Part 1 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
Uploaded by: tothesource1
Video Description:
Description:
Dinesh D'Souza, Christian and best-selling author, will face off against Tufts professor, author, and atheist Daniel Dennett in a debate on the existence of god. The resolution for the debate will be as follows: "God is a manmade invention." Daniel Dennett will be arguing the affirmative, and Dinesh D'Souza the negative.
Tags for this video: Atheism Christianity D'Souza Daniel debate Dennett Dinesh God
Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by tothesource1
| Part 3 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett | Part 5 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett | Part 7 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett |
 |  |  |
| Part 8 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett | Part 11 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett | Part 13 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
| Comments for this video on YouTube |
| Actually, I would ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| Actually, I would suggest that your response to my comment indicates that you have no idea of the claims of the actual premise of evolutionary process. All that exists is matter according to Sagan, Dawkins, Gould and natural selection is random purposeless, and without consciousness. That is of course unless you want to ascribe to nature "Wisdom" and purpose or that the simplest life forms (which are actually quite complex) had a "plan" to develop into more complex life forms. |
| Oh my. you truly ... ( 6 days ago by paucceri) |
| Oh my. you truly are a gem of ignorance. First of all, let's not quote Dawkins. He's a soft scientists with recycles claims (but a good science populariser). When you say that evolution has no conciousness, you are right. Why would it need one? You denying evolution states one of two things: 1. You haven't actually studied it. 2. You tried to study it, but it was too difficult. Evolution is one of the easiest processes understand, and it is in accordance with EVERYTHING we see in biology today. |
| And mr. paucceri ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| And mr. paucceri concerning reading books: I guess it depends on which books you read. Have you read "Genetic Entropy: the mystery of the Genome" by Professor Sanford of Cornell or "Evolution a theory in crisis" by Michael Denton or "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe? All of these respected scientists once were supporters of the Darwin inspired explanation of the origin of all species from a common life form by random mutations through natural selection. Their research changed their minds. |
| From wiki: " ... ( 6 days ago by paucceri) |
| From wiki: "Denton's views have changed over the years. His second book Nature's Destiny argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life and therefore assumes evolution as a given." So Denton takes evolution to be true. Behe is laughed at by even his peers. His claims of irreducable complexity have been debunked MANY MANY times, even here on youtube. Watch, if you will, the ~hour long Ken Miller debate, where he quite well handles those claims. |
| About reading books ... ( 6 days ago by paucceri) |
| About reading books: have you ever read any single biology textbook? Any ecology book? 99.98 % of the scientific community accepts evolution. My books far outnumber yours, so let's not get into that, because you'll just get owned. Evolution has indeed been documented in our lifetime aswell: google "nylon-eating bacteria". Watch this video, too: (I recommend, for you, only the ERV thing. it's simple.). If you provide any substantial debunks of the content, i'll be VERY impressed. v=i1fGkFuHIu0 |
| By the way Sanford ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| By the way Sanford and Behe are biologists. It's not that you don't believe in a God that is omnipotent; you just believe that the name of that God is natural selection, because you attribute to it this omnipotence. Again, how does a blind, purposeless, unconscious, materialist process produce a being that is conscious (aware) that it has been produced by a blind materialist process that has no consciousness? |
| And if you and ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| And if you and atheistblossom want to play the google game just google 'Does the fossil record support Evolution". And by the way "punctuated equilibrium" is not scientific in that it can't be tested. However, it was proposed because the fossil record, which Darwin thought would verify his theory of gradual change over time did not. All scientists accept evolution through natural selection within species. The controversy is over transition to other species. This has never been observed. |
| Hi again puucceri. ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| Hi again puucceri. Is Denton a Darwinist? Denton accepts that organisms are genetically linked (common descent). In that sense he is an evolutionist and a Darwinist. However, in so far as Denton accepts directed evolution, and in so far as he accepts that the course of evolution is preprogrammed, and in so far as he accepts Sheldrake-forces (p365) of his book, and in so far he defends foresight in evolution (p362), he rejects neo-Darwinism. |
| Hi again paucceri. ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| Hi again paucceri. I suggest the next time you google Wiki you do a more thorough research to support your position. Denton believes now that if conditions were perfect and random natural selection is "directed" then and only then is macro evolution "inevitable". He still believes in a "Director". |
| Ok, I'm glad to see ... ( 6 days ago by paucceri) |
| Ok, I'm glad to see you're not some crazy ranting creationist. "Again, how does a blind, purposeless, unconscious, materialist process produce a being that is conscious (aware) that it has been produced by a blind materialist process that has no consciousness?" Please, my friend, study evolution. Did you watch the videos I posted? If the only evidence you have against evolution is in the form of a book, that's bad news. Evolution has been independently verified, supported by every field of |
| science. The fact ... ( 6 days ago by paucceri) |
| science. The fact remains. If any substantial evidence against evolution were present, the theory wouldn't exist. Scientists don't have some kind of strange emotional attachment to their results. They simply want to find the results. They blindly follow the data, because that's all they have. And about the books, i suggest forgetting that topic because I can far outnumber you in books for evolution. The only difference between micro and macroevolution is TIME. want to continue this? PM me? |
| Science doesn't ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| Science doesn't have some kind of strange emotional attachment to their results? Science by definition has excluded the possibility of the supernatural. Because of this when the data suggests that it is more reasonable to infer design they can not follow the data to its conclusion. That's why Dawkins and others will say that the universe and all life looks and acts like they have been purposefully designed, but they are not. And that is why any scientist who argues in favor of ID is ridiculed. |
| I heard Dawkins say ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| I heard Dawkins say in an interview that the universe and all life so looks and acts like is is purposefully designed that "I have to remind myself that it is not". (Why does he have to do this? because by definition ID isn't possible) In other words it looks, walks and quacks like a duck but it is not. True science would allow for at least the possibility of ID especially since according to logic, reason, observation and experience (and even a few popular songs) "nothing comes from nothing". |
| You obviously ... ( 6 days ago by atheistblossom) |
| You obviously didn't look up Herring Gull so I will copy it for your convenience: "This group has a ring distribution around the northern hemisphere. Differences between adjacent forms in this ring are fairly small, but by the time the circuit is completed, the end members, Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull, are clearly different species." What is the controversy? Untruths peddled by creationists. |
| To be kind atheist ... ( 6 days ago by 514stop) |
| To be kind atheist blossom I will simply say that Herring Gulls and Lesser Black-backed Gulls are still Birds. No one argues (not even creationists) that change doesn't occur through natural selection within species. Again, the controversy is over transition from one to another (fish becoming birds etc). There is no scientific evidence for this merely inference from the fact that natural selection works within species. Extrapolation and inference has its limits don't you think? |
| Hahahha, oh dear, ... ( 5 days ago by atheistblossom) |
| Hahahha, oh dear, you are terribly funny. Dear stop, if you think changing the definition of species is being kind to me I'm at a loss. Well, nevertheless, let us remind ourselves of the definition of species: "A groups of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding." I'm afraid if you want to see things like fish turning into birds and sticks into snakes and water into wine there is only one place for you. |
| Again to be kind ... ( 5 days ago by 514stop) |
| Again to be kind atheistblossom, the controversy in evolution is not over the fact that different species of birds or dogs or cats exist or that there can be change within these different species or even that all dogs had a common ancestor; the controversy is that from a common simple life form all life in all it's complexity and diversity, developed by purposeless, random mutations through natural selection. Uncontroversial transitional life forms are non-existent and have never been observed |
| Well, you said ... ( 5 days ago by atheistblossom) |
| Well, you said species, you've changed the goal posts. Do you mean Genus? Family? You can't expect the common ancestors of very different organisms to be living, so you won't have examples like the herring gull. But as there is no controversy for you that all dogs had a common ancestor, then equally there shouldn't be a problem for you that all apes, yes humans too, had a common ancestor. Another tired creationist assertion: Natural Selection is random - it isn't. |
| You say that the ... ( 5 days ago by atheistblossom) |
| You say that the existence of consciousness and the fossil record does not support our understanding of evolution. If this is the case can you; 1) Name a single fossil that contradicts evolution, ie, an anachronistic fossil. 2) Name a single creature that is conscious of anything other than what our understanding of evolution would anticipate it being conscious of. Either all life forms are 'transitional' or none are, so how can there be any scientific controversy? You're talking Creationese. |
| Again to be kind ... ( 5 days ago by 514stop) |
| Again to be kind atheistblossom, the controversy in evolution is not over the fact that different species of birds or dogs or cats exist or that there can be change within these different species or even that all dogs had a common ancestor; the controversy is that from a common simple life form all life in all it's complexity and diversity, developed by purposeless, random mutations through natural selection. Uncontroversial transitional life forms are non-existent and have never been observed |
| I posted this ( ... ( 5 days ago by 514stop) |
| I posted this (below) again because this is where the controversy exists. Darwin knew that the fossil record that existed in his day did not support his theory. He hoped and believed that discoveries would show many transitional forms to vindicate him. The Cambrian explosion in which hundreds of millions of fossils appeared, is a blow to Darwin's beliefs in this regard. There are no non controversial transitional forms. Please show me one quote that states that the fossils. vindicate Darwin. |
| I will respond to ... ( 5 days ago by 514stop) |
| I will respond to non randomness of natural selection in a bit. By the way you speak an atavistic form of evolutionese. Perhaps you should brush up on the language. |
| You obviously ... ( 4 days ago by atheistblossom) |
| You obviously haven't watched the Ken Miller video that Paucceri suggested to you. 'Transition' species galore. You are undeserving of evidence of 'transition' species, as you see it. You don't deserve a specific rebuttal to a 'controversy' that you have invented out of thin are. But there it is anyway, five fossils showing the transition between a land mammal and a whale. You are uneducable and your willful ignorance is the very essence of the creationist. You are beyond help. |
| No, you name a ... ( 4 days ago by atheistblossom) |
| No, you name a single fossil that contradicts Darwin. Stop lying. |
Tell a friend: