He's loves lying and ignoring science. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Paradoxical since the science fiction author atheist Darwinist is regarding his own brain as a designoid object as too badly flawed to be the creation of an intelligent entity.
It is evolutionary remnant of the benefit of bonding with mates of the same group to ensure its survival by altruistic behaviour, so that genes will be passed further. I guess.
Dawkins states the privilege of living in the era of Darwin and Einstein, we are privileged witnessing him, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens…. The brilliant minds and intellects who shaped & challenged our thoughts and pushed us to know more. Great moderator was the Alice Roberts with that voice and accent!
Great minds? Darwin has been proven wrong. Much of what Enstein thought is wrong. Einstein was an immature irresponsible parent that left his wife and children. Hawkining was an adulterer who's theories have yet to be proven. rHitchens was a pathological liar. Not great minds.
I wish this discussion had subtitles - I am very hard of hearing and often struggle with sounds. Richard Dawkins is a very brilliant man with a lifetime's brilliance to match; thank you for existing Mr Dawkins. Some candles burn far longer than others - and candle wax can be used to create a seal for documents that survive. A poem: Is this our life but as a candle burning Yearning in a wilderness of void and flame? How soon our lives toward the darkness flicker Quick toward their ashes and a silent grave How soon our moments flee to hours And hours flee to days and weeks: We travel in this measured distance Yet endless is the path we seek And weeks to months and years forever fleeing How soon tomorrow is your last today: Yet hold you this your burning candle steady - Its dying light may guide you on an unknown way Brian David Scates Concepts have no material form and do not physically exist yet seem to exist in materiality; Plato's philosophy of ideals? I offer my poem to you Mr Dawkins as a gift. Thank you for your existence. And your time.
It was delightful to hear this casual conversation between two of my favorite people in this world. I must say: there is something so genuine and contagious about Professor Roberts' laughter. How I would love to have her (and Professor Dawkins, of course) as dinner party guests! I can't wait to someday hear HER Christmas Lectures!
Richard is a loser, pure and simple. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Darwinist evangelist, atheist Dawkins pretension that beautiful creatures like peacocks, birds of paradise, peregrine falcons, owls, bald eagles, etc.,would only present an illusion of being intelligently designed is simply absurd. Evolutionism has been at the center of a religious debate from the time Darwin had his hallucinations in the Galapagos. Very shrewd of evolutionists to make it sound that the debate would be science versus religion.
11:00 I think this testifies to the type of person Richard really is. Juliet trusted her father utterly. No matter what she saw, no matter what she imagined, she know that her father wouldn't really hurt her.
I love RD’s mother’s sweet poem for their little dog, I found it quite moving and am rather disappointed that his host was reluctant to let him read it aloud. If we can write eulogies for human members of our family without being labeled “sentimental”, then why not for the nonhuman relatives as well.
She has a 'thing' for losers. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@ericl2495 You are a graduate of Loser University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you losers, that one STU--P1D question is your cure-all. So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Great insight into the life of Dawkins, I enjoy reading his books very much. I hope that Richard has a speedy recovery after his stroke earlier this month.
+Nerd Massa He was alluding to the seemingly wholly ethical/moral practice of eating people who had been killed in road accidents. Of course, this is from the viewpoint of a "moral philosopher". There would seem to be nothing "morally wrong" with eating another human being who had died prematurely from an accident. The joke is half kidding and half serious. If that helps to understand...
+UniQuE TV it would hurt those, who cared about that person, that's why it is immoral, you don't have to consider the body sacred, as religious people might to have reason enough not to do it
Actually this really disappointed me. I really struggle with reading directly but find information from watching and listening is retained infinitely more effectively. I CAN read but I learn very little from it. :/
There is nothing pleasant about deception and lies. The Evolutionary Origin of Birds This is a matter of deduction, it is all guess work. Pure fantasy and imagination based on the artificial geologic column. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. Impossible alterations needed in order to change a reptile into a bird: A “variety of feathers” covering the bird, growth of wings, strengthening of certain muscles, higher blood sugar levels and body temperate levels, this is a drastic change, total revision of respiratory, nervous and reproductive systems, lightening of bones in order for it to fly, new digestive system and instinctive behaviours, every specie is subject to irreducible complexity. This is a problem for Darwinian Evolutionary Religion and a bridge too far for natural selection based on random mutations relative to the genome. It is not possible to have a build-up of genetic complexity. Irreducible complexity speaks for itself. They say it takes about 20 transitional forms [guesswork] to change one- specie into another. Charles Darwin said, “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Good question Charlie! The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great! A note on Comparative anatomy This not evidence for evolution. It just means that when you have a good design you use it to create a variety of species. For example: the foot, knee and ankle. Man invented the wheel, utilizing it on carts, bicycles, cars, trams, steering wheels etc. Evolution is on trial here not Creation. If there were a number of evolutionists in a room with one creationist, who do you think would have the legitimate right to throw a stone? If the creationist said to the evolutionists show me fossil evidence of macro-evolution on a grand- scale. All the evolutionists would have to leave the room one by one, beginning at the eldest to the youngest; he would be left alone in the room. The creationist would be the one that had the legitimate right to throw stones at all the evolutionists, but he could not do so. Being a Christian he would show love and have mercy upon the willingly ignorant, praying that they may come to their senses! Being caught up in evolution being your occupation when suddenly the light comes on is not an easy position to find yourself in. As one molecular biologist said to me anonymously, that he could see design in all living organisms but he could not say he didn’t believe in evolution or he would be out of a source of income, words to the effect. Objectivity of Science “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. To be forced to believe only one conclusion that everything in the universe happened by chance [my opinion doesn’t make sense] would violate the very objectivity of science itself. They [evolutionists] challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.” Dr. Wernher von Braun [Father of American rocket and space program] The problem today is communism and a lack of scientific honesty, because evolutionists are hostile towards belief in God. This teaching is all part of the globalist agenda which will end in tears. I would have liked to see Richard Dawkins debate a man like this.
Thank hitchens that it was not neil degrasse Tyson that was interviewing Dawkins, because Dawkins wouldn't get to talk so much if that was the case. This was really beautiful.
Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson have had at least one wonderful "mutual tutorial", which was also great to watch - both brilliant minds and fantastic educators.
Only losers think he thinks. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
You learn to lie as he does. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only splendid to losers. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Actually, just two losers. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
So, you like losers. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
4:15 i think richard dawkins may have read a college essay i wrote, "The categorization of many singular events into a chronologically linear timeline is a natural outcome of the compulsion to make sense of intangible worlds. In some cases however, linear chronology can become an oppressive structure, masking important themes when the relevant events are not easily linked by temporal proximity ."
+escalade75 You are in love with the sound of this mans voice. Does he help give your life meaning? Do you feel good knowing you are sharing the planet with Dawkins?
What a truly great presentation! @ 27:30 If I could find a woman who has read and appreciated both Darwin as well as Dawkins and Douglas Adams and... I would drop everything and capitalize on my talents, settle down and have children and a house and life insurance, etc, etc.
11:30 Not just loyalty, but trust as well. She knew, no matter how bad it looked, that her father would never hurt her. I can't think of a more obvious sign that Richard was *NOT* abusive. It's how I felt about my parents. I knew that no matter what, neither of my parents would ever hurt me. Sure, I might get a spanking, but even that didn't really hurt. Looking back, I think I was very lucky.
Wow, went to watch this video for it's guest, and who is this Alice Roberts!? What a beautiful woman; well spoken, lovely English accent... I have not swooned like this since.... never!
Good to know that if I ever get to have my ideal dinner party that Richard would be happy to see Stephen Fry and Douglas Adams there too. Plus Professor Brian Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Jenna Levin, with Chuck Nice and Alan Davies. 🤓👍
"Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous--indifferent to all suffering" Richard Dawkins Someone should ask this Candle in the Dark to enlighten us on WHICH selfish gene is responsible for human suffering and WHICH genetic mutation makes it so hard for humans to learn that nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.
Paradoxical since the science fiction author atheist Darwinist is regarding his own brain as a designoid object as too badly flawed to be the creation of an intelligent entity.
I love the atmosphere: no juvenile whooping, whistling, stamping or cheering after each anecdote - just calm appreciation, with the occasional nod and polite patter of applause. Pauses are not taboo; silence is not a crime or an indication of disapproval. I imagine the audience was raised on a childhood diet of riotous winter pantomime participation ["Oh, no it wasn't!"], so it knows what's appropriate. The restraint enhances the occasion. It makes the conversation seem more intimate and real. The proud TV cliché of claiming that such-and-such a programme is 'Filmed before a live studio audience!!!' is never anything more than an excuse to smother it with 'live' canned laughter and clumsily orchestrated, mawkish responses. Watching this, I feel I'm being treated like an adult. Which is nice, because I'm not even one year old (in galactic rotation terms).
Ah, if I was ever asked to say grace like that, then I wouldn't refuse it, but would instead fix it. Thanks to the cook. Thanks to the farmers. Thanks to the delivery truck drivers who brought it to the supermarket. Thanks to the supermarket workers. Thanks to the engineers who created the delivery trucks by which the truck drivers could deliver it. Thanks to the scientists who fed the engineers with the know-how of how to do that in the first place. And so on and so forth. Attempting - though inevitably failing, as the vast human enterprise that brings food to our table just has far too many members to realistically be able to list them all exhaustively - to credit the real, actual people who did real, actual work to most pleasantly keep our bellies full. Three cheers for them. Because, indeed, if I - or anyone else - was left to do it all on our lonesomes then, most likely, we'd fail to keep all those plates spinning on their sticks and perish. And, if not, then it'd at least be an unpleasant tedious toil - without end, so you'd have little to no time for anything else - like Medieval peasants perpetually subsistence farming. Simply not to be dead. Entirely "running to stand still", as it were. So really, genuinely, thank fuck for all these people. Sincere three cheers for them, as we'd all be quite buggered and miserable without them, in truth. History makes this abundantly clear, if you care to review it. And, of course, zero mention of God. Because, frankly, what the hell has he got to do with anything? Even if gods did exist and they really did kick off the universe, we know - from scientific endeavour - that the universe has thereafter just ticked along to its own clock, without any measurable divine interference nor, more crucially, any need for it whatsoever. So even if you were to insist on adding God into this mixture, he's a small footnote to all this anyway. What would we even say? "Umm, thanks God for supposedly initially creating this vast arena in which all these events transpire entirely regardless of your existence or not. Allegedly". Remove gods from this equation and - oh, look - absolutely no difference whatsoever. But remove the cook and you're not eating. Remove the delivery truck driver and the supermarket's empty. And so forth. So, yes, let's be grateful for the nice meal before us. Or, quite frankly, even for some unpleasant gruel that's poorly cooked, so long as it prevents our premature end from starvation, which we'd all much prefer not to happen. But let's thank and support the actual real people who're genuinely responsible for that meal. Real people who did actual things. Real people who could actually do with your support - to keep going - and your praise - as humans do actually need to feel valued. At least sometimes. (Whereas, why bother with God? Isn't he supposed to be omniscient anyway? So why are we bothering to talk to him at all? He already knows!) And, basically, let's not leave this food to go cold any longer, and let's demonstrate our gratitude in the most appropriate fashion, by wolfing it down and then patting our satisfied bellies. Amen.
14:10 Chevy had a hard time selling a very popular car model in Latin America. The car was pretty good, affordable and sold quite well in Canada and the US but no one wanted it in Spanish speaking parts of the Americas. The problem was the name of the model. "Nova" in English is a stellar explosion, in Spanish it means "won't go"
+Eric Taylor Really? Just to add something. "no va" means "wont go" but "nova" also means the same in spanish as in english. I hadnt heard that story though,,,
Disagreement and sparks needed? Certainly no disagreement nor sparks between Richard and Alice in this video and yet I consider it very pleasant to see! Thank you very much Ri for posting this. So many puns and jokes, but also very personal stories here, to some of which I can relate to from my perspective. So deep. I would love to meet any of the two, just informally for a glass of wine or a beer, if they happen to visit central Europe (Bratislava, Vienna), I am sure we would have a nice and valuable talk, hopefully for both participants. I am so lucky in my life, you mostly cannot imagine how and I can only humbly write this post here on RUclips. I wonder if this vast shitstorm we call existence will surprise me once again and I actually happen to bump into one of these people by accident. I wonder if that would make me religious. Most likely not. :-) I am very happy to be able to watch this, understand this and read the books by Richard in the language he wrote them.
Mr Dawkins mentioning after 1hr 2 minutes in this video, Fatima (Portugal), Zeitoun (Egypt) Medjugorje (Bosnia Herzegovina) Garabandal (northern Spain) Knock (Ireland) Lourdes (France) Akita (Japan) Most people won't have heard of these places but from a scientific point of view, regarding the events in Zeitoun (1968-71), what were all those thousands of people witnessing and also, apparently caught on camera? Akita, has an especially strong message.
I know *exactly* how the *trick* at Fatima was done. I know because I'm not as intelligent as Dawkins. So I did things that were more stupid than he would have done when I was a child.
Atheism may be the bones of humanity, but religion and belief, is the flesh, the warmth, the laughter, the poetry, the music, the dinner parties, the appreciation of beauty, the compassion, ………… and everything that makes life worthwhile. THINK ABOUT IT..
I could not disagree more. Atheism does not effect a persons appreciation of beauty, poetry, music and good company. Any more than being a train spotter might impact those things. Believing unfalsifiable myths robs a person of the true wonder of exploring nature in all its glory.
While I don't disagree with the points made here by Richard Dawkins (ably interviewed by Professor Roberts), nor his opposition to Creationism, it would be nice if both gave credit to theorists who preceded Darwin, such as Robert Chambers and Richard Owen, Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" which Darwin borrowed, and the 18th and 19th century French and German scholars who were trying to synthesize comparative anatomy, anthropology, and embryology into a coherent theory of "transformism." Darwin recognized the basic principle of evolution -- natural selection -- but didn't use the term "evolution," borrowed from Spencer, until his second classic work, The Descent of Man. Darwin's theories, since refined by later scholars, did not spring , Athena-like, from the forehead of Zeus; the idea was percolating in scholarly papers long before Darwin. It would not in the least diminish the accomplishments of Darwin to acknowledge, even briefly, that he, like Newton, saw farther by standing on the shoulders of giants. And the theory of evolution as we know it today has been substantially improved and confirmed by later scholars and advances in genetics and modern paleoanthropology. Darwin himself would be the first to acknowledge the contributions of others before and after his seminal works.
When I am homeless in the wet and cold, and when my life seems more then I can hold, where can I turn to ease my plight, I’m freezing still, no hope in sight, yet still there’s evolution…..all that’s left for me…
I've just finished reading all of these comments and have two things to say/ask. First, all those who are gushing over Prof Alice Roberts, go and take a cold shower. Secondly, do atheists populate the comments sections of religious YT videos debunking and ridiculing religion?
Simply put, there is no debating Richard Dawkins Losing the debate, yes...but no more! Edit: please, someone else may know the RUclips video which Richard Dawkins is describing the body and it's resilience through the immune system. If you know of it, please reply, I can not seem to locate it. When I watched it, I was so taken in by how simple he described it I even wrote something's down, unfortunately, without the title of the video. Thanx ahead of time for any help.
I would like to ask Mr Richard Dawkins the following question: You said that all life is related and started from one life. You also talk about evolution by speciation and evolution that converts a specie into another specie, after long long time. How is that possible? -Your second theory (conversion) is direct contradiction to your first theory (speciation). right? thanks.
From the first domesticated dogs, man has bred many different breeds. Obviously, this is impossible. Your parents had you, therefore they could not have any other children. Right?
I've sat here for an hour almost, enjoying the talk yet all the while I couldn't help thinking, I have seen this beautiful young scientist somewhere before. Finally I stopped and did a little searching. Yes indeed I saw her in a wonderful video collection called the Symphony of Science talking about dinosaurs. I suspect she was also in the one about humans and Africa.
He has one of the most beautiful minds. I am very glad he is here.
He's loves lying and ignoring science.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Paradoxical since the science fiction author atheist Darwinist is regarding his own brain as a designoid object as too badly flawed to be the creation of an intelligent entity.
Absolutely loved the passage the Professor read about his 7 year old daughter. Very heart warming.
That's an emotional response, it's illogical and unreasonable.
It is evolutionary remnant of the benefit of bonding with mates of the same group to ensure its survival by altruistic behaviour, so that genes will be passed further.
I guess.
No, that Gene is killed of quickly. The majority reaction is the dominant surviving gene. His daughter is a mutant.
Saying daughter is transphobic
You should say daughter (or something, or cisgender, or non binary) have some respect
@@ophiolatreia93 Pick a lane here, guy.
Dawkins states the privilege of living in the era of Darwin and Einstein, we are privileged witnessing him, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens…. The brilliant minds and intellects who shaped & challenged our thoughts and pushed us to know more. Great moderator was the Alice Roberts with that voice and accent!
Great minds? Darwin has been proven wrong. Much of what Enstein thought is wrong. Einstein was an immature irresponsible parent that left his wife and children. Hawkining was an adulterer who's theories have yet to be proven. rHitchens was a pathological liar. Not great minds.
I wish this discussion had subtitles - I am very hard of hearing and often struggle with sounds. Richard Dawkins is a very brilliant man with a lifetime's brilliance to match; thank you for existing Mr Dawkins. Some candles burn far longer than others - and candle wax can be used to create a seal for documents that survive. A poem:
Is this our life but as a candle burning
Yearning in a wilderness of void and flame?
How soon our lives toward the darkness flicker
Quick toward their ashes and a silent grave
How soon our moments flee to hours
And hours flee to days and weeks:
We travel in this measured distance
Yet endless is the path we seek
And weeks to months and years forever fleeing
How soon tomorrow is your last today:
Yet hold you this your burning candle steady -
Its dying light may guide you on an unknown way
Brian David Scates
Concepts have no material form and do not physically exist yet seem to exist in materiality; Plato's philosophy of ideals?
I offer my poem to you Mr Dawkins as a gift. Thank you for your existence. And your time.
It was delightful to hear this casual conversation between two of my favorite people in this world. I must say: there is something so genuine and contagious about Professor Roberts' laughter. How I would love to have her (and Professor Dawkins, of course) as dinner party guests! I can't wait to someday hear HER Christmas Lectures!
Well, you don't have to wait very long - www.rigb.org/christmas-lectures/2018-who-am-i
Richard is a loser, pure and simple.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Darwinist evangelist, atheist Dawkins pretension that beautiful creatures like peacocks, birds of paradise, peregrine falcons, owls, bald eagles, etc.,would only present an illusion of being intelligently designed is simply absurd. Evolutionism has been at the center of a religious debate from the time Darwin had his hallucinations in the Galapagos. Very shrewd of evolutionists to make it sound that the debate would be science versus religion.
11:00 I think this testifies to the type of person Richard really is. Juliet trusted her father utterly. No matter what she saw, no matter what she imagined, she know that her father wouldn't really hurt her.
Two of my favourite people in one video! It doesn't get any better.
I love RD’s mother’s sweet poem for their little dog, I found it quite moving and am rather disappointed that his host was reluctant to let him read it aloud. If we can write eulogies for human members of our family without being labeled “sentimental”, then why not for the nonhuman relatives as well.
Louise Haley You’re making a lot of incorrect assumptions and didn’t listen to the little exchange they had when he brought up the dog.
Go vegan
Alice is perfection in everything she is and everything she achieves. She made this a wonderful interview so unlike many other inflammatory hosts.
She has a 'thing' for losers.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block and the supernatural comes from......oh don't bother I'll spoil it for you: human imagination.
@@2fast2block A fine bit of sputtering you offer about your imaginary friend in the sky.
@@ericl2495 You are a graduate of Loser University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you losers, that one STU--P1D question is your cure-all.
So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
@@rahinc loser, that didn't get around the science I gave but if you are proud to show what a loser you are, have at it.
Great insight into the life of Dawkins, I enjoy reading his books very much.
I hope that Richard has a speedy recovery after his stroke earlier this month.
+Musicmansam28 This world needs more people like him!!!..
+Musicmansam28 Just read about that, hope to have him around for many years yet, he is not finished yet!
Dawkins was finished years ago, by his own Darwinian beliefs it's time he kicked the bucket, he's holding humanity back.
ONLY AUTHORISED ATHEISTS, OR FAMILY RELATIVES AND SYCHOPHANTS, ARE ALLOWED ON THESE WEBSITES..
@@davidbanner6230
Calm down. You’re ranting
32:00 the best kind of humor, so dark, yet so logical :D
+hawk0485 can someone please write it here? I'm italian and i can't manage to understand the second part of the joke xD
+Nerd Massa He was alluding to the seemingly wholly ethical/moral practice of eating people who had been killed in road accidents. Of course, this is from the viewpoint of a "moral philosopher". There would seem to be nothing "morally wrong" with eating another human being who had died prematurely from an accident.
The joke is half kidding and half serious. If that helps to understand...
+ErgoCogita haha thanks, Dawkins is brilliant as always xD
Nerd Massa
My pleasure.
+UniQuE TV it would hurt those, who cared about that person, that's why it is immoral, you don't have to consider the body sacred, as religious people might to have reason enough not to do it
It should be Sir Richard Dawkins . It is long overdue
Does that change who he is?!
I couldn't agree more..
He is an atheist. They can't handle it
@@tiltMOD No, but its a recognition by an ancient institution of the UK that he is a citizen of significance.
Atheists don't get knighted
Very Smart Guy.. Love the way he speaks...
Such a great conversation! It was really thought provoking and educational.
25:30 I saw one in a Chinese menu that had been translated to English, "Chicken, rude and unreasonable" when it should have been "chicken jerky"
I once saw a display in a window in China with some condoms which were labelled in English as “Men’s Cheerful Towels”
44:29 "Students can read....Most of them"
Haha, I'm loving prof.Dawkin's humour in this segment
Actually this really disappointed me. I really struggle with reading directly but find information from watching and listening is retained infinitely more effectively. I CAN read but I learn very little from it. :/
There is nothing pleasant about deception and lies.
The Evolutionary Origin of Birds
This is a matter of deduction, it is all guess work. Pure fantasy and imagination based on the artificial geologic column. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. Impossible alterations needed in order to change a reptile into a bird: A “variety of feathers” covering the bird, growth of wings, strengthening of certain muscles, higher blood sugar levels and body temperate levels, this is a drastic change, total revision of respiratory, nervous and reproductive systems, lightening of bones in order for it to fly, new digestive system and instinctive behaviours, every specie is subject to irreducible complexity. This is a problem for Darwinian Evolutionary Religion and a bridge too far for natural selection based on random mutations relative to the genome. It is not possible to have a build-up of genetic complexity. Irreducible complexity speaks for itself. They say it takes about 20 transitional forms [guesswork] to change one- specie into another. Charles Darwin said, “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Good question Charlie! The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!
A note on Comparative anatomy
This not evidence for evolution. It just means that when you have a good design you use it to create a variety of species. For example: the foot, knee and ankle. Man invented the wheel, utilizing it on carts, bicycles, cars, trams, steering wheels etc.
Evolution is on trial here not Creation.
If there were a number of evolutionists in a room with one creationist, who do you think would have the legitimate right to throw a stone? If the creationist said to the evolutionists show me fossil evidence of macro-evolution on a grand- scale. All the evolutionists would have to leave the room one by one, beginning at the eldest to the youngest; he would be left alone in the room. The creationist would be the one that had the legitimate right to throw stones at all the evolutionists, but he could not do so. Being a Christian he would show love and have mercy upon the willingly ignorant, praying that they may come to their senses! Being caught up in evolution being your occupation when suddenly the light comes on is not an easy position to find yourself in. As one molecular biologist said to me anonymously, that he could see design in all living organisms but he could not say he didn’t believe in evolution or he would be out of a source of income, words to the effect.
Objectivity of Science
“One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. To be forced to believe only one conclusion that everything in the universe happened by chance [my opinion doesn’t make sense] would violate the very objectivity of science itself. They [evolutionists] challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.”
Dr. Wernher von Braun [Father of American rocket and space program]
The problem today is communism and a lack of scientific honesty, because evolutionists are hostile towards belief in God. This teaching is all part of the globalist agenda which will end in tears.
I would have liked to see Richard Dawkins debate a man like this.
Wouldn't it be astoundingly elegant to meet a person of such novelty in my life time...? Just hoping for that day!
Professors Richard Dawkins and Alice Roberts are two of my favorites.
I concur!
ONLY AUTHORISED ATHEISTS, OR FAMILY RELATIVES AND SYCHOPHANTS, ARE ALLOWED ON THESE WEBSITES..
@@davidbanner6230 And people who can't write correct English and think using ALL CAPS gives them a stronger argument....
Brilliant discussion and very enjoyable.
Really enjoyed this, thanks for putting it up.
Great! He did a great job in eradicating the misconceptions of the traditional beliefs.
Thank hitchens that it was not neil degrasse Tyson that was interviewing Dawkins, because Dawkins wouldn't get to talk so much if that was the case.
This was really beautiful.
What does Hitchens has to do with that? He didn't like Tyson? Also this event definitely looks like it took place a few years after Hitchen's death?
Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson have had at least one wonderful "mutual tutorial", which was also great to watch - both brilliant minds and fantastic educators.
These are some great points considering the distribution of information.
Happy Birthday to you and still more good years to come.
Sir Richard Dawkins is without any doubt one of modern times best thinkers, what a wonderful bright mind that man has.
Only losers think he thinks.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Always something new useful to learn when listening to Richard Dawkins!
You learn to lie as he does.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Alice Roberts is really something! Wow!
"Glory hole of rubbish" lol i love Dawkins.
glory hole he says... hmmmm.
Splendid stuff. Thank you RI.
Only splendid to losers.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Two of my favorites together, Alice Roberts and Richard Dawkins ❤ A humanist and an Atheist !
Actually, just two losers.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
OMG, two of my favorite people - great to see Alice Roberts again! And Dawkins always gives a good talk.
So, you like losers.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Goodness, this woman has a brilliant mind and is stunning beautiful. She just effervesces everything wonderful.
If you are not now
one day
you and the rest of humanity
will be standing on the shoulders of this giant
4:15 i think richard dawkins may have read a college essay i wrote,
"The categorization of many singular events into a chronologically linear timeline is a natural outcome of the compulsion to make sense of intangible worlds. In some cases however, linear chronology can become an oppressive structure, masking important themes when the relevant events are not easily linked by temporal proximity ."
I love this woman's laugh. Warms my heart.
Can we take a second to appreciate that his tie has chinstrap penguins on it?
+escalade75 You are in love with the sound of this mans voice. Does he help give your life meaning? Do you feel good knowing you are sharing the planet with Dawkins?
1 yes, we are. He has an articulate way of speaking... He does not give, I do... Most definitely yes...
His ex-wife Lalla Ward designed his ties apparently
You talk so well...you make me proud of being a Sapiens.
What a truly great presentation!
@ 27:30 If I could find a woman who has read and appreciated both Darwin as well as Dawkins and Douglas Adams and... I would drop everything and capitalize on my talents, settle down and have children and a house and life insurance, etc, etc.
They are married.
Love Alice!
Thanks so much for uploading
11:30 Not just loyalty, but trust as well. She knew, no matter how bad it looked, that her father would never hurt her. I can't think of a more obvious sign that Richard was *NOT* abusive.
It's how I felt about my parents. I knew that no matter what, neither of my parents would ever hurt me. Sure, I might get a spanking, but even that didn't really hurt. Looking back, I think I was very lucky.
Who said anything about abuse?
Wow, went to watch this video for it's guest, and who is this Alice Roberts!? What a beautiful woman; well spoken, lovely English accent... I have not swooned like this since.... never!
+Raubhautz You have many TV-programs to enjoy, she has done quite many over the past decade.
Yes, I have discovered! :D
I only just came across this...my 2 favourite scientists. Thank you so much for uploading!
science is pretty cool and so is this guy, ill admit
Good to know that if I ever get to have my ideal dinner party that Richard would be happy to see Stephen Fry and Douglas Adams there too.
Plus Professor Brian Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Jenna Levin, with Chuck Nice and Alan Davies. 🤓👍
"Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous--indifferent to all suffering" Richard Dawkins
Someone should ask this Candle in the Dark to enlighten us on WHICH selfish gene is responsible for human suffering and WHICH genetic mutation makes it so hard for humans to learn that nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.
You surely can't be serious. If you understood biology you would understand the answer.
I adored that, thank you.
Dawkins keeps me rivited for hours! Amazing interlectual!
Intellectual*
ONLY AUTHORISED ATHEISTS, OR FAMILY RELATIVES AND SYCHOPHANTS, ARE ALLOWED ON THESE WEBSITES..
Paradoxical since the science fiction author atheist Darwinist is regarding his own brain as a designoid object as too badly flawed to be the creation of an intelligent entity.
I love the atmosphere: no juvenile whooping, whistling, stamping or cheering after each anecdote - just calm appreciation, with the occasional nod and polite patter of applause.
Pauses are not taboo; silence is not a crime or an indication of disapproval. I imagine the audience was raised on a childhood diet of riotous winter pantomime participation ["Oh, no it wasn't!"], so it knows what's appropriate. The restraint enhances the occasion. It makes the conversation seem more intimate and real.
The proud TV cliché of claiming that such-and-such a programme is 'Filmed before a live studio audience!!!' is never anything more than an excuse to smother it with 'live' canned laughter and clumsily orchestrated, mawkish responses.
Watching this, I feel I'm being treated like an adult.
Which is nice, because I'm not even one year old (in galactic rotation terms).
Ah, if I was ever asked to say grace like that, then I wouldn't refuse it, but would instead fix it.
Thanks to the cook. Thanks to the farmers. Thanks to the delivery truck drivers who brought it to the supermarket. Thanks to the supermarket workers. Thanks to the engineers who created the delivery trucks by which the truck drivers could deliver it. Thanks to the scientists who fed the engineers with the know-how of how to do that in the first place.
And so on and so forth.
Attempting - though inevitably failing, as the vast human enterprise that brings food to our table just has far too many members to realistically be able to list them all exhaustively - to credit the real, actual people who did real, actual work to most pleasantly keep our bellies full.
Three cheers for them.
Because, indeed, if I - or anyone else - was left to do it all on our lonesomes then, most likely, we'd fail to keep all those plates spinning on their sticks and perish. And, if not, then it'd at least be an unpleasant tedious toil - without end, so you'd have little to no time for anything else - like Medieval peasants perpetually subsistence farming. Simply not to be dead. Entirely "running to stand still", as it were.
So really, genuinely, thank fuck for all these people. Sincere three cheers for them, as we'd all be quite buggered and miserable without them, in truth. History makes this abundantly clear, if you care to review it.
And, of course, zero mention of God. Because, frankly, what the hell has he got to do with anything? Even if gods did exist and they really did kick off the universe, we know - from scientific endeavour - that the universe has thereafter just ticked along to its own clock, without any measurable divine interference nor, more crucially, any need for it whatsoever.
So even if you were to insist on adding God into this mixture, he's a small footnote to all this anyway. What would we even say? "Umm, thanks God for supposedly initially creating this vast arena in which all these events transpire entirely regardless of your existence or not. Allegedly".
Remove gods from this equation and - oh, look - absolutely no difference whatsoever.
But remove the cook and you're not eating. Remove the delivery truck driver and the supermarket's empty. And so forth.
So, yes, let's be grateful for the nice meal before us. Or, quite frankly, even for some unpleasant gruel that's poorly cooked, so long as it prevents our premature end from starvation, which we'd all much prefer not to happen.
But let's thank and support the actual real people who're genuinely responsible for that meal. Real people who did actual things. Real people who could actually do with your support - to keep going - and your praise - as humans do actually need to feel valued. At least sometimes.
(Whereas, why bother with God? Isn't he supposed to be omniscient anyway? So why are we bothering to talk to him at all? He already knows!)
And, basically, let's not leave this food to go cold any longer, and let's demonstrate our gratitude in the most appropriate fashion, by wolfing it down and then patting our satisfied bellies.
Amen.
Brilliant as usual!
I love RD's humour.
His daughter is bad ass. Anything for the advancement!!!
I watched that video. Fantastic.
Is Dawkins overdue for an MBE, OBE, or CBE ?
+arty359 SO RIGHTT!!!!!!
Excellent point! And why he hasn't got one, is a travesty. I mean you have washed up members of rock bands getting them....
?
Not with this government.
undoubtedly the best evolutionary true scientist of this age. cheers!
Totally love Alice Roberts...She's so intelligent and beautiful.
She is my favourite person.
Richard: If it is intelligent, it doesn't blow itself up. IMO Thanks
14:10 Chevy had a hard time selling a very popular car model in Latin America. The car was pretty good, affordable and sold quite well in Canada and the US but no one wanted it in Spanish speaking parts of the Americas. The problem was the name of the model. "Nova" in English is a stellar explosion, in Spanish it means "won't go"
+Eric Taylor Really? Just to add something. "no va" means "wont go" but "nova" also means the same in spanish as in english. I hadnt heard that story though,,,
omgtkseth
But associated with a car which meaning do you think Spanish speakers are more apt to apply? A stellar explosion or "won't go"
Eric Taylor Stellar explosion. Its not as bad as CMAX Turbo, though...
Rolls Royce was going to call the successor to the Silver Cloud the Silver Mist. Until they found out what "mist" meant in German.
11:00 Bravery, sure. But also trust. The child knew that her dad would never hurt her.
Eric Taylor He said “loyalty’ not “bravery”.
Disagreement and sparks needed? Certainly no disagreement nor sparks between Richard and Alice in this video and yet I consider it very pleasant to see! Thank you very much Ri for posting this. So many puns and jokes, but also very personal stories here, to some of which I can relate to from my perspective. So deep. I would love to meet any of the two, just informally for a glass of wine or a beer, if they happen to visit central Europe (Bratislava, Vienna), I am sure we would have a nice and valuable talk, hopefully for both participants. I am so lucky in my life, you mostly cannot imagine how and I can only humbly write this post here on RUclips. I wonder if this vast shitstorm we call existence will surprise me once again and I actually happen to bump into one of these people by accident. I wonder if that would make me religious. Most likely not. :-) I am very happy to be able to watch this, understand this and read the books by Richard in the language he wrote them.
two of my favourite people
Oh I'm excited for this deer story.
Heh, I didn't realize that Dawkins had his own personal Doctor Who companion. :D
He did. She came to a party of mine once. When she was still married to Tom Baker
3:06 That time wasn't called Zimbabwe it was Rhodesia.
Why is no one talking about his tie??
Oh, his brilliancy eclipses that.
if Alice would have been my teacher at school my attendance would have been much better
She is pretty much the perfect woman, intelligent and attractive (sexy) .I also would have been a better student,
Yes, but would you actually have been paying attention to what she was saying?
@@timwatts9371 i only said my attendance would be better 😁
@@truthfilter
I’m hearing you!
~7:51 roughly, he said "glory hole". LMFAO.
Not very intellectual of me but I can't help noticing the contrast between Alice's beautifully manicured eye brows and Richards Spaghetti brows. lol.
Sad to think that the poor thing had a stroke mere weeks after this, and then got divorced from his dear Lalla later that year.
That is a shame
Mr Dawkins mentioning after 1hr 2 minutes in this video, Fatima (Portugal), Zeitoun (Egypt) Medjugorje (Bosnia Herzegovina) Garabandal (northern Spain) Knock (Ireland) Lourdes (France) Akita (Japan) Most people won't have heard of these places but from a scientific point of view, regarding the events in Zeitoun (1968-71), what were all those thousands of people witnessing and also, apparently caught on camera?
Akita, has an especially strong message.
I know *exactly* how the *trick* at Fatima was done.
I know because I'm not as intelligent as Dawkins. So I did things that were more stupid than he would have done when I was a child.
High time that the Nobel literature committee consider him a serious contender.
He doesn't write fiction.
Atheism may be the bones of humanity, but religion and belief, is the flesh, the warmth, the laughter, the poetry, the music, the dinner parties, the appreciation of beauty, the compassion, ………… and everything that makes life worthwhile.
THINK ABOUT IT..
I could not disagree more. Atheism does not effect a persons appreciation of beauty, poetry, music and good company. Any more than being a train spotter might impact those things. Believing unfalsifiable myths robs a person of the true wonder of exploring nature in all its glory.
Think about what, precisely? Also, why did you refuse to reply to the other comment?
Great discussion. Does anyone know which RUclips film Richard Dawkins is referring to that included he and Lawrence Krauss after The Unbelievers?
While I don't disagree with the points made here by Richard Dawkins (ably interviewed by Professor Roberts), nor his opposition to Creationism, it would be nice if both gave credit to theorists who preceded Darwin, such as Robert Chambers and Richard Owen, Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" which Darwin borrowed, and the 18th and 19th century French and German scholars who were trying to synthesize comparative anatomy, anthropology, and embryology into a coherent theory of "transformism." Darwin recognized the basic principle of evolution -- natural selection -- but didn't use the term "evolution," borrowed from Spencer, until his second classic work, The Descent of Man. Darwin's theories, since refined by later scholars, did not spring , Athena-like, from the forehead of Zeus; the idea was percolating in scholarly papers long before Darwin. It would not in the least diminish the accomplishments of Darwin to acknowledge, even briefly, that he, like Newton, saw farther by standing on the shoulders of giants. And the theory of evolution as we know it today has been substantially improved and confirmed by later scholars and advances in genetics and modern paleoanthropology. Darwin himself would be the first to acknowledge the contributions of others before and after his seminal works.
You’ve not quoted the sources of your criticism.
Such a brilliant and beautiful mind should never be lost. The first A.I. mind should be designed after Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss.
Beautiful Mind? The pinnacle of which is "Well so bloody what?". How common and unsophisticated!
*****
Is that the only thing you picked up from this video? .... enaugh said.
Robi Ispas
I need know no more to establish a well rounded and educated opinion of the buffoon.
Robi Ispas
Call
Not that anyone cares, but I could look at Alice Roberts for the rest of my life.
I do not believe you should in any way be blamed for that sentiment.
Two of my all time favourite people! This must be what heaven is like.
I would totally ship these two
To add to the interviewer’s initial statement; I can’t really remember any specific time when I first became aware of Dawkins.
When I am homeless in the wet and cold, and when my life seems more then I can hold, where can I turn to ease my plight, I’m freezing still, no hope in sight, yet still there’s evolution…..all that’s left for me…
whats the blackscreen at 40:27?
Other candles are constantly being lit... So it's not going to go "dark" after this one goes out.
I've just finished reading all of these comments and have two things to say/ask.
First, all those who are gushing over Prof Alice Roberts, go and take a cold shower.
Secondly, do atheists populate the comments sections of religious YT videos debunking and ridiculing religion?
3:08 When he was a child in Africa that country was called Rhodesia.
What is the meaning (if any) of the backdrop to the lecture theatre I see in so many lectures (the cubes)?
Something to do with penrose tiling I think.
Simply put, there is no debating Richard Dawkins
Losing the debate, yes...but no more!
Edit: please, someone else may know the RUclips video which Richard Dawkins is describing the body and it's resilience through the immune system. If you know of it, please reply, I can not seem to locate it. When I watched it, I was so taken in by how simple he described it I even wrote something's down, unfortunately, without the title of the video.
Thanx ahead of time for any help.
Alice, I loved your swimming show ...
*sighs* now I need to buy the book.
I like this.
Looks like they're in an old operating theatre... Dissecting truth
This video is designed to appreciate how life
I reckon Alice and Richard fancy each other.
I would like to ask Mr Richard Dawkins the following question: You said that all life is related and started from one life. You also talk about evolution by speciation and evolution that converts a specie into another specie, after long long time.
How is that possible? -Your second theory (conversion) is direct contradiction to your first theory (speciation). right?
thanks.
From the first domesticated dogs, man has bred many different breeds. Obviously, this is impossible.
Your parents had you, therefore they could not have any other children. Right?
Please could you subtitle the lecture? Thanks a lot
Richard “the imp”Dawkins
He has such an imp sounding voice
The host is beautiful.
Professor Alice Roberts
Where are you now, Steven Rose? (Not In Our Genes)
I've sat here for an hour almost, enjoying the talk yet all the while I couldn't help thinking, I have seen this beautiful young scientist somewhere before. Finally I stopped and did a little searching. Yes indeed I saw her in a wonderful video collection called the Symphony of Science talking about dinosaurs. I suspect she was also in the one about humans and Africa.
+Javaman92 She has done loads of wonderful TV over the last 13 (?) years or so. Carpool (web-series) had a good interview with her some years ago.
Alice