Richard Dawkins - The Evidence For Evolution - The Greatest Show On Earth 

Maybe not ulterior motives, but a brain unable to form any motives at all. Richard Dawkins is a thinker, a man who can think, and form ideas out of his research. Young Earth theorists and other "thinkers" cannot get past what they have been "taught". It's called indoctrination. Those people will never recover from the malady that infects their thinking, and it will take eons, for them to recover. I personally know dozens of them. They're almost exclusively Americans, and there is no reason to think that they will ever begin to think with any degree of intelligence. We have to live with them, we have to tolerate a level of intelligence that beggars belief. But as long as you know the truth, your sanity will remain secure.

either that or they just wish to remain ignorant. It is just as easy to believe in a universe from nothing as it is to believe in a god.

@@victorjcano Easier

I'd say that anyone disputing this is not quite right in their faculties.

@@henkmarks8856 Their priorities are emotional even to the point of denying the obvious .

Do you know any of the evidence for intelligent design (different but a kind of creation) as pointed to by certain PhD's who are scientist and believers? Obviously not: since you been told there is "zero evidence" and you allowed them to decide for you. Do you think reading or hearing just one side, anyone can make a honest or a good decision? When a person knows just one side, is it fair to attack, or slander the other side?

@@rdhallmansr Provide one evidence that man was created as an adult male directly from dust (sand / clay .. from the soil of the earth) then the female was created from this male’s side, and we humans descended from these two through incest. Also show us one example of a creatures just appear (are created) out of nowhere, or did God stop creating on the sixth day of creation? Then explain all the animals that went extinct and the animals that obviously evolved from them. Explain lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats. Explain Zibras, Horses and Donkeys Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc.

@@rdhallmansr I use to be a pastor, I spent four years in the seminary. I know exactly what I'm talking about, there are many ex pastors such as myself. If you would like to educate yourself then go visit the clergy project web site. You made your assumptions of what I might and might not know out of pure ignorance. your one sided opinion also made out of pure ignorance. Your attempt to state a fact about me out of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about, you know not what you speak. Don't worry my friend this is a very common practice among the religious. You think you know what your talking about when in reality your speaking from ignorance. Now with that said provide all your so called evidence and if it is empirical evidence then the science community as well as myself will change our stance on evolution. The only reason the religious have not provided a single shred of empirical evidence is because they don't have any, plain and simple. As for me don't be making knowledge claims about me because you don't know a single thing about me. Cheers! P.S. The Clergy project, go check it out there are many testimonials there from many ex pastors such as myself. Only willful ignorance will stop you from doing so.

@@rdhallmansr Just for the record there are also PhD's who are scientist and believers who believe that evolution is a fact. Just wanted to throw that in there because I noticed you conveniently left that part out. Cheers!

@@rdhallmansr Now you can pose your question to yourself. "when a person knows just one side, is it fair to attack or slander the other side?" Because you know nothing about me yet you felt you could attack my position (the other side). Hypocrisy is no stranger to the religious, that's one reason I left the church. I was tired of being a hypocrite.

Well, what do you expect, he's talking to Americans.😍😘😏 They don't understand what he's talking about. They only learned about the Bible in high school.

You don't force people to eat the most beautiful honey in paradise.

People can like something without "liking" it. A number of likes means less than the insects on a dog's turd.

@@jimnewcombe7584 I certainly hope so

Cheap hope wins

I'm going to look up / google the book of animals. Thankyou

This is what so many people don’t realise, that many very critical thinkers had come to correct conclusions many years ago but didn’t have the capabilities or technology to prove it.

Not really, he made some very general observations about animals. very nicely written and interesting, but calling it evolution is a bit of a stretch.

@@ItsSVO he didnt prove evidence of evolution

@@armaanchowdhury1690 evidence of evolution simply does exist in many varieties. Dawkins doesn’t have to prove evidence exists because it just does. You being wilfully ignorant of the evidence is on you, it still exists regardless of your cognitive dissonance.

Dawkins is anti-science. 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. God is the reason for us and all we have. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JiMqzN_YSXU.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W1_KEVaCyaA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yW9gawzZLsk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ddaqSutt5aw.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X7h2HWcTwa4.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

True

And yet there isn't one explained pathway of how bacteria eventually evolved into humans or how it happened through random directionless mutations.

@@rexxx777 No one says it is directionless, or at least not in the way you claim. Natural selection sets a "direction"

@@ozowen but mutations don't. And mutations don't create new useful structures or systems, merely reorganizing what is already there. Anyway do you know of the pathway from bacteria to human?

First we need a universe that RD says came from "literally nothing" and to you that's.....Fantastic! The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

@@2fast2block You are a true testimony to your God. He must be so proud of you.

@@Micca59 ok, we have a Dawkins fan showing how creation happened by "literally nothing" and got around the laws I gave by their evidence of.... "You are a true testimony to your God. He must be so proud of you." You make such a great Dawkins follower.

@@2fast2block the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the moment of the singularity.

The lies are biblical

“… in a world of ignorance.”

Dawkins bases his whole argument against there being a God on the evidence that evolution happened instead of Creationism. He seems to ignore or be unaware of the fact that Hinduism knew about evolution thousands of years before Darwin. Both Buddhism and Hinduism have always accepted it. Evolution can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. If I'm A 22 year old scrawny man and I lift weights every day for one hour for 10 years I will evolve muscles. This doesn't mean God either exists or doesn't exist.

@@2mesense …and sometimes just biblical in proportion! 🙄

Evolution and the Bible are both lies. Created by brainless humans. Ones theory and ones fairytale

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." (II Peter 2:1-2)

@@johnstewart4350 Yep. Look to creationist leaders, they fit that description.

And all with just his voice, no slides and diagrams. {:o:O:}

From a F00L. 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. God is the reason for us and all we have. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JiMqzN_YSXU.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W1_KEVaCyaA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yW9gawzZLsk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ddaqSutt5aw.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X7h2HWcTwa4.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

That's just a ridiculous assertion. "Made to look older"... emotions can really shut off logic in people.

@@cezar211091 Just do a little more research into Quantum Physics to see how things are created. Keep in mind, most humans are relying on only their 5 senses to define their reality. For example in this macro field, we can see a collection of skeletons in a museum from so many different species and then a scientist will use reasoning to explain how they all took hundreds of thousands of years to evolve into those forms. Being a graduate from OSU with a BS in biology, I have accepted the hundreds of thousands of years to evolve theory. However, nowdays we know about Great Leaps in Evolution, along with cross-breeding to create new species, the foods grandparents ate or sudden environmental impacts to one generation changing future generations into intollerant of foods their older family eats, fear of certain environmental changes, etc... as when chicks run and scatter when a shadow passes over them - is an ingrained animal instinct picked up by the DNA from prior generations. Mice grand-pubs being programed to fear the smell of cherry blosoms. Therefore, how are we to say that our own bodies weren't "created" from a higher intelligence tinkering by mixing or CRISPERing? The creators of SIMULATORS are saying "This is so easy, to make things that look so real, that it's impossible to assume that a highly intelligent culture has not already evolved and created simulators that we are now living in." If you look at the Cosmic-Ouroboros; that everything in nature is fractile and takes on similar forms; from largest to smallest. Epigenetics being proven in the lab. Wild birds mimicing the sounds of outer space without their being aware of their copying behaviors consciously. Brain scientists saying our brains work more like a radio receiver; whereby our thoughts and personalities are being beamed into us from an exterior source; with us being avatars. Medatators and pass life regressionists saying we are living the fantasy program of a holodeck so that we learn spiritual lessons. Everyday we awaken in a different body, in order to learn what it is like to be them. The brain being the holder of memories that any soul can tap into much like we use to pop a movie into a VHS or CD player. So I didn't write the above out of emotions. I'm rational, like Spock.

@@cezar211091 Oops, left out the (hypothesis?) that brain neurons are structured like the components of outer space.

Dawkins is thought to be a story teller by Georgy Koentges , an authority on the subject. Georgy seems to believe that burying the argument in undecipherable pseudo-scientific gibberish is a better way to present the science fiction tales based on Darwin hallucinations

@@piertinence Yes but Richard is proudly arrogant . He truly believes what he is saying and that's what really matters in the end . Richard is also an atheist and one less atheist would be a big loss for humanity so I am glad that we still have him warts an all .

@@kookamunga2458 Darwinist evangelist Dawkins claim that all the creatures in the creation (like elephants, boas, anacondas, giraffes, tigers, owls, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc.,) could only be designoid objects only presenting an illusion of design. The Darwinian apostle BS does not even present an illusion of making sense.

@@piertinence Absolutely, humanity came from a single adult male that God made from the dust of the Earth, then made his female from his rib, then this male mated with himself.. I mean his wife and humanity multiplied from initial incest…

@@piertinence If all living things were created as is during the six days of creation then explain all the animals that went extinct? Most never west extinct but evolved into other species that continue to live on earth today. Explain the similarities between lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats. Hint: they came from common ancestors. Explain Zebras, Horses and Donkeys Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc. Read about how generic fossils and ERVs present clear evidences for evolution. Today we don’t need to look for fossils to know evolution is true. Evolution is a process that started 3.7 billion years ago. That is 3.7 thousand million years or 37 million times a human lifespan of 100 years.. some genetic mutations do cause major changes in the shape of a pelvis, vocal cords, brain connection, joints etc. Other mutations are more discrete. You might wanna read about the science of evolution and why scientists make their claims about it. Also read about how evolution was used by man over thousands of years to develop the plants and animals you eat and the medicine you use. Read about its applications in the medical field. The Bible, The Quran and all other scriptures are full of science fiction, historical lies and abhorrent moralities suitable only for their time. They all allow slavery, child marriage, killing and taking the land and wealth of those you don’t follow the ‘true belief’, and the subjugation of thought, innovation and alternative thinking to what’s written in Iron Age texts. Do you think Dawkins is out there just to make you ‘believe’ in evolution vs special creation? Think again.

Bottom. 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. God is the reason for us and all we have. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JiMqzN_YSXU.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W1_KEVaCyaA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yW9gawzZLsk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ddaqSutt5aw.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X7h2HWcTwa4.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

Thanks for your indispensable and eloquent contribution.

Kentucky, home of the most ignorant, uneducated and ignorant god so called Christians on the planet. That's why Ken Ham set up business there and had other people pay for his ridiculous, failed ark. FFS he was a failing high school biology teacher who never worked as a scientist.

God as got nothing to do with it ?Evolution a key word natural not spiritual

@@wayneparkinson4558 Praise the Lord.

@@thegroove2000 It must be nice to have a comfort blanket in your stressful lives

@@wayneparkinson4558 God help us.

@@wayneparkinson4558 Lord have mercy.

You need to look up what a scientific theory is

@@eddyeldridge7427 I know what it is, in the scientific world it's as good as a fact. I said because the religious extemists are too ignorant to get it in their heads. that a theory is as good as a fact.

@@musicauthority674 So we need to dumb down science? That's your solution?

@@eddyeldridge7427 In the case if religious freaks, absolutely yes. because they are too ignorant to understand anything else.

Evolution has always been a fact with theory (written explanation) to describe it. @@musicauthority674

If he actually said that, it sounds both reasonable and honest. Please note this quote refers to all life in the _universe_ , so any uncertainty stems from not having examples of life beyond earth to study. If it were just _this planet_ then that’s a different story: the evidence aligns with natural selection and it’s as proven as anything in science can be.

@@damienschwass9354 Spoken like a follower of any cult leader. I'm not saying he is right or wrong but to say that there is "proof" and then say "I cannot prove" is the scheme that all cult leaders do. "Believe me because I sound like I know what I'm talking about, I believe it, and ...." Don't be naive.

Dawkins has stated that he believes life is very likely to occur elsewhere in the universe and he believes it will have evolved through a process of evolution by natural selection as it has here on earth. Obviously he has no proof of this but since it is how life developed on earth it seems like a reasonable assumption to make, given the lack of alternatives

If he had been answering the question about life on Earth, he would have given a very different answer. Because he has proof for that. But the question was about life in the universe. For that he has only conjecture.

There is no other explanation That fits the facts. Evolution is the only explanation that works.

Yeah, it's obvious and uncontroversial to any modern, thinking person. But we're dealing with age-old hopes, dreams and fears; bewilderment, the desire for easy, flattering answers and the vainglorious hope of an Afterlife. That's why they refuse to listen and think - they're motivated not to, lest their Sky-God vanishes in a puff of logic.

Every single thing that evolution religion pulls out of its rear can easily be torn down. This man wouldn't last five minutes in a debate with Kent Hovind

@@Wedge39 Kent Hovind, the creationist? 😆

Show us the first ape descendant that was part ape, part human. Or 10% ape, 90% monkey. Or 50% ape,50% human...

I'm sorry but science should never stop investigating and never shut down debate. There are many significant differences between Darwin's version of evolution and our modern version. There also remains a lot of unknowns and gaping holes. So no good scientist should ever assume new evidence will not arise that may challenge the current evolution hypothesis.

Old scripture and cave paintings is more accurate than what the old history book tell you bias books of colonialist ego's reigned for many a year until being re-written by new findings all over the world?

Your inability to discern the intent is the failing here.

no problem with that so called evolution but still it does not show there is no God.

@@serlitotiolo2355 You clueless oxygen thief.

@@michaelanderson7715 - One cannot discern anything when the teachings accepts known falsehoods or changes the words to make truth undiscernable. The fact is mutations bring about death, not improvement. Even a small mutation in a creatures DNA will inevitably kill it over generations. The females will not mate with it if it continues to live. It is a dead end. There is no proof of good mutations, ever. You need evidence to prove that. Show us a before and after and study the DNA of both. Anyone who tells you life came from rocks after billions of years is an imbecile and should be avoided as a teacher. If you cannot teach what we know is true, without adding your faerie tales, you should be banned as a teacher. Same with math, reading, etc. Stick to the subject or be fired and sued.

Life started from rocks because, rocks have emanated all sorts of chemicals into the water and the chemical soup has evolved into organisms, from that point onwards, single-celled life forms started to evolve with minor changes over thousands of years let's say. We do not live long enough to see these changes but the changes exist whether we like it or not and over billions of years, we are the result of that Evolution. We, the Earth, and the Universe will continue to evolve forever whether you believe it or not.

No, just naive.

All the evidence for evolution is observable, repeatable and testable Im willing to bet you can't cite a single article of verified evidence for evolution that isn't

Evolution doesn't ever mention nothing though

@@drsatan7554 i understand that evolution can only occur in two ways...natural selection and mutations or changes to genes. But behind this is the big bang, something out of nothing or an undefined something (might as well be nothing). I flirted with the idea of becoming an atheist and read 'the God delusion'. It was Dawkins description of how evolution works which he sugar coated with words like 'eloquent', that i realised how weak evolution was. If that's the best we have, I am a theist, or happy to consider the flying spaghetti monster, but not nothing, and accidental processes.

Nobody asserts that complexity comes from nothing. Nobody.

The only ones claiming that complexity comes from nothing are creationists.

My brain cannot comprehend complex cosmic functions so therefore god.

Convergent evolution is good evidence for evolution, in that the same environmental pressures select for the same morphology. Horizontal transfer is done by numerous methods, the most obvious and easy to grasp is by a a virus taking up genetic material and moving it. It mainly happens in single celled organisms Not sure why they’d weaken your acceptance.

Someone as got to pay for the lecture even if its not always factual that's just Economics evolution in action

Darwinist evangelist Dawkins made himself filthy rich by preaching a Darwinian evolutionary creation. myth

Yes, could have also been Gaia, Shiva or any of the other many creator gods. Can’t be proven, can’t be disproven.

Your fairytales isn't evidence.

@@fraser_mr2009 No-one mentioned "evidence." We just say there is no evidence for a creator or a universe which created itself before it existed. It's all down to faith.

He's a nitwit. 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. God is the reason for us and all we have. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JiMqzN_YSXU.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W1_KEVaCyaA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yW9gawzZLsk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ddaqSutt5aw.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X7h2HWcTwa4.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

Yeah, pretty much. Religion: it won't work. Science: it can work.

What makes you say we were "created"? The theory of Evolution concludes that "we" emerged naturally. This theory is not a guess, it's a logical inference based on empirical evidence. We're here because all of ancestors successfully produced offspring that reached reproductive age. If by "we" you mean modern humans, we emerged as a species in Africa, and migrated across this planet, interbreeding with our cousin species until they, as distinct species, went extinct. No mystery.

I HAD PARENTS..... AND I LEARNED HOW SEXUAL REPRODUCTION WORKS.... IT'S NOT MAGIC.

Really?? So you have an explanation of how any new structure or system evolved through random directionless mutations? Go on then...

@@rexxx777 Have you ever read any science texts on this subject? Your questions kinda hint ignorance.

@@ozowen i have a biology degree and was the only student who questioned evolution and didnt blindly accept it. Any literature ive come across is full of words like may have, could have, we're not sure etc. The whole thing makes no sense and is ridiculous. I'm forever waiting for the answer of HOW?

​@@rexxx777 Sure you have a degree in any science. If you had done so, then tentative language would cause no perplexity. It is how science research is written. But hey, do tell us more from your obvious ignorance.

@@ozowen you've just said it, my point exactly. They're not sure, you're not sure, so it shouldn't be paraded as a fact, simple.

Selective dog breeding. Agriculture. Vaccines. What exactly are you looking for?

@@eddyeldridge7427 no, that's not your goo-to-you evolution. You know, show that life came from non-life on its own that started your whole fairy tale of this all.

@@2fast2block My evolution? I'm talking about the evolutionary model used in biology. No goo. No origin of life. Evolution occurs AFTER life begins. You're getting confused with abiogenesis. That's the origin of life. Just because you have God as a catchall answer doesn't mean everyone else's worldview is so lazy. Different questions have different answers. Reality doesn't care about your convenience. So, you have to read multiple books. Boohoo.

​@@eddyeldridge7427 Abiogenesis IS part of your evolution. The rule that it’s not was made up by your side because it crushes your goo-to-you evolution from the start. Of course it has to include life that can replicate and gain more complexity from the start. That is what your idea of evolution is. That’s why your rule was made up for no reason but a ploy to try to distance yourself from reality.

@@2fast2block No, it's not. Like I said, different questions have different answers. How life started and why are there so many variations in organisms are two different questions. You want them to be the same thing because you just one to have one target to attack. But even if abiogenesis were 100% false and your god created all life exactly as the bible describes, evolution would not be affected. Evolution does not contradict the bible. It aligns more with the bible than heliocentrism. But you don't question that. Or do you?

One can only say so much in on single lecture. You need to take into consideration that what he is asseting is based on his entire life's scientific work, including many books where research, data and evidence-based information. He is not simply asserting arguments out of spontaneity...

@@j-sm4554 I am making quite a strong claim. There is no experiment behind his explanations. He goes from hypothesis to fact skipping the science part where you attempt to verify your conjectures in a falsifiable way. Most of his books do not even attempt to provide evidence for what he is saying. Only his book The Greatest Show on Earth, even attempts to fill the void.

What's the 'empirical science' behind supernatural creation, duncey?? @@DavidLoveMore

@@DocReasonable The different families of animals have no common natural ancestor as can be seen through the genetics.

@@DavidLoveMore "The different families of animals have no common natural ancestor as can be seen through the genetics" - explain how genetics demonstrates that

Mostly I see that cartoon of creatures reaching land as humans and then devolving into office workers or NRA-supported mass shooters or some such subhuman idiot.

Yeah, I feel sympathy with you. In my Space-Alien Cult we have translated and learned the names of over 300 Space-Aliens. Does Dawkins know the name of even a single one? No, he doesn't. Therefore he has "no right to express an opinion".

@@donthesitatebegin9283 lol

What evidence. Despite asking, no one has ever offered evidence fir ID.

@@peteconrad2077 Actually the ID folks have published a couple of peer reviewed papers supposedly as evidence for design. But, ID has never tested their hypothesis. They cherry picked evidence on some meta reviewed work, but not once, not ever have they attempted to disprove their own assumptions. It is non-science.

@@ozowen5961 indeed. That’s fear real science.

Natural selection has created more complexity. Some bacteria now are capable of digesting plastic which no lifeform could do before Absolutely all known life has 360ish distinct genes that the lifeform known as LUCA possessed. Thus proving an "in-between" link with all known life. That's why its called LUCA, last universal common ancestor Claiming there is no evidence for evolution doesn't change the fact that there is. You're clearly talking about something you know next to nothing about. Pays to do your own research as opposed to listening to bias science denying theists

Your first sentence is false from the start. You either clearly have an agenda to deny, or you are incapable of understanding. Dawkins specifically explains this many times, but his “Mountain of improbability’s” (my apologies if this name isn’t quite accurate) explains the development of complexities quite well.

@@sstolarik That mountain analogy doesn't explain anything, it's just a pears and apples explanation for the masses, you included, obviously. What I mean is that one gene has a long set of nitrogenous bases grouped in codons (set of three bases) which account for each individual amino acid in a protein through the mRNA. The average protein has 400 amino acids, which means that the average gene has 1,200 nitrogenous bases plus the codons to indicate its start and finish. The gene creation, which is blind as we know, has to be so precise that it needs to contain the blue print for the right protein. There are molecules that are not proteins, like lipids, or starch that need a set of proteins to be synthetized. Moreover, pretty much all the organelles in a cell are comprised by parts. All parts need to be in place in order to function, hence, a missing part makes the whole structure useless, and all of them come from a number of different genes. As a result, what Dawkins is suggesting is that over a long time, randomly, genes are being created (remember, more than 1,000 bases in the correct order) and kept for no reason until for some magical law of probabilities a set of genes become useful to one another to form a certain organelle, synthetizing the right protein (s) that the cell might have needed. Just like he said he has no answer for the origin of life because a DNA-generating protein needs to start the process from a thread of RNA, making the whole thing an unsolvable chicken and egg situation. Actually, the same applies to all new complexities in the cell. On the other hand, do you have an explanation for the Cambrian explosion?, and, do you believe, like Dawkins, that some time in the future paleontologists are finally going to find a missing link between any of the million species we have missing links for? (and in the process suggesting that statistics is a black magic field or something). Finally, I have only one agenda, following the truth. And I can tell BS when I see it. It amazes me to see scientists not realizing they just don't have the answers to this, but still insist in an idea that has less and less basis as the knowledge becomes greater.

What exactly is an "in-between link"?

@@sergiocuadra2738 I appreciate your level of detail in your response, Sergio, but you’re missing the point. It’s not the precision that develops the complexity, but time and minute repetition that finds a successful combination, not a watchmaker. Life is more akin to dropping grains of sand on a coin standing on its edge. Any grain that manages to land on the edge of the coin wasn’t precisely placed there. Out of the millions of grains that fell, only the lucky few made it. I know this is a vulgar example of “survival of the fittest,” but apt. The mountain analogy merely illustrates the small, but great, efforts over a great amount of time to reach a more complex state. Whether it’s mutations at the gene level caused by environmental considerations, introduction of foreign coding from an external source such as a virus, etc. all DNA-based lifeforms are in a constant state of flux. Over millions of years that diversity would amount to a myriad of diverse grains of sand all aiming at staying on the edge of the proverbial coin.

It wasn't "created", it emerged naturally from non living matter.

Disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.

"It's not just creationists that think that there are gaps in the fossil record, it Stephen J Gould. His theory of punctuated evolution rests in it. "Stasis is data." - as usual, the ignorant makes a claim on the basis of a comment decades old, since then there has been a massive addition to the fossil record. You haven't a clue.

@@Dr.Ian-Plect Gould wasn't just speaking of missing links but a pattern of stasis interspersed with discontinuities. What are you claiming exactly?

@@DavidLoveMore Did I mention missing links?! I made the point you are citing commentary from decades ago, bring yourself up to date! - moreover, do you accept evolution occurs?

@@Dr.Ian-Plect So which of the Cambrian phyla have you found precursors for?

@@DavidLoveMore I too can ignore your content.

You could debate until tomorrow about creationism and evolution or about morality which are just peripheral or collateral issues. the primary and central problem is whether God in the person of the Lord Jesus exist or not in this modern time. I can not accept the explanation from organized religion which is shallow, only based on blind faith and from atheists and skeptics which is easy to deny. May be these persons are lazy or they don't know where and how to find and meet the Lord Jesus personally.

LIKE IN GENESIS 30 THAT CLAIMS THAT GOATS FUCKING IN FRONT OF BRANCHES PRODUCE SPOTTED GOATS? DID YOUR FAIRY TALE TALKING ANIMALS TELL YOU THAT?

@@serlitotiolo2355 utterly irrelevant.

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

Why do you think it's hate?

No Ken worships Darwin. The arms race has no point. It’s just an inevitability of life.

If you bothered to actually read anything on evolution, you would find that the appearance of new species is indeed explained. The theory of evolution is about how living organisms evolved, and does not purport to offer an explanation for the emergence of life.

Provide one evidence that man was created as an adult male directly from dust (sand / clay .. from the soil of the earth) then the female was created from this male’s side, and we humans descended from these two through incest. Also show us one example of a creatures just appear (are created) out of nowhere, or did God stop creating on the sixth day of creation? Then explain all the animals that went extinct and the animals that obviously evolved from them. Explain lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats. Explain Zibras, Horses and Donkeys Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc…

@@stevepierce6467 would you mind to share the source, any scientific paper that says that it is a fact and not a hypothesis or a theory?

@@krypteral What is the difference between a "theory" and a "scientific theory"?

@@vejeke Either one should be falsifiable or it is not a theory, it's a religion

Because there’s no evidence for an intelligence on a universal scale. I don’t think it’s being taken as a “matter of course” that’s there no such thing, so much as he sees no convincing evidence that there is. Neither do I.

These professors are no different than anyone else its a form of protectionism hence to keep them relevant instead of being drowned out by the real truth

@@damienschwass9354 : It's according to where we think our reality resides, and the trigger forces we don't yet understand? After all our perception of our reality is in our consciousness so maybe there is no need for there to be anything outside of that perception?

Evolution is a subset of the Blue Unicorn's intended plan......or substitute any imaginary personage for Blue Unicorn.

Oh cool, how do you know this?

2000 years after the bible and still not a shred of evidence for creation countless Christian apologists and still no evidence for creation There are hundreds and thousands of books and scientific peer-reviewed papers that all have evidence to support and back up the theory of evolution because you don't want to understand the science of evolution doesn't make it any less factual.

There are universities, schools, museums and private collections around the globe with lots of evidence for evolution. What there is no evidence for is any alternative.

@@VisshanVis That's just bs. What evidence have you got for the miraculous mutations that had to have happened to create new systems and structures? The onus is you people to explain how everything came about with no purpose or direction or designer.

@@rexxx777 I can't answer that but I'm not a biologist, ask one but you won't do that will you because you know they will be able to explain exactly what you are asking and evidence is the thing that you don't want to hear isn't it.

@@VisshanVis so basically you don't know how it happened but you'll blindly believe it anyway? You want the "experts" to do your thinking for you?

Dawkins is a dolt, whig or not. 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. God is the reason for us and all we have. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JiMqzN_YSXU.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W1_KEVaCyaA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yW9gawzZLsk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ddaqSutt5aw.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X7h2HWcTwa4.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

No

It makes RD feel empowered. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

If energy did not exist originally, WHAT GAVE GOD HIS POWERS?? Even the supernatural is powered by energy, CREATARDED fL0ggers. @@2fast2block

No he is not. It is a staple dating method in science, and has been since 1905.

Nope, you are dead wrong about him being dead wrong.

@@ozowen5961 you and RD are plain slow-minded. He claims we got the universe from "literally nothing." Hey, show how that can be. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

@@2fast2block "The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally." This fails in its basic premise. The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe. Explain how they apply outside our universe. Remember, you are talking about the conditions pre our universe. I await your usual insistence that you are right with no reason other than you cite laws of physics that we cannot insist will apply to this situation. "One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable." This is true. The physics also shows that we are in the very early stages of the universe. The state of total entropy is many, many trillions (a number that is frighteningly small for this situation) and energy will remain usable for trillions of years (again- a small number in this context) before it gets close to being at all unusable. "It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things." Scientists (not creationists) who are also believers follow the evidence. The evidence says we have no idea what preceded the Singularity. It also says that there is a huge expanse of time before energy achieves entropy. You have denied the first lot of evidence and misrepresented the second.

@@ozowen5961 "The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe." It's your way of ignoring evidence. You can do it with anything you don't want. We have 2 + 2 = 4 but if you don't like that, you throw it out that it may equal something else outside the universe. It's lame but lame is what you are. Then....we don't have an outside until there is something there to be outside of. As I showed, we don't have that something that can come about on its own. There can't be something there without a cause. Law of Causality - 'There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.' You just show how tiny your brain is over and over again. You want to ignore solid evidence and you have no way out of it. You have such an unsound mind, no amount of reasoning will change you, you want what you want despite the clear evidence and your lame excuses don't work.

No, the myth is you actually think. He believes we got the universe by "literally nothing" and you can't give evidence either for a natural creation. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

​@@2fast2block And what did god make the universe out of?

@@eddyeldridge7427 there was nothing to make it out of. Nothing in the natural realm existed then. That's why it had to be supernatural. I kind of mentioned that and showed that already.

@@2fast2block So thinking the universe came from nothing is silly. So we should believe what you believe: that the universe came from nothing because magic. Do you not see how silly that sounds? Now realize how much worse it is when science doesn't say the universe came from nothing. That's a lie theists came up with.

@@eddyeldridge7427 you believe it happened magically because you have NO evidence it could have happened that way. Your whole empty life is in hopes that magic did. Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."

Nice argument from authority logical fallacies

@@drsatan7554 I don;t argue with people - because I need my strength to fight Satan.

@@militaryandemergencyservic3286 When you fight Satan don't forget to video it. You wouldn't want people to think you are delusional.

These aren’t even authorities lol. Why would you quote a philosopher and a physicist on biology?

@@septicwomb4394 they are cleverer than most people - and you don't need intelligence to buy into the lie of macroevolution.

Well done for citing someone who was dead by the mid 80's, was a remainer on the stump of neo Lamarckian evolution and is irrelevant given the massive expansion of evidence for Neo Darwinian evolution since he passed.

@@ozowen5961 your brain is dead. You showed how you ignore science as RD does. When you don't like evidence that shows how tiny your brain is, you make up anything you want no matter how lame. Look how clueless you love to be when shown the universe can't come about on its own... Empty you....."The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe." It's your way of ignoring evidence. You can do it with anything you don't want. We have 2 + 2 = 4 but if you don't like that, you throw it out that it may equal something else outside the universe. It's lame but lame is what you are. Then....we don't have an outside until there is something there to be outside of. As I showed, we don't have that something that can come about on its own. There can't be something there without a cause. Law of Causality - 'There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.' You just show how tiny your brain is over and over again. You want to ignore solid evidence and you have no way out of it. You have such an unsound mind, no amount of reasoning will change you, you want what you want despite the clear evidence and your lame excuses don't work.

@@2fast2block Wow you are such loser;) You copy paste crap since like 10y and you done nothing to convince even one person;)

@@tgstudio85 wow, even more science from you that somehow got around the laws..."Wow you are such loser;) You copy paste crap since like 10y and you done nothing to convince even one person;)" Well, that didn't beat....The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

@@2fast2block "you ignore science as RD does"- that's New College Fellow, evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins MA, DSc, Dphil, FRS, FRSL author of the most influential book in the life sciences since Darwin......THAT guy? Why do you humiliate yourself posting this infantile tripe?

All you need to do, is look. The evidence is there

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

Look at the evolution article on Wikipedia.

Try Google.

substantiate your claim

It's ironic that you say that, when it's you that is delusional, or just plain stupid.

The same difference is in whites, but is much less obvious. not sure why tho. maybe because you could generate more vitamin D when you expose your light skinned soles and palms to the sun? i dont know. but palms and soles of all people produce less melanin then rest of their skin i think its the same with other apes

Because the palms and soles of the feet have an additional, very strong, tough and wear-resistant layer of skin - they have five layers, rather than the four present elsewhere. It is there to protect the hands and feet from friction. This additional layer of skin also provides additional protection from the sun's ultraviolet because it is very dense, therefore these areas do not require such a high concentration of the dark pigment found elsewhere that acts as a protection built in sunscreen. Moreover, the soles and palms are generally not exposed to the sun as much as (say) the face. A very tanned person will generally have pale palms and soles, because these p[arts of the body are turned away from the sun.

Doesn't explain in evolutionary terms. Darwin posited humans are exempt from natural selection. We choose for other reasons our partners.e.g. physical attraction. Where in your explanation do you account for the difference, by human selection; the differences in in soles and palms?

@@2mesense It explains perfectly. Humans did not need to evolve far skins on their hands and feet, because those areas were already protected from UV - when our ancestors had fur, they did not need dark skins - but they did need the additional protective layer on their hands and feet, largely to protect those parts from wear and friction. When humans lost their furb, they evolved dark skins against the sun: but not on their hands and feet, it wasn;t necessary. _Where in your explanation do you account for the difference, by human selection; the differences in in soles and palms_ What difference? Obviously because humans have been walking only on their feet for many generations, and only using their hands for tools and so on, for a similar time, palms and soles will diverge a bit. But in terms of why dark skinned people have pale palm and sole skin - the reason is the same. Protection by dark pigment was not required, so it did not evolve.

@@2mesensegod must've created the difference in soles and palms. for no other reason but to confuse us

On the contrary, overly complex structures that are not fully optimised is precisely what can be expected from natural selection over billions of years. An all powerful designer with a clean slate would have done a lot better and we would hardly need to spend half our GDP on trying to remedy the many ways the human body can and does go wrong.

No song and dance. Just the passage of time.........a long long time!

Mutation is the key to evolution nothing stays the same really?

@@wayneparkinson4558 That is right - nothing stays the same because of random genetic drift, but natural selection keeps organisms from straying too far from forms that fit the particular environments an organism finds itself in.

@@wayneparkinson4558 You got it! Absolutely nothing stays the same. It just takes an awfully long time to change to something different, so if you are a young earth creationist, this is off limits to you.

life isnt defined as ability to adapt. life doesnt imply intelligence.

@@spatrk6634 - I got that definition of "life" from Merriam-Webster. As for "intelligence", I'm not referring to human intellect, merely an ability to respond/adapt to environmental factors. What do you propose should be the definition of "life"?

@@ericjohnson6665 That's funny because this is the definition of life I found: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

For there to be evolution you need movement physical processes to act on one another Matter is plastic it flows, move give of heat just like life evolution must be apart of a long drawn out process

@@SimSim-zf9if Please before to answer reflect of the meaning Genetic code (A C G T) for 159.662 'letters' to be arranged in sequence order by natural process

It's the same four nucleotide bases arranged in sequences due to chemical affinity with amino acids. It's not impossible, it's a directly observed fact.

@@speciesspeciate6429 I hope you know the meaning of software code of our programming in bit information: 0 1 In the genetic code of the DNA is 4 nucleotide. Let give practical example of sequence of nucleotide of dna of some bacteria (I will write the first 3 codon ) GTG CAT CTG ACT as you know every codon must be in that order to give instructions for building an organism. What is the probability only these 3 codon formed alone ? Now: The smallest genome in nature composte of 159.662 'letters' must be in perfect order to build an organism of life for the bacterium Again : What is the probability to arrange all the codon of total of 159.662 'letters ' forming alone by natural process?

DNA is not code in the sense of a computer program. You made a category error. It's not possible to calculate the odds of something happening with or without a God, it's only possible to calculate the odds of something happening. In this case we have a sample size and it is 1, so the odds are actually 1:1. You quoted some very bad work, by Fred Hoyle, that has already been disproved.

It's a good job no one in science is claiming dna just appeared then isn't it, you know being complex etc nonsense word salad! Dna comes from rna, how that comes is fairly well known. You'd do well to read research real science instead of relying on your pastor or anti science propaganda groups like answers in genisis.

MARK 16:18 SAYS CHRISTIANS CAN DRINK POISON. AND YET EVERY CHRISTIAN HAS NO FAITH IN IT...... HOW ODD 🤒

Faith ? Because of fairy tales in religious books? what a source...

@@misterb6456 Perhaps this is all you can see with a blinded mind, how pitiful

@@succulentsfun I see. You are seeing the truth because you read religious fairy tales. Wow. I guess the floating, invisible man in the sky is talking to you too, genius?

@@misterb6456 That’s right, speaking of genius, who can beat a cousin of the banana 🍌🤣

Oh hey! I love this game, post meaningless BS and pretend it has magical powers. I raise you Numbers 31:17-18....... let's kill hoes and kidnap virgins....... will you join me? Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18 I can't wait to see what verse you respond with cause there's plenty more where that came from!

'The sun rose on the same tidy front gardens and lit up the brass number four on the Dursleys' front door; it crept into their living room, which was almost exactly the same as it had been on the night when Mr. Dursley had seen that fateful news report about the owls'. The Vanishing Glass 2:2

Bigger tail feathers = greater energy cost to male, but = a more visible display = higher chance of mating = gene survival = job done* = positive feedback, (a hallmark of sexual selection via mate choice) leading to a runaway process where a courtship signal becomes more and more extreme. *without any intention, of course. Size of display has to be the key, else the smaller (but more active and/or more gaudy) immature males would get the girls.

@@alanthompson8515 Ok so bigger tail feathers makes them more noticeable given existing peahen genes, no need for a mutation. If a mutation arose causing peahens to be repelled by excessive plumage then presumably that wouldn't be selected because size of display is such an important signal of longevity. Unless that is: an alternative, less-expensive, signal for longevity emerges, such as grey beard ?

Its an exercise in health . It takes a strong bird to waste so much enry gust on bling .

@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 It takes a strong but very stupid bird

Dude, when you were 6 weeks in the womb, you have a milk line ridge where a whole lot of nipples were forming- it's called The mammalian milk line. You started to grow a tail. That bit of tissue in the corner of your eye is third eyelid tissue, just as dogs and cats have. Your vagus nerve branch that goes yo your voice box, doesn't directly go there from your brain, but instead loops down, under you aorta, then comes up. Design sucks eh? And that's just a few examples.

Your ignorance shines through. Richard is talking about chronology, you are talking about discovery.

@@Dr.Ian-Plect The Cambrian explosion remains a problem for Darwin, whether Dawkins wants to consider it or not.

Glueck died in 1971. Do you have anyone more recent? Or do you rely on older commentaries so as to avoid contradiction?

Let me help you. Camels were not in Israel at the times reported in the Bible. There was no global flood. Some of Glueck's own discoveries have been shown to not be as he thought. There is sod all evidence for the Exodus.

@@ozowen5961 ill bet you looked that up on Wikipedia ..

@@raysalmon6566 Nope. I was looking up something entirely different when I came across the description of Glueck's discovery of King Solomon's mines and how that was since shown to be wrong. It was, as I recall, in a Smithsonian article. It was quite praising of Gluek, but that doesn't mean he is always right.

@@ozowen5961 i have not read any to Glueck's work Francesca Stavrakopoulou* and W F Albright are my latest any Archeologist is going to have opinions that will later be verified or dismissed most of this is due to inadequate study of known history of their inquiry there actually is more secular Archeologists going to biblical sites (minimumists) than there is church sponsored ones

The Cold Wind of Reality We have no direct evidence for the existence or non-existence of a God. There is, however, a mountain of indirect evidence - but indirect evidence, being subject to arbitration, allows one person to perceive the information differently to another (or even be dismissive of it). Therefore, there can only be the assertion of a "belief" that is built upon indirect evidence for or against the existence of a creator - so the demand for direct evidence is presumptuous fallacy. In short ... we are wasting our time trying to convince anyone of such a thing: especially when the scripture says we live by faith - and both atheists and theists have some semblance of faith. The question is: which faith is correct and how should it be embraced? Atheists have faith in science and mankind to self-govern - whereas theists have faith in the one who laid His life down to rule as a benevolent King. This means we need to take a pragmatic look at the options on the table if we are to move forward with efficacy toward effective resolution. The problem is: both atheists and theists are invested in their worldview - to a dogma of cognitive dissonance. Atheists claim religion has been the driving force behind the evil we see in the world - whereas the theist perceive sin is the driving force. They are both are correct - to a point - but neither are exemplifying their position when they start disparaging each other. To make matters worse - neither are aware the scripture does not sanction religion and neither are aware sin is delusion. The good news is: this can easily be broached if we break down the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: Tree = Source of information Knowledge of Good = Accurate info Knowledge of Evil = Inaccurate info Partake = Digest and believe Fruit = Ideas, beliefs etc Sin = Delusion (spiritual death) The scripture defines sin as missing the mark because it is the state of mind in which a person seeks to justify wicked behaviour; which then leads to the galvanising of hierarchy. The scripture even confirms this by highlighting the introduction of sin would cause the stronger to rule over the weaker when God said, "Your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you." The dictionary defines religion as: a belief in a superhuman controling power. However, that is merely the semblance of a faith - because religion is an institution that has established hierarchy, using doctrines, that serve the interest of those within the hierarchy (including government). This is how we know the scripture doesn't actually sanction religion. Indeed ... the New Testament testifies to the fact Y'shua (Jesus) took issue with those who create religion. ... so we can all agree - religion is bad. This means we only need to address the cause of delusion (sin) if we are to rectify the situation once and for all. This is where science can, and should, take centre stage to establish correct understanding of reality - and our place in it. Science is the process by which careful observation leads to the conclusion of analysis of information which, after formulating an idea into hypothesis or theory, is tested rigorously by experiment and peer review. This is to say: the scientific method includes the process of disproof to ensure falsifiable theories (beliefs) are not idiosyncratic. For this reason: a theory is considered a "provisional truth" because science is continually self-correcting in its pursuit of understanding as resources improve the quality of data that is assessed. This mechanism allows science to castigate the vulgar and exemplify the intellectual - but science has developed a weakness for asserting indirect evidence as direct evidence to propagate favourable theories that create a ceiling on progress. Science "should" use the scientific method to root out theories that are error: so it should never consider indirect evidence as direct evidence - because indirect evidence is subject to arbitration. Mutation, for example, is direct evidence for adaptation and, at the same time, indirect evidence for transition. This is because we have observed the genome to rearrange information and cause a living organism to look (slightly) different to its parents. This is direct evidence for adaptation - because slight change is observable. Science has never observed the genome to increase information and cause the living organism to become a different type. This is indirect evidence for transition - because drastic change is not observable. The moment science asserted mutation as direct evidence for transition - it became an idiosyncratic belief (delusion) for those who refuse to acknowledge the genome has never been observed to increase. Then the argument begins with atheists citing rock strata as evidence for millions of years (which they back-up with unreliable dating methods) - while the theists cite rock strata as evidence for rapid formation by a flood (which they back-up with hydrological sorting experiments). The point I'm making here is: we have come full circle - because indirect evidence is subject to arbitration. Somewhere within that circle is the Word of God offering a warning to avoid anything that causes delusion - and science, having the noble cause of rooting out delusion, has become the very thing that causes delusion. Perhaps I should conclude this article by offering a warning against embracing the delusional estate and encouraging everyone to embrace the eternal estate. ... but this article has already said enough for both atheist and theist to ponder. My Best Wishes 💖 To Everyone The Three Pillars lnkd.in/e8NKKpb Footnote: this article is dedicated to Richard Dawkins who coined the phrase "The Cold Wind Of Reality".

ME; LAUGHING AS I LOOK AT A POODLE....... A POODLE THAT EVOLVED FROM A WOLF.

@@Bless-the-Name "We have no direct evidence for the existence or non-existence of a God. " JUST LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAME FOR LEPRECHAUNS. FAIRY TALES ARE FUNNY THAT WAY. 🤣🤣😆😆🤣🤣 YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK AND PATHETIC.

That's because Kent Hovind doesn't debate, he just makes ridiculous claims and insults his opponent.

Provide one evidence that man was created as an adult male directly from dust (sand / clay .. from the soil of the earth) then the female was created from this male’s side, and we humans descended from these two through incest. Also show us one example of a creatures just appear (are created) out of nowhere, or did God stop creating on the sixth day of creation? Then explain all the animals that went extinct and the animals that obviously evolved from them. Explain lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats. Explain Zibras, Horses and Donkeys Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc.

"Tue audacity to stand before those people and lie straight to their face.. " You seem to be confusing an eminent scientist with a pastor.

Kent Hovind? 😂😂😂😂

Kent hovind is a professionell apolegetic Who never will give up but I can give my personal testimony and that is that I have never had a personal relationship with jesus christ but instead with reality

The Koran is wrong and contradictory in numerous places. It can be dismissed.