first time i'm watching a video on youtube of dawkins and one of the audience asking a question from him without ending in any argument or controversy. 😂
@@ronhawk1231 That's not as I saw it. When people are in conversation, there's far more "talking over" than you think or often realise. And I think that's the key, it was far more a conversation than a Q&A
Claiming that a creator had to be involved because otherwise we can't understand how matter or life started is just kicking the can down the road. Who designed the intelligent designer?
@@leonardor.3297 @Leonardo Ricci claiming that some kind of "natural" process that as of now cannot be explained only speculated... is also just "kicking the can down the road." Evolution has NO testable mechanism to explain the incredible complexity of life. So where is the Darwin emperor's clothes? Also, my question was ignored in your response. LOL! The challenges to the sacred Darwin are never addressed only dismissed... tis what happens when dogma and ideology pretend to be science. Guday! :)
@@FiddlePig Sorry, Fred, but scientific theories, while not perfect, do a much better job at explaining the "incredible complexity" of both life and the Universe than revealed religion does. There are many ways in which the theory of evolution can be attempted to be disproved, i.e. "tested", which is what makes it a scientific theory. Scientists keep attempting to disprove it and failing. A way to disprove evolution would be finding a billion-year-old human fossil, for instance, as it would show that the theory is wrong. By comparison, there are no ways to disprove the existence of a god, and therefore, the theory of its existence is not scientific. Believe in a god if you want, but that's belief, not reason. Also, speaking of "ignoring questions", you seem to have blissfully ignored mine. Where does this Intelligent Designer come from? And if he's always just existed, why don't you have logical issues with it? As I said, believe in a god all you want, but do not pretend it makes better logical sense than science. It's more honest to call call it what it is: faith. And "guday" to you too! :) PS: Here are some interesting links: ncse.ngo/evolution-and-testability www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0166218X8690048X futurism.com/how-to-test-and-disprove-evolution
Don't understand the answer, why rewrite the code, why not just wait until the codes just adapt and change by themselves through random generation until it's capable of workingng with the new Mac software?
@@thomasherzog86 so what was the evolutionary pressure behind the first single cell that evolved? Did it not just randomly split continuously until it started to form complex forms? How did consciousness evolve, what pressurized the first single cell to 'think' to split? Thank you for your response
@@freeyourmind7538 the first living cells had enormous pressure because they happend to be in a condition that wasnt made for them. radiation, heat, cold, dryness, acidity,... they came to be in a very hostile environment and tried to survive. btw, evolution is no process of thinking. if it was a voluntary process, we would be different today.
@@thomasherzog86 Thanks for the reply (tftr)...you typed first cells, thats plural, so was there more than one cell at the beginning of this evolutionary period? If so, then we didn't evolve from a single cell, ive been told we can link ourselves back to one single cell and not cells....and to have an understanding of your surroundings (radiation heat, cold, dryness, acidity) dont you need consciousness? Why were these cells aware? Were they always aware or suddenly become aware? So was the condition picture perfect around them and then suddenly it became cold? Who made it suddenly cold? I honestly am trying to get my head around it, mate!
Well, unless we are living in a simulation, there is no "program" in charge of things in the real world. It's just the way things work. Beings make copies of themselves; occasionally there are mistakes ("mutations") in the copies. Beings with mutations that are beneficial (or at least not harmful) to their chances of survival and reproduction have higher chances of making more copies of themselves, and in the very long run that makes a difference.
@@leonardor.3297 You can’t say science is reasonable if the universe is unreasonable, born out of a random chaotic accident (which makes no sense) & if it is reasonable that means whatever made it is reasonable & we know science is reasonable because the same reaction will happen when you mix two chemicals together every single time so therefore the universe is reasonable which means it was born out of reason. All the founding fathers of the scientific method understood this. *The universe is logical and reasonable which screams intention.* we know matter didnt exist before the universe because the quarks were formed shortly after it was made so whatever made it has to be a spaceless timeless immaterial all powerful force. if you think the human mind… humor, the arts, music, love, is a series of mistakes & mutations that accidentally made it through a filtration process what a miserable existence that is. How can you live a happy and fulfilling life knowing all of this is pointless? All you are is chemicals smashing into chemicals according to you, all your hopes and dreams are irrelevant and there’s no meaning in life. There’s a reason this secular culture is so miserable & dissatisfied and depressed they’re nihilistic. The universe was created on purpose if you think the universe is a quantum accident first of all there’s no evidence for that because quantum mechanics don’t exist without space and time which didn’t exist before the universe and second of all I mean what a horrifying thing to think.This universe was made intentionally all the fathers of theoretical physics understood where there are laws there is a lawmaker.
@@Mindmartyr '' The universe was created on purpose '' ? Space and time are not evidence of a '' creator ''. Where is the PROOF of such a creator ? Did you not give yourself away by saying, '' what a horrible thing to think '' ?
@@Mindmartyr Here are some points I feel have to make: 1) The Universe doesn't have to make sense to us. It does not owe it to us to be reasonable. Perhaps we are just intellectually unequipped to comprehend it and we will never know it fully. Tough, but it's our problem, not the Universe's, and it is not an argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. 2) If you do feel that the Universe has a logic, however, it is because our ideas of logic are based on the Universe. A different Universe with different rules would have engendered in its inhabitants a different sense of logic. So, also not an argument for an Intelligent Designer. 3) With statements like "what a miserable existence that is. How can you live a happy and fulfilling life [...] There's a reason this secular culture is so miserable and dissatisfied" etc, you seem to think that the Universe also owes us a meaning of life. It doesn't. You think that the idea that the universe is only based on chemistry and physics is too sad, and that therefore it has to be false. But the fact that an idea is undesirable doesn't mean that it is not true. For example: around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. This is a very depressing notion. But the fact that it's depressing does not make it false. 4) "All the fathers of theoretical physics understood where are laws there is a lawmaker", you say? Yet so many of them were atheists. Hawking, Bohr, Feynman, Schrödinger, Chandrasekhar, Laplace, Sakharov... I can name more, if you want. 5) You are avoiding the question, where does this Intelligent Designer come from? Who created him? And if you're going to say "he's always just sort of been there, superpowers and all", why isn't that a logical issue all of a sudden?
In the rustiest of #RustyIrony... one wonders how much copious amounts of intelligent design was required to create Dawkins' computer software program that simulates no design was necessary to create the universe and the complex life that seems very designed and engineered by any logical observation (whew!)... now that's funny!!! LOL! With the "Blind Watchmaker" and his software, Richard Dawkins IMHO has pretty much "cancelled" himself. Do he know it yet? :)
What a joker. The blind watchmaker needs a program that is written by a person. And Richard Dawkins would like someone to rewrite it. If it is that good a computer program, it should be able to rewrite itself. What this is telling us there is intelligence that goes way beyond our ability to mimic it or even to comprehend it.
And there you go. "I don't understand it, therefore god did it." Sorry, but Dawkins, Sagan, and others have clearly shown how fatally flawed that argument is.
the definition of belief is ''an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without truth'', anything people believe can be concidered a belief but that dosent make it true, when you've looked at the evidence with an unbiased point of view Most people start questioning their religious beliefs (if they have one). For me it was as simple as looking at a monkey and remembering the story of adam and eve for the bible is indisputbly proven wrong, the fact we find DOZENS of fossils that look like whats in between a homosapien and a chimpanzee should be enough to dissprove the bible altogether as simply a false myth created by people thousands of years ago.
Oh yeah, there is nothing more solid than having Dawkins pontificate his opinions through computer animation on and old MAC program. That sounds soooo sciency.
Many animals exhibit love. Who gave it to them? I'm guessing caring for members of one's family and community - human or animal - has survival value - so I'm gonna say evolution...
love is oxytocin, serotonin and adrenalin and the gene which codes for the release and production of this occured via mutation and recombination and other genom changing factors and stayed because it increases chances of reproduction and solidary behavior which increases chances of survival. The concept of romantic love was invented in the romantic era
first time i'm watching a video on youtube of dawkins and one of the audience asking a question from him without ending in any argument or controversy. 😂
Anyone know where the full video is?
U have Richard Dawkins on stage and this lady talks over him. Jfc
She's a teacher. She's used to it, it's habit. Good point though.
I thought they were having an adult conversation and just forgetting there were a couple of thousand others in the room.
@@neill392 I thought she talked over him like he was a student and not the smartest guy in the room
@@ronhawk1231 That's not as I saw it.
When people are in conversation, there's far more "talking over" than you think or often realise. And I think that's the key, it was far more a conversation than a Q&A
@@neill392 Mr. Dawkins has a way of making it seem so intimate and cozy, his manner of speech and style. A real classy genius.
Dymtro Galdush.....in reply. Just BRILLIANT!
pity most of it was bullshit
Just pay a few developers then! You have the money for it.
Richard, but, and the original soft why not ?
How much intelligent design was required to create the "Blind Watchmaker" software to "prove" intelligent design did not happen? #RustyIrony
Claiming that a creator had to be involved because otherwise we can't understand how matter or life started is just kicking the can down the road. Who designed the intelligent designer?
@@leonardor.3297 @Leonardo Ricci claiming that some kind of "natural" process that as of now cannot be explained only speculated... is also just "kicking the can down the road." Evolution has NO testable mechanism to explain the incredible complexity of life. So where is the Darwin emperor's clothes? Also, my question was ignored in your response. LOL! The challenges to the sacred Darwin are never addressed only dismissed... tis what happens when dogma and ideology pretend to be science. Guday! :)
@@FiddlePig Sorry, Fred, but scientific theories, while not perfect, do a much better job at explaining the "incredible complexity" of both life and the Universe than revealed religion does. There are many ways in which the theory of evolution can be attempted to be disproved, i.e. "tested", which is what makes it a scientific theory. Scientists keep attempting to disprove it and failing. A way to disprove evolution would be finding a billion-year-old human fossil, for instance, as it would show that the theory is wrong. By comparison, there are no ways to disprove the existence of a god, and therefore, the theory of its existence is not scientific. Believe in a god if you want, but that's belief, not reason.
Also, speaking of "ignoring questions", you seem to have blissfully ignored mine. Where does this Intelligent Designer come from? And if he's always just existed, why don't you have logical issues with it?
As I said, believe in a god all you want, but do not pretend it makes better logical sense than science. It's more honest to call call it what it is: faith. And "guday" to you too! :)
PS: Here are some interesting links:
ncse.ngo/evolution-and-testability
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0166218X8690048X
futurism.com/how-to-test-and-disprove-evolution
@@leonardor.3297 talk to the hand✋
@@maxp9598 and that is the level of religious argument.
shrup teach !
If there is no God, why is that evil exists in the world.
What do you mean by evil?
If there is a God, why is that evil exists in the world?
I think philosophers generally characterize evil as suffering.
Don't understand the answer, why rewrite the code, why not just wait until the codes just adapt and change by themselves through random generation until it's capable of workingng with the new Mac software?
because there is no evolutionary pressure behind it. you know the simple things... like making children.
You had me at "don't understand."
@@thomasherzog86 so what was the evolutionary pressure behind the first single cell that evolved? Did it not just randomly split continuously until it started to form complex forms? How did consciousness evolve, what pressurized the first single cell to 'think' to split? Thank you for your response
@@freeyourmind7538
the first living cells had enormous pressure because they happend to be in a condition that wasnt made for them. radiation, heat, cold, dryness, acidity,... they came to be in a very hostile environment and tried to survive.
btw, evolution is no process of thinking. if it was a voluntary process, we would be different today.
@@thomasherzog86 Thanks for the reply (tftr)...you typed first cells, thats plural, so was there more than one cell at the beginning of this evolutionary period? If so, then we didn't evolve from a single cell, ive been told we can link ourselves back to one single cell and not cells....and to have an understanding of your surroundings (radiation heat, cold, dryness, acidity) dont you need consciousness? Why were these cells aware? Were they always aware or suddenly become aware? So was the condition picture perfect around them and then suddenly it became cold? Who made it suddenly cold? I honestly am trying to get my head around it, mate!
“I made a program that simulates evolution”
Oh, alright… so who wrote the program that simulates evolution in the real world?
Well, unless we are living in a simulation, there is no "program" in charge of things in the real world. It's just the way things work. Beings make copies of themselves; occasionally there are mistakes ("mutations") in the copies. Beings with mutations that are beneficial (or at least not harmful) to their chances of survival and reproduction have higher chances of making more copies of themselves, and in the very long run that makes a difference.
@@leonardor.3297 You can’t say science is reasonable if the universe is unreasonable, born out of a random chaotic accident (which makes no sense) & if it is reasonable that means whatever made it is reasonable & we know science is reasonable because the same reaction will happen when you mix two chemicals together every single time so therefore the universe is reasonable which means it was born out of reason. All the founding fathers of the scientific method understood this. *The universe is logical and reasonable which screams intention.* we know matter didnt exist before the universe because the quarks were formed shortly after it was made so whatever made it has to be a spaceless timeless immaterial all powerful force. if you think the human mind… humor, the arts, music, love, is a series of mistakes & mutations that accidentally made it through a filtration process what a miserable existence that is. How can you live a happy and fulfilling life knowing all of this is pointless? All you are is chemicals smashing into chemicals according to you, all your hopes and dreams are irrelevant and there’s no meaning in life. There’s a reason this secular culture is so miserable & dissatisfied and depressed they’re nihilistic. The universe was created on purpose if you think the universe is a quantum accident first of all there’s no evidence for that because quantum mechanics don’t exist without space and time which didn’t exist before the universe and second of all I mean what a horrifying thing to think.This universe was made intentionally all the fathers of theoretical physics understood where there are laws there is a lawmaker.
@@Mindmartyr '' The universe was created on purpose '' ? Space and time are not evidence of a '' creator ''. Where is the PROOF of such a creator ? Did you not give yourself away by saying, '' what a horrible thing to think '' ?
@@Mindmartyr Here are some points I feel have to make:
1) The Universe doesn't have to make sense to us. It does not owe it to us to be reasonable. Perhaps we are just intellectually unequipped to comprehend it and we will never know it fully. Tough, but it's our problem, not the Universe's, and it is not an argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
2) If you do feel that the Universe has a logic, however, it is because our ideas of logic are based on the Universe. A different Universe with different rules would have engendered in its inhabitants a different sense of logic. So, also not an argument for an Intelligent Designer.
3) With statements like "what a miserable existence that is. How can you live a happy and fulfilling life [...] There's a reason this secular culture is so miserable and dissatisfied" etc, you seem to think that the Universe also owes us a meaning of life. It doesn't. You think that the idea that the universe is only based on chemistry and physics is too sad, and that therefore it has to be false. But the fact that an idea is undesirable doesn't mean that it is not true. For example: around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. This is a very depressing notion. But the fact that it's depressing does not make it false.
4) "All the fathers of theoretical physics understood where are laws there is a lawmaker", you say? Yet so many of them were atheists. Hawking, Bohr, Feynman, Schrödinger, Chandrasekhar, Laplace, Sakharov... I can name more, if you want.
5) You are avoiding the question, where does this Intelligent Designer come from? Who created him? And if you're going to say "he's always just sort of been there, superpowers and all", why isn't that a logical issue all of a sudden?
In the rustiest of #RustyIrony... one wonders how much copious amounts of intelligent design was required to create Dawkins' computer software program that simulates no design was necessary to create the universe and the complex life that seems very designed and engineered by any logical observation (whew!)... now that's funny!!! LOL! With the "Blind Watchmaker" and his software, Richard Dawkins IMHO has pretty much "cancelled" himself. Do he know it yet? :)
What a joker. The blind watchmaker needs a program that is written by a person. And Richard Dawkins would like someone to rewrite it. If it is that good a computer program, it should be able to rewrite itself. What this is telling us there is intelligence that goes way beyond our ability to mimic it or even to comprehend it.
It’s a very simple model of how a very simple few fixed parameters can produce complexity without interference.
And there you go. "I don't understand it, therefore god did it." Sorry, but Dawkins, Sagan, and others have clearly shown how fatally flawed that argument is.
It is too bad that a brilliant mind so assesible can be so wrong. If you can realize that then he becomes quite interesting.
It's not science its a belief
the definition of belief is ''an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without truth'', anything people believe can be concidered a belief but that dosent make it true, when you've looked at the evidence with an unbiased point of view Most people start questioning their religious beliefs (if they have one).
For me it was as simple as looking at a monkey and remembering the story of adam and eve for the bible is indisputbly proven wrong, the fact we find DOZENS of fossils that look like whats in between a homosapien and a chimpanzee should be enough to dissprove the bible altogether as simply a false myth created by people thousands of years ago.
Repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ
ok satan📖
@@jeremiasp9887 😅
The '' gospel '' of jesus christ is only hearsay.
It would be good if there was a Blond Watchmaker app on iOS or Android 👍
Oh yeah, there is nothing more solid than having Dawkins pontificate his opinions through computer animation on and old MAC program. That sounds soooo sciency.
Amen.
And from where does Love come from. Who gave us Love.
Many animals exhibit love. Who gave it to them? I'm guessing caring for members of one's family and community - human or animal - has survival value - so I'm gonna say evolution...
why does someone or something have to have given us it?
Why does it have to be a who?
The same nothing that gave us everything else.
love is oxytocin, serotonin and adrenalin and the gene which codes for the release and production of this occured via mutation and recombination and other genom changing factors and stayed because it increases chances of reproduction and solidary behavior which increases chances of survival. The concept of romantic love was invented in the romantic era
Who in the world gives a fat brick about Dawkins. He's competing with Looney Tunes.
Who gives a fat brick about dawkins ? People who believe in rationality, logic, evidence and proof... in other words, science.