When my revolution comes...Charlie Brooker will be the prime minister, Marcus Brigstoke will be the minister of common sense, and Richard Dawkins will be the minister for truth and science.
" What sorrow awaits you teachers of religous law and Phrasises. Hyprocites! For you are like white washed tombs, beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead peoples bones and all sorts of impurity. Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness" the words of Jesus in John 23 v 27.
Hah, nice I'm glad someone also brought up the point I keep making when arguing about it with my girlfriend - that the more civilised practitioners of religion (or the half-arsed ones paying lip service in most cases) just make up the numbers to make the fundamentalists look bigger than they really are when they claim they represent that religion. I call it the peacock effect. If everyone just practiced a more personal individual spirituality that'd for the most part go away.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Marcus Brigstocke - No wonder you got kicked out of school!
Little thing called History, is not on his side. Religion the root cause? I'm not so sure:
Chinese Revolution, Balkan Wars, First World War, Spanish Civil War, Second World War, the Cold War, the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan +many more...
...none of which had anything to do with religion.
@Policemanofficer No, actually. Many of the wars where religion was apparently the only cause - the Crusades, for instance, or the Thirty Years War - aren't that simple. The Crusades, for instance, are caused by a variety of factors, from socio-economic turbulence, racial factors, and the ubiquitous political dick-waving of whoever is in charge. There is a reason the Fourth Crusade didn't go on to attack the Islamic groups, but simply usurped the Byzantine thone (they were out for money...).
@Policemanofficer The honest to God truth is that religion is a far better cover story, and is more likely to inspire your troops and win support than other things. "I think we should go to war so that I can steal this guy's stuff" makes you sound like a dick. Your troops won't care, and neither will your allies, as they won't get most of the spoils - no motivation. "I think we should go to war because God said it's right" means everyone who wants to look like a 'good' person will follow.
@awesummusik Completely agree. All of the wars of conquest that France, Britain and Germany engaged in during the Empire building stage; the Crimean War; the Russo-Japanese War; the Opium Wars; the first and second Gulf, the US CIvil War, the American War of Independence, War of 1812, Franco-Prussian War, Austro-Prussian War, the Napoleonic Wars, the entire of the Roman Empire...
The list is so much greater. As is the non-religious bodycount.
Religion is great! Religion is essential to humanity! Indeed you might say that humans would still be cavemen without religion! That said i am an atheist and think all religion is basic bullcrap but so what? Anything that teaches basic morality is fine.
So long as you take it with a pinch of salt and read the moralistic highlights. I've decided to join my own religion, well cult, it's called Doctor who and basically teaches to not be a dick and enjoy life without trying to gain immortality.
@farshnuke i have to strongly disagree with the implication i interpreted from what you said, it seems to imply the religion by definition teaches us morality which it can do but i very pre-packaged morality that dosnt allow for you making up your own mind and concluding why something is moral or not, personally i think a secularist aproch to morality is preferable
@thecatsatonthemat19 As do I, probably, I don't really know what secular is but I'm fairly certain you've just basically said 'religions offer morality which is great, so long as you're wise enough not to blindly follow it without thinking about how it impacts on your own morality' which is pretty much what I said.
@farshnuke So stoning children, raping kids, stabbing pregnant women and hating homosexuals is 'basic morality' huh? Hah bloody hah. People really need to actually read the bible before they make such a bold claim about morality. Believing in Belief is rather a shrewd concept in my opinion.
@Darthmas2242 "So stoning children, raping kids, stabbing pregnant women and hating homosexuals is 'basic morality' huh?" Well of course bloody not! I said take religion with a pinch of salt didn't I? Now before you moan and gripe about the inevitable, asking whether all of the above could really constitute 'taken with a pinch of salt', my point is that while no morality is perfect it's better than nothing.
Religion should be everyone`s own fucking buisness and the reason why everyone has to bloody suffer because of some religious know-it-all is because everyones trying to convert another and "save them". Religious influence or forced conversion should be illegal in my view.
@lizziecarini Indeed, completely agree and it is amazing how some atheists live in fear of being converted to some sort of cyborg in the far future when religious conversion is now a slightly dull activity.
@Dreamerx47 absolutely right, people also assume that just coz you simply can't prove there's no god ( at least not yet ) that it must be equiprobable that there is a god as opposed to not being one, IT'S NOT
@Dreamerx47 I've actually been debating with a religious mate recently, he converted from the course of science so I consider it fair game but you are right. I mean when you're religious, you can effectively say 'god did it' to any question where as us atheists are left scrabbling for the library and the internet.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you ASSHOLE fucking hide in a CAVE where you belong you ridiculous backwards fucking FOOL, you shitty ROBOT SHEEP MOTHERFUCKER, you asshole HYPOCRITE fucker, being all self righteouss while your life is a fucking JOKE in therms of HYPOCRACY , DISHONESTY and plan IGNORANCE, you lowlife shitfuckers scatmunching asswiping fucktard assbitch
SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR IDIOTIC CREATIONIST INTELLIGENT DESIGN BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA
you braindead , naive fucking idiot.
evolution is supported by TONS of evidence, evidence that is connected in WAY TO COMPLICATED WAYS for some scientifically illiterate BASTARD like YOU to understand it.
its as good as PROVEN, evolution HAPPENS motherfucker, FUCK YOU and FUCK YOUR idiotic asshole stonage FAIRYTALE BOOK you ASSHOLE , fucker DONT BREED YOU SHIT
well said mate, a lot could be gained by everyone calming the heck down and perhaps respecting people on the basis of shared humanity. we are unfortunately all stuck on this rock with each other so why bother getting up each others nose.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
pretty bold to say, considering if you do know so much about religion, you'd know that (I'll say Christians cuz that's what I am) Christians face "persecution" from media, liberals, and evolutionists whenever the subject arises.
Living in the world today you'd understand that in order to stay religious, I have to do a lot of studying myself in order to counter what evolutionists and atheists always say against us. The stereo-typed Christian that "blindly" follows a book can't really keep faith
"I have to do a lot of studying myself in order to counter what evolutionists and atheists always say..."
Yes, you have to have your indoctrination reinforced on a regular basis to keep the blinkers up. You ARE the "...Christian that "blindly" follows a book...". In fact, your indoctrination has been so successful that you CHOOSE to reinforce it!
If you want to start talking about fallacies you should take at all the flaws in your biology text books.
Just yesterday (in my college BIO class), my teacher taught the concept of abiogenesis, with evidence in the embryonic development of human fetuses. he showed that all humans start out with gills, 1- to breathe in the womb, and 2- cuz it's like our ancestral fish relatives.
The same book you were talking about: the bible...
I don't know why your biology teacher was teaching you the things he has however that doesn't discount embryology as proof of evolution. It is proof. For example, at very early stages of development, all vertebrates share a common embryotype. Examine sharks, wasps, penguins and kangaroos. You'll see that they share the same basic embryonic template until they're about 10% of the way through their gestation. (cont.)
Just because your teacher teaches things one way doesn't mean that all teachers teach the same way. That kind of sweeping generalisation is always wrong.
Certain Christians are blind followers because they deliberately ignore anything which refutes biblical information however I didn't generalise, I said that you've been successfully indoctrinated because you've been trained to reinforce your own indoctrination! Have you even considered that the scientists are right? (cont.)
Just for clarity, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, evolution is about speciation. 2 different subjects. I'm wondering if you actually understood what you were being taught.
Actually, in a global context, Christians are forced to be habitual liers: the basic, central tenets of Christianity are lies. There is no evidence to support any of the supernatural tales in the bible. Nor many of the natural ones. (cont.)
As for my 'blind' education, I can only say that I obviously know more than you in regard to this subject. You wouldn't have made the comments you have if you did. All my knowledge derives from peer-reviewed science, the exact opposite of 'blind'. I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that some of your knowledge does, too (your point about pharyngeal arches was accurate). So I have to ask the question:
Why do you try to "counter" evolution when it is fact?
it's typical of evolutionists to assume all of us Christians are all narrow-minded idiots who don't know anything. You don't know what I know; don't assume you can.
you have to realize that we have evidence for our beliefs; without any, we wouldn't have any reason to believe in God.
I counter things that are presented as fact when they're not. A fact is "truth known by actual experience or observation."
By that definition the "theory" of evolution has never been proven and can't be
It has been. There are a pair of islands off of Croatia. A species of lizard was introduced from one to the other in the 70s. The descendants of those lizards were observed in 2003 and were not only physically different to look at but their intestines had begun to change. Both of these changes were consistent with the change of diet that the new island offered in greater abundance: more vegetation and fewer insects.
1 - interbreeding can't be determined; they could've mated with the native species, which would explain some factors
2- can the new lizards still reproduce with their original lizard family? if so then this is not evolution (or speciation specifically)
3- if this is true, then evolution is disproving itself. This process took 30 years, yet evolution theory claims it needs thousands of years and random chance. if true we should've evolved by now
1 - The second island was chosen because it had no native lizards for that specific reason.
2 - Technically speciation is a difficult subject. The species from an evolutionary point of view is a tricky artificial concept - if you placed the evolution of rabbits back in a long line and walked down it on either side of each individual there would be another looking *almost* identical, all the way down and it would be impossible to point at any individual and say "There! That is where the specie
1- there was a native species there [Podarcis melisellensis]. Interestingly this species has died off completely since the introduction of the other lizard species [Podarcis sicula]
2-i agree with you on this one. i still say that this experiment has not proved "macro" evolution, as "macro" entails the introduction of an entirely new species, and this lizard population may or may not be (can't be proven unless they mate with the former population still living on Pod Kopiste)
changes from rabbit to proto-rabbit." Nevertheless at some point they because different 'species.' This ties in closely with your third point on time, so I will move there now.
3 - Evolutionary theory states that it takes thousands of years for evolution (but not random chance - non-random selection based on random mutation) based on the available evidence. Clearly this experiment with lizards is new evidence that needs to be considered, which may alter the established theory.
It is not one species miraculously changing to another and being completely incompatible overnight, it is thirty years and many generations. They probably are still compatible with their parent specie, but I would say that probably still require more time; for a more complete change.
Your statement that "we should've evolved by now" is still inaccurate however. These lizards began to change because there were pressures upon them from their new environment, which favoured those best equipped
to survive on their new home. Humans, on the other hand, very rarely feel sufficient pressure upon them to warrant such a significant change in their biology surviving multiple generations. I believe that human evolution is ever more likely to slow given that now we can build machines and constructs to compensate for our limitations. It will be interesting to see how moving to other planets effects us though...
true, but we've also been around for more than 6000 years, yet nothing has changed. not just with us though - we haven't seen the evolution of any other organism (with the exception of these possible lizards)
and yes modern societies have technology that would hinder "evolution," yet 3rd world countries do not have these benefits.
there are tribes/groups of people in remote/hidden places of the Earth that haven't changed. Nothing. And their lives are significantly different than ours}diets etc
wow really good arguments there - I've never heard those before
1-okay well fossils don't disproved God. I don't know who told you that they do. all fossils do is show the past - they don't prove/disprove anything. some see them as proof of evolution, some don't. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "there are no such thing as fossils."
2- don't see why anyone with half a brain would believe in the "magic" of evolution or abiogenesis. do you realize how impossible it actually sounds?
well congratulations you just described micro evolution, and that is correct in almost every way.
If you're going to say that macro evolution (theory) is not as "magical" as the idea of a god, then you're going to need to think through your facts before you say them as well.
you think it's plausible that a species can simply "grow" a new set of genes?
for example, fish.
fish cannot breath without water, nor do any of their preceding ancestors. where did the material for lungs come from? magic?
Ever heard of a lungfish? Ever seen a mudskipper? Many of the stages of evolution are still around, visible for us to see. The day God appears visible on this earth than you can point at me an laugh. Until then I shall put you in the same category as people who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden - not necessarily bad but almost certainly wrong.
i have - and I'm not an expert don't expect to have every answer on the spot, but these fish are pretty different from other fish.
their anatomical structure is obvious - they lack some of the basic characteristics of most fish (fin wise specifically)
on a second note, the evolutionary tree makes so many jumps.
so fish (with fins) grew lungs. These lunged-fish basically began developing weaker and ineffective fins (because they were not needed for their lifestyles).
then the move onto land. animals started not only growing back their fins and muscles needed for moving effectively on land, but they also started turning into arms and legs (with fingers etc)
basically what I'm trying to say is:
evolution theory states that organisms evolve to be better adapted to their environments by random chance and time. yet whenever evolution is shown by an organism, it's presented as "the organism needed this, so how lucky/perfect that it has it."
1st off- I've been taking German History and Civilization courses for a little under 4 years now (as well as other history/sociology courses)
Hitler was an evolutionist, all the way.
He saw Arians (white, tall, blonde etc) as the most evolved human species. Jews and Blacks were the first evolved humans, and the worst. In his opinion they had low intelligence and resembled primates the most, so he took it upon himself to "advance" the human race and take them out of the gene pool.
@joshuaspolar 1) It isn't presented that way by anyone who understands it. By definition an adaption is almost perfectly suited to whatever situation the animals is in. if it wasn't, the animal wouldn't be here.
2) Speciation: Dogs can be seen as a speeded up example of natural adaption. All dogs are of course one species. However, can a Great Dane breed with a Chihuahua? No. The DNA is compatable, but it is physically impossible. They have endless time to now mutate into different species.
@joshuaspolar Lol, dude, you really don't have a good grasp of a scientific theory. A theory explains an observed fact and the mechanisms behind it. The theory of gravity (and general relativity, for a more precise calculation) explains the fact that objects with mass are intrinsically attracted. Evolution explains the fact that animals interact with their environment and adapt to it. Evidence supports this fact, furthermore, the theory that explains it as well.
to better explain myself let me use your example of lungfish
they are perfectly suited for their lifestyles (the ability to breathe air, as well as being able to slow down their metabolism, as well as being able to secrete a fluid that encases them in a "shell" to keep them safe during times of drought)
obviously more, but they NEED all of them in order to survive.
now evolution says that they evolved them over time/chance. How? the first species would've died w/out all these abilities.
You keep saying I don't understand evolution - I've taken college biology classes as well as loads of research for my own interest. it's what I have to do so I can try to hold my case against evolutionists.
I understand how it works. what I don't understand is how people can believe in it.
It takes a great deal of "faith."
you say it's been proven. that statement is false.
A theory cannot be proven until it is "observed/experienced" in nature. Evolution (by definition) can't!
no that instance does not prove evolution, for a few reasons
there's still a lot of information that hasn't been presented (the questions I asked the other guy who never replied)
We don't know everything that happened over there. All we are getting is the basic gist of things, not the important biological data needed (like if the species cross-breeded, or if they can breed with their original species, etc etc)
another point is this - they evolved in 30 years and we "forced" it. Do it again
well that's a very colorful imagination, but have you seriously sat down and considered the genetic impossibilities you're taking into account?
A fin can't just magically turn into a leg -the anatomical differences are too different.
but that's not the only thing you need to think about;
evolution says that not only did the fins turn into legs, but that the gills turned into lungs, the wet/moisturizing skin turned into hair/fur, the body shape changed, entirely new joints/muscles developed...
I built a huge pool with no exits (no chlorine). I got about 30 people and stuck them inside it. All of the food will always be at the bottom of the floor, and every (let's say week or month), the floor lowers bit by bit.
there's only enough food for each person to eat enough to survive, so, naturally, the people with the largest lung capacity will survive.
are you saying that within 20 generations, these humans will have begun to develop gills again or something?
You can't predict what evolution will do. It doesn't just give a species what it needs to survive. Those that are most fit will survive, sure, but that's all you can say about evolution, period.
wouldn't that argument suggest that there was once a much greater number of species on the planet that have now died off?.
Evolution states we began as single-celled organisms - where did we then get the vast amount of genetic makeup that we have today? Genes are like matter; they cannot be created nor destroyed.
Without ancestors who carried the genes for ears, we would not have ears.
That is the problem that has never been answered - how does genetic makeup get introduced?
@joshuaspolar over time we developed to our characteristics. We do not get stronger faster and bigger but we get more adapetd on the environment. Our ears have 3 bones, ears of some other animals have 2 bones before that there might have been just receptors reading waves and they got better and better to improve our survival abilities. I hope that clears it up a bit if you need more explanation I will try. Peace:)
lol it's not that I need help, it's that the theory of evolution does not make sense. Genes, like matter, can't be created or destroyed.
How did the bones evolve from cartilaginous fishes? They are comprised of different DNA. or how did mammals develop mammary glands? If any evolutionist could explain that huge gap in the theory I'd be impressed.
1) Where would the information for mammary glands come from?
2) why would they develop?
3) How would they develop in ONE evolutionary generation?
@joshuaspolar Hi again. I am not an expert myself but I am looking forward to study biochemistry:). I am not sure wether I could explain in 500 letters so we might get some conversations. I use ICQ or facebook or write me on YT. 1)the beginning is at platypus 2)it was a way to store nutritions and so primitive milk distribution was invented nd advanced. 3) They didnt have to in one generation in a form you know them today. Nature is constantly upgrading and patching. Write me so we could talk;)
The problem is that Nature can not simply "add" new information to an animal.
For example, and don't giggle, but how did we get nipples?
I can understand if you say that nature needed a convenient location for the milk to be secreted, but how would it "add" all the DNA for 2 nipples? They are clearly different than normal skin, and they have no predecessors, so where would the genetic material come from, and how would evolve?
For instance, there has to be ONE species that first had nipples. how
That or look up monotremes. They secret milk, but have no nipples, and are a notably transitional step of creatures that offer a good idea of how nipples and milk secretion may have evolved.
Also a Dane and a Chihuahua can genetically interbreed, it was a comment on the physical form saying that generally it's adapted to the point of being epically impractical, though it would offer decent evidence for evolution if they couldn't.
"Genes are like matter; they cannot be created nor destroyed." - joshuapolar
Not true. First off, genes are an abstract concept made up by human to simplify genetic studies. Second, genes can be created and they can be destroyed. They can also be duplicated. Mutations in a duplicated gene can create a new protein with a new function. And that's just one of many ways in which new genes can come into existence.
Also, I noticed that you claim that religion helps people. Indeed it does, pretty much one of the only good things about religion there is.
However, millions of people died in the holocaust, and when you really think about it, the number of people that died in this single event is about the number of people that religion has actually helped times ten.
and Super have you ever taken sociology or anything? true, "religion" has caused a lot of deaths/wars....so has "Germany" (Nazis). And almost any other country you could think of at one point in history.
And not all "religions" are the same!
That's like saying "a lot of blacks are criminals. we should just kill them all."
Speaking for my Christian denomination, do you know how many people we help? Thousands! we host food drives, donations,etc etc
I know that evolution does not attempt to justify abiogenesis; I'm saying that without some "being," where did matter originate from? And if a being exists, then "it" is thereby responsible for life.
and what central tenets are you speaking of? not once has my family ever been led to believe something that was not true.
you say no evidence? The fact that the tomb of Jesus Christ was found, proving that He was a real person (albeit not supernatural), does nothing for you?
you see my teacher is using the designated school book for all BIO classes, meaning that ALL of my teachers are teaching it. clearly evolutionists are the ones "ignoring" the things that don't agree with everything they "think" they know.
and what have we ignored? you haven't brought up any specific points here.
You're basically saying "you're stupid. Just because you are."
bring up something, and let me tell you what I know about it
you say embryological evidence is proof of evolution because they are similar at one stage in life?
embryology shows a common designer just as well. Look at a cars for example - it's easy to tell a Ford from a Chevy. Why is that? Because all the Ford cars were made from the same designer, just as all the Chevy cars. And they all are obviously one or the other.
Take a lot at some organisms on Earth; some of them seem so alien, showing no signs of evolving from common ancestors
What's more childlike: his humor or the belief in some invisible sky daddy? I agree with the man: let the believers in those three silly superstitions slug it out among themselves, so the rest of us can have the planet back. I am in favor of putting a huge wall around a big part of the Sahara , throwing all believers in there and waiting until the winner emerges.
you just showed that it's his humor (and people like you)
funny how Christianity (a separate religion from Islam, etc) teaches strong morality and ethics, i.e. treating others as you would like to be treated, or showing love/respect to everyone.
You say that if we all left you'd have the planet back? You know people thought of that before - remember Hitler? he wanted to get rid of the Jews, so the Arians could have the Earth back.
He thought Jews were unnecessary, just as you just said we are
you sit there and mock such a vast majority of people on this planet without a second thought - how does that separate you from the radical Muslim terrorists who kill for their beliefs?
You just said you would like it if we would all just battled it out and killed each other - so you're saying you allow all of us to die?
You say that we're the foolish ones, believing in an imaginary God who laid down His laws a long time ago, but my "imaginary" God would never condemn so many innocents to death
There mere fact something is believed by lots of people doesn't make it true. The masses are almost always wrong. And, unlike fundie muslims, I don't intend to kill anybody for disagreeing with me. Scorn them, laugh at them, call them out on their bullshit, but no--not ending their lives.
What I am saying is: if people want to kill and maim for their beliefs, just let them do that without involving the rest of us. The Sahara is a nice spot for that, but Antarctica will do as well.
I never said it makes it true. But in order for so many people to believe in it, doesn't it have to be pretty believable?
And you think that "your" world would be better than ours now? Most religions discourage the scorning/mocking of others; with us all gone, people with your remiss attitudes would have no one trying to keep the peace.
And you can't simply generalize all of us as troublemakers - that's like saying all black people are criminals. It's ignorant and uneducated.
You don't realize that most of our laws and customs were established because of religion.
without some sort of "god" or "creator," nothing in this world is of any importance. If we are all a product of random chance and mutation, then there is no "right" or "wrong." Everything we know would all be a matter of opinion, different to each person. Who's to say that murder is wrong? If no "god" showed that it is wrong, who are humans to say it is? Animals do it every day
"You don't realize that most of our laws and customs were established because of religion."
No, they aren't, especially not in the West. Its a lie perpetuated by the various churches to bolster their importance. Most of the laws and customs we go by have been around for quite a bit longer than Christianity. The BIble hardly as any rules worth abiding to anyway, since it's immoral to the core. All the "good stuff" in that book is cherrypicked with modern eyes.
And the notions of "right" or "wrong" are not dictated by any gods, but by the societies people live in. If I do wrong, I will get punished--by people, not gods.
And what would be the purpose of such a god's existence be anyway? If you can't tell me why it's there, how can you tell me that what I do only has meaning in relation with it?
watched it, and learned nothing. Over the years I've heard everything that guy said in one form or another.
Here's my opinion. Videos like that are exactly the reason that so many people think the theory of evolution is believable and true.
Instead of delving into the actual science of it, so many Atheists discuss the semantics of it and try to play with the wording of everything so as to make the Creationists sound dumb (which a lot of them are, especially the ones in that vid)
They try to cripple the arguments that many of us by ignoring the science behind what we're saying and going straight to breaking down the words that we used.
He brought up Micro-evolution. He was wrong. Micro does NOT allow/ prove for Macro-evolution. Micro is simply variation, like white people and black people. We are the still same species, albeit minor differences.
Now as for MACRO, that is entirely different. That brings the "theory" to a whole new level.
For instance, scientists say that after so much adapting and time has passed, new genetic traits will somehow exist.
Ex: fish-lungfish-frogs etc etc.
The problem is this - where did fish get the genetic makeup for lungs? or to go from oily scaly skin to fur and feathers? or do you actually believe that birds are just reptiles with scales that have gotten so big over time that they have turned into an entirely different texture?
mammals have such a radically different process than their ancestors.
They now have mammary glands, nipples, young that mature within the womb, actual sexual reproduction....the list goes on and on!
Where did the ancestors of mammals get the genetic for all these factors, and on top of that, get it all at once!!
The development of mammary glands and nipples and internal maturation all happened in one "evolution." Does that even seem remotely possible? It seems more convenient than logical
Then I have to assume you don't understand the content (he brought up micro & macro). Your using an argument from incredulity and that hinders you, I'm afraid. All the points you have posted are mentioned in AronRa's vids along with sources (he does speak very quickly so pause for the screen caps).
If you're in doubt as to whether evolution (micro/macro) has been observed (both in the lab & in the field), simply take a look at the 'PubMed' site. It's all in there.
Actually, its because polytheistic religions tend to be more accepting of other people's faith. They only start getting pissed off with monotheists when they start insisting that theirs is the only real God.
So true
jonnybridge 4 days ago
Halleluyah, Marcus! :-)
brianm500 1 month ago
The man speaks the truth!
ILiveForScience 2 months ago
this guy deserves a medel
Artprincess247 4 months ago
In my utopia, Marcus and Charlie Brooker would be part of the government.
angelusmortis1412 4 months ago in playlist angelusmortis1412's Favourited Videos
When my revolution comes...Charlie Brooker will be the prime minister, Marcus Brigstoke will be the minister of common sense, and Richard Dawkins will be the minister for truth and science.
angelusmortis1412 6 months ago 4
" What sorrow awaits you teachers of religous law and Phrasises. Hyprocites! For you are like white washed tombs, beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead peoples bones and all sorts of impurity. Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness" the words of Jesus in John 23 v 27.
JCismyanchor 6 months ago
@JCismyanchor If believing that makes you feel better then good, the last remants of your fairytale will die with time.
angelusmortis1412 6 months ago
@JCismyanchor Good job it's all infantile bollocks then, isn't it
steveshaw83 5 months ago
@steveshaw83 doesn't that text prove Marcus right
hahaha430 5 months ago
Spot on, he should be Prime Minister!
chilliman07 6 months ago
Don't find him funny, but at least he was brave enough to have a go at muslims.
Lightf00t1 6 months ago
"Fighty smashy kicky punchy" hahaha
eddison72 6 months ago
I can only find audio of this performance. Is there no visual?
boomtao 7 months ago
@boomtao It was performed on radio.
KnightTheArsonist1 7 months ago
@boomtao It's a radio show.
TheMissDavies 7 months ago
@boomtao it's a radio show mate, there is no video.
angelusmortis1412 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Hah, nice I'm glad someone also brought up the point I keep making when arguing about it with my girlfriend - that the more civilised practitioners of religion (or the half-arsed ones paying lip service in most cases) just make up the numbers to make the fundamentalists look bigger than they really are when they claim they represent that religion. I call it the peacock effect. If everyone just practiced a more personal individual spirituality that'd for the most part go away.
sonicwingnut 10 months ago 3
Top bloke .......... Tells it like it is.
ridefreeuk 10 months ago
took a sip of tea at 4:44 :/
t1mel1ne 10 months ago
Awesome !!!
Uzrieal 1 year ago
Well said Mr. Brigstocke !!
davisgreen2020 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Marcus Brigstocke - No wonder you got kicked out of school!
Little thing called History, is not on his side. Religion the root cause? I'm not so sure:
Chinese Revolution, Balkan Wars, First World War, Spanish Civil War, Second World War, the Cold War, the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan +many more...
...none of which had anything to do with religion.
awesummusik 1 year ago
@awesummusik Wow, I'm sure that's every single war that has ever happened ever.
Money, racism, and greed are massive causes of war, but I'm pretty sure religion is number 1.
Policemanofficer 1 year ago
@Policemanofficer No, actually. Many of the wars where religion was apparently the only cause - the Crusades, for instance, or the Thirty Years War - aren't that simple. The Crusades, for instance, are caused by a variety of factors, from socio-economic turbulence, racial factors, and the ubiquitous political dick-waving of whoever is in charge. There is a reason the Fourth Crusade didn't go on to attack the Islamic groups, but simply usurped the Byzantine thone (they were out for money...).
hansellius 11 months ago
@Policemanofficer The honest to God truth is that religion is a far better cover story, and is more likely to inspire your troops and win support than other things. "I think we should go to war so that I can steal this guy's stuff" makes you sound like a dick. Your troops won't care, and neither will your allies, as they won't get most of the spoils - no motivation. "I think we should go to war because God said it's right" means everyone who wants to look like a 'good' person will follow.
hansellius 11 months ago 2
@Policemanofficer Musn't forget land.
JabrognaJones 10 months ago
@awesummusik Completely agree. All of the wars of conquest that France, Britain and Germany engaged in during the Empire building stage; the Crimean War; the Russo-Japanese War; the Opium Wars; the first and second Gulf, the US CIvil War, the American War of Independence, War of 1812, Franco-Prussian War, Austro-Prussian War, the Napoleonic Wars, the entire of the Roman Empire...
The list is so much greater. As is the non-religious bodycount.
I'm glad someone other than me thought that.
hansellius 11 months ago
Hugh Dennis is there as well...
rory09 1 year ago
Absolutely brilliant. In a sane world, this rant would be universally considered a statement of the obvious.
JoeStunner 1 year ago 4
I fucking love this guy.
thanatos454 1 year ago
Did I hear Hugh Denis' voice?
ahmedeox 1 year ago
@ahmedeox Yeah, he co-hosts the Now Shown with Steve Punt.
Terkeh 1 year ago
@ahmedeox No, that's Mitch Benn doing the voice over, another regular on the Now Show
coxie102 1 year ago
Jewish wars?
sssdddkkksss 1 year ago
that was actually healing.......funny stuff
thepixieful 1 year ago
Sheer genius...very good fun.
tvswnet 1 year ago 5
Find a cure for James Blunt.... lol
DJEdSaunders 1 year ago 4
God sounds like Brian Blessed!!
bareakon 1 year ago 4
God bless this man for he is holy XD
JakeLucGoodman 1 year ago 2
Religion is great! Religion is essential to humanity! Indeed you might say that humans would still be cavemen without religion! That said i am an atheist and think all religion is basic bullcrap but so what? Anything that teaches basic morality is fine.
So long as you take it with a pinch of salt and read the moralistic highlights. I've decided to join my own religion, well cult, it's called Doctor who and basically teaches to not be a dick and enjoy life without trying to gain immortality.
farshnuke 1 year ago
@farshnuke i have to strongly disagree with the implication i interpreted from what you said, it seems to imply the religion by definition teaches us morality which it can do but i very pre-packaged morality that dosnt allow for you making up your own mind and concluding why something is moral or not, personally i think a secularist aproch to morality is preferable
thecatsatonthemat19 1 year ago
@thecatsatonthemat19 As do I, probably, I don't really know what secular is but I'm fairly certain you've just basically said 'religions offer morality which is great, so long as you're wise enough not to blindly follow it without thinking about how it impacts on your own morality' which is pretty much what I said.
farshnuke 1 year ago
@farshnuke So stoning children, raping kids, stabbing pregnant women and hating homosexuals is 'basic morality' huh? Hah bloody hah. People really need to actually read the bible before they make such a bold claim about morality. Believing in Belief is rather a shrewd concept in my opinion.
Darthmas2242 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darthmas2242 "So stoning children, raping kids, stabbing pregnant women and hating homosexuals is 'basic morality' huh?" Well of course bloody not! I said take religion with a pinch of salt didn't I? Now before you moan and gripe about the inevitable, asking whether all of the above could really constitute 'taken with a pinch of salt', my point is that while no morality is perfect it's better than nothing.
farshnuke 1 year ago
Ahh, this video is much needed!
Religion should be everyone`s own fucking buisness and the reason why everyone has to bloody suffer because of some religious know-it-all is because everyones trying to convert another and "save them". Religious influence or forced conversion should be illegal in my view.
Thanks a million, Marcus Brigstocke.
lizziecarini 1 year ago 4
@lizziecarini Indeed, completely agree and it is amazing how some atheists live in fear of being converted to some sort of cyborg in the far future when religious conversion is now a slightly dull activity.
farshnuke 1 year ago
I'm a bit old skool in my religious beliefs......Fuck Religion.
Muslims is full of beardy walking bombs.
Jews are full of hard done by bug nosed twats.
Catholics are just Pedo's or Gay.
hughes7520 1 year ago
lol... i KNEW this was gonna be full of religious people vs atheists having an argument
SirrSnowman 1 year ago
@SirrSnowman well obviously!
LowleyUK 1 year ago
arguing is fun
...at least for the atheists
the religious mainly go "lalalalala i cant hear youuu" and then copy and paste something from a creationist website
Dreamerx47 1 year ago 14
@Dreamerx47 haha yeah good call
i love how they dont have any evidence so they just quote stuff
then we go yeah what about natural selection and evolution etc.. and they go "no... because the bible says this"
SirrSnowman 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47 true that, btw creationist websites are completely full of bullshit, just like every other thing related to them...
BloodyInsane 1 year ago 2
@Dreamerx47 absolutely right, people also assume that just coz you simply can't prove there's no god ( at least not yet ) that it must be equiprobable that there is a god as opposed to not being one, IT'S NOT
thecatsatonthemat19 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47 I've actually been debating with a religious mate recently, he converted from the course of science so I consider it fair game but you are right. I mean when you're religious, you can effectively say 'god did it' to any question where as us atheists are left scrabbling for the library and the internet.
farshnuke 1 year ago
the ant and dec joke was priceless
madpaul20 1 year ago
He is right
Shazigul 1 year ago 52
This has been flagged as spam show
lol loved the vid
could you check my channel? if you like my vids you should subscribe.
have a nice day and keep doiing what your doing.
rock on!
xxxrandomjamezxxx 2 years ago
I used to think Marcus Brigstocke was a PC liberal type comedian but after watching this.....RESPECT !
DariusDaGreat86 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you ASSHOLE fucking hide in a CAVE where you belong you ridiculous backwards fucking FOOL, you shitty ROBOT SHEEP MOTHERFUCKER, you asshole HYPOCRITE fucker, being all self righteouss while your life is a fucking JOKE in therms of HYPOCRACY , DISHONESTY and plan IGNORANCE, you lowlife shitfuckers scatmunching asswiping fucktard assbitch
nekftw 2 years ago
@ nekftw
I don't think you used enough insults in that last post.
Superfreak937 2 years ago 11
@nekftw
He's funny mate what you said, isn't necessary why is it that people get so stress'd about this
bushsucksproductsion 2 years ago
SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR IDIOTIC CREATIONIST INTELLIGENT DESIGN BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA
you braindead , naive fucking idiot.
evolution is supported by TONS of evidence, evidence that is connected in WAY TO COMPLICATED WAYS for some scientifically illiterate BASTARD like YOU to understand it.
its as good as PROVEN, evolution HAPPENS motherfucker, FUCK YOU and FUCK YOUR idiotic asshole stonage FAIRYTALE BOOK you ASSHOLE , fucker DONT BREED YOU SHIT
nekftw 2 years ago
love it.
well said mate, a lot could be gained by everyone calming the heck down and perhaps respecting people on the basis of shared humanity. we are unfortunately all stuck on this rock with each other so why bother getting up each others nose.
theBoonarmies 2 years ago
very very funny and very very true
LAnonHubbard 2 years ago
Haha "truths given up and gone down the pub for a pint" xD
Oinky23 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
pretty bold to say, considering if you do know so much about religion, you'd know that (I'll say Christians cuz that's what I am) Christians face "persecution" from media, liberals, and evolutionists whenever the subject arises.
Living in the world today you'd understand that in order to stay religious, I have to do a lot of studying myself in order to counter what evolutionists and atheists always say against us. The stereo-typed Christian that "blindly" follows a book can't really keep faith
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
"I have to do a lot of studying myself in order to counter what evolutionists and atheists always say..."
Yes, you have to have your indoctrination reinforced on a regular basis to keep the blinkers up. You ARE the "...Christian that "blindly" follows a book...". In fact, your indoctrination has been so successful that you CHOOSE to reinforce it!
stamboni316 2 years ago
what "book" are you talking about?
If you want to start talking about fallacies you should take at all the flaws in your biology text books.
Just yesterday (in my college BIO class), my teacher taught the concept of abiogenesis, with evidence in the embryonic development of human fetuses. he showed that all humans start out with gills, 1- to breathe in the womb, and 2- cuz it's like our ancestral fish relatives.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
problem is "human gills" have been proven NOT to be gills at all. They are pharyngeal arches/clefts that develop into parts of the ear and throat.
Interestingly enough, you "blind" evolutionists still teach it as true, and proof of evolution.
How can anyone say that Christians are the blind followers when evolutionists continue to teach this distortion of the truth?
If you want to talk blind education, take a look at yourself. Christianity may involve having some faith, but we don't lie
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
The same book you were talking about: the bible...
I don't know why your biology teacher was teaching you the things he has however that doesn't discount embryology as proof of evolution. It is proof. For example, at very early stages of development, all vertebrates share a common embryotype. Examine sharks, wasps, penguins and kangaroos. You'll see that they share the same basic embryonic template until they're about 10% of the way through their gestation. (cont.)
stamboni316 2 years ago
Just because your teacher teaches things one way doesn't mean that all teachers teach the same way. That kind of sweeping generalisation is always wrong.
Certain Christians are blind followers because they deliberately ignore anything which refutes biblical information however I didn't generalise, I said that you've been successfully indoctrinated because you've been trained to reinforce your own indoctrination! Have you even considered that the scientists are right? (cont.)
stamboni316 2 years ago
Just for clarity, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, evolution is about speciation. 2 different subjects. I'm wondering if you actually understood what you were being taught.
Actually, in a global context, Christians are forced to be habitual liers: the basic, central tenets of Christianity are lies. There is no evidence to support any of the supernatural tales in the bible. Nor many of the natural ones. (cont.)
stamboni316 2 years ago
As for my 'blind' education, I can only say that I obviously know more than you in regard to this subject. You wouldn't have made the comments you have if you did. All my knowledge derives from peer-reviewed science, the exact opposite of 'blind'. I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that some of your knowledge does, too (your point about pharyngeal arches was accurate). So I have to ask the question:
Why do you try to "counter" evolution when it is fact?
stamboni316 2 years ago
Comment removed
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
it's typical of evolutionists to assume all of us Christians are all narrow-minded idiots who don't know anything. You don't know what I know; don't assume you can.
you have to realize that we have evidence for our beliefs; without any, we wouldn't have any reason to believe in God.
I counter things that are presented as fact when they're not. A fact is "truth known by actual experience or observation."
By that definition the "theory" of evolution has never been proven and can't be
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
It has been. There are a pair of islands off of Croatia. A species of lizard was introduced from one to the other in the 70s. The descendants of those lizards were observed in 2003 and were not only physically different to look at but their intestines had begun to change. Both of these changes were consistent with the change of diet that the new island offered in greater abundance: more vegetation and fewer insects.
FerretBob 2 years ago
this topic's debatable - here's my arguments
1 - interbreeding can't be determined; they could've mated with the native species, which would explain some factors
2- can the new lizards still reproduce with their original lizard family? if so then this is not evolution (or speciation specifically)
3- if this is true, then evolution is disproving itself. This process took 30 years, yet evolution theory claims it needs thousands of years and random chance. if true we should've evolved by now
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
1 - The second island was chosen because it had no native lizards for that specific reason.
2 - Technically speciation is a difficult subject. The species from an evolutionary point of view is a tricky artificial concept - if you placed the evolution of rabbits back in a long line and walked down it on either side of each individual there would be another looking *almost* identical, all the way down and it would be impossible to point at any individual and say "There! That is where the specie
FerretBob 2 years ago
1- there was a native species there [Podarcis melisellensis]. Interestingly this species has died off completely since the introduction of the other lizard species [Podarcis sicula]
2-i agree with you on this one. i still say that this experiment has not proved "macro" evolution, as "macro" entails the introduction of an entirely new species, and this lizard population may or may not be (can't be proven unless they mate with the former population still living on Pod Kopiste)
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
changes from rabbit to proto-rabbit." Nevertheless at some point they because different 'species.' This ties in closely with your third point on time, so I will move there now.
3 - Evolutionary theory states that it takes thousands of years for evolution (but not random chance - non-random selection based on random mutation) based on the available evidence. Clearly this experiment with lizards is new evidence that needs to be considered, which may alter the established theory.
FerretBob 2 years ago
It is not one species miraculously changing to another and being completely incompatible overnight, it is thirty years and many generations. They probably are still compatible with their parent specie, but I would say that probably still require more time; for a more complete change.
Your statement that "we should've evolved by now" is still inaccurate however. These lizards began to change because there were pressures upon them from their new environment, which favoured those best equipped
FerretBob 2 years ago
to survive on their new home. Humans, on the other hand, very rarely feel sufficient pressure upon them to warrant such a significant change in their biology surviving multiple generations. I believe that human evolution is ever more likely to slow given that now we can build machines and constructs to compensate for our limitations. It will be interesting to see how moving to other planets effects us though...
FerretBob 2 years ago
true, but we've also been around for more than 6000 years, yet nothing has changed. not just with us though - we haven't seen the evolution of any other organism (with the exception of these possible lizards)
and yes modern societies have technology that would hinder "evolution," yet 3rd world countries do not have these benefits.
there are tribes/groups of people in remote/hidden places of the Earth that haven't changed. Nothing. And their lives are significantly different than ours}diets etc
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
P.S. Thank you for debating this with me in such a civilised manner. I'm usually being called names by now...
FerretBob 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
okay your statement is wrong on so many levels
there is reason to believe in God (hence the billions of religious people around today)
and the "theory" of evolution has not been proven, nor can it be.
A theory can only be proven true when it is "observed or tested" in nature. Evolution can't be observed, nor has it been.
as for your last point, "religion has been proven wrong."
- that has to be the most fictitious statement I've ever read. please tell me when and how this happened exactly?
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
wow really good arguments there - I've never heard those before
1-okay well fossils don't disproved God. I don't know who told you that they do. all fossils do is show the past - they don't prove/disprove anything. some see them as proof of evolution, some don't. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "there are no such thing as fossils."
2- don't see why anyone with half a brain would believe in the "magic" of evolution or abiogenesis. do you realize how impossible it actually sounds?
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
man what is with you and your generalizations?
you talk about the "illusion of an open mind." - have you ever realized you might be in that category?
saying all religions are the same is like saying all governments are the same.
"there is a group of people in power, and if you do what they say and respect their authority you and your country will do fine."
obviously every government is different! each have their own advantages/disadvantages. some work very well, some fail miserably.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
well congratulations you just described micro evolution, and that is correct in almost every way.
If you're going to say that macro evolution (theory) is not as "magical" as the idea of a god, then you're going to need to think through your facts before you say them as well.
you think it's plausible that a species can simply "grow" a new set of genes?
for example, fish.
fish cannot breath without water, nor do any of their preceding ancestors. where did the material for lungs come from? magic?
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Ever heard of a lungfish? Ever seen a mudskipper? Many of the stages of evolution are still around, visible for us to see. The day God appears visible on this earth than you can point at me an laugh. Until then I shall put you in the same category as people who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden - not necessarily bad but almost certainly wrong.
Pureteenlard 2 years ago
i have - and I'm not an expert don't expect to have every answer on the spot, but these fish are pretty different from other fish.
their anatomical structure is obvious - they lack some of the basic characteristics of most fish (fin wise specifically)
on a second note, the evolutionary tree makes so many jumps.
so fish (with fins) grew lungs. These lunged-fish basically began developing weaker and ineffective fins (because they were not needed for their lifestyles).
cont'd after
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
then the move onto land. animals started not only growing back their fins and muscles needed for moving effectively on land, but they also started turning into arms and legs (with fingers etc)
basically what I'm trying to say is:
evolution theory states that organisms evolve to be better adapted to their environments by random chance and time. yet whenever evolution is shown by an organism, it's presented as "the organism needed this, so how lucky/perfect that it has it."
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
so this is your argument:
religious fanatics have caused a lot of deaths, therefore with no religion, these fanatics would simply not exist, nor would the deaths.
religion doesn't make someone an extremist.
an extremist develops his/her ideas over time, and then applies them to whatever area he/she is focused in.
You say religion is the cause for most deaths?
The Nazi's killed over 6million Jews (not counting others) - their Reason??
Evolution! Hitler believed Nazis were the most evolved.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
oh my gosh are you serious?
you know I've been trying to stay calm this entire time, but you've made it impossible.
You haven't shown any knowledge on anything I've brought up, and everything you've said is completely hypocritical.
-You say I'm close minded? you are
-I need to use Google? you need to use that thing that's resting on your shoulders
-I'm hiding behind sarcasm? you're hiding behind your really sad attempt at trying to sound smart and funny
I'm gonna correct you here - just listen
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
1st off- I've been taking German History and Civilization courses for a little under 4 years now (as well as other history/sociology courses)
Hitler was an evolutionist, all the way.
He saw Arians (white, tall, blonde etc) as the most evolved human species. Jews and Blacks were the first evolved humans, and the worst. In his opinion they had low intelligence and resembled primates the most, so he took it upon himself to "advance" the human race and take them out of the gene pool.
Google it
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@joshuaspolar 1) It isn't presented that way by anyone who understands it. By definition an adaption is almost perfectly suited to whatever situation the animals is in. if it wasn't, the animal wouldn't be here.
2) Speciation: Dogs can be seen as a speeded up example of natural adaption. All dogs are of course one species. However, can a Great Dane breed with a Chihuahua? No. The DNA is compatable, but it is physically impossible. They have endless time to now mutate into different species.
killapathy 1 year ago
@killapathy
if they can't create viable offspring, they are not of the same species.
and I'm sorry to disappoint but I was kinda glad this argument was over...too much talking and going nowhere all the time, on both sides
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
@joshuaspolar Lol, dude, you really don't have a good grasp of a scientific theory. A theory explains an observed fact and the mechanisms behind it. The theory of gravity (and general relativity, for a more precise calculation) explains the fact that objects with mass are intrinsically attracted. Evolution explains the fact that animals interact with their environment and adapt to it. Evidence supports this fact, furthermore, the theory that explains it as well.
Marcus is f'cking funny, btw =]
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago 2
to better explain myself let me use your example of lungfish
they are perfectly suited for their lifestyles (the ability to breathe air, as well as being able to slow down their metabolism, as well as being able to secrete a fluid that encases them in a "shell" to keep them safe during times of drought)
obviously more, but they NEED all of them in order to survive.
now evolution says that they evolved them over time/chance. How? the first species would've died w/out all these abilities.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
wow.
good counter argument. you totally proved me wrong with your detailed list of explanations and reasons.
if I'm ever on the debate team I'll be sure to give you a call.
I understand the theory behind, but I don't see how "educated" people can actually believe in it.
the theory claims that the better-suited species will adapt more effectively and evolve over time.
how does this species "magically" adapt?
{{cont'd}}
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
Lesson 2
You can always tell a close-minded person by how talks.
Look at what you've said:
-you hardly ever address the points I bring up, yet instead you just say "you're wrong and stupid. I'm right because it's been proven."
not only is that not even an argument, but not once have you showed me HOW it's been proven! simply saying it doesn't make it so.
- you say i'm the ignorant one who doesn't understand anything? You don't even understand Hitler, so I have to assume you don't know much
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Lesson 3
You keep saying I don't understand evolution - I've taken college biology classes as well as loads of research for my own interest. it's what I have to do so I can try to hold my case against evolutionists.
I understand how it works. what I don't understand is how people can believe in it.
It takes a great deal of "faith."
you say it's been proven. that statement is false.
A theory cannot be proven until it is "observed/experienced" in nature. Evolution (by definition) can't!
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Evolution can't be observed?
What kind of biologist hasn't heard of (or taken stock in) fossils and CENTURIES (or more) of observed data?
sibryce 2 years ago
@sibryce
Yeah but that isn't evolution being observed, that is fossils being observed.
Observing evolution would mean to physically chart and report the speciation in an animal, from start to next species.
Now excluding this recent lizard experiment, this has never happened.
(still researching this lizard thing so I have nothing to say on it yet)
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
take a look at mammals
this new group of organisms is extremely different from their ancestors.
their reproductive style is radically different in almost every way
1- the young develops within the womb (a brand new space inside the body)
2- no external eggs
3- mammary glands developed seemingly out of nowhere!
4- the young are born with a dependence on their mother for maturation.
all of these things are new! now my questions - how can these all develop at once?
- WHY would these develop>?
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
alright. look
i posted 4 comments; you replied with 1.
you didn't even mention the things I brought up
-I proved you wrong about Hitler; you didn't address it
-I brought up the intricacy of mammalian reproduction; you didn't address it.
-I said that evolution hasn't been "proven;" you didn't address it.
you don't talk about anything I've said. once again, you simply said that I'm wrong and hypocritical. you're not saying WHY I'm wrong.
Question- do human fetuses have gills in the womb?
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
no that instance does not prove evolution, for a few reasons
there's still a lot of information that hasn't been presented (the questions I asked the other guy who never replied)
We don't know everything that happened over there. All we are getting is the basic gist of things, not the important biological data needed (like if the species cross-breeded, or if they can breed with their original species, etc etc)
another point is this - they evolved in 30 years and we "forced" it. Do it again
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
well that's a very colorful imagination, but have you seriously sat down and considered the genetic impossibilities you're taking into account?
A fin can't just magically turn into a leg -the anatomical differences are too different.
but that's not the only thing you need to think about;
evolution says that not only did the fins turn into legs, but that the gills turned into lungs, the wet/moisturizing skin turned into hair/fur, the body shape changed, entirely new joints/muscles developed...
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
okay think about this:
I built a huge pool with no exits (no chlorine). I got about 30 people and stuck them inside it. All of the food will always be at the bottom of the floor, and every (let's say week or month), the floor lowers bit by bit.
there's only enough food for each person to eat enough to survive, so, naturally, the people with the largest lung capacity will survive.
are you saying that within 20 generations, these humans will have begun to develop gills again or something?
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
You can't predict what evolution will do. It doesn't just give a species what it needs to survive. Those that are most fit will survive, sure, but that's all you can say about evolution, period.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
@buscarGnosis
wouldn't that argument suggest that there was once a much greater number of species on the planet that have now died off?.
Evolution states we began as single-celled organisms - where did we then get the vast amount of genetic makeup that we have today? Genes are like matter; they cannot be created nor destroyed.
Without ancestors who carried the genes for ears, we would not have ears.
That is the problem that has never been answered - how does genetic makeup get introduced?
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@joshuaspolar over time we developed to our characteristics. We do not get stronger faster and bigger but we get more adapetd on the environment. Our ears have 3 bones, ears of some other animals have 2 bones before that there might have been just receptors reading waves and they got better and better to improve our survival abilities. I hope that clears it up a bit if you need more explanation I will try. Peace:)
cruncher221 1 year ago
lol it's not that I need help, it's that the theory of evolution does not make sense. Genes, like matter, can't be created or destroyed.
How did the bones evolve from cartilaginous fishes? They are comprised of different DNA. or how did mammals develop mammary glands? If any evolutionist could explain that huge gap in the theory I'd be impressed.
1) Where would the information for mammary glands come from?
2) why would they develop?
3) How would they develop in ONE evolutionary generation?
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
@joshuaspolar Hi again. I am not an expert myself but I am looking forward to study biochemistry:). I am not sure wether I could explain in 500 letters so we might get some conversations. I use ICQ or facebook or write me on YT. 1)the beginning is at platypus 2)it was a way to store nutritions and so primitive milk distribution was invented nd advanced. 3) They didnt have to in one generation in a form you know them today. Nature is constantly upgrading and patching. Write me so we could talk;)
cruncher221 1 year ago
The problem is that Nature can not simply "add" new information to an animal.
For example, and don't giggle, but how did we get nipples?
I can understand if you say that nature needed a convenient location for the milk to be secreted, but how would it "add" all the DNA for 2 nipples? They are clearly different than normal skin, and they have no predecessors, so where would the genetic material come from, and how would evolve?
For instance, there has to be ONE species that first had nipples. how
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
Perhaps just google 'evolution of nipples'
That or look up monotremes. They secret milk, but have no nipples, and are a notably transitional step of creatures that offer a good idea of how nipples and milk secretion may have evolved.
Also a Dane and a Chihuahua can genetically interbreed, it was a comment on the physical form saying that generally it's adapted to the point of being epically impractical, though it would offer decent evidence for evolution if they couldn't.
monody 1 year ago
@joshuaspolar
mutation, read more :)
rumbidzai 1 year ago
"Genes are like matter; they cannot be created nor destroyed." - joshuapolar
Not true. First off, genes are an abstract concept made up by human to simplify genetic studies. Second, genes can be created and they can be destroyed. They can also be duplicated. Mutations in a duplicated gene can create a new protein with a new function. And that's just one of many ways in which new genes can come into existence.
CFTim 1 year ago
Also, I noticed that you claim that religion helps people. Indeed it does, pretty much one of the only good things about religion there is.
However, millions of people died in the holocaust, and when you really think about it, the number of people that died in this single event is about the number of people that religion has actually helped times ten.
Superfreak937 2 years ago
4-no they can not. first thing you've been right about
good thing neither of them have been proven!
since they haven't nor Can't be proven, both of them are equally believable/justifiable theories/beliefs.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
I read Ferretbob's - you read my reply to him
and Super have you ever taken sociology or anything? true, "religion" has caused a lot of deaths/wars....so has "Germany" (Nazis). And almost any other country you could think of at one point in history.
And not all "religions" are the same!
That's like saying "a lot of blacks are criminals. we should just kill them all."
Speaking for my Christian denomination, do you know how many people we help? Thousands! we host food drives, donations,etc etc
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Comment removed
Superfreak937 2 years ago
I know that evolution does not attempt to justify abiogenesis; I'm saying that without some "being," where did matter originate from? And if a being exists, then "it" is thereby responsible for life.
and what central tenets are you speaking of? not once has my family ever been led to believe something that was not true.
you say no evidence? The fact that the tomb of Jesus Christ was found, proving that He was a real person (albeit not supernatural), does nothing for you?
that's just one
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
it's actually not a generalization.
you see my teacher is using the designated school book for all BIO classes, meaning that ALL of my teachers are teaching it. clearly evolutionists are the ones "ignoring" the things that don't agree with everything they "think" they know.
and what have we ignored? you haven't brought up any specific points here.
You're basically saying "you're stupid. Just because you are."
bring up something, and let me tell you what I know about it
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
you say embryological evidence is proof of evolution because they are similar at one stage in life?
embryology shows a common designer just as well. Look at a cars for example - it's easy to tell a Ford from a Chevy. Why is that? Because all the Ford cars were made from the same designer, just as all the Chevy cars. And they all are obviously one or the other.
Take a lot at some organisms on Earth; some of them seem so alien, showing no signs of evolving from common ancestors
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Yeah I don't see why I got 4 thumb down for that comment...
I'll probably get some more on this one
=]
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow this guy is retarded
he's so ignorant towards religion
and of course people think he's funny and right
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
sweetheart, that's because he is funny and right.
KonsharPaHuvet 2 years ago
"wow this guy is retarded"
Perhaps, but he is also very, very right.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
and you are also very, very ignorant
it makes you appear a little more foolish when you agree with such childlike humor
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
What's more childlike: his humor or the belief in some invisible sky daddy? I agree with the man: let the believers in those three silly superstitions slug it out among themselves, so the rest of us can have the planet back. I am in favor of putting a huge wall around a big part of the Sahara , throwing all believers in there and waiting until the winner emerges.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
you just showed that it's his humor (and people like you)
funny how Christianity (a separate religion from Islam, etc) teaches strong morality and ethics, i.e. treating others as you would like to be treated, or showing love/respect to everyone.
You say that if we all left you'd have the planet back? You know people thought of that before - remember Hitler? he wanted to get rid of the Jews, so the Arians could have the Earth back.
He thought Jews were unnecessary, just as you just said we are
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
you sit there and mock such a vast majority of people on this planet without a second thought - how does that separate you from the radical Muslim terrorists who kill for their beliefs?
You just said you would like it if we would all just battled it out and killed each other - so you're saying you allow all of us to die?
You say that we're the foolish ones, believing in an imaginary God who laid down His laws a long time ago, but my "imaginary" God would never condemn so many innocents to death
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
There mere fact something is believed by lots of people doesn't make it true. The masses are almost always wrong. And, unlike fundie muslims, I don't intend to kill anybody for disagreeing with me. Scorn them, laugh at them, call them out on their bullshit, but no--not ending their lives.
What I am saying is: if people want to kill and maim for their beliefs, just let them do that without involving the rest of us. The Sahara is a nice spot for that, but Antarctica will do as well.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
I never said it makes it true. But in order for so many people to believe in it, doesn't it have to be pretty believable?
And you think that "your" world would be better than ours now? Most religions discourage the scorning/mocking of others; with us all gone, people with your remiss attitudes would have no one trying to keep the peace.
And you can't simply generalize all of us as troublemakers - that's like saying all black people are criminals. It's ignorant and uneducated.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
You don't realize that most of our laws and customs were established because of religion.
without some sort of "god" or "creator," nothing in this world is of any importance. If we are all a product of random chance and mutation, then there is no "right" or "wrong." Everything we know would all be a matter of opinion, different to each person. Who's to say that murder is wrong? If no "god" showed that it is wrong, who are humans to say it is? Animals do it every day
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
"You don't realize that most of our laws and customs were established because of religion."
No, they aren't, especially not in the West. Its a lie perpetuated by the various churches to bolster their importance. Most of the laws and customs we go by have been around for quite a bit longer than Christianity. The BIble hardly as any rules worth abiding to anyway, since it's immoral to the core. All the "good stuff" in that book is cherrypicked with modern eyes.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
And the notions of "right" or "wrong" are not dictated by any gods, but by the societies people live in. If I do wrong, I will get punished--by people, not gods.
And what would be the purpose of such a god's existence be anyway? If you can't tell me why it's there, how can you tell me that what I do only has meaning in relation with it?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
I have only one word for you: AronRa.
Please watch this 2-part vid:
watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0
watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc&feature=related
If you still think that evolution is not fact after watching these, you either don't understand or are wilfully denying the facts.
stamboni316 2 years ago 2
@stamboni316
watched it, and learned nothing. Over the years I've heard everything that guy said in one form or another.
Here's my opinion. Videos like that are exactly the reason that so many people think the theory of evolution is believable and true.
Instead of delving into the actual science of it, so many Atheists discuss the semantics of it and try to play with the wording of everything so as to make the Creationists sound dumb (which a lot of them are, especially the ones in that vid)
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
They try to cripple the arguments that many of us by ignoring the science behind what we're saying and going straight to breaking down the words that we used.
He brought up Micro-evolution. He was wrong. Micro does NOT allow/ prove for Macro-evolution. Micro is simply variation, like white people and black people. We are the still same species, albeit minor differences.
Now as for MACRO, that is entirely different. That brings the "theory" to a whole new level.
It introduces genetics
(cont'd)
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
For instance, scientists say that after so much adapting and time has passed, new genetic traits will somehow exist.
Ex: fish-lungfish-frogs etc etc.
The problem is this - where did fish get the genetic makeup for lungs? or to go from oily scaly skin to fur and feathers? or do you actually believe that birds are just reptiles with scales that have gotten so big over time that they have turned into an entirely different texture?
Think about the procreation of mammals
(cont'd)
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
mammals have such a radically different process than their ancestors.
They now have mammary glands, nipples, young that mature within the womb, actual sexual reproduction....the list goes on and on!
Where did the ancestors of mammals get the genetic for all these factors, and on top of that, get it all at once!!
The development of mammary glands and nipples and internal maturation all happened in one "evolution." Does that even seem remotely possible? It seems more convenient than logical
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Hi Joshuaspolar,
Then I have to assume you don't understand the content (he brought up micro & macro). Your using an argument from incredulity and that hinders you, I'm afraid. All the points you have posted are mentioned in AronRa's vids along with sources (he does speak very quickly so pause for the screen caps).
If you're in doubt as to whether evolution (micro/macro) has been observed (both in the lab & in the field), simply take a look at the 'PubMed' site. It's all in there.
stamboni316 2 years ago 2
"When the letters come - and i'm assuming they will..."
xD
See below...
flankspeed 2 years ago 3
brilliant XD
hadx19 2 years ago
STOP BLOWING STUFF UP!!
Genius!!
cashellaella 2 years ago 2
he is god !!!!
psybmw 2 years ago
Actually, its because polytheistic religions tend to be more accepting of other people's faith. They only start getting pissed off with monotheists when they start insisting that theirs is the only real God.
M0e9h8 3 years ago 5
About right I would say.
tommytipitcup 3 years ago 2
He's so like Yahtzee, it's fucking brilliant.
DeanoTheDino 3 years ago 3
COMPLETELY AGREE! thats what i always say
enganeinsanitydrive 3 years ago