Three Minutes with Richard Dawkins

This video features Richard Dawkins. He’s always good, so you don’t want to miss this.

As you’ve already guessed, we can’t find any news to post about, so after you’ve watched Dawkins, feel free to use the comments as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone.

Addendum: The video we originally embedded here is no longer available, so we substituted another. It’s titled Why Richard Dawkins Doesn’t Debate Creationists.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

8 responses to “Three Minutes with Richard Dawkins

  1. How about an “Amature Bad Lip Reading” “3 min with a creationist” counterpoint.
    Possibly with a virtual pancake breakfast afterwards.
    Or even better…
    Lipsink a creationist doing 4 Minute’s “Huh.”
    No, sorry. That’s silly (and work). Forget I said anything

  2. Well, here’s a grand bit of anti-Darwin wisdom from a fellow who I had never heard of before today – Iain Carstairs. Sadly, he has 88 followers, and many seem as bsc as he, consipiracies galore from Sandy Hook to 9/11:

  3. “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” (Richard Dawkins)

  4. “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” (Richard Dawkins)

    And it’s as damned shame that this is what so much of religion has devolved into, when instead it can be a powerful force to help guide mankind to find a way for all of us to share this planet without trying to kill each other. If only the Christians would focus on the core message of Christ — love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you — instead of dwelling on all the totally meaningless bs of original sin, Noah, six days of creation, heaven and hell, etc.

  5. Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller are atheistic evolutionist who have been blinded by the Devil in accepting man-to-molecules evolution and millions of years. They are not real scientists because they do not recognise that only observational science is real science, and that the religions of atheism and evolution cannot be real science.

    Besides, Richard Dawkins nor Ken Miller are just chemicals so what does it matter what they say?

    Keep praying.

    Ken Ham*

    *Not really

  6. DickVanstone

    ^ Dave’s not all here, man.

    On a side note: Did anyone catch Thursdays’ Colbert Report interview? I believe his name was John Sexton, NYU President. Colbert’s responses were epic, y’all may enjoy it.

  7. If you’re a biologist, and you think the human genome evolved by random mutations rather than a series of highly complex and co-ordinated mechanisms, it means you’re over estimating the time required for even one very simple protein to form by a factor of at least one thousand trillion.

    That is, if the actual efficiency of the solution which actually occurs in biology could be represented by the circumference of the Earth, 25,000 miles, your idea of it complexity would be one one hundredth of an inch. Now, that’s a pretty serious miscalculation.

    Now if you don’t know the facts, well, ignorance is not a crime. But if you have them explained to you by a real scientist, let’s say James Shapiro, and you still refuse to accept it, then I’m afraid, there’s something wrong with you!

  8. Religion is basically for the unimaginative who want to be spoon fed the answers they want to hear and who would rather be led than to think of the infinite possibilities on their own. It’s the ultimate attachment for the very timid.