The Purpose of Purpose (Lecture)

Ratings: 8.39/10 from 28 users.


The Purpose of Purpose: Richard Dawkins (Lecture)Prof. Dawkins titled his talk as The Purpose of Purpose and began with an anecdote of Peter Atkins being asked by one of the Royal Family, But what about the why questions?, and Atkins replying, That is a silly question.

Dawkins noted that asking why for inanimate objects like air or rocks is almost always considered inappropriate. But asking why living organisms are seems to often have been done in the past.

He noted a number of amusing instances, such as claims that domestic animals provide a means to keep their meat fresh until we have need to eat them, lice were a strong incentive to personal cleanliness, large predators allowed hunters to test their courage, and horseflies encouraged industry and the use of wits in combating them.

This mindset persists to this day, said Dawkins, popping up the Ray Comfort banana video, which got an especially large dollop of audience laughter with Comfort’s assertion that the banana has just the right shape to fit in the human mouth.

Dawkins noted that, unfortunately, the video was not simply a joke. Comfort apparently has offered to give Dawkins $10,000 to debate Comfort. Dawkins responded saying that he would take Comfort up on that only if Comfort donated $100K to Dawkins' new foundation.

Then Dawkins compared the modern, domesticated version of the banana to the fruit of the wild banana, showing that many of the properties that Comfort was ascribing to God's design were actually choices made in artificial selection by humans.

More great documentaries

215 Comments / User Reviews

  1. pkunzip

    I effin' love Richard Dawkins! He is the Chuck Norris of religious debate. Although, must be sooo frustrating for him, trying to have reasonable debates with ignorant religious fools. I can only handle a couple of them every once in a beer, but he tries to get through to the general public and liberate them from the brainwashing of their tutors.

    I'd rather pray to Richard Dawkins than God at the moment, he seems the more plausible of the two ;)

  2. ChristopherC

    lol @ obama being compared to dawkins at the beginning. Bet that wont happen now.

  3. Achems_Razor

    Great doc. You heard it here first, Dawkins said "wingnuts" about the banana guy, so will use it in conjunction with my religee's. lol

  4. Guest

    This man is such a breath of fresh air across the landscape of madness, stupidity, and ignorance that is (too often, currently) still America. I enjoyed every minute of this tremendously, and wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone. For believers, it ought to give you some things to think about, and for the rational, will be as comfortable as slipping into an old pair of shoes.

  5. Robin Clarke

    Richard Dawkins certainly has my vote. For what ? This may or may not be too complicated for you pkunzip to appreciate, but definitely far too time consuming to risk that bet. Although I would certainly like you become more intelligent as I would like myself to become, because I believe true intellect can only benefit. So ask your God, Richard Dawkins what (not why) came first; the chicken or the egg. Now don't be confused, I am not trying to be funny or clever here, as I realize we've all heard that baffling question before, and don't be led to think it is only one in a long line of cute little unanswerable quizzes. It's answer (or non-answer) is a necessary step for your admission into the realm of plausibility. Should you ever REALLY like to know, then I would be glad to explain why water is wet; Although I'll leave the chicken-egg answer up to him. You just may be surprised. -Thank You for reading.

  6. Guest

    Why, the chicken came first, of course, because we require eggs for sustenance (afterwards, we eat the chicken, as well, and the whole question becomes moot). And water is "wet" (or "mouille"; or "basah") because we require soap to lather for the showers we need; just as "the nose was made for spectacles, and the legs for breeches."

    Moving on...

  7. Achems_Razor

    Don't have to ask any gods about the chicken or egg thingy,
    any school boy or girl should know that the egg and chicken coexist in a quantum superposition state, in flux so to speak, until someone asks which came first.

    Then the quantum superposition state collapses and leaves one of the two possibilities that of course will depend on the observer that is observing and collapsing the waveform, very simple really. So the answer is both the chicken and the egg came first, but as in quantum, not both at the same time. Re the double slit experiment.

  8. Guest

    And what is absolutely certain right now is that neither originated in the "Garden of Eden." (Just in case that was going to constitute the substance of some argument.)

  9. Matt Kukowski

    Also check out.

    Alan Watts
    Neil Degrass Tyson
    Richard Feynman
    Terance McKenna

    All these men are superb public speakers of reason.

  10. jonathan jackward

    how do you explain the double slot test?

  11. knowledgeizpower

    Terence McKenna :) he would talk you through the whole experiences of LSD and DMT yeah I like his speaking lol, that dude the way he explains things hell it makes me want to try DMT at least once but I'm skeptical I know you're body already produces it. But anyway this is not a Doc about hallucinogens back to the subject.

  12. Guest

    Don't you do it, girl...

  13. knowledgeizpower

    @Pysmythe LOL...why? its that deep huh? I have not tried lsd either but.. just listening to different explanations about dmt like as far as the spiritual aspect from the way its explained its like hmmm you know?

  14. Guest

    Well...This is a bit of a tough one, but I do know a little something about it. The thing is, it's always a crapshoot, and these powerful drugs might affect you very adversely, depending on how your brain is physically wired, as much, if not more, as your psychological makeup, or your mood at the time you take them. And there's really no way to have any idea of a bad susceptibility without accepting the risk and taking a throw, and I just don't think it's worth it. I never did DMT, but I took a number of acid-trips (maybe 20, I guess), and out of them all, I'd say I had maybe 2 good ones...

    If you really need to open the doors of perception chemically, you're much better off sticking with herb, or an occasional drink, imo.

  15. knowledgeizpower

    @Pysmythe Hmm..dang like that percentage as far as like your experience with lsd 2 out of 20 dude thats.. hell thats not successful :0 I'm not an herb smoker drink occasionally yes..umm so basically i should just stick to my nerd self and say no to drugs huh lol.. powerful stuff like that trying to take that spiritual journey with dmt it probably would be too much for me i suppose. I feel you thanks dude.

  16. Guest

    I don't smoke herb anymore, myself, not for many years. But...when you mentioned not having tried LSD, I guess I took it to mean you had tried other things. Clean is definitely better, and, in fact, I don't drink, either, except on very rare occasions.

  17. knowledgeizpower

    @Pysmythe yes I did inhale herb before lol..Most of us have had some kind of experience with herb at some point in their life it happens nerds too:P But yes i so so agree clean is the BEST thing. But as far as prescribed meds now like hydrocodones for chronic pain and for depression xanax, those are the things I have experience with legally by doctors..umm as far as that now i really went thru this thing where I wanted to stop I wanted to cleanse myself from these chemicals in my body because the more you take something the more dependent your body gets to them i just didn't want to need them anymore. i stopped and it was seriously the hardest damn thing dealing with the far as hallucinogens like lsd would that chemically affect your brain the same way as like psychotropics such as xanax and stuff i mean i know its stronger? The reason why the dmt was so interesting to me is for a spiritual reasoning if you can understand what i'm saying?
    @Pysmythe Really? So yeah You know how it is! I wouldn't wish that crap on anyone! But umm yeah thats why I said I was skeptical I don't want that feeling you know? but omg lol don't you feel like this is a therapy moment we're "Sharing" i can't believe this :p okay thanks for your advice kay peace

  18. Guest

    Lercture makes it sound like lurkture.

  19. branrx

    Athiesm.. Just another damn religeon. If you love Dawkins, guess what cult you belong too.

    For all the great documentaries on TDF that show everything is an illusion and we dont know s*** about s***, you guys should realize Dawkins isnt any more special than anyone else in terms of what is and isnt.

  20. Guest

    Yeah, I think I understand... Have yourself a couple of drinks and read The Doors of Perception, by Aldous Huxley, if you haven't already. In it, he talks about his spiritual experiences with mescaline very eloquently, and you can take the trip with him safely, lol.

    (Years ago, I also had to withdraw from Xanax, and I know how really awful that one is, at least. I sympathize, believe me!)

    [I don't think you can become physically dependent on hallucinogens...Not that I ever heard, anyway.]

  21. knowledgeizpower

    Lol, an Eloquently Safe Trip Indeed :P Cheers to That.

  22. SB

    Ah hem, B.S.

  23. Jimnal

    that was darwin... but im sure you knew that.

  24. Petar Vitanovich

    DMT, LSD, and any other hallucinogens have absolutely nothing to do with xanax, and opiates, in how they operate. Xanax, and Opiates try to replace endo-chems, with synthetic stronger versions, which causes withdrawal. Psychedelics effect they brain by causing a transmitter to either release an endo-chem, or prevent the receptor from re-uptaking it. Since you are using your own endo-chems, you will not withdraw, but could instead experience a slight drop in those chems the day after known as a hangover, seen in ecstasy use more frequently. on the other hand opiates and benzo's are trying to replace the endo-chems meaning after you take them for a certain while, your brain tells your body to stop producing it's own since it is getting some through artificial means. Trust me I took a lot of bio-chem and was horribly addicted to heroin for 5 years, if you stick with psychedelics, you will always be safe. Now that not taking into effect your psychological structure, and if it is vulnerable, but by know you would know that and would most likely be prescribed a s*** load of anti-depressants, if you catch my drift.

  25. His Forever

    Natural selection doesn't do what artificial selection does. Even in a million years a bird would still be a bird would be a bird and a rose is still a rose is still a rose.

  26. norlavine

    The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..xx

  27. His Forever

    I like your quote, but would you mind clarifying? The absence of the evidence of God is not evidence of absence? Or, are you speaking of the absence of the evidence of evolution? Like so many things in life, you see what your worldview already has in mind.

  28. Achems_Razor

    And your gods would still be invisible still be invisible and not real and not real and religion is still a scam still a scam.

  29. norlavine

    @Matt Kukowski
    Yeah they are - because they share their knowledge and don't have an agenda
    like Richard Dawkins to continually preach his atheist beliefs at the same time.
    Richard behaves as if he has stumbled upon something that is going to change the world for the better, but I think not. Life to him appears to cease to have meaning outside of a microscope. He must make buckets of cash from traveling around the world competing with the equally irresponsible evangelist buffoons we all love to hate. People come to their own personal conclusions, regardless. He seems like a really sweet gentle person, yet he insists on being the totalitarian vibe leveler of all mothers...

  30. norlavine

    One goes to the doctor because one feels a bit strange. All the tests say one is fit. 2 days later one collapses with a cerebral hemorrhage = the lack of evidence didn't prove absence (in this case a soon to be ruptured blood vessel). Hope that answers your question. I don't really care about religions or aliens or atheists, whatever, I just want to hear Richard talk about stuff that interests me like science and the universe, not his own belief system- because that's exactly what it is, like it or not.

  31. verseinu

    Quoting Dawkins at the beginning….

    "The discovery institute….has published no research papers in defence of their position. They shamelessly bypass the peer review process and appeal directly to a public which is unqualified to assess the matter. Unqualified precisely because the very same activists deny them a proper education in science and the scientific method."


  32. norlavine

    Don't you mean..
    A rose by any other name would still tweet...?

  33. norlavine

    ..and a pig makes ham makes ham still be pig
    wham bamm..thank you ma'am zzzzzzzzzzzzz

  34. Amanda Stevenson

    What do you think make Dawkins seem preachy about his atheist views? It's time to reach out to the world and share a more logical point of view. He does not try to convert others to atheism. He is merely an atheist who believes in scientific evidence and facts.

  35. verseinu

    I don't see him as preaching so much as showing conviction. Unfortunately he and others like him Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, etc., have to become more bold and proactive to present the case for reason (specifically evolution here) against an increasingly ignorant, blind, and fearful reaction of the faithfull/wingnuts/religees.

    In regards to him having an agenda....of course he do do I. So what. His agenda opens up the human mind rather than closing it and opens up the world rather than keeping it hidden. EVEN IF he was only in it for the money I'd be o.k. with it. The scientific method and rational thought make the world a better place! If he makes money off of that...more power to him!

  36. Matt Kukowski

    Yes norlavine Dawkins does hammer the religious people hard, but for a reason. Religious people are not problem solvers, not when you have a book ( bible ) that nullifies all conclusions outside that thin narrow nearly useless book.

    Alan Watts wrote an article in Playboy 1974 called 'THE WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS BOOK' The Bible.

    Dawkins attacks religion for good reason. Religion stifles science in public classes and other. And they need to be shown the door, because the truth based on experiment can NOT be refuted because of a bible written by persons unknown.

    This is Dawkins purpose. He may seem harsh as you mention... but someone has to take the fight to them. However, life is MORE than a microscope. Dawkins does have his limitations, like all human beings.

    This is why we must listen to other philosophers and NOT get too heady about one or two speakers.

  37. norlavine

    The world is still filled with hatred and strife so it looks like human genes aren't real smart, despite having us look less like apes than we used to..xx

  38. verseinu

    @ norlavine

    I just want to hear Richard talk about stuff that interests me like science and the universe, not his own belief system- because that's exactly what it is, like it or not.

    He is a strong proponent of the scientific method...that is not a belief system in the sense that religion is a belief system. He's not trying to indoctrinate you into some cult. I think he clearly presents cases (call them atheistic if thats how you want to label it) with evidence and leaves it up to you.

  39. Achems_Razor


    I thought it was illegal or blasphemy whatever, to eat pork, ham of any kind, or do I have youse guyses religions mixed up?
    cloven hoofed animals list?

  40. verseinu

    Your right. Human genes aren't smart, they're not supposed to be. They are selfish. It is in the evolved functions of the brain that 'hatred and strife' are a consequence. 'Hatred and strife' are not genetic.

    If we were merely our genes we would be brutal against eachother to achieve our own reproduction. Because we have evolved a brain we can be flexible in how we achieve those goals. I think that is what he was talking about when he was outlining neo purpose.

  41. His Forever

    And what position is that? He didn't mention other the mocking comment.

  42. His Forever

    Mr. Razer, if you really want to know, the cloven hoved animals were a list of "clean" animals for food at the time for the Isrealite people. Jews would still follow that list today I assume. But for Christians, there are no food limitations now, as Jesus said that "It's not what goes into a man (food) that defiles a man, but what comes out of a man, such as blasphemy, evil thoughts, etc." Paul added that this proclaimed all food acceptable--within human reason.

  43. verseinu

    The position that there is some intelligent designer behind the complexity of life. You really didn't know that?

    This is in no way mocking. He is stating facts. The discovery institute is a religious organization (deny it all you want), religious organizations have fought to keep evolution from being taught, so now many americans over a certain age never had the education to allow them to understand what evolution really is. And now these people are expected to make a rational decision regarding evolution vs. trash, where all they have known is trash.

  44. Achems_Razor


    Not what goes into a man (food), but what comes out that defiles a man? Seems like you and your gods walked into that one, if you get my rift? Will let you figure that out.

    And you said all food acceptable...within human reason, is that why in the OT your god sanctioned the roasting and eating of their childrens flesh, you know it is in there.

  45. norlavine

    I agree with you on most counts Matt - but until Dawkins can prove what initiated the big bang, he probably won't be able to convince me what didn't. In America religion may stifle science in class but that would never be allowed in public schools here in Australia, so it's not an issue for me, I'd rather save the whales.
    Scripture/religious education/atheism is a totally separate and optional short class here once a week, with an option to 'opt out' totally if unwanted. No university would tolerate a faculty member diverting from sheer science either.
    No wonder many overseas qualifications become worthless here.
    So I guess the altruistic/atheistic Dawkins wants to save the young minds of America. 'Good luck to him' is my response, because I don't like his chances, that place is on a roll, a kind of scary one.

  46. Yavanna

    Regarding your comment " But for Christians, there are no food limitations now".....

    Jesus orders Christians to follow the Law of Moses in the Old Testament: "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)" It is quite clear from these verses from the New Testament that Jesus did honor the Old Testament and did say that every single "letter" of it has to be honored, followed and fulfilled.

    Seems like either your Jesus contradicted himself a lot, or maybe it's just that modern Xians just cherry pick and re-interpret the bits they like for convenience sake. This is why to some extent people have a little more respect for Muslims and Jews. At least they practice what they preach and take seriously their holy books and prophets wheras christianity makes a mockery of itself.

  47. Paul Lindsley

    Humans are smart they just have some wrong agendas , but how do you
    figure proving God exists when he lets innocent children die of hunger ?
    Religion is also an excuse for war and pillage in the name of God, whatever that God may be which has been the case for ages gone by and is still the case today. This lecture is about freedom and rational thinking not being
    brainwashed into accepting lack of proof in teaching that has its own agendas
    to divert us away from reality and thinking for ourselves.

  48. Marian 87

    It never fails. On subjects like this one a lot of people feel that it is their duty to publicaly show how selfish, ignorant and intolerant they truly are and start discussions about their own beliefs.

  49. Achems_Razor

    Right, I agree that the religee wingnuts are guilty in that respect.

  50. Guest

    The first half made me think he was talking to 10yrs old, not university students, he did wrap it up nicely though!
    He read every word of it. I like him more in forums, one of his strenght is rebuttal one on one while being a smooth operator.

  51. Clifford William Thomas

    Anyone who doesn't say the egg came first obviously haven't grasped evolution very well.

  52. Guest

    That was excellent, Matt.

  53. antiloops

    why people call themselves smarts and after speak like you just did ??? God made us with only one propose.. LOVE ... if people are dying with hunger is just our fault... Stop blame God for all mistakes we made... we are enough smart "like u said " so open your eyes and look AND SEE what is around you...

    God bless you.

    " i was crazy when crazy means something "

  54. Guest

    What natural selection, Charles? I didn't think you admitted of any such thing! And, Norvaline, your rebuttal is pretty ham-fisted, frankly. Funny...but ham-fisted.

    ( Are you a Gertrude Stein lover, Charles?! )

  55. Guest

    @ norvaline
    Whales are more important than American human beings, according to your enlightenment... But we're "on a roll" in this country, and good luck with anyone attempting to instruct us...

    Do you see some contradiction in that, perhaps?

    I have to tell you straight-up, Norvaline, that, as a fellow musician (and that is relevant), I am EXTREMELY disappointed in you, in this very important respect.

    Maybe your horizons, and your education, aren't quite as broad as you'd like to make out...

    ( And -not that it matters to you- religion doesn't stifle science education in American public schools...yet. But if the Conservatives here had their way, it would. And this is a part of what Dawkins fights to prevent: The imposition and tyranny of beliefs over observable facts...And that's a good thing.)

  56. Guest

    That was excellent, Pysmythe

  57. Guest

    any woman would have to be ham-fisted to meet the dissagreement of Achems.
    you wait and might turn out to be moose-fisted one day.

  58. Guest

    @ Az
    I've already got a nice moose-knuckle, baybee! (lol)

  59. Guest

    The fact that you seem to use this phrase a lot, i have myself received it once or twice from you, i think you should at least spell it properly.
    "I was crazy when crazy meant something" or you may mean "i am crazy because crazy means something".
    Just saying!

  60. Epicurus

    you didnt watch this did you.

    this "lets hate dawkins" bandwagon is getting played out.

    why not telling us what in this lecture you disagreed with?

  61. Owen Murphy

    Verseinu ---The 'Elitest has spoken...end of discussion !

  62. melloyeyo

    I liked this one. Very well presented, very clear. The reprogram of purposes is something I didn't heard before.

  63. norlavine

    Sorry, the 'on a roll' was entirely sarcastic, meaning a roll of fear=agression against other countries with less retaliatory ammunition. America was supposed to be the great nation , but it has abused in the worst possible way it's open ticket to any country this planet has to offer, and not for the reasons it purposes. It's time your people got rid of the corporate driven decision makers and replaced them with ANYTHING better. But that's not going to happen in our lifetimes so let's not waste time discussing that one.
    Most comments to me imply I am a bible basher, which is weird, because I never state or even imply that. I actually have as much time for religious zealots as I do for zealots of atheism. Dawkins is 1 degree separated from that moronic family of zombies who picket gays and soldiers funerals. The only difference is he moves in academic circles and speaks much more nicely.
    For the record, I believe there was purpose in pressing 'enter' the day of the big bang, and I don't believe it was anything man could ever fathom. He has tried to put his own personality and 'wants' to it but we have all seen how futile that eventually became. Love and kindness seems to be the only thing that works, religions seemed to have evolved as a form of crowd control amongst humans. The creator of space, time and all matter, as well as consciousness and purpose, is well beyond any equation to rationalize it's existence or not. Cause and effect are the only things we can be sure of - but it's a start. Perhaps some of the prophets were given a glimpse of this, but like everything else in this world, the 'marketing dept' eventually took over with it's own agenda. Yes, I believe in a creator, but not the falsely represented one religions or Dawkins speaks of.

  64. verseinu

    What? Why don't you expand on that a little bit!

  65. knowledgeizpower

    @Petar Vitanovich So basically Psychedelics are safer to use...Now If i 'm understanding you correctly this is what i think you mean correct me if i'm wrong okay ... If you try some psychedelics that could fuck your mind up so bad that after you would most likely need to be prescribed some anti-depressants because psychologically you weren't in good shape before you took the psychedelics right?

  66. Tyler Partridge

    I have no quarrel with god. My feud is with his incessant minions--products of a primitive, barbaric doctrin. Fear is their weapon, and ignorance it's perpetual ammunition.

  67. Thomas Lyngmoe Berg

    love him:)

  68. Guest

    @ norvaline
    Nice post. And thanks for responding kindly to me. I was pretty upset with you, I admit... Maybe it didn't quite show as much as I thought it did, because I was afraid we would end up fighting...

    (Briefly, I completely agree with your view of the political subterfuges in this country -on both sides- and won't waste anymore time on it, either.)

    "Cause and effect" sounds remarkably close to simple deism, the Prime-Mover argument you used to find in philosophy. But from the other things you say, I'm assuming you have faith in a Personal Creator, one that you're able to have a relationship with? And as far as Dawkins coming down hard on (more or less) unquestioning believers of traditional faiths, I'm not really clear on why that should upset you so much, if those aren't your own views. If your views are that idiosyncratic, and you aren't looking to force others to comply with them in some way, I'm pretty sure Dawkins wouldn't have any problem with you, which is very unlike those outright lunatics of the Westboro Church stripe.

    It might also be said that abstractions like love and kindness have evolutionary value, too, without minimizing them in any way. And one thing I am absolutely certain of is that on the probably short list of things that can save us from ourselves, those would have to be at the top of it; both, in practical terms, and for life to have much richer, or even any, meaning. The problem seems to be in the inability to extend these things unconditionally to everyone, regardless of their religious faith, or lack thereof, or any other thing. But at the same time that shouldn't mean that myth should have an upper hand, or ideally a hand at all, in policy ( in politics, education, etc.), and since we see the attempt so much in this country, at least, to make that the case, this is personally the chief reason I value Dawkins' "fanaticism" so highly. As I've said elsewhere on this site, a great many of the Christians here are Social-Darwinists (ironic, isn't it?), and it is not enough for them to have their views: Everyone else must have them, too...or, at least, as much as is possible, such as in a school, where they have no business being. His is a much needed voice against this ongoing attempted intellectual coup, and I greatly appreciate his efforts in that regard. If Australia is very different, you should consider yourselves fortunate, and should by all means make sure it stays that way.

    Lastly, I really am convinced that if Dawkins had good reasons to change his views about anything concerning the metaphysical, he'd do so, and wouldn't hesitate to expound those reasons with equal fervor to as many people as would pay him to do so.


    [ Gotta earn a livin', right? ]

  69. His Forever

    Mr. Razor there isn't any God-sactioned baby eating in the Bible. We went over that with REB over a year ago I think.

  70. branrx

    Bravo. Nicely put, and much the way I see things. Dawkins and crowd in my opinion is mearly a mirrored opposite of the barbaric religions he speaks of. A reaction to those that have abused or perhaps misrepresented a bigger truth regarding a possible creator. I dont have the answers and can not say with an certainty what purpose is, but I like to believe in the realm of possiblities. A newer science is emerging. A major paradigm shift that will shut everyone up. Perhaps new abusers will emerge in its capitalization, but existence as we know will be turned on its head. And in my opinion for the much greater.
    So before you trust in church or trust in Dawkins, its better to live in the present being as conscious as possible with eyes wide open and be ready to accept something your 6 senses were never capable of understanding. We believed the world was flat. We believed in 7 day creation. We believe in natural evolution over millions of years.......

  71. His Forever

    Muslims certainly, and most likely Jews have their own forms of hypocracy, Yavanna. Trust me on that.

    As far as this passage is concerned the key words are "fulfilled" and "accomplished" and this was 95% in reference to Jesus' mission on the cross as a propitiaiton for sin. The rest shall be accomplished in due time.

    Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their rigid following of "the rules of man" while neglecting the heart of the law, which was to love and honor God with their whole heart.

    That is why we are also commanded to "study to show ourselves aproved by God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." Dietary laws and rules established for the time do not have the same weight as laws of the conscience.

  72. His Forever

    Yes, I understood the basic premise.

    I agree, I was taught "trash" in school and barely escaped with my soul! Evolution shouldn't be taught to children as fact. I still remember the dispair I felt in elementary school being taught eveolution. No God--no purpose--no purpose--no reason for life. It's just that simple.

    As far as a peer review process, any scientist that doesn't toe the "evolution" line is drummed out of their profession as mercilessly as any religious order can do so.

    I'm familar with the Institute of Creation Research, but I guess I dont know who the Discovery Institute is precisely without further research or what they could have purposed for peer review but didn't. The ICR bases most of their conclusions on already performed research by others.

  73. His Forever

    Such as your comment? Dawkins was giving his OPINION. We all are. Are you not?

  74. His Forever

    So are atheists. Certainly so.

  75. Guest

    @ C and N
    Is there really no way to reconcile evolution with your beliefs, Charles? If not, why not? Do you really think all of this science is false, or some sort of trick of the devil? Do you really think the earth is only around 6,000 years old? If you could admit to it clearly being much older, how hard could it be to make the leap to supposing that maybe evolution is just the way God chose to create human beings, after all? Would it all really come crashing down just because the Myth of Eden was held up for what it is? One of the greatest stories ever told, but a story, after all?

    The other day you mentioned C.S. Lewis... Are you familiar with some of the ideas he and his friend J.R.R.Tolkien had regarding myths? If not, I can tell you it's quite fascinating stuff, and should be right up your alley.

  76. verseinu

    @ C and N

    Ignoring belief/non-belief for moment, calling evolution trash is an ignorant, knee jerk emotional reaction. I will try my best to leave emotion out of my response, Pysmythes comment has helped with that.

    The problem with all these religious 'institutes' is that they all go about fact finding based on a (literally) preordained premise: god created everything. They work from there seeking evidence to support their 'theory'. This is not science.

    Evolution/science on the other hand has NO equivalent premise. It fumbles around in the dark trying to find answers and devise new questions based on the evidence which is available. There is no invisible hand guiding theory.

    Conflating (let me alter my previous trash comment) trash science with legitimate science is dishonest and demeans our intelligence. The argument is not should children learn religion, but should children learn religion as a science.

    I checked into the institute of creation science. Regarding cause and effect, I found this piece

    When this universal law is traced backwards, one is faced again with the possibility that there is an ongoing chain of ever-decreasing effects, resulting from an infinite chain of nonprimary ever-increasing causes. However, what appears more probable is the existence of an uncaused Source, an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary, First Cause.

    How and why is this the case, because they say so?

  77. norlavine

    You have presented some good points for me to digest , Pysmythe, and thank YOU for being ever so polite. What you presented about Dawkins made sense. You would then be obviously aware of the political agenda gearing up your nation, using Christianity as it's main platform, for the unthinkable next act to follow. I myself, realize I am opinionated yet ignorant, but it's a start. xx

  78. norlavine

    Good one branrx ! A major paradigm shift is on it's way...hope it's a good one (gulp) xx

  79. Guest

    @ C and N
    Come to think of it, Charles, are you still involved in the Pentecostal church? You know, the denomination that absolutely brooks NO dissent, on penalty of eternal hellfire? If so, well, then, I don't even see how you could come to terms with Intelligent Design, let alone Evolution...Unless, of course, the ID chimps try to pack all their bananas into that 6,000 year timeline.

    Is that what they do? Or do they keep quiet about it, and try to avoid mentioning vast stretches of time?

    I admit I wouldn't know...

    ( Umm...I didn't last too long staying out of these religious debates, did I? )

  80. Intbel

    There is reason to suppose this Dawkins chappie has the right-hand side of his brain either completely disconnected or is non-existent ...

  81. norlavine

    Sorry took so long to respond Amanda, just discovered your comment 2 minutes ago. I just think its weird how he speaks about the absence of a higher consciousness than man to like minded people filling the auditoriums. Almost like a preacher giving a sermon to his congregation. Same stuff. Get him to preach outside a mosque and I will grant him the same respect I have for Julian Assange, but he sticks to the safe road - and that is, his own band of believers/cronies/academic armchair activists. Those who peddle nothingness are as destructive as those who peddle hell and brimstone.Please look at my comments if you are poised to knock (specifically)my 'beliefs', because I am not 'religious' - and I am not an atheist either x

  82. Guest

    Oh, yes... I realize it so much it knots my stomach, what's been happening in this country. It really all started to flower in '80, when Reagan came into office, all this Christian Conservative bullsh*t, and the push for more and more political influence. Despite the end of the Cold War, I mark the beginning of a major decline in this country from that moment: During his presidency is when these people really began to get sophisticated politically...And I also realize that, in terms of this country's foreign policy, the pitch that "We are but doing God's work" is a complete load of crap. At the same time, at least the lower minions on the domestic front are quite sincere about foisting their beliefs onto the rest of us as much as possible, through whatever venues they can find for it, or whatever methods might serve their purposes. One especially popular one these days is the blatant rewriting of American history to read that the Founding Fathers intended this to be a Christian Nation, whereas pretty much even a cursory look into it will reveal what an outright lie that is...

    It has been a bad 30 years here, in these respects... Peak Oil is not going to make the next 30 any easier, either, from what I've seen. The war pigs are going to keep the military machine at full throttle, because it makes them all rich and, well, phuck the rest of us, right? And, of course, they'll continue doing it all in the name of Jesus and Democracy; and, of course, millions here will continue to swallow it hook, line, and sinker...

    There's a lot more I'd like to say, but I gotta stop right now... Need to get some sleep, lol.

  83. Guest

    you wait and see @Knowledge will jump in soon too, even though she says she prefers to stay
    I must say your response to @Norvaline was well thought and well written....makes me wish i had better control of English.

  84. knowledgeizpower

    @ Az...Ohhh I heard you over there whispering about me ROFL..Only place i'm jumping is in the bed I'm tiaard see Ya"ll later :P

  85. Guest

    aren't you on the east coast? Jumping in bed...i bet that's not for sleeping as it must be about 10:30am for you...or have you been working all night or partying?

  86. Achems_Razor


    Charles, it seems that you still believe in the 6,000 year earth and believe everything happened in transit. Creationists still stick to their guns that the Universe is only 6,000 years old!. Without any scientific evidence whatsoever, only a belief system.

    Scientific discipline does not require its submissions be accompanied by a statement of beliefs.
    Creationists statement of belief is a conclusion fixed in stone!
    A Creationist is not free to alter their theory's should the evidence contradict them, instead they make up fanciful tales such as a "Water Vapor Canopy" surrounding the Earth prior to the great flood, the creation of Starlight in transit, and the hydrological sorting of Fossils during the great flood. The theory's of Scientists are not etched in stone and can be changed in light of new evidence.
    There is not one Scientific shred of evidence for creation.

  87. Guest

    New paradigm have always been coming. The one coming NOW concern us because we are yes, i agree better live in the present but i would suggest to be aware of unconcious thoughts and be ready to accept an "awakening".
    The quantum sciences is telling us something important; what we have been seeing out of our eyes, is ourself bigger and smaller....or at least that's what my unconcious seem to whisper.

  88. Achems_Razor

    Charles, I doubt it, anything us atheists with a scientific bent say is either proven, a fact, or theory in progress, which can be changed with more empirical evidence, not so with you religee's. All your religious beliefs are etched in stone!

  89. His Forever

    Pysmythe and Verseinu: I'm not a "young earther" perhaps surprisingly. I have a post that I left like a year ago on For the Bible Tells Me So which I called: Charles B's Theory of Everything. It's about 4 pages long, I think. It has a lot of my thoughts on the age of the Earth, etc. Maybe you can find it with a word search.

    Can evolution be reconciled with my theology? Micro-evolution within a species (adaptation), yes. I think God has program genes to hold many hidden varients for adaptation to take place as needed within a certain range of varients. Macro evolution from one species to another then to another---no. The fossile record bears out a testiment to fully formed and functioning species, not millions or billions of inter-species transition forms. They come and go as perfectly formed and working organisms. Why in groups? I'm not sure yet.

    I've studied somewhat the Talk Origins website Vlatko gave me last year, so I know of many of the arguments evolutionists have against Creationism.

    Py: Evolution-minded scientists DO have a bias that they work from--that evolution is solution and all things are the result of such. No other possibilities are even entertained.

    I love science, but not science that has as a goal to void the universe of God.

    To avoid the spiritual side of people is to live life as a half person. I regret the Catholic church's persecution of science in ages past (they'd kill me too if I lived back then), but what men and women of "science" are doing now (masking evil ways in the name of science) is just as wrong. I.e. stem cell research using aborted babies applauded in this documentary is science at its most evil and worsening. Should we not fight against scientific evil and suppression as much as science has fought against religious evil and suppression in the past?

    As always, Peace to all.


    I have limited time to check back all the time on my posts. If I miss an important question, etc. I appologize in advance. Thanks.

    Vlatko: Thanks again for the venue to discuss the issue.

    I still remember your Talk Origins website. It's very helpful in many ways in understaning the arguments fully. I've read quite a bit there last year in fact. Thanks again!

  90. His Forever

    Mr. Razor: If you don't believe in God, then certainly nothing contained in the Bible is possibly accurate. If you do, however, know God is real, then what His Word says should be taken as seriously and precisely as it can be.

    "Water Vapor Canopy," "Starlight in Transit," and "Hydrological Sorting of Fossils" theories are all possible in some form or another. When God made the Garden of Eden, the trees were in different ages, etc.

    Have you heard of soft tissue being found in dinosaur fossils? Either that wasn't the case or they aren't millions of years old.

    If the "days" in Genesis are litteral 24 hour periods, the "In Transit" theory is pretty much a must, I would conceed, however. Let me study it again. At this point in time I think the earth/universe is much older than 6,000 years.

    Peace to you,

    Charles B.

  91. Achems_Razor

    @C_and _N:

    Charles, yes there is god sanctioned children eating in your bibles, you went over that with Reb a year ago, but Apologetic stuff.

    All these passages are about killing, roasting and eating their own children by the parents, in the name of your gods.

    Leviticus 26:29...Deuteronomy 28:53...Jeremiah 19:9...

    And then another gem, which could only be found in the bible...Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones...Psalm 137:9

  92. Epicurus

    the absence of evidence after thousands of years of searching is a pretty good evidence of absence.

    there is also absence of evidence when it comes to zeus and the flying spaghetti monster.

    and come on CnN, there is no absence of evidence when it comes to evolution. there is so much evidence it is staggering to imagine some people can actually ignore it.

  93. verseinu

    Why would 'god' bother programming variance/adaptation. If it created a specific species as is, wouldn't it have just created the perfect animal with no need for adaptation. It must not be all knowing, for an adaptation is a response to an unforeseen cause.

    The science you claim to love is the science without any goals, so far as a goal is an attempt to reach some defined conclusion. The purpose of science is to accumulate knowledge, and unfortunately for you that knowledge is pointing away from any evidence of a supernatural being. To say science is tasked with voiding the universe of god is a misunderstanding of science.

    Should we not fight against scientific evil and suppression as much as science has fought against religious evil and suppression in the past?

    They're not equivalent. There are definitely sticky moral questions in experimentation as well as abortion (we won't get into those here). Those are 'evils' (your term) done in the name of progress (i'm not defending anything here, just making a statement) where religious evil is done in the name of subjugation and control. Two very different forms of 'evil' as you put it.

    If you had the opportunity to save your child from certain death because a cure to X disease could be found through stem cell research....what would you do?

  94. Epicurus

    CnN.....we went over this already.

    you were not taught trash. evolution should be taught to children the same way gravity is or germ theory is. the way it presently is taught. the way everything in science is taught.

    just because YOU felt despair because you were previously brainwashed to believe a certain way doesnt mean no kids should be taught what scientists know. evolution doesnt say anywhere that there is no god, so you can dismiss that whole no god no purpose nonsense.

    now, any scientist that can show with evidence that evolution is wrong would be given millions of dollars in grant money and a nobel prize. no scientist would be fired for doing honest science.

    the ICR takes papers already published and misconstrues the information in them for the uneducated christian reading their site. its horrible what they do.

    Charles, listen to me closely.....evolution is a fact. it happens. we have all the evidence needed. even without a single fossil the genetic evidence would be enough to know that evolution happens. you are basically denying gravity and saying its gods love that holds us to the ground. you have to get out of this intellectual void and realize that you have been wrong and all the evidence is against you.

  95. Guest

    Some phrases of the bible are accurate and philanthropic, but that doesn't make them the words of GOD. They are, were, and will always be the words of humans, perhaps inspired by their thoughts about GOD. Shouldn't everyone's words be the word of GOD(including achems's lol) according to the teachings of this same bible.
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

  96. jonathan jackward

    1. SCIENCE has evolved since darwin .the double slot test matter reacts consciously as a particle when viewed or as a wave when not. 2. unified field of consciousness has been proven to be level below quantum. god is real and proven, it's just that this god is different than any religion says ,its the singularity god is the singularity in which complexity comes from fact
    things are the way they are not the way someone whats them to be. darwin insists there can't be a creator because there is a natural system of complexity built in, they are two different things. thats an say there is a universal consciousness is different than saying i know how that works and its gonna punish you. you are separate .it killed its only begotten son on a popsicle stick, blah blah. energy . god is energy . we live in a universe of energy consciousness is energy and the singularity is god why would it be any different? what is the problem people it's common sense.

  97. Marian 87

    Can you show me exactly where in my comment do I speak about my own beliefs or lack there of or I'm ignorant or intolerant?

    "In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts."

    The only relatively subjective opinion Dawkins gave was on the existence of a god. An issue which is innerently unprovable one way or the other, but he at least is still open to evidence, not declaring he's 100% certain in the matter.
    The rest of his arguments are well backed up by science or at least common sense backed up by his experiences, reason and logic.

  98. jonathan jackward

    to believe in darwin is to reject everything learned after that , do we say that because a song transitions from beginning to end and there is a system in which notes react in a systematic way, there must be no songwriter? it's common sense its always been common sense why is the truth so simple people cant see it ? it has to be some made up senarrio that only fits a few pieces of the puzzle.the truth will alaways require itself to fit within the context of all other information proven. we know energy exists. we know that at the quantum level matter reacts consciously to the observer, we know that black holes exist we know there are singularities put the puzzle together it's easy.

  99. Guest

    But the left-side is the right side.

  100. Guest

    Someone "magically" gave me a couple of mushrooms a few days ago. Haven't done mushroom since i was in my twenties, the last one was not so much fun.
    What do i do? Do i do?

  101. Epicurus


  102. jonathan jackward

    here i thought i used simple words..........?

  103. jonathan jackward

    god does not have to exist on our terms. god would exist in its own terms even if it was just energy,

  104. jonathan jackward

    there are many scientific shreds of information for evidence of creation, just not the creation that everyone believes in their mind.

  105. jonathan jackward

    i would love to see richard dawkins explain the proven aspects of quantum mechanics fit into darwinism. its like he wants to be scientifically objective as long as it is not anything that threatens the belief of atheists, they are just the new christians (closed system, won't adapt to new evidence by science itself. it is ironic that science is the one that always proves itself wrong but the people that believe in a theory wont change there view no matter how much evidence there is . science has already proven the unified field it might take 50 years for it to be indoctrinated into society though

  106. Guest

    i would hurry to make an other comment, you are now on number 666, the number of the Antichrist.

  107. uncle_bunkle

    Was love important before Jesus said it was? Is love evolutionary?

  108. Epicurus

    the words were simple. the sentences didnt make any sense.

    "to believe in darwin is to reject everything learned after that"


    "do we say that because a song transitions from beginning to end and there is a system in which notes react in a systematic way, there must be no songwriter?"

    apples and oranges.

    everything else in your post was just nonsensical ramblings of what i would guess is a schizophrenic mind.

  109. Epicurus

    how does anything in quantum mechanics go against darwinism?

    you have made a lot of nonsensical posts in the past couple hours. are you alright? you seem to be having a manic episode.

    think before you type. if you wouldnt say this stuff out loud to your family because they would think your crazy....maybe we will also.

  110. Achems_Razor

    WTF are you talking about, you just asked a while back on some posts, what is a "double (SIC)slot experiment"? now all of a sudden you are a quantum mechanic know it all?

  111. Achems_Razor

    Really then pray tell what they are! Without your quantum stuff that you have not a clue of what you are saying.

  112. Guest

    @ Az
    Lol! I can see his mitts flying over that keyboard right now!

  113. removementalattachments

    Lee Smolin in his book 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity' says "Everything you see is a bit of information" "...the analogy between the history of the universe and the flow of information in a computer is the most rational, scientific analogy I could make"
    "When we imagine we are seeing an infinite three dimensional space, we are falling for the fallacy in which we substitute what we actually see for an intellectual construct. This is not only mystical, it is wrong"

    Quantum gravity completely dissolves the intuition that all is a physical world, that space, time, energy, and matter, is all there is.

    During the 20th century, much progress was made breaking down the fundamental forces into quantum fields, and describing them with quantum field theories.
    QED was developed for electromagnetism, electroweak theory describes the weak nuclear force & QCD was produced to explain the strong nuclear force. All of these fields were of fields in the background of space-time.

    Quantum gravity on the other hand, is a little different...
    For gravity isn't in space-time, it is space-time!
    Thus to necessarily break down gravity into a quantum field, we necessarily have to break down space-time into something more fundamental than itself.
    Whatever this "more fundamental something" is, it CANNOT be defined in units of space or time or circularity would ensue. It CANNOT be defined int terms of energy, as energy requires space and time to exist in the first place.
    ALL other physical properties are ultimately expressible in terms space, time, and energy.
    Thus whatever this "something else" is, it is NOT physical at ALL.

    What might it be?

    Both quantum information theory and the holographic principle tell us it is quantum information. Again this is not matter encoded with information as that is circular and logically unsound. Not just a low chance, but not possible at this point. All the physical units have been stripped away.

    Quantum Information is derived from the 'conceptual', thus the physical comes from the conceptual. Neoplatonism...

    Orch-OR from the legend Penrose as well Hameroff. Based off a model that is based off of Godel's theorem that argues consciousness arises from the collapse of a quantum wave-function. (was only a matter of time until physics would be dealing with consciousness, only a natural progression moving into the 'age of mastery')

    If you don't know what a wave-function is:

    In quantum mechanics, particles can behave like waves and are "smeared out" over a range of space rather than having a precise location.
    This "smearing out" occurs in a wave-like fashion and is described mathematically by a "quantum wave function." The wave-function is denoted by the "psi" symbol.
    Every particle or set of particles in the universe has it's own wave-function based off the energy it has. This even includes the universe itself.

    How do you collapse one of these wave functions?

    Before the particle wave is observed, it is "smeared out" through space according to it's wave-function.
    Our observing it (our perhaps our measuring apparatus observing it) suddenly causes it to appear in only location. When this happens we say the wave-function has been "collapsed".

    So why would a self-collapsing wave-function be conscious? For this and how it collapses musty reads are Sir Roger Penrose's 'The emperor's new mind' & 'Shadows of the mind'.

    Since dualism creates inherent contradictions, we have to adopt some time of monism. This does not mean that materialism or mentalism has to be true, just that reality has to be made of one "substance".

    Since the world is made up of one substance, the conscious observation of the wave-function would have to be the same kind of interaction caused by an observation of an unconscious piece of measuring equipment. The fundamental nature of the observation in and of itself stays the same.

    A mind of course is self-observing. It is an observation which observes itself. This is how we can be aware of our own "I's" independent of anything else. (now being called intrinsic awareness in philosophy)
    To collapse a particle wave (the wave-function) the particle wave has to be observed by something.
    If a wave function would collapse all by itself though, the wave-function must observe itself, as this is how collapses occur.

    Again because monism is true, the observation action of a mind is the same as with a mindless measuring apparatus.

    Thus the self-collapsing wave-function would be observing itself in the same way that the self-observing mind would. And so self-collapsing wave functions would be the same thing as MINDS!


    Like everything else, the universe has a wave-function of it's own.
    This wave-function is the sum of all the other wave-functions within it and is defined by something called the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (H defines the energy content of the wave function)

    So what's the universe's wave-function?
    We can see that there is clearly observable stuff out there and not just formless particle waves. So the universe's wave-function has been collapsed somehow!

    The only other way to collapse a wave-function besides Orch-OR is to measure it with who's wave-function has already been collapsed. (You cannot collapse one "smeared out" object with another "smeared out" object)
    So was the universe's wave-function collapsed by another particle?
    Another particle outside of the universe refutes the definition of a universe.
    That leaves us with a self-collapsing wave-function!

    Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds!

    So not only is matter a construct of information, we live in a quantum computer, that quantum computer has a mind and thus is god &:
    Omnipresent via the definitions of functions in Hilbert space.
    Omnipotent via the Zeno effect.
    Omniscient via the holographic principle
    & Eternal via the Wheeler De Witt equation.

    Please all of you who are attached to materialism and old science, bring it one, attempt to refute me.

  114. Guest

    you know what i like about you? you make me laugh!
    and a few other simple things.

  115. Guest

    I can't wait to see who will be first in line.
    Your expose is written in a way that you WILL get attention because people in general like to see a degree flashing...yours is obvious, mine is inexistant....i'm just smart naturally!

  116. Achems_Razor

    Like I said on the other post you have this on, don't know what you mean by "old science" no such thing. An there is no such thing as "quantum gravity" unless you know more than all the scientists in the world, then give us the math, or your whole expose is MOOT!

  117. knowledgeizpower

    @ Az.... Naw not on the east "coast" but i'm on eastern standard "time" it was around 7am. Its 11pm right now. Lol no not partying but yes was one of those grave yard shifters.

  118. jonathan jackward


    it dosen't if you do not follow up on new information

  119. jonathan jackward


  120. jonathan jackward

    old science is the name given to a closed system view that refuses to accept new information based on facts and unification after all were talking 152 years ago darwin made his great assumption about the universe being a accident, have you ever accidentally composed a 15 min song played by a 100 instrument orchestra? because music theory has a structure and relationship between consonance and dissonance so who needs a composer right?

  121. Daven

    he just stated it bellow. unified field of consciousness has been proven to be level below quantum. god is real and proven, it's just that this god is different than any religion says ,its the singularity god is the singularity in which complexity comes from fact
    things are the way they are not the way someone whats them to be." AND "darwin insists there can't be a creator because there is a natural system of complexity built in, they are two different things." so i guess "read before you post" would be appropriate. but im not aware if what he said is "fact" but I am going to research it, it seems very interesting. but i guess what I'm trying to say is don't bash on someone because they have something new to say. and you just showed signs off "old science" rejecting new information an sticking to old theories for all you know are inconsistent with new research, not that I know, but be humble like epicurus. i belive its called scientific something i forgot lol, threw away my philosophy notes

  122. Guest

    @ jonathon jackward
    You don't always need a composer... Maybe the universe is simply aleatory music.

  123. pkunzip

    Wow, that must have been the most uncalled for and condescending reply written this year. And for what? Or rather why? I am totally aware that some girl must have broke your heart or something, 'cause guys just don't write spitefull stuff like that, had they received a reasonable amount of hugs and love. I'd expect that from a bitter ol' spinster or something, but you? Shame on thee.
    Or is it just that you yourself know that there are things you lack, such as intelligence, empathy or something, that drives you to try to drag me with you in a pool of pity and shameless stupidity?

    Aaanyways, whatever makes you lie awake at night, I feel your pain bro. Don't really care of course, I just feel it. And oh, if you are going to reply to this, please explain why water is wet, since I until this day have just lived with the "'cause it's water"-explanation :)

    Your buddy,

  124. Guest

    Umm... Quels sont les autres choses simples?! :)

  125. Yavanna

    Yes I am fully aware of the hypocrisies of Muslims and Jews but you neglected to add "as well as Christians." But It's OK I`ve had to read between the lines a lot with your reply.

    As for your reply to what I thought was a logical and rational way of pointing out just one of the many many contradictions within your faith; at first I found myself feeling very frustrated. I thought; how on earth can I ever communicate with this guy?!

    And then I realised I must thank you! Because your reply perfectly demonstrates my point better than I ever could. You have cherry picked two words from his [Jesus'} statement that you liked, somehow interwoven those with something completely unrelated and in doing so given your own personal reinterpretation of what he said!

    When a normal rational person reads what is clear and in short says "Follow the Old Testament and it's rules" you chose to entirely misrepresent those words, because they openly contradict other parts of the bible that YOU prefer. Now I`m no genius, nor can I read Hebrew, but what I can do is read and clearly understand written English. Of course I`ve had to trust the translators of the bibles to have done their job right but that is a whole other story of editing and "quality" control.....

    What bothers me most Charles (I assume that is you) is that if I were a Christian I would tend to revere Jesus' words rather than try to twist them to my own ends. You are certainly not alone in this. There are reportedly 30,000+ different denominations of Xianity each with their own variations of theological and biblical interpretation. More so I`ve yet to find two persons of the same denomination having exactly the same views!

    But I understand they HAVE to constantly reinterpret and evolve their religions because they obviously realise that their books have no meaning in themselves, and are just a collection of out of date stories regarding desert tribes whose main aim was to invent self important histories. I believe that deep down you know this is true which is why you constantly comment and defend Christianity on this site. It's not your purpose to help "us" understand. It is to re-affirm to yourself that your beliefs are true. It's a kind of self hypnosis.

    And I realise why this all bothers me at least in part. Because you have said on other occasions that you wish to (or do) teach. And that presumably you will teach your world view. But worse that you have children, that you are brainwashing those poor kids with this gibberish. It's the perpetuation of this nonsense that grinds my gears. The intentional passing on of a mental illness type virus which disgusts me.

    And by the way. In a million years a bird will be a fossil. It's ancestors will in all likelihood be something different. I thought you were a young earth creationist in any case. Can you even begin to contemplate a million years?

  126. Jo McKay

    fascinating but wrong @removementalattachments. You might want to look at 'new' as in current science review of the 'observer' and observer effect. Many folk I'm sure would like an easy sensing of the universe, sure wrap it all up in a neat ball and we can all convert to worship the micro-chip in the sky (mmm it just dawned on me - your not planning to start another religion are you?) :) Humbly, however, I admit I sometimes thought I was moving into the 'eureka I get it' seductive mind f*** of Quantum mechanics, then along came dark energy, dark flow, multi-verses, string theory, etc, and alas I am defeated. As Dawkins noted while our minds evolved to seek purpose and thereby creating flexibility (& inflexibility) to reach both useful and ridiculous goals, it is both those skills that make us gullible (in his words susceptible to subversion)- if you give me a why answer, even if I know it's weak, I 'want to' buy. I'm afraid that the conscious universe idea looks like, has, or is, going back in the closet - while your passion play is lovely to read, it's come too late. Better luck next time. And finally, as other's have noted, if you want converts, show the math! -peace as always.

  127. His Forever

    Epic, it was God's love for us that made the earth the way it is, so YES, it is God's love that keeps us connected to this planet! Nicely said. Where you see evidence of evolution I see evidence of a common Creator and His winning disigns.

    As always,

    Peace to you!

  128. Guest

    moose looking for propolis nectar?

  129. His Forever

    Funny! Epic's posts are too difficult to comprehend late at night and reply. I think I'll practice "modderation" and go to bed instead.

  130. Guest

    Enjoyed some music on your site with my coffee this morning,

  131. Drew-Jordan Maharaj

    Egg first. If we admit that there is a point in the evolution of the chicken that would seperate a chicken from its predecessor animal then the mutations which give rise to the first official chicken had to be present in the egg state but not in the parents. Although this line would seem arbitrary to draw the problem has to do with specifically defining 'chicken' in biological terms and not much to do with any sort of metaphysical mystery.

  132. Guest

    *In a bellowing roar, heard across the hills and valleys*

    YESSSS!! (lol)

  133. Epicurus


    you might see a common designer, but how come you cant accept that this designer might have set it up so evolution was the way things came about?

    the evidence is solid that all things evolve and share a common ancestor. you can still believe in a god who just set things in motion. nothing about evolution undermines a god. just the story of adam and eve which people seem to take literally rather than a story which it is.

  134. Guest

    Oh, sh*t!! I haven't laughed that hard in a LONG time, Az... Thanks!

    C'etait stupide de ma part de dire ce que j'avais dit ici... Je suis desole.

    (That all just sounded so attractive, didn't it? The only thing left out was the tinkling of champagne glasses to go along with the light piano music! Otherwise, it sounded just about right, alright...)

  135. Guest

    That was the cat.
    We're going to get told we are too personal, although right now all the boys are busy with Jonathan!

  136. Guest

    Quand les garcons sont dans l'autre piece est le meilleur moment de se deplacer dans votre proie!
    (Je suis juste flirter avec vous un peu, mais je vais

  137. antiloops

    uahsuahsus Az the grand mother, in first place i spell it like i want and second try get a life madame u are to old for been playing judge for other people... Just saying!

    I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something.

    Happy now ??? òtaria do caralho

  138. norlavine

    It's so annoying when the Dawkins followers always come back with the same hackneyed comments. Your mini article was great!
    They just don't get it. If all scientists 'way back when' stuck to proven theories without looking further ( or deeper) I wouldn't be airing this opinion across a virtual and digital world, because it was beyond anyone's imagination/comprehension all those (& not so many) years ago. It just didn't exist then, which means no one could grasp their head around the thought.
    Darwin's 'purely organic brain' is an ingenious filter, but not quite evolved enough yet to process and prove the information you articulated so well.
    Don't be dismayed by the accusations you are 'starting a new religion', it happens all the time here if you even remotely think outside of the Dawkins/Darwin square. But you probably already know that xx

  139. His Forever

    Epicurus: Evolution has been said to be mathematically impossible (except if God did it).

    I thought about this long and hard today. I sat under my papaya tree and pondered.

    I truly believe there is a God.

    I believe that God has tried to reach out to us via His son Jesus Christ.

    I believe that the Bible was another way of reaching out to us for our good, and not harm and can therefore be trusted.

    With that in mind, I cannot take the chance with my eternal soul to say that there is no God. If such is the case, so what? Dirt and more dirt and uh, more dirt awaits us all.

    Every documentary is built on some premise. 911 docs, no moon walk docs, etc. all are extremely convincing. No moon walk is easily countered, but God's existence is less easily countered unless you take into account people's experiences and personal testimoneies, such as healings, resurrectioons, etc.

    Genesis was written for the time, so PERHAPS it's figurative as a creation account. But, ya know what? Atheism has nothing to offer me except utter meaninglessness in life. Didn't they build a whole ape-man from a single pig's tooth one time? Didn't a hoax go unquestioned for half a century? Haven't there been some recent scientists caught in bold face lies about their works and discoveries? Sometimes they're just plain wrong about everything.

    Until evolution is completely proven to be the way God made and created this world, it's just not worth the change of mindset for me. When I get to Heaven, I might just ask Him why He made it less than clear about such things. Until then, my soul is in His keeping, and the things I yet don't understand fully shall not keep me from believing fully still.

    I personally believe that the universe is probably billions of years old---God is eternal; He could take as much time as he wanted in preparation for ---- us (His master creations). The Big Bang was the touch of his fingers, if you wish.

    Until we know all the answers . . . . keep the faith!

    Peace to all,

    Charles B.

  140. Guest

    Ya! mister antiloop, Grand Ma has seen a lot and loved a lot and plans to share that with my grand son.
    You talk about LOVE.
    First rule: LOVE requires that you walk over your ego.
    You should thank me for pointing this out. Something i have learned to do being French myself. See now you know meant continue to call people crazy.
    I am proud to say, being crazy is sometimes in one's advantage because crazyness is not always diagnosed right by common people, it may actually be a moment of genius!

  141. Joao Marques

    incredible! incredible how you twist scientific knowledge to proove there is a god!! You want to be refuted ? then here it is: the main fault in your reasoning is very simple: you deeply believe that you are in possession of all the bits and pieces of this enigma, and you deeply believe that all of that is true. well, both those beliefs are very bold and childish even! think about this oh all-knowing "removementalattachments". I read your entire article, and I have to say that it is very well constructed! yet, there are HUGE HUGE scientific minds (such as hawking, susskind, witten, kaku ,etc, etc) who for me, stand for the most imaginative and creative and very importantly, the most skilled mathematical and physical thinkers, some of who are in profound disagreement with eachother. Until I hear one of these modern geniuses sugest that there is a conscious god, I will proudly say that there isn't!

  142. Amanda Stevenson

    Thank you for responding to me. Your religious beliefs do not really matter to me. You could worship penguins and waddle while you walk in tribute to your penguin deity. I would still not judge your comments based on any of this. You seem very well grounded, and there is no need to disrespect you in any way.

    Dawkins was invited to this debate and offered money to do so. It was not the other way around. 100k of that money went to charity.

    Dawkins is a blessing in disguise to many here in the US. We have to put up with politicians who believe in magical underwear (Yes, that is the mormons) and so many more over the top fundamentalist views. Our nation is split down the middle on the topic of creationism and evolution. It's ridiculous. We even have museums trying to show humans and dinosaurs living side by side (true story).

    I do wish to correct you on another comment of yours. You mentioned this to another person, "but until Dawkins can prove what initiated the big bang, he probably won't be able to convince me what didn't."

    Professor Dawkins is an evolutionary scientist. The big bang theory was developed by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest. Those are two totally different areas of science.

    I don't find Dawkins to be cowardly at all. I can imagine the hate mail and death threats that man must receive. Try looking up "Dawkins reads his hate mail" sometime on Youtube. It's a total riot.

  143. Amanda Stevenson

    I think that jonathan jackward belongs to the same church as Kirk Cameron does. Didn't you know that the Flintstones cartoon is based on a true story (sarcasm intended)?

  144. verseinu

    New science doesn't mean good science.

    I don't know if it is right or wrong. If it is legitimate science, time will give it the acclaim it deserves.

    But, with this being such an ENORMOUS claim, and it is being made by some random dude on a message board about documentaries* saying "Please all of you who are attached to materialism and old science, bring it one, attempt to refute me."...I don't know, something just smells a little funny to me.

    I'll wait for the nobel prize announcements, all major religions frothing at the mouth claiming the 'quantum computer' is (and always was) their god, and BBC documentaries before I buy into it!

    *TDF is frikin' amazing, but actual..... scientific...... proof of a god at least deserves to be on fox news.

  145. Amanda Stevenson

    At one time, humans believed that the world was flat. There are plenty of religious and very spiritual persons who believe in evolution. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, unicorns, or Santa Claus? Does this make me a heretic? You are mixing science with the super natural. The two do not mix. Just like religion and government do not mix.

  146. Amanda Stevenson

    LOL! That fits right into one of my old personal sayings/jokes. I truly do believe that humans evolved from primates, but some didn't fully develop.

  147. Achems_Razor

    Charles,you said your god made us..."his master creations"? that made me laugh out loud.

    What your god did is make us humans imperfect, and then blames us for his mistakes!

  148. hpthoroughbreds

    you all are WAY too educated in the sciences for me....the only thing i know about quantum math/theory i got in a marathon on pbs(in the us) about quantum theory...having grown up poor but curious i love to glom on to things i never had the opportunity to experience or learn at a "proper" level of secondary education and mull them over. (i was a nurse but consider that education as just rote....mostly..) i sat there like a bit of primordial ooze and absorbed as much as i could but was woefully confused on many points... we can only try... when my son was around 6 or 7 he asked me if i believed in ghosts... well..the only honest answer i could give him was that i really did'nt know..we do have some limitations in understanding all of the magesty and mystery of a universe we are really only beginning to explore. perhaps one day we may bump into another dimension in the closet on the way to looking for something else.. i am not advocating one way or another.. just believe that we believe in what we can prove TODAY.... pretty silly comparison but how #$%@ing astonished would our ancestors be if they encountered electricity in the same way as we experience it today.. yes i understand it is a physical science and we are able to scientifically predict and understand any facet of it.. i just wonder sometimes if there is another or other scientific discoveries we have no way to conceptualize now in the same ways our ancestors could never have conceptualized electricity as we so easily understand it today... i just love to keep an open door to the possibility of just about anything.. except perhaps unicorns.. though that would be kind of a pretty surprize (i AM kidding) thanks, dhp

  149. branrx

    Im not saying I dont believe in evolution. My brain can easily see the validity of it. Im just saying what we think we know now will more than likely be trumped in the future again and again as the depths of our perception increase.

    But you are right science and religion dont mix. But isnt science just religion?

  150. Amanda Stevenson

    Why the heck would you call science a religion? So, does that mean that electricians, plumbers, and physicists are all a part of their own religion as well? Maybe there's a secret cult of dentists in the back allies some where. My point is, while you're throwing professionals of science into a category of religious bias, then we should point fingers at all experts in different fields.

    No one is disputing here that evolution maybe or might not have new evidence in the future to change opinions of Darwin's theory. That is not the point. Science is constantly testing and retesting theories (especially Darwin's theory of evolution). It just so happens that Darwin's theories which were very sketchy for it's time has held up very well under the scope of experts over the past 150 years since the theory was first born.

    The only theory that has come into view of the scientific world which has disputed Darwin's theory of evolution was the "intelligent design" theory. This is just a cover up, rewording, and a creationist communities attempt to throw creationism into our public school system. The book "Of Pandas and People" which is a text book on intelligent design was ruled as being unconstitutional and not scientific. Take a peek at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.

  151. branrx

    Science can very easily become a religion when its top members who have power decide what is fact and what isnt, in the name of their own glory in their time. And its very easy to put on a good show like Mr Dawkins does when he brings forth videos of religious "simpletons" with their banana fits perfectly in my mouth ,must be God defense. But even the top minds like Einstein werent aragant enought to say there is no God. He was trying to learn the mind of God, no matter what form God may have been. Ill take Einstein over this boza anyday.

    But again i dont dispute evolution. (although i dont agree mutations are completely random, but thats just me). I dont think using evolution to disprove God is a good tool for the Athiest. Evolution, may have taken billions of years, but isnt that just a 'blink' of real time? Anyway, I think Christians worry way to much about this stuff when they should be concentrating more on the nature and teachings of Jesus Christ.

  152. verseinu

    The potential for new discovery today seems far less then in the past. Knowledge in the past was dominated by myth and fairytale so there was lots of room for an objective, empirical interpretation of the universe. The fundamental workings of the universe were beyond the reach of their imagination. For anyone with the will and motivation I imagine there must have been new discoveries just floating in the breeze waiting to be grasped.

    Today science has laid the groundwork for an 'Encyclopedia Galactica'. It is methodically plodding along filling its pages, there is probably no way of knowing if the encyclopedia ever could be complete, but one can wonder how much alteration is still left to do on the major sections.

    Who knows what new discoveries will be made. But I wonder if we will see discoveries on the scale of 'the earth is round', 'bacteria cause illness', or 'evolution'....the big ones that cause massive shifts in consciousness.

    My one big hope before my time is out on this earth is the discovery of signs of life off of earth. THAT would be one helova thrill!!!!

  153. Amanda Stevenson

    Professor Dawkins is an evolutionary scientist who happens to be an atheist. Of course he's going to use his intellectual specialty in a debate about religion. Since you brought up Eistein to me, I thought that I would shed some light. How much do you really know about Einstein?

    Quotes from Einstein: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth."

    Einstein was very frustrated in his life time at the accusations to any religious affiliations or beliefs he had.

    Einstein also stated, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.

    Dawkins is not one of the atheists who is absolutely certain there is no god. He states repeatedly that he can't disprove or prove there is a god. He just looks at the evidence that supports the belief/religion to be based on superscription which is man made.

    Two quotes from Darwin in his own words:
    "That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the nonexistence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable" (p. 54). The God Delusion (2006)
    "God can be neither proved nor disproved" (p. 54). The God Delusion (2006)

    Now that I have said my peace. I would like to thank you for an interesting conversation. Some of the most intelligent people I know are Christians. One of them is my own mother whom I have the utmost respect and admiration for. Please do not think that I am critiquing your personal beliefs. I can completely understand how many atheists come off very arrogant and annoying. In fact (even though I'm not an atheist, I am a heathen), I sometimes just want to wack them on the head. It's just nice sometimes to discuss things rationally. Thank you.

  154. Guest

    an Heathen?

    sorry last night had a bug and it took the google off the computer and i can't figure how to fix this.

    Darn and it is not MY computer but the computer of the people i am caretaking a house for.
    Am i in trouble!

  155. branrx

    Yes nice conversation. Im sure we get
    But I never said Einstein believed in a Christian or personal God.

    The key word is personal. But he smartly avoids the debate and refuses to be apart of the athiest crusade. Because even he knew the limitations of our perception.
    "What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility"

  156. branrx

    After some pondering on this I will stop using Einstein on the debate. Not because of what he did or did not believe but because I keep reading how he didnt understand why his beliefs are constantly being quoted in defense of the athiest or the believer. I would much rather stick with the simple idea that we dont know anything. We can measure, quantify and stick with these basic facts about what we percieve, but think about how much truth is being left out. I wish as scientists we could just say. Based on our calculations, what we can measure, from what we can extrapulate from, there was a Big Bang, the Earth is not the center of the universe, evolution occurred via natural selection over billions of years. This is what we have calulated thus far until it can and may be disproved by scientific explanation and experimentation at a later unknown date.
    Now this doesnt mean the Unicorn or Spaghetti Monster will have their fair place physical existence, but what this leaves is the possibilities inherent in a mostly unknown and infitnite existence.
    So before Dawkins picks on the ding dongs with the Banana Theories, at least show some respect for what could be.

    Having stated all this I do agree our education system has been hindered by theology and the church for hundreds of years. So perhaps a little mocking is expected from the opposite side but it doesnt make it the right reaction.

  157. branrx

    God I love this website! Wait? someone give me a politically correct word to use for God.

    LOL..just kidding, this site rocks

  158. Guest

    smart, respectfull, and open.
    thank you!

  159. Guest

    In my case it's Godzila


  160. Amro Fadly

    Dawkins is a liar
    he chooses weak questions/arguments for god then refutes them
    He ignores the obvious and clear proofs of god existence

  161. jonathan jackward

    sure, monistic idealism.

  162. jonathan jackward

    monistic idealism is a valid worldview as opposed to the dominant materialistic dualism worldview held by scientists of the the past.

  163. jonathan jackward

    all of what was said by removementalattachments is an accepted scientific worldview "monistic idealism" that is accepted by many scientists in every field today, with an ever growing body of evidence, and theories, in the community.It continues to account for more of the truth as time goes on and is removing many paradox's and unifying many individual fields in science, physics, philosophy, mathematics etc. to have a complete accurate worldview. there must be a unification.

  164. Achems_Razor

    It is not accepted as a "monistic idealism or unification by many scientists,
    show us the growing body of evidence and theories that you speak of, don't forget has to be peer reviewed or just a pile of words, @remove also had reference to Wheeler/ De Witt in his ramblings and as a contradiction also said that basically no such thing as multiverses of which Wheeler/ De Witt is a proponent of.

  165. verseinu

    Where is he lying?

    What is a weak argument for god?

    Where are your obvious and clear proofs of god?

  166. AnalogousGumdropDecoder


    When I perform, I often leave certain electronic instruments or effects running without my input or with only minor initial input and no further tampering. I also perform in a group that improvises - each entity composing as it goes along with no chart. Music can result from this, though it will not sound the same as music that is the result of strict meticulous composition. I'm just pointing out that it is not necessary to have a score to create music, nor an instrument, nor even a musician. I'm not using this as an analogy for science, because I don't think analogy is an appropriate substitute for science... but since you used an analogy, I thought I'd show you how it might be subverted.

  167. jonathan jackward

    dawkins makes the assumption that evolution proves materialism which is only a worldview an individual can have not, proven science.there are many scientists that do not hold that worldview.In fact there is no more evidence for materialism, than other worldviews within the scientific community such as monistic idealism

  168. jonathan jackward

    I partially agree with your above statement.however I believe that the most important discoveries that have to do with origin (,consciousness,what the universe is etc.)are yet to come, things that will radically change our perceptions lifestyles and inherent relationships with each other.
    there is an alarming amount of evidence for ufo's alien life, many countries have declassified their files and made them open to the world. many of the cases involve high ranking officials,presidents, and cases with hundreds or thousands of people witnessing ufos demonstrating tech that humans will not be capable of for hundreds of years.ecuador,belgium and mexico, are highly regarded in these areas.

  169. jonathan jackward

    new science means good science.
    this information might be new to you here and others as well, but it has been an ever growing view from within the scientific community for a long time, as the evidence ,theorys, and physics has.
    it may be new to you, but materialism is not the only scientific worldview.

  170. verseinu

    @jonathan jackward

    Please respond only with links to back up this comment:

    re:materialism, there are many scientists that do not hold that worldview

    I'm not suggesting there are not, I just want to see what you can provide.

  171. verseinu

    Again, jonathan jackward, I ask you to provide only links to back up your comment:

    re:'monistic idealism'(?), this...has been an ever growing view from within the scientific community for a long time, as the evidence ,theorys, and physics has.

  172. Liam Prendergast

    I love mo*ons. They are the salt of the earth, without them life would be so boring.

  173. Kahina

    Are you a troll? Go to a jesus crispy blog or religious doc and post there. If there was clear proof of "God's existence" you wouldn't need faith now would you?

  174. Kahina

    I love Dawkins but the man ALWAYS puts me to sleep. Same goes for Chomsky.

  175. Kahina

    Are you familiar with David Bohm's work? I suggest his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

  176. John Jacquard

    jesus crust pizza anyone?

  177. Ricardo_62

    Have I missed something? 'obvious and clear proofs of god existence' I thought the whole point of your imaginary friend was that there was no proof of her existence and that faith was required? Doesn't a 'proof' take all the fun out of it?

  178. absta1995

    There isn't proof for God's existence (that we know of). There isn't any proof of him not existing either.

    However, maybe there's a higher chance that one of those is correct.

  179. Arthur Write

    what proofs???

  180. Marcus Anthony

    well, that depends- Many people get proof of God (though I wouldnt call God a "him", that's just senseless.. O.o) but it's a genuinely internal experience(which may have it's own sense of feminine/masculine) , that can't be substantiated into physical evidence for other people to accept or deny.

  181. wald0

    Really to ask, "What is the purpose of the air plane's tail or bird's tail ?" is to anthropomorphize it in my opinion. However the strict definition of purpose does allow this, in its noun form of course. If it is used as a verb it requires conciouse intent, exp. John's purpose is to win the race. Therefore it is incorrect to say, "It is the tale's purpose to stabalize the plane." Insted we must say, "It is the purpose of the tail to stabalize the wing." It seems like the same thing, but its not. An even more correct way to say it is, "It is the purpose of the tail's design to stabalize the plane." English is a difficult language, at least for me it is.

    I keep this kind of confusion down by using the word function instead of purpose when I am talking about chemistry. I constantly hear students ask what is the purpose of this or that molecule or element in such and such reaction. What they mean is what is our purpose for introducing this reactant, catalyst, etc. into the reaction, which is really a very different thing. If they persist with such langauage I will eventually tell them the purpose of nitrogen is to keep carbon and oxygen from slamming together on the periodoc table.(LOL)

  182. TheDarkTruth .

    Nay, the egg came first, as when applying Darwin's law(s) it is obvious to state that it’s the offspring that gain the initial new genetic/cellular abnormality/change/defect/tweak/enhancement (call it what you like). So in posing the question; 'what came first, the chicken or the egg?' Well, the answer to that is definitively clear: The Egg. The first of the breed, genus or species will always, have to be the offspring. In the case of Oviparous, that offspring is called...? That’s right, An Egg.

  183. Mantid

    So basically people have false experiences and call them real?

  184. James Herd

    removementalattachments, please do removementalattachments of Omnipotene beings and trying to fit them in to scientiffic advancements made by observations and facts and not with beliefs.
    Quantum decoherence provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse, as the quantum nature of the system leaks into the environment around it, So when not being measured or observed, evolve according to the time dependent Schrodinger equation.

  185. jbriggs_87

    dawkins puts all his eggs in the knowledge basket. cmon now, you cant prove that any of its real but yourself. id kill to see dawkins try some shrooms and see the whole thing from a new angle. direct experience!

  186. Colin Perkins

    Aww crap, Dawkins was hoodwinked by Obama....

  187. UncleJoe223

    Dawkins only proves that he has the most massive ego, the most inflated opinion of his own intellect, that anyone has ever had. Oh, and brass balls.

  188. Lary9

    Professor Dawkins' differentiation between "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose" is a brilliant, long overdue new vocabulary to sharpen the public understanding of what is more precisely meant when we say, for example, that a bird wing has purpose in the same way that an airplane wing has purpose. One of my pet peeves is this very thing---that evolutionists undermine their evangelical outreach toward public understanding of evolution when they use this kind of imprecise scientific shorthand to describe such evolutionary processes. It's a kind of lazy vagueness of language that can conflate the vectors of origin with creation in the mind of a non-scientific person.

  189. Lary9

    If you don't immediately "get" his point and recognize it to be valid, then it's easy to guess what kind of science-advocacy you look for in national leadership.

  190. Lary9

    Good point. As a former believer...that is what I always thought the scriptural basis of faith was according to St.Paul.

  191. Lary9

    Chomsky! The brilliant Noam Chomsky is a 10th. degree black belt of lecture-snooze. His speaking style is like a low-volume, slow-droning metronome of uninflected word flow.

  192. Lary9

    Science might become a religion...when they figure out a way to herd cats.
    Also, modern evolutionary theory doesn't limit mutation exclusively to randomness---although it can be. But there are several general classifications of mutation that are linked to causes.

  193. Lary9

    There are general theories, like gravity, that won't ever be refuted. However, the specific sub-set of ideas that derive from the general theory are in constant flux and improvement. A theory is not just a collection of temporary hunches about why or how or what something "is"...A general foundational theory is basically a timeless, unchanging explanation of how a law operates universally.Some theories are cornerstones of whole areas of science...others are subsets and more transitional.

    There is such a huge body of knowledge on the characteristics of matter and energy...form and function...going all the way back in time to Greece, that any one "theory" incorporates 1,000 ideas or principles that were unknown even 100 yrs ago...much less 2,000 yrs ago.

  194. UncleJoe223

    The purpose of everything, all of evolution, the creation of the universe was to give us. . . DAWKINS! Yes, Dawkins will explain it all to you! Only he, not Nietzsche, not Aquinas, not Kant, not Kierkegaard, not Poe, not Shakespeare, not Jesus, not Buddha, not even Elvis, but DAWKINS has figured it out: the purpose of purpose is DAWKINS HIMSELF.

    What a hole.

  195. TheRealMax

    "Ill named"....LOL...

  196. Vlad Bogdanoff

    I would rather listen to him speak all day than some Jesus, Budha, and especially YOU. Instead of making personal attacks on an individual, why not try to provide a legible rebuke to his arguments? You smack off like some kind of christian or a religious freak turning a scientific discussion into a personal smear.

  197. yohannes simeneh

    dawkins is pure genius except that he tries to hard to give atheism a religious outlook trying to make Atheism to a godless religious organization i dont personaly like that.

  198. Harry Dowdeswell

    come now! leave buddha outta this, hes done no harm haha

  199. Bernie Rego

    Good Post Amanda. You misquoted or left out some lines of Dawkins. He never says that he is absolutely sure of God's Non-existance, but that the probability of God's exisistance is very very low, hence he declares him self about a 6, (from the scale on 1to 10) on the agnostic scale. Ineresting too, although everyone calls him the most famous Atheist in the world, he still considers him self agnostic on that pont.

  200. Kaz

    I love Richard Dawkins, his clarity in striking his point is next to nothing. He is super knowledgeable, and people like him should be leading humanity if we ever have some hope forward.

  201. Alan LFC

    dawkins has never been "arrogant enough to say there is no god" he says there is no evidence for god. you cant dispute that.

  202. Augusta Pluckhart

    AWFULL SOCIOLOGY There's range of work that develop a sociological approach to sciences, of how knowledge is built, transmitted and so on, so one thing: there is no science that is not also part of a society and therefore political and sociological.
    In the way he presents things -not what he says-, Dawkins perpetuates a "science" that the one of white euro-american males and excludes other forms of access to knowledge. A form of science that is made from a position of power and discredites things deemed less noteworthy such as mysticism, asking "why?".......why should we not ask why ayers rock is there?
    He perpetuates the idea that middle-ages where a time of general stupidity (simplistic), that muslims want to die because of virgins (really?), that sex is men chasing shy women (check the pictures shown), that jewish dancing is laughable matter (for people like him), etc...And all that being, socially, in a dominant position.
    And all that give a less than convincing evolutionary explanation of psychological and sociolgical phenomenas which resembles very much the banana argument: associations of events and phenomenas without regard for historical and spatial change that make them different pehnomenas.

  203. Hollis

    Dr. Dawkins is at his best when speaking on evolutionary biology, and not at his best when debating on gods and religion. it's unfortunate, for he is a rational scientist, but his verbal debating skills in no way rise to the level of a Christopher Hitchens or a Sam Harris. this was an enjoyable lesson in evolution and natural (and unnatural) selection that in itself lends strength to the arguments of a Hitchens or a Harris.

  204. GRUMPY25608

    Your observations may be correct, however as Prof Dawkins doco was a lecture and not a debate your observation may have substance however it is irrelevant when discussing this doco...

    I think you have made the error that most do in the aspect that, Dawkin defends science rather than attacks religion. It may appear that Dawkins os attacking religion through his defence of science, however if you study his works, he must refer to religion as a basis of his defence it appear it's the religious community that attacks the truth science has found.

  205. Juraj Filkorn

    the question is silly, as in the context of the documentary. if you would like an aproximation of what happened, applying my knowledge of evolution, i would say an organism that laid something similar to egg, let say protoegg. now what would be the exact atributes of an protoegg i can not say.

    something being wet is just an analysis of what is around you, acquired information through your senses, evaluated by your brain somehow transefered into consciousness, whatever that is. why is water wet, why is hot hot and cold cold or blue blue is a subject of brain evaluation not of the object`s real atributes, in my opinion at least.

    now, why do I respond to a two years old rant, i do not know.

  206. John thatcher

    I hope there is a All loving God out there waiting for us.But sadly it appears religion is only a way of keeping the idiots in line.

Leave a comment / review: