Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism 

How scared you must be to not show where I said those things! BOO!

Yer funny.

I've read that somewhere else and can confirm it's true.

@@onafehts - You sound just like Dawkins 😉

I was actually there when Genghis said that, but because he didn't use quotation marks, I didn't believe him. Now I just feel stupid.

@@paulakennedy2085 - The OP was quite insightful. It made coming to this [absurd] video worthwhile.

You gotta love this guy. Smite the ignorant with wit and intelligence.

And good old British upper class. Seems like a very nice guy. I saw him in person once; he spoke about the ministers who were renouncing their faith--had a couple of them with him, and was utterly astounded that neither of them had a lick of formal thological education. Both were either HS grads or HS dropouts. But that's typical of US southern bible preachers. It was fascinating how he didn't even know that. He always assumes people know more than they do, because he himself knows so very much and he doesn't seem to want to assume anyone is really that much less informed.

Jillian Smith Your so stupid, it frightens me.

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1

Must be true then if it's in the bible, right? Because the bible says the bible is true. (Meanwhile, the koran says the koran is true.) You fucking moron.

'we must assume'... That's completely opposed to how a scientist should work. Scientists do not assume. They hypothesize and work on proving those hypotheses. But that's the result of brainwashing. I have many friends who studied medicine with me and even though the profession demands living under the rules of the scientific method, they are devote believers. Which makes no sense at all. Its either you're a scientific or religious

: you are a pathetic lost soul, with a rudimentary childish understanding, Those tiny communities are incapable of surviving today, while surrounded by stability, so you can imagine the carnage that would have taking place then? What about the establishment of universities and factories making toilet bowls, do you think those tiny comitie s could have done that? Groe up and get real…..and Fk off, I’m tired of talking to children and Dawkin’s made up names…..go away you shallow idiot…

Damn, Max Planck really dropped the ball on that one

Therefore trying to find a "common" ancestor based on DNA (aka INFORMATION) similarities is just a s-tup id idea.

​@@user-pc4uo3df5i LUCA.

​​@@YeshuaisnotJesus *This we were trying to explain to you, Eldridge. There cannot be any LUCA. Sorry if we were too subtle for your intellect.*

​@@user-pc4uo3df5i Screeching "nuh uh" won't change reality, little troll.

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Oh, after "yeshuaisnotjesus" you came with another t-rolling account "PhD" 😂 to tell us how the things really are because your expertise as a b-allet dancer (in real life) recommends you, Eldridge. So far we got from you that water contains molecules of oxygen, the solar circle is a think tank and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno. Anything else that you want to add?* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I didn't make those claims and you are a privacy violator, according to RU-vid. Why not close all your sock accounts since you refuse to follow the rules?

@@ergonomover *How am I a privacy violator if YT ignored your accusations, cc-rree-t in?*

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Once again, posting a user's first and last name without consent is a violation of RU-vid privacy rules, look it up.

*A reminder for sane, honest people, you can see that in this comment section we deal with a cc-rr-eeee-t in: the ballet dancer andrew "ergonomover" eld-ridge (aka "senor reasonable"/"scientist flanders"/"devil monkey"/joseph fiore") who said he is an actor and the id io-t thinks that if someone mentions the name of an actor, that someone violates the YT guidelines. At the same time, he called me multiple times "Oscar Larsen". That says some thing.....*

*And he told us that the morning-after pills are used for...terminating pregnancies.*

You must have a humiliation fetish

@Epsensieg 18 A patient at a loony bin was over heard saying "I must be here because I'm not all there."

Or the video sucked and didn’t explain it very well..

@@BigDaddy-vr2ut Perhaps you don't know what "nested hierarchy of earth's species" means.

@@ExtantFrodo2 The fact is that evolution has no scientific foundation. Just because similar dna is found in organisms does not mean they all came from one ancestor. No physical evidence suggests that one family of organisms can change into another. The carbon 14 and other radiometric dating methods evolutionists use are scientifically proven to be completely false. The origin of the universe stumps atheists so bad that they don't even have theories on what could have happened. (Some claim they do, but they are all based on pure speculation with no standing in facts) The fact is evolution is accepted by faith, not science. Evolution in reality is a wrong philosophy of the how the world works.

ExtantFrodo2 perhaps

Would a bowtie and long unkempt hair make him more intelligent? -- lol.

#billnye #richarddawkins

@Joseph Henderson Or non-conformity.

Another data point in favor of the 'Absurd Cravat Theory'.

He may be a genius, but not in choosing ties.

Senile.

​@@yeshuaisjoshuaThis is when Einstein's mental faculties began to slip.

​@@AmericanJohnnyBoone Not Einstein, the author of the thread.

Pretty sure that if Einstein was an atheist, you wouldn't have quoted him. BTW he was agnostic, not theist.

@@gazpachopolice7211 *Ur opinions are wrong, even rtrdd, therefore irrelevant.*

Who's Larsen?

Mockery, erroneous conclusions and a hatred of Jesus Christ…That’s all the Evo’s got.

a gene can duplicate and change to form a new gene sometimes

To be fair, if you really want to learn then that's a great question. To understand the answer, start by looking into how genes get passed from parents down to offspring. Once you get to understand how that works then it's not too big a step to get to the answer to your question. But certainly start by learning about how genes get inherited. Once you understand what "diploid" means in that context then you'll be part way there.

@@davegaskell7680 *At one moment there was no parent to pass the genes from....keep belueving in nonsense.*

Genes can be duplicated. If you take a piece of dough with some sprinkles in it and split it in half, chances are that one side will have a bit more dough than the other. And chances are that the colors of sprinkles in the two halves will be a bit different, and more in one half.

Should have quoted the whole scripture. I wonder if they would have recognized themselves.

ExtantFrodo2, you wrote, "Yes, so many religious people professing to be wise. Sucks, doesn't it?" So many anti-Christian people professing to be wise. Sucks, doesn't it? Have you read this? _"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -- Ps 14:1-3 KJV_ That cuts the self-righteous atheist off at the knees. LOL! Dan

@@BibleResearchTools I often wonder who it is that militant atheists are trying to convince. :oP

@@steveaustinaustin7173, you wrote, "I often wonder who it is that militant atheists are trying to convince." Perhaps Einstein had them pegged: _"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."_ [Guy H. Raner, 1949, quoting Einstein, in Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?". Skeptic, Vol.5, No.2, 1997]_ _"Einstein tended to be more critical of the debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he explained in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who- in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."_ [Walter Isaacson, "Einstein: His Life and Universe." Simon & Schuster, 2007, pp.388-389] Dan

@@BibleResearchTools *" Have you read this? "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."* Who knows if there is a god? I only state the truth as I see it - that those who profess a god exists haven't presented any convincing evidence to support their claim. *"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."* Wait a minute. Doesn't the god of the bible say that EVERYONE is bad and that NONE have done good? Why NOW single out unbelievers? *"The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -- Ps 14:1-3 KJV"* Oh yes, yes indeed it does. Thanks for providing that for me.

*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*

@@2ndchookie919 *You need to grow up, rtrd buhahaAndrewEldridge.*

@@user-tu1co9xl1k Says the _M@R@N_ who's a recipient of the *_'Best Pathetic Troll of All Time'_* award!!! Buwahahahahahahahahahaha, ........ splutter, ... burp, .... cough, cough, ..... ahahahahahahahahaha, ....... sighhhhhhhhh!

*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*

1600's ?? ...... mmmmm! _"Out Of Date'_ by 300+ years!! *Get With The Program Cteard !!!!!* ~~ Buwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Tell us what you are doing here every minute of every day of your miserable failed life? Tell us what motivates you to be here 24/7/365 for two decades?

Newton: Omniscient apparently

Einstein, the man who didnt discover the theory of everything. Context people.

Reality and science say that sandcastles don't erode into existence because INTELLIGENCE IS NECESSARY FOR THAT LEVEL OF ORDER since mindless forces exemplified by erosion lack the mental power of discrimination which means they will never preserve any order mindlessly made, to build upon it, such that your regressive and mindless system is always overwhelmingly destructive and an utterly hopeless alternative to intelligence which you reject for no good reason whatsoever. But now you will be arrogant and disagree with the facts I pointed to here.

You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality. As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles. But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle? What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging *REALITY* to be wrong is arrogant. A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith." You you say this statement applies to you? If so, you would also agree, "If reality contradicts my faith reality is wrong." because you are saying that no matter what I encounter that shows you are wrong, you will never be convinced you are wrong. You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality.

@@erictaylor5462 "You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality. " NON SEQUITUR. If I don't defend my religion, atheists say I can't. When I do, they complain no matter what. No way to please you, but it is not the intention. "As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles. But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle? " You're moving the goalpost. Looks like is not the issue. It's about order level, period. And if you agreed with that order level of any sandcastle requiring intelligence, as SCIENCE SAYS ALL THE TIME IN EVERY BEACH WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you would agree that greater order also necessarily was intended, but that would make you a theist, not an atheist, but you are an atheist, denying this science, closing your eyes to the patent truth. [[[ What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging REALITY to be wrong is arrogant. A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith." You you say this statement applies to you? ]]] I'm me, not them. Deal with my arguments, not irrelevant ones. I don't make their weak arguments so don't try to associate me with them. "You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality." Total NON SEQUITUR. No reality contradicts my faith. It is totally rational. Atheism is antithetical to the science of erosion, yet you remain an atheist despite admitting I am right about that science: "As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles."

*NON SEQUITUR. If I don't defend my religion, atheists say I can't. When I do, they complain no matter what. No way to please you, but it is not the intention.* How is the statement, ""If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." attacking your religion? Are you admitting that your faith contradicts reality? *"As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles. But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle?* How does the statements "If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." in *ANY WAY* address sand castles? However, to answer your question: Yes, natural processes can lead to structures that look like sand castles, along with many other forms. *You're moving the goalpost. Looks like is not the issue. It's about order level, period.* I'm not moving anything. At what level do you consider something to be a sand castle? Is this a face :^) or does it just look like a face? *And if you agreed with that order level of any sandcastle requiring intelligence, as SCIENCE SAYS ALL THE TIME IN EVERY BEACH WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you would agree that greater order also necessarily was intended, but that would make you a theist, not an atheist, but you are an atheist, denying this science, closing your eyes to the patent truth.* First off, you are *ASSUMING* I am atheist. Nothing so far has told you explicitly that I am an atheist. It is irrelevant that it happens to be true. Science doesn't have beaches. It has *BRANCHES.* I think you have a gross misunderstanding of many aspects of science, and possibly even a weak grasp of English. But your grasp of English does not necessarily correlate to your intelligence, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not a native English speaker. That said, you need to learn some science before you can argue scientifically. Learn it from scientists, not from Creationists. Creationists distort and misrepresent science, especially evolution, saying things like "It is random:" It is not. *What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging REALITY to be wrong is arrogant. A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith." You you say this statement applies to you?* Sorry, That should have been "Would this apply to you?" My mistake. Thank you for clarifying your position. So, what evidence, if presented would convince you that God does not exist. *"You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality." Total NON SEQUITUR. No reality contradicts my faith. It is totally rational. Atheism is antithetical to the science of erosion, yet you remain an atheist despite admitting I am right about that science: "As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles."* Okay, a "non sequitur" is a statement that does not fit the question. For example, this child's answer, "I like turtles" is a non sequitur. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CMNry4PE93Y.html If reality doesn't contradict your faith, then my comment would not apply to it. The fact you felt moved to defend your faith when I made my original comment indicates you think it does. My comment said nothing at all about sand castles, evolution, or God. You read all of that into my comment on your own.

@@erictaylor5462 [[[ How is the statement, ""If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." attacking your religion? Are you admitting that your faith contradicts reality? ]]] Your already-refuted notion of reality is not the same as reality. My faith I proved right in the series aforementioned which you have not refuted, so stop implying I am irrational for faith, and start proving your insinuation. "I'm not moving anything." Liar. It's about order level as I clarified but you pretend resemblance, something so vague that the stars in relation to each other can resemble a bull, was the criterion. It's not. So stop moving the goalpost. Your tactic failed. "At what level do you consider something to be a sand castle?" You tell ME. You reached the level of a toddler, haven't you? You may as well ask me to define the word "sand" in this context of erosion being mentioned. I'm not going to play along with your acting stupid. You are grasping at straws, obviously. "First off, you are ASSUMING I am atheist. Nothing so far has told you explicitly that I am an atheist. It is irrelevant that it happens to be true." I don't limit my understanding to what is explicitly expressed to me. I have this thing called deduction. I take context into account, such as you watching and supporting this shitty atheist propaganda I destroyed in a recent video, and you attacking theistic faith as irrational, which is proof you are an atheist which includes agnostics who are a subcategory of them. I was an atheist like you when I was a baby. Then I grew up. It takes no intelligence to be an atheist. :-) Don't get offended now, since you insult your own intelligence by pretending to be too stupid to know what a sandcastle is. I'm annoyed because you're wasting my time with your pretending to be dumber than a toddler. :-) I set the bar extremely low, but you give any pretext for not jumping the little hurdle, because you can't, and no atheist ever could, since science is always shitting on atheism by always proving intelligence is necessary for the order level of ANY sandcastle, no matter how simple. I explained why there is no chance of it happening, so you have nothing to stand on for your blind faith in mindlessly arrived at order at that puny level so by extrapolation, your being an atheist is delusion since after the proof is served to you on a silver platter, you just start acting so stupid you pretend to be dumber than a toddler who knows the difference between a drawn smiley face, and a real human face, and the difference between a sandcastle and your shit. Atheists claim DNA was possibly ultimately unintended yet they can't even prove a puny little sandcastle could be unintended! You claim you can jump to the moon but you can't even get out of your crib! Paper tiger atheists. And evolution depends on DNA to exist, so you can't use the woman's womb to account for that woman. "Science doesn't have beaches. It has BRANCHES." Science studying beaches is what I obviously referred to, you who commit a strawman fallacy here based on your own deficiency or pretending to be deficient in grasping my message. When I said that the science of erosion proves intelligence is needed for the level of order of a sandcastle, I did not say anything about science having beach-front property or anything like that. You are quite desperate to be trying to change the parameters of my arguments all the time. That's called LYING, but you don't blush because you're just another atheist preacher with no integrity. "I think you have a gross misunderstanding of many aspects of science, and possibly even a weak grasp of English." You are a hypocrite since I never said anything about science owning earth or anything in it. So if someone has a problem with English, it is you, not the English teacher teaching his second language. Just today some Asians told me "bury" has to Rs, and then after checking on their devices, I was proven right. Not that I am always right. Many words are so rarely used, that when they come to mind, they look a bit unfamiliar, and English orthography is infamous for being retarded. Are you English? Sorry about your language being the worst. :-) But your grasp of English does not necessarily correlate to your intelligence, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not a native English speaker." You didn't find a flaw in my English, you pretentious shithead. Don't be acting like you have the edge in this language. I live because I wield this language here in Asia. I have corrected Anglo-Saxons before in their own language, and it was very satisfying. I lived in the US most of my life, and know my English is better than most in the entire world who have it as their native tongue. You can be one of those pedantic types, but give me your best shot. I want to laugh some more. Si quieres hablar en español, está bien conmigo. Mi idioma natal lo prefiero sobre el más inconsistente e ilógico de todos. "That said, you need to learn some science before you can argue scientifically." Stupid AD HOMINEM fallacy based on the PETITIO PRINCIPII fallacy of the implied accusation that I am wrong about science. Prove it, because your word is worthless. "Learn it from scientists, not from Creationists." Prove I'm wrong about science, because your false dichotomy between scientist and creationist is just an appeal to the majority which is another of your shitty stupid atheist fallacies proving you are an idiot. Also, that's the AD VERECUNDIAM fallacy. You pretend I'm stupid but in your attempt to show it, you are showing how stupid YOU are. :-) So many damn fallacies in such a short amount of words you spewed there. "Creationists" Deal with me, not others, moron trying to change the subject and conflate. Pathetic loser. "So, what evidence, if presented would convince you that God does not exist." I told you to prove my religion wrong by showing footage of a sandcastle eroding into existence. Instead of proving theism is illogical, you turn a blind eye to science proving that atheism is totally retarded, since science says it takes intelligence for less order than our own, so ours requires intelligence by extrapolation, duh. "My comment said nothing at all about sand castles, evolution, or God. You read all of that into my comment on your own." You don't dictate what arguments I can give against atheism and for theism. What I said was to prove my case. You see the proof, and you just ignore it, changing the subject, or rather, trying to, since I bring the attention back to the argument no atheist can logically deal with. And that's just one of my arguments for theism.

Even if this clever little statement was in anyway true, it would still condemn someone like Dawkins who may have read many books but still makes the same claims.

Ricahrd P'Brien """"""""" I wonder why every Christian-affiliated college in the US , except those of the strict fundamentalist variety, teaches that evolution is correct and valid science?""""""""" It's called "deception"!!

Do you have such a list that I can review? I'm unaware of which Christian colleges support evolution and which ones don't.

Blue Chief Awesome Woe to the unwise man who does not head the words of that book.

Dan Shelton 🤣

Stop speaking sht.

Stop lying.

Its probably because schizophrenia and manufactured dream people are a thing and also very much has evidence unlike the other

Lmao no one said that. No one ever said that. The real quote is, "if he were real I wouldn't worship him" think of how dumb someone would be to say they wouldn't believe in something right in front of them

@@ErinnnnL ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2vG_8wkwhr0.htmlsi=KnO-Agg1smweryjm

And god is energy and matter…….No beard or robe

@@terrymckenzie8786 *Energy/matter cannot create itself according to the laws of physics and cannot create information and codes according to reality and evidence.*

That's absolutely false. To think that, you must first believe enough in a God to forget all the methodology you use in science ... So, believing scientists may say what you quoted but not rationalist, even out of their domain, scientists.

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 According to observation that's what happens: energy and matter are able to create codes, etc. And don't forget this: E = MC² equivalence between matter and energy. Atheism is not a religion , it's just rationalism.

@@BlackSun3Tube *As a matter of fact all the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator. I know it takes you by surprise. And as a matter of fact nature creating information and codes and order from disorder and everything from nothing was not spotted in the wild and is discounted by real science.*

Why do emus have wings?

Because everything is 'perfect' to someone's eyes, it means one of the 4000 religions is true? It means that a dead man can resurrect? It means that a man can walk on water and multiply bread and fish? Sorry but religion, as history shows, is always an excuse for kings and rulers to justify why they should own everything. That's what they told the people in america, in the Philippines and everywhere. That 'god' gave the kings the right to own the world.

@@orlandocarrillo7132 Brilliant deconstruction!

basically that he has no clue... yup.

One error to deceive them all.

@@civilization57 one strawman of science*

I don't think Dawkins understands that the same fact is also evidence for creation. It's all about the philosophy you use to interpret what common genetic code means... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XzPxrT4ULUM.html

@@garrettpapit Exactly. Look at the computer code for Windows 1-10. You'll see a consistent pattern of development in complexity. Right? But only an idiot would deny "intelligent design" and say it evolved.

@@garrettpapit I don't think it's evidence for the creation story. You could say that an intelligent being turned it all loose and let it evolve, but that each species was created independently, in six days, given the clear story written in life's genes? I don't see it.

Even though it is a false premise. You can look at the similarities and say it points to a common creator just as easily.

@@vistuscaine you didn't get the video.

The idea of ”vestigial relics” of genetic information, also called “junk DNA”, that Dawkins meant to be the most important fact to prove evolution true, is not considered a fact anymore. When it was discovered in the 1970’s that most part of the human genome does not code for proteins, the rest of the DNA was soon declared to be useless left overs of random evolutionary processes. However, recent studies have shown that the non-protein-coding parts of DNA, do code for other necessary processes in living organisms. The study of these “junk” parts of the genetic information has already proved to be a gold mine of information, among other things about diseases and their treatment, and most certainly more is to follow. Richard Dawkins made himself a “disgrace”, to cite his own word, in perpetrating that unintelligent, unscientific idea that the origin of life can best be explained by declaring the most part of genetic information as junk. Today it sounds like a joke.

Actually, he condensed it into one word only : "Hallucination" ! I guess I must have been "hallucinating" for more than 45 years by now, then.

It was more than one sentence....

Flagged for repetitive spam, disinformation, privacy violation, harassment, psychological projection and overkill.

@@ergonomover *U were flagged for rtrdtion, insanity and incessant farting.*

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 None of those are against RU-vid rules and anyone can deduce who between us might be insane.

You didn't tell me. Which one is supposed to be the beautiful video?

Newton realized he was mistaken, fctard.

@@DocReasonable _A-theism is so senseless and o-dious to mankind_ *Newton*

i would make shit up as well if i knew the crazy church and its followers would kill me for speaking the truth

You love how Newton suffered religious brain-lock when challenged by Jupiter's secondary gravitational tug? We had to wait hundreds of years for French scientists Legrand and Laplace to elaborate "perturbation theory". The natural answer was always out there, but Newton gave up trying to find it. Hardly something to celebrate.

@@ergonomover *When Newton speaks it's advisable that a ballet dancer like you whose intellectual level is "the solar circle is a think tank" and "250-237 means an increase of 23" to be silent!*

Quoting you: _"Ballet dancer A***w E******e" is_ Judging by the number of "*"It seems you don't know how many letters are contained in your name....😂😂😂😂

*It looks like you found my vids very interesting, Eldridge and I thank you for that.*

Thanks for proving I left this page over a month ago, and that you are thus lying every day. Your silly videos were flagged for harassement and privacy violations. 10 putzy trolling videos that no one watches for a page no one visits, you are such a smart guy. Why not waste more time making longer videos with more slides?@@user-tu1co9xl1k

You've been screaming "ballet dancer" for over 9 months now, how it that attempt at a homophobic slur working for you, troll?@@user-tu1co9xl1k

You refuse to answer me man to man? Thanks for proving you are a liar and a coward.@@user-tu1co9xl1k

I didnt know that ballet proved people wrong

Senile.

ha, brilliant

@@JustOffTheRegister Thanks!

Evolution wasn't true 100 years ago and it still isn't true today. The majority of evidence for evolution from Darwin's day has been discarded. In another 150 the majority of today's evidence for evolution will also be discarded.

@@hwd71 Thanks for this

@@hwd71 Did you even listen to what Dawkins said? There is ton of evidence and evolution is an undeniable fact. Take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Don't be a fool.

Be forewarned. You could have your channel completely deleted without warning or opportunity of getting it back for repeating yourself as you’ve done in this feed if someone reports you…esp. you do it elsewhere as well.

@@NaturesInfiniteWELLth-fo6rs *Are you ok, Eldridge?* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Why? Because you can't simply deny the theory of evolution?

Are you glued to the History Channel, it changed a lot when people like you subscribed to it.

Kelvin also said: "Radio has no future. X-rays will prove to be a hoax"

@@DocReasonable *Kelvin is one of the greatest scientists of this planet and l-aughed at your doctrine. You are a ballet dancer who insisted that the solar circle is a think tank and 250-237 means an increase of 23, and-rew "ergonomover" eldr-idge.*

@@user-ry9te3ov2u ​ Kelvin also insisted: "Radio has no future. X-rays will prove to be a hoax"

@@DocReasonable *Kelvin was a great scientist who p-iss-ed on your doctrine, ballet dancer andrew "ergonomover" eld-ridge.*

@@user-pc4uo3df5iI never had the job of "ballet" dancer, it's not in the CV you posted, why lie about it all day every day? What is the point of that?

And when you find it, then you can claim you know, but until then, you should bring evidence.

If you didnt argue from authority I might actually have looked at your channel.

So, you agree, ... these are your _Troll accounts!_ , .... correct? ~~ Buwahahahahahahahahahahaha! biglongfish9253 atheism-themoststupidrelig8802 user-tu1co9xl1k atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 糸攴鬼㐯衣豸麻 Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

A little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look for them, they will not be found. Psalm 37

Newton spent more time trying to make sense of the Bible than he did working on Physics. In the end, he failed ... and had nothing insightful to contribute. His mountainous notes on the subject exist and have little to contribute to his above statement.

​@@persimmontea6383*Newton did in science more than all your b-washers together.*

​@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 speaking of brainwashed. project much?

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Still, that is an argument from authority. Smart people can be wrong too, thats basically a universal principle now, and his alchemy was pretty bad unfortunately, gotta admire the effort, but that wig was certainly a bit much. Also, Einstein really absorbed his work, its a shame that Newtons work was so situational.

Saying 'a new species has never been observed to add new genetic information' is like saying a new sentence has never been observed to add new information, even though it's made from the same 26 letter alphabet as every previous sentence. Try thinking before commenting again, please, ckskr.

The correct analogy would have been that they're sentences in each poems that closely resemble each other with sub a low probability that they form randomly that it indicates that the poems have the origin...

That's some low IQ thinking. Must of had a crappy BuyBull school teacher for science class.

Actually, your analogy is more akin to genetics than you may realise. A more appropriate way of looking at it would be that by comparing the word usage in poetry across periods of time, one could study the evolution of words and language itself over that period, including the evolution of the letters themselves, as these things change through time with history, culture and usage. And indeed, it could point to the origin of a language from other languages or regions, which is indeed what linguists study these days.

No, Him saying the genes look similar is not what he said, what he said was, the hierarchical pattern of DNA sequences matches the hierarchical pattern of homology. This is usually followed up with, "the designer uses similar DNA sequences to code similar organisms so obviously they would be similar genes/genomes" however, its the noncoding regions within the permitted noise of the genome which is tested, these are not influenced by selection so remain independent of fitness of trait.

Well, that was rubbish. God obviously does not lend intelligibility.

@@twcnz3570 *What was rubbish, r-trd?*

r-tard? boy, you sure do know how to not listen to Jesus.

Reported as hate-speech.

Newton: Omniscient apparently

Saying similarities automatically prove ancestry is the most ridiculous lack of good judgement I wouldn't expect from a scientist what a stupid thing to say please tell me you also think that way

@@antoniobrown6210 : You must be joking? Only Dawkins would embarras himself by making such grovelling statments....

@@antoniobrown6210 *I totally agree and actually many people in this comment section spotted the same thing.*

Mae Culpa: Yes I did say that Dawkins cannot answer, because Dawkins never answers, regardless of the competence of his interviewers, he always rides above reality, like a man thinking a snow-drift is reality, while inserting infantile supersitions to fit in with the persona he has conned his sycophants into believing they are seeing who he is…..?

we all have our bad days.

Ben Stein lied to you and you swallowed it.

@@ergonomover *That must be the method that Aronra applies to his disciples.*

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Aronra is aligned with the global scientific community and wields facts and evidence - did your putzy interview with him hurt you so badly you never got over it? Poor boy!

​@@ergonomover *What does Aronra have to do with science. As much as u, the one who insisted that there is a single copy of the genome in the human body have to do with science.*

@@ergonomover *I would say u need to stop this ridiculous game of playing the smart one. It's too painful for u, considering ur dense rtrdtion.*

Science without religion is fascinating. It's impressive enough learning about the world and how it works without adding in fairy tales to explain the difficult parts.

@@deenadamico2673 : "Satan thou aret but a dunce, the harlot was a virgin once" :W Blake..... Now yoy will be wondering what is the relivence of that quote, because you are so shallow.......

Science without religion is science, because it is founded first on not knowing, and works its way backward by carrying empirical observation. Assuming true without evidence is not science. And before you say it, the proof that there is no god is the same proof that their is no flying pink unicorn behind your head that only I can see. Its simply Occams razor, we assume something with no evidence isnt true because assuming things true without evidence can allow us to believe anything. Now that being said, I could believe in a creative force of some sort, and I know exactly where that observation is, call it his signature, but I know for a fact that you cannot see it and I am not going to tell you because you spawn camp people into your cult that you probably think is Christianity before they get a chance to develop critical thinking skills.

@@davidbanner6230 Shallow? Guys, it's you who are pushing that someone just happened to create everything with the blink of an eye. How is that "deep"? You can believe in God AND evolution. God actually makes so much more sense that way, as an intrinsic aspect of nature, his presence felt through living creatures, evolution being his hand. That way, science becomes the indirect study of God. Instead, using miracles to explain everything is lame, not helpful to anyone for anything. That kind of religion has never done anything good, just grasping to power to spread tyranny and hate.

Man say thing I dont agree with, that mean he stupid

And why would acknowledge a god that is completely absent. So much so that the most reasonable conclusion is that he doesn't exist?

Why would Thor care? Much less Odin?

​@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien No one has actually given hard proof, much less reliable proof of the absence of a creator. So saying God is absent is self refuting at this point.

@@eddyy777 Except that you are inverting the burden of proof. You're making the claim that a god exists, you're failing to provide evidence. Your god is absent, saying it's self-refuting is non-sensical.

@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien The fact is that there is already hard proof of there being a God. The point I'm making is that people don't want to acknowledge God because of the sin issue. People love sin rather than light because their deeds are evil. We don't want a God in our lives that tells us what to do and what not to do. The mere fact that we as humans can think beyond our instincts and make conclusions by ourselves in enough proof for there being a God. No one has yet to prove the absence of God. It is written on your heart already. You have proof alone. In fact, you don't need any other person to tell you if there is a God or not. It's that obvious as harsh and null as that sounds. Just sayin'. It is impossible to prove the absence of God because if there is a creation, there MUST be a creator. What is the alternative??

the kind of religious belief that causes a person to block out all evidence and reason, in favor of some fantasy? that's not something I want to understand.

To those who only believe what they can "see", contemplate this science; Since I cannot see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, only the visible light spectrum is real. Everything else is an opinion or does not exist to me. Scientific fact is humans can only "see" about 1% of the EM wave spectrum. The more scientists search for "truth", the more they find that the less they truly understand it.

@@stephenmartinez1 perhaps is evidence and reason that leads someone to believe ?

@@nobodyknows3180 I’ll grant u that most people believe because of personal revelation. Though that’s fine but there’s plenty that do offer evidence and that evidence sometimes was the thing that converted them

@@nobodyknows3180 Yh the problem with that is Dawkins has to step in my worldview to argue his case

Oh yes we all know how extremely religious Einstein was

@@DonutOfNinja *Einstein l-aughed at Aronra's cult and acknowledged an intelligent creator.*

@@user-pc4uo3df5i got any source for this? Einstein famously wrote that "... I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly..." in a letter to a friend on 24th of march 1954 Source: Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side.

@@DonutOfNinja *A nice one from Einstein:* _The fanatical atheists are like s-laves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are c-reatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres._

@@DonutOfNinja *I quote Einstein:* _The f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are c-reatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres._

ENGLAND!!! SPEAK U THE ENGLAND!!

Latrine assistant Larsen.

Why do emus have wings?

@@2ndchookie919 : HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAmmmmmm HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

@@davidbanner6230 I know they are strange looking birds, but hilarity to that extent? ~ Gets over excited by the mundane, ... A bit touched perhaps! ~ mmm

@@2ndchookie919 What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, if he loses his sanity?

@@davidbanner6230sanity is in the eye of the beholder.

Why did yhwh destroy the world?

If god made you from dust, why is there still dust?

@@devilmonkey427 everyuthing on earth is made from earth material, duhrrrrrrrrrrr what did god make u out of alien dna?

@@yeshuaisjoshua if the bible is true howcome arabs+jews are canaanite DNA proven, and y are canaanites aka jews+arabs in the promised land right now against gods words instead of humble serving the older brother as god commands? fake

@@anniemarie-5150 Can you explain Tumfrico's Period Experiment without god?

I’ve read repeated comments from you and your other RU-vid accounts. Firstly I find it odd that you have posted so many messages and using multiple accounts. I think you are saying that God exists but I can’t work it out. Is this correct? I am highly educated but from your repeated messages I think you were trying to use odd information to make atheists look stupid

@@danprice7973 *I don't need to make u and ur fellows to look s-tp1d, because they do this job by themselves.*

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703🙂

Mutation is not random, Mutations are arranged in a nested hierarchy of mutability wrapped around replication/reproduction (which is the very center).

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 🙂

Why do emus have wings?

@@2ndchookie919 : Why do cocroached write books..?

@@davidbanner6230 SPEAK ENGLISH!!

🛑, GET HELP!

There is a mistake in your reasoning. The pieces of the puzzle you are referring to, are the DNA parts. They were not assembled the way they are by randomness but by nature. Its the conditions of nature that pushed them, through billions of years of evolution and not just an empty coincidence. Why are there black people where is sunny and white people where it snows? Evolution shaped humans, their DNA that way.

If I had 8 cards, and I continuously shuffled them, they would definitely be in order at some point. But that aint how evolution works anyway.

@Rory Forbes I think he's arguing about the refutation of creationism, not evolution. Anyhow, I am trying to understand the refutation deeper, perhaps you can help fill in the gap for me. So it starts by saying that genes are similar in structure. That if a being created the genes and animals, they should not be similar in structure. Great similarities in structure are deceptions or made to deceive. I'm not sure why there cannot be great similarities if there was a creator. Can you tell me?

@@Pomorchik I guess Hitler wasn't evil then as he was just an organism following the evolutionary process of natural selection for the dominant species

@@pesmergaserene7988 i will try to explain a bit differently: the claim of creationism is actually several claims - 1. That living beings were created not evolved, 2. That they are perfect in their creation (complete without defect), 3. That they are serving a purpose (part of a divine plan). What Dawkins says, therefore, undermines these three claims because: 1. When you compare at the DNA level (and S J Gould compared at the physical level), you can see that DNA has changed over time and that change can be witnessed by comparing animals or plants. And if a change is evidenced, then creationism is debunked because it claims for "permnanecy" since creation day, 2. When you compare and explore DNA, you can find imperfections and "remains" of former genes that no longer are relevant. This debunks the perfect claim in creationism. 3. When you compare and explore DNA you can see how genes correspond with the environment and those that succeeded either were those that carried on or had to evolve... This debunk the claim of creationism that what was created was for a purpose (since that purpose is eternal). But the DNA comparison shows that genes are acting and reacting and therefore the evolutionary claim is not that the created being is ITSELF the purpose, but that the purpose is to live - and therefore if it is better surviving in water, it explains why the nostril turned into a blowhole (in water living mammals)... This debunks the creationist idea that dolphin was created for a puprose. The dolphin evolved from an ancestor that was living on land.

@@Pomorchik I would think death itself has claimed the most human lives

@@ahboaz Okay, you've created in essence a strawman by saying creationists make claims 2 & 3 which are false, the only one you got right was the first claim and you didn't even address it. Can you explain how nothing created everything?

Not really.

Never watched House', but what a simple yet brilliant quote. Funny cos it's true.

you know way i laugh at people that do not believe in God first off it is the odds live could be done with out a creator the odds are 1/2.850.000 x10 against such b.s. seeing how 1/30 x1000 is an impossibility WITCH SCIENTIST HAVE STATED THAT IS THE NUMBER PAST ALL PROBABILITY (2) if you look at qubed math and the 3,6,9, math Tesla used you begin to see how complex every thing is ,SO I HAVE MORE REASON TO LAUGH AT evolutionist l seeings how there religion is faith based as well NO MY DEAR CHRISTIANS EVEN THOUGH FAITH HAS REVEALED GOD TO YOU AND TRULY IS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW GOD ,THERE IS SO MUSH MORE TO GOD THEN FAITH AND IF MATH DOES NOT CONVINCE THEM THEN GOD HAS NOT CHOSEN THEM BEST YOU MOVE ON

Mike Myr are you for real? Do you even understand what you are actually saying?

*Mike Myr* The probability that any god, much less yours, exists is 0.0625%. May god b-less. ; )

I heard it as "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people".

To be fair, the Bible is a combination of sci-fi, horror and just-so stories.

@J Bryant You just admitted you are an uneducated fool. Well done. 👏

The guy who drank mercury and died because he believed in alchemy? Yeah we should totally listen to what he says. Maybe he will turn lead into gold with his witchcraft! Get better role models, next you'll be quoting our old enemy Adolph. He sure liked religion too. I guess he is also a role model of yours?

@@chrisnorris7527 *This is "the guy" who is one of the greatest scientists of this planet (if not the greatest). He didn't "believe" in alchemy, he just explored it to see if it's true and that's the duty of any scientist, to test hypothesis, to conduct experiments. On the other side, ur science is great too. U even told us that 250 - 237 means an increase of 23, which is great, Eldridge.*

@biglongfish9253 he drank mercury and died. A true scientist would have tested that first don't you think? Maybe give it to a rat first? He was smart in some areas but stupid in others. He probably believed witchcraft exists and magic too. Everyone did at that time. They were all wrong. Isn't it funny how you agree with archaic scientists, but not newer ones who know more? Look at Neil degrasse tyson or Brian cox if you want a dose of actual science.

@Julian Borges, Book Flip might be talking about this idea: "Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals. Since Darwin, homology has been cited in textbooks as a major proof for evolution. A review of the literature on homology indicates that the theory does not provide evidence for evolutionary naturalism, and that the common examples of homology can be better explained by Creation. Furthermore, increased knowledge about the genetic and molecular basis of life has revealed many major exceptions and contradictions to the theory which, as a result, have largely negated homology as a proof of evolution."

Common function is phenotypes; Dawkins is talking about genotypes.

@@isaacharvey "A review of the literature on homology " So - Not scientific-method derived then. Ok. It's funny, the claim is made as if supported by scientific evidence..

@@kijekuyo9494It’s genotypes too.

The sad truth is that I use ONE account and you melted down completely.

@@ergonomover : you are a pathetic lost soul, with a rudimentary childish understanding, Those tiny communities are incapable of surviving today, while surrounded by stability, so you can imagine the carnage that would have taking place then? What about the establishment of universities and factories making toilet bowls, do you think those tiny comitie s could have done that? Groe up and get real…..and Fk off, I’m tired of talking to children and Dawkin’s made up names…..go away you shallow idiot…

When your best argument is calling someone "R" yall know you have no argument. Also, go back to Jesus, you need to be a better person.

The problem with that is, there is no reason to assume the generative principle conscious.

1. 500 million years of creatures eating each other (using spikes, teeth, claws venom etc), often alive is a powerful motor of evolutionary change, but a very sloppy one, this god you worship must love extinctions of species (4 billion extinct and counting) and be very patient. 2. This friend is immaterial (not made of energy or matter)? You two communicate telepathically or through vague signs? I trust you know most followers of your friend accept some form of theistic evolution, as you seem to do.

Did one of your talking animals tell you that?

And what are these "BLOCKS" you speak of... Pandas eat bamboo.... Grizzlies do not..... They are both part of the family Ursidae I'm sorry that you're ignorant. Have you ever thought about going to school and getting an education?

Then how come there is abundant animal, plant and fungus life on this planet that is toxic to humans if consumed? ~ mmmmm!

Epsensieg 18 The point is not whether man designed God or not. If you believe man designed God then may you live long and prosper.🖖 However the real point is the utter absurdity that similarities must mean evolution. This is pointedly proven false every single day by human ingenuity and creativity. All the different foods made in a kitchen have markedly similar characteristics yet they did not evolve from each other. Nor did cars to the movies we watch and so on. This example can be used on anything intelligently designed. Even the different Gods in human mythology from Zeus to whoever all share similar characteristics but they were intelligently designed. They did not evolve or mutate from each other. Common sense anyone? Whether you are religious or atheist it’s always a good idea to Keep a nugget of common sense around.

I agree with man being an intelligent designer....but everything supposedly started with a BANG and then an Evolutionary process......if MAN the intelligent designer is a product of this....did evolution pass that intellect and ability to consciously reason on to man?

@horror I think creationism does quite well with diversity and differences. It doesn't need similarities as a crutch.

@Karl Pagan 'festering garbage'.... Where is the empathy in such a statement... As I was told multiple times here about the empathy of the non-religious....so....energy just existed and is eternal....and was not created but was the catalyst of creation and all eventual life......becareful Karl.... Wouldn't want that theory to start sounding too much like God.... who is eternal... Was not created but is the creator and just existed from the beginning... The different is that He is a conscious and intelligent being...unless of course this energy you speak of had intellect and consciousness.....then I would say to you... You're getting warmer Karl.. intellectual being

@Karl Pagan Your argument was blown apart the moment you retorted Nazi propaganda, in the form of calling those of opposing viewpoints subhuman, we lost millions to end that, fuck off with bringing it back. But, I'll indulge you, energy is not sentient as far as anyone knows, but what it makes up, is, you're using a strawman argument to justify hatred and apathy toward empathy, which is wrong, and a sign of sociopathic tendencies. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html&ved=2ahUKEwiUz-qgw77kAhVGXq0KHegcD6YQFjAEegQICxAL&usg=AOvVaw0X3udLuYDd4oxyR565Dn8_ You claim the Big Bang was never stated to be an explosion, which is half correct, it was stated to be an expansion CAUSED by an explosion, but this was refuted as was most of the Big Bang, it's a Pseudoscience, a theory, most people agree the universe is constantly expanding, but the Big Bang is not agreed to be the cause anymore, it's considered go be to grand, and lacking to be true. Tell me, how did the Big Bang create time, or space? You can't because the Big Bang is not accepted anymore.

Indeed! XD

I can't think of anyone who is less likely to ever do a mic drop 😂

But if I were to design a number of creatures or things, they would also be very similar to one another. That's because we all have individual minds, and the mind of God, however complex, is just one mind. Theres nothing to say it's deceitful and misleading to design things similarly to one another, what is this guy on about

Hardly, he didn't even answer the basic question!

Haha, Tropic thunder is a great movie. Also, the bold says about the same thing... sorry

*_"SQUAAAAAAARK!!!! .... CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER!! , ..... SQUAAAARK!!"_* *_"SQUAAAAAAAAARK!!!! ...... DUMBASS CRETARD!! , ....... SQUAAAAAARK!!"_*

I keep pointing out your lies, incivilities, privacy violations, cyberstalking, Ad hominem attacks and other fallacies while posting quotes by famous thinkers. I realize you hate free-thought, skeptcism, critical thinking, good manners and logic, as you prove every day.

@@ergonomover *Very nice your reply. U r a proven, i-n-s-a-n-e l-iar, Eldridge.*

Thanks for proving my point, every day, in spades. You can't name a single lie by me, I don't lie.@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 you are such a beach that you don't even have a valid point or a clean head all you do is speak you fallacy to other when others say oh that's not true because what we observe in the world is different then you just sully their name coz even you don't know what to talk. Mooooooron😂😂😂

Well the way you type is certainly insane. I hope that there is a god up there. And that there is an afterlife. But when you get up there it's the Mormon god so you still end up being wrong. From my perspective you'll never know. It'll just be lights out and you'll never have known just how ignorant you have been. That's sad I want you to know.

I'm so glad our laws aren't based on Creatards.

Why do emus have wings?

You’re mentally ill

@@spikefunakoshi5667 *The rtrds have no chance to find the right one.*

@@spikefunakoshi5667 None of the above. ~~ Unkulunkulu!! ... The Zulu's are right!

@@spikefunakoshi5667 *The rtrds have no chance to find the right one.*

Damn, you can't tell two people apart and applaud your ignorance by dishonestly upvoting your lies?

Oh I see, yeah what he was saying is that there is such a thing as genetic variation i.e. organisms dont share the same code

Do you understand that every living thing on earth is related to a common ancestor. LUCA proves our DNA is all related.

@@yeshuaisjoshua LUCA is a postulated, unproven being. In no way is that anything remotely resembling proof. DNA being similar among all life makes sense to me. I don't need some magic common ancestor to explain it. If an intelligent mind is behind the universe and everything in it, it would logically follow that all life would be made from similar material, using similar means. Theorize all the ancient beings you want. We still can't demonstrate ONE example of genetic mutation resulting in an addition of information. That would be necessary for this imaginary LUCA to become all other life forms, to include fungi and plants. "Proof"...

@@gowsif_dnb Like the mutation that lets me drink milk? Or new one they found a mutation in the LRP5 gene can also cause an uncommon disorder in which bone density is greatly increased.

@@gowsif_dnb Now how about you show us some of your fairy tale magic????? Go on, show us, I could use a good laugh

@@devilmonkey427 you seem to be confusing "addition of information" and "beneficial change."

Check out Kitzmiller vs. Dover idiot behe made the claim against evolution. Behe was made a fool of. You are making a fool out of yourself.

Who or what designed the 'designer'?

@@ergonomover An individual does not have to present the Almighty in order to satisfy the atheist's conclusions. But rather, one only needs to prove that life is a creation, and the final proof that life is a creation derives from the existence of genetic instructions, because anything that derives from instructions, is by definition a creation.

@@user-rr8cf4mv1f Thus, you identify the "designer" as "Almighty", presumably based on what men wrote in an old book. How else can you avoid the the problem of infinite regress? Strange how you talk about 'design' as if it were some of kind of scientific argument, when it's all about the bible. The existence and properties of informational macromolecules are neither proof nor even evidence of anything divine, especially as long as natural processes can explain them, as is the case with DNA (a product of simpler RNA). We know that thousands of -designers- gods were created by humans. "Intelligent Design" creationism was ruled "not science" for good reasons. It is fundamentalist pseudoscience, it explains nothing but gullibility, it is dismissed by most believers in God, and by 99+% of academic scientists. What are the odds the majority is wrong on this issue?

​@@user-rr8cf4mv1f It's not. ID is pseudoscientific nonsense.

Define 'mind' ?

@@2ndchookie919 I can define mindless Quoting some Greek dude, Aristotle, “Nothing” is what rocks dream about.

John Lennox - liar for religion

what a bad sentence! Typical of a believer

@@AlanRobson_ 🍌

"Calm downs" 🤣🤣 I think he's trying to say he has Down syndrome.

Can you rewrite that in English. 😂😂😂

: you are a pathetic lost soul, with a rudimentary childish understanding, Those tiny communities are incapable of surviving today, while surrounded by stability, so you can imagine the carnage that would have taking place then? What about the establishment of universities and factories making toilet bowls, do you think those tiny comitie s could have done that? Groe up and get real…..and Fk off, I’m tired of talking to children and Dawkin’s made up names…..go away you shallow idiot…

You meant "walks on all fours", what you posted is still gibberish. You actually think a 66 year old man would spend 22 hours a day (between his ballet leaps and spins) to animate "countless" _superbly differentiated_ accounts, just to fool you? Step back from your bubble of paranoid delusions to see how insane that is.

And then there's appendix saying: fuck you in particular.

And?

@davy boy think about it. You cannot persuade someone based on a lie. The first person who came up with the idea of Jesus, no matter what they've seen, real miracles, metaphors, straight up fantasy as a product of some quality drugs... Whatever that is - they had to sell a story to someone else to spread the idea. So, whatever the selling point was, it had to be true/believable/worth following. And since there are so many denominations of Christianity, other religions, atheism, naturalists..... There's a great chance that only minority knows the truth, selling point, how was it made, while majority actually don't know. Now, the fun part, Revelation, "Apocalypse" is about unveiling things, uncovering a secret (in this case, "how did they sell the story to billions") and it says that when that happens, when the truth be revealed (wether by observing flying undead corpse in the sky or simply by showing how the "magic trick" was done), we would certainty have a lot of people realizing they were wrong. There's a theme of this event, "judgment day", that there will be gnashing teeth and weeping. Gnashing teeth is something we so in anger, and weeping is, of course, sorrow: emotions we experience when we realize we were wrong. We are first at denial, then we get angry, to others or ourselves, and then we realize what wrong things we did based on wrong assumptions, which could make us sad (imagine killing someone because you thought he was drawing a gun but instead he was reaching for the phone.... That's basically "hell fires" to your mind). So, you see, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I wish it was over and we're done with that shit and finally see something new in the world: New Earth without religion. The only problem is, you can't reason with psychotic people and they wouldn't accept getting something they want "the wrong way" (the right way would be some "magical event" that will never happen)

@davy boy There is truth to be found everywhere: when someone's lying to you straight up to your face, if the lie is good enough, consistent and could be detected only with more information person lying to you knows you cannot obtain, you believe it's true, no reason to suspect, living in paranoia is not very productive.. But even if you know the person is lying to you, there is also a reason for it, truth behind that: they're ashamed for what they did, afraid you might find out, they want something from you but they're lacking something to do it truthfully. Yes, agree, Christianity had a knowle monopoly during the Medieval times: only clergy could read, they "explained" to people what it all means, had a perfect carrot and stick to bend people's will to their own. The message to it's simplest core is very simple: take care of others like you'd take care of yourself. If everyone would do it, we truly would have world that has never seen before, a world in peace and harmony. It's not "impossible", everyone's born as an empty, innocent child with no "evil thoughts", it's the system/ideologies that corrupt us, the idea of equality always bothered people, we all think we're "special", "better than others" so it's completely natural some people gathered and decided to use this story, or that story and give it meaning to their own needs and wishes: "be good and obedient now, then when you die you'll get forever happiness. Disobey us, and you'll suffer forever!!!". When the story say: you must be born again, you must get rid of old ways, change your personality, to enter the state of mind where you can accept other people as your brothers and sisters: in another words, you must work on yourself, you must understand yourself so you can understand others. That's what "love" is: "understanding". And you'll never hear such ideas for altars: you'll get "love people that are like you, who also go to the same church as you and pray to the same God as you" (not directly, but that's what's implied) but, on the other hand "hate our enemies! They're the devil offspring!!". That was not the message, it was not a "good news", that was distorted, and hijacked. But we could still fix it, when everybody's awake we'd realize "truth has opened our eyes and destroyed the world as we know it, just to rebuild it and make everything new". Not with some great show in the sky, but silently, in each and every one of us, in the way we think and see the world. Or at least I'm romantic and that's my secret wish I hope to live to see it happen.