"it works bitches" unfortunately no religionist ever has accept that argument because they don't actually want to believe in science their desire to believe in fairy tales is stronger than their desire to know which is why I refuse to engage with the idiots.
When people clapped the moment Cardinal George Pell said we evolved from Neanderthals, it basically exposes how deluded and stupid those followers of the Cardinal are to blindly trust these intellectually diminutive reptile of human beings.
QUR'ANIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION VS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CREATION OR EVOLUTION (1) The theory of evolution asserts that living things are not part of creation or intelligent design, but a coincidental causes and natural process. However, this " theory of Evolution by natural selection " gave rise to doubts from the very beginning. 1- What were the " natural and coincidental variations " referred to by Darwin ? How could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species ? 2- Darwin asserted that " living beings evolved gradually". In this çase, there should have lived millions of " transitional forms". Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought this problem, and eventually arrived at this conclusion that " further research would provide these fossils." 3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes , ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing. H.S.Lipson, a British physicist makes the following comments about these " difficulties " of Darwin's: " On reading ' The Origin of Species ' I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be ; the chapter entitled " Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen. (1) However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties. The Problem of Origin of Life : The theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organism, had been widely accepted. Even in the period of Darwin's ' Origin of Species ' was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread. A corner stone of the Theory of Evolution was disapproved by Louis Pasture. In his lecture at the Sorbbone in 1864. He said: " Never will be the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow srtuck by this simple experiment." (2) However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidently faced an even greater impasse. The problem of Genetic : Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance.Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false ground.Darwin assumed that : Naturaĺ selection was the " mechanism of Evolution." He was unable to explain how would " useful traits" be selected and transmitted to the next geneation? At this point, he embraced the Lamarckan theory, that is " the inheritance of acquired traits". However, Lamarck's thesis was disapproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of species occurs. This was a serious deadend for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of " useful traits " on Lamarck. Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's Mendel was in favour of the orthodox doctrine of special creation. (1) H.S. Lipson, " A Physicit's view of Darwin's theory", Evolutio Trends in Plants, vol.2, No, 1988, p.6 (2) Sidney Fox, Klause Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. W.H.Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972, p.4. Continue:-- DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI Ph.D. (Arabic Lit.) M.A. Arabic Lit.+Islamic Studies) Director Amena Institute of Islamic Studies & Analysis A Global & Universal Research Institute, Donate to promote this Institute SBI A/C30029616117 Kolkata,Park Circus Branch nadvilaeeque@gmail.com Thanks
Wait im confused at 1:00 why did Dawkins react that way? Doesn't science state that humans evolved from Neanderthals? Or am I getting something wrong here?
Neanderthals and modern day humans (homo sapiens) lived along side each other kinda like how bonobos and chimpanzees do nowadays. One didn’t come from the other, they shared a common ancestor. Neanderthals just ended up going extinct because they couldn’t compete for the same biological niche as us although some of their genes have been preserved in a small portion of humans today trough interspecies procreation.
@@shroomer8294 Oh that makes sense, I can't believe for the longest time I thought humans evolved from neanderthals. Do scientists know exactly what the common ancestor is that humans and neanderthals share?
Neanderthals are extinct and were much like humans, but we are not evolved from them, just like we are not evolved from gorillas, orangutans, bonobos etc. We share common ancestors.
@@HqrvqrdDropOut of course I have emotions, but they aren't God given its evolution. Which God is the best,there are that many to choose from,any advice.😎
Interesting to here Dawkins but what isn’t interesting is having the sound blast out at ten times the volume so my neighbors can here it 10 doors down. What makes you morons think we want to hear some shit song at ten times the volume that has no relevance????
What will we do when Dawkins passes away like Hitch did.. Its going to be a sad day, week, month, year, decade.. I still miss Hitchens but Dawkins is getting on now.. Sam Harris just doesn't cut it like these 2 legends.. RIP Hitch & long live Dawkins although he wouldn't have it that way lol..
Of note to ponder, can "science" create something as miraculous as a single living cell, let alone a single human being? Can science negate gravitational attraction let alone create a star? Science "works" but, like the theory of evolution, it has a lot of unknown-unexplained knowledge gaps, like what moves people to do good or evil .... or what is the driving force behind Mr. Dawkins' obsession.
Science (well biology) already does create creatures its called reproduction and you are sadly an example of it. With the study of science (well maths and physics with the help of engineering for a machine/device) we have found that Thrust can negate the effect of gravity by having a hover,magnetism can also do the same if the two poles are set to repel (such as maglev trains).Also planes and anything that flies already negate the effects (in terms of falling) of gravity as they have to equal or exceed its force. We can already manipulate cells into what we want or need such as genetic modification. Some explanation for good vs evil, is for self benefit,or mental disorders caused by genetics and chemical imbalances. Theres not neccessarily a supernatural explanation needed. You do realise science and religion dont always oppose eachother? And scientific knowledge is always evolving as is religion? Like for example gone are the days of the four humours or spontaneous generation and the earth centric model, man having one less rib and going are the days of creationism and blood letting (yes its still practised and i mean in the ridiculous voodoo sense not the actual properly done sense for blood related issues,not to get evil spirits out or whatever). I hope youre just probing the question and making an observation rather than being one of those "science deniers" which is a ridiculous idea in and of itself as its a method of collating and proving ideas and knowledge and religions do agree with many aspects of what you call science such as evolution and the big bang which was officially recognised by the pope. Also if we could create a star right now that would be great. Also science is the study of the world through evidence,test based knowledge gathering and hypotheses which are tested,not just the non supernatural creation of stuff.
@@mallardofmodernia8092 The definition of hell is being condescended-to by ideologue idiots. Reproduction is the miraculous sexual, asexual, or test tube replication or manipulation of existing life forms - science "creates" absolutely nothing...other than the hubris-arrogance of some. Regarding "gravity", the primal known force of the universe, science can overcome it, but can't even determine what it actually is or obstruct it. One of the primary tenants of Socratic wisdom is introspection, i.e., self-awareness - the ability to fathom just how banal and shallow you really are, along with doing something meaningful and constructive to overcome that.
@@johnchambers2996 i presume you typed this on an electrical device? That was created by scientific knowledge. Simple, immediate example are you sure, you yourself are not an idiotic ideologue. I dont think belief in god made the hubble telescope possible, i dont think faith made the wrights brothers flying machine fly. Modern medicine is also derived by scientific knowledge. Also theres the theory of gravity, and theres the seen phenomena it produces (which are within its laws) are too separate entities however we have described what gravity is,the problem is the intricate physics in play. And atm 'overcome' means to just produce a force greater than what force gravity is affecting an object with, a simple string at tension with a weight at the bottom is equal to the force of gravity (unless the string snaps) due to its tensional force. An example of something that exceeds its force is that of any successful space launch, or even jumping (until you reach peak velocity and GPE and then you fall back down). Although im guessing your version is to create something which defies or completely ignores the laws of gravity By the way these have to occur on a planet with gravity we can stand on or launch a rocket, so well keep these examples as purely earth and its surrounding space based to keep things simple and avoid whataboutism of the other planets. Also bringing up moral philosophy is irrelevent here, when were talking tests,working examples, knowledge and data. And my views are shaped by physical,proveable occurances studied by minds ever more intelligent and qualified than myself so i think my introspection is just fine, theyre not born from my ego or emotions. I dont think you quite understand the absolute basics thats needed to have a discussion on this,go do some research and education on what is roughly the biology,chemistry and physics of what college students and below are learning and come back to me (not a go at you, just a genuine request), maybe use the bbc website teaching and learning tools or you might be able to get digital copies of aqa,edexcel, or any other well known, reliable textbook which cover biology,physics and chemistry or look at scientific experts on yt such as neil degrasse tyson who specialises in physics and cosmology in particular. Wish you luck you have quite a bit of work to look up.
@@mallardofmodernia8092 That old "electrical device" just evolved itself. Give hydrogen enough time and you get stars, intelligent life forms, electrical devices, and Hubble telescopes.
Shut up please, religions are all a big bullshit gap themselves. Something we see exists because something we don't see made it, Stupidest argument ever.
Can't stand the music so won't be watching anymore of these. RU-vid should have banned it. They would certainly ban me, if I went on about "b-----s" and "n-----s".
@@abufaya4155 star signs, also known as zodiac signs, are like a horoscope thing, I don't really know much about it, but if you search for any of these words on google or something, you'll see why dawkins thinks it's a stupid question
You know the day of the week one is actually so simple when someone tells you it’s simple. It’s just multiples of 7 then working back. So in 70 days time it will be Monday, in another 35 days time it’ll be Monday again (105 days time), work back 5 days and there you have it, Wednesday!
