I like the idea behind this new series of videos...
I wish he had added, in this one, that we only relatively recently figured this stuff out about whale evolution... stressing that science is an ongoing process and we don't already know everything.

I like Richard Dawkins. He's much better at explaining things that actually exist than he is at disproving things that don't.

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, lol! You can only show evidence for what does exist and point out the lack of evidence for all else.

As for this video, it's really not very good at proving the point. He talks about whales, then shows fossils for dolphins. These are not the same species, though they are closely related. If you want the average gum smacking moron to change their mind about the fossil record, show the pretty chart, then show the actual fossils and where they correlate to the chart. Otherwise people will think you are trying to pull a fast one again, and it will be further "proof" in their minds that science is full of crap.

Finally, Dawkins remembers that he is a biologist. I enjoyed his tirades against religion, but they were getting tiresome.

^Every word of science is against religion... opposite ends of the spectrum.

I was thinking about Gwiz665's past comment.

"Every word of science is against religion... opposite ends of the spectrum"

and I found it interesting. I have come to have a different perspective than yourself.

I have come to the conclusion that dichotomies are a fallacy of reasoning in and of themselves. Therefore there is no such thing as good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. We don't live in a two dimensional world.

There is not a spectrum between science and religion. That gives the impression that there is a sliding scale and the truth is there somewhere.

To be brutally honest. Believing in superstition/religion is a result of ignoring how our world operates.

True is the opposite of false. Science is the opposite of religion. No spectrum.

That is so logically fallacious in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.

And since logic = science, and your statement does not = logic, it does not = science, therefore your statement is a proof of your undying love and belief in all religion of all types and styles.


Hey, if you can use logic badly, I can too.

>> ^gwiz665:
... opposite ends of the spectrum.

>> ^gwiz665:
No spectrum.

So which is it. Spectrum or no?