Yeah it’s weird hey. Why not just have 2 tripods with a camera on Dawkins and a camera in students. The cameraman can focus on different students as they speak and then cut together in post.
Richard Feynman is a god... But he would never see it that way :) He just likes asking questions and then figuring out the answers to his questions... That’s just how he is. We are all Richard Feynmans (or at least we have the potential)
@@edfox6921 hopefully, they got even luckier, and had a teacher or fellow student to remind them, that Dawkins views are super opinIon and speculation as well, not to mention non sense.
@@marvinvogel1985 no one says. Something came.from nothing, it has been explained multiple times. Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean crap
I know it's a joke. but as someone who's done hundreds of hours of single camera shoots of events, this is actually a very skilled camera person. These transition are smooth! Framing is spot on.
@@abdullah82m I can totally see why somebody would get dizzy or motion sickness, I was just pointing out that pulling off a single camera shoot with a speaker and an audience and capturing it that well was the result of a highly skilled camera person. Normally this would be done with it at least two cameras and you would do clean cuts back and forth. But when you're a single camera person you have no choice but to swing the camera around back and forth. They have shots so many situations like this that I know, that this was done as well as possible.
A few thousand. Not the same category of size as creationists are. Essentially the difference between the guy who tells you that he was abducted by aliens and the overly religious hilly billy.
we goin sizzler u do know that the mention of spherical earth was first documented in Greek philosophy, 600 BC? It was knowledge amassed by navigators. This was supported by Plato, Pythagoras n many great scholars of that period. Spherical earth was later experimentally proved by two navigators in 15th century. Nasa's pictures were not just to prove fools of earth being round. It was, still is, a known fact. How in the world ppl believe in flat earth in this age?!
Lizmol Antony I’ve come to realize by listening to further explanation from Neil Tyson that certain people believe in a flat earth only in the theory that we are on a simulation which would involve a flat plain *BUT* I don’t think this is what the media is saying nor this guy we are trying to argue with... I think “u goin sizzler” genuinely thinks it’s flat in general and *that* is moronic as hell lmao. *Thanks for the back up we logical thinkers gotta stick together*
@Steve Projecting much? You demonstrate that yourself by coming here and pretending you know everything about biology, more than an accomplished biologist. Who is really arrogant her?
@Steve This is the part where you, a nobody with obviously no scientific expertise, pretends to be on the education level of an accomplished biologist. And a douchebag on top of that. Its like your holy book tells you to be a douche to random people who are actually smarter than you. But keep going. I just need to quote idiots like you to show how arrogant, ignorant (about your own religion) and stupid believers are. You only make it worse with every comment :)
@@pappycool dude, the evidence is so overwhelming that it _lead_to_ a theory. This means that the goal of scientists is to develop a good theory (which is an explanation of events based on evidence). No evidence = no theory. So please, by all means, fuck off.
you have to try to put people at a ghasp when you meet them so you can have an influence on them. that's why i always introduce my self as a tiny, insignificant spech of carbon and i have 1 life and it's short and unimportant so please like me :)
Dawkins doesn’t actually explain anything. He only presented HIS version of what has happened by basically parroting things that other (atheists) have done.
Every person alive should have to watch this video. Richard's explanation about the meaning of life is the best I have ever heard. When he explains the type of life that evolved here was the type that was allowed to over time, that answer alone can be talked about endlessly.
He got kind of emotional in a good way when explaining how cool it is that we're all here just because we are, which means we can make our own meaning. A lot of people think the idea of evolution is bleak but to me the idea that we got to the point we can do what we do thanks to some chemicals in water is actually amazing. What a beautiful set of coincidences it took to get us to where we are today. We are a record of the Earth'e history
@catpoke9557 I don't want to be that guy, but you can't even logically believe you have free will under an atheistic worldview. The worldview requires belief that all our bodies are, are just a bunch of atoms. That means that every single future state that you body and brain will be in, Is perfectly calculatable ahead of time, using the laws of physics. (Technically there is some random chance present in the laws, so the future isn't actually perfectly calculatable, but random chance by definition isn't determined by anything, so it still doesn't allow for free will). So therefore "free will" is an illusion, as you actually have no control over your future. This of course doesn't prove god exists, as you could just bite the bullet and accept that you don't have free will, and many atheists philosphers do exactly that. But without free will, there by extension can't be morality as well, as morality implies there are a way things ought be. Without free will, there are no ways things ought be, only the way things randomly happen to be. Your life is also as meaningful as any inanimate object.
There are a lot of students who disrespect teachers when they aren't supposed to. And adults in debates are supposed to be respectful towards one another just as these children are expected to be respectful towards Mr. Dawkins yet most of the time they are not. So I don't get your point.
Most of the time I see religious classes invite someone like Mr Dawkins, the guest get interrupted constantly, most often by the "usual" teacher. So it was nice to get a class where the guest is allowed to proceed uninterrupted
Zic Rog In England the grading system is different, there's a test at the end of the semester and that's your whole grade, it isn't like you guys in America.
From an educator’s point of view, he does a fantastic job of adjusting to his audience and working with their current understanding to make connections. Very good stuff
I think the video's title is somewhat misleading. Dawkins seems to be conducting an exercise in critical thinking rather than delivering a lecture on evolution.
Individuals like Dawkins often use words such as science, scientific, critical or rational thinking. However, they are useally only expressing their own beliefs.
No. There is no pause function in online games. They run in real time. (unless u want to count stuff like turn based games or League of Legends which the pause button only works in custom matches and that game is shit anyway)
Although the filming is not well done, it does not detract from the interesting, well-argued and open questions and answers. You don’t need to look at the pictures.
At minute 32, approximately, Richard looks troubled -- he's debating internally whether to remain polite with these children or to shatter their entire world view.
Richard is an amazing teacher, instead of just dumping knowledge he built up curiosity without being competitive. Also the children were amazing too, very bright indeed.
Especially with the state of stupidity that then can be witnessed to have. Despite great technological prowesses. And the dangerous paradox is . Great power comes with great responsibility, but we are careless motherfuckers.
for the moment we are. I think we'll have to start taking measures to get better soon or we'll have no place to live. this could be seen as another stage of human evolution.
It is possible that there were many different intelligent beings that lived on earth for a million or so years than went extinct. We're just the newest intelligent life form on earth for now.
This is pretty much how it went, "so how does, like, taking umm, 2 + 2, does that equal, well, 5?" Dawkins: "hmmm anybody got an answer for that? No, no one? Well may i propose that it equals 4?" Student:" well i mean the bible says it is 5, and it being four is kind of hard for me to understand, so i choose to believe that it is 5." Dawkins:" Well if I took two rocks, and added them to another two rocks, we can count them up and get 4." "Well, that is just a theory and i believe what i want to believe and how does god fit into that? Surely you can't actually believe 2 plus 2 is 4." "Well some of you think it is 5, others 6, so what makes one better than the other?" "But if you have half a 2 then how can you get four?" "Anyone got an answer? No?
+steveninthe We do. You just sound like those people claiming that the Earth is flat. Of course we know. It's a theory that is based on thousands of papers, tens of thousands hours spend on research. There's no scientist claiming otherwise nowadays, because it was tested and backed up so many times. Or do you have anything better than that? A new theory that could possibly compete with this one? You want mountains and mountains of evidence when it comes to science, but when it comes to faith? God? There's none. NONE. And you just believe it.
@Hung Vu Why would they call him an idiot? Richard Dawkins is a surprisingly intelligent man. This was the first video I watched of him and I watched it until the end even if I planned to just switch in and out. I need to find more videos of him :)
Because they aren't idiots, they just don't know and they're showing interest and asking, wanting to know more. he's smart enough to respect people like them.
Fascinating! Richard can really explain things so elegantly that everybody would like to participate. They are eager to understand and to learn..unfortunately our schools and teachers are so badly prepared to deal with such questions.
No, not at all like that. Atheist parents would be justly angered for two very clear reasons. The US Constitution provides a separation of church and state, so teaching a religiously based theory (such as creationism) in a public school would be unconstitutional. Secondly, there is not a single piece of scientific evidence that supports creationism, so it has no place in a science classroom. Evolution is based on 150 years of scientific research and experimentation that all points to the theory being true.
@Sam Van Ryzin- "separation of Church and State" BS! Every session of Congress and Senate is opened with a prayer to God. There is no separation of Church and State. "religious based theory" How is design and construction by an intelligent agent, religion? "not a single piece of scientific evidence that supports creationism," Not needed when 'creation by intelligence' is the "natural" method for the introduction of new products. Besides, to be a little honest about 'science' and creationism, modern materialistic science does not explore the emergence of biological organisms by an intelligent creator, so why should there be anything written on the subject from materialistic driven science? It's like saying, 'A' does not talk about 'B', so therefore, 'B' does not exist. It's a cheap dishonest answer. The real bottom line is, religious based materialistic science does not like competition in the classroom. Evolution, and other materialistic science dogma/mythology[abiogenesis}, is real easy to refute with a little observable evidence. Not easy to brainwash minds when counter evidence is shown, or other logical arguments are presented. It's not unlike the Jehovah's Witness religion telling their flock to only read material they print, that outside their religion is just apostate information meant to weaken their faith by making inroads into their thinking. You atheists are more religious than most Christians, and you don't even freaking know it! LOL
Imagine going to a High School where in your classes your Biology class teacher is Dawkins, and in Physics your teacher is Krauss and in Philosophy and Literature Hitchens.
i think Dawkins didn't really answer that question about "just a theory" correctly. "theory" simply has a different meaning in a scientific context. the wikipedia definition is this: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." so it's very different from the way we use that word colloquially, where it's basically just a synonym for hypothesis.
Exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps he’s trying his best no to overwhelm them but what helped me when I was younger was hearing that there is a difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word theory.
@@maciejnajlepszy so the only way to prove something is to reproduce it? are you being serious? this might be the dumbest f*cking thing i've ever heard. evolution is literally a scientific theory by definition. scientists don't even question this anymore, they treat it as fact because it is one. please do your research before poisoning online comment sections with misinformation.
I think he had the right idea with the detective analogy, but that he just didn't put enough emphasis on it and didn't actually explain the difference. He could have just kept going with the analogy and explained that a colloquial theory would never be enough to convict someone of any crime, and how a scientific and a criminal theory are theories because they are held to a very different standard to colloquial theories and such. I just believe he made a pretty poor job at most things unfortunately by just not going in enough on any question. I'd extent most topics to this criticism, especially on the 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' part, which are founding and most often for the vast majority of people completely unclear
That white kid literally said God gave everyone 2 kidneys so that we could donate them if other people need them. I cannot BEGIN to list off everything so impossibly absurd about that statement.
"I believe in my religion because I was brought up this way." That right there sums up everything about religion. You would think people would start thinking for themselves as they got older, but nope. I'm glad Dawkins got to talk to this class. Some say he's pushing evolution on to these kids. Kind of, yes, but more than anything he is trying to explain what it is and how it works, and also to get these brainwashed teens to start thinking for themselves rather than spitting back what they have been indoctrinated to spit back. It's sad they have difficulty understanding even the simplest of explanations about evolution. *Sigh* It's really not that difficult at all. Species slowly change over time as they adapt to their environment as IT changes. See? Easiest explanation that even a 5 year old can understand. Thankfully I never had this problem. I've been an Atheist since I could recognize what religion was. Let me tell you, when I did, I hated it from the start. Hated the idea of it, and hated the thought of believing and bowing down to non-existent beings and dead people. *Shudders*
Im so glad im not an atheist because your religion "evolution" has to be the stupidest ever . You believe your god whom you call "nothing" created life & form in a poker game by pure chance ...
stiffex Evolution is not a religion you moron, neither is Atheism, though there ARE Atheists out there who act like it is, but we normal Atheists disregard them. Pure chance? Well, yes, technically speaking it WAS pure chance. Had the Earth not calmed down after forming and continued on being a volcanic planet, life never would have evolved as it is today. There are other planets out there that have been discovered that could easily support life, but we have no way of knowing with our limited technology at this point in time. Who's to say life never formed on THOSE planets? We don't know yet, but hopefully we will one day. And if life exists elsewhere in this universe, then all of religion will be debunked. Theists can't grasp the vastness of the universe. To the universe, we are but a speck of dust, nothing more. Why would a god even care about this small planet and the life on it when there is an entire universe with billions of other galaxies in its wake? If I were a god or goddess, I wouldn't give a shit about the human-named "Earth".
stiffex It's not belief if it's a proven fact (evolution is, look it up). Believing in an invisible man in the sky, like the late George Carlin said, is a belief. By the way, atheists do not 'believe' in the nonexistence of God, they simply don't see enough evidence for the theory your religion has put forth.
Koaster Kelli "evolution" is indeed a religion as it requires faith . Its built on assumptive reasoning ; you assume something happened to kick start it but you dont quite know what ; you assume it took "billions of years" but you dont quite know where those numbers came from ; you assume a Mud Skipper changed into a Comodo dragon but you dont quite know how : and you assume that Darwin is your high priest or your God but you dont quite know which ... And you cant prove any of it using the scientific method but you can prove it using the orthodox religious method of dogma...
stiffex You obviously have NO concept about what science is or what science does. I would never believe what a scientist says unless he or she had the proof to back it up with substantial evidence. I don't take scientists on their word alone, unlike what religion does. When a Theist is told something by a preacher or other figure head, they are told to believe it without having to provide proof or evidence for their claims, and gullible idiots actually believe it.
Enda Dicksly ha ha it had to happen - needs to get to them even younger - I taught mine since he could talk there's no 'god' there's only science! (but don't say that in front of your nanny because she goes to church 3x a week and truly believes) he's 19 now and in college chemistry & physics and reinforces what I've always told him!!
Enda look into malachi martin his a catholic priest who lost his life due to demonic forces back in July 27 1999 he was 78 years old type this in in you tube real secret diary of the exorcist true demonic events poltergies the video last 3:55 the channel is criptic shadows paranormal in that comment what herzen gaming has to say
Don't worry, those are religious prep school kids who most likely have been told to be one sided and sheltered from there truth for there whole lives. Most of us aren't like that.
@Steve they should care because it's not only a FACT of life; but it's a fact of life that dispells the garbage and flat out incorrect beliefs that these kids have been brainwashed into accepting for probably their whole lives. So what you're saying is "why teach these kids a correct worldview that is going to have a major influence on how they live their lives, decisions they make, treat others, and raise their eventual kids?" and that's just a dumbass thing to say. It truly shows how ignorant you really are.
@Hocus Smokus just because you like the sound of "eternal life" doesnt make your ridiculously goofy fairy tale any more true. Time to put away the Tonka trucks, your Teddy Bears, and your blankie and grow up and join reality with the rest of the adults
@Steve sure you might think im ignorant, but on my side is logic, reason, and science. On your side is a book that any honest library would keep in the science-fiction section written by bronze age peasants. Who's opinion holds more weight? And where do you get this idea that "we're no more special than rats etc", aren't you supposed to believe that every living thing is god's creatures and children of his? Look, you'll never understand reality if you keep those giant religion blinders that you have on. I personally think it speaks to the inherit narcissism that comes with religious thinking that humans ARE actually more special than a rat or a plant or a tree. We're not. We're all things that share the universe and the only reason that you have this delusional view is because you ARE a human. Religion truly is the cock-block of progression.
It doesn’t hurt that if there is anything people should take away from this lecture (who doesn’t believe in science) this moment of the bad cameraman is a very significant point by Mr. Richard.
(My bad, this is from the UK :]]] ) Because of conservatism in the United States. The US was founded on specific dogmas, principles such as Christianity.
I really enjoyed the way Richard Dawkins taught to these students. It was respectful, smart, and open-minded. I think that is the right way to teach. Asking questions, not just the students asking the questions, but to have the teacher or professor ask the students questions to challenge rather than just telling the information as is. Highly enjoyed listening to this.
You can tell he was desperately trying to get them thinking and genuinely questioning anything. It's actually not just religious upbringing, though. I think teens tend to have an even harder time than adults with that sort of (admittedly abnormal) social situation, where you're asked to inquisite. It's not just religion passing them the same old counterpoints and unfelt queries, but frantic unfamiliarity and the desperate need to (ineffectually) hide it... unfamiliarity with even the social situation, itself. They still have some of the innate curiosity, but their developing social censor causes them to question questioning, and like adults, they sometimes need to be reminded to question their questioning of questions. That's why I think inquiry and this sort of experience should be a very regular part of education, from when it's natural, all the way forward. Unfortunately, it's probably one of the harder things to really learn and remember to do, as a teacher. (especially if your bosses worship at the charts and figures of standardized tests and funding above all else)
Yes, I agree. Only at the beginning he insisted a little bit too much on the uniqueness of life on earth, while the majority of scientific community agrees that life possibly exists in many other planets (and satellites) out there.
+Lockheim Gen 1:1 "in the beginning God created......." No other explanation comes remotely close. That's why there are so many atheists on line right now deluding themselves it could be any other way. The finitude of the past (i.e the impossibility of an actual infinite in nature) demands a ex nihilo creation event. So we have 9 hypothetical competing multiverse theories that try to explain away the obvious fine tuning and design in this magnificent, awe-inspiring, abstract law-abiding universe. "so prove my theory is wrong"... "it could have been the F.S.M " Yes well, dream on!!
+Lockheim I would definetly say it was the plant,but as hawkins explained when that plant grew it didnt produce oxygen nor it needed it for growth and gradually over time evolved to create okygen and at the same time became addicted to it so that it cant grow anymore if there isnt oxygen. I wonder why did evolution choose okygen over whatever else plants were living on before. Cuz obviously plants that didnt work on okygen dyed off cuz of natural selection. Would we exist today if the plants didnt evolve to use and produce okygen?
A pity so many adults have failed to discuss these matters with Dawkins as respectfully and thoughtfully - or in such a mature manner - as these young people.
Einstein said, “In light of such a harmony in the universe that I, with my limited human mind, can determine, there are still people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me in support of views like these.” [26] Question: "Why did Einstein find it so difficult to answer yes or no to the existence of a Creator?" Was it based on science or illusions? He was asked: Why did Anthony retreat from atheism? Is this regression based on science or illusions ؟ And what do they all believe in one Creator? This creation, the structure of the universe, the foods, the tongue that tastes, the teeth that grind, the stomach that digests, the excretion of waste from the body, oxygen, the lungs, the eyes, the sexual desire and many other things, this does not indicate anything. Are you 100% sure of not having a creator? Rivers and seas and the creatures in them and the rain that sows the earth beyond It is very with lots of fruits Nothing creates something Are you 100% sure of not having a creator? Go and see what religion commands you to worship. One Creator created everything, no three, no more, no less, but one. Go and see for yourself, you will find only one religion But I will remind you of something you may have forgotten. And I want you to think about it. You are here in this world against your will. Just think a little bit that you are not here. By your own choice. You are here by choice.Choose to be here.He is one and you will go.. The matter is not easy, the matter is great in this existence, because whoever is able to bring you into this world against your will, after death, will either find you in grace and beauty that you have not seen, or torment and fear. which you have not seen. Muhammad, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, is a prophet from the Creator, and before him many prophets did not lie or deceive, and he is the only religion that commands you to worship one Creator who created everything. First of all, you should know that the religion of all prophets is the worship of one Creator who created everything. Islam today is the only religion that commands you to worship one Creator and not idols, illusions, conjecture or a number of gods. But how do we know that the speech is from God and not from Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace? . These are some of the things that comfort your heart and believe that this is a prophet and many of the prophets before him This evidence appears generation after generation. The generation that lived with the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, witnessed miracles, and I collected for you what this generation has. in which we live The Almighty said: (Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke) The smoke confirms that the origin of this universe is inflamed. It is not a lake of water, as was the perception of all philosophies and religions that are based on illusion. This is one of the postulates of modern science today that the sky is condensation of smoke. This fact converted the French scientist Maurice to Islam and wrote a book entitled the Holy Qur’an on the scale of modern science How did Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, know this fact before? The Almighty says: ((And the heaven We constructed)) The sky is a building, not a vacuum as it was thought, and this was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017 that proved it How did Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, know this fact before? The Almighty’s saying: ((And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. )). That is, the sky expands with time. This fact, even in the time of Einstein, was not imagined by anyone and it was proven. And Einstein admitted it and admitted that it was the biggest scientific mistake he made in his life if he believed that the sky was fixed. The Qur’an before Einstein says that the sky expands fact Almighty’s saying: :((And We have made the night and day two signs, and We erased the sign of the night and made the sign of the day visible that you may seek bounty from your Lord and may know the number of years and the account [of time]. And everything We have set out in detail. )). The verse of the night is the moon and the verse of the day is the sun. The Qur'an tells that the sun and the moon were fiery masses. That is, the moon was a fiery mass and was erased, and the verse of the day remained visible to the eyes. Was the moon a fiery mass and extinguished? This is one of the biggest scientific issues discovered about the moon. The moon was already a fiery mass, and NASA issued on its official website a conceptual clip entitled The Evolution of the Moon in the video. In fact, the moon was a fiery mass like the sun, and this is what the Qur’an told about and the truth of modern science. How did Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, know this fact before? Almighty’s saying And you see the mountains thinking that they are rigid, while you will cross as the passage of clouds. [It is] the work of God who has perfected everything. In fact, he knows what you're doing.)) And the verse clearly spoke of a strange phenomenon, which is that the viewer of the mountains appears to him still, that is, they are still, but in fact they are not like that, rather they are in a state of constant movement. And the infidels of Quraish had previously accused our master Muhammad, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, of madness, and it is likely that their joy was overwhelming when this verse was revealed. They also found in it, according to their claim, evidence of this madness, and they told the people: How can you believe this man who says that these fixed mountains move like clouds moving in the sky! And today it is proven that the earth rotates, and with it the mountains, how did Muhammad know that and why is he telling you instead of the matter that makes people consider him crazy? The matter was not from him, but from God. . Almighty’s saying Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe)). After man was able to reach the sky by flying by modern means of transportation, he knew that the higher up in the air, the less oxygen and atmospheric pressure, which causes severe tightness in the chests and the process of breathing. : How did Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, know this fact before? It was not from him, but from God Almighty’s saying Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light! Modern sciences have revealed that in the bottom of the deep seas with abundant water - the deep sea - there is great darkness, to the extent that living creatures live in this darkness without visual tools, but live using their other senses such as hearing. These dark darknesses are not found in the sea water that surrounds the Arabian Peninsula, but rather they have been discovered in the oceans far from it This verse shows another aspect of the Qur’anic miracle, which is that the sea wave that all people only knew was one wave in the seas The verse says there is another wave in the depths of the sea, and divers discovered at the beginning of the twentieth century a fact that was hidden in the depths of the sea, that fact that shows another wave that throws divers into it as it is thrown at swimmers, and this wave was discovered by Scandinavian divers. .I will tell you what the Prophet said. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: One day the Bedouins who live in the desert will build tall towers, and this is my duty. Go and see where the tallest buildings are and who owns them. God Almighty: ((We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?) And God informed the Qur’an of this by saying: “Did you think that we created you without a purpose and that you would never return to us?” All these and other matters that I have not mentioned indicate that this is a prophet from God..More important than that, as I told you, is the only religion that commands you to worship one Creator, who created everything and before him many prophets Say, if you wish, there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God speak from the heart . ,
Right?! Blows my mind. I have read all his books and seen countless debates and lectures and I'm slightly disappointed that in a lot of cases here he didn't give much, much better explantations that I've seen him give in the past that would've done a much better job in helping them see the reality of Evolution. Also, the fact that he didn't explain the two definitions of the word "theory" (the basic definition used in everyday life, and the scientific definition which scientists use that had a completely different meaning) as I've seen him do so eloquently really bothered me.
I am not opposed to evolution being taught in any circle, religious or not, but I have yet to hear a plausible explanation from any atheist as to how evolution somehow rules out the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer such as God. Would you mind explaining?
Forget about religion, I am speaking about the existence of an Intelligent Designer that correlates with the complex and intricate design of our Universe, and also the complex process which is evolution. I hear people tell me, evolution is a 'guided process,' by what or by who I ask? The fact that it was guided seems like something people like Richard Dawkins and others who are so certain that God or a Designer doesn't exist take for granted, for because we understand something scientifically, therefore God is not a plausible explanation. My question is what if this God or Designer wanted us to understand how His Creation works and science was His method for understanding both the design and the designer?
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson said "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us." and I wholly agree. The universe contains things that exceed our senses. There's infrared light and ultraviolet radiation that we cannot see or feel, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We just don't have the senses to detect it. That's why we invented tools (through science) to see these things and prove they exist.
We are just a living conciouss organism in a bigger pool of living organisms. We just do not have the capacity to understand 100% fully much beyond our atmosphere. The Universe maintains us not us to it.
Yup, I believe that’s a sort of take on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s quote saying the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you, however Niels quote accurately explains that just because something doesn’t make sense right now doesn’t mean it isn’t real, Dawkins realizes this is a pretty good argument for the possibility of God so chooses a more reductionist type quote.
Those bible editors were very wise men, but not very educated. They also should have left out the magic creation parts, Noah's flood story, etc. The religionists of today would be in a much better position. It has little future left to it, by picking a fight with scientific research and modern tools of detection. Religion is a way for some to a happy fulfilment, but nothing else. The only connection it has to the scientific world is with psychology. (which, by the way, televangelists understand far too much of- lol)
@@kiriakosoikonomu2907most religious people I've met also use science, sad how you think it must be a threat to religion and would rather the world be ignorant instead of thriving just because of it. Sad
Well if Dawkins was smart, he would have said evolution is a fact, we all change though adaption or reproduction, but how life originated is a theory, don't think most people know this difference.
Nick Sarbu : There is no such thing as a Scientific fact. Everything is up for change all the time, this is science’s strength. In science theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially but they will forever be a theory. A well established theory is the pinnacle of science. For Abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life) on the other hand we have several hypothesis, but non have a big enough body of evidence behind them to be called a theory yet. This is what these students should be taught imho.
Its more than a theory its a religion masquerading itself as science. Dawkins says all this stuff with no factual concrete evidence, this is science fiction and he has great faith. He's a wonderful.preachers. He's not genisus! He's made natural selection over powered. I know the works of Charles Darwin. If he were alive he most honest and a theist complete. I feel bad how embarrassed Dawkins would stand before me. Anatomy and Physiology of mammals displays were where created as a mature creation many multiple organs needed for the life of us. Removal of one single organ isn't just a less life but death. Dawkins has swelling words, proclaims things fsctually. Micro evolution is true his fiction of macro evolution is where he errors, neither does science support. But some think he's smart in till light out shines him and we see how dim his light really is. Sources: all about god.com. UA-cam god vs evolution. Or the atheist delusion! Love ya bro
Paul Carlo : You indeed can’t simply take an organ out of any organism alive today as it may well result in death, you are right. But tell me what is your proof that earlier precursors of today’s life couldn’t very well have functioned with a more primitive version of that organ or without that organ altogether if one goes far enough back in time? Also as www.allaboutgod.com is not a Scientific paper and it does not want to hold it’s own assumptions and beliefs of the great creator up to compare it with evidence we can hardly say we’re on equal grounds here. I wish you the best with your beliefs which comfort you and give you purpose in life, but I’m afraid I’ll never share them. Cheers
@@LoveDoctorNL Earlier primitive life forms, exactly you no nothing about neither Dawkins! Our life form could lessen by removal of these parts its pure death. And I sat and listen to many of Dawkins arguments weather I like him or not. That's why I recommend allaboutgod.com because its another view made by doctors that table a million evolutionary subjects. My case is undeniably science and there no stronger evidence!
@@tonysuffolk when your a kid in a Catholic school, I would have questioned the religion. It’s difficult to now just dismiss it especially when you have kids. Who knows if Richard was a teacher in my school I might have dismissed it and had a different view.
@@peterlpool1387 I went to a boys boarding school. Morning assemblies and Sunday church parade. Even at 13 I knew the whole business of religion was nonsense. It was the question of apparent design which puzzled me. How could something so wonderful as a human have come into being without a creator? (The old watchmaker argument.) When I was introduced to evolution through natural selection, that last doubt evaporated. I later became a Science teacher and for me, teaching kids the truth about where we come from was no problem; in fact a joy. In 35 years I had only one child removed from my classroom by a parent. The child of a Christian fundamentalist. I think what you are saying is that it's hard to dismiss views you were brainwashed into as a child.
This is a gem. I've seen Dawkins debate with such ferocity, but seeing him try to educate young people with such patience and understanding is just great. I think one of the greatest errors people make when questioning evolution is the idea of how "perfect" the world is, or life or the human body. Existence is rife with imperfections and failures, often catastrophic ones.
@@zachcurtis1283 : By universal scientific definition, mutations are copying mistakes made during cell division or damage incurred through radiation or other mutagens affecting a DNA sequence (genome).
@@albertleibold1415 it's a simple matter of semantics. Mistakes, errors, differences, changes, all words used to express the same event. What point are you trying to make here?
@@zachcurtis1283 : You must be misunderstanding the definition, Sir. Every single mutation is by definition either a mistake or damage affecting the genome. There is absolutely nothing neutral in the terms ‘mistake’ or ‘damage’. If there were mistakes or damage affecting your GPS, would you be as nonchalant about that too? Be honest, please!
Why are people calling the young man at the back with the glasses a moron? He's asking questions, doubting evolution because he hasn't seen the evidence for himself. I would. But he's asking questions he is looking for guidance and I think he'll get there. Stop judging children on their lack of rational objectivity in comparison to a grown adult. Kids on religion are running on Windows BC you can't expect them to run up to date software. It will take time.
the thing is why they dont even ask one question about religion?they can think countless questions to contradict evolution and ask for evidence about anything.when it comes to religion they swallow it without a question and they dont look for evidence.they just believe it.santa claus for kids and religions for the big kids.people love fairytales.
Because they have never been asked to do so. They have never been asked to think about their own idea. I have been brought up to make my own decisions (also about religion), so for me this led to learning about everything. I was given a choice at the age of communion, as I live in a christian country and went to a christian school, if I wanted to get baptised and join for that event, a choice given to me by my christian parents. They told me not to think about the presents people would get, as I would get a present from them as well (I did not get any from the rest of the family though :P). I chose not to get baptised. I had heard the stories during our "catholic classes", but these did not seem far different to me than the fairy tales I had heard from theme parks and my bedtime stories. Now if the only thing I had heard was the stories of that religion and the choice of me joining the religion had been made for me, I would not know how I would have grown up. I hope I would still come to the same conclusions as I have now, as my schools from 12y+ have been very scientific, but I am not certain if something like that could cure indoctrination on that young age. It is actually good that this boy/man asks these questions, as it seems others are just hesitant to ask them. Remember this is a religious school, the only reason they know about evolution (in the school) is because it is mandatory (as the woman/girl says, when asking about a test). That the school has to tell them about it, does not mean they tell them everything or that it is fact. They may tell what is mandatory and then tell how religion explains it.
@Superfly gaming I agree. I was the kid that sat in the back of the room and did not participate because I did not believe in evolution until I was forced to come to terms with the facts far later in life. The fact that he is willing to SAY something is so much better then sitting and doubting in silence.
i think the muslim girl at the front was getting there too. She accepted and highlighted the contradiction of indoctrination. Give her a few years and she'll have made her own mind up about her own belief system
I thought the same thing. A very bright and promising young boy. The other, however, was just depressing... The way he kept trying to validate his religion. Why didn't the teacher shut him up? I don't think I've ever had a child annoy me this much.
@Amirus Agreed! I admire the kind of person Dawkins represents : I calm, polite and well educated scientist willing to educate everybody with the big knowledge he has.
you are an idiot "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) spread the word idiot.
Frenk Vortice congratulations, you've just proven nothing you idiot. doesn't matter that we can't prove it, it just makes way more sense than fundamentalism.. god..
You/your side will continue to lose this "spread the word idiot" war on _______(fill in the blank) because you are losing the culture tide that is leaving you all behind, and that seems to be difficult to deal with. There's one or more major personality issues, that are different in the 2 camps, and there's crossover causes, the cold civil war we're feeling from, not so much by region luckily, but divided we are. The tide of change is happening, but you are on the losing side, which isn't surprising b c you can look at the politics of both sides of any political issue(always cultural)you can tell which is the right choice to back, and guess what- the right is always picking the wrong one- several different groups, with bad idea ppl,influence the (R) electorate. You don't want dark money or nazis or bad behaving industrialists on your side, so why are they on your side? The megachurches stumbled right into, or knowingly discredited themselves, by shamefully, permanently becoming glued in a political cult (don't sell your soul to a politician!). More bad judgement, wrong side to be on, all parts of the Right lie, in their message to the ppl, news reports, official releases in writing to ppl,etc. It's a train going to crash, and the constituents of that cult are afraid to jump off. Your side needs to search for the truth, in all ways. Train's on wrong track(you can thank Russia for that $30 million gift to NRA (laundered) went straight to Trump campaign for Inauguration ceremony, it wasn't spent, and they don't know where it is (the guy charged along with Manafort) he was in charge of it (slush).
Almost all their lives? They're 15! Loads of time to change their beliefs. Hell, it would be downright weird if they had all the same beliefs in ten years.
Saurav Vinod Oh right. I thought you were implying that by age 15 you have nearly all your life, and was picturing you sacrificing everyone over 18 like goats or something. BUt yeah, that makes sense now.
Ok you're proud to say "i dont know". ...but that's really just an attack on religious people, saying they're too arrogant that they'll say they know it all ...which is not true at all. You may find SOME people like that, but the majority of religious people are very much interested in science and finding out more about how and why things work. They wouldn't dream to say that sort of thing. So I don't find that sort of statement admirable in any sort of way. I find it really condescending towards religious people.
@@marioluigi9599 The statement doesn't mention religion at all. Anyone perceiving this to be an attack on religion is highly defensiveness and insecurity in regards to religious faith. You find the sentence condescending towards religious people, and at the same time say religious people follow the principles of that statement. For all you know, OP could be speaking on behalf of religious people. Please resist using strawman arguments.
@@pmc9194 You clearly didn't watch the video. They were talking about religions there. And it's not the first time atheists proclaim that they're so humble that they'll always say "i dont know", whereas religious people are arrogant and claim they know everything. They always say that. You're clearly not familiar with them.
"I don't know" is the correct answer if you don't know. God is not the correct answer unless you have empirical evidence. Books and someone said is not evidence.
Too bad that the more intelligent, educated and successful a person become, the less likely they are to want children. In the meanwhile, the high-school drop-out dopesmokers have eight children with eight baby-mamas.
+oadnrtyo it's not really natural selection, it is more like an instinct. in the wild, powerless people are more likly to have a baby because the baby is less likely to live. vise versa for powerfull people.
+oadnrtyo well, idk. I think that powerless people reproduce more in hope to produce a powerful baby trough natural selection. but if the baby is born on powerfull parents, then selection process does not exist.
+Fucoc Heyyyy... I'M a dope-smoker, and I'm neither a dropout NOR do I have an absurdly large litter of offspring (in fact, I don't have any children - I had enough damned sense to be more careful than that). I also happen to be VERY knowledgeable about physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, environmental biology, ecology, geology, climatology, philosophy, psychology, and many other scientific topics - mostly all self-taught. So, please, don't just go bagging on us pot-heads as though we're all the same.
+oadnrtyo I'd like to think that intelligent people realize that the human race is massively overpopulating the earth, which is another reason not to produce more offspring.
+Schuyler Pablico _"I think that powerless people reproduce more in hope to produce a powerful baby trough natural selection. but if the baby is born on powerfull parents, then selection process does not exist."_ Eh... you don't actually understand what natural selection is. It is a logically necessary consequence of reproduction with variation in a system where not everything survives. It applies to everyone. Whether they're "powerless" or "powerful" has essentially nothing to do with it all, because what matters is if the offspring survives and manages to breed. That is what's defined as being naturally selected. And it obviously applies to "powerful" people as well. If a "powerful" person doesn't breed for whatever reason, his genes have been naturally selected against.
Eta Carinae it's funny how you guys say " rational" What's rational about the idea that all life came from a single cell that impossibly/ supposedly existed?
@Callisto well you were lucky , I’m from Syria and trust me our curriculum sucks so bad here , they teach you stuff only so you can study and pass the exam and get a scholarship , they don’t provoke our minds to search for answers .. so yes this video here was extremely useful and enlightening from my point of view 🙌
@@George2798A You now have access to a lot information, thanks to the internet. Example: ua-cam.com/video/LXFH2JzTclo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/vkEeKTKuxv0/v-deo.html
Compared to me, they are kids. I'm not even touching their belief, I'm talking about simple lack of information. If you haven't noticed it throughout q&a, you are probably not well informed (not to say educated) either. ...and insults are probably your only option and it is completely understandable, so I don't really mind.
You obviously don't even know what criticizing means. I am not criticizing nor blaming them (heck, not even you), I am just noticing the lack of basic knowledge and feel sad for it.
Especially when it is about the field one specialises in. (One day...I could be just as enthusiastic as him when I tell kids about quantum mechanics...)
I love how he just barges right in: "Good morning. The universe is about 14 billion years old..." Like, listen here buckos, we're gonna do some science today.
It is not 14 billion years old though... its theorised that its 14 billion years based on current predictive models that are reliant on our ever changing understanding of physics. Its not a fact its our best understanding at this moment.
@@skp8748yeah that's science. Only places where we can know something 100% is in ones that are made-up so math or computing. And also religion which is why it's easier to believe that stuff...
This is not doing science. This is called a lecture. Academic science is people forming hypotheses based on pre existing information, testing those hypotheses using logical methods and understanding what the results mean; and writing and publishing the process.
nah man, he's pretty solid. its a good approach to teaching common sense. but for sure the camera man was out on the piss till 6 in the morning by the looks of it.
evolution is a fact. richard dawkins seems like an open minded, intelligent, caring type of person. i was making a stupid joke about the camera work. don't bother replying thanks.
***** Hello there, i don't know where to exactly begin to disprove you, but i'll just start with these few points. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory, it is however based on facts, furthermore saying it's been proven wrong doesn't prove it to be wrong, back up your arguments with facts from now on. "and most scientist KNOW IT" that would have to be a conspiracy of enormous proportions, are you really suggesting that scientist from all different countries and cultures are working together to push a "false" theory? Your argumentation for the modern evolutionary synthesis is just another obscure theory which little to none factual basis to it. And finally, providing two books written by a born-again Christian and a Creationist (two groups of people who provide very little basis to any argument they make) doesn't trump the overwhelming consensus of the majority of scientists around the world. Have a nice day.
***** Don't try to twist my words, evolution is based on evidence, the scientist present the evidence. When all the evidence points one way, then it's scientific truth. These are the simplified basics of science, something you don't seem to be familiar with.
***** Chance mutation does increase genetic information.Your point is not devastating because it is not correct. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Actually I think that's false. It's not that they are too dumb but rather their beliefs are based on who taught it. Someone they trust taught them evolution was wrong. They trust that person so why would they lie? So when someone comes to challenge it they rationalize it and think we're being the stupid ones.
+JoyOfDemons We haven't just said "we look similar to apes and therefore we are the same", there is literal DNA evidence that proves we are 99% the same as apes (by comparison, all humans are 99.99% the same, genetically) . Also, the whole line of "we came from monkeys" is a fallacy. We did not come from monkeys, we came from the same ANCESTOR as monkeys, an animal that is as similar to us as it is to monkeys. You're also probably one of the people who say "humans aren't animals", without any understanding of classification and basic biology.
When you start with the following premises, it's hard to be rational: The premises "The Bible says X" "The Bible is always true" Then X is true. It necessarily follows from the premises that X is true. "The Bible is always true" is a universal quantifier. "The Bible says X" is a particularity. The conclusion is valid, but not sound. For a conclusion to be valid, it must follow from the premises. If your premise is that the Bible is always true, then every single thing that the Bible says must be true. The conclusion is valid but not sound. For a conclusion to be sound, the premises must correspond with the reality. But they don't. The problem with these kids is that they do make valid arguments, but their premises are wrong. Because their premises are wrong, they don't make sound arguments. Deductive reasoning is great but it doesn't get you far if your premises are wrong. I'm glad Dawkins is doing his best to change their premises. Most people are brought up having to accept premises without evidence. When you keep hearing a lie too many times, it becomes the truth. Indoctrination is rampant. This comment is an addition to the main comment. This comment's purpose is to demonstrate the systematic flaw that the students make.
Dawkins really is a gifted science communicator. Also credit to the students for politely engaging with a subject that must have been fairly disconcerting. Grown adults often become combative and resentful during discussions like this
Neo-Darwinism is a cult religion A Theory in Crisis, there is no better way to put it today. There are no transitional forms in the so- called fossil record and the ones that are sited are dubious to say the least, because they do not manifest soft tissue changes: like a dinosaur to a bird as presumed by evolutionists. Where are the millions of intermediate fossils demonstrating evolution? All along the religious chain of events, from life forms in the sea to modern man is pure fantasy and imagination by those who seek to keep a divine foot out of the door when it comes to the origin of life. Jesus said they that are whole need not a physician but those that are sick, go and learn what this means I desire mercy and not sacrifice. My contention is that those who promote this evolutionary ideology despite all the evidence against it are sick and are not worthy to be called scientists, because science is the pursuit of truth ultimately and where ever it leads true scientists follow. Many in the various fields of science associated with Neo-Darwinian will not speak out and change course, because they know their careers will suffer at the hands of their peers. Many true scientists have become creationists because of the insurmountable evidence; they were left with no alternative choice because of the continual narrative, which is spear-head by people like Richard Dawkins. Here is a term they have invented: “genetic drift” in relation to the speculation of macro-evolution, which the fossil record does not support. All we see is micro-evolution a smart term for kinds within species. There are three limitations that cancel out Neo-Darwinism these are: the origin of DNA and RNA, irreducible complexity within the single cell and the “none existence” of innumerable transitional fossils. With this evidence there should have been a paradigm shift away from evolution several years ago. Life does not emerge from non-living matter and the idea of mutations; they only corrupt already existing information within the genome. There is a degrading taking place every generation; no new information is ever added to the genome by the invented process of natural selection. Nothing is changing and therefore evolving into new species. HMS Beagle has now become a modern day shipwreck relative to evolution. The evidential cargo has blown up in Darwin’s face. This is not widely known but Darwin hated the Biblical account of Creation, the fall, the flood and redemption through Jesus Christ. He stated and I quote: He called the gospel of Jesus Christ a “damnable heresy!” He was at war with God before he set sail on HMS beagle around the world as a naturalist between 1831-1836. The Galapagos isles turned out to be of special interest to him relative to his theory of evolution. He was determined to fly in the face of God and invent an alternative to Biblical Creation. He spent a life time formulating a theory which would eventually blow up in his face. Darwin enjoyed the term “survival of the fittest” which is closely allied with “lawlessness” but Jesus said concerning his loving commandments to mankind “Let him who hath ears to hear, let him hear! Jesus was quite clear, that every man shall be judged for every idle word spoken! By your words you will be justified and by your words condemned. Jesus in his ministry taught people and nations to love each other and to work together for the common good of mankind. He knew the nations of the world would reject him and the gospel message of peace with God., That nations would arise against nation and kingdoms against kingdoms that there would be desolation's right up to the end of this present day and age, culminating in the rise of the Anti-Christ who will deceive Israel and the nations of the world, leading them eventually down the road to the battle of Armageddon. This battle will prompt the return of our Lord Jesus in glory to stop man destroying himself through selfishness and greed. His feet will touch the Mount of Olives and then he will hold man accountable for his actions. I am glad I have made peace with God through is Son. Jesus said, except those days be shortened there would be no flesh saved! What nothing breathing
@@johnsmithson4479well anyone that could is not human, some of the things the kids were saying was as crazy or idiotic as saying “I can fly after drinking red bull because it literally makes me grow wings”
@@mattlogic9647 And yet he knowingly signed up for this and should have been prepared for it. Nothing they said was unexpected in context. Reacting that way only serves to make them more resistant to his ideas and not feel confident asking questions. Also, if you grew up with everyone around you telling you red bull does in fact give you wings, and you just hadn't had any yet because it was rare, you would think it's true. Perspective matters, and these are children.
I believed in God and Jesus all the way until i was about 16. I'm 23 now and since then i do nothing but believe more and more in scientific evidence. What made me come away from my religion was when i started to question it and all i got were unproven answers, at that point i slowly drifted away from it. Something that all schools should teach is critical thinking, unfortunately unless you study something like science or social science in university or higher education, you do not really learn to think critically. If you are not taught this, you wont question anything and this carries on into your adult life, this is why the majority of the population assume "an expert said it, it must be true", this is simply wrong, you should never believe something just because a figure of authority told you, at school you do not learn to think this way.
+Cloud Strife evolution or more so, species modification to speciation is IN the bible. you don't have to 'give up' anything. kinds producing diversity of other...kinds/family is nothing more than speciation! it's really funny though...this is ALL that real time science has evidence for. what we observe stops at speciation. this 'fish to man' BS is not supported...find one example of a species breaking through to another species. they don't have it. that's why they have almost completely given up finding these trans fossils...there's no lineage here. no examples of lineage containing a continuum of species, with late stage divergence. no examples to compare. doesn't that bother you? and now with DNA...it's the same thing. the claim things but science comes back and reverses it totally. chimp and human dna similarities...they claimed 99% similarity. WRONG more like 80% or less. Junk DNA WRONG...it is all high functioning. btw 2% is coding DNA and this is where they find similarities. 98% is non-coding what they called junk lol. what else...ERVs...they said were the 'nails in the coffin'..WRONG now we know they were...are, crucial high functioning sequences in our DNA, not ancient retro virus which mutated. and fused chromosome 2...now we find it is more than just a fusion site. it's on an intron and probably much more than just transcription. that's function!so long one short...they lie! lol Dawkins, Bill Nye, DeGrasse...all these guys are just evangelizing their belief. it isn't supported with evidence. it is totally predictive evidence...like with cosmology and high error science. look it up.
Cloud Strife you do if its generalized. you need an entire day to spend convincing yourself there are no facts or evidence of species breaking into other species for example. people get all caught up in the details of a belief or discipline and leave the common sense behind. there is no evidence beyond speciation. besides what exactly did you want?
9432515 I would like you to direct me to the place where you said "go look it up". Provide me with the sources you looked at which criticize and dispute the evidence for evolution from one species to another. I assume that in order for you to come to the conclusion that you did, you must have read it from multiple academic sources. If you didn't then you should seriously consider revising your conclusions.
Don't forget there have been over thousands of religions without the concept of Hellfire, and it is *this* particular Hellfire religion that those in power kept around because it best suited their needs, to keep society obedient, under control, fearing God and not seeking the power. An all-loving God would not send people to "eternal hellfire," that first off, is plainly ridiculous. Religion is really and truly for fence-sitters who have people teach them drastic things and they believe there's a chance they might be true. It's obvious _why_ these religions are here while the older, more peaceful, less threatening religions were never useful in the eyes of those in power. They ended the useless religions for their society, go study history. And please in particular study ancient religions and how plagiarized the story of Jesus is, down to very important aspects, like son of God, sacrifice for the sins of the world, and resurrected 3 days later, etc. It's an evolution of past tales which best suit those in power.
Speaker of Truth That's quite an interesting point. But what about ancient societies where there was no "hellfire" concept, where you went to Hades when you died regardless of what life you lived. There was no religious control in ancient societies. When you compare that to Medieval society, where there was more religious fear, it was still just as violent.
honestly, so much of the annoying misunderstanding stems from that word. people dont get that regular theory and "scientific theory" have two nearly opposite definitions.
Dawkins proposed in the greatest show on earth that we should use the term theorum, which he coined in that book, to talk about evolution or gravity. But I think it's too strange for people to pick up.
+Ray Unfortunately we are too ingrained with the word "Theory" I have pointed MANY people at a small website called "Not Just a Theory" which explains Scientific Theory very well. (Google it). But... most of them are very closed minded.
All of it...as usual...I am a scientist...not religious...at all... god does not exist...religion means nothing...this video is staged....like the charade debates vs Lane..Deepak..etc. Dawkins...stopped being a scientist...40 years ago...he is totally outdated...he lies..defends Darwin...who has been proven mostly wrong by modern science..evolution is now science law...since the 1980 s...a new version...there is nothing to discuss...to debate...evolution....natural selection..the new law...is undeniable...no school invites charlatan Dawkins to lecture...only... religious students about Darwin...that is ridiculous... ...just like inviting charlatan Lane...to lecture...only...atheist...students.. no school does that either... every high school teaches science..evolution..the new version..it is science law...the students can see it in the lab...it is undeniable...there is nothing to discuss...it is real...just like 2+2 = 4... Evolution...natural selection...does not explain...origin...of the universe or life...no one has a clue...about origin...most scientists...Einstein...Sagan..Hawking...believed in the Spinoza s version...so do I..the only reason..able explanation..is some kind of creation...no god...the bible is nonsense...what created it? How? ...no clue... All my closest friends are avid atheists...they despise Dawkins...who is a snake oil salesman..a fiction writer...a charade debater...a liar...for greed...he does not care about science or atheism...at all..he makes a mockery out of both for greed..fame and money... just like...Lane lies...to sell BS books...
Cameraman would you like a tripod “No mate I’m just gunna balance the camera on a gold fish bowl thats balanced on a pogo stick thats balanced on a bed of nails that balanced on my skateboard whilst wearing roller skates, yeh, That’ll do it”
Tan But in society, a theory is genuinely used to mean "a guess" or a "hunch", so people get confused when scientific theories actually mean a body of evidence that support some form of model.
Tan Ya except thats not the way they use it. Alot of people seem to be fuzzy on this. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiment and observation. The way they use or think of the word theory is pretty much just a guess, or a good guess. A scientific theory is fact supported and a reliable account of the real world. You said that it can be contradicted and that's true when it comes to a theory, by definition, because of that word. However the theory of evolution is not something that is going to be completely contradicted. It's just not because we have to much evidence that is fact, and a contradiction would would mean that those facts weren't facts but they actually are. For instance the polio vaccine and countless other vaccines couldn't have been created if it weren't for using the principles of evolutionary theory, but they were and they do exist. One thing that makes something a scientific theory is the ability to make correct predictions using the model, which is further evidence of its validity. Like a math formula. If the math formula weren't correct then we couldn't get an answer or equation that just wouldn't work but we know when using that particular formula that the answer will be accurate everytime. That's how concrete it is. Also for the theory of evolution to be 'wrong' or contradicted that would mean pretty much everything we know about genetics is wrong. Which again just isn't going to happen and can't for the same reason. So unfortunately using the word theory in science can confuse people, especially those who don't know much about it. The reason they actually use that word is because in science they don't deal in absolutes, they deal in facts, for the specific purpose of leaving room for more to add and yes to be contradicted however if someone is truly educated on the matter they would know that wouldn't happen with the theory of evolution for the reasons I already listed. So what I mean is that more scientists like Dawkins need to start with explaining the difference between theory and scientific theory AND then explain why they do use that word in science coupled with how strong the evidence for it is. Because my original point as that the word theory gives an impression that is inconsistent with the nature of this particular theory.
Tan Ya except thats not the way they use it. Alot of people seem to be fuzzy on this. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiment and observation. The way they use or think of the word theory is pretty much just a guess, or a good guess. A scientific theory is fact supported and a reliable account of the real world. You said that it can be contradicted and that's true when it comes to a theory, by definition, because of that word. However the theory of evolution is not something that is going to be completely contradicted. It's just not because we have to much evidence that is fact, and a contradiction would would mean that those facts weren't facts but they actually are. For instance the polio vaccine and countless other vaccines couldn't have been created if it weren't for using the principles of evolutionary theory, but they were and they do exist. One thing that makes something a scientific theory is the ability to make correct predictions using the model, which is further evidence of its validity. Like a math formula. If the math formula weren't correct then we couldn't get an answer or equation that just wouldn't work but we know when using that particular formula that the answer will be accurate everytime. That's how concrete it is. Also for the theory of evolution to be 'wrong' or contradicted that would mean pretty much everything we know about genetics is wrong. Which again just isn't going to happen and can't for the same reason. So unfortunately using the word theory in science can confuse people, especially those who don't know much about it. The reason they actually use that word is because in science they don't deal in absolutes, they deal in facts, for the specific purpose of leaving room for more to add and yes to be contradicted however if someone is truly educated on the matter they would know that wouldn't happen with the theory of evolution for the reasons I already listed. So what I mean is that more scientists like Dawkins need to start with explaining the difference between theory and scientific theory AND then explain why they do use that word in science coupled with how strong the evidence for it is. Because my original point as that the word theory gives an impression that is inconsistent with the nature of this particular theory.
The best thing he said the entire time - and the most difficult concept these kids will have to reckon with - is the idea of changing your mind when confronted with new evidence.
@Steve In one question you managed to convey that you do not understand: 1 - Biblical exegesis 2 - What these kids actually believe about their religion 3 - Human psychology 4 - How the human brain processes information If you want to take a critical stance against a worldview, by all means, do so. Just be sure you understand enough about the position to mock it accurately. Please take the time to study at least one of these topics before making any further comments related to religious conversion or de-conversion.
Congrats to the cameraman.
It can't easy filming and riding a unicycle at the same time
That beautiful moment at 36:13 of _"Hey, Richard, where'd you go?!"_
Hahaha this comment made me happy .ty MJW
Hahaha nice one
Yeah it’s weird hey.
Why not just have 2 tripods with a camera on Dawkins and a camera in students. The cameraman can focus on different students as they speak and then cut together in post.
@@h-dawg969 My guess is that they got one of the kids to do it
The camera guy is in the first stage of his evolution 😊
rakkrisr123 lmao yea, wtf is he doing lol
Ha ha ha ha ha
Science Rocks..
LMFAO! Brilliant! I was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, I'm now at 20:56 and came here to comment this exact thing. It is actually really annoying...
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” -Richard Feynman
Thank you for that briliant quote!
Holy shit, this is good.
Richard Feynman is a god... But he would never see it that way :) He just likes asking questions and then figuring out the answers to his questions... That’s just how he is. We are all Richard Feynmans (or at least we have the potential)
Giovanni Lido shots fired!
Yes! Exactly!
These kids have no idea how lucky they were to have Mr. Dawkins to visit their classroom.
my thoughts exactly
@@edfox6921 hopefully, they got even luckier, and had a teacher or fellow student to remind them, that Dawkins views are super opinIon and speculation as well, not to mention non sense.
Bull dust the nothing made everything brigade is the dumbest concept in this universe
@@marvinvogel1985 no one says. Something came.from nothing, it has been explained multiple times. Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean crap
@@Godspeed253actually what did he say that was nonsense?
The camera guy has unique style to say the least.
He used to work for "Cops"
Be tolerant. His skills are in constant evolution.
Dupont Davignon best comment here
Dupont Davignon 😂
+OblivionDemon
"The camera guy has unique style to say the least."
Probably having a wank
Giving props to the cameraman who is stoned but still manages to cover the angles
Lol thank you for making me chuckle. I could concentrate on nothing else.
I know it's a joke. but as someone who's done hundreds of hours of single camera shoots of events, this is actually a very skilled camera person. These transition are smooth! Framing is spot on.
@@claybutler not for me, I got dizzy after 20 min
@@abdullah82m I can totally see why somebody would get dizzy or motion sickness, I was just pointing out that pulling off a single camera shoot with a speaker and an audience and capturing it that well was the result of a highly skilled camera person. Normally this would be done with it at least two cameras and you would do clean cuts back and forth. But when you're a single camera person you have no choice but to swing the camera around back and forth. They have shots so many situations like this that I know, that this was done as well as possible.
The whole time he’s thinking “I knew I should’ve had a piss before I came in”
‘People once thought the earth was flat’ *apparently Richard, they still do*
J Michael nasa pics are all.cgi
Winter is cumming
A few thousand. Not the same category of size as creationists are. Essentially the difference between the guy who tells you that he was abducted by aliens and the overly religious hilly billy.
we goin sizzler u do know that the mention of spherical earth was first documented in Greek philosophy, 600 BC? It was knowledge amassed by navigators. This was supported by Plato, Pythagoras n many great scholars of that period. Spherical earth was later experimentally proved by two navigators in 15th century. Nasa's pictures were not just to prove fools of earth being round. It was, still is, a known fact. How in the world ppl believe in flat earth in this age?!
Lizmol Antony I’ve come to realize by listening to further explanation from Neil Tyson that certain people believe in a flat earth only in the theory that we are on a simulation which would involve a flat plain *BUT* I don’t think this is what the media is saying nor this guy we are trying to argue with... I think “u goin sizzler” genuinely thinks it’s flat in general and *that* is moronic as hell lmao.
*Thanks for the back up we logical thinkers gotta stick together*
The biggest problem with religion is that it makes people, from a very early age, totally unable to open their minds and consider new information.
“One of the biggest”, I’d say.
ua-cam.com/video/YDdw_762Vj8/v-deo.htmlsi=zwof_q4KJ-cA0E_A yeah???
I was atheist for 22 years, it’s the opposite. I’m now a follower of Jesus.
@harrisonclark6415 lol, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Why @@harrisonclark6415
"Look at the evidence, and if the evidence requires you to change your mind, change your mind. That's what I would do." - Richard Dawkins
@Steve Because mumbling to yourself to your imaginary friend is going to change his mind? Yeah, right.
@Steve Projecting much? You demonstrate that yourself by coming here and pretending you know everything about biology, more than an accomplished biologist. Who is really arrogant her?
@Steve This is the part where you, a nobody with obviously no scientific expertise, pretends to be on the education level of an accomplished biologist. And a douchebag on top of that. Its like your holy book tells you to be a douche to random people who are actually smarter than you. But keep going. I just need to quote idiots like you to show how arrogant, ignorant (about your own religion) and stupid believers are. You only make it worse with every comment :)
Well, he has no evidence, just theories. Dawkins admitted that himself.
@@pappycool dude, the evidence is so overwhelming that it _lead_to_ a theory.
This means that the goal of scientists is to develop a good theory (which is an explanation of events based on evidence).
No evidence = no theory.
So please, by all means, fuck off.
"Good morning"
2 seconds later
"The universe is about 14 billion years old"
Wow Richard that was fast
you have to try to put people at a ghasp when you meet them so you can have an influence on them.
that's why i always introduce my self as a tiny, insignificant spech of carbon and i have 1 life and it's short and unimportant so please like me :)
Is this shot in India?
Terry and The Professor honestly it's probably Australia.
Why is it all Indians then?
Terry and The Professor we're everywhere
*hmmmm I wonder how close I can zoom in on this camera while Professor Dawkins explains the entire existence of the universe*
'Gods damn it, Joe! This Video was supposed to be about the Universe on an EVOLUTIONARY level, not a MOLECULAR one!'
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm absolut madlad
Dawkins doesn’t actually explain anything. He only presented HIS version of what has happened by basically parroting things that other (atheists) have done.
@Vivacomunismo Explaining nothing.
@Vivacomunismo Explain the evolution of the gene. He only ever gives half the story, avoiding the other and ultimately more important part.
This is a very precious material. Beautiful video. Seeing Professor grow old saddens me.
Science may find a cure for aging. I just hope our philosophy evolves to make the cure beneficial to all.
I saw him do a talk in cambridge last night. It's his last tour 😢
This is one enthusiastic camera guy
Hahaha
Doing some great job btw
very talented.
he must look really strange to everyone in the classroom! lmao
He finds his meaning in life in being a camera man
"The perfect cameraman doesn't exi-"
20:58
thanks a lot i rarely laugh that much
LMFAAAAOO I AM SO DEAD
+C32 same rofl
@Don't Read My Profile Picture
I absolutely love the idea of your channel
very clever!
I laughed till I had tears in my eyes
This is the most interesting "Office" episode in the entire series.
LOL The camera work really IS a lot similar.
Just imagine Big Keith asking Professor Dawkins a question......
Oh yea? Michael..!
Differently the UK version, though
We took him to the hospital right away.
Every person alive should have to watch this video. Richard's explanation about the meaning of life is the best I have ever heard. When he explains the type of life that evolved here was the type that was allowed to over time, that answer alone can be talked about endlessly.
He got kind of emotional in a good way when explaining how cool it is that we're all here just because we are, which means we can make our own meaning. A lot of people think the idea of evolution is bleak but to me the idea that we got to the point we can do what we do thanks to some chemicals in water is actually amazing. What a beautiful set of coincidences it took to get us to where we are today. We are a record of the Earth'e history
@catpoke9557 I don't want to be that guy, but you can't even logically believe you have free will under an atheistic worldview.
The worldview requires belief that all our bodies are, are just a bunch of atoms. That means that every single future state that you body and brain will be in, Is perfectly calculatable ahead of time, using the laws of physics. (Technically there is some random chance present in the laws, so the future isn't actually perfectly calculatable, but random chance by definition isn't determined by anything, so it still doesn't allow for free will). So therefore "free will" is an illusion, as you actually have no control over your future.
This of course doesn't prove god exists, as you could just bite the bullet and accept that you don't have free will, and many atheists philosphers do exactly that. But without free will, there by extension can't be morality as well, as morality implies there are a way things ought be. Without free will, there are no ways things ought be, only the way things randomly happen to be. Your life is also as meaningful as any inanimate object.
The camera man is the guy that filmed The Office. Kept expecting him to pan over to *Jim Face*
OMG That would be perfect
Haha. Or Dwight explaining how Yams are the meaning of life.
@@WordAte yams...yams
Bob Gymlan you mean Tim face. The american version is a bubblegum, cookie-cutter sitcom.
I can't tell if you made a pun there 🤔
That's bad when 15-16 year olds are more respectable to Dawkins than the radical theists who always interrupt him and talk over him.
Some Cynical Asshole They are in class, it's not like they are allowed to disrespect teachers.
There are a lot of students who disrespect teachers when they aren't supposed to. And adults in debates are supposed to be respectful towards one another just as these children are expected to be respectful towards Mr. Dawkins yet most of the time they are not. So I don't get your point.
Most of the time I see religious classes invite someone like Mr Dawkins, the guest get interrupted constantly, most often by the "usual" teacher. So it was nice to get a class where the guest is allowed to proceed uninterrupted
You confuse respect with hormonic endused shyness.
and athiests don't do the same thing to thiests? I'm not trying to start an argument I'm just saying both sides like interrupting each other
they have no idea how lucky they are to hear this man give them a private lecture
And I'm sure 99% of them were only there for the grade.
Zic Rog In England the grading system is different, there's a test at the end of the semester and that's your whole grade, it isn't like you guys in America.
None of them didnt listen or undestand any of it anyway.. Its so easy to say it was god who did it all.
This is a private school. So I'm sure that the school most likely paid for him to give a lecture.
+Grumbel Bumbel hahaha yeah thats about right
From an educator’s point of view, he does a fantastic job of adjusting to his audience and working with their current understanding to make connections. Very good stuff
I think the video's title is somewhat misleading. Dawkins seems to be conducting an exercise in critical thinking rather than delivering a lecture on evolution.
Individuals like Dawkins often use words such as science, scientific, critical or rational thinking. However, they are useally only expressing their own beliefs.
@@rodin2840 How would you know? Anything other than your opinion, I mean.
@@rickmartin7596Disregarding the evidence that contradicts the materialist paradigm.
@@rodin2840 You have no evidence ... only wishful thinking.
Arguing with religious people is like telling your mom that online games can't be paused
Ma I can't just stop!
No, I can't pause it.
Th...It...it's live!
No, Ma, they'll just shoot me in the head while I stand there motionless!
😂😂😂
pure gold
Explain.
No. There is no pause function in online games. They run in real time. (unless u want to count stuff like turn based games or League of Legends which the pause button only works in custom matches and that game is shit anyway)
Unfortunatley it was the same kid who films school fights that they asked to film this.
Yoooo chill😂😂😂
LMAOOOO
many people, when they film, think they have to constantly be adjusting something
🤣🤣🤣
Although the filming is not well done, it does not detract from the interesting, well-argued and open questions and answers. You don’t need to look at the pictures.
At minute 32, approximately, Richard looks troubled -- he's debating internally whether to remain polite with these children or to shatter their entire world view.
@RUSSIAN ROBOT thanks for your wonderful, and well thought out input. I'll be sure to contemplate your profound word on a regular basis.
@@generalcomments1239 The brainwashing of religion is hard and I have a firsthand experience
@@yashamaga13 what did he say lol?
Richard is an amazing teacher, instead of just dumping knowledge he built up curiosity without being competitive. Also the children were amazing too, very bright indeed.
Those kids are lucky. I would have loved to have been there with Richard Dawkins giving me a lecture on evolution.
I know right!
Should contact him and tell him that your school is teaching that evolution is a lie, lol.
IfTheApocalypseComes BeepMe Sadly it isn't teaching me it's a lie, so I don't get Richard Dawkins. :(
Lucky brainwash?
***** You takin' the piss?
***** what as apposed to the girl saying I'm Christian because my parents are lol what the hell is that then , what choice did she have ? Get a life
What Dawkins was actually teaching was critical thinking, using evolution as an example.
I dont think hes right tho 😂
@@devilvocano420 of course u don't because you're too dumb to understand this
@@devilvocano420 doesn't matter what you think, firstly no one even fkn asked you and secondly facts don't give a shit about your feelings.
Religion teaches people what to think, a decent upbringing teaches people how to think.
@S S
God made man out of mud duh
dont tell me ur a monkey still lollllll
„Do you think humans could go extinct“ Dawkins anweres with the greatest smile „yes that is quite likely“ xD great man
Well Rechtschreibung in Englisch ist nicht meine Stärke :)
Especially with the state of stupidity that then can be witnessed to have. Despite great technological prowesses. And the dangerous paradox is . Great power comes with great responsibility, but we are careless motherfuckers.
And thank goodness as mother earth can return to a better balance - we are the worst of the species
for the moment we are. I think we'll have to start taking measures to get better soon or we'll have no place to live. this could be seen as another stage of human evolution.
It is possible that there were many different intelligent beings that lived on earth for a million or so years than went extinct. We're just the newest intelligent life form on earth for now.
I highly recommend his demonstration about the evolution of the eye. To me, as a former Christian, this was one of the eye openings to evolution.
🤝
And his demonstration of the value of half a wing.
Where did the first living cell come from ?
@@marvinvogel1985
It emerged from complex pre-organic chemistry.
@@marvinvogel1985God took some dirt and blew into it et voila... magic
i would like to meet this camera guy , i have questions .
Varun Goli we need to ask more than a question
looool
Lol
He is an example for the innate urge to reproduce the species, hence a proof of evolution.
the camera man has a theory of its own ...
This is pretty much how it went, "so how does, like, taking umm, 2 + 2, does that equal, well, 5?" Dawkins: "hmmm anybody got an answer for that? No, no one? Well may i propose that it equals 4?" Student:" well i mean the bible says it is 5, and it being four is kind of hard for me to understand, so i choose to believe that it is 5." Dawkins:" Well if I took two rocks, and added them to another two rocks, we can count them up and get 4." "Well, that is just a theory and i believe what i want to believe and how does god fit into that? Surely you can't actually believe 2 plus 2 is 4." "Well some of you think it is 5, others 6, so what makes one better than the other?" "But if you have half a 2 then how can you get four?" "Anyone got an answer? No?
this was easily the funniest thing I read all day
OMG. I laughed so much :D Brilliant.
+Clash Playa Exactly.
+steveninthe We do. You just sound like those people claiming that the Earth is flat. Of course we know. It's a theory that is based on thousands of papers, tens of thousands hours spend on research. There's no scientist claiming otherwise nowadays, because it was tested and backed up so many times. Or do you have anything better than that? A new theory that could possibly compete with this one? You want mountains and mountains of evidence when it comes to science, but when it comes to faith? God? There's none. NONE. And you just believe it.
What should I continue trying?
And what premise are you talking about? Rest of what? Rest of the theory? On falsehood? Why should it be?
He did a good job not calling some of these kids idiots
Well fair enough. The kids didn’t call him an idiot.
@Hung Vu Why would they call him an idiot? Richard Dawkins is a surprisingly intelligent man. This was the first video I watched of him and I watched it until the end even if I planned to just switch in and out.
I need to find more videos of him :)
Too bad the kids were surprisingly smarter than him :)
Eh? Did we watch the same video? :'-D
Because they aren't idiots, they just don't know and they're showing interest and asking, wanting to know more. he's smart enough to respect people like them.
Fascinating! Richard can really explain things so elegantly that everybody would like to participate. They are eager to understand and to learn..unfortunately our schools and teachers are so badly prepared to deal with such questions.
It's sad because in the U.S after a lesson like this so many parents would be angry and calling the teacher a communist
It wouldn't happen with my school. Thankfully I was born in California.
@infinite jonah-
You mean like atheist parents if they started teaching creation in public schools?
They aren’t allowed to teach evolution in my biology class.
No, not at all like that. Atheist parents would be justly angered for two very clear reasons. The US Constitution provides a separation of church and state, so teaching a religiously based theory (such as creationism) in a public school would be unconstitutional. Secondly, there is not a single piece of scientific evidence that supports creationism, so it has no place in a science classroom. Evolution is based on 150 years of scientific research and experimentation that all points to the theory being true.
@Sam Van Ryzin- "separation of Church and State"
BS! Every session of Congress and Senate is opened with a prayer to God. There is no separation of Church and State.
"religious based theory"
How is design and construction by an intelligent agent, religion?
"not a single piece of scientific evidence that supports creationism,"
Not needed when 'creation by intelligence' is the "natural" method for the introduction of new products. Besides, to be a little honest about 'science' and creationism, modern materialistic science does not explore the emergence of biological organisms by an intelligent creator, so why should there be anything written on the subject from materialistic driven science? It's like saying, 'A' does not talk about 'B', so therefore, 'B' does not exist. It's a cheap dishonest answer.
The real bottom line is, religious based materialistic science does not like competition in the classroom. Evolution, and other materialistic science dogma/mythology[abiogenesis}, is real easy to refute with a little observable evidence. Not easy to brainwash minds when counter evidence is shown, or other logical arguments are presented. It's not unlike the Jehovah's Witness religion telling their flock to only read material they print, that outside their religion is just apostate information meant to weaken their faith by making inroads into their thinking. You atheists are more religious than most Christians, and you don't even freaking know it! LOL
Imagine going to a High School where in your classes your Biology class teacher is Dawkins, and in Physics your teacher is Krauss and in Philosophy and Literature Hitchens.
Skeletor Master I want Sam Harris too! What should he teach?
Ray Zhong maybe philosophy! I don’t know there is no neuroscience in high school.
Skeletor Master I wish
That brought a single tear to my eye.
Skeletor Master how can a corpse teach🤔
Possibly the luckiest science class ever.. Wish we had lectures from dawkins.
Poor kids, millions of universes? The earth is flat my friend, there isn't even one universe because the earth has a firmament you delusional.
Evolution does not explain a soul or consciousness.
A soul? We have a soul ..?
Yes sir.
@@gabrules2003 seriously?
i think Dawkins didn't really answer that question about "just a theory" correctly. "theory" simply has a different meaning in a scientific context. the wikipedia definition is this: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." so it's very different from the way we use that word colloquially, where it's basically just a synonym for hypothesis.
Exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps he’s trying his best no to overwhelm them but what helped me when I was younger was hearing that there is a difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word theory.
We cannot repoduce the evolution, so it is not a scientific theory, rather a pretty weird hypothesis at best.
@@maciejnajlepszy so the only way to prove something is to reproduce it? are you being serious? this might be the dumbest f*cking thing i've ever heard. evolution is literally a scientific theory by definition. scientists don't even question this anymore, they treat it as fact because it is one. please do your research before poisoning online comment sections with misinformation.
@@maciejnajlepszywe have demonstrated evolution in laboratory conditions and have observed it in nature
I think he had the right idea with the detective analogy, but that he just didn't put enough emphasis on it and didn't actually explain the difference. He could have just kept going with the analogy and explained that a colloquial theory would never be enough to convict someone of any crime, and how a scientific and a criminal theory are theories because they are held to a very different standard to colloquial theories and such.
I just believe he made a pretty poor job at most things unfortunately by just not going in enough on any question. I'd extent most topics to this criticism, especially on the 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' part, which are founding and most often for the vast majority of people completely unclear
That white kid literally said God gave everyone 2 kidneys so that we could donate them if other people need them. I cannot BEGIN to list off everything so impossibly absurd about that statement.
Why did we have a spare tire? "God gave us spare tire so we can donate it to someone else" is probably how he's gonna answer to that question
So that's what my other testicle is for....
@@thisismyname5657 Do not donate your testocle. I repeat, do not donate your testicle
Instructions unclear, donated the entire thing
@@thisismyname5657 Holy shit man I died when I read that XD
"I believe in my religion because I was brought up this way." That right there sums up everything about religion. You would think people would start thinking for themselves as they got older, but nope.
I'm glad Dawkins got to talk to this class. Some say he's pushing evolution on to these kids. Kind of, yes, but more than anything he is trying to explain what it is and how it works, and also to get these brainwashed teens to start thinking for themselves rather than spitting back what they have been indoctrinated to spit back. It's sad they have difficulty understanding even the simplest of explanations about evolution. *Sigh* It's really not that difficult at all. Species slowly change over time as they adapt to their environment as IT changes. See? Easiest explanation that even a 5 year old can understand.
Thankfully I never had this problem. I've been an Atheist since I could recognize what religion was. Let me tell you, when I did, I hated it from the start. Hated the idea of it, and hated the thought of believing and bowing down to non-existent beings and dead people. *Shudders*
Im so glad im not an atheist because your religion "evolution" has to be the stupidest ever . You believe your god whom you call "nothing" created life & form in a poker game by pure chance ...
stiffex Evolution is not a religion you moron, neither is Atheism, though there ARE Atheists out there who act like it is, but we normal Atheists disregard them.
Pure chance? Well, yes, technically speaking it WAS pure chance. Had the Earth not calmed down after forming and continued on being a volcanic planet, life never would have evolved as it is today.
There are other planets out there that have been discovered that could easily support life, but we have no way of knowing with our limited technology at this point in time. Who's to say life never formed on THOSE planets? We don't know yet, but hopefully we will one day. And if life exists elsewhere in this universe, then all of religion will be debunked.
Theists can't grasp the vastness of the universe. To the universe, we are but a speck of dust, nothing more. Why would a god even care about this small planet and the life on it when there is an entire universe with billions of other galaxies in its wake? If I were a god or goddess, I wouldn't give a shit about the human-named "Earth".
stiffex It's not belief if it's a proven fact (evolution is, look it up). Believing in an invisible man in the sky, like the late George Carlin said, is a belief. By the way, atheists do not 'believe' in the nonexistence of God, they simply don't see enough evidence for the theory your religion has put forth.
Koaster Kelli
"evolution" is indeed a religion as it requires faith . Its built on assumptive reasoning ; you assume something happened to kick start it but you dont quite know what ; you assume it took "billions of years" but you dont quite know where those numbers came from ; you assume a Mud Skipper changed into a Comodo dragon but you dont quite know how : and you assume that Darwin is your high priest or your God but you dont quite know which ... And you cant prove any of it using the scientific method but you can prove it using the orthodox religious method of dogma...
stiffex You obviously have NO concept about what science is or what science does. I would never believe what a scientist says unless he or she had the proof to back it up with substantial evidence. I don't take scientists on their word alone, unlike what religion does. When a Theist is told something by a preacher or other figure head, they are told to believe it without having to provide proof or evidence for their claims, and gullible idiots actually believe it.
“Good morning!” *begins immediately shattering their entire world*
Enda Dicksly ha ha it had to happen - needs to get to them even younger - I taught mine since he could talk there's no 'god' there's only science! (but don't say that in front of your nanny because she goes to church 3x a week and truly believes) he's 19 now and in college chemistry & physics and reinforces what I've always told him!!
Enda Dicksly If richard dawkins get possessed that would shatter him make no mistake about that he just has not got his turn yet
Mothman Adonai wot m8?
Enda look into malachi martin his a catholic priest who lost his life due to demonic forces back in July 27 1999 he was 78 years old type this in in you tube real secret diary of the exorcist true demonic events poltergies the video last 3:55 the channel is criptic shadows paranormal in that comment what herzen gaming has to say
Mothman Adonai oh honey that’s a bunch of horseshit i don’t believe in nonsense
I am a deeply religious person and I utterly love Richard Dawkins lectures and discussions
It was a bit scary to me that students of that age seem to have no knowledge of evolution and natural selection.
I was thinking the same thing!! Fancy uniforms and ties and just clueless as rocks
Don't worry, those are religious prep school kids who most likely have been told to be one sided and sheltered from there truth for there whole lives. Most of us aren't like that.
@Steve they should care because it's not only a FACT of life; but it's a fact of life that dispells the garbage and flat out incorrect beliefs that these kids have been brainwashed into accepting for probably their whole lives.
So what you're saying is "why teach these kids a correct worldview that is going to have a major influence on how they live their lives, decisions they make, treat others, and raise their eventual kids?" and that's just a dumbass thing to say. It truly shows how ignorant you really are.
@Hocus Smokus just because you like the sound of "eternal life" doesnt make your ridiculously goofy fairy tale any more true. Time to put away the Tonka trucks, your Teddy Bears, and your blankie and grow up and join reality with the rest of the adults
@Steve sure you might think im ignorant, but on my side is logic, reason, and science. On your side is a book that any honest library would keep in the science-fiction section written by bronze age peasants. Who's opinion holds more weight?
And where do you get this idea that "we're no more special than rats etc", aren't you supposed to believe that every living thing is god's creatures and children of his?
Look, you'll never understand reality if you keep those giant religion blinders that you have on. I personally think it speaks to the inherit narcissism that comes with religious thinking that humans ARE actually more special than a rat or a plant or a tree. We're not. We're all things that share the universe and the only reason that you have this delusional view is because you ARE a human.
Religion truly is the cock-block of progression.
I was about to defend the cameraman from all these awful comments until... @20:58
It doesn’t hurt that if there is anything people should take away from this lecture (who doesn’t believe in science) this moment of the bad cameraman is a very significant point by Mr. Richard.
canag0d I laughed so hard at that scene especially after seeing this comment
Hey those are beautiful hands!
😂😂😂
It's B-roll, just uncut.
this was the camera man's first and only job
I wish this were true.
He decided that a classroom-lecture would be a perfect place to get a bit post-modern
You are a world Treasure, Prof. Dawkins. A beacon of light in a regressing into darkness humanity. We absolutely love you.
Why is such a poor state of education allowed to exist in the developed world?
yeah, they shouldn't be making comments these ill educated idiots
And this is in the UK which is far less religious than somewhere like the US.
LOL, so now teaching children science is bad, but teaching them fairy tales is good, grow up, you need to graduate Pre-K!
yep...and hideous isn't it, and these children are the real 'victims' of religion....being lied to, denied truths,facts,reality
(My bad, this is from the UK :]]] )
Because of conservatism in the United States. The US was founded on specific dogmas, principles such as Christianity.
I really enjoyed the way Richard Dawkins taught to these students. It was respectful, smart, and open-minded. I think that is the right way to teach. Asking questions, not just the students asking the questions, but to have the teacher or professor ask the students questions to challenge rather than just telling the information as is. Highly enjoyed listening to this.
Totally agree
You can tell he was desperately trying to get them thinking and genuinely questioning anything. It's actually not just religious upbringing, though. I think teens tend to have an even harder time than adults with that sort of (admittedly abnormal) social situation, where you're asked to inquisite. It's not just religion passing them the same old counterpoints and unfelt queries, but frantic unfamiliarity and the desperate need to (ineffectually) hide it... unfamiliarity with even the social situation, itself. They still have some of the innate curiosity, but their developing social censor causes them to question questioning, and like adults, they sometimes need to be reminded to question their questioning of questions.
That's why I think inquiry and this sort of experience should be a very regular part of education, from when it's natural, all the way forward. Unfortunately, it's probably one of the harder things to really learn and remember to do, as a teacher. (especially if your bosses worship at the charts and figures of standardized tests and funding above all else)
I agree, While I'm watching I find myself asking questions. Unfortunately I can't get them in there for answers.
spinogurl123 *He is a brilliant man. I would love to converse with him a few hours.*
Yes, I agree. Only at the beginning he insisted a little bit too much on the uniqueness of life on earth, while the majority of scientific community agrees that life possibly exists in many other planets (and satellites) out there.
"What came first, the plant or the oxygen?" - I can't even...
+Lockheim Gen 1:1 "in the beginning God created......." No other explanation comes remotely close. That's why there are so many atheists on line right now deluding themselves it could be any other way. The finitude of the past (i.e the impossibility of an actual infinite in nature) demands a ex nihilo creation event. So we have 9 hypothetical competing multiverse theories that try to explain away the obvious fine tuning and design in this magnificent, awe-inspiring, abstract law-abiding universe. "so prove my theory is wrong"... "it could have been the F.S.M " Yes well, dream on!!
+Lockheim I would definetly say it was the plant,but as hawkins explained when that plant grew it didnt produce oxygen nor it needed it for growth and gradually over time evolved to create okygen and at the same time became addicted to it so that it cant grow anymore if there isnt oxygen.
I wonder why did evolution choose okygen over whatever else plants were living on before.
Cuz obviously plants that didnt work on okygen dyed off cuz of natural selection.
Would we exist today if the plants didnt evolve to use and produce okygen?
+Black dragon story actually, neither came first. it was a cyanobacteria that produced oxygen (but it didn't need em).
+Lockheim oxygen , but firths was an green blue algae that produce oxigen
Schuyler Pablico Good to know.
Did plants that grew without okygen exist then?
It makes me happy that there are so many science lovers in the comments.
A pity so many adults have failed to discuss these matters with Dawkins as respectfully and thoughtfully - or in such a mature manner - as these young people.
These young people expose Dawkins as an evasive storyteller.
@@albertleibold1415 That's not the impression I got. Why do you say that?
@@joshuakohlmann9731
Because he is a
Creationist and brainwashed.
Einstein said, “In light of such a harmony in the universe that I, with my limited human mind, can determine, there are still people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me in support of views like these.” [26]
Question: "Why did Einstein find it so difficult to answer yes or no to the existence of a Creator?" Was it based on science or illusions?
He was asked: Why did Anthony retreat from atheism? Is this regression based on science or illusions ؟
And what do they all believe in one Creator?
This creation, the structure of the universe, the
foods, the tongue that tastes, the teeth that grind, the stomach that digests, the excretion of waste from the body, oxygen, the lungs, the eyes, the sexual desire and many other things, this does not indicate anything. Are you 100% sure of not having a creator?
Rivers and seas and the creatures in them and the rain that sows the earth beyond
It is very with lots of fruits
Nothing creates something
Are you 100% sure of not having a creator?
Go and see what religion commands you to worship. One Creator created everything, no three, no more, no less, but one. Go and see for yourself, you will find only one religion
But I will remind you of something you may have forgotten. And I want you to think about it. You are here in this world against your will. Just think a little bit that you are not here. By your own choice. You are here by choice.Choose to be here.He is one and you will go.. The matter is not easy, the matter is great in this existence, because whoever is able to bring you into this world against your will, after death, will either find you in grace and beauty that you have not seen, or torment and fear. which you have not seen.
Muhammad, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, is a prophet from the Creator, and before him many prophets did not lie or deceive, and he is the only religion that commands you to worship one Creator who created everything.
First of all, you should know that the religion of all prophets is the worship of one Creator who created everything. Islam today is the only religion that commands you to worship one Creator and not idols, illusions, conjecture or a number of gods. But how do we know that the speech is from God and not from Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace? . These are some of the things that comfort your heart and believe that this is a prophet and many of the prophets before him
This evidence appears generation after generation. The generation that lived with the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, witnessed miracles, and I collected for you what this generation has. in which we live
The Almighty said: (Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke)
The smoke confirms that the origin of this universe is inflamed. It is not a lake of water, as was the perception of all philosophies and religions that are based on illusion. This is one of the postulates of modern science today that the sky is condensation of smoke. This fact converted the French scientist Maurice to Islam and wrote a book entitled the Holy Qur’an on the scale of modern science
How did Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, know this fact before?
The Almighty says: ((And the heaven We constructed))
The sky is a building, not a vacuum as it was thought, and this was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017 that proved it
How did Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, know this fact before?
The Almighty’s saying: ((And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.
)).
That is, the sky expands with time. This fact, even in the time of Einstein, was not imagined by anyone and it was proven. And Einstein admitted it and admitted that it was the biggest scientific mistake he made in his life if he believed that the sky was fixed. The Qur’an before Einstein says that the sky expands
fact
Almighty’s saying: :((And We have made the night and day two signs, and We erased the sign of the night and made the sign of the day visible that you may seek bounty from your Lord and may know the number of years and the account [of time]. And everything We have set out in detail.
)).
The verse of the night is the moon and the verse of the day is the sun. The Qur'an tells that the sun and the moon were fiery masses. That is, the moon was a fiery mass and was erased, and the verse of the day remained visible to the eyes. Was the moon a fiery mass and extinguished? This is one of the biggest scientific issues discovered about the moon. The moon was already a fiery mass, and NASA issued on its official website a conceptual clip entitled The Evolution of the Moon in the video. In fact, the moon was a fiery mass like the sun, and this is what the Qur’an told about and the truth of modern science.
How did Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, know this fact before?
Almighty’s saying
And you see the mountains thinking that they are rigid, while you will cross as the passage of clouds. [It is] the work of God who has perfected everything. In fact, he knows what you're doing.))
And the verse clearly spoke of a strange phenomenon, which is that the viewer of the mountains appears to him still, that is, they are still, but in fact they are not like that, rather they are in a state of constant movement. And the infidels of Quraish had previously accused our master Muhammad, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, of madness, and it is likely that their joy was overwhelming when this verse was revealed.
They also found in it, according to their claim, evidence of this madness, and they told the people: How can you believe this man who says that these fixed mountains move like clouds moving in the sky!
And today it is proven that the earth rotates, and with it the mountains, how did Muhammad know that and why is he telling you instead of the matter that makes people consider him crazy? The matter was not from him, but from God.
.
Almighty’s saying
Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe)).
After man was able to reach the sky by flying by modern means of transportation, he knew that the higher up in the air, the less oxygen and atmospheric pressure, which causes severe tightness in the chests and the process of breathing. :
How did Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, know this fact before? It was not from him, but from God
Almighty’s saying
Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!
Modern sciences have revealed that in the bottom of the deep seas with abundant water - the deep sea - there is great darkness, to the extent that living creatures live in this darkness without visual tools, but live using their other senses such as hearing.
These dark darknesses are not found in the sea water that surrounds the Arabian Peninsula, but rather they have been discovered in the oceans far from it
This verse shows another aspect of the Qur’anic miracle, which is that the sea wave that all people only knew was one wave in the seas
The verse says there is another wave in the depths of the sea, and divers discovered at the beginning of the twentieth century a fact that was hidden in the depths of the sea, that fact that shows another wave that throws divers into it as it is thrown at swimmers, and this wave was discovered by Scandinavian divers.
.I will tell you what the Prophet said. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: One day the Bedouins who live in the desert will build tall towers, and this is my duty. Go and see where the
tallest buildings are and who owns them.
God Almighty: ((We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?)
And God informed the Qur’an of this by saying: “Did you think that we created you without a purpose and that you would never return to us?”
All these and other matters that I have not mentioned indicate that this is a prophet from God..More important than that, as I told you, is the only religion that commands you to worship one Creator, who created everything and before him many prophets
Say, if you wish, there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God
speak from the heart
.
,
@@albertleibold1415what?
Hes so patient with them holy moly
Right?! Blows my mind. I have read all his books and seen countless debates and lectures and I'm slightly disappointed that in a lot of cases here he didn't give much, much better explantations that I've seen him give in the past that would've done a much better job in helping them see the reality of Evolution. Also, the fact that he didn't explain the two definitions of the word "theory" (the basic definition used in everyday life, and the scientific definition which scientists use that had a completely different meaning) as I've seen him do so eloquently really bothered me.
I am not opposed to evolution being taught in any circle, religious or not, but I have yet to hear a plausible explanation from any atheist as to how evolution somehow rules out the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer such as God. Would you mind explaining?
Forget about religion, I am speaking about the existence of an Intelligent Designer that correlates with the complex and intricate design of our Universe, and also the complex process which is evolution. I hear people tell me, evolution is a 'guided process,' by what or by who I ask? The fact that it was guided seems like something people like Richard Dawkins and others who are so certain that God or a Designer doesn't exist take for granted, for because we understand something scientifically, therefore God is not a plausible explanation. My question is what if this God or Designer wanted us to understand how His Creation works and science was His method for understanding both the design and the designer?
Patience is key
you mean, the students are so patient listening to this bag of hot air
"The Universe doesn't owe us any meaning". Love that :)
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson said "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us." and I wholly agree. The universe contains things that exceed our senses. There's infrared light and ultraviolet radiation that we cannot see or feel, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We just don't have the senses to detect it. That's why we invented tools (through science) to see these things and prove they exist.
tell Neil that's what the bible is for
We are just a living conciouss organism in a bigger pool of living organisms. We just do not have the capacity to understand 100% fully much beyond our atmosphere. The Universe maintains us not us to it.
Yup, I believe that’s a sort of take on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s quote saying the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you, however Niels quote accurately explains that just because something doesn’t make sense right now doesn’t mean it isn’t real, Dawkins realizes this is a pretty good argument for the possibility of God so chooses a more reductionist type quote.
Those bible editors were very wise men, but not very educated. They also should have left out the magic creation parts, Noah's flood story, etc. The religionists of today would be in a much better position. It has little future left to it, by picking a fight with scientific research and modern tools of detection. Religion is a way for some to a happy fulfilment, but nothing else. The only connection it has to the scientific world is with psychology. (which, by the way, televangelists understand far too much of- lol)
This man needs to be a national treasure 🪙🪙🪙 He absolutely important to humanity
he is a fundamelist atheistic piece of shit for suckers like you
@@kiriakosoikonomu2907
🤣 Do facts always make you this angry?
🥴🤪
@@FlandiddlyandersFRSwhy are you *everywhere* when it comes to yec? I hope you are doing alright because this can't be healthy
(I'm not a yec)
@@kiriakosoikonomu2907most religious people I've met also use science, sad how you think it must be a threat to religion and would rather the world be ignorant instead of thriving just because of it.
Sad
If Richard Dawkins was my science teacher, I would have never missed a day of school
You obviously prefer fantasy over fact.
@@albertleibold1415 I ride with evidence not faith
@@4GetVegas : You know for a fact that frogs can become princes if given enough time.
@@albertleibold1415 I know for FACT snakes can't talk.
I am glad that you have some scientific knowledge. 👍
Students stating: “It’s just a theory and not fact” makes me seriously doubt an education system.
Well if Dawkins was smart, he would have said evolution is a fact, we all change though adaption or reproduction, but how life originated is a theory, don't think most people know this difference.
Nick Sarbu : There is no such thing as a Scientific fact. Everything is up for change all the time, this is science’s strength.
In science theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially but they will forever be a theory.
A well established theory is the pinnacle of science.
For Abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life) on the other hand we have several hypothesis, but non have a big enough body of evidence behind them to be called a theory yet.
This is what these students should be taught imho.
Its more than a theory its a religion masquerading itself as science. Dawkins says all this stuff with no factual concrete evidence, this is science fiction and he has great faith. He's a wonderful.preachers. He's not genisus! He's made natural selection over powered. I know the works of Charles Darwin. If he were alive he most honest and a theist complete. I feel bad how embarrassed Dawkins would stand before me. Anatomy and Physiology of mammals displays were where created as a mature creation many multiple organs needed for the life of us. Removal of one single organ isn't just a less life but death. Dawkins has swelling words, proclaims things fsctually. Micro evolution is true his fiction of macro evolution is where he errors, neither does science support. But some think he's smart in till light out shines him and we see how dim his light really is. Sources: all about god.com. UA-cam god vs evolution. Or the atheist delusion! Love ya bro
Paul Carlo : You indeed can’t simply take an organ out of any organism alive today as it may well result in death, you are right.
But tell me what is your proof that earlier precursors of today’s life couldn’t very well have functioned with a more primitive version of that organ or without that organ altogether if one goes far enough back in time?
Also as www.allaboutgod.com is not a Scientific paper and it does not want to hold it’s own assumptions and beliefs of the great creator up to compare it with evidence we can hardly say we’re on equal grounds here.
I wish you the best with your beliefs which comfort you and give you purpose in life, but I’m afraid I’ll never share them. Cheers
@@LoveDoctorNL Earlier primitive life forms, exactly you no nothing about neither Dawkins! Our life form could lessen by removal of these parts its pure death. And I sat and listen to many of Dawkins arguments weather I like him or not. That's why I recommend allaboutgod.com because its another view made by doctors that table a million evolutionary subjects. My case is undeniably science and there no stronger evidence!
Richard would have changed my life if he was a teacher in my school.
So is your life now changed?
@@tonysuffolk to late to him he is to old now for change
@@GardaOrban How old you think I am lad? I meant Richard would have opened my eyes to all the learning I could have done.
@@tonysuffolk when your a kid in a Catholic school, I would have questioned the religion. It’s difficult to now just dismiss it especially when you have kids. Who knows if Richard was a teacher in my school I might have dismissed it and had a different view.
@@peterlpool1387 I went to a boys boarding school. Morning assemblies and Sunday church parade. Even at 13 I knew the whole business of religion was nonsense. It was the question of apparent design which puzzled me. How could something so wonderful as a human have come into being without a creator? (The old watchmaker argument.)
When I was introduced to evolution through natural selection, that last doubt evaporated.
I later became a Science teacher and for me, teaching kids the truth about where we come from was no problem; in fact a joy. In 35 years I had only one child removed from my classroom by a parent. The child of a Christian fundamentalist.
I think what you are saying is that it's hard to dismiss views you were brainwashed into as a child.
Great lecture by Dawkins and I have to give it to the students for asking excellent questions
i love the camera person’s style, it’s like those 90s interviews
I thought it was very Bourne Identity-esque. I'm hiding in the comments to avoid feeling disorientated.
It reminds me of the office tbh 😂
Judging by his age here it was around the time of the office
omg its arca
arca (saying this for my friend manu)
This is a gem. I've seen Dawkins debate with such ferocity, but seeing him try to educate young people with such patience and understanding is just great. I think one of the greatest errors people make when questioning evolution is the idea of how "perfect" the world is, or life or the human body. Existence is rife with imperfections and failures, often catastrophic ones.
Evolution is operating from an untrue premise. The process of mutation does not generate the functional genes that are required for evolution to work.
@@albertleibold1415 sometimes it does, though mutation is most often random and most mutations are largely inconsequential ones.
@@zachcurtis1283 : By universal scientific definition, mutations are copying mistakes made during cell division or damage incurred through radiation or other mutagens affecting a DNA sequence (genome).
@@albertleibold1415 it's a simple matter of semantics. Mistakes, errors, differences, changes, all words used to express the same event. What point are you trying to make here?
@@zachcurtis1283 : You must be misunderstanding the definition, Sir.
Every single mutation is by definition either a mistake or damage affecting the genome. There is absolutely nothing neutral in the terms ‘mistake’ or ‘damage’.
If there were mistakes or damage affecting your GPS, would you be as nonchalant about that too?
Be honest, please!
There would have been a spicy parent-teacher meeting after this
Only in America. The UK is more enlightened.
@@Brakdayton basically the whole rest of the civilized world is more enlightened than the US
@@Brakdayton Wouldn't call letting an imbecile speak is "enlightened" tbh
@Memento Mori, would you mind not commenting then please?
@@blueroombass No.
This is beautiful to watch - it all starts with questions.
Why are people calling the young man at the back with the glasses a moron? He's asking questions, doubting evolution because he hasn't seen the evidence for himself. I would. But he's asking questions he is looking for guidance and I think he'll get there. Stop judging children on their lack of rational objectivity in comparison to a grown adult. Kids on religion are running on Windows BC you can't expect them to run up to date software. It will take time.
the thing is why they dont even ask one question about religion?they can think countless questions to contradict evolution and ask for evidence about anything.when it comes to religion they swallow it without a question and they dont look for evidence.they just believe it.santa claus for kids and religions for the big kids.people love fairytales.
Because they have never been asked to do so.
They have never been asked to think about their own idea.
I have been brought up to make my own decisions (also about religion), so for me this led to learning about everything.
I was given a choice at the age of communion, as I live in a christian country and went to a christian school, if I wanted to get baptised and join for that event, a choice given to me by my christian parents.
They told me not to think about the presents people would get, as I would get a present from them as well (I did not get any from the rest of the family though :P).
I chose not to get baptised.
I had heard the stories during our "catholic classes", but these did not seem far different to me than the fairy tales I had heard from theme parks and my bedtime stories.
Now if the only thing I had heard was the stories of that religion and the choice of me joining the religion had been made for me, I would not know how I would have grown up. I hope I would still come to the same conclusions as I have now, as my schools from 12y+ have been very scientific, but I am not certain if something like that could cure indoctrination on that young age.
It is actually good that this boy/man asks these questions, as it seems others are just hesitant to ask them.
Remember this is a religious school, the only reason they know about evolution (in the school) is because it is mandatory (as the woman/girl says, when asking about a test).
That the school has to tell them about it, does not mean they tell them everything or that it is fact. They may tell what is mandatory and then tell how religion explains it.
Because the questions he asks are stupid to begin with. Certainly at his age they are.
@Superfly gaming I agree. I was the kid that sat in the back of the room and did not participate because I did not believe in evolution until I was forced to come to terms with the facts far later in life. The fact that he is willing to SAY something is so much better then sitting and doubting in silence.
Superfly Gaming respect ✌️
The black boy seems particularly sharp and that islamic boy seems to have had its mind damaged almost beyond repair.
I was thinking the same thing! More evidence for evolution!
i think the muslim girl at the front was getting there too. She accepted and highlighted the contradiction of indoctrination. Give her a few years and she'll have made her own mind up about her own belief system
Morphindel She wasn't Muslim, she was a Hindu.
Morphindel
Why did you think she was Muslim? She's Hindu.
I thought the same thing. A very bright and promising young boy. The other, however, was just depressing... The way he kept trying to validate his religion. Why didn't the teacher shut him up? I don't think I've ever had a child annoy me this much.
do these kids even know dawkins. i would die if i knew he was gonna give a lecture in my class
lian me too, I don't know why they aren't excited about it.
lian right? I would actually be excited for class :p
I think this is from before Dawkins got REALLY famous.
his most famous book, the Selfish Gene, was written in 1976. He was very famous by the time this lecture was given.
yeah, right. I would go crazy if I was able to meet this incredible man.
This is one of the funniest things I have ever seen that you so much for posting this
Toddlers often do laugh at things they can't comprehend.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS Adults many a times cannot comprehend premise of arguments.
I'd have paid more attention in science class if I had Dawkins as a teacher.
EVOLUTION IS NOT REAL
@@dggjr1759 IT MADE YOU, DIPSHIT
I know right. Those students are so lucky.
@@dggjr1759 this si the thanks you say to nature idiot mother nature can you take you down and rebuild you again
@@dggjr1759 It is. Deal with it. SMH.
I would be delighted just by seeing Dr. Dawkins personally. I don't think those kids knew how lucky they were.
Vagner Jr I actually am one of the lucky few who get to meet him before his panel discussion with Michael Shermer in Berlin, just 3 weeks from now.
in their eyes they probably got a lecture from satan himself lol
some of them will realize one day how lucky they were
@Amirus Agreed! I admire the kind of person Dawkins represents : I calm, polite and well educated scientist willing to educate everybody with the big knowledge he has.
"Any idea why we were born with two kidneys?"
"So God could allow us to help other people"
I legit laughed out loud
It was on the same par as "the bananer fits yer hand, therefore GAWD exists"
Then I would ask “why did god create diseases if he created everything u dumbfuck” xD
I could hear Dawkins screaming internally XD "Pull yourself together Richard, you can do this"
Man, that kid was creepy
Yes, I'm sure that's what the kid was doing....
Feels like I'm watching a Bourne film.
🏆 you win the comments
I used to be a fundamentalist, and I used to hate Dawkins with a passion. Now, I cannot get enough of him! He is epic!
you are an idiot "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) spread the word idiot.
Frenk Vortice probably something with no context
Frenk Vortice congratulations, you've just proven nothing you idiot. doesn't matter that we can't prove it, it just makes way more sense than fundamentalism.. god..
You/your side will continue to lose this "spread the word idiot" war on _______(fill in the blank) because you are losing the culture tide that is leaving you all behind, and that seems to be difficult to deal with. There's one or more major personality issues, that are different in the 2 camps, and there's crossover causes, the cold civil war we're feeling from, not so much by region luckily, but divided we are. The tide of change is happening, but you are on the losing side, which isn't surprising b c you can look at the politics of both sides of any political issue(always cultural)you can tell which is the right choice to back, and guess what- the right is always picking the wrong one- several different groups, with bad idea ppl,influence the (R) electorate. You don't want dark money or nazis or bad behaving industrialists on your side, so why are they on your side? The megachurches stumbled right into, or knowingly discredited themselves, by shamefully, permanently becoming glued in a political cult (don't sell your soul to a politician!). More bad judgement, wrong side to be on, all parts of the Right lie, in their message to the ppl, news reports, official releases in writing to ppl,etc. It's a train going to crash, and the constituents of that cult are afraid to jump off. Your side needs to search for the truth, in all ways. Train's on wrong track(you can thank Russia for that $30 million gift to NRA (laundered) went straight to Trump campaign for Inauguration ceremony, it wasn't spent, and they don't know where it is (the guy charged along with Manafort) he was in charge of it (slush).
Welcome back buddy!
Whoever gave the 667th dislike... shame on you.
Lmao
+Ashley Small Shame on you too. Boooo!!!!
+Ashley Small im the proud proprieter of the 677th dislike
Zoom Avengers Shame. Shame. Shame.
It's a rather small number compared to 14.5 thousand likes isn't it?
it makes me sad to see so many kids who have wasted almost all of their lives believing in bs
and studied bs too
Almost all their lives? They're 15! Loads of time to change their beliefs. Hell, it would be downright weird if they had all the same beliefs in ten years.
J-Star-Roar they have lived for 15 years,so if they had been dealing with this bs from age 5,then yes it's almost all their lives
Saurav Vinod Oh right. I thought you were implying that by age 15 you have nearly all your life, and was picturing you sacrificing everyone over 18 like goats or something. BUt yeah, that makes sense now.
J-Star-Roar 😂😂😂😂where did THAT thought come from
What an absolute gem of a man 🖤
21:10 In science, the phrase "I don't know" is acceptable. No matter how simple or complex an idea is, abrupt conclusions are inappropriate.
Nofkyology yo, I'm a devout follower of it.
Ok you're proud to say "i dont know".
...but that's really just an attack on religious people, saying they're too arrogant that they'll say they know it all
...which is not true at all. You may find SOME people like that, but the majority of religious people are very much interested in science and finding out more about how and why things work. They wouldn't dream to say that sort of thing.
So I don't find that sort of statement admirable in any sort of way. I find it really condescending towards religious people.
@@marioluigi9599 The statement doesn't mention religion at all. Anyone perceiving this to be an attack on religion is highly defensiveness and insecurity in regards to religious faith.
You find the sentence condescending towards religious people, and at the same time say religious people follow the principles of that statement. For all you know, OP could be speaking on behalf of religious people.
Please resist using strawman arguments.
@@pmc9194 You clearly didn't watch the video. They were talking about religions there. And it's not the first time atheists proclaim that they're so humble that they'll always say "i dont know", whereas religious people are arrogant and claim they know everything. They always say that. You're clearly not familiar with them.
"I don't know" is the correct answer if you don't know. God is not the correct answer unless you have empirical evidence. Books and someone said is not evidence.
Too bad that the more intelligent, educated and successful a person become, the less likely they are to want children. In the meanwhile, the high-school drop-out dopesmokers have eight children with eight baby-mamas.
+oadnrtyo it's not really natural selection, it is more like an instinct.
in the wild, powerless people are more likly to have a baby because the baby is less likely to live. vise versa for powerfull people.
+oadnrtyo well, idk.
I think that powerless people reproduce more in hope to produce a powerful baby trough natural selection. but if the baby is born on powerfull parents, then selection process does not exist.
+Fucoc Heyyyy... I'M a dope-smoker, and I'm neither a dropout NOR do I have an absurdly large litter of offspring (in fact, I don't have any children - I had enough damned sense to be more careful than that). I also happen to be VERY knowledgeable about physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, environmental biology, ecology, geology, climatology, philosophy, psychology, and many other scientific topics - mostly all self-taught. So, please, don't just go bagging on us pot-heads as though we're all the same.
+oadnrtyo I'd like to think that intelligent people realize that the human race is massively overpopulating the earth, which is another reason not to produce more offspring.
+Schuyler Pablico
_"I think that powerless people reproduce more in hope to produce a powerful baby trough natural selection. but if the baby is born on powerfull parents, then selection process does not exist."_
Eh... you don't actually understand what natural selection is. It is a logically necessary consequence of reproduction with variation in a system where not everything survives. It applies to everyone. Whether they're "powerless" or "powerful" has essentially nothing to do with it all, because what matters is if the offspring survives and manages to breed. That is what's defined as being naturally selected. And it obviously applies to "powerful" people as well. If a "powerful" person doesn't breed for whatever reason, his genes have been naturally selected against.
I can't believe I used to be like those students.
It's never too late to join the rational side....
...
Eta Carinae it's funny how you guys say " rational"
What's rational about the idea that all life came from a single cell that impossibly/ supposedly existed?
Look up the RNA world theory
Josiah Cruz How can single celled organisms be impossible if they exist today by the billions.
Those 52 minutes and 27 seconds , were more effective than my whole years spent in school .
@Callisto well you were lucky , I’m from Syria and trust me our curriculum sucks so bad here , they teach you stuff only so you can study and pass the exam and get a scholarship , they don’t provoke our minds to search for answers .. so yes this video here was extremely useful and enlightening from my point of view 🙌
@@George2798A You now have access to a lot information, thanks to the internet.
Example:
ua-cam.com/video/LXFH2JzTclo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/vkEeKTKuxv0/v-deo.html
@@Lerian_V that was very sneaky of u,u sneaky,radical,christian fundamentalist.
Wow, you must go to a really shit school. lol.
The lack of information in those kids is astonishing.. but does explain a lot. So sad.
Compared to me, they are kids. I'm not even touching their belief, I'm talking about simple lack of information. If you haven't noticed it throughout q&a, you are probably not well informed (not to say educated) either. ...and insults are probably your only option and it is completely understandable, so I don't really mind.
Yeah.. well.. as expected, your arguments are concrete strong.
You obviously don't even know what criticizing means. I am not criticizing nor blaming them (heck, not even you), I am just noticing the lack of basic knowledge and feel sad for it.
nemanja milosevic Don't be so proud...atheists are useful idiots of marxism.
You're replying to a comment 3 months ago...
Richard is really enjoying himself when he tells about evolution
endermelle of course, who doesn't like being able to educate young kids, it's a great feeling.
Especially when it is about the field one specialises in. (One day...I could be just as enthusiastic as him when I tell kids about quantum mechanics...)
Its his fetish
Hahaha
endermelle This is what he does for fun.
One of the greatest scientists in the world teaching these kids and people will still doubt him.
I love how he just barges right in: "Good morning. The universe is about 14 billion years old..." Like, listen here buckos, we're gonna do some science today.
It is not 14 billion years old though... its theorised that its 14 billion years based on current predictive models that are reliant on our ever changing understanding of physics.
Its not a fact its our best understanding at this moment.
@@skp8748yeah that's science. Only places where we can know something 100% is in ones that are made-up so math or computing. And also religion which is why it's easier to believe that stuff...
@@skp8748 so is everything so that’s a nothing statement
@@m4dalex828 I don't understand could you explain
This is not doing science. This is called a lecture.
Academic science is people forming hypotheses based on pre existing information, testing those hypotheses using logical methods and understanding what the results mean; and writing and publishing the process.
the camera man had a pint of vodka before they started.
nah man, he's pretty solid. its a good approach to teaching common sense. but for sure the camera man was out on the piss till 6 in the morning by the looks of it.
evolution is a fact. richard dawkins seems like an open minded, intelligent, caring type of person. i was making a stupid joke about the camera work. don't bother replying thanks.
***** Hello there, i don't know where to exactly begin to disprove you, but i'll just start with these few points.
Evolution is indeed a scientific theory, it is however based on facts, furthermore saying it's been proven wrong doesn't prove it to be wrong, back up your arguments with facts from now on.
"and most scientist KNOW IT" that would have to be a conspiracy of enormous proportions, are you really suggesting that scientist from all different countries and cultures are working together to push a "false" theory?
Your argumentation for the modern evolutionary synthesis is just another obscure theory which little to none factual basis to it.
And finally, providing two books written by a born-again Christian and a Creationist (two groups of people who provide very little basis to any argument they make) doesn't trump the overwhelming consensus of the majority of scientists around the world.
Have a nice day.
***** Don't try to twist my words, evolution is based on evidence, the scientist present the evidence.
When all the evidence points one way, then it's scientific truth.
These are the simplified basics of science, something you don't seem to be familiar with.
***** Chance mutation does increase genetic information.Your point is not devastating because it is not correct. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
I wonder how angry the parents of these children must have been after finding out about this lecture!
Am pretty sure it was like a school event that they prepared for it for months
Am pretty they about this and even prepared for this " event " for months... it wasn't a surprise
Why would they be angry?
@@ivyrose779 Parents send their kids to parochial schools and madrassas to protect them from the secular world.
@Justin Gary Walk your comment back. I'm speaking from experience. My parents sent me to a religious school to shelter me. :(
I would've loved to have this class as a teenager.
alexheenan do not be a foul
wide angle lens and a tripod would have done nicely
I feel the main reason people dismiss evolution is that they are too dumb to understand it.
Actually I think that's false. It's not that they are too dumb but rather their beliefs are based on who taught it. Someone they trust taught them evolution was wrong. They trust that person so why would they lie? So when someone comes to challenge it they rationalize it and think we're being the stupid ones.
+Chris Miller because people think we did, I am not a christian either
JoyOfDemons Here is a classic example of people dismissing fact because they are just too dumb to understand it.
JoyOfDemons Just look at you, overwhelming evidence.
+JoyOfDemons We haven't just said "we look similar to apes and therefore we are the same", there is literal DNA evidence that proves we are 99% the same as apes (by comparison, all humans are 99.99% the same, genetically) . Also, the whole line of "we came from monkeys" is a fallacy. We did not come from monkeys, we came from the same ANCESTOR as monkeys, an animal that is as similar to us as it is to monkeys. You're also probably one of the people who say "humans aren't animals", without any understanding of classification and basic biology.
The indoctrination is strong with these kids
Yes it is
Yup. Two of them are relatively bright though.
When you start with the following premises, it's hard to be rational:
The premises
"The Bible says X"
"The Bible is always true"
Then X is true.
It necessarily follows from the premises that X is true.
"The Bible is always true" is a universal quantifier. "The Bible says X" is a particularity.
The conclusion is valid, but not sound.
For a conclusion to be valid, it must follow from the premises. If your premise is that the Bible is always true, then every single thing that the Bible says must be true.
The conclusion is valid but not sound. For a conclusion to be sound, the premises must correspond with the reality. But they don't.
The problem with these kids is that they do make valid arguments, but their premises are wrong. Because their premises are wrong, they don't make sound arguments.
Deductive reasoning is great but it doesn't get you far if your premises are wrong. I'm glad Dawkins is doing his best to change their premises.
Most people are brought up having to accept premises without evidence. When you keep hearing a lie too many times, it becomes the truth. Indoctrination is rampant.
This comment is an addition to the main comment. This comment's purpose is to demonstrate the systematic flaw that the students make.
@@excitedaboutlearning1639 Yup
"Created from dust. Or mud, or ribs or something." He knows what's worth memorizing and what isn't :)
Dawkins really is a gifted science communicator. Also credit to the students for politely engaging with a subject that must have been fairly disconcerting. Grown adults often become combative and resentful during discussions like this
For the most part he was good but there were definitely moments where he didn’t mask the incredulity/disdain for the question.
Neo-Darwinism is a cult religion
A Theory in Crisis, there is no better way to put it today. There are no transitional forms in the so- called fossil record and the ones that are sited are dubious to say the least, because they do not manifest soft tissue changes: like a dinosaur to a bird as presumed by evolutionists. Where are the millions of intermediate fossils demonstrating evolution? All along the religious chain of events, from life forms in the sea to modern man is pure fantasy and imagination by those who seek to keep a divine foot out of the door when it comes to the origin of life. Jesus said they that are whole need not a physician but those that are sick, go and learn what this means I desire mercy and not sacrifice. My contention is that those who promote this evolutionary ideology despite all the evidence against it are sick and are not worthy to be called scientists, because science is the pursuit of truth ultimately and where ever it leads true scientists follow. Many in the various fields of science associated with Neo-Darwinian will not speak out and change course, because they know their careers will suffer at the hands of their peers. Many true scientists have become creationists because of the insurmountable evidence; they were left with no alternative choice because of the continual narrative, which is spear-head by people like Richard Dawkins.
Here is a term they have invented: “genetic drift” in relation to the speculation of macro-evolution, which the fossil record does not support. All we see is micro-evolution a smart term for kinds within species. There are three limitations that cancel out Neo-Darwinism these are: the origin of DNA and RNA, irreducible complexity within the single cell and the “none existence” of innumerable transitional fossils. With this evidence there should have been a paradigm shift away from evolution several years ago. Life does not emerge from non-living matter and the idea of mutations; they only corrupt already existing information within the genome. There is a degrading taking place every generation; no new information is ever added to the genome by the invented process of natural selection. Nothing is changing and therefore evolving into new species.
HMS Beagle has now become a modern day shipwreck relative to evolution. The evidential cargo has blown up in Darwin’s face. This is not widely known but Darwin hated the Biblical account of Creation, the fall, the flood and redemption through Jesus Christ. He stated and I quote: He called the gospel of Jesus Christ a “damnable heresy!” He was at war with God before he set sail on HMS beagle around the world as a naturalist between 1831-1836. The Galapagos isles turned out to be of special interest to him relative to his theory of evolution. He was determined to fly in the face of God and invent an alternative to Biblical Creation. He spent a life time formulating a theory which would eventually blow up in his face. Darwin enjoyed the term “survival of the fittest” which is closely allied with “lawlessness” but Jesus said concerning his loving commandments to mankind “Let him who hath ears to hear, let him hear! Jesus was quite clear, that every man shall be judged for every idle word spoken! By your words you will be justified and by your words condemned. Jesus in his ministry taught people and nations to love each other and to work together for the common good of mankind. He knew the nations of the world would reject him and the gospel message of peace with God., That nations would arise against nation and kingdoms against kingdoms that there would be desolation's right up to the end of this present day and age, culminating in the rise of the Anti-Christ who will deceive Israel and the nations of the world, leading them eventually down the road to the battle of Armageddon. This battle will prompt the return of our Lord Jesus in glory to stop man destroying himself through selfishness and greed. His feet will touch the Mount of Olives and then he will hold man accountable for his actions. I am glad I have made peace with God through is Son. Jesus said, except those days be shortened there would be no flesh saved! What nothing breathing
@@johnsmithson4479well anyone that could is not human, some of the things the kids were saying was as crazy or idiotic as saying “I can fly after drinking red bull because it literally makes me grow wings”
@@mattlogic9647 And yet he knowingly signed up for this and should have been prepared for it. Nothing they said was unexpected in context. Reacting that way only serves to make them more resistant to his ideas and not feel confident asking questions. Also, if you grew up with everyone around you telling you red bull does in fact give you wings, and you just hadn't had any yet because it was rare, you would think it's true. Perspective matters, and these are children.
The older people get, the harder it is to accept new ideas. These students were still young enough to consider different ways of thinking.
I believed in God and Jesus all the way until i was about 16. I'm 23 now and since then i do nothing but believe more and more in scientific evidence. What made me come away from my religion was when i started to question it and all i got were unproven answers, at that point i slowly drifted away from it.
Something that all schools should teach is critical thinking, unfortunately unless you study something like science or social science in university or higher education, you do not really learn to think critically. If you are not taught this, you wont question anything and this carries on into your adult life, this is why the majority of the population assume "an expert said it, it must be true", this is simply wrong, you should never believe something just because a figure of authority told you, at school you do not learn to think this way.
+Cloud Strife evolution or more so, species modification to speciation is IN the bible. you don't have to 'give up' anything. kinds producing diversity of other...kinds/family is nothing more than speciation! it's really funny though...this is ALL that real time science has evidence for. what we observe stops at speciation. this 'fish to man' BS is not supported...find one example of a species breaking through to another species. they don't have it. that's why they have almost completely given up finding these trans fossils...there's no lineage here. no examples of lineage containing a continuum of species, with late stage divergence. no examples to compare. doesn't that bother you? and now with DNA...it's the same thing. the claim things but science comes back and reverses it totally. chimp and human dna similarities...they claimed 99% similarity. WRONG more like 80% or less. Junk DNA WRONG...it is all high functioning. btw 2% is coding DNA and this is where they find similarities. 98% is non-coding what they called junk lol. what else...ERVs...they said were the 'nails in the coffin'..WRONG now we know they were...are, crucial high functioning sequences in our DNA, not ancient retro virus which mutated. and fused chromosome 2...now we find it is more than just a fusion site. it's on an intron and probably much more than just transcription. that's function!so long one short...they lie! lol Dawkins, Bill Nye, DeGrasse...all these guys are just evangelizing their belief. it isn't supported with evidence. it is totally predictive evidence...like with cosmology and high error science. look it up.
Cloud Strife you do if its generalized. you need an entire day to spend convincing yourself there are no facts or evidence of species breaking into other species for example. people get all caught up in the details of a belief or discipline and leave the common sense behind. there is no evidence beyond speciation.
besides what exactly did you want?
9432515 I would like you to direct me to the place where you said "go look it up". Provide me with the sources you looked at which criticize and dispute the evidence for evolution from one species to another.
I assume that in order for you to come to the conclusion that you did, you must have read it from multiple academic sources. If you didn't then you should seriously consider revising your conclusions.
Don't forget there have been over thousands of religions without the concept of Hellfire, and it is *this* particular Hellfire religion that those in power kept around because it best suited their needs, to keep society obedient, under control, fearing God and not seeking the power. An all-loving God would not send people to "eternal hellfire," that first off, is plainly ridiculous. Religion is really and truly for fence-sitters who have people teach them drastic things and they believe there's a chance they might be true. It's obvious _why_ these religions are here while the older, more peaceful, less threatening religions were never useful in the eyes of those in power. They ended the useless religions for their society, go study history. And please in particular study ancient religions and how plagiarized the story of Jesus is, down to very important aspects, like son of God, sacrifice for the sins of the world, and resurrected 3 days later, etc. It's an evolution of past tales which best suit those in power.
Speaker of Truth That's quite an interesting point. But what about ancient societies where there was no "hellfire" concept, where you went to Hades when you died regardless of what life you lived. There was no religious control in ancient societies. When you compare that to Medieval society, where there was more religious fear, it was still just as violent.
Can we stop using the word theory and just use the word principles or something that isn’t used by most children as a synonym for hypothesis?
honestly, so much of the annoying misunderstanding stems from that word. people dont get that regular theory and "scientific theory" have two nearly opposite definitions.
Dawkins proposed in the greatest show on earth that we should use the term theorum, which he coined in that book, to talk about evolution or gravity. But I think it's too strange for people to pick up.
Dawkins proposes to use the term "fact" around scientific theories like evolution and gravity, that has such vast amount of evidence.
+Ray Unfortunately we are too ingrained with the word "Theory" I have pointed MANY people at a small website called "Not Just a Theory" which explains Scientific Theory very well. (Google it). But... most of them are very closed minded.
+Redeemed People DO deny gravity. Flat-earthers for instance. Absurd, but true.
I would have burst out laughing at 17:00. No idea how Richard held it together like that. That was a real Karl Pilkingtonesque question
Dawkins is so polite and patient- he is the kind of person I wish I was.
I just love the looks on some of their faces "holy shit this actually makes sense."
+dylan plantenga I'm assuming you're one of the 860 people who had a negative reaction to this video.
+Gore1NOT1Core Love the look on Richard's face too "SHIT I BETTER BS MY WAY OUTTA HERE!!!!!"
What part of his lecture BS?
All of it...as usual...I am a scientist...not religious...at all...
god does not exist...religion means nothing...this video is staged....like the charade debates vs Lane..Deepak..etc.
Dawkins...stopped being a scientist...40 years ago...he is totally outdated...he lies..defends Darwin...who has been proven mostly wrong by modern science..evolution is now science law...since the 1980 s...a new version...there is nothing to discuss...to debate...evolution....natural selection..the new law...is undeniable...no school invites charlatan Dawkins to lecture...only... religious students about Darwin...that is ridiculous...
...just like inviting charlatan Lane...to lecture...only...atheist...students..
no school does that either...
every high school teaches science..evolution..the new version..it is science law...the students can see it in the lab...it is undeniable...there is nothing to discuss...it is real...just like 2+2 = 4...
Evolution...natural selection...does not explain...origin...of the universe or life...no one has a clue...about origin...most scientists...Einstein...Sagan..Hawking...believed in the Spinoza s version...so do I..the only reason..able explanation..is some kind of creation...no god...the bible is nonsense...what created it? How? ...no clue...
All my closest friends are avid atheists...they despise Dawkins...who is a snake oil salesman..a fiction writer...a charade debater...a liar...for greed...he does not care about science or atheism...at all..he makes a mockery out of both for greed..fame and money...
just like...Lane lies...to sell BS books...
Hmm, fair enough.
shout out to the head school principal for allowing this remarkable session
True. He should be fired
@@rayfiedler9482 why?
I heard him give off to Richard when he got more in depth about religion. As if it's wrong to give them doubt
@@dermydiffer ah yes a principal condemning critical thinking, the very thing they are meant to be encouraging as an educator, you love to see it.
If photography is an art form, then the cameraman is Jackson Pollock
"If"?
@@DanEllis 😂😂😂😂
Bollocks! 😂😂
The boy at the far right of the room had some really great questions. It made me smile every time he asked something.
truue also the hindu girl at the front
"How has the heart evolved over time"
Did you not pay attention for the last 30 minutes lol
Sorry, i was looking at the acrobatics of the camera man.
Cameraman would you like a tripod
“No mate I’m just gunna balance the camera on a gold fish bowl thats balanced on a pogo stick thats balanced on a bed of nails that balanced on my skateboard whilst wearing roller skates, yeh, That’ll do it”
I wish he would have specified the difference between a scientific theory and the world in the colloquial sense.
word I meant, not world.
Tan But in society, a theory is genuinely used to mean "a guess" or a "hunch", so people get confused when scientific theories actually mean a body of evidence that support some form of model.
Tan Ya except thats not the way they use it. Alot of people seem to be fuzzy on this. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiment and observation. The way they use or think of the word theory is pretty much just a guess, or a good guess. A scientific theory is fact supported and a reliable account of the real world. You said that it can be contradicted and that's true when it comes to a theory, by definition, because of that word. However the theory of evolution is not something that is going to be completely contradicted. It's just not because we have to much evidence that is fact, and a contradiction would would mean that those facts weren't facts but they actually are. For instance the polio vaccine and countless other vaccines couldn't have been created if it weren't for using the principles of evolutionary theory, but they were and they do exist. One thing that makes something a scientific theory is the ability to make correct predictions using the model, which is further evidence of its validity. Like a math formula. If the math formula weren't correct then we couldn't get an answer or equation that just wouldn't work but we know when using that particular formula that the answer will be accurate everytime. That's how concrete it is. Also for the theory of evolution to be 'wrong' or contradicted that would mean pretty much everything we know about genetics is wrong. Which again just isn't going to happen and can't for the same reason. So unfortunately using the word theory in science can confuse people, especially those who don't know much about it. The reason they actually use that word is because in science they don't deal in absolutes, they deal in facts, for the specific purpose of leaving room for more to add and yes to be contradicted however if someone is truly educated on the matter they would know that wouldn't happen with the theory of evolution for the reasons I already listed. So what I mean is that more scientists like Dawkins need to start with explaining the difference between theory and scientific theory AND then explain why they do use that word in science coupled with how strong the evidence for it is. Because my original point as that the word theory gives an impression that is inconsistent with the nature of this particular theory.
Tan Ya except thats not the way they use it. Alot of people seem to be fuzzy on this. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiment and observation. The way they use or think of the word theory is pretty much just a guess, or a good guess. A scientific theory is fact supported and a reliable account of the real world. You said that it can be contradicted and that's true when it comes to a theory, by definition, because of that word. However the theory of evolution is not something that is going to be completely contradicted. It's just not because we have to much evidence that is fact, and a contradiction would would mean that those facts weren't facts but they actually are. For instance the polio vaccine and countless other vaccines couldn't have been created if it weren't for using the principles of evolutionary theory, but they were and they do exist. One thing that makes something a scientific theory is the ability to make correct predictions using the model, which is further evidence of its validity. Like a math formula. If the math formula weren't correct then we couldn't get an answer or equation that just wouldn't work but we know when using that particular formula that the answer will be accurate everytime. That's how concrete it is. Also for the theory of evolution to be 'wrong' or contradicted that would mean pretty much everything we know about genetics is wrong. Which again just isn't going to happen and can't for the same reason. So unfortunately using the word theory in science can confuse people, especially those who don't know much about it. The reason they actually use that word is because in science they don't deal in absolutes, they deal in facts, for the specific purpose of leaving room for more to add and yes to be contradicted however if someone is truly educated on the matter they would know that wouldn't happen with the theory of evolution for the reasons I already listed. So what I mean is that more scientists like Dawkins need to start with explaining the difference between theory and scientific theory AND then explain why they do use that word in science coupled with how strong the evidence for it is. Because my original point as that the word theory gives an impression that is inconsistent with the nature of this particular theory.
Tan . However , ' evolution ' has ,and is continually being proven valid ! 100 years from now ,the previous sentence will be just as true as today .
The best thing he said the entire time - and the most difficult concept these kids will have to reckon with - is the idea of changing your mind when confronted with new evidence.
@Steve In one question you managed to convey that you do not understand:
1 - Biblical exegesis
2 - What these kids actually believe about their religion
3 - Human psychology
4 - How the human brain processes information
If you want to take a critical stance against a worldview, by all means, do so. Just be sure you understand enough about the position to mock it accurately.
Please take the time to study at least one of these topics before making any further comments related to religious conversion or de-conversion.