Creationism in my High School

[junglesurvivalcamp]

fun story

[GuillemotWatcher]

The war for the minds of children divides into 2 camps.

Camp 1, those who teach their children to BELIEVE what they believe, because it justifies them not questioning their parents beliefs & satisfies the instructions of their parents to teach their children well.

Camp 2, those who teach their children to THINK, so they are armed to solve that which is currently unknown, & the unknown questions that will resultantly arise.

The former perpetuates, the latter advances.

[friedie1jeff]

Science teachers who feel uncomfortable teaching evolution should not be science teachers.

[HonestMan395]

Ok. For starters. Two major tenets of the bible that can be proved not to have happened, at least not as the bible says they did.

1. The Exodus.

2. The Nativity and the Slaughter of the Innocents.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 I would like to see that proof. The historical information I have read varifies them. Besides, have you done good exegete of those passages to be able to defend your assertion of what they say?

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo I can give you evidence, but it it would take up a lot of space here. I can send it to you if you agree.

Quote: "have you done good exegete of those passages to be able to defend your assertion of what they say?"

I don't have to interpret anything. The bible itself is plain enough.

[lo2enge]

@HonestMan395

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged... he must marry the young woman because he violated her..."

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death"

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death."

Plain indeed! A worthy moral code!

[HonestMan395]

@lo2enge Not my god. please. I believe that the bible condemns itself over and over again.

I wrote that comment to demonstrate that very point, regarding the falsity of the nativity.

I'm sorry if it was not clear.

Isaac Asimov said "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

It is a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree.

[lo2enge]

@HonestMan395 Not your fault... my bad... i realised after the fact and posted an apology on your channel.

I know a number of converts to atheism who did so after reading KJV from cover to cover... and that's one of the lighter more palatable versions!

Good point about exegesis - why is it all the negative passages have to be taken in context, but the nicey nicey parts speak for themselves and stand alone?

[HonestMan395]

@lo2enge If the religious people could not explain away the nasty side of the bible, then common humanity would force them to re-think their beliefs and that is something most cannot face.

I came from a christian background. It took me 5-6 yrs before I finally bit the bullet.

It's happened with Islam as well. Before the end of the 19th Cent. the Hadith was held in equal esteem as the Quran, but because of secular objections to it's inhuman harshness, it has now been quietly downgraded.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 Thanks for the information and for the civil manner which it was presented. I am sick right now, so I will give you my thoughts on it next week.

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo I'll piece together some of the sources I have used and send them to you.

Some of them I have looked at for many years, but If you are really interested, I'm prepared to search them out again.

I hope you are well soon.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 By the way, did you have a source or sources for the information you sent, so I could do some research?

[lo2enge]

@HM395 'I don't have to interpret anything.'

"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense."

"Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death."

"The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces."

So all that is to be believed verbatim? Lovely chap, your god, well deserving of praise!

[VeryImagesozo]

@lo2enge If I understood you correctly, your default position is that God is guilty of evil in those passages and not man. The false assumption is that God is doing evil things to innocent people. However, that mindset is foreign to the Bible. Everyone is guilty of sin and therefore God is not wrong for judging us righteously. I do not see any problem with God being sovereign and the righteous Judge of mankind. You do. However, You must use God's standard to make that judgment.

[lo2enge]

@VeryImagesozo My point is that these are punishments being advocated by god for trivial crimes, or actions sanctioned by god which are obviously immoral. These are mostly rules being set out, NOT observations of events contemporary to that time. As for the she-bears tearing children to shreds after a curse upon them asked of god is hardly the actions of man, and definitely disproportionately harsh punishment.

God sets us a moral standard he chooses not to adhere to? What a smashing guy!

[lo2enge]

@VeryImagesozo My default position is actually that god doesn't exist, and the buybull is clearly written by flawed men in order to vindicate their own actions and impose their will upon others. God appears evil in many passages because they were being written by men with evil intent. He's fictional, and so can be bent to the will of whichever author is invoking him.

[VeryImagesozo]

@lo2enge Thankyou for your response. I did understand that you were coming from an atheist world view. I found it interesting that you did refer to "men with evil intent". From the athiestic mindset, what is your definition of evil? Where does evil come from? What standard did you use to determine that these were "men with evil intent"? Please understand, I also believe that the 40 authors of the Bible were evil, as all men are, but my definition of evil comes from the Bible. 

[lo2enge]

@VeryImagesozo

Settle in... have you got a while?

I don't mean the baseline evil of original sin (a disgusting concept designed to oppress) as understood by certain sects of Jesusianismists, i merely use it as shorthand for what we find morally abhorrent. Our morality has directly sprung from evolutionary imperatives. There are evolutionary explanations as to why we eschew many behaviours in a society - our condemnation of murder, rape, assault, child-abuse, incest, cannibalism is natural......

[lo2enge]

@VeryImagesozo (cont)... Unfortunately, although many of these behaviours are damaging to a society, some can confer some benefits to the individual, so natural selection will not eradicate them entirely. These destructive behaviours are mitigated by the many instances of kindness and altruism essential for survival in societies such as ours. Without fellow-feeling, the exchange of ideas and charity we would not be what we are today. Thus evolution provides an explanation for the human condition

[lo2enge]

@VeryImagesozo I do believe there are a limited number of moral absolutes, but for the most part i believe morality is subjective and relative. We can define evil from those few moral absolutes, and also on a consensus of the moral code within our society (as we can define good from these as well.

In my opinion, the bible contains very little that is original and of worth in the debate on morality. My previous examples are of those we have rejected......

[lo2enge]

@VeryImagesozo (cont)... the moral principles we have embraced are not exclusive to the bible, and can be found firmly rooted in older greek and chinese philosophies (i mean explicitly, they're already implicit within our genetic code).

Do you support the bible's urging to put to death teenagers who talk back to their parents, people who pick up sticks on the sabbath, adulterers or people who do not obey their priest? Do you think a rape victim should be forced to marry her assailant? I do not!

[VeryImagesozo]

@lo2enge If society determines morals, based upon what...who knows, then how can we judge Hitler or Stalin to be wrong when they carried out infanticide? Their societies condoned it? That being the case, how can you sit in judgment on the Bible, which in some cases was merely recording the evil of that time period? 

[lo2enge]

@VeryImagesozo Hitler and Stalin kill millions and they are evil. God sends down a flood, slaughtering thousands if innocent infants, and he is the great almighty, and we must all worship him. Children emulate their parents. If god is our creator, how could the actions of hitler be considered evil? He was merely copying his idol.

I explained fully the basis of society's morals - evolutionary development of the psyche amongst a social animal. If any society condones infanticide it doesn't last.

[scrap222666]

@VeryImagesozo Hitler and Stalin were not wrong or right, there is no such thing. It's such a simple concept I am always amazed how Christians can't get this. Let's say the world has 3 people in it. 1 decided to kill Jews (not right or wrong remember). The 2 other think, hey I don't like this kind of action. He is ending someones life with force. So we have it. The concept of "right" and "wrong".

[VeryImagesozo]

@lo2enge You have no basis to make such judgment, and to apply Old Covenant law levitical ritual law to the New Covenant time period is to misunderstand scripture. Also, the judge God for his laws is to misunderstand his sovereignty.  If a judge, being sovereign over his courtroom, sentenced a man to prison, is the judge guilty of false imprisonment? If I, not being a judge, do the same, I am guilty of false imprisonment.

[lo2enge]

@VeryImagesozo if genes are killed before reproduction they are lost, so we find child murder especially abhorrent as a species. Cannibalism and incest foster disease and genetic weakness. Crimes such as theft, assault and rape are more tricky to explain as they confer an immediate evolutionary advantage to the individual, but we select partners on various bases, and kindness & caring is one of the top attractions. We have evolved to see such actions as "evil" due to sexual selection and society

[VeryImagesozo]

@lo2enge Yes...you are giving me a very good view of your moral code, which is not the moral code of everyone in our society. Many don't have a problem with child murder, thus the continued success of the abortion industry, America's holocost. Does your moral code include lust, coveteousness, lying, stealing (like taking time from your employer, long lunch breaks, goofing off on the computer), envy and so on? Each of these acts, which we all are guilty of, varifies the Bible (Romans 3).

[lo2enge]

@VI Likewise, if you consider a blastocyst, zygote or embryo the same as a child. If you truly support the teaching of superstition in the science classroom yet deny a woman the right to do as she pleases with her own body (including choosing which organisms it hosts and nourishes) i'm afraid we can have no further discourse. Our philosophies are too disparate, and furthermore we regard the other's with utter abhorrence.

Yes, evolution can explain all those things, but you won't listen

Farewell

[scrap222666]

@VeryImagesozo The best part is the mechanism is self fixing cause the majority rule. So if the majority rule most of the people will be always happy as a minority will not be happy. Applying this concept to abortion for example and it's easy to understand what is going on. It's such a morally vague subject at the moment that people don't know what standpoint to take. Including me as I don't know when a child becomes a child, sperms are not children per say but when does the switch happen.

[VeryImagesozo]

@scrap222666 The problem with majority rule, or as some call it mob rule, is that the majority is not always right. What if the majority decided that you should no longer live? Does that give the majority the right to commit murder? Concerning the question of when life begins, would it not be prudent to be cautious and to assume life begins at conception, in order to avoid terminating a precious innocent life by mistake? Consider the testimonies of those who survived abortions.

[scrap222666]

@VeryImagesozo Well I like to think simply and majority do rule. If there were 3 people alive and 2 of them wanted to kill the 1 they will force the issue through. Majority do rule ultimately, of course I don't like it either. About life beginning, life itself is a human made technical term. Doctors had a hard time determining when a person is dead just some time ago. I mean technically every sperm is a person. I would go for heart/brain activity.

[VeryImagesozo]

@scrap222666 OK...fair enough...Occums razor...the simple answer is the best answer. What about the supreme court? It is made up of a minority (nine judges) that often rule against the majority, who is governed by the rule of law, a constitutional republic. Dictators throughout history have ruled over the majority. Your premise assumes the absence of a supreme being and of moral absolutes. My premise is based upon the existence of a supreme being and the existence of moral absolutes.

[scrap222666]

@VeryImagesozo Ahh about the government and court forms, again easy. This is mankind trying to fix the majority rules problem. As the saying goes democracy is flawed and exactly for these reason as majority still want to press through their decisions. But the world isn't 2 vs 1 or 100 vs 20. The factions are more balanced on most issues and in case of countries and states outside population and global opinion. Still as it stands ultimately even democracy was voted in by the majority.

[scrap222666]

@VeryImagesozo IMHO the closest we can get to moral absolutes is actually that the majority rule. Well by default we will never know if moral absolutes exist as they are absolute. We will always have a subjective view from our little brain and that brains ability to absorb vision/info/sound etc. Still "moral absolutes" is what the majority agree on. Your moral might by your moral code but if the 2 other guys say no don't steal food and kill our cattle and rape our wives we will put you to jail.

[VeryImagesozo]

@lo2enge What is difference? Authority...thus the term Elohim meaning magistrate. God is just in doing whatever he choses with us including sending us to eternal torment. Since all of us have broken his law, we are all judge guilty and whatever sentence God choses is just.

That is all I have to say on the matter. I hope the best for you and take care.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 If the evidence is from the Jesus Seminar / Bart Erhman, I already know about it and have rejected it having read other scholars who have sufficiently refuted it. If it is from someone else, I would happy to look at it.

An exegete is not an interpretation. It is an examination of context, the Hebrew in the passage and the cultural context of what the passage was saying to those who read it during the time it was written. It was not written to Americans in English.

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo I know what Exegete means. Actually, it is not a thing, it is a person skilled in Exegesis, which is "Critical explanation or analysis;" especially, exposition of the scriptures.

That inevitably involves interpretation at some level. so I believe my use of the word was correct in the context.

I haven't seen the Bart Ehrman Jesus seminar, but thankyou. I will look it up.

I'm sending you the information about the nativity and the exodus.

[HonestMan395]

If god designed the world and everything including man, then he is a pretty rubbish designer.

Everything is compromised and inefficient. nothing is perfect.

If he went to engineering college, he'd be kicked out before he'd finished the first year.

Oh! maybe that's what happened and we were his first year project.

[LtModigliani]

Reason will be the undoing of all religon.

Reason this; Perfection can not create the inperfect. There for a perfect being can not create and inperfect creature, such as you and me. So, god must be an inperfect creator, such as you and me.

[kly45]

Creationism, in MY high school? It's more likely than you think!

[virtuallypainless1]

I've come to enjoy watching your videos. I havent believed in anything religious since i was 16 or so, and i finally took a good hard look at the things that i was being told, and realized that they made no sense, they weren't logical in any way. Your videos are actually refreshing, and i enjoy hearing you talk about your past, you're a very intelligent guy (wish there were more people like you out there). Thanks for the video, i hope you keep posting them :)

[neobattle2]

oh wow, you posted this in 2008, and I thought these stuff ended liike 20 years ago.

[Houshalter]

"Ok kids, you're parents have decided that I am no longer allowed to teach science in science class. Oh well, let's learn about clams!"

[TheLovesoul1]

hey what is the 6th dimension?

[LtModigliani]

@TheLovesoul1 If the 4th dimension is to have two different points coinsiding in the same point. and the 5th is all possiblilites that every point has , Then the 6th is the colation of that all the possibilities than can happen, have. All stemming from the 3rd dimension.

If you still dont get it look up 11th dimension in youtube.

[proginosko]

I think you would enjoy a book I just read called "The Lost World of Genesis One". It is on the topic your teacher spoke about. It looks at Genesis from the mindset of an ancient Hebrew and makes the argument that Genesis was not written concerning material origins but was written to emphasize function. The scientist should debate evolution, not us theologians.

[LtModigliani]

@proginosko Science had been debaiting evolution senses its inception. The more it is smashed by debate, the more refiened it becomes. Until it becomes an absolute truth to humanity. I would like to see the holy bible put in the same position and survive as long as evolution has. But alas, the proof that faith creates, needs more faith to be believed.

[VeryImagesozo]

@LtModigliani 2000 years is not enough time? How many more years does the Bible need to be tested? It has survived 2000 years of criticism and is still standing strong.

[LtModigliani]

@VeryImagesozo Tested? Dont make me laugh? Through 90% of that 2000 years, it went unchallanged. because the readers where too stupid to know otherwise. And if it did go under any tests, it had to have failed them. or have some bias fool pass it. 

[VeryImagesozo]

@VeryImagesozo Your assertion based upon your bias. Study the history of the Bible and you will see it being challenged throughout its history. It is not as if this information is not readily available in this information age.  Even skeptics, who are honest, will admit that the Bible has had its critics since the time of the completed canon. If you tell me that you do not like the Bible, certainly, I can accept that, but if you make a false statement about the Bible, I cannot accept that.

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo Surely, you jest. The bible has not been challenged and criticised because people just don't like it.

It is because it is riddled with myths, legends, contradictions and just plain old fabrications from beginning to end, yet it is spoken about as if it were gospel [pardon the joke] truth.

That is what we object to.

Any scientist who made similar statements without evidence, would be laughed off the page and ignored.

But the bible must be believed? I think not.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 I'm really not interested in a long debate on the matter. I only ask that you produce proof that your accusations against the Bible are true. Did you consider all of the archeological evidence that has been discovered that varifies the history recorded in the Bible.? Have you even taken the time to research it? I have heard those accusations before and have yet to have anyone prove them.

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo That is an old falacious argument. Asking someone to prove a negative.

If you claim that the bible is genuine, it is up to you to provide the evidence to back up that claim.

As it is my contention that there is no evidence in support of the bible, [other than itself], I am entitled to assume it is not true, until evidence comes forth to counter that assumption.

If you know of any evidence of which I am unaware, please tell me. I shall be pleased to investigate it thoroughly.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 I can prove right now that a pink with purple poka dots elephant is not currently raiding my refrigator. That is proving a negative. If you have no interest in examining the facts concerning the history, textual support, achreological evidence and the list goes on in support of the Bible, that is completely up to you. I am simply not impressed with false assumptions and accusations against the Bible that have no facts or evidence to back them up. I enjoyed the discussion.

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo I hope that you are just being funny, but lets follow up on your example.

You may be able to prove that a pink with purple polka dots elephant is not currently raiding your refrigerator, unless, maybe, it is invisible and untouchable. [Isn’t that what god is supposed to be?]

However, you cannot prove with absolute certainty to a level of 100% that the elephant doesn’t exist. Somewhere in the universe, there may be just such a creature. Cont’d..

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo Nevertheless, based on your own observation and the fact that there are no mentions of such an animal in any Zoological references you are able to assume that, on the balance of probabilities, with a certainty of, say 98%, that no such animal exist.

As most courts now will accept a 10-2 (83%) verdict as sufficient to secure a conviction in most cases, 98% would be considered, to all intents and purposes, as close to absolute certainty as needs be. Contd..

[LtModigliani]

@HonestMan395 I want you to see a video; its called 3.3.3 Atheism A History Of God(Part 1)

You'll love it, I guarantee it!

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo Likewise, I Have never seen god raiding my fridge, However, I cannot prove with absolute certainty to a level of 100% that god doesn’t exist, but based on the lack of evidence, other than the bible, to prove that he does exist and the large amount of verifiable evidence proving that key points in the bible couldn’t have happened the way it is stated – the Exodus, The Nativity, The Crucifixion etc.

[Isn’t the bible is supposed to be the infallible word of god?] cont’d…..

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo cont’d….. also the fact that there is enough valid evidence, that is widely accepted and backed up with corroborating data, indicating that the earth and everything on it was created by a natural process with no need for divine intervention, brings me to the conclusion that, again to a level of 98%, god does not exist.

You say you have evidence. Please tell me what it is and where I can find it. I would love to see it. It may be something I’ve missed in the last 50yrs study.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 Well...let's see...If I saw the refrigirator door open and stuff inside moving around, it would be reasonable to assume that something invisible was raiding my refrigirator. For example, DNA code must be the work of Intelligence, unless your ideology says otherwise. Look, you are going to believe whatever it is you choose to believe. If God has chosen to blind you to his existence, then their is nothing I could do or say to convince you otherwise.

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo No, I didn't choose to be an atheist. for the first 20 yrs of my life I was a devout Christian.

When doubts started creeping in I fought it all the way, but I found the only way I could maintain my religious beliefs was by doing what I've now realised a lot of christians do.

Close my eyes, shut off my reason and ignore all the mountains of solid evidence for evolution and the total lack of solid evidence for god.

don't ever say that being an atheist is easy. It's not.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 Oh...one more thing...evolution and natural selection are true therefore God does not exist, is a logical fallacy. God does not require for evolution and natural selection to be false in order for God to exist.

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo Ok. If god is true, why are their so many inaccuracies, contradictions and provable fabrications in the bible, when it is supposed to be the infallible word of god.

My reason is because it isn't the word of god, but it was an attempt to explain what was a frightening world and was the superstitious myths and legends of bronze age peasants whose world knowledge was lower than a modern day junior high school student.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 "Ok. If god is true, why are their so many inaccuracies, contradictions and provable fabrications in the bible, when it is supposed to be the infallible word of god."

Name the specfic passage you to which you are referring and I will be able to address your assertion.

[HonestMan395]

@VeryImagesozo Thankyou for conceding that evolution is true, but where did I say:-

"evolution and natural selection are true therefore God does not exist,"

I said:-

"there is enough valid evidence, that is widely accepted and backed up with corroborating data, indicating that the earth and everything on it was created by a natural process with no need for divine intervention, brings me to the conclusion that, again to a level of 98%, god does not exist."

Please don't twist my words.

[VeryImagesozo]

@HonestMan395 Well...ideology certainly does determine how we interprete the evidence. Concerning evolution, I am sitting back and watching science kill the idea that new information has been introduced to DNA to create new species. Every argument for macro-evolution I have heard is based upon the transition of species into another species (a monkey into something other than a monkey) with the mutations based on existing information, which is impossible and has never been observed.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@VeryImagesozo how is it impossible to begin with?

Microevolution is just evolution in a short frame of time, you cannot say that you believe in microevolution and not macro evolution, Macroevolution is JUST multiple microevolutions over a time period.

The DNA mutates, the Species Adapts to its environment or dies because it cannot, they evolve because they have to become more efficient to their new environment or DIE

[VeryImagesozo]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Thankyou for the question. It is a good question and worth answering. Micro-evolutionary changes occur with existing DNA code info, Macro-evolutionary change requires the introduction of new DNA code information. This has never been observed. All microbiotic change, (for example a bacteria mutates to defeat our immune system) are mutations of existing DNA information within the bacteria. When we observe the intro of new info, I will acknowledge it.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@VeryImagesozo I don't believe its "required" to have outside material for DNA to change, how about a simple Molecular mutation where even two genes simply switch places, or even radiation where adding a neutron or a gamma ray would potentially skew DNA

In the short time that humans have been observing this science, which is a VERY short time, its not enough to actually observe a physical adaptation that takes millions of years to occur noticeably.

Humans have never observed a planet forming.

[jcantlie]

Clam?! I thought you said 'Klan'...there I was being outraged!

[vividDrive]

OOH look at me... i stand stand in front of alot of books, im so smart.. LA DI DA

just messing with you man good stuff

[naganokumas]

John G. raped and murdered my wife.

Find him. Kill him.

I've found you.

I'll save this to my favourites.

It's cheaper than a tattoo.

[vividDrive]

@naganokumas Memento

[JstNEarthling]

Do you think you could speed up your thought process so your lecture can have a better quality to it? I mean you are sooooooooooooo boring... no im not a creationist im just commenting on your style.....boring

[AlRasuwl]

Anyone who believes Noah's Ark has any credibility is seriously deluded.

[chuyaventuras]

AIR

Anyone who believes that humans descend with no evidence whatsoever that ONE or a POPULATION of those wird Cambrian marine creatures is seriouly deluded, or has gone completely insane, How about that? jijiji

[AlRasuwl]

You obviously have not read the evidence for evolution, it is probably the scientific theory with the most supporting evidence ever.

Read "The greatest show on Earth" - at least understand what it is you don't believe in before deciding you don't believe in it.

[chuyaventuras]

AIR

You don´t even know what the word evolution means, if by evolution you mean a bacteria turning resisten to antibiotics or new species of salamanders arising from previous salamanders species, YES, there is a lot of evidence supporting it, BUT and oooh what a big but, by evolution you mean which I don´t think it does not even cross in your mind, that humans descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, nooope, there is is NONE, if there is any evidence, show me

[AlRasuwl]

50% of human DNA in common with bananas. Why? Oh, and by the way, most of that DNA in humans is non generating.

So, why would God make 50% of our DNA the same as a banana AND make that DNA do nothing at all?

To make it look like evolution is true, just to trick us? How does that fit into creationism?

[chuyaventuras]

AIR

50% of human DNA in common with bananas? hmmm, interesting, but when you said DNA in common what does it really mean? How such a comparison is made? Do genetists compare how many A T /G C matches? that´s what you´re referring to?

[chuyaventuras]

AIR

I want you to notice that you PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE for your supersticious belief that you descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, I don´t know if you didn´t understand the question so far or you´re dodging the question.-

BTW, I´m just curios Do all atheist believe in the modern scientific supersticious myth taugh as science that humans descend from those weird Cambrian marine creatures? Is there any true atheist that you know of that does not believe in such a claim?

[AlRasuwl]

*sigh*

Just read the evidence. At least understand what you do not believe in.

[gregrutz]

chuy won't listen to you anyway, he is a troll. Don't feed him.

[chuyaventuras]

greg

I just follow your "logic", that´s all, but you are willingless to apply "real logic", all you want to believe is that your superstition is true, listen if dogs like creatures bring forth dogs like creatures, very different I agree, but 100% dogs, if salamanders brings forth salamanders, very different but still 100% salamanders, BTW, Do you know which was the ancestor of those Galapagos finches? I bet you´re right, a finch.-

That´s exactly what we`ve observed ever since...

[chuyaventuras]

greg

What superstition?

Apes chimpanzees produces apes chimpanzees, apes bonobos produces apes bononos, apes gorilla produes apes gorilas, apes humans produces apes humans, apes whatever produces after the same basic type of ape, but among scientists evolutinary if you will persist the scientific superstition that weird Cambrian marine creatures produces apes humans, OF COURSE given enough time, Isn´t that a superstition believing something that is contrary to what we´ve observed ever since?

[gregrutz]

Science is not superstion.

Evolution has been proven.

Yes, the cambrian period was 500 million years ago, and yes those marine creatures were the only things alive.

[chuyaventuras]

greg

You just began to make a little bit coherent statements...

Those were the only things has been found on those layers, BUT that does not prove that we descend from then, it´s proof and evidence that those are the only things that were found on that layer, that´s all, your interpretation based on a scientific superstition supported by a scientific myth and sponsored by the scientific community taught as if it were science all over the world, capizca?

[gregrutz]

@chuyaventuras

So please tell us how it happened.

Explain why we have 500 million year old fossils of weird marine creatures.

[chuyaventuras]

greg

But you somehow "believe" with no evidence whatsoever, since until now you haven´t been able to provide a single iota fact to support such a ludicrous claim, that weird Cambrian marine creatures not only brought forth humans but so many different creatures along the road, that my friend it´s a scientific superstition tthat IS NOT supported by the observational data whether you admit it or not, and I´m still waiting for you to share with me the "evidence" that turn you into a "believer"

[gregrutz]

give me your address and I will mail you a fossil. You don't seam able to type

proof of evolution  in the search box.

And no one ever said humans were born from weird marine creatures

[chuyaventuras]

greg

If no one has ever said humans were born from weird marine creatures, tell me, Where do we come from? I mean ultimatelly.-

[gregrutz]

We evolved, go look it up.

[chuyaventuras]

greg

But we evolved from which creature?

[chuyaventuras]

greg

What kind of fossil can you send that it´s proof or evidence that you descend somehow from one of those weird Cambrian marine cretures? or you are the only one that don´t believe that humans descend from ONE of those creatures? if not, tell me where do you come from utlimately?

[gregrutz]

Yes, everything evolved from the Cambrian marine cretures. Proven

[chuyaventuras]

greg

Yes, everything evolved from the Cambrian marine creatures...Proven?

If it´s proven?, If and oooh what a big if, the web-site you just gave me as well as the mythical assertions on talk-origins ARE NOT proofs and evidence that such a ludicrous superstition is accurate and correct, that is what a lot gullible grown-ups believes in but nothing is further from the true and I bet you

[chuyaventuras]

@gregrutz

If a frog turns into a Prince is a fairy tale, no question, BUT just given 500 millions years to those weird Cambrian marine creatures they could turn not only into humans but in a numberless creatures and of course this is science for you, Why don´t you call it fairy tale for gullible grown-ups.-

You should conduct a serious research just in paleontology, but don´t trust in talk-origins or alike, conduct an objetive research since I noticed you have been deeple deluded.

[gregrutz]

@chuyaventuras

Why don't you go to school and study geology and biology so you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Try the U. of Montana, they dig dinosaurs.

[chuyaventuras]

@gregrutz

Sure they dig dinosaurs, down here in Mexico we dig too, but it does not prove that you descend from a bacteria 3850 mya.-

I encourage you to get a real education on paleontology, you really need it, somehow they taught you to hallucinate that pakicetus is a whales ancestor or the most recent one IDA, a human ancestor, that´s plain ludicrous, but if you want to continue believing in a myth, a scientific one ignore everything I´ve told you.

[gregrutz]

@chuyaventuras You talk like you don't know evolution was proven.

If you don't think so, write a book and prove it wrong. No one cares if you don't get it.

[oratadin]

@chuyaventuras do you have scientific research (accepted by the scientific community )which are proving those stuff wrong? If you have the research to back your claim, then we will believe you as much as a religious guy belives in a god. If you don't have any scientific proof, then YOU are what is ludicrous, not the other way around. Talking poop doesn't make your statement true.

[Leehofooks]

@oratadin Don't bother with Chuy, unless you are extremely patient. He just makes the same stupid assertions over and over again without any attempt at backing them up with evidence. And for some reason, he mentions the Cambrian a lot. The most frustrating part is how condescending he is - despite being incredibly ignorant.

[chuyaventuras]

AIR

It is a fact, that humans and bananas are 60% plus similar at DNA level, it has been observed, tested, proven and confirmed, no question, how they do such a comparison it´s interesting too, make your research, but that aside, and for you this "similarity" is "evidence" that humans & bananas are related, right?

Similarity is deceitfull, a man outside the White House was almost identical to G. W. Bush and they were not even relatives, by your logic they were twins, capizca?

[AlRasuwl]

Read "The greatest show on Earth".

At least understand what you think isn't true before deciding it is untrue.

[GuildGaming]

I thought you were AVGN from the thumbnail, then I watched the video and was dissapointed...

[Meskiagkasher]

why does he speak so slowly?

[jazzx251]

Good video - we must stamp out the horror of religious indoctrination in science class wherever it may be.

[janb6969]

hey InReasonWeTrust i used to have a white shirt just like yours........but then i got a job.

haha just playing with you bra because we have a lot in common, i too grew up in the 70s and i also have a mother and teacher we called Mr. G. bet his name was Giordano right?......small world eh?

[MrFlyingSpaghetti]

Why you checking him out? Gay?

[robozombieninja]

Great video!

[deatherton11]

on darwins brithday im going to take the most massive crap ever in memory or his awesome theory!!!

[purehuman2008]

Mr. Author, I do not know your educational background. Bible is a nice novel with all lies about the world. Darwin is only the person make all religious stupids to challenge their ignorance in the name of evolution. it is not too late for you , wake up.

[purehuman2008]

lets celebrate Darwin's 200th birthday.

[FatherTime89]

You're great at telling stories. Very interesting to listen to.

[mwest1234]

It's a shame that parents want ignorance for their children.

[purehuman2008]

you know why , parents do not have brain to accept a fact.

[QualiaSoup]

Fascinating to hear this piece of personal history, Steve. Extremely well told. I think I'd have found it utterly bizarre to see classmates react like that. I find it hard to imagine not being curious about science, especially as a child.

I'm very pleased to have found your channel.

[Orin00r]

Wow!! things are surtenly different on the other side of the pond :) im from Norway and that story sunds just Insane to me, i dont think i ever met/heard of a person who disputede Evolution or ever thought it possible that someone would even do that.

Its like saying that the teory of gravity is wrong, and then jump off a building...

Damn! I got to look more into this Creationism buisniss, its pure comical gold!

[Rhonda9]

My 12 year old neighbor was sitting on the porch with me the other day. I brought out some history books & we were talking. Out of the blue she asked me if dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. She expressed her frustration that she didnt believe the people who told her that they did. I started explaining the time period of their extinction and her mother called her over to the house immediately. It's a shame. Kids have great potential and deserve much better.

[Jinto117]

Yeah, stupid religion needs to just die already.

[proginosko]

@Jinto117 Sorry, I'm a Christian and I'm still alive.  I probably have another 30 to 40 years on this earth. Is that too long?

[DarkArtistKaiser]

@Jinto117

It cannot die. It never will die.

For what you call foolish, takes many forms. Wither it is faith in a god or faith in the state or even the non belief of god, religion will exist so long as people look up to people. Even when it is gone, it will come in another form.

And even if the world had no more religion it would be no better then our world with it.

[LeafInTheStream]

I had a science teacher back in grade 10 (mid '80s, unreligious Toronto) who was a creationist. I thought he was BATSHIT INSANE, but could respond with little more than bemusement. If only I'd had the internet then!

Now I can see the way creadiots just exploit the difficulties and disagreements in evolutionary biology. The lesson I've learned: get the creationist to espouse their own position, and let the yucks begin. Pretty soon they'll talk about how dinosaurs are still alive in the congo.

[CHAS1422]

Back in 1977-79 my high school biology teacher taught evolution straight up. He made a lot of sense. We made several field trips out to some fossil rich geological sites, and had a geologist explain the strata. It's a sad day when politics is required science must be "politically correct" and dilute its findings, so not to offend the hopelessly deluded.

[Drekoguk]

I'm so glad my parents aren't creationist fundie nutters. Just think - I could've grown up to be a creationist if they had been..wrench*

[wakeangel2001]

Thank you for linking to the news article, the video I put as a response to this one exists because I could not stand not saying something about it.

[Pengy945]

Heh my biology teacher 3 years ago stated "I do not believe in evolution but I have to teach this."

[InReasonWeTrust]

Imagine if a history teacher said: "I do not believe in the Civil War, but I have to teach this." Denying that the war happened is reason to decertify the teacher.

[Pengy945]

Yea I really didn't get along with him at all. He was just a creationist who pushed his views on the whole class, and had two year so I couldn't do anything about it but listen and argue.

[GaolisVideoLog]

@Pengy945 "I do not believe in evolution but I have to teach this." I think the reason for that is that USA seems very much like a theocracy to me. I've never seen so many religious stuff in any other country. And not only that, I've never seen people taking the bible that literally, ignoring all reason and using demagogic presentation of thoughts to convince others and to force this radical POV on other people.

[Brianswers]

How many kids were left in the class once all the fundies left? Were you alone? lol. Yeah scary that people still act like that.

[InReasonWeTrust]

Wish I knew exactly. I'd say probably 1/3 left--half at most.

[TheLovesoul1]

@Brianswers i remeber seeing a vid of christians having a fit over the 10 commandments being taken out of a build god it was hilarious.

[premed2]

Good vid, very entertaining.

Its a shame that the report wasn't on ostriches instead. Well come to think of it, clams hide their whole bodies under the sand. :P

[InReasonWeTrust]

Hahaha

[tubesusedtobeboring]

I'm so glad I wasn't born in the USA. Evolution was in my biology class since I can remember. Then I moved to the USA and pretty much laughed at some of you.

[premed2]

Well it all depends, I went to high school in Florida (Miami) during the same time period as InReasonWeTrust, and I never heard of creationism or any other such silliness. It wasn't just a non-issue, it was nonexistent.

Sadly, my ignorance regarding creationism, also extended to clams. :P

[legendre007]

It's sad to think that, to this very day -- in the 21st century -- so many religious parents still get hysterical about the idea that their children will hear about evolution. :-(

[InReasonWeTrust]

Thou shalt not know.

[Desertphile]

"Thou shalt not know."

And: Thou shalt not reason.