Richard Dawkins Proves Intelligent Design in 5 Min
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 09. 2016
- Darwinian evolution's champion Richard Dawkins logically proves intelligent design. Richard Dawkins proves intelligent design by confirming the premises of the DNA argument for intelligent design as formulated by Stephen C. Meyer, thereby showing in spite of himself how to arrive at the conclusion of intelligent design using elementary logic and facts of science.
If you like the video, please push the like button and subscribe. Hopefully there'll be more videos on Dawkins.
--- Argument:
1. Genes (a central component of life) are digital information*.
2. To the best of OUR KNOWLEDGE, digital information is always a product of intelligence.
3. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, genes (a central component of life) are a product of intelligence.
--- Answers to common objections:
* #1: DIGITAL INFORMATION IS THE SAME AS ORDER!
No, digital information -- such as the instructions of computer code, the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone or Shakespeare's Hamlet -- is not to be confused with order which can be seen in the spontaneous structure of a snowflake or a crystal.
Order is different from digital information in the sense that order would have the DNA molecule comprised of any A-T or C-G pair in any position along its sequence without this impairing the double helix structure.
But since there is order as well as digital information in the DNA molecule, the positions of A, T, C and G not only hold the DNA molecule together but are highly specific so as to translate meaningful code.
#2: THIS IS CHERRY-PICKING OF THE WORST KIND!
No, lol.
This is Richard Dawkins affirming the premises (1) and (2) of the argument for intelligent design. The fact that he chooses a personal view that is different from the conclusion arrived at by the syllogism in the video is immaterial to his confirmation of its premises.
Just like someone who believes that
(1) all men are mortal,
(2) Dawkins is a man, yet thinks
(3) Dawkins is not going to die,
is someone who correctly accepts the premises but then chooses a conclusion different from that which is logically binding.
#3: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DIGITAL INFORMATION?
The term digital information is used in reference to information that is encoded using digital units, regardless of whether that is according to a binary system (0, 1 or A, B), a quaternary system (0, 1, 2, 3 or A, T, C, G), an alphabetical system or else.
Digital information is not synonymous with computer information or a computer program, in the sense that it can also be information written on a rock using numerical or alphabetical symbols (e.g., the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone).
#4: RICHARD DAWKINS DOEN'T REALLY BELIEVE DNA IS DIGITAL.
It is pointless to object by saying that Richard Dawkins does not say DNA or genes are really digital information. A minute and a half in the video, he says, "genes are information, they are coded information. It even looks like computer information. A chromosome is a great long computer tape. It's linear, runs one-dimensional digital code. It's not binary, it's quaternary, but apart from that it's just the same as computer tape."
Furthermore, he states in his book River Out of Eden on page 17, "After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike."
He also writes on page 19, "Genes are pure information - information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."
#5: IS THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE VIDEO ABOUT GOD?
The argument, particularly premise 2, is about the ability of the mechanism (in this case: one that makes use of intelligence) to encode information.
Even if intelligence entails a conscious agent by definition, the mechanism stated in the premise is not to be confused with the agent or agents or any possible identity thereof.
And even though there are larger implications for one's worldview depending on whether intelligent design is true or false, the subject of this video remains the evidence for or against it.
___
Thanks for watching. Salam.
~Verdant Servant
/ verdantservant - Věda a technologie
Salam aleikum. Subscribe if you like the video. You may also check my other video exposing Richard Dawkins' pseudoscience: czcams.com/video/7xOkE53kiAU/video.html
Common objections to the video above are addressed here:
--- Argument:
1. Genes (a central component of life) are digital information*.
2. To the best of OUR KNOWLEDGE, digital information is always a product of intelligence.
3. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, genes (a central component of life) are a product of intelligence.
--- Answers to common objections:
* #1: DIGITAL INFORMATION IS THE SAME AS ORDER!
No, digital information -- such as the instructions of computer code, the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone or Shakespeare's Hamlet -- is not to be confused with order which can be seen in the spontaneous structure of a snowflake or a crystal.
Order is different from digital information in the sense that order would have the DNA molecule comprised of any A-T or C-G pair in any position along its sequence without this impairing the double helix structure.
But since there is order as well as digital information in the DNA molecule, the positions of A, T, C and G not only hold the DNA molecule together but are highly specific so as to translate meaningful code.
#2: THIS IS CHERRY-PICKING OF THE WORST KIND!
No, lol.
This is Richard Dawkins affirming the premises (1) and (2) of the argument for intelligent design. The fact that he chooses a personal view that is different from the conclusion arrived at by the syllogism in the video is immaterial to his confirmation of its premises.
Just like someone who believes that
(1) all men are mortal,
(2) Dawkins is a man, yet thinks
(3) Dawkins is not going to die,
is someone who correctly accepts the premises but then chooses a conclusion different from that which is logically binding.
#3: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DIGITAL INFORMATION?
The term digital information is used in reference to information that is encoded using digital units, regardless of whether that is according to a binary system (0, 1 or A, B), a quaternary system (0, 1, 2, 3 or A, T, C, G), an alphabetical system or else.
Digital information is not synonymous with computer information or a computer program, in the sense that it can also be information written on a rock using numerical or alphabetical symbols (e.g., the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone).
#4: RICHARD DAWKINS DOEN'T REALLY BELIEVE DNA IS DIGITAL.
It is pointless to object by saying that Richard Dawkins does not say DNA or genes are really digital information. A minute and a half in the video, he says, "genes are information, they are coded information. It even looks like computer information. A chromosome is a great long computer tape. It's linear, runs one-dimensional digital code. It's not binary, it's quaternary, but apart from that it's just the same as computer tape."
Furthermore, he states in his book River Out of Eden on page 17, "After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike."
He also writes on page 19, "Genes are pure information - information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."
#5: IS THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE VIDEO ABOUT GOD?
The argument, particularly premise 2, is about the ability of the mechanism (in this case: one that makes use of intelligence) to encode information.
Even if intelligence entails a conscious agent by definition, the mechanism stated in the premise is not to be confused with the agent or agents or any possible identity thereof.
And even though there are larger implications for one's worldview depending on whether intelligent design is true or false, the subject of this video remains the evidence for or against it.
___
Thanks for watching. Salam.
~Verdant Servant
czcams.com/users/VerdantServant
Could not think of any... it is absolutely marvellously complied. Great job!
Is there a valid reason why you quote mined his interviews, specifically the last one? I noticed you didn't include his actual response to the question. Nor the actually reason he paused.
I'm afraid you have based your argument on a fallacy known as "begging the question" (assuming the truth of your conclusion within a structural premise). As we have never observed a god or creator that is capable of creating information, such as contained within DNA, then we know of at least one example of naturally occurring and increasing information - DNA. Unless you observe the creator of DNA you have no grounds for claiming it to not be a naturally occurring substance.
We have observed the building blocks for DNA forming naturally (Miller-Urey et al.) Our observations lead us to conclude that, not only COULD DNA form naturally without a guiding intelligence, but that it actually DID occur naturally. In short, your argument is fallacious and even if it weren't, there is physical evidence against it's second premise.
I followed your rules and you deleted my post.
You clearly do not want an honest debate on the subject.
I see that my posts are now here. Thank you for doing the right thing.
I note that you evaded my reply to video. Its the newest reply. Six days ago and its no longer hidden. But its not in this pegged thread so here is a copy.
BEGIN COPY ------
"Proves Intelligent Design in 5 Min"
That is just plain false. Even if that was actual opinion it would NOT prove ID.
Genes are NOT coded information. They are an historical artifact of mutation followed natural selection, the APPEARANCE of it being code is illusory. Codes are for the purpose of communication between human beings. DNA is a one way system. Nothing is communicated to, except by RNA viruses.
And Dawkins has answered the question. The video interview was done under false pretenses. He DID answer the queston. In PRINT. He figured that he had been lied to and then stopped the discussion.
This is KNOWN. YOU should know it by now.
Wikipedia - No Intelligence Allowed
"The editing of the interview with Dawkins leads the viewer to believe that Richard Dawkins is saying that some intelligent designer (God) may be discovered when the evidence of cellular and molecular biology is examined. Dawkins is midway through a hypothetical statement, making the greater point that a designer would have to be designed (and this is highly unlikely), when Stein's voice-over interrupts, asking, "Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?" Dawkins concludes, "But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."[65]
Stein states afterwards in a voice-over, "So Professor Dawkins was not against intelligence design, just certain types of designers, such as God."
"The film has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (PZ Myers, Dawkins,[66] Shermer,[28] and Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion, and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed
"On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said, "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest."[67] Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," and Scott said, "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren't."
His actual answer to that question is at this site
www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dawkinschallenge.htm
I use the hemoglobin gene as an example myself and did so independently of Dawkins.
The long pause and the dubious editing found here
www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creationistdeceptionexposed.htm
So why the deceptive video? Quote mining by mendacious editing is just as dishonest as it is in print.
Feel free to deal with that. If you can show no error perhaps you should change your mind. I change my mind when the evidence supports a change. I suspect you prefer to avoid such evidence or you would have known why the pause and what Dawkins answer was, in print.
------- END COPY
I should point out that I have read Dembski and Behe. I can deal with their claims and have done so. No has ever shown any error by me.
Have you ever looked up the laryngeal nerve. It makes no sense in terms of design. It does fit evolution by natural selection.
Ethelred Hardrede
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." -Sir Isaac Newton
That is an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. Newton may have been brilliant, but he was not always brilliant, and he was unaware of many other sciences that would come after him. He was a product of the times, and I bet he would be an atheist if he were born in our generation, given how much we know today. What Newton never did was write a theory on God, or demonstrate in any way that his god existed.
He believed in alchemy. Not always right that Mr Newton.
Just look at the above comments from people who think it's a logical fallacy. It isn't, actually... as he's only claiming it would convince him. Atheists have focused so much on academics and trying to appear smart that they've become so educated they think information more complex than any computer we have today made itself.
@@TheTruth-cy4le Can you prove Newton was wrong about alchemy? Or are you just believing alchemy isn't real because it's not within the consensus of the mainstream scientific community, despite the fact they exclude all research that isn't Naturalistic?
In the absence of any proof ,the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. Sir Isaac Newton.
Amazing how inanimate materials can randomly create code that stores the trillions and trillions of specific batches of information for all living things and then develop an inanimate processor that can read and discern the specific information and then produce the information to send to one of millions of nano machines to build what was specified.
It's not random.
It's so amazing that it might be the most amazing fairytale.
Atheists have more faith than any thiest ahahahahahahahah
@@Nimish204 Yes it is
@@VerdantServant have you tried to stop peddling lies and open a few books on biology?
This is shameful!
I wonder how many examples of functioning computer code (or any code for that matter) can Dawkins provide, where Dawkins can positively show they have no author. Can Dawkins present positive proof of a single machine, house, car, etc. that did not have a designer? Since he cannot, this means Dawkins is inconsistent in his approach to identifying the cause of things. He would certainly consider the symbols on an Aztec pyramid as having an author (without ever having met the author, or even knowing what the message is), but the DNA code, essentially infinitely more complex, Dawkins would consider as authorless. Inconsistency is a surefire way to know that something is amiss.
His kingdom "Inconsistency is a surefire way to know that something is amiss." -- Only, you did simply not grasp the crux of the argument. Computer code of course runs on man-designed computers, but that's not the point. New computer code can be generated in computers without human intervention by a mutation/selection process and hence, this new, effective code has no author (or rather, the mutation/selection process is the author, in the same way as biological evolution is the author of present-day life).
@@RolandMaurer computer code does not come about without a programmer to begin with.
"in the same way as biological evolution is the author of present-day life)."
You sure don't think much.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LT):
The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass.
A closed system exchanges energy but not mass.
An open system exchanges energy and mass.
The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT.
You can't even get chemicals for life without breaking the 1LT.
The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. Consider too that there is NO truly isolated system in the universe. That says that the 2LT is which is so well-tested, works in all systems.
As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science.
The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time.
I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it.
Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal.
With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible.
Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such ignorance is deliberately chosen.
This guy is of a few that explain it well:
czcams.com/video/9dAA06Zfi4M/video.html
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
czcams.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html
The odds are NOT there.
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
czcams.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/video.html
czcams.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/video.html
@@2fast2block It's not my fault if you don't understand why the 2nd law does not apply to biological evolution. I sugest you should get some real knowledge about this, instead of parrotting the usual nonsense of ignorant creationists. Guess what, there are good libraries almost everywhere, so drag your lazy ass to one of them, and ask the librarian to direct you to a good textbook on physics and another on evolution. And just refrain from writing about the things you don't know anything about.
@@2fast2block Tell me in 10,000 words you don’t understand scientific discovery and math without telling me you misunderstand.
@@munchypignati8701 wow, you actually think that somehow got around the science I gave. Thanks for the laugh.
“There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition”― Blaise Pascal
Book 039, Number 6752:
Jabir reported: I heard Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship (him) in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them.
Book 039, Number 6755:
Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Iblis places his throne upon water; he then sends detachments (for creating dissension) ; the nearer to him in rank are those who are most notorious in creating dissension. One of them comes and says: I did so and so. And he says: You have done nothing. Then one amongst them comes and says: I did not spare so and so until I sowed the seed of discord between a husband and a wife. The Satan goes near him and says: ‘You have done well. A’mash said: He then embraces him.
Book 039, Number 6747:
‘Abdullah b. Umar reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: There is a tree amongst trees, the leaves of which do not wither and that is like a Muslim; tell me which that (tree) can be? The people began to think of the trees of the forest. Abdullah said: I thought that it could be the date-palm tree, but I felt hesitant (to say that). They (the Companions) then said: Allah’s Messenger, (kindly) tell us which that can be? Thereupon he said: It is the date-palm tree. I made a mention of that to ‘Umar, whereupon he said: Had you said that it meant the date-palin tree, this statement of yours (would have been dearer to me) than such and such things.
Book 039, Number 6760:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: None amongst you would attain salvation purely because of his deeds. A person said: Allah’s Messenger, even you also. Thereupon he said: Yes. Not even I, but that Allah wraps me in Mercy, but you should act with moderation. This badith has been transmitted on the authority of Bukair b. al-Ashajj with a slight variation of wording.
Book 039, Number 6770:
A’isha, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him), reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) used to say: Observe moderation (in doing deeds), and if yciu fail to observe it perfectly, try to do as much as you can do (to live up to this ideal of moderation) and be happy for none would be able to get into Paradise because of his deeds alone. They (the Companions of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him) said: Allah’s Messenger, not even thou? Thereupon he said: Not even I, but that Allah wraps me in His Mercy, and bear this in mind that the deed loved most by Allah is one which is done constantly even though it is insignificant.
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543 Are you just a bot? Do you believe randomly spamming these things would convince any rational, thinking person?
Still doesn’t prove a god nor a creator.
Wtb evidence for your god claims
czcams.com/video/HRxq1Vrf_Js/video.html /
When Richard Dawkins actually sticks to science, he seems to be quite a likable fellow. I do wish he would stick to science more often.
Some of the commenters from the comments section are ignorant atheist.
vitus werdegast actually Dawkins is at war with rational thought and not at all scientific. He’s proven to be ignorant of the Bible, he like any other typical atheist made claims that are taken out of context.
So in reality Dawkins is against any rational thought. He accuses the word faith while not knowing what Christian faith is. He thinks all the gods are the same with the Christian God. And his famous “we are all atheist, I just go on further”. His famous genetic fallacy, his ignorance on who God is, his ignorance on history, his ignorance of other branches of science and morality.
vitus werdegast
If he's going attack something he better know what he is talking about. It's not irrelevant.
72.5 percent of Nobel prize winners of chemistry are Christians
65.3 percent of in physics identify as Christians
In part of the scientific revolution 0% were atheist and the rest were Christians and some were other religions.
Isaac newton, Galileo etc we're into science because of the belief in God. If you actually look into science and know what science is. They will know that religion and science are compatible. And science is part of religion. Rationality is a who part of religion. Science has nothing to do with irrationality, because it doesn't even start with rationality. Science is nothing without rationality, and where does rationality comes from religion, philosophy.
Remember science is a methodology.
vitus werdegast there are many scientists that deny evolution. That information you gave was wrong. There is only one God just many beliefs. Just like one science with people with many beliefs.
vitus werdegast actually rationality comes from thinking. And most of the thinking is in the Bible. Which is the ultimate guide. Non believers cannot even justify morals do some even say that it is subjective.
My word! That last question rocked the world of Richard down to his root! It rocked me too. It goes to show that no matter the way you look at it there is absolutely no way an inanimate chemicals can suddenly come alive and begin to self-replicate through the agency of DNA. Oh my God! It goes to show that there is only one alternative which the evidence leads: DESIGN! LIFE IS A PRODUCT OF DESIGN.
Yes, when you see a design, there's a designer.
And so called gods are product of what?
@@maciekr5351 You are a graduate of Nitwit University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you losers, that one STU--P1D question is your cure-all.
So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
God is the MOST high God. He has created much, and it all started with the most high God.
czcams.com/video/ECE6tDSw85o/video.html
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 KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
czcams.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html
The odds are NOT there.
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
czcams.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/video.html
czcams.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/video.html
@@maciekr5351 He’s not the product of anything, he was uncaused, he doesn’t have to be caused because he is outside the realm of the natural.
@@2fast2block Almost all design in the universe is the result of impersonal physical interactions. Only animals with nervous systems have personalities, minds, a sense of self, goals, desires or willful intentions.
At the end of the day we should always remember the famous words of one of the area founders of modern science: “There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition”― Blaise Pascal
Wow!
God is not ambiguous. His' existence is clear and there's no shadow of a doubt that he doesnt exist.
@@javierdelgado1554 False! This is an Absolutely unreasonable statement!
@Aykut Korkmaz I think you've got my idea and quote wrong. It's exactly Pascal's faith in God I had in mind and the light it brings about!
@Aykut Korkmaz Oh, No! I couldn't agree less with such an unreasonable statement about the existence of God! Sorry! Must be my mistake!
The DNA in a chimpanzee is 93% exact as the human DNA. There was a common ancestor. We evolved.
@infobestkaya The Quran, like all religious books, is total fiction. Humans have now achieved immortality. That makes all religions obsolete. Google "human like robots". That is robots with a copy of a human mind (soul) on it's hard drive. The robots never die, so the one that donated a copy of their mind will live forever. That makes ALL religions obsolete. It has not been publicized yet because they are trying to decide who gets immortality and who will be allowed to become extinct.
@@tedbishop that's total horseshit. Come on, a copy is NOT, IS NOT, the original. Chappie does not exist- YET.
@@tedbishop a mind and a soul is not the same thing.
The clouds and a watermelon have exact 98% water.
By change your big nose should evolve on your ass to smell your own shit.
evolution is a religion that what causes cancers which is what 99.99~% of what mutations do of course makes you evolve... and ignore the human bodies programming in their cells or the facts atheistic ppl don't know patterns and never built any societies and make monkeys of themself is their only proof. or the fact that science has as much bribery as politicians do these days.
The origin of complex, specified information, as found in DNA, is a crucial point.
I note that Dr Stephen Meyer makes the argument for intelligent design in this form:
Premise 1 - Causes A through X do not produce or explain evidence E
Premise 2 - Causes Y can and does produce E
Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X.
Applying to ID, Meyer states:
"#1 Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information
#2 Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
#3 Conclusion - Intelligent Design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the information in the cell."
(Signature in the Cell p.378)
This is a valid form of the historical scientific method known as “Multiple Competing Hypotheses”
Let me know when Meyers OR Dembski even try to define 'specified information'.
""#1 Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information
That is false. Evolution by natural does do that. Thus the logic fails due to a false premise.
"#2 Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. "
Intelligent BS has been demonstrated to produce a large amount of unintelligent BS.
"#3 Conclusion - Intelligent Design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the information in the cell." "
False conclusion based on one false premise and on dubious unsupported assertion. Plus its a false dichotomy as well.
The source of information in evolution by natural selection is the environment.
Do let us know when they define information and specified information. Its just BS at present.
Ethelred Hardrede
reality programmer " intelligent design is the best explanation "...... that's your logic ? where's the proof...?? you are guessing....
Ateo forever All of science is an educated guess. Its an educated guess that matter is all there is. Its an educated guess that ID explains the cell. Science hasnt buried God, God has buried science. Its been turned into a psuedo-religion to combat God.
@@ateoforever7434 and the alternative belief would also be guessing because we do not have the means to travel back in time or emulate the conditions we believe life spontaneously started in. Ask your self though do you think it is easier to believe that a computor which processes and interprits information while creating its own information came into being due to spontaneous chemical and physical processes or it was because there was an intellegent designer who desighned the computer to think and process information.
@@tafarimakonnan1763 The most likely outcome is just that...." spontaneus " event, under perfect conditions for that to happen. Probably started over a long time, with millions of failures, then eventually the first " spark " of life began..... don't tell me that an ( unproven ) deity was around 4.5 billions of years ago, to get everything out of nothing ( his hat )..?? going...
This is not fair to Richard Dawkins. Scores of lectures, hundreds of questions, thousands of words, and you decide to pick and choose to make a few minutes' video, stopping where you please and adding text you think it implied?
No, he does not believe in Intelligent Design. Live with it. Why are you so hell bent on proving he's actually a theist/clueless about his discipline etc, when none of this is true? Why does your faith need this reassurance, I ask, to make up deceitful lies, and whole videos out of those deceitful lies?
Because the goddess of discord decided to help the creationists. And there's the golden apple, to the smartest creationists
nobody is saying Dawkins believes in intelligent design, just that his statements imply intelligent design is real, which goes against his belief in evolution.
Nonsense sells...
@@MARK-gp9hb, he also said, for instance, religions are computer viruses. Though he uses those terms, they don't have implications you say. Also, it is known many of the excerpts that were used were heavily edited.
Interviewer: “so you have no idea how life started nor does anyone else?”
Dawkins: “No, I already told you we don’t know.”
Thanks Richard for proving James Tour correct in saying that we are utterly clueless on the origin of life
Why are you so pathetically dishonest?
You’ve gone quiet. Why are you so dishonest?
@@mcmanustony ?
@@TrevoltIV the question is perfectly clear. Why do you lie and misrepresent Dawkins and parrot the lies of James Tour?
@@mcmanustony He said very clearly that he doesn’t, and nor does anyone else, understand how life started. Jim says the exact same thing. What exactly did I misrepresent?
Never forget what Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist has once frankly admitted: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." And of dispute!
Yes and he died over 60 years ago and since then we made a great deal of discoveries that all together prove him wrong.
@@Molluskenkoenig On the contrary! If only he could be still alive to see the emergence of the new sciences of genetics, computing/information, totally disarming the evolution hypothesis, and all the futile, never ending search for 'the missing link" in the fossils till today he would have felt like forfeiting the entire evolution notion for good. You just have to try to put aside your preconceptions and prejudices and read some more alternative scientific literature. And here is just one of the millions links with irrefutable evidence for ID (intelligent design): czcams.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/video.html
@@vladim73
Okay I am triggered. How does genetics and computing/ information disarm the theory of evolution?
The "argument" of the missing link is so weak and so wrong that even "answers in genesis", the biggest creationist community in the USA advises against using it in a debate. Every single fossil we find is a tranistional form. Every living thing is a transitional form. You yourself are a transitional form between your parents and your children.
@@Molluskenkoenig Dear Pernod, thank you for your reply. Here is a video that will answer most of your questions: czcams.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/video.html
When it comes to cumulative and clear distinct evidence of the existence and creator of not only the universe but all living entities , richard Dawkins calls them weak or not admisable.
When it comes to feeble and disruptive evidence of evolution he calls them undeniable .
Evolution is a fact of life
Intelligent design / creation isn't
It's that simple
@@badideass I think we gotta go back to science class in 5th grade repeat after me 'Evolution Theory' by a man named Darwin
@@ImamHossain-23 why would we have to? I accept it as fact
@@badideass but there is the problem just because somethings are said to be true by a certain thesis of a person it does not mean it has to be true there are many undeniable argument against Darwin's theory that's why it is till date confined the the title of a theory rather than a law by the very authority that many atheist rely upon (assuming u an atheist) 'science'
@@ImamHossain-23 there's no issues with evolution among scientists... It's not even a debate
Dawkins believes rocks can eventually learn coding given enough time which gives me hope that he can eventually recognize that design is real.
He is too arrogant to recognise design so he says it's an illusion of design, and too arrogant to recognise the designer so he says it could be aliens who seeded life on earth.
4:42 is one of the greatest moments in the history of the debate.
It was a great moment, but not of a debate. Richard Dawkins was simply being interviewed in his home. Check this link: czcams.com/video/xXsc25QSIdE/video.html
you demonstrate the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your position very well. That interview is notorious for its deceptive editing and was obtained by creationist liars weaseling their way into Dawkins' home.
The spineless coward who hosts this dishonest tripe is incapable of answering for the lies.
I doubt you're going to do any better.
Well?
What a surprise that the uncut source is not provided. This, boys and girls, is what is commonly known as a _Quote Mine._
Atheists should say "I don't know" when they don't know.
Good to hear Dawkins admit he doesn't know!
Clement Victor atheists say that all the time though
Well... theist should stop acting like they know, when in fact they don't know.
Philip Zuchetti exactly! That shit is annoying
Atheists say "I don't know", when they don't know.
If We are praying a man who never shows up and never helps us, We will never know and understand the universe.
They do say i don’t know I wish they would say if not god then how and legitimately look into it because no I can’t prove gods existence but I find it so much more illogical to believe nothing created everything and a highly organized universe with perfect laws and perfect codes for DNA and life come from random chance and luck and evolution and that we must have evolved from bacterial soup even though nobody can show me one instance of a bacteria turning into anything other then another type of bacteria or why we evolved from monkeys but I guess some of us were like nah I would rather stay a monkey you guys go on ahead so just some of us became humans and maybe why humans are so clearly far ahead of every other mammal... like if you are an atheist and believe in evolution you need to be asking yourself all of these questions. Legitimately look at the evidence forget the Bible or anything else just based on what we know the case for no god is weak
This video is cleverly edited to create a false interpretation of Richard Dawkin's statements. It is typical of Creationists to stoop to this kind of deception, which only fools their own followers, nobody else.
Creationists aka intelligent design clowns are extremely dishonest people
This is absolutely no proof of intelligent design. Not a single proof.
Ok all you super geniuses, I bow to your magnificence! Now in return, can you give an answer to the question asked of Mr. Dawkins which was, "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
He couldn't answer it, but I humbly wait for your immense knowledge on the subject! GO!!
They say all of this has happened over billions of years (nothing that has been observed which is how science works through observation) they say these different fossils they find but non of them are complete the find a skull and automatically say its the missing link.
Answer: there are zero known, observable evolutionary processes that add to the genome. Microevolution, or adaptation, always involves loss rather than gain.
Trichromatic vision
Gary McAuley would that mean we are in a fallen state?
@pokey nose Wow!! Someone wrote a story about whales with hooves? Must be true.
It amazes me that people are saying that this isn't a good representation of Dawkins. In the full length video of the first clip, that's what he said. Even when people have solid proof in their face, they still deny it.
If you ever find yourself giving evidence in a court of law, you will have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The reason for the middle part, 'the whole truth' is that it is possible to lie through omission, to lie by leaving something out. In this case they have taken part of what Richard Dawkins said and left the rest of it out. Which leaves people who don't know any better believing he is saying one thing when he is saying something else all together. It is blatant dishonesty. It is the equivalent to cheating in a sport. do you think lying and cheating is a good thing????? what do you think when 'your side' lies and cheats like this??? do you think it is Okay??? If 'your side' has to lie and cheat like this to stay in the game what does it say about them. A good team does not need to cheat to win the game. the only team that needs to cheat is the poor team that is losing the game. Think about why your side is cheating.
The full length video of the first clip is itself cherry picked. That's the problem. Ben Stein cherry picked that interview in "Expelled: Intelligence not allowed", he didn't show the whole interview.
Why am I not amazed? Richard likes to cherry-pick, quote mine and use bible verse & chapter way out of context. When he is edited his disciples whinge and moan like the hypocrites they are.
@@jollyrodgering Let's see one example. Do you have a concrete one in mind?
skepticlogician
When he says context, he really means interpretation. I can’t think of a single verse or quote Dawkins has used that would be softened or better understood if provide it in context. In fact quite the opposite. Interpretation on the other hand is carte blanche for apologists. And oh boy what a wide range of interpretations there are. Unless of course it’s condemning something they can all agree they don’t like, then there’s no interpretation necessary. No metaphors in that stuff. It’s all literal. This guy comes back with a single legitimate example, I’ll join the monastery.
JUST 1 SIMPLE QUESTION FOR CREATIONISTS:
- How do we have different races today when everyone appart from Noahs family died in the flood?
John 3:16 Then how come races have different facial features, bone structure ect?
John 3:16 Look up what evolution is and read your comment again.
Science is good at shattering the illusion that we have any special or privileged place in the universe. It keeps you humble.
Yup, humans are completely meaningless to the universe
@@logicalatheist1065 Another way to look at it is that the human mind gives form to the universe by experiencing it. In what sense would the sun be bright without eyes to see it or a mind to know the concept of brightness? The universe exists in the mind, the very idea that there is an "out there" is a mental construct.
@@hjalmar.poelzig ...?
@@logicalatheist1065 When you look out at the world you are really seeing the inside of your own mind.
@@hjalmar.poelzig Lol. i want what you're smoking... sounds amazing. It's hard to think of the universe and how open and big it is.
To me in this world as we know it nothing exists without being made/created,how can something as unbelievably complex as the human body just evolve from nothing ?...It takes more faith to believe this than it does to believe in a creator
this reminds me of the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by norman geisler and frank turek. awesome read.
😂loved his clueless face in the end 😂
He was unsurprisingly pissed off, because he just then realised he was being ambushed by stealth creationists who were not honestly interested in the science. He could, of course, easily answer that question, as the mechanisms are well known, including gene duplication and viral insertions (look it up). In any case biologists don't talk about information in that way, because it isn't something that can be easily measured - gene number tends to be a better metric (Mark Ridley) and it is well known that it can increase in populations.
@@urbandesitv3529 Theory of evolution by natural selection hardly helps one sleep at night, it is in fact quite a brutal process. It just happens to be likely what happens in reality according to science, rather than wishful thinking.
@@urbandesitv3529 That sounds like a nonsense word construction. Probably you need to explain what you understand by the term "natural selection". Many creationists don't get it, and probably you are one of those.
@@roqsteady5290 you sure are a devoted loser.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LT):
The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass.
A closed system exchanges energy but not mass.
An open system exchanges energy and mass.
The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT.
You can't even get chemicals for life without breaking the 1LT.
The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. Consider too that there is NO truly isolated system in the universe. That says that the 2LT is which is so well-tested, works in all systems.
As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science.
The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time.
I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it.
Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal.
With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible.
Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such ignorance is deliberately chosen.
This guy is of a few that explain it well:
czcams.com/video/9dAA06Zfi4M/video.html
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
czcams.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html
The odds are NOT there.
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
czcams.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/video.html
czcams.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/video.html
Here is proof that IQ does not prove intelligence.
Talk to any software designer and they’ll say it’s impossible for code happen on its own. DNA is very much like software code.
@VishwajeetKumar006 That experiment came up empty. Shocking to no one.
yes I disagree the fact nobody knows how the very first form of life came to being but because I don't have an answer I don't just say "um must have been a god then" that is the easy way out instead of trying to learn how
God is anything but easy... if earnest endeavoring, not fakery or hypocritical. Try going against the natural world, a world susceptible steeped 'eye for an eye' in survivalism ( competition) along with denying your natural instinct or gut-feeling 'premonition', doing the opposite of vengeance, "loving your neighbor as yourself" when jerks, ...giving charity when you feel poor, denying lust, not coveting nor desiring money for security. Try., no succeed stopping lying for six months straight, tell only the absolute truth in every situation no matter if 'out on a limb.' If you fail begin again until 6 solid months not one false statement/ pronouncement in lie has passed thru your lips., notta blameface, personal responsibility in honesty.
Not lying, Its life altering. If impossible to do, must then examine the reasons why its impossible with complete self honesty. If unable, know you've been living in a universe conducted apart from Reality as Truth.
A brave new world is waiting, conduct an experiment yourself the guinea-pig..."sacrificial lamb", see how altered life becomes. I did it, changed everything. Hint; What was good as true got better what was wrong in bad got out. Takes courage, but remember altogether anything but easy.
evolution is a religion that what causes cancers which is what 99.99~% of what mutations do of course makes you evolve... and ignore the human bodies programming in their cells or the facts atheistic ppl don't know patterns and never built any societies and make monkeys of themself is their only proof. or the fact that science has as much bribery as politicians do these days.
There are some explanation how life and universe came into being, one of it is God, and from all explanations ever proposed, God is the most reasonable and most plausible of all
@@laosi4278 how
@@derek-press just look at any argument for and against God and make decision for ur self, I myself chose God because the argument for God is more plausible, while full materialistic atheism doesn't make sense, atheists when confronted by Theists usually at best only can defended themselves by taking the stance of agnostic, other than that they must believe in myriad absurd theory, for example Dawkins was once famously saying that life on Earth was created by aliens
If there is a designer who created the universe, then we believers say that’s God. What more common sense do u need?
Evidence
This isn’t common sense nor did this video prove anything.
@@2l84me8 it proves intelligent design / creationists are all clowns
Still havent see my octupus double consruct in motion through the brain fluid conception
Great summary of Richard Dawkins, and DNA is even much more elegant, the same protein encoding it can morph it structure and change it functions. The mechanism in a cell, the more we research the more mind blowing elegance we see hidden in the encoded data. All the nano machines, which can even move and transport . I wonder when Dawkins will ask himself how did this happen
he's still thinking on the answer...2019
My favourite Dawkinism, was when he asked God to help him remember the full title of a book that would help him deny the existence of this Deity! 😲
Hahha do you have the link?
Do all jokes go over your head?
@@logicalatheist1065 In relevance to this particular "anecdote", was He ( Dawkins) joking or being serious.. ?!?
@@christisking1316 He was joking lol, he is an atheist, he doesn't believe in gods...
@@logicalatheist1065 Okay, believe what you will?
Just know there is a day is coming, where upon you will breathe your last.., and then the Judgement. My Prayer & Hope, is that you find the Truth before that time comes?
Intelligent design does not mean Jesus Christ design. It could be there is intelligent design. So what? It still does not answer the question of what is the nature of that intelligence. Religious people jump on the idea of intelligent design to say that GOD EXISTS. But does it prove the god of the bible exists? That's a weird jump in logic.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
Around the 4 minute mark he says that he would love to know how life got started because we just don't know. Well I heard that there is an old book lying around somewhere and I think it starts off like this...."In the beginning God....."
Exactly. They want to know where life came from so long as it didn’t come from God. Dismissing the obvious truth, they search in vain for answers and find none.
A typical example of the creationist tactic of quoting out of context. Split comments, edited to remove the conditional and modifying clauses with the intention of misrepresenting the speakers points are nothing new and they are certainly nothing new here. I have seen this interview before and I believe that Dawkin's full comment was 'The presence of an intelligent designer that can be seen in the split double helix is apparent only to those who wish it to be so'. Of course, the purveyors of this nonsense have edited out the last part of his statement in order to present a totally bogus meaning to his words. All of the other statements have been likewise adulterated, modified, chopped and edited to give a wrongful impression. The fact that they are prepared to resort to these tactics is an indication of their desperation and failure to find anything better with which to counter his arguments against creationism. An underhand and ethically bankrupt tactic indeed, but, hey, who needs the moral high ground when you have obsessive insanity on your side?
Unbelievers deny the truth not by science but by inequity & arrogance.
My favorite quote from this video is when Dawkins admitted that what they previously claimed was “junk DNA” is in fact even more important than coding regions
Can you give an example of such a region in DNA?
Just one....
@@mcmanustony Which regions are you referring to?
@@TrevoltIV you made the claim that junk DNA was being found functional.. I’m asking you for examples
@@TrevoltIV you seem to be claiming the function has now been found for regions of the genome formerly labelled “junk”.
Can you specify some of these regions?
@@mcmanustony I’m not the one claiming it, Richard is.
Thank you for such a well arranged, simply put argument. I note the elegance not only directly, but also by the great number of antagonists' replies which can't find anything in the logical argument to twist or attack, and so all fall back upon either name calling or accusing you of misrepresentation of the quotes, both of which defence mechanisms fail to address the argument.
Thanks for your kind words. I have addressed their objections in the pinned comment if they bother to read it.
Regards.
dawkins/atheists themselves are known for dishonesty/ignorance.
He was exposed being dishonest with a 10 year old Muslim girl, showing how weak dawkins really is, here he is being honest, evolution has no evidence and intelligent design is observable. dna and rna written like codes and languages, one of them is enough proof, but 2. and to say that mutations which cause cancer is the reason for evolution in multiclee organisms, thats an insult worse then monsanto fake science or cigarette companies!
atheists built no civilizations, and Islam is the only preserved faith, humanity, biology, calendars, time and even space itself testify that Islam is true (Earth is 1/3 age of the universe as modern science shows, see the verse heavens created in 6 days and Earth in 2 or how Earth and heavens have 7 layers each) and saying we are animals is degrading and pushes immorality. morality is big business and lacking it aids massive corrupt tyrannical agendas as strong family values aid ppl's independence and not having it aids the corrupt govts and population control.
I think it’s a bit of a laughably circular argument. If we accept the second of the assumptions (digital info must to be designed by a designer) then obviously you’ll say a designer must have designed us.
Dawkins, and many others, don’t accept that. It’s just Paley’s watch analogy.
@@janeogrady7125 Opening quote by Dawkins: "If you look at the detail of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer".
The only reason Dawkins and you and others informed similarly won't go through the door is because you don't want to.
@@greatbriton8425 That’s a little arrogant, to assume that you and your group are the only ones to think for them selves and everyone else is just lying.
We should all make our own minds up based on the available evidence and discuss our views, but the moment someone thinks that the only possible true way of thinking is theirs, then my respect for them dwindles. And I haven’t seen the whole of the talk that that clip was from, but I assume he didn’t mean that there must be a designer. (or do you just think Dawkins was just accidentally being honest and immediately forgot and no one apart from this guy noticed).
"It's copied and pasted just as a computer programmer would do." Hello!!!
dawkins/atheists themselves are known for dishonesty/ignorance.
He was exposed being dishonest with a 10 year old Muslim girl, showing how weak dawkins really is, here he is being honest, evolution has no evidence and intelligent design is observable. dna and rna written like codes and languages, one of them is enough proof, but 2. and to say that mutations which cause cancer is the reason for evolution in multiclee organisms, thats an insult worse then monsanto fake science or cigarette companies!
atheists built no civilizations, and Islam is the only preserved faith, humanity, biology, calendars, time and even space itself testify that Islam is true (Earth is 1/3 age of the universe as modern science shows, see the verse heavens created in 6 days and Earth in 2 or how Earth and heavens have 7 layers each) and saying we are animals is degrading and pushes immorality. morality is big business and lacking it aids massive corrupt tyrannical agendas as strong family values aid ppl's independence and not having it aids the corrupt govts and population control.
@@TheTruth-cy4le No? Not to give ammo to Intelligent Design but Genetic information is far smarter than you think it might be
vitus werdegast
Your statement is true but your overall conclusion is false. Genetic information can not “plan” for the future. It itself is not sentient. GI helps in “preparation” for the future. It is indeed goal oriented (or more so there is a purpose/goal behind it) within certain parameters... to adapt for beneficial outcome.
vitus werdegast
Actually that is correct. Thank you for pointing that out. I was incorrect in saying that genes alter with intent of beneficial outcome. Genes will merely adapt/change to a given stimulus. Some adaptations positive, some negative, some seemingly neutral. It would be the goal of the carrier to engage with stimuli that result in beneficial outcome. Thus some changes would be via chance and some via purposeful decision. I guess hence natural selection & artificial selection.
vitus werdegast
“These are naturally selected on the basis of which traits promote further reproduction the best”.
Not true. Genetic information changes but the deciding factor on how it changes is not based on ideal reproduction standards.
Also genetic information can ofcourse change based on conscious decision making. The genes themself arent the conscious decision makers, but the host or an external intelligence can consciously decide to alter the GI within certain parameters.
I think that people are expecting too much of Richard Dawkins. My personal opinion is that he should stick to his books and withdraw from public life and let new discoveries confirm what he believes.
William Ainsworth the problem is the more they find out the bigger their problem becomes good example was his reference to "junk" DNA
DNA is the instruction book for life, code that has a "progammer"
DNA is chemistry and does nothing. It has no programmer and the evidence shows that none is needed.
Let me get you started in your journey to reality.
How evolution works, the basics:
First step in the process.
Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place.
Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random.
Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this.
Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations.
The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur.
This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction.
There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
Some books to get you started:
Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne
THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is.
Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work
Book by Kat Arney
This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins.
Your Inner Fish
Book by Neil Shubin
Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould
Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll
The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan
Ethelred Hardrede
Ethelred Hardrede let’s remove the DNA from you since it does nothing, but reality shows that you will become in a bunch of messy dust.
Even in you fantasy that you call “how evolution works” you need DNA to talk about mutations; you are completely lost in your fantasies
The truth of the 18 second pause at the end (I've seen the unedited tape) is that when the question is asked and the word "information" is used, it is at that point of the interview that Dawkins realizes that he is being interviewed by creationists. His thoughts are now seemingly turning to rage and that is why he stops for 18 seconds. He is actually trying to contain his fury, rather than avoiding the question. When the video here stops, (the audio continues btw) Dawkins flies into a rant about creationists and how underhanded they have been to trap him into this interview. He is annoyed that the word "information" has been used to describe the operation of DNA. One is not sure quite why, because he uses the same phrasing himself as seen in the previous clips here - but it is this word that alerts him to the fact that he is in the room surrounded by a team of creationists filming him for a creationist video. At this time in the creation-evolution debate Dawkins feels that it is only creationists who wanted to talk about information in genomes.
After a few minutes - Dawkins asks for the camera to be turned back on and he gives a bit of a rambling answer, all of which can be seen on the creationist video, From a Frog to a Prince.
"The truth of the 18 second pause at the end (I've seen the unedited tape)"
HOW? Its hidden away.
" When the video here stops, (the audio continues btw) Dawkins flies into a rant about creationists and how underhanded they have been to trap him into this interview."
I suspect that is true BUT HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO SEE IT? The whole thing is hidden away at this time.
Frog to a prince does have more of that interview but it does not have the part where Dawkins got mad at them for their deception. How did you see that?
Quite a story. You should write a book about ability to read mind and emotion. Send me a copy, i'll proofread it.
Remember what Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist has once frankly admitted: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." And of dispute!
God is unprovable you moron
@@No2theBS He is reasonable
@@No2theBS and eventually you became a Christian within two years?😂
Hi. Great video. One addition to your comment and video, esp regarding info vs. order: Information theorists often define information as these three together:
1. Symbols. (Letters, numbers, dots and dashes, binary, etc.)
2. Meaning (i.e. it *represents* something). Often represents an action (theories of language origination as instructions or commands for example).
1+2 = “symbolic representation”. Some call this info, but mirroring or correspondence in abiogenic natural phenoma can fulfill this so most don’t.
3. Teleology. As some goal or objective function.
DNA chains are symbolic* instructions that represent* protein manufacture with the goal or objective* of procreation/replication. Hence 1, 2, & 3. It’s information.
I'm a computer programmer who studied computer science and engineering (my CV is public). Where did you get that definition?
@@PedroCouto1982 I heard it in a discovery science video on here and remembered it. It may be the one entitled “information enigma” but Im not sure. Sorry I dont have a better citation for ya.
@@PedroCouto1982 Side comment: seems like the definition would work well for coding. (?)
@@ibperson7765, "coding" and "information" are not the same.
To help you understand what is information, I can use Guess Who? as an example.
To find out the secret person, you make boolean (yes or no) questions.
The answers are information. More answers make you closer to the answer.
The number of answers you're required to know the secret person is the information quantity (each answer is a bit).
In programming, code is related to computer instructions, but more broadly, it's symbols that replace something else that can be more complex. It's conventional, it requires a code table, but it doesn't require "some goal or objective function". A cipher is simpler. It transforms symbols following some rule (ex: A becomes B, B becomes C, C becomes D, etc.)
@@ibperson7765 , I'm not sure if my explanation with The Guess Who? was helpful.
Nevertheless, it's attributed to Claude Shannon (the father of information theory,) the definition of "information" as the resolution or removal of uncertainty.
I tried to show that concept with "The Guess Who?". At the beginning of the game, you don't know who is the person you need to guess and you ask for clues until you (if you made it correctly) know the answer. If there was only one possible answer, there would not be information. If there are two, there would be one bit of information (you'd only need to make a question to find out who's the person or to remove uncertainty).
It's like asking, for instance, for directions to someplace. You're asking for information. The answer would have several steps that take you closer to the destination.
Was that helpful?
"Genes are digital"
Err... because we presented them like that because... we use math to help us understand the laws of nature and, well, everything?
Dawkins reminds me the aborigine, who sees the elephant shape in the rock and therefore claims it to be made by gods.
I will make very simple for you.
The reason why man fights like hell to prop up science origins is because the opposite is too frightening.
If man is a created being
Then that means there is a creator
And that means he is not in absolute control and will one day be called to account by the one who created Him.
Simple
@Now Behold
What's the worst thing this alleged Santa will give you?...... Coal.
What's the worst thing this alleged god will give if our hearts remain proud against him?.....
@Now Behold
I do not agree. If this alleged Santa exists, what's the best thing he offers?.... Physical presents that last a lifetime, at best. But if this allegedly infinite god exists, what's the best thing he offers if we turn our hearts to him?....
Let's suppose both entities exist: to which one should we pay more attention? This Santa character, people seem to think he's analogous to christianity in some way. And, I've never heard of Krampus until now.
bullshit. if you believe in a god you can do bad, pray and you are fine. as an atheist i dont have something like this, i need to be a good person to feel good
@@waifu_png_pl6854
But what is contained in said prayer that makes one.... "fine?" What does fine mean? And of what value is being "fine?"
And, to whom are you typing?
That last question was not posed to Dawkins, yet you included his reactions and framed it as if it was. You are a dishonest person.
I don't understand what you mean. It seems to me that she directly asks him that question (that the question is part of the same clip)?
Stephen Garrett I’m skeptical about the very last clip, but I was referring to the question posed by the video maker and the subsequent answers Dawkins apparently gives. I know for a fact that one of them is completely dishonest and includes an answer to a question that isn’t even close to the one the video creator asks.
Stephen Garrett And if you can find me a link for the very last clip, I’d love to see it, because I can’t find one. Thanks.
It was NOT framed as you claim. The question posed to Dawkins is clearly included in this video, (although the timer as he's thinking is a bit cheeky.) Your accusation is false.
Search on CZcams: Richard dawkins cannot answer question and you will find this clip
If all animals on earth evolved to their current state, why don’t we see the various mutations in the fossil record? The evidence should be overwhelming but it isn’t.
We do
excellent compilation.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
The full interview with Dawkins and the man at 4:35 ,Dawkins was asked why not God and he says Because God would need and explanation things don't just come out of no where....bit of a double standard giving the big bang theory rising out of no where, and dang that moment of silence towards the end lol great video
Have you become smarter from when you made this comment?
How did I find myself in this video?
0:30 The watchmaker analogy...
The problem is that you don´t KNOW that all digital information comes from intelligence. In fact, you can see formations of stones and similar things that form numbers.
That proves that the information itself can be generated by randomness. Natural selection would then guide the randomness into something that works. As for the actual reading process, there are a lot of different processes that would have worked and the information would have adapted to the system, but even if one organism would fail and get a bad reading system, the next organism would get a new dice throw and get one that works, and only that one would survive in length at least.
This is just an argument from ignorance without logical basis.
4:50 a mutation that causes an extra cromosome or pair of coromosomes. Like down syndrome.
4:00 Instead of isolating one instance of digital information which we can only guess the origin, we still see digital nonsense information randomly arise in nature, and it´s only nonsense information because it is not guided by a non random system such as natural selection.
Only the first premise is true and therefore the conclusion is false.
Evolution isn't purely random mutation, it comes in the form of Directed Mutagenesis, with a little Quantum Indeterminism added in for good measure, which directly allows organisms to adapt given a long enough time (For example, muscles become stronger under extreme use, under extreme radiation an organism immediately starts to slowly develop ways to tolerate radiation or even in certain cases use it as energy)
If mutation was fully random, the earliest forms of life would have died out before they could even evolve. Imagine trying to make a cup of coffee for your boss by adding every single chemical in the world into a cup in completely random mixtures and patterns. You'd be fired and arrested for murder before you got to try again after the first cup failed! Real life is just like that. Before randomness has a chance to make your species' muscles stronger by trying millions of different possible ways to do so, a gigantic predator has already wiped out your entire species, making them extinct. In this aspect I do not subscribe to a purely Darwinian view of evolution, but rather a Mutation first (Both Directed and Random), Selection second, plastic Inheritance third view of evolution
Also also Analog information utilisation is definitely a form of intelligence too. In fact Analog information is far superior to digital, the only problem is noise
Here's the argument as I understand it on both sides:
1. Naturalists: The information development (language development), storage and logistics found in the most fundamental biological packet (the cell) has evolved via natural selection. Natural selection is purely undirected and occurs as so: amino acids combined to form the distinct nucleotides which formed by having a natural affinity towards each other (chemical/covalent bonds) in specific variations. These 4 types of nucleotides combined with other amino acids to form proteins. Random combinations occurred and different protein chains and shapes formed, then these chains were able to replicate and form complementary copies of each other. Accidents in copies occurred, mutations occurred and then the 'fittest' proteins survived and continued on. Larger or more complex yet most importantly "fittest" proteins survived and reproduced...
2. The Intelligent Design'ers: We understand the progressing model of how amino acids can combine in specific and advantageous ways but how does this process generate a new language? Amino acids are forming and combining by random beneficial variations, trying to become the "fittest" proteins, consuming energy in the most efficient way as possible, (randomly) 'developing' means of surviving better; the focus and direction becomes 'survival of the fittest' but how does this coincidentally form a new language? Yes amino acids combine in specific ways but this is no platform for the development of a new language, nor a method of information development. It's like placing a random set of bi-polar magnets (north and south pole) in amongst a random set of ferromagnetic metals in a large plastic pot and shaking it. You can expect to pull out a number of different chains, large and small, different sequences, some may be a long line, some may be attached in a circle, others multiple circles. Yes, you have here specific chains, some may be more likely than others, some may be stronger than others, BUT, what has nil probability is for these multiple chains to interact with themselves via a language and create information. Natural selection can show how chains got bigger/complex/stronger but is utterly inadequate in explaining the formation of a new language in which information is created, transferred and translated. Therefore in a universe where we infer that information ALWAYS has an intelligent source how can we make an exception to Natural Selection as the only other source for information??
These thoughts presented from different points of view are all good ... mainly in the sense that it presses the human intelligence to deeper thought concerning these matters which ultimately may bring about respect for ones own surroundings , environment , society.... locally (town , city ,state , country or continent one lives in ) as well as universally and corporately....(other countries , societies , continents , cultures ...as well as the Galaxy , Universe and all that is contained in it ....for the Honor and Respect for the Glory of the Creator God in whom one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord ....and hopefully they will have already excepted Him as Savior of their souls and lost estate and condition .....to the Glory of God ....whose Name will be Praised Forever ..!!!!
No I don't like it .this is not genuine you don't pick sentences from dawkins ,you have to show complete talk to confirm your claim .
Still, those sentences stand on their own. Life only comes from life. That is science. Information only comes from intellect. You don't have to like the science. You can stay with your atheist theology. But science is provable, testable, repeatable. Evolution is none of those. Merely fantasy it is.
Typical theist video cut to distort the experts words to try and prove the existence of a sky fairy
@@redfaux74 what ?
@@No2theBS Yeah and you tards believe you came out of nothing that became a rock which became a programmed self-replicating nano machine more advanced that anything a (super)human could devise in next 10000 years. All this by pure chance. The IQ level of atheist is equivalent to the odds that universe came into existence by chance and sprinkled life on Earth.
@@ctt82 "Like" minus the "tards" ;)
Questioning things is a good scientific behaviour. Except questioning Darwinism. Its not allowed or accepted or censored or even forbidden. Why? Because Darwinism as a worldview supports many othet atheist worldvieuws. It became new religion.
The background "music" is too loud.
I think most of what was said in this video is very beautiful. Thanks..
However, I don't think it is appropriate to say that someone approved of something just because they couldn't--in a recorded moment--recall what gives rise to digital information. He was thinking of something; perhaps the answer is difficult, perhaps we don't have an answer yet... but that doesn't mean he approved it.
He not only approved design is scientifically detectable within the information bearing properties of DNA, he actually proved it.
Wow you can take an atheist to water butyou can't make him drink. So many comments below say you are cherry picking/quote mining, yet these are 2 single simple clear self-standing premises Dawkins is making, and cannot be taken out of context unless Dawkins literally goes on to contradict himself. Job done, unless you don't like the answer. Block your ears, go on with your life.
"Wow you can take an atheist to water"
And you won't find the water for the Flood or evidence for ID and you sure won't find an honest video on this page. It is a willfully dishonest edit.
". So many comments below say you are cherry picking/quote mining,
You tell a Creationist the truth and whine that you pointed out the video is dishonest.
"tanding premises Dawkins is making, and cannot be taken out of context '
Unless you cut out most of what he says, put it in a different order, leave out answers and ignore the fact that the interviewers lied as to what it was about and the fact that he has dealt with the dishonesty in print.
"unless Dawkins literally goes on to contradict himself.
Didn't happen in the real world nor did any real complete interview have him supporting the fact free contrary to the evidence ID fantasy.
"Job done, unless you don't like the answer.
Con job done and you don't like the truth.
"Block your ears, go on with your life."
Which is what you are doing. You don't want to know that the video was edited to change the meaning or that there was no Great Flood and there is no evidence for ID.
There IS evidence against it. Dawkins has used several lines of such evidence and that sure isn't in the video.
There is no evidence for ID, unless you mean IDIOT designer, and ample evidence against it. There is NOTHING intelligent about the laryngeal nerve as it goes from the brain, down the neck RIGHT PAST THE LARYNX without interacting in any way with it, to the heart, around a coronary artery and THEN back up the larynx. This makes complete sense in terms of evolution from an ancient fish ancestor. Only a complete idiot would design things that way.
And IDIOT designer would be the only reason a designer would make it so that you can choke to death while eating. Your imaginary fantastically brilliant designer found that of all its designs the only one that could talk was unable to breath and eat at the same time.
That isn't brilliant, it is just plain stupid.
You are the one with the closed mind.
Ethelred Hardrede
I wouldn't normally bother to reply to someone who recites a mantra and ignores the argument but I was intrigued by your statement that there wasn't enough water for the flood. How do you explain the seashells on Mount Everest?
Captain Hypocrite
"I wouldn't normally bother to reply to someone who recites a mantra "
I didn't but you fit.
" but I was intrigued by your statement that there wasn't enough water for the flood"
Would you care to quote where I said that?
You cannot, learn how to read.
"How do you explain the seashells on Mount Everest?'
They may exist, but I don't think anyone has brought down samples, lower down the definitely exist. But that actually started with the fossil fish that Darwin found on mountains, not the top, in the Andes. Its plate tectonics. Well known, reasonably well understood. Heck the mountains to the North of me have risen over ten feet in just my lifetime.
Take a geology class. We KNOW the basics of how and the fossils are from millions of years ago and are not modern fish.
Its not my fault that you learned what you think is science from lying Creationists. Learn some REAL science.
How about this, you tell me when you think that silly Flood happened, based on the Bible, as opposed to ignoring the Bible like many that try to repair its errors, then we can go from there to teach you a little bit of reality.
Very few Creationists are willing to answer that question these days. Which proves that even they know the evidence shows that the Bible is disproved by real evidence.
Ethelred Hardrede
I'm a biochemist.
I wonder at your questioning my interpretation of "and you won't find the water for the Flood"
And the answer, is yes, plate tectonics.
Signing out.I hope you find some joy.
Captain Hypocrite
"I'm a biochemist.'
Nearly biochemists disagree with you. I see no sign of you being one. Its not like Creationists have never lied about their education.
"I wonder at your questioning my interpretation of "and you won't find the water for the Flood"
I wonder at why you LIED that I wrote something other than what I did write? You will not find that water. I didn't there was not enough. YOU are the one that brought water into it. There is no evidence supporting the FLOOD which entails WATER. As in the is no water damage on any of the pyramids, nor was Jericho ever under water, nor were any of the caves with paintings ever under water, or the wall painting in Australia.
There is none of the water based evidence that should exist IF there had been such a flood. Next time DO NOT MISQUOTE ME.
"And the answer, is yes, plate tectonics."
Which does not fit the nonexistent Flood.
"Signing out.I hope you find some joy.
I hope you stop misquoting people and then blaming them for your false claims.
"g, yet these are 2 single simple clear self-standing premises Dawkins is making
None of which support ID. At least not in what he actually said. The video is known to have been edited to change the meaning.
"Block your ears, go on with your life."
Which is again what you do.
Nice the way you evaded ALL of my post to use a FAKED version of one sentence to excuse your evasion.
I have joy in real knowledge, you have dishonesty.
Ethelred Hardrede
Uh wow, I did not expect Richard Dawkins to call DNA a code...
Some of the comments below show that people have missed the point of the video. Verdant Servant is accused of taking comments out of context and twisting the truth in making Dawkins look like he believe in Intelligent Design. OF COURSE, Dawkins doesn't believe in Intelligent Design. Anyone who reads his books knows that. The point is evolutionists have to constantly explain functions of living matter, in this case DNA and genes, in a framework of design and intelligence, yet in the end reject any sort of Designer or Intelligence behind the Universe we observe.
Nothing even approaching a logical proof of ID is supplied here. Dawkins makes a simplistic analogy between genetic material and digital information - therefore (1) "Genes are digital information" is a false statement, the genetic "code" is merely analogous to digital information for simplification - the way it works is totally different. (2) "Digital information is always a product of intelligence" is also false [unless you presuppose intelligent design, for every "All or nothing", "On/off" reaction can be considered as digital information (e.g. nerve impulses)]. You need to show that digital information is necessarily a product of intelligence and not just that in our experience it seems to be. Consequently no logical proof.
You're missing the point, by a far stretch.. you should read about it some time.
Why does it take teams of chemists with synthesis machines just to copy simple genomes?
Genetic information doesn't form "Naturally"
Time destroys genetic information, it never produces it!
good video
No its crap.
@9-11 is a Judeo PNAC inside job
The video is lying dishonest CRAP and so is both your handle and your post.
Get an education. Stop being a damn Nazi.
Acually it is a communication ladder
the 'music' is swamping the dialogue and distracting attention away from it.. completely unnecessary..
He has a point. I agree with him - this time :)
Just because we don't know for sure how it works doesn't mean that god did it. That would just be ignorant and conceited.
so come up with its explanation and then argue with us. until then creationists have better answer to these questions.
and its my challenge you can never explain it. science may put life to dead but it can never explain origin of life.
Saifal Nadeem
Of course science can explain that. We are not 100% certain in that case yet but basically all you need is some selfe replicating chemical reaction. It doesn't even have to be a very complex one and then Evolution and a lot of time do the rest. The mistake you're making is that you're assuming that life is
much different from anything else in the universe when we are in fact also just a bunch of chemical reactions. Your whole Argument is just an uneducated assumption since there are a lot of biologists that understand natur much more than we do. There is no reason to think that science can't figure out the origin of life. If you were talking about the original of the entire universe it wouldn't be so obvious but do you honestly think that it is impossible for science to understand the origin of life because of some magical barrier? I'm sorry but you're just wrong in that regard.
human mind is bound to time and space. something outside that can never be even imagined by scientists.
Saifal Nadeem
That has nothing to do with the origin of life.
The point of contention I feel is point 2. We only have two cases of digital information ever: human language, and genetic information. That, to me, is a far too small sample size to draw any conclusions from.
How about showing the full context of each of those quotes instead of edited versions? We all know that Dawkins does not subscribe to intelligent design. It is shameful that this sort of trickery is used to misinform people.
ok so how does Dawkins explain the existence of the DNA code given the fact the universe is not old enough for it to evolve?
The problem is when everybody try’s to bring religion into the equation. Religion has nothing to do with anything!
If you only knew what it means to be a Christian. Christianity is not a religion it's a relationship with God that created DNA. The proof of God!.
And when you actually get to understanding the truth, you realise that it actually has everything to do with all things.
Agree But God has
Energy cannot be destroyed and cannot be created.... it always was and always will be.
The information that comprises genetics has always been known - as anyone reading Upanishadic literature will discover.
But “scientists” despise philosophers, especially Indian philosophers and don’t count them as people hence they can say No-one knows when they mean we don’t know
So we have to watch these people very carefully to see they don’t claim authority on the basis of this knowledge, in being identified as the discoverers
All religions like to claim that they discovered everything (Islamic apologetics is particularly bad). But when you actually look at the passages they refer to, they say nothing like what is claimed and certainly noone at the time they were written interpreted them that way. All the faithful are really doing is taking something we know today from modern science and trying to massage some ancient passage into meaning the same thing. Really you can make any passage say pretty much whatever you like if you are sufficiently deluded.
Question to all the theists :
Let's say there is a god, a creator of the universe. Wich one is it, and why? And please, don't answer "because that book says so".
+Nicholas R.M. How does your question affect the validity or falsifiability of Intelligent Design? In other words, let's say a scientist concludes through evidence and scientific data that the DNA process supports intent and intelligent design. How does the scientist's beliefs/lack of belief in any deity invalidate the data?
The flaw in your argument is that every other religion makes the same claim MrNicholas. Why is your experience of God correct and the experience of other religions wrong?
MrNicolas79
Wait, Jesus is a god now? I thought he was the son of a god. Anyway, that's what the Bible says...
Also, can you name me one scientist that "converted" because of scientific evidence?
Francis S. Fernandez
I never said my question had anything to do with the validity of inteligent design. However, to have an intelligent design, some intelligent entity must have designed it. So my question is, wich intelligent designer is it? Currently, there is no proof of the presence of an intelligent designer. If there are some incertainties and questions unanswered, most clues about them point away from intelligent design. I'm very opened to anything that would proove the existence of such a designer and I do believe the is a minute chance that we live in a simulation runned by an intelligent entity, but it is certainly not those described by any religions. Religions are creations of humans and if humans would live in a simulation, there is no way they could know for sure they are in a simulation and, therefore, they could not know that a "god" exist. Then, it renders the alleged evidence of gods from religions false, since they can only be made by the immagination and speculation of humans. Likewise, a computer will never be able to grasp fully the concept of a human because it is created by humans. The only caviat to this is if the humans created a computer 100% similar to themselves, then that computer would become a human too. In comparison, if a "god" created humans to be able to grasp the concept of a god fully, it would have made humans gods too. Then we would already know that god exist because we would be god. That is not the case, so a god as we think of it can not exist. An other form of designer could exist, be we will never know. Science tries to answer questions that can be answered by verifiable evidence. So, no you can't scientificaly proof intelligent design.
Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project
Only the insane never changes his mind, Dawkins is one of them. Science issues must be challenged every time to test it's validity and truthfulness.
ice rivers under what parameter do the sane have to change their mind? If I say a mug is a mug and never say other wise am I insane?
According to your rather vague statement I am.
To be clear I get where I hope you was going with that, you mean when we don't know something completely and for certain we should always keep looking and side with whatever holds the most evidance and best fitting answers, I totally agree and if someone proves evolution to be wrong and offers a much more accurate rendition of how we came to be I'm sure sane people will change their minds and follow the evidance.
erudis morningstar12
Not necessarily true.
Sanity can have less steering power than bias & internal desire for reaffirmation of what you currently believe to be true. This concept is ubiquitous.
vitus werdegast
Na. Thankfully many leading scientists in numerous fields have seen the major flaws in the fine lines of evolution. Only the minimal utmost basic principles stand. The surrounding layers of it has been in shambles for a long time already.
The first piece on genetics i think is interesting, because the use of language is the main point there. Essentially this channel argues that because genes are codes, there must be a coder. First I will paraphrase the late great Hitchens by saying that even if you say yes this is correct, you still have quite a way from saying here is a coder to the coder is my specific interpretation of the Biblical God. It's quite an unjustifiable leap. To speak on genes, it is more a flaw of the language we speak and its limitations than the facts and/or Dawkins himself. Using words like "code", "language", and "information" is simply a necessity rather than a conscious choice. These are loaded words with multiple definitions and connotations that don't have effective synonyms in English. We use "code" most often because we've figured out how DNA replicates via chemical reaction and, to aid our understanding of chemical reactions we can't see or visualize, we describe it as a code or language. In reality it is a series of chemical reactions and duplications that are sometimes copied incorrectly, sometimes beneficially, and sometimes detrimentally. I really do understand the conflation and don't want to come off as on a higher understanding. Just consider from an unbiased perspective the fact that Dawkins is not implying a designer, and while you may believe in one, a "gotcha" here is not helpful and doesn't disprove evolution by natural selection. Also consider that proving a designer does not prove your designer, even if atheists such as Dawkins were to concede intelligent design (which they don't).
Information theorists have rigorous definitions for information. That was the entre into this field. I can elaborate but have no faith yet that youll see this
Planet earth has one purpose, to establish that life would be slavery for everyone,
if there was no gratitude.
I watched Richard Dawkin “ultra violet garden” lecture which he showed the hammer orchid and bucket orchid and it increased my faith. My entire life I never heard of this plants and I never thought plants were complicated as animals, but the guy who was supposed to shake my faith actually built it. What can I say. If you never saw the lecture I recommend you watch it.
Add information? Gene duplication. Whole genome duplication. Both are heritable. New alleles crop up in the new data.
Oh come on! You cannot come and present logic and reality to religious believers! That is unfair!
That interview came from Ben Stein's documentary on HBO. The "Establishment" has for decades has known that intelligent design is real. The only ones who don't seem to know are the Academics. Since no one knows who the designer is I suspect guys like Dawkins are a smoke screen/snow job or really are just relics from the 1960s and 70s. If you saw the rest of the program you would hear Dawkins give examples that Science doesn't recognize any more. These people don't come off very well if they are not in front an audience of 19 year old college students in a lecture hall or debating with a nut who thinks humans lived in the time of the dinosaurs.
Captain America XXX -- Well, the academics are those doing the research, and they know things because they've done 150 years of research in matters like geology, paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, etc.. These guys don't think intelligent design is real. It *may* be, but there is no evidence of it.
I can imagine on judgment day, in front of the one and only God, all Dawkins’ followers will blame him for leading them astray and his response would be “don’t blame me! I never forced you to believe me. You made the choice”
Grow up ffs....
Dawkins is good on his own...but put him in a room with Ravi Zacharias and he'd be shredded! Something doesn't start from NOTHING!
Yes it does shit for brains
If that's the case, then why the necessity to show a heavily-edited video made up of out-of-context snippets from interviews with Dawkins?
The answer: because it's the only way points can be scored against him, right?
I love watching people stutter when they realize what they've said.
This a god of the gaps argument, just because we can't understand it, doesn't mean god. People used to think lighting was sent by zeus we now know otherwise. God is slowly disappearing as we understand our world at a deeper level.
windows 10 made itself too
The fact that these people have lied for years and got away with it baffles me
Hey, let's take a load of quotes out of context and twist them shamelessly to fit our own agenda.
Such a load of dishonesty.
Very similar to the famous misrepresentation of Darwins quote on the absurdity of natural selection.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes
not as good as the evolution speciation making monkeys of themselves lie, saying that which causes mutant cancerous development is the same thing as evolving when our bodies cells are coded far beyond any advanced computer. talk about reversing the truth for atheist immorality and govt control over our faiths and familiy lives to keep us immoral and down and use us as pawns for business!
That's what theists do 👍
DNA is not like a computer program. Human DNA does not contain any instructions for building or maintaining a human body. ... DNA simply contains recipes for building proteins, and it contains templates for RNA molecules that regulate the production of these proteins.
are you... stupid or something? you do realize that human development is contingent on dna, right? its all downstream from dna besides the small part that epigenetics plays...
Awesome video.
177+ dislikers still don't get it.
" hey , I'm an atheist, but genes are programmed codes"! 😂😂😂
Then who programmed ?
@@bugattibigboy532 The NAAATURE ma dude :)
@@itsmeagain1415 in the dna you got a coded genetic; just like how any application/software is scripted to work and if you try to tell me nature can write algorithms you deserve a place in an asylum
@@bugattibigboy532 The DNA could have evolved. DNA is not perfect and has flaws, like how faulty DNA can cause medical problems.
@@aspiknf DNA error will get worse over time, not better. Not evolve but devolve. We eat bad, take pills, exposed to radiations, electromagnetic field, etc. Cancel, disease and mental health are on the rise.
He knows. He just can't say. He has been silenced. Likely his entire career.
@Ron McCaffrey no by the hierarchy that puts the gavel down on those who want to come clean. Also the ones who want to play along.
Talk about the "Big Lie". Dawkins did not "prove" ID since (1) science does not use proofs (only mathematics) and (2) ID is - as Dawkins and the courts have stated repeatedly - simply another version of Creationism. ID has lost every case because its supporters cannot define the creator or how he/it worked. As the judge in the Dover case said, "You can't advance an argument based on a claim of insufficient knowledge."
A very strange video, it doesn't give any context to what Mr Dawkins is saying. He does not know everything about how life evolved; an honest man would say I don't know... oh wait he did.
He does not have all the answers, therefore does not jump to a conclusion that cannot be supported by evidence, for example 'a creator did it'.
He does not support a scientific theory without scientific evidence. A scientist would say that...oh wait he is.
He is certain new more intelligent species evolved from former extinct species and yet he could not give one example of a positive mutation.
If this world is the result of random chance processes, then so are you...and so are your thoughts. So please spare us and don't leave a comment as we have no reason to believe a thing you say.. chancy chancington
Was that supposed to be some intelligent logical statement? If so you failed miserably.
If you believe that life came into being by intelligent design, then everyone is important regardless of what they believe, and ought to be treated with equal respect.
@@raksh9 I don't believe that, there is absolutely zero evidence for it, and the idea that everyone's beliefs are equal is nonsense. Everyone one IS important to themselves, their friends, and their family's but the idea that some homeless person or person without the brain power to complete even a decent education is as "important" as say Gandi is also ridiculous. Hell, I have a great education and I'm not nearly as "important" as a whole host of others.
@@Onslotton My post was a response to the original comment by zelerized, who essentially said if you believe in natural selection, your opinion isn't worth listening to. The flipside is that if you believe in intelligent design, as zelerized seems to, then zelerized *should* give respect to the opinions of others. Read my post in that context.
@@TheTruth-cy4le Then there are Creationists who leap from 'life was created deliberately' to 'it must be the work of the God of the Bible'. That's a huge leap which ignores any other hypothetical creators, dozens of which have been posited over the millennia.
Snippets used on this video do not give the full context of what he says. Putting your own interpretation on what he means and calling it god is plain stupid.
DNA is not life. It is an information system that codes protein synthesis and expression, and passes on information in reproduction. Outside the apparatus of the cell it is only a piece of complex information-containing biochemistry. It is not known how it was formed from biochemicals, nor can it ever be as there is little geological or astrobiological information, or how it organises trillions of molecular interactions in a cell in realtime nor how it would obtain and process feedback information. It could be regarded as a quantum computer program. The origin of gene expression is not known, yet it causes differentiation of cells in embryology, nor again how signalling is fast enough to send instructions.
Only an atheist could think that DNA was the cause of life, it clearly is not, strands of DNA cannot create anything per se, it is only relevant within the total cellular apparatus. The origin of organelles particularly the ribosome and the active cell membrane are conjectural.. For a mammalian cell there are some one trillion atoms, none of them static, and the control computation is very sophisticated. Then in a multicellular organism there is interaction between the cells. The teleological argument for intelligence is very compelling in biology..
Religion today is absolutely no different than in say 2000 years time someone finds an old ancient DVD of the Avengers. They somehow find a DVD player and watch it. After watching it they are amazed! They're like "Wow! Back in the early 21st Century there were Gods flying around and they saved everybody and sacrificed themselves for human kind! This is evidence that there were gods so we are now going to worship Thor!!"
And another religion begins....
The Truth -- Good analogy.
You talk shit.
A person can not possibly take a honest look at the universe or world around them and say it is all by luck.
The fine tuning of the sun to earth.
The energy to maintain the universe.
The abundance of natural resources.
The process of photosynthesis.
The atmosphere and evaporation.
The function of living bodies of humans and animals.
Your personal spiritual soul with thoughts and feelings.
Water naturally purifying in the ground.
These so called smart people think that man made words and man's explanation of how these things happen, somehow takes away the fact that these are miracles of a creator.
They are being blinded by something.
I did something, I believe everyone needs to do. I decided I wanted to find out what Jesus was all about; so I started reading the four gospels. I struggled to hear, and follow, but I was determined to understand why Jesus was saying these things. I didn't ask my questions to any person but instead I asked them spiritually to myself. After some time as I began to hear; I began to love to read. I began seeing words and verses I had not seen before even though I had read it many times before. One by one those verses I couldn't understand became perfectly clear to me.
I began to realize many nights I would read the answer to the question I was asking myself earlier that day. At first not realizing what was happening but the Holy Spirit was revealing Jesus' words to me.
Seek and ye shall find, ask and ye shall receive.
When you realize the Holy Spirit is answering your questions you will become filled with extreme joy!
By doing as Jesus says, I have heard the Holy Spirit speak to me.
Being spiritually baptized in the Holy Spirit. This spiritual awakening is why we are here.
1 Peter 1:23 being born again, not of corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the Word of God, which lives and abides forever.
John 1:14 the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
By seeking to hear, know and understand Jesus' words the Holy Spirit will teach you all understanding. In this process we become spiritually changed from serving sin or concerned with things of this world, to living in that righteousness we find in Jesus Christ.
I then began reading Paul's epistles, and again struggled; but in a much shorter time went from confusion to revelation.
In a very short time the words went from being in another language to perfect clarity.
God wants a personal relationship with everyone. God sent Christ preaching the mystery of God in parables to grow and convert your mind spiritually. In this process God heals us and converts us to living righteously.
Seek and ye shall find, all while asking God to fill your heart and soul with the Holy Spirit.
What a great pile of shit.
John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."
but souls dont exist and the only thing a heart can be filled with is blood
@@alisterbrain2954 ; Steadily one by one there comes a tomorrow you will die.., as mortals we all die. Apart from your consent this happens whether any will it or not matters little of insignificance thus this fateful morrow comes, advances towards, are then dead and know nothing...what then of your knowledge? In death will you celebrate science's revelation all nature as complexity and wonderous fascination seen thru eyes whose lids are fastened shut by death's darkness surround ...ears stopped from hearing, mind from thinking, lips from opening a voice heard, stiffened fingers from texting., stillness, as silence reigns over perception. Is death then become the knowledge of nothing?
Everything discovered as true has always been true, long before known in discovered, as realized in actual apart from our knowledge in discovery of it ..Truth exist. It has always existed whether we've known or not. It exist as Truth beyond in apart from yours/ mine knowledge of being true. Is discovery the knowledge of now known facts, as Truth's existence all along? Reality was, presently remains and is to come, whether we agree or disagree it is primary sustaining apart from our knowledge or consent.
@@kingdomfreedom8323- Why on earth are you trying to write in that poetic tone? I imagine it impresses some simpletons in place of actual knowledge. The sad thing is that I dont disagree with anything you just said. I and you will die. My unwritten knowledge will die with me. True has always been true, regardless of our will. So what?! I still dont need a God. I still dont need to make up a story or believe some medieval script to explain nature. Religion and belief tell us NOTHING about the truth of nature. Saying that the order and beauty in the world must be evidence of some divine being is an argument from ignorance. I am an atheist... I simply see no evidence... there is no evidence.
Religion belongs to the weak minded, the vulnerable or the wicked. Which one are you?