I have inspected so far. It is overwhelmingly convincing. Rejecting evolution is insane, given what we know.
He sure is right about the word ignorant. People use it to mean stupid and they don't even know that's not what it means. But, language evolves and changes so even though it's the wrong usage it's so common it now takes on that meaning.
If you ask me what I would call a world without ANY form of religion or creationism, I would call it...sane.
RD is my hero.
@MrBeerbug so, let me get this straight. Your logic is this:
1. there are things (to be called "miracles") that happen rearely and upredictably
2. I cannot explain why they occur
3. I believe they happen independently and regardless of our intervention.
Therefore, there is a sentient being who is responsible for making these things ("miracles") occur.
Is this a fair summary of your logic? If not, correct me where I get it wrong.
Evolution is not just a historical theory, but a concept and a process that doesn´t even need proof, it works by definition. It´s a very simple and magnificent process that consists of trial and error and constructive feedback from the environment. It has been applied in computer programs and it works beautifuly.
Peace!
The best tactic in the Evolution vs. Creationism/I.D debate is getting the message of evolution out of the Academy into the public’s field of view is the task at hand. Dawkins says that scientists are in large measure to blame for the woeful public ignorance about the ideas of evolution. I agree. In my experience, it is invariably the lack of general understanding of this relatively accessible corpus of theoretical science on this topic that allows
Please elaborate on what you mean by "external information needed in the process" in relation to Lenski's study. Please also elaborate on what you mean by "something its DNA did not contain in the first place", as it sounds like you do not understand the mechanism of genetic variation, or in fact DNA, at all.
I ended up here because of the Nightwish album 'Endless forms most Beautiful', the composer was inspired by Dawkins' work and Dawkins's voice is on the album reading some excerpts from this book. One of the best symfonic metal albums ever.
WOAH! Hey! thank you random people on internet! I've never heard that song, but thanks to you that introduce to us! And after I listened to that, it's very very very awesome! The lyrics, the song.... it's Fckin awesome when metal band meet science (and the most importantly, it's not disappointing)
I couldn't imagine Richard Dawkins have a metal band 😂😂😂
Love you Sir
The biggest contradiction is that, it is temptation to believe in something transcendental. For whatever reason you're still giving into temptations. You never believe for "gods" sake, for he gives you no more gratification than what you feel inside. Call that god ALLLLLL you want, its just a vibrational resonance that you happen to be tempted to indulge in because it feels good. So what's to say the temptations I'm supposedly damn for are any different.
is the strata distinction on C. explosion fossil account refutable?
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...all palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould)
@KewreL This book in Professor Dawkins own words was to write a book and show the evidence for evolution. Creationism of which I have no interest in, was not the reason I read this book for. He has written about creationism in his other books and didn't need to includ it here.
Ahhhhh Richard, its not lazy journalism, you're OUR God ;) We want to hear you, not a random athiest. Your arguments are impeccable, and you hit every note.
Peace to all religions, each to their own, I'd never judge you.
What is the purpose of storm is clouds? Water and /or water fispursing, large water/ice disputsing . Rite ?Thanks.
Disputsing.
@dac8555 No I didn't, if you read some of the previous comments you will see that I had already mentioned WWII and that I set it aside as he didn't agree that it was religiously motivated. I agree with you that it was in part religiously motivated, but for the sake or argument I didn't include it in my list.
The Greatest Show on Earth, filled in a lot of the blanks I had in my knowledge of how evolution. Will it change the mind of one creationist? I'm afraid not.
Quote (not mine)
"Debating evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks the pieces over, shits on the board, then flies back to it's flock to claim victory"
'By animals that more or less resemble us, and plants that resemble us a little less' - the most ludicrous statement of all time!
It is true that 'professing themselves to be wise they have become fools'.
@shinom0ri Einstein was correct to mention that we were very persistent and we are still persistent. We can't help ourselves as I have understood from your comments. His formula E=mc2 let us realize that nuclear fusion is responsible for stars to shine, not just by burning firewoods. Let's wait for another formula that would let us understand whether he was right or wrong. Otherwise, I take his quotation as a reference.
One of the greatest men on earth.
Science rules!
Very impressive use of decorative words. Truly, it is worthy of Star Wars.
1. it came from our ancestors coming together and show their friend ship and trust, to show it they danced, made music and had fun, this strengths the group which is more likely for them to survive.
2. love is part of sexuality, our brains release chemicals to produce love. when we reproduce we want to defend our child and nurture it, love helps us do that. this helps with survival of the species as well.
3. not enough room ill reply again.
I like the admission - of targeting people who have never really thought about evolution. Those that have cannot be reached precisely for the reason that they have thought about it, have reasoned it through, and drawn the sensible conclusion that macro evolution is impossible.
@mrjonno just to clarify, I don't have a problem with truths used in an non-metaphysical sense, such as when something is analytically true (e.g. a theorem in a formal system); or when you assert your hypothesis in a statistical analysis. I have a problem with truths the way you use it when you talk about science "getting closer to it". In that, metaphysical, sense, you're pretty much doing what folks have been doing for centuries - "getting closer to God", albeit in a de-personalized form.
This however begs the question: why insert a God? If it's okay for a God to exist and we don't have to question its origin, why is it not okay for the universe to just exist without us questioning its origin. And isn't that the simpler solution to the problem? And therefore, Occam's razor would have us believe, the likely one?
@TheNewCrankyWorkshop The problem is that if Professor Dawkins didn't write about religion there would be nothing for him to write about. The book was an opportunity to show the evidence for evolution. He does write about religion in other books so therefore could of omitted this subject area.
Message is more important than messenger. If the message goes through human logical mind, we don't need to know who the messenger is (Dawkins or anybody). Theists alike atheists need to study science for knowing the nature/universe. Science is not a tool to fight on whether God exists or not. The whole existence (known and unknown) itself is God and we can't deny that since we ourselves do exist. The beauty of science is that it corrects itself and never takes a dogmatic position like religion
The odds are low, I'll concede, but something would always have to happen. I mean throw a hundred dice, you have a 1 in 6^100 chance of getting that combination, but you still got it. To postulate the existence of a creator may seem tempting, but it's not supported by evidence apart from unlikelihood of chance occurrence. Take the dice again: the fact that it has that incredibly unlikely combination doesn't mean it's a "miracle". Plus, the creator's existence would also require explanation.
But my main point is: if a designer exists, the designer would Only have designed DNA. And that design has already been simplified, because in a very short timespan, amino acids can be "made" from conditions present when the Earth was young (ie: a few billion years ago) and energy (which was abundant). Just check out the Miller-Urey experiment. Nature really simplifies the Creator's job, doesn't it?
@mutlukats There's a big difference. A scientific "theory" is different from the way many people use the word "theory". A scientific theory is based on the culmination of fact and evidence - it becomes an accepted theory. The other use of the word is to express a possibility, an idea, etc. Google it...you'll get the point!
Sir Isaac Newton once said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." He researched the bible as much as he did science .
His work on the bible was not published until well after his death. So that comment he made was not just a passing comment.
Creation and science are the same thing. No conflict at all.
Ha! I got that beat. Only from truth's truth can truth come, but only if it's truthy enough. Now, that's a lot of damn truth.
Don't worry. Salvation is available for all those who would seek it. You don't have to be left behind.
@MrBeerbug What I'd be interested in you explaining is whether the reason you feel compelled to believe in Christ over Buddhism is due to anything but your imagination (or somebody else's). If you think there's more to your choice than imagination, please be specific about what it is. For example, you may choose Christ over Buddha because you don't feel like being an outcast in a predominantly Christian social group. It just makes your life easy.
1. Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
@SLBS1234 RUclips won't let me copy-paste a previous post, so I sent it to you as a PM. You can find it on page 8 of the comments, I sent it to you 1 week ago.
@philosophyteacher And what exactly did Tacitus say about jesus? Merely that " 'Christus' was a Jew and a criminal whom Pontius Pilate had executed." as stated by biblical scholar Gerd Theissen. Tacitus (who wrote on the subject at 116 AD) curiously does not say anything about the alleged miracles, deeds, or words of jesus, but he begins his passage by saying, "Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations."
If it's indeed so "true", then why is there no support for it in the Bible?
How can it be true if it contradicts the book of Genesis?
If Dawkins feels like the media perpetuated his "militant atheist" persona, then why didn't he just retreat, fall out of the media? If a movie star can do it, then there's no reason that someone as intelligent as him could do it, too.
As a specific example of improvement in quality of life based on the knowledge of evolution, the processes underlying evolution are key to research into understanding how viruses mutate and change. During the next major viral epidemic would you choose to rely on science or prayer as an antidote? Keep in mind that prayer didn't work particularly well for them during the bubonic plague.
@gupsphoo I don't know who you were addressing, it looks like a generic comment about all religious people. I am a Christian and science doesn't contradict Christianity at all.
RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
The fact is science is explained to normal people. someone who may not have seen a day in school can listen to Richard Dawkins and 'get' evolution. I know this, because education is still a big problem in Africa, but media spreads. these are exciting facts for anyone living any life
I of course love the book 📙 thank you very much
So you're for absurdity too. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Richard Dawkins😘😘😘👍👍🔬🔭📚
I disagree with his statement that being ignorant to evolution is the same as being ingnorant towards american football. I love sports, but education in a sport is never as important as education in an academic field. Not that you have to supress all athletic knowledge till you have aquired all the academic knowledge, I would never expect that, but one (academic) is more important than (athletic) knowledge. With the exception of keeping one's body in shape, that is important.
A great interview style. RD at his best
It is counterintuitive, like objects of different weight falling at the same speed. Eyeballs look designed but are not.
i love my LORD JESUS CHRIST with all my heart and i am a firm believer to my GOD. for me, believing in him requires no scientific bases
At first I thought you wrote "a talking donkey getting beaten by a lizard" which made it even funnier.
@MrBeerbug you're bringing up two different points that require digression into a another topic. To stick with the thread of our conversation, although I emotionally see myself being religious, I just cannot get over the hump of knowing that I'll believe in a fairy tale living my life. That's why I remain an atheist and find ways to make my life fullfilling without resorting to fiction.
"gradually mutating bit by bit"
It has never been observed and never been simulated on a computer.
That's pretty nice in theory, but according to probability and information theory, your most basic form of life then end up as a dead stack of atoms. Every time, even if you repeat the experience billion of times.
There is no way you can avoir the intervention of a huge outside source of information.
@laflugantabastardo Holy camolies, I meant to say "the religious" not "women". Freud would have a field day! LOL