Richard Dawkins Teaches Evolution to Religious Students
2014 ж. 15 Қар.
3 533 797 Рет қаралды
Dawkins teaching evolution to a year 11 (ages 15-16) class at Park High School, London. He answers several questions of the students, most of whom are reluctant to accept evolution.
Congrats to the cameraman. It can't easy filming and riding a unicycle at the same time
That beautiful moment at 36:13 of _"Hey, Richard, where'd you go?!"_
Hahaha this comment made me happy .ty MJW
Hahaha nice one
Yeah it’s weird hey. Why not just have 2 tripods with a camera on Dawkins and a camera in students. The cameraman can focus on different students as they speak and then cut together in post.
@@h-dawg969 My guess is that they got one of the kids to do it
The camera guy is in the first stage of his evolution 😊
rakkrisr123 lmao yea, wtf is he doing lol
Ha ha ha ha ha
Science Rocks..
LMFAO! Brilliant! I was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, I'm now at 20:56 and came here to comment this exact thing. It is actually really annoying...
Unfortunatley it was the same kid who films school fights that they asked to film this.
Yoooo chill😂😂😂
LMAOOOO
many people, when they film, think they have to constantly be adjusting something
🤣🤣🤣
Although the filming is not well done, it does not detract from the interesting, well-argued and open questions and answers. You don’t need to look at the pictures.
Dawkins really is a gifted science communicator. Also credit to the students for politely engaging with a subject that must have been fairly disconcerting. Grown adults often become combative and resentful during discussions like this
For the most part he was good but there were definitely moments where he didn’t mask the incredulity/disdain for the question.
Neo-Darwinism is a cult religion A Theory in Crisis, there is no better way to put it today. There are no transitional forms in the so- called fossil record and the ones that are sited are dubious to say the least, because they do not manifest soft tissue changes: like a dinosaur to a bird as presumed by evolutionists. Where are the millions of intermediate fossils demonstrating evolution? All along the religious chain of events, from life forms in the sea to modern man is pure fantasy and imagination by those who seek to keep a divine foot out of the door when it comes to the origin of life. Jesus said they that are whole need not a physician but those that are sick, go and learn what this means I desire mercy and not sacrifice. My contention is that those who promote this evolutionary ideology despite all the evidence against it are sick and are not worthy to be called scientists, because science is the pursuit of truth ultimately and where ever it leads true scientists follow. Many in the various fields of science associated with Neo-Darwinian will not speak out and change course, because they know their careers will suffer at the hands of their peers. Many true scientists have become creationists because of the insurmountable evidence; they were left with no alternative choice because of the continual narrative, which is spear-head by people like Richard Dawkins. Here is a term they have invented: “genetic drift” in relation to the speculation of macro-evolution, which the fossil record does not support. All we see is micro-evolution a smart term for kinds within species. There are three limitations that cancel out Neo-Darwinism these are: the origin of DNA and RNA, irreducible complexity within the single cell and the “none existence” of innumerable transitional fossils. With this evidence there should have been a paradigm shift away from evolution several years ago. Life does not emerge from non-living matter and the idea of mutations; they only corrupt already existing information within the genome. There is a degrading taking place every generation; no new information is ever added to the genome by the invented process of natural selection. Nothing is changing and therefore evolving into new species. HMS Beagle has now become a modern day shipwreck relative to evolution. The evidential cargo has blown up in Darwin’s face. This is not widely known but Darwin hated the Biblical account of Creation, the fall, the flood and redemption through Jesus Christ. He stated and I quote: He called the gospel of Jesus Christ a “damnable heresy!” He was at war with God before he set sail on HMS beagle around the world as a naturalist between 1831-1836. The Galapagos isles turned out to be of special interest to him relative to his theory of evolution. He was determined to fly in the face of God and invent an alternative to Biblical Creation. He spent a life time formulating a theory which would eventually blow up in his face. Darwin enjoyed the term “survival of the fittest” which is closely allied with “lawlessness” but Jesus said concerning his loving commandments to mankind “Let him who hath ears to hear, let him hear! Jesus was quite clear, that every man shall be judged for every idle word spoken! By your words you will be justified and by your words condemned. Jesus in his ministry taught people and nations to love each other and to work together for the common good of mankind. He knew the nations of the world would reject him and the gospel message of peace with God., That nations would arise against nation and kingdoms against kingdoms that there would be desolation's right up to the end of this present day and age, culminating in the rise of the Anti-Christ who will deceive Israel and the nations of the world, leading them eventually down the road to the battle of Armageddon. This battle will prompt the return of our Lord Jesus in glory to stop man destroying himself through selfishness and greed. His feet will touch the Mount of Olives and then he will hold man accountable for his actions. I am glad I have made peace with God through is Son. Jesus said, except those days be shortened there would be no flesh saved! What nothing breathing
@@johnsmithson4479well anyone that could is not human, some of the things the kids were saying was as crazy or idiotic as saying “I can fly after drinking red bull because it literally makes me grow wings”
@@mattlogic9647 And yet he knowingly signed up for this and should have been prepared for it. Nothing they said was unexpected in context. Reacting that way only serves to make them more resistant to his ideas and not feel confident asking questions. Also, if you grew up with everyone around you telling you red bull does in fact give you wings, and you just hadn't had any yet because it was rare, you would think it's true. Perspective matters, and these are children.
The older people get, the harder it is to accept new ideas. These students were still young enough to consider different ways of thinking.
Whoever gave the 667th dislike... shame on you.
Lmao
+Ashley Small Shame on you too. Boooo!!!!
+Ashley Small im the proud proprieter of the 677th dislike
Zoom Avengers Shame. Shame. Shame.
It's a rather small number compared to 14.5 thousand likes isn't it?
The camera guy has unique style to say the least.
He used to work for "Cops"
Be tolerant. His skills are in constant evolution.
Dupont Davignon best comment here
Dupont Davignon 😂
+OblivionDemon "The camera guy has unique style to say the least." Probably having a wank
Dawkins was so gentle. So carefull with this kids. 😊 He didn't scar them with his typical answers. ❤
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairytale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
I agree. He could easily destroy them lol
I would've liked to see him giving them some wake up to reality answers 😂😂
@@karlwatson1874 unless they have taken good quolity drugs wich this reneck has nowt they would destroy him
@@karlwatson1874 He low-key did 😂
I glad that Dawkins brought up that Darwin was wrong on some things, it disproves the creationist argument that evolution is a religion.
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” -Richard Feynman
Thank you for that briliant quote!
Holy shit, this is good.
Richard Feynman is a god... But he would never see it that way :) He just likes asking questions and then figuring out the answers to his questions... That’s just how he is. We are all Richard Feynmans (or at least we have the potential)
Giovanni Lido shots fired!
Yes! Exactly!
This is one enthusiastic camera guy
Hahaha
Doing some great job btw
very talented.
he must look really strange to everyone in the classroom! lmao
He finds his meaning in life in being a camera man
The moment I got punished for asking questions and pointing out plot holes in a Baptist school as a kid I knew they were all liars and people just wanting to manipulate people.
They taught evolution in a Baptist school?
Go to orthodox school
90s Belfast during the troubles I went to a protestant school who taught us that catholics were evil. I remember a religious education test with the question "Was Jesus the son of God, a good man?". I answered along the lines "The question presupposes that Jesus was the son of God, before we can answer within that context we have to question the premise...". After it was marked the teacher brought me outside to explain my exam paper was tremendously offensive, he informed the young earth creationist headmaster who gave me a friday detention. Fun times!
Thank you Dr. Dawkins for all your amazing work throughout the years!
He is a gay fraud
Giving props to the cameraman who is stoned but still manages to cover the angles
Lol thank you for making me chuckle. I could concentrate on nothing else.
I know it's a joke. but as someone who's done hundreds of hours of single camera shoots of events, this is actually a very skilled camera person. These transition are smooth! Framing is spot on.
@@claybutler not for me, I got dizzy after 20 min
@@abdullah82m I can totally see why somebody would get dizzy or motion sickness, I was just pointing out that pulling off a single camera shoot with a speaker and an audience and capturing it that well was the result of a highly skilled camera person. Normally this would be done with it at least two cameras and you would do clean cuts back and forth. But when you're a single camera person you have no choice but to swing the camera around back and forth. They have shots so many situations like this that I know, that this was done as well as possible.
The whole time he’s thinking “I knew I should’ve had a piss before I came in”
"Good morning" 2 seconds later "The universe is about 14 billion years old" Wow Richard that was fast
you have to try to put people at a ghasp when you meet them so you can have an influence on them. that's why i always introduce my self as a tiny, insignificant spech of carbon and i have 1 life and it's short and unimportant so please like me :)
Is this shot in India?
Terry and The Professor honestly it's probably Australia.
Why is it all Indians then?
Terry and The Professor we're everywhere
“Is there any reason to suppose nowadays that the biggest brained individuals are the ones that survive best?" *looks around at class* "Not that I can see.” Greatest subtle roast ever.
😂😂😂
Scientific investigation of the Turin Shroud In 1978 a group of scientists became involved in the project STURP from a number of prestigious institutions from around the world. They were given unprecedented access to this burial cloth for 120 hours at the end of a rare public exhibition. Scientific and medical research was conducted on the shroud with remarkable results indicating the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, unfakable evidence that could not be forged by an artist or any other natural means known to mankind. A negative image had been encoded on the inside of the linen cloth which could only have been caused by “particle radiation” emanating from the body within the Shroud. Linen naturally consists of cellulose and has nitrogen atoms which are an indigenous element of it. Many scientists who were involved in this project in 1978 have come to the same conclusion, that “particle radiation” in terms of neutrons from the inside of the body had defused and attached themselves to the nitrogen component, by means of neutron capture which then converted it to C 14. If this occurred at the resurrection of Jesus Christ it would invalid all C 14 dating done on the Shroud in the 1980’s. A small group of scientists in the 1980’s excluded the original scientists from further involvement who knew more about the findings than them. They excluded the world wide public also from the information that would have been acquired from 25 other areas of testing. When it came to the C 14 dating the underlying differences were not shared with other scientific institutions, as had been agreed. They ignored; suppressed and disregarded samples that noticeably had different amounts of C 14 content, which correlated with their distances from the cloth. They selected their own C 14 date that suited their purposes. [Does this sound familiar when it comes to evolutionists? They also ignore, disregard and suppress the insurmountable evidence against evolution]. To explain, the nearer the body parts were to the cloth the more C 14 was detected, so different parts of the Turin Shroud give different C 14 data. Not reliable at all! Investigation at the atomic and molecular levels will further prove the authenticity of the Shroud and completely invalid the erroneous C 14 dating presented, that indicated the Shroud dated to the Middle Ages. This was a total stitch-up by this small group of scientists who wanted to hide evidence that goes against their agenda that points to the authenticity of the shroud. These people are probably dedicated Darwinian Evolutionists themselves. Today certain scientists are trying to suppress the undeniable evidence that a supernatural event occurred beyond our complete understanding that encoded an image of a man, corresponding to Jesus Christ and his sufferings on a linen cloth known as the shroud. Humanists like to play the role of God, but the job is already taken. The religious hierarchy namely the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Jesus sought to suppress, ignore and disregard the evidence in terms of the testimony of the Roman soldiers, relating to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The climax of their rejection of Jesus as Messiah came after part of a terrified watch of soldiers witnessed an angel of the Lord descend from heaven and then roll the stone away , sitting upon it. His countenance was like lightning and his raiment as white as snow and for fear of him they did shake and become as dead men. Part of the watch went back into the city and told the religious hierarchy what had happened, but they did not repent of their sins, but hardened their hearts giving large sums of money to the soldiers in order for them to tell a lie saying: Tell Pilate that his disciples came by night and stole his body away while we slept and if what really happened comes to Pilate’s ears we will persuade him and secure you. [Matt 28:1-15] This is in essence what they said. This Anti-Christ spirit manifests itself in all walks of life wanting to suppress, ignore and disregard anything that is supernatural in orientation. God has not left himself without witness and the Turin Shroud is evidence of a supernatural event beyond the realms of science. Other scientific and medical evidence on the shroud can be trusted as far as authenticating this cloth is concerned. Science is about things we can observe, test and study, you would agree and thereby the truth is manifested for the benefit of all mankind
Someone should have stated the obvious- it's not the biggest brained people likely to reproduce it's best looking people.
That isn't something dawkins would do, at least in a teacher-pupil environment. You're reading too much into it
One has only to look at the present crowd running the country and the bunch in waiting to realise that human intelligence is atrophying rather than increasing.
I’m really impressed with the students’ preparedness and depth of questions. Also impressed with Dawkins’ story telling abilities. It’s important to remain calm and curious during these discussions.
Dawkins cannot admit that we didn’t evolve from nothing. Check out other videos where he was made a laughingstock by getting him to admit that. You morons think a big bang created human life?
U jokin?
Some were, others weren’t. Like any classroom
Part 2 Examples of Carbon 14 dating that is unrealistic Living penguins have been dated as being 8000 years old! Outrageous! One part of a Dima being a baby frozen mammoth, dated 40,000, another part was 26,000 years old, and the wood around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old. Outrageous! Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 [US, Gov. printing office, 1975 p. 30 “The lower leg of a Fair banks Creek mammoth had a C14 age of 15,380, while its skin and flesh dated 21, 300 years RCY.” Harold E. Anthony, Nature Deep Freeze, Natural History, Sept 1949 p 300. Two Colorado Creek mammoth’s had radio carbon dating of 22,850 + 670 and another 16,150+ 230 years respectively. Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska, Quaternary Research , Vol 37, No 2, March 1992, pp 214-228. Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old science Vol 141, 1963 p. 634-637 Evolutionists are today much more cautious and protective in releasing data like this, because it makes a laughing stock out of all radio metric dating. Why? Because we live in an environment that suffers from contamination and is therefore subject to change. All radio metric dating methods suffer from absolute uncertainty, because they have no idea what Mother and Daughter elements were present when the rocks were form. When it comes to C 14 dating some plants and animals absorb more carbon than others and this can be the case of kinds within species. So C14 is really made redundant in the light of this evidence. When it comes to the Shroud of Turin one thing is certain a remarkable event took place, supernatural in orientation in order to encode the image of a man upon the shroud, which has never been duplicated nor ever shall be, that is my opinion for what it counts. God has not left us without witness, Jesus did die for the sins of the world and he rose again on the third as the glory of God quickened his body, for the justification of repentant sinners. Mount of Transfiguration [Matthew 17:1-9] I can certainly believe even more so today, that Jesus was transfigured into the God-Head before Peter, James and John and he then told them to not tell the vision until the Son of Man be raised from the dead. The Immaculate Conception I have no problems with the virgin birth, where the power of the Almighty overshadowed Mary and she was found with child of the Holy Spirit [Luke1:30-35]. Jesus said “to this end was I born” in reference to the cross and the glory of the Father beyond the cross. Remember, the supernatural is beyond the realm of science.
Part 1 Carbon 14 Wrong Assumptions This dating method was invented by Willard Libby in the early 1950’s at the University of Chicago but it is overrated because the amount of C 14 in our atmosphere is increasing because of our weakening earth’s magnetic field and so more cosmic radiation is penetrating our atmosphere converting the nitrogen element through neutron capture into C14. The assumption that C 14 is in equilibrium is wrong. It is estimated by scientists that equilibrium will take place in about 30.000 years that is the formation rate of C14 would equal the decay rate. Going back in time even a few thousand years the earth’s magnetic field was a lot stronger and therefore less C14 would have been produced from nitrogen. I hope you can see the dilemma here. Plants and animals would have taken in less C14- 2000 years ago, than what they do today and the half- life of C14 = 5730 years. So when a plant or animal died 2000 years ago, they had less C14 in them to begin with, so they will date a lot older than what they really are. Shroud of Turin So this is evidence enough that the Shroud of Turin has been irradiated by “particle radiation” from the body within this linen cloth converting more of the nitrogen element into C14 making it appear to be much younger than it actually is. Let us consider the Shroud of Turin further. It is made up of linen which is derived from the flax plant, so linen is technically a vegetable. It consists of cellulose fibres that grow from the stalks inside the flax plant. Now, nitrogen is indigenous of linen and if bombarded with “particle radiation” it will convert to C14 by neutron capture. Nitrogen has been converted into C14 in laboratory conditions. We have a situation here were we know that plants and animals that died two thousand years ago are going to date a lot older than they actually are, so this would have immeasurably affected the flax, that had been used to make the linen cloth. We also know that the scientists from the 1980s who were not part of the original STURPS scientists of 1978 dated the Shroud of Turin to the Middle Ages by selecting a C14 date that suited their bias and prejudice. If “particle radiation” occurred at the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, converting the nitrogen element into Carbon 14, then this would increase the amount of C 14 contained within the linen giving a false date anyway. The scientists from the 1978 investigation had a common consensus, that the only way the negative formed on the inside of the linen cloth could have taken place, was through encoding from “particle radiation” that emanated from the body within the shroud. We also know that varying amounts of C14 where detected all over the Shroud, nothing was consistent and so those parts of the body that were closer to the shroud had an increased amount of C 14 than those parts further away. What could account for this? The radiation that came from the body converted more nitrogen, which is indigenous of the linen to C14 the nearer it was to the body. The increased amount would make the C 14 date erroneous for the Shroud.
they have no idea how lucky they are to hear this man give them a private lecture
And I'm sure 99% of them were only there for the grade.
Zic Rog In England the grading system is different, there's a test at the end of the semester and that's your whole grade, it isn't like you guys in America.
None of them didnt listen or undestand any of it anyway.. Its so easy to say it was god who did it all.
This is a private school. So I'm sure that the school most likely paid for him to give a lecture.
+Grumbel Bumbel hahaha yeah thats about right
"The perfect cameraman doesn't exi-" 20:58
thanks a lot i rarely laugh that much
LMFAAAAOO I AM SO DEAD
+C32 same rofl
@Don't Read My Profile Picture I absolutely love the idea of your channel very clever!
I laughed till I had tears in my eyes
Parents really did a number on these children.
They're smart though, asking good questions because they really want to know. Especially at 33:50, that's a really great question that shows he really wants to figure it out.
Idk they seem fairly well-educated. They ask decent questions and remain quiet when he's talking which means they are behaved. I would disagree
They sound like brainwashed little soldiers.
@@AmanitalandHe’s probably talking about the parents making them be religious and fall into worldviews just because others around them think a certain way. They’re not dumb kids at all. Most kids are fairly smart and curious tbh
6:19 You should listen to this part again and all parents influence/indoctrinate their children with what they believe is true and will view that as absolute truth as well. Hell the great non religious people cant even test actual science. They just as much believe something written in a book by some guy is the truth, purely because it sounds more reasonable. IMO in regards of filling in the blanks with speculation, most humans are alike be it religious or not. At least most religious people wont have an ego about being religious deeming themselves more intelligent. A lot atheists however speaking as an atheist, even the dumbest out there will still think he's more intelligent than any religious person just because of not believing and if you actually remember them that most of histories scientists were religious, and a lot sciences or ways to understand sciences were 'invented' or built upon by religious groups of people, they often have the dumbest response about it because obviously, most that say this couldnt even mention 10 scientists and what they contributed on the spot and especially not of today. They just know famous scientists like they'd remember a celebrity. Honestly if we're real honest does a story concluding that a 'god figure' resembling humans created the as far as we know only place in an ENTIRE GALAXY that has life on it shaped in his image that now is able to play for god itself, really that much more farfetched as us being born out of literal stardust, turned into living breathing animals from some kind of fish thingy, to a squirrel thingy and then an ape and then a human? If we're all being real here, even though there is empirical evidence for the latter and not necessarily for the first, lets be honest that the second story sounds more like science fiction than the first. Ofc reality is mere perspective so it doesnt have to sound realistic to be true. It just has to. However I don't think it's wild at all that people believe in god when the supposed real story, is even wilder lol.
I appreciate how respectful he is toward them when answering their questions. Try asking a Christian questions and you’re pretty much belittled and told to shut up.
Scientific investigation of the Turin Shroud In 1978 a group of scientists became involved in the project STURP from a number of prestigious institutions from around the world. They were given unprecedented access to this burial cloth for 120 hours at the end of a rare public exhibition. Scientific and medical research was conducted on the shroud with remarkable results indicating the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, unfakable evidence that could not be forged by an artist or any other natural means known to mankind. A negative image had been encoded on the inside of the linen cloth which could only have been caused by “particle radiation” emanating from the body within the Shroud. Linen naturally consists of cellulose and has nitrogen atoms which are an indigenous element of it. Many scientists who were involved in this project in 1978 have come to the same conclusion, that “particle radiation” in terms of neutrons from the inside of the body had defused and attached themselves to the nitrogen component, by means of neutron capture which then converted it to C 14. If this occurred at the resurrection of Jesus Christ it would invalid all C 14 dating done on the Shroud in the 1980’s. A small group of scientists in the 1980’s excluded the original scientists from further involvement who knew more about the findings than them. They excluded the world wide public also from the information that would have been acquired from 25 other areas of testing. When it came to the C 14 dating the underlying differences were not shared with other scientific institutions, as had been agreed. They ignored; suppressed and disregarded samples that noticeably had different amounts of C 14 content, which correlated with their distances from the cloth. They selected their own C 14 date that suited their purposes. [Does this sound familiar when it comes to evolutionists? They also ignore, disregard and suppress the insurmountable evidence against evolution]. To explain, the nearer the body parts were to the cloth the more C 14 was detected, so different parts of the Turin Shroud give different C 14 data. Not reliable at all! Investigation at the atomic and molecular levels will further prove the authenticity of the Shroud and completely invalid the erroneous C 14 dating presented, that indicated the Shroud dated to the Middle Ages. This was a total stitch-up by this small group of scientists who wanted to hide evidence that goes against their agenda that points to the authenticity of the shroud. These people are probably dedicated Darwinian Evolutionists themselves. Today certain scientists are trying to suppress the undeniable evidence that a supernatural event occurred beyond our complete understanding that encoded an image of a man, corresponding to Jesus Christ and his sufferings on a linen cloth known as the shroud. Humanists like to play the role of God, but the job is already taken. The religious hierarchy namely the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Jesus sought to suppress, ignore and disregard the evidence in terms of the testimony of the Roman soldiers, relating to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The climax of their rejection of Jesus as Messiah came after part of a terrified watch of soldiers witnessed an angel of the Lord descend from heaven and then roll the stone away , sitting upon it. His countenance was like lightning and his raiment as white as snow and for fear of him they did shake and become as dead men. Part of the watch went back into the city and told the religious hierarchy what had happened, but they did not repent of their sins, but hardened their hearts giving large sums of money to the soldiers in order for them to tell a lie saying: Tell Pilate that his disciples came by night and stole his body away while we slept and if what really happened comes to Pilate’s ears we will persuade him and secure you. [Matt 28:1-15] This is in essence what they said. This Anti-Christ spirit manifests itself in all walks of life wanting to suppress, ignore and disregard anything that is supernatural in orientation. God has not left himself without witness and the Turin Shroud is evidence of a supernatural event beyond the realms of science. Other scientific and medical evidence on the shroud can be trusted as far as authenticating this cloth is concerned. Science is about things we can observe, test and study, you would agree and thereby the truth is manifested for the benefit of all mankind
Point of corrections. Not all Christians are like that. Thank you 😊.
Arguing with religious people is like telling your mom that online games can't be paused
Ma I can't just stop! No, I can't pause it. Th...It...it's live! No, Ma, they'll just shoot me in the head while I stand there motionless!
😂😂😂
pure gold
Explain.
No. There is no pause function in online games. They run in real time. (unless u want to count stuff like turn based games or League of Legends which the pause button only works in custom matches and that game is shit anyway)
"What came first, the plant or the oxygen?" - I can't even...
+Lockheim Gen 1:1 "in the beginning God created......." No other explanation comes remotely close. That's why there are so many atheists on line right now deluding themselves it could be any other way. The finitude of the past (i.e the impossibility of an actual infinite in nature) demands a ex nihilo creation event. So we have 9 hypothetical competing multiverse theories that try to explain away the obvious fine tuning and design in this magnificent, awe-inspiring, abstract law-abiding universe. "so prove my theory is wrong"... "it could have been the F.S.M " Yes well, dream on!!
+Lockheim I would definetly say it was the plant,but as hawkins explained when that plant grew it didnt produce oxygen nor it needed it for growth and gradually over time evolved to create okygen and at the same time became addicted to it so that it cant grow anymore if there isnt oxygen. I wonder why did evolution choose okygen over whatever else plants were living on before. Cuz obviously plants that didnt work on okygen dyed off cuz of natural selection. Would we exist today if the plants didnt evolve to use and produce okygen?
+Black dragon story actually, neither came first. it was a cyanobacteria that produced oxygen (but it didn't need em).
+Lockheim oxygen , but firths was an green blue algae that produce oxigen
Schuyler Pablico Good to know. Did plants that grew without okygen exist then?
Great discussion by Professor Dawkins. Most religious schools do not teach evolution which is insane. Kudos to this school for giving their students this opportunity. Btw, the cameraman did a great job - kept things moving and interesting to watch!
It's a horribly uncomfortable feeling when you start to come to terms with the fact that a large chunk of what you were taught in your childhood is demonstrably false, but it is a very important part of maturing that many people unfortunately never have.
I went to Catholic school my whole life and I Remember being in college my freshman year and In biology they said that evolution had no intention to create humans and that circumstances is what led to humans evolving I thought they were so confused Fast forward a few years later and a few Richard Dawkins books later and I’ve been an atheist for 14 years That being said yes , it was pretty brutal to start realizing that your entire world view is incorrect . REALLY brutal and quite painful But on the other side of the transformation there is beauty :-)
@@tonymontana1996 what does circumcision have anything to do with human evolving?
@@pedestrian_0circumstance
Personally I was always especially drawn to that kind of "revealing" knowledge. I was raised religiously but the moment I heard of these things, I willingly soaked them up. Some people just don't have it in them, they prefer safety over knowledge.
@@tonymontana1996 What Catholic school did you attend that seemed reluctant to teach evolution?
‘People once thought the earth was flat’ *apparently Richard, they still do*
J Michael nasa pics are all.cgi
Winter is cumming
A few thousand. Not the same category of size as creationists are. Essentially the difference between the guy who tells you that he was abducted by aliens and the overly religious hilly billy.
we goin sizzler u do know that the mention of spherical earth was first documented in Greek philosophy, 600 BC? It was knowledge amassed by navigators. This was supported by Plato, Pythagoras n many great scholars of that period. Spherical earth was later experimentally proved by two navigators in 15th century. Nasa's pictures were not just to prove fools of earth being round. It was, still is, a known fact. How in the world ppl believe in flat earth in this age?!
Lizmol Antony I’ve come to realize by listening to further explanation from Neil Tyson that certain people believe in a flat earth only in the theory that we are on a simulation which would involve a flat plain *BUT* I don’t think this is what the media is saying nor this guy we are trying to argue with... I think “u goin sizzler” genuinely thinks it’s flat in general and *that* is moronic as hell lmao. *Thanks for the back up we logical thinkers gotta stick together*
This is the most interesting "Office" episode in the entire series.
LOL The camera work really IS a lot similar.
Just imagine Big Keith asking Professor Dawkins a question......
Oh yea? Michael..!
Differently the UK version, though
ROFL
Very good questions on part of the students in asking about certain conditions. Such a question like “If evidence changes, would you change your mind?” Is very good because the ‘atheist’ to a religious person is supposedly one who is irrational, judgmental, and without morals. Seeing Richard answer and be genuine in this means the students have someone to look at and understand as someone having that aforementioned worldview. So many kids growing up see their mentors, essentially, groom them to be religious, and asking this question and getting an honest answer let’s them make up their own minds on what they believe.
Are you kidding me? The majority sounds like a 2 year olds questions.
I went to a Catholic high school. They taught evolution, and did not try to pretend that God had anything to do with it or that the creation stories in the Bible were any more than fiction. I can't remember any of my fellow students believing in this "God created fish on Tuesday" nonsense. We understood primordial soup and biochemistry and natural selection. I'm surprised that 30 years later these high school students in London act like they've been home schooled by religious fundamentalists.
My parents wanted me to go to a religious secondary school, and I'm damn glad I didn't
As a Catholic (although more lapsed than practicing nowadays) as far as I know the Catholic Church has no real quarrel with the theory of evolution. I think it is mainly hardline Protestants who are against even teaching it.
The camera man is the guy that filmed The Office. Kept expecting him to pan over to *Jim Face*
OMG That would be perfect
Haha. Or Dwight explaining how Yams are the meaning of life.
@@WordAte yams...yams
Bob Gymlan you mean Tim face. The american version is a bubblegum, cookie-cutter sitcom.
I can't tell if you made a pun there 🤔
*hmmmm I wonder how close I can zoom in on this camera while Professor Dawkins explains the entire existence of the universe*
'Gods damn it, Joe! This Video was supposed to be about the Universe on an EVOLUTIONARY level, not a MOLECULAR one!'
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm absolut madlad
Dawkins doesn’t actually explain anything. He only presented HIS version of what has happened by basically parroting things that other (atheists) have done.
@@SilverSurfer5150”Dawkins doesn’t explain anything” Richard Dawkins has written many books explaining lmfao
@@Vivacomunismo Explaining nothing.
His voice is so peaceful
In relation to the first question about how coincidental it is that we exist on this planet that suits our requirements for life. The best answer I've heard for this question is imagine that you're looking at a pothole in the road that is filled with water and you are thinking isn't it amazing that the puddle of water is exactly the right shape to fit into the pothole.
The problem is with people thinking _WE_ are the intended goal of it all. Some apologist tried to debunk the Douglas Adams puddle analogy ... and failed miserably.
That's bad when 15-16 year olds are more respectable to Dawkins than the radical theists who always interrupt him and talk over him.
Some Cynical Asshole They are in class, it's not like they are allowed to disrespect teachers.
There are a lot of students who disrespect teachers when they aren't supposed to. And adults in debates are supposed to be respectful towards one another just as these children are expected to be respectful towards Mr. Dawkins yet most of the time they are not. So I don't get your point.
Most of the time I see religious classes invite someone like Mr Dawkins, the guest get interrupted constantly, most often by the "usual" teacher. So it was nice to get a class where the guest is allowed to proceed uninterrupted
You confuse respect with hormonic endused shyness.
and athiests don't do the same thing to thiests? I'm not trying to start an argument I'm just saying both sides like interrupting each other
"I believe in my religion because I was brought up this way." That right there sums up everything about religion. You would think people would start thinking for themselves as they got older, but nope. I'm glad Dawkins got to talk to this class. Some say he's pushing evolution on to these kids. Kind of, yes, but more than anything he is trying to explain what it is and how it works, and also to get these brainwashed teens to start thinking for themselves rather than spitting back what they have been indoctrinated to spit back. It's sad they have difficulty understanding even the simplest of explanations about evolution. *Sigh* It's really not that difficult at all. Species slowly change over time as they adapt to their environment as IT changes. See? Easiest explanation that even a 5 year old can understand. Thankfully I never had this problem. I've been an Atheist since I could recognize what religion was. Let me tell you, when I did, I hated it from the start. Hated the idea of it, and hated the thought of believing and bowing down to non-existent beings and dead people. *Shudders*
Im so glad im not an atheist because your religion "evolution" has to be the stupidest ever . You believe your god whom you call "nothing" created life & form in a poker game by pure chance ...
stiffex Evolution is not a religion you moron, neither is Atheism, though there ARE Atheists out there who act like it is, but we normal Atheists disregard them. Pure chance? Well, yes, technically speaking it WAS pure chance. Had the Earth not calmed down after forming and continued on being a volcanic planet, life never would have evolved as it is today. There are other planets out there that have been discovered that could easily support life, but we have no way of knowing with our limited technology at this point in time. Who's to say life never formed on THOSE planets? We don't know yet, but hopefully we will one day. And if life exists elsewhere in this universe, then all of religion will be debunked. Theists can't grasp the vastness of the universe. To the universe, we are but a speck of dust, nothing more. Why would a god even care about this small planet and the life on it when there is an entire universe with billions of other galaxies in its wake? If I were a god or goddess, I wouldn't give a shit about the human-named "Earth".
stiffex It's not belief if it's a proven fact (evolution is, look it up). Believing in an invisible man in the sky, like the late George Carlin said, is a belief. By the way, atheists do not 'believe' in the nonexistence of God, they simply don't see enough evidence for the theory your religion has put forth.
Koaster Kelli "evolution" is indeed a religion as it requires faith . Its built on assumptive reasoning ; you assume something happened to kick start it but you dont quite know what ; you assume it took "billions of years" but you dont quite know where those numbers came from ; you assume a Mud Skipper changed into a Comodo dragon but you dont quite know how : and you assume that Darwin is your high priest or your God but you dont quite know which ... And you cant prove any of it using the scientific method but you can prove it using the orthodox religious method of dogma...
stiffex You obviously have NO concept about what science is or what science does. I would never believe what a scientist says unless he or she had the proof to back it up with substantial evidence. I don't take scientists on their word alone, unlike what religion does. When a Theist is told something by a preacher or other figure head, they are told to believe it without having to provide proof or evidence for their claims, and gullible idiots actually believe it.
Amazing man, helped me get out of Christianity at 8/9 years old. I am now 27.
Look, I ain't exactly Christian either, but Richard can't be right on everything!
I would rather have Mr Dawkins tell me what makes sound sense than a bible bashing preacher telling me that the world is only 6,000 years old and created in 6 literal days.
2 Peter 3:8-9 reads: ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. Übersetzter Text We don't know how long it took God to create the earth, which we don't need to know to believe in him, for me God's proof is the miracles he performs in front of my eyes, like healing wounds in secunds.
look i aint exactly right about everything, but what is dawkins wrong on?@@ProjectCreativityGuy96
You can have both. You can understand science and practice Christian values without being a slave to religions, that always have an agenda
Prof Dawkins, you're a piece of poetry alive, so beautiful it is a great pleasure to be immersed in your talks.
“Good morning!” *begins immediately shattering their entire world*
Enda Dicksly ha ha it had to happen - needs to get to them even younger - I taught mine since he could talk there's no 'god' there's only science! (but don't say that in front of your nanny because she goes to church 3x a week and truly believes) he's 19 now and in college chemistry & physics and reinforces what I've always told him!!
Enda Dicksly If richard dawkins get possessed that would shatter him make no mistake about that he just has not got his turn yet
Mothman Adonai wot m8?
Enda look into malachi martin his a catholic priest who lost his life due to demonic forces back in July 27 1999 he was 78 years old type this in in you tube real secret diary of the exorcist true demonic events poltergies the video last 3:55 the channel is criptic shadows paranormal in that comment what herzen gaming has to say
Mothman Adonai oh honey that’s a bunch of horseshit i don’t believe in nonsense
"Look at the evidence, and if the evidence requires you to change your mind, change your mind. That's what I would do." - Richard Dawkins
@Steve Because mumbling to yourself to your imaginary friend is going to change his mind? Yeah, right.
@Steve Projecting much? You demonstrate that yourself by coming here and pretending you know everything about biology, more than an accomplished biologist. Who is really arrogant her?
@Steve This is the part where you, a nobody with obviously no scientific expertise, pretends to be on the education level of an accomplished biologist. And a douchebag on top of that. Its like your holy book tells you to be a douche to random people who are actually smarter than you. But keep going. I just need to quote idiots like you to show how arrogant, ignorant (about your own religion) and stupid believers are. You only make it worse with every comment :)
Well, he has no evidence, just theories. Dawkins admitted that himself.
@@pappycool dude, the evidence is so overwhelming that it _lead_to_ a theory. This means that the goal of scientists is to develop a good theory (which is an explanation of events based on evidence). No evidence = no theory. So please, by all means, fuck off.
Richard is an amazing teacher, instead of just dumping knowledge he built up curiosity without being competitive. Also the children were amazing too, very bright indeed.
Evolution is such a beautiful fact. I love it. It's so fascinating !
Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.
@@LB-ci8pz a scientific theory is defined as an explanation to an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and confirmed
All "facts" are approximations. There is lots of empirical evidence for evolution making it the most evidentially grounded explanation for life on earth. @@LB-ci8pz
@@LB-ci8pz "Evolution is just a theory? Well, so is gravity and I don't see you jumping out of buildings." -- Professor Richard Dawkins
i would like to meet this camera guy , i have questions .
Varun Goli we need to ask more than a question
looool
Lol
He is an example for the innate urge to reproduce the species, hence a proof of evolution.
the camera man has a theory of its own ...
Those kids are lucky. I would have loved to have been there with Richard Dawkins giving me a lecture on evolution.
I know right! Should contact him and tell him that your school is teaching that evolution is a lie, lol.
IfTheApocalypseComes BeepMe Sadly it isn't teaching me it's a lie, so I don't get Richard Dawkins. :(
Lucky brainwash?
***** You takin' the piss?
***** what as apposed to the girl saying I'm Christian because my parents are lol what the hell is that then , what choice did she have ? Get a life
Some of the kids are so open minded and bright, amazing. Such a great teacher.
Are you kidding me? These kids are some of the dumbest humans ive ever seen!
And one or two definitely not. But you never know for sure, put the cat amongst the pigeons at this age and things can happen by the time they reach 20.
What an unbelievably neutral, factual lecture. I love Dr. Dawkins. What a legend.
A goddamn gentleman and a scholar
„Do you think humans could go extinct“ Dawkins anweres with the greatest smile „yes that is quite likely“ xD great man
Well Rechtschreibung in Englisch ist nicht meine Stärke :)
Especially with the state of stupidity that then can be witnessed to have. Despite great technological prowesses. And the dangerous paradox is . Great power comes with great responsibility, but we are careless motherfuckers.
And thank goodness as mother earth can return to a better balance - we are the worst of the species
for the moment we are. I think we'll have to start taking measures to get better soon or we'll have no place to live. this could be seen as another stage of human evolution.
It is possible that there were many different intelligent beings that lived on earth for a million or so years than went extinct. We're just the newest intelligent life form on earth for now.
the camera man had a pint of vodka before they started.
nah man, he's pretty solid. its a good approach to teaching common sense. but for sure the camera man was out on the piss till 6 in the morning by the looks of it.
evolution is a fact. richard dawkins seems like an open minded, intelligent, caring type of person. i was making a stupid joke about the camera work. don't bother replying thanks.
***** Hello there, i don't know where to exactly begin to disprove you, but i'll just start with these few points. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory, it is however based on facts, furthermore saying it's been proven wrong doesn't prove it to be wrong, back up your arguments with facts from now on. "and most scientist KNOW IT" that would have to be a conspiracy of enormous proportions, are you really suggesting that scientist from all different countries and cultures are working together to push a "false" theory? Your argumentation for the modern evolutionary synthesis is just another obscure theory which little to none factual basis to it. And finally, providing two books written by a born-again Christian and a Creationist (two groups of people who provide very little basis to any argument they make) doesn't trump the overwhelming consensus of the majority of scientists around the world. Have a nice day.
***** Don't try to twist my words, evolution is based on evidence, the scientist present the evidence. When all the evidence points one way, then it's scientific truth. These are the simplified basics of science, something you don't seem to be familiar with.
***** Chance mutation does increase genetic information.Your point is not devastating because it is not correct. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
"May I remind you sir, that evolution is only a *theory* like gravity or the shape of the earth." -Dr. Banjo
Look how excited Dr Richard is. Amazing!!
The poor Muslim kid is struggling with cognitive dissonance. This was a good piece and those kids did well and seemed to try hard to understand and be open minded, and to understand how science works and religion works, and how they can be contradictory.
+James R what's the internet?
in short: Its when you are faced with something you know is truth, but reject it because it does not feed your viewes. When this happends everybody feels the same discomfort and thats cognitive dissonance. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Two of my best friends were atheists until they went to India and saw The sisters of Mother Teresa of Calcuta, giving their lifes to the poor and being as generous as they can. These two are mental geniuses and pretty intellectual scientists. They investigated about the saints and martyrs RCC has had. Then they witnessed an EXORCISM (wich atheists cannot explain, of course), and journeyed to Mexico to research the miracle of Virgin of Guadalupe (wich atheists havent explained yet, along with lots of other miracles). Right now, one of them studies aeronautical engineering at the same time he goes to nthe seminary and studies theology, to become one day a catholic priest. The other studies biogenetics engineering at South Korea (the best biogenetics college in the world) and hes seriously thinking of becoming a benedictin monk. THESE are the poeple that change the worlod. THESE are the people that truly believe in God and its supreme love. THESE are the truly happy people and the show that SCIENCE and FAITH are COMPLEMENTARY
+James R could u tell me how atheists respond to paranormal or miracles such as the virgin of Guadalupe ?
Yeah, we would ask for evidence. Not word-of-mouth evidence, but real, actual, facts. There is obviously none.
He did a good job not calling some of these kids idiots
Well fair enough. The kids didn’t call him an idiot.
@Hung Vu Why would they call him an idiot? Richard Dawkins is a surprisingly intelligent man. This was the first video I watched of him and I watched it until the end even if I planned to just switch in and out. I need to find more videos of him :)
Too bad the kids were surprisingly smarter than him :)
Eh? Did we watch the same video? :'-D
Because they aren't idiots, they just don't know and they're showing interest and asking, wanting to know more. he's smart enough to respect people like them.
It is to the school's credit that one of Britain's more esteemed scientists was asked to present to this classroom. Dawkins remained composed and enthusiastic through much of the discussion. His exasperation was evident here and there. It has been many years since I was in high school. But, I think it is safe to say that he would have encountered similar reactions. Sure, the Scientific Method was a major topic in our science classes. But truly fathoming the power of that process of discovery is difficult for some folks. In the end it's all about "Show me the Evidence". What is proved, what is not. To what conclusions does the accumulated evidence point.
Remained composed...:)) Thang God! He rarely does.
@@Shaara1He was incredibly gentle but constantly challenging their misconceptions. A perfect teacher.
@@rosalind1635 Maybe a good teacher to some but he is narrow minded and limited. That's what frustrates him so much.
@@Shaara1 narrow minded and limited, eh? How so?
@@rosalind1635 He doesn't accept anything that he doesn't understand. Like religion. What's more he is very offensive towards religions andceach time he opens his mouth, he doesn't even deny his bitterness. He craves to understand ( not believe) what's this all about but he is incapable. So he attacks.
What an outstanding video showing Dawkins speaking respectfully and genuinely to people open to learning. His other videos of rediculous hardheaded adults always brings out his frustration, rightfully so.
"The Universe doesn't owe us any meaning". Love that :)
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson said "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us." and I wholly agree. The universe contains things that exceed our senses. There's infrared light and ultraviolet radiation that we cannot see or feel, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We just don't have the senses to detect it. That's why we invented tools (through science) to see these things and prove they exist.
tell Neil that's what the bible is for
We are just a living conciouss organism in a bigger pool of living organisms. We just do not have the capacity to understand 100% fully much beyond our atmosphere. The Universe maintains us not us to it.
Yup, I believe that’s a sort of take on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s quote saying the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you, however Niels quote accurately explains that just because something doesn’t make sense right now doesn’t mean it isn’t real, Dawkins realizes this is a pretty good argument for the possibility of God so chooses a more reductionist type quote.
Those bible editors were very wise men, but not very educated. They also should have left out the magic creation parts, Noah's flood story, etc. The religionists of today would be in a much better position. It has little future left to it, by picking a fight with scientific research and modern tools of detection. Religion is a way for some to a happy fulfilment, but nothing else. The only connection it has to the scientific world is with psychology. (which, by the way, televangelists understand far too much of- lol)
I just love the looks on some of their faces "holy shit this actually makes sense."
+dylan plantenga I'm assuming you're one of the 860 people who had a negative reaction to this video.
+Gore1NOT1Core Love the look on Richard's face too "SHIT I BETTER BS MY WAY OUTTA HERE!!!!!"
What part of his lecture BS?
All of it...as usual...I am a scientist...not religious...at all... god does not exist...religion means nothing...this video is staged....like the charade debates vs Lane..Deepak..etc. Dawkins...stopped being a scientist...40 years ago...he is totally outdated...he lies..defends Darwin...who has been proven mostly wrong by modern science..evolution is now science law...since the 1980 s...a new version...there is nothing to discuss...to debate...evolution....natural selection..the new law...is undeniable...no school invites charlatan Dawkins to lecture...only... religious students about Darwin...that is ridiculous... ...just like inviting charlatan Lane...to lecture...only...atheist...students.. no school does that either... every high school teaches science..evolution..the new version..it is science law...the students can see it in the lab...it is undeniable...there is nothing to discuss...it is real...just like 2+2 = 4... Evolution...natural selection...does not explain...origin...of the universe or life...no one has a clue...about origin...most scientists...Einstein...Sagan..Hawking...believed in the Spinoza s version...so do I..the only reason..able explanation..is some kind of creation...no god...the bible is nonsense...what created it? How? ...no clue... All my closest friends are avid atheists...they despise Dawkins...who is a snake oil salesman..a fiction writer...a charade debater...a liar...for greed...he does not care about science or atheism...at all..he makes a mockery out of both for greed..fame and money... just like...Lane lies...to sell BS books...
Hmm, fair enough.
As someone who grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness I can see so many “arguments” that I was taught as a child. Luckily I matured and stop believing in the fairy tales. I’d love to talk to these kids now and see what they believe now.
Hey, I also grew up as a Jehovahs Witness. One of the things that I just didn’t understand was the rule about blood transfusion. Pretty crazy right?
Wow, those kid’s Parents have done such a great job of indoctrination into thinking like their Parents and believing what their Parents believe - hopefully when these kids get to Tertiary Education they actually may to start thinking for themselves, challenge what they were told and to open their eyes to the wonderful world of Science and Learning 👏👏👏👌👌
I hope youre joking
@@TheSlovakaWillReviveI think exactly the same thing. They all need to attend classes on critical thinking in order that they start to question everything they were led to believe. There is no greater barrier to learning than closed minds.
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairytale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
Evolution is such a beautiful beautiful thing!!.... wow...
+Sriram Prasath So are the incredibly complex set of ABSTRACT laws that prescribe how life changes (evolution). But alas in an all materialistic world where mindless matter is the only game in town, immaterial laws of science and logic don't exist. Then of course u have the advanced math that we have recently discovered that is the foundation of such laws. Deluded atheists will retort that such laws were invented but we all know that's not true, don't we? So what is the only explanation for the metaphysical concepts that define the natural world? Did such laws pre-exists matter or did matter invent such laws and bring itself into existence. I have a much more plausible explanation. Care to guess?
Truth Sayer I believe that matter and consiousness have a common foundation, the nature of which we are not yet aware of. I also do believe that the modern scientific method is insufficient to understand the cosmos as a whole, I believe that it becomes complete only with a subjective introspection, asking the question, "who am I?" Because of a very simple fact, where did the most beautiful theories of modern science, art, poetry, mathematics and all that we call as the achievements of modern science and arts came from? They all came from within. It came from inside this mysterious thing that we call intelligence. We all have it, it seems to exist everywhere and that is also seemingly responsible for what we call evolution! There are hints all over the place implying at something extraordinary at work here. When we discover that I really think it will be something staggering!
+Sriram Prasath EVOLUTION? what is evolution? evolve from what? and from the very first cell you can identify to be the ancestral entity of everything, I will still ask the question, "who created that"?...... creationism (as a word, icon, concept, fact) is something you'll never take away your own private vocabulary... guarantee it...
+Sriram Prasath very well written Agree 100%
+oadnrtyo thumbs up for "If only you were asking these questions to actually learn something."
@31:20 ‘that’s a very satisfied position to be in’ on just believing something because you are brought up to believe in it 😂. Hilarious answer! Bravo Dawkins and rational thought.
I must remember that phrase :-)
Great lecture by Dawkins and I have to give it to the students for asking excellent questions
Hes so patient with them holy moly
Right?! Blows my mind. I have read all his books and seen countless debates and lectures and I'm slightly disappointed that in a lot of cases here he didn't give much, much better explantations that I've seen him give in the past that would've done a much better job in helping them see the reality of Evolution. Also, the fact that he didn't explain the two definitions of the word "theory" (the basic definition used in everyday life, and the scientific definition which scientists use that had a completely different meaning) as I've seen him do so eloquently really bothered me.
I am not opposed to evolution being taught in any circle, religious or not, but I have yet to hear a plausible explanation from any atheist as to how evolution somehow rules out the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer such as God. Would you mind explaining?
Forget about religion, I am speaking about the existence of an Intelligent Designer that correlates with the complex and intricate design of our Universe, and also the complex process which is evolution. I hear people tell me, evolution is a 'guided process,' by what or by who I ask? The fact that it was guided seems like something people like Richard Dawkins and others who are so certain that God or a Designer doesn't exist take for granted, for because we understand something scientifically, therefore God is not a plausible explanation. My question is what if this God or Designer wanted us to understand how His Creation works and science was His method for understanding both the design and the designer?
Patience is key
you mean, the students are so patient listening to this bag of hot air
Imagine going to a High School where in your classes your Biology class teacher is Dawkins, and in Physics your teacher is Krauss and in Philosophy and Literature Hitchens.
Skeletor Master I want Sam Harris too! What should he teach?
Ray Zhong maybe philosophy! I don’t know there is no neuroscience in high school.
Skeletor Master I wish
That brought a single tear to my eye.
Skeletor Master how can a corpse teach🤔
Kudos to Darwin for his life's work and efforts.
i dont think ive ever seen dawkins smile before. what a great video
Why are people calling the young man at the back with the glasses a moron? He's asking questions, doubting evolution because he hasn't seen the evidence for himself. I would. But he's asking questions he is looking for guidance and I think he'll get there. Stop judging children on their lack of rational objectivity in comparison to a grown adult. Kids on religion are running on Windows BC you can't expect them to run up to date software. It will take time.
the thing is why they dont even ask one question about religion?they can think countless questions to contradict evolution and ask for evidence about anything.when it comes to religion they swallow it without a question and they dont look for evidence.they just believe it.santa claus for kids and religions for the big kids.people love fairytales.
Because they have never been asked to do so. They have never been asked to think about their own idea. I have been brought up to make my own decisions (also about religion), so for me this led to learning about everything. I was given a choice at the age of communion, as I live in a christian country and went to a christian school, if I wanted to get baptised and join for that event, a choice given to me by my christian parents. They told me not to think about the presents people would get, as I would get a present from them as well (I did not get any from the rest of the family though :P). I chose not to get baptised. I had heard the stories during our "catholic classes", but these did not seem far different to me than the fairy tales I had heard from theme parks and my bedtime stories. Now if the only thing I had heard was the stories of that religion and the choice of me joining the religion had been made for me, I would not know how I would have grown up. I hope I would still come to the same conclusions as I have now, as my schools from 12y+ have been very scientific, but I am not certain if something like that could cure indoctrination on that young age. It is actually good that this boy/man asks these questions, as it seems others are just hesitant to ask them. Remember this is a religious school, the only reason they know about evolution (in the school) is because it is mandatory (as the woman/girl says, when asking about a test). That the school has to tell them about it, does not mean they tell them everything or that it is fact. They may tell what is mandatory and then tell how religion explains it.
Because the questions he asks are stupid to begin with. Certainly at his age they are.
@Superfly gaming I agree. I was the kid that sat in the back of the room and did not participate because I did not believe in evolution until I was forced to come to terms with the facts far later in life. The fact that he is willing to SAY something is so much better then sitting and doubting in silence.
Superfly Gaming respect ✌️
I’m impressed with how RD is with the children - not talking down, not snobby - being open and encouraging discussion.
@Brazilian Goddess I wouldn’t call that brain washing. I happen to believe in creation (and the Creator) myself, but I still think RD is being decent with these kids
@@followme8238 well you have to say, its rather curious how everyone out of the middle east becomes muslim, and everyone out of south america becomes christian. when they are not brain washed to believe in a certain type of religion.
@@edofluit6568 culture isn’t brainwashing and ‘everyone’ isn’t everyone. Sure, there are norms, but plenty of deviations, plenty of people that were raised in one religion and changed or became atheist.
@@followme8238 People can find themselves out of brainwashing it's just very hard. Also you can have a mass brainwashing at the cultural level and religion is just that. As a person who use to be Christian I would put it in the category of cultural mass induced brainwashing.
@@followme8238 Of course it is brainwashing. If your entire view about the world, in many different aspects, all arise from the culture around you, rather than empirical evidence, then that's the people around brainwashing you to their unsupported world view by definition.
His kindness always shines through.
In the words of the great educator/administrator Ed Rooney, "I weep for the future."
it makes me sad to see so many kids who have wasted almost all of their lives believing in bs
and studied bs too
Almost all their lives? They're 15! Loads of time to change their beliefs. Hell, it would be downright weird if they had all the same beliefs in ten years.
J-Star-Roar they have lived for 15 years,so if they had been dealing with this bs from age 5,then yes it's almost all their lives
Saurav Vinod Oh right. I thought you were implying that by age 15 you have nearly all your life, and was picturing you sacrificing everyone over 18 like goats or something. BUt yeah, that makes sense now.
J-Star-Roar 😂😂😂😂where did THAT thought come from
At minute 32, approximately, Richard looks troubled -- he's debating internally whether to remain polite with these children or to shatter their entire world view.
@RUSSIAN ROBOT thanks for your wonderful, and well thought out input. I'll be sure to contemplate your profound word on a regular basis.
@@generalcomments1239 The brainwashing of religion is hard and I have a firsthand experience
@@yashamaga1319 what did he say lol?
Brilliant lecture and very balanced for kids without hurting sentiments. What young people, especially, cannot comprehend is the 3,000,000,000 years of evolution on earth. Its a very long time, even when i speak with adults, time and distance and numbers are not fathomable from an Universe perspective, unless one self reflects. But, the kids did a great job and, I hope, some will walk away into a new thinking avenue.
We like to think that everything in the universe revolves around us Except, we exist merely as a quirk of matter after unimaginable natural processes
For people criticizing the cameraman. Its ok to be a novice and to take risk especially as this ia filmes likely by a student. I get what they are going for. Its the modern mockumentey office style and its also likely they wanted to do both a cut up high video and also show the whole discussion. But they only have one camera and one operator. I actuay dont mind cause its unedited raw footage and this is what that looks like.
I wish I was in that classroom!
Wagner Rocha so did I. Unfortunately it if too late to undo the damage Dawkins has done as it was filmed in 2008 and those kids have long left school, but it would have been nice to pick him apart.
fourteatwo where would you start?
fourteatwo WTF? I'm on his side..... I'm a MILITANT atheist. Religion is a joke.
fourteatwo Telling kids to think for themselves, and look at evidence as apposed to believing fairy tails they were brought up to believe is somehow damaging to them? lmfao
TheChronoGamer He does not understand science and creates a conflict between science and religion because of his lack of a worldview. We are programmed to believe and to trust in the absence of proof which is what faith is about. Otherwise we could not survive. To let a fundamentalist like Dawkins teach will only alienate them from science.
Too bad that the more intelligent, educated and successful a person become, the less likely they are to want children. In the meanwhile, the high-school drop-out dopesmokers have eight children with eight baby-mamas.
+oadnrtyo it's not really natural selection, it is more like an instinct. in the wild, powerless people are more likly to have a baby because the baby is less likely to live. vise versa for powerfull people.
+oadnrtyo well, idk. I think that powerless people reproduce more in hope to produce a powerful baby trough natural selection. but if the baby is born on powerfull parents, then selection process does not exist.
+Fucoc Heyyyy... I'M a dope-smoker, and I'm neither a dropout NOR do I have an absurdly large litter of offspring (in fact, I don't have any children - I had enough damned sense to be more careful than that). I also happen to be VERY knowledgeable about physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, environmental biology, ecology, geology, climatology, philosophy, psychology, and many other scientific topics - mostly all self-taught. So, please, don't just go bagging on us pot-heads as though we're all the same.
+oadnrtyo I'd like to think that intelligent people realize that the human race is massively overpopulating the earth, which is another reason not to produce more offspring.
+Schuyler Pablico _"I think that powerless people reproduce more in hope to produce a powerful baby trough natural selection. but if the baby is born on powerfull parents, then selection process does not exist."_ Eh... you don't actually understand what natural selection is. It is a logically necessary consequence of reproduction with variation in a system where not everything survives. It applies to everyone. Whether they're "powerless" or "powerful" has essentially nothing to do with it all, because what matters is if the offspring survives and manages to breed. That is what's defined as being naturally selected. And it obviously applies to "powerful" people as well. If a "powerful" person doesn't breed for whatever reason, his genes have been naturally selected against.
These kids dont know how lucky they are to be taught by dawkins, my goodness what i would do to get a lesson from him man has years of knowledge inside him
truly amazing camera work
seeing dawkins speak gives me goosebumps, its like listening to an orchestra he's so collected and professional, so sharp and quick, my god what a marvellous man!
That's definitely true, I just want to be like him
and then you hear the kid say I believe my book is stronger evidence then you get angry.
+David Parks i never get angry during a discussion people are free to believe whatever they want, i have no buisness in that but i think everyone should look at everyone elses perspective i have researched and studied evolution and taken a university course on the matter but at the same time i am currently reading all the holy books of the Abrahamic religions the torah, bible and quran
TROOLY these kids were brainwashed by their parents. they didn't choose to believe this they have had no education otherwise.
+David Parks yeah and i think that's wrong on the parents behalf and we should show them that they can look into other things but the trap of religion is that from a young age you're told that if you question your own beliefs or leave your beliefs then you will burn for eternity not only is this traumatizing for children but it makes them unwilling to ask questions or to doubt out of fear hopefully they grow up and realize that there are enough contradictions and gaps in their beliefs that they will have the strength to question an imaginary authority
Possibly the luckiest science class ever.. Wish we had lectures from dawkins.
Poor kids, millions of universes? The earth is flat my friend, there isn't even one universe because the earth has a firmament you delusional.
Evolution does not explain a soul or consciousness.
A soul? We have a soul ..?
Yes sir.
@@gabrules2003 seriously?
I don’t blame the kids. Responsibility is on the adults.
this was the camera man's first and only job
I wish this were true.
He decided that a classroom-lecture would be a perfect place to get a bit post-modern
This is pretty much how it went, "so how does, like, taking umm, 2 + 2, does that equal, well, 5?" Dawkins: "hmmm anybody got an answer for that? No, no one? Well may i propose that it equals 4?" Student:" well i mean the bible says it is 5, and it being four is kind of hard for me to understand, so i choose to believe that it is 5." Dawkins:" Well if I took two rocks, and added them to another two rocks, we can count them up and get 4." "Well, that is just a theory and i believe what i want to believe and how does god fit into that? Surely you can't actually believe 2 plus 2 is 4." "Well some of you think it is 5, others 6, so what makes one better than the other?" "But if you have half a 2 then how can you get four?" "Anyone got an answer? No?
this was easily the funniest thing I read all day
OMG. I laughed so much :D Brilliant.
+Clash Playa Exactly.
+steveninthe We do. You just sound like those people claiming that the Earth is flat. Of course we know. It's a theory that is based on thousands of papers, tens of thousands hours spend on research. There's no scientist claiming otherwise nowadays, because it was tested and backed up so many times. Or do you have anything better than that? A new theory that could possibly compete with this one? You want mountains and mountains of evidence when it comes to science, but when it comes to faith? God? There's none. NONE. And you just believe it.
What should I continue trying? And what premise are you talking about? Rest of what? Rest of the theory? On falsehood? Why should it be?
It makes me happy that there are so many science lovers in the comments.
"that's a very satisfied position to be in" 😅
Well I assume he was looking to give the students views of what the answers to their questions 'could' be providing an alternative to the religious answers they've been provided. The girl asserted very confidently that she has limited herself to the latter answer and thus finds herself at a satisifying position and no doubts to be answered.
@@aaryanairy756 I see it as a rather brilliant way to dismiss someone
This camera person needs to calm down. They're jumping around like a cricket.
he thinks he's cinematic and shit lol
LOL
no you fucktards. you try and cover a 360 scene with one camera without cuts. Man did a solid job.
Chill out lol
+Brotmaschine08 just put the camera down and leave it, why do i need to see a kids face if i can hear the question
I can't believe I used to be like those students.
It's never too late to join the rational side....
...
Eta Carinae it's funny how you guys say " rational" What's rational about the idea that all life came from a single cell that impossibly/ supposedly existed?
Look up the RNA world theory
Josiah Cruz How can single celled organisms be impossible if they exist today by the billions.
I think the biggest thing in science on theorys is that it's the highest distinguish available for scientific ideas that have all of the experimental evidence backing them up. If you called "the theory of relativity" "The fact of relativity" that would kind of put the brakes on finding new evidence that could disprove "The fact of relativity". Certainties have no place in science. Science is the pursuit of truth, you need to be willing to follow the evidence rather than what you wish to believe.
Amazing lecture
"Any idea why we were born with two kidneys?" "So God could allow us to help other people" I legit laughed out loud
It was on the same par as "the bananer fits yer hand, therefore GAWD exists"
Then I would ask “why did god create diseases if he created everything u dumbfuck” xD
I could hear Dawkins screaming internally XD "Pull yourself together Richard, you can do this"
Man, that kid was creepy
Yes, I'm sure that's what the kid was doing....
There would have been a spicy parent-teacher meeting after this
Only in America. The UK is more enlightened.
@@Brakdayton basically the whole rest of the civilized world is more enlightened than the US
@@Brakdayton Wouldn't call letting an imbecile speak is "enlightened" tbh
@Memento Mori, would you mind not commenting then please?
@@blueroombass No.
We are constantly evolving
Why is such a poor state of education allowed to exist in the developed world?
yeah, they shouldn't be making comments these ill educated idiots
And this is in the UK which is far less religious than somewhere like the US.
LOL, so now teaching children science is bad, but teaching them fairy tales is good, grow up, you need to graduate Pre-K!
yep...and hideous isn't it, and these children are the real 'victims' of religion....being lied to, denied truths,facts,reality
(My bad, this is from the UK :]]] ) Because of conservatism in the United States. The US was founded on specific dogmas, principles such as Christianity.
I wish he would have specified the difference between a scientific theory and the world in the colloquial sense.
word I meant, not world.
Tan But in society, a theory is genuinely used to mean "a guess" or a "hunch", so people get confused when scientific theories actually mean a body of evidence that support some form of model.
Tan Ya except thats not the way they use it. Alot of people seem to be fuzzy on this. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiment and observation. The way they use or think of the word theory is pretty much just a guess, or a good guess. A scientific theory is fact supported and a reliable account of the real world. You said that it can be contradicted and that's true when it comes to a theory, by definition, because of that word. However the theory of evolution is not something that is going to be completely contradicted. It's just not because we have to much evidence that is fact, and a contradiction would would mean that those facts weren't facts but they actually are. For instance the polio vaccine and countless other vaccines couldn't have been created if it weren't for using the principles of evolutionary theory, but they were and they do exist. One thing that makes something a scientific theory is the ability to make correct predictions using the model, which is further evidence of its validity. Like a math formula. If the math formula weren't correct then we couldn't get an answer or equation that just wouldn't work but we know when using that particular formula that the answer will be accurate everytime. That's how concrete it is. Also for the theory of evolution to be 'wrong' or contradicted that would mean pretty much everything we know about genetics is wrong. Which again just isn't going to happen and can't for the same reason. So unfortunately using the word theory in science can confuse people, especially those who don't know much about it. The reason they actually use that word is because in science they don't deal in absolutes, they deal in facts, for the specific purpose of leaving room for more to add and yes to be contradicted however if someone is truly educated on the matter they would know that wouldn't happen with the theory of evolution for the reasons I already listed. So what I mean is that more scientists like Dawkins need to start with explaining the difference between theory and scientific theory AND then explain why they do use that word in science coupled with how strong the evidence for it is. Because my original point as that the word theory gives an impression that is inconsistent with the nature of this particular theory.
Tan Ya except thats not the way they use it. Alot of people seem to be fuzzy on this. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiment and observation. The way they use or think of the word theory is pretty much just a guess, or a good guess. A scientific theory is fact supported and a reliable account of the real world. You said that it can be contradicted and that's true when it comes to a theory, by definition, because of that word. However the theory of evolution is not something that is going to be completely contradicted. It's just not because we have to much evidence that is fact, and a contradiction would would mean that those facts weren't facts but they actually are. For instance the polio vaccine and countless other vaccines couldn't have been created if it weren't for using the principles of evolutionary theory, but they were and they do exist. One thing that makes something a scientific theory is the ability to make correct predictions using the model, which is further evidence of its validity. Like a math formula. If the math formula weren't correct then we couldn't get an answer or equation that just wouldn't work but we know when using that particular formula that the answer will be accurate everytime. That's how concrete it is. Also for the theory of evolution to be 'wrong' or contradicted that would mean pretty much everything we know about genetics is wrong. Which again just isn't going to happen and can't for the same reason. So unfortunately using the word theory in science can confuse people, especially those who don't know much about it. The reason they actually use that word is because in science they don't deal in absolutes, they deal in facts, for the specific purpose of leaving room for more to add and yes to be contradicted however if someone is truly educated on the matter they would know that wouldn't happen with the theory of evolution for the reasons I already listed. So what I mean is that more scientists like Dawkins need to start with explaining the difference between theory and scientific theory AND then explain why they do use that word in science coupled with how strong the evidence for it is. Because my original point as that the word theory gives an impression that is inconsistent with the nature of this particular theory.
Tan . However , ' evolution ' has ,and is continually being proven valid ! 100 years from now ,the previous sentence will be just as true as today .
People have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a “theory” is. It is not a hypothesis, it is am explanation that has been rigorously tested and supported by data
As an aspiring science teacher, I hope to one day explain evolution as clear as Richard Dawkins.
I know about the concept of evolution, but it still doesn't stop Me from being worried that this could possibly be the biggest lie ever told!!! Satan is a great Liar, always remember that, and He's happy when people like Dawkins advocate on His behalf, just so people of important faith can be destroyed and won't enter the gate of Heaven! It's like showing up to a person's house drunk, You chose to drink, but obviously that person isn't going to let You into their house, are they?
"Satan" is just another ridiculous make-believe character creationists invoke when they can't back up any of their 🐂💩
@@ProjectCreativityGuy96 If you're worried about that, you might as well be worried that the bible is a secret lie from Satan. Because wouldn't that be clever, to spread lies disguised as the "word of God"?
Richard is really enjoying himself when he tells about evolution
endermelle of course, who doesn't like being able to educate young kids, it's a great feeling.
Especially when it is about the field one specialises in. (One day...I could be just as enthusiastic as him when I tell kids about quantum mechanics...)
Its his fetish
Hahaha
endermelle This is what he does for fun.
why people say "it's just a theory"??! fucking hate it. they first need to understand what a scientific theory really is.
Because it is a theory, but what a lot of people don't understand is that a scientific theory is very different from your everyday theory. A scientific theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."
Well a theory *is* a story, it explains how and why things happen, but it also has the evidence to back it up.
Nasir U Urm... Evolution is a theory
Nasir U if you think scientific theories are stories you need to go back to school... That's just sad.
Nasir U well there's plenty of evidence. I'm no biologist so I can't give you many examples but one classic example is the forelimbs of dogs, humans, birds and whales which is all present showing that we had a common ancestor long ago as it would be highly unlikely for separate species to have a similar bone structure.
What I wouldn't have given to be taught evolution at school by Richard Dawkins!
What Dawkins was actually teaching was critical thinking, using evolution as an example.
I dont think hes right tho 😂
@@devilvocano420 of course u don't because you're too dumb to understand this
@@devilvocano420 doesn't matter what you think, firstly no one even fkn asked you and secondly facts don't give a shit about your feelings.
Religion teaches people what to think, a decent upbringing teaches people how to think.
@@devilvocano420what's your explanation?
Students stating: “It’s just a theory and not fact” makes me seriously doubt an education system.
Well if Dawkins was smart, he would have said evolution is a fact, we all change though adaption or reproduction, but how life originated is a theory, don't think most people know this difference.
Nick Sarbu : There is no such thing as a Scientific fact. Everything is up for change all the time, this is science’s strength. In science theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially but they will forever be a theory. A well established theory is the pinnacle of science. For Abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life) on the other hand we have several hypothesis, but non have a big enough body of evidence behind them to be called a theory yet. This is what these students should be taught imho.
Its more than a theory its a religion masquerading itself as science. Dawkins says all this stuff with no factual concrete evidence, this is science fiction and he has great faith. He's a wonderful.preachers. He's not genisus! He's made natural selection over powered. I know the works of Charles Darwin. If he were alive he most honest and a theist complete. I feel bad how embarrassed Dawkins would stand before me. Anatomy and Physiology of mammals displays were where created as a mature creation many multiple organs needed for the life of us. Removal of one single organ isn't just a less life but death. Dawkins has swelling words, proclaims things fsctually. Micro evolution is true his fiction of macro evolution is where he errors, neither does science support. But some think he's smart in till light out shines him and we see how dim his light really is. Sources: all about god.com. KZhead god vs evolution. Or the atheist delusion! Love ya bro
Paul Carlo : You indeed can’t simply take an organ out of any organism alive today as it may well result in death, you are right. But tell me what is your proof that earlier precursors of today’s life couldn’t very well have functioned with a more primitive version of that organ or without that organ altogether if one goes far enough back in time? Also as www.allaboutgod.com is not a Scientific paper and it does not want to hold it’s own assumptions and beliefs of the great creator up to compare it with evidence we can hardly say we’re on equal grounds here. I wish you the best with your beliefs which comfort you and give you purpose in life, but I’m afraid I’ll never share them. Cheers
@@LoveDoctorNL Earlier primitive life forms, exactly you no nothing about neither Dawkins! Our life form could lessen by removal of these parts its pure death. And I sat and listen to many of Dawkins arguments weather I like him or not. That's why I recommend allaboutgod.com because its another view made by doctors that table a million evolutionary subjects. My case is undeniably science and there no stronger evidence!
So great. Glad the school allowed it. That was brave.
I’ve never heard an assertion against the evidence of evolution that doesn’t pose a greater misunderstanding than argument
Nicely put.