Darwin

[whirlpoolzend]

"OK, one last time Dougal... these are small... but the ones out there are far away.

Smalllll... far a-wayyyy"

[bobomcgraw]

@whirlpoolzend Saw a bit of the christmas episode over christmas. (shock)

The one with the priests trapped in the lingerie department and Father Todd Unxious.

And father Deegan, the worried Scottish priest who managed to gain a promotion and is now Chief of Surgery at Seattle Grace Hospital, in Grey's Anatomy.

[cornobbler]

agreed on all levels.

[dorotttta]

:> sorry for errors

[dorotttta]

He don't know it, he begin his phylosophy here (his belief). But in the book is writhed like it would be totally logic ( like this foolish logic whit watch and dog). I hope you undersood, my english isn't v good:>

[dorotttta]

if you are ateist so maybe you like Dawkins, (as mestake from ateist scientis) he makes (as mestake from ateist scientis) (in his book "Imaginary God"- I don't know right title) mestake a bit similar to this in 4:24. In that thing what you talking about they say if watch was create by someone, so dog is create by someone. Dawkins say if human was "create" from less compicated being, so it's not possible that this less little being was create by being megacomplicated like God.

[Dhesyca]

The reason he brought up the grand canyon is because Kent Hovind discussed it in one of his videos, entitled "Lies in the Textbooks". The main basis of his videos is that the earth can't be millions of years old, so evolution wouldn't work. Because of this claim that the earth is only 6000 years old, he has to show how other things (like the grand canyon, dinosaurs, and fossils) can exist at only 6000 years old.

It's stupid.

[bobomcgraw]

But all the evidence says otherwise there too.

I got into an argument with one and he said he was winning as all the evidence favoured his side.

Religion is a matter of FAITH, there is no evidence, that's the whole point.

It was like swimming against a particularly strong current and claiming you were going faster than anyone else.

The guy was totally deluded.

[Dhesyca]

Agreed on all points. What I'm saying is Kent Hovind's videos are where he probably got his misinformation. I've been watching them and it's amazing how stupid he is. I went to highschool in America in the 40th worst state for school funding AND have no college under my belt; and yet I know better than what he says because I'm capable of finding unbiased sources of information. Also, I can learn about a subject past a handful of details that can "make my point", unlike him.

ARGH!

[bobomcgraw]

Did I mention Hovind being 'interviewed' by Ali G?

Also I saw a video (maybe Thunderfoot, Decha1981 or Shanedk) where they pointed out that there is a creationist who holds a degree in geology and yet lends his name to creationist misinformation, because creationists think that if someone with a degree tells me the sky is made of felt that I will automatically believe them.

HE'S BEEN TO COLLEGE, IT MUST BE TRUE!

[Dhesyca]

I haven't heard of that particular geologist; normally they get scientists from other fields in order to instill false authority. But ya, I wouldn't put it past them. It would be like me studying Christian Education (or Biblical Education, or whatever) so that I could have authority to back me up when I provide evidence that the Bible is wrong. Then again, they seem to think it would work for their cause...I wonder if they WOULD accept it from us? Maybe I should give it a go... :P

[bobomcgraw]

I think studying the bible would help to add weight to any argument you make when you point out contradictions in it.

They do mention people in the most random of the sciences to try and convince people their point is valid.

But it isn't, what the hell does a computer engineer or an economic analyst know about evolution?

[Dhesyca]

Exactly. They usually mention that the person is a scientist, but not the specific field. If they do mention a field it's usually like astronomy or something that "could contest" the Big Bang theory instead of evolution. How can someone confuse the two???

I actually am studying the Bible; it's been a desire of mine to read the whole thing ever since I was Christian. Now I realize that even knowing the Bible wouldn't add weight to my side; they actually BELIEVE what that ridiculous book says!

[bobomcgraw]

They call it the Argument from Authority, such and such is a genius therefore we should agree with him.

Like when the Creationist told me Hawking believed in god and because he is more intelligent than me then he must be right.

It's a pretty weak argument.

[Dhesyca]

Yup. Combine that with quote mining and they've got a powerful form of "evidence" to convince people who already believe what they believe.

I watched a video put together by cdk007 listing and explaining 25 methods of underhanded fallacy used by creationists. It's a good vid, because it helps you identify the methods so that you can also call the users on their crap. I'd have to find the title though, cuz I can't think of it off the top of my head.

[bobomcgraw]

I watch the Atheist Experience occasionally and I loved the one where a creationist asked why evolutionists get pissed off when people quote that one line from Origin of Species on the formation of the eye, but ironically he only read out part of the quote.

Creationists tend to be unintentionally ironic.

[Dhesyca]

Unintentionally ironic, willfully ignorant. It's a beautiful combination, isn't it?

[bobomcgraw]

Oh joy, it makes my heart sing.

[Dhesyca]

At the very least, it reminds us that we're intelligent. =S Ignorance is bliss, so intelligence must be torture.

[bobomcgraw]

It is.

It's made worse when you have to interact with the ignorant.

One thing I maintain about arguing with idiots is they aren't smart enough to know when they have lost.

[Dhesyca]

Problem is, "have to" is the keyword there. I don't have to...I'm relatively free from idiocy of This kind where I live. I go out and seek it...so I suppose I shouldn't complain, right? But there's just something so IMPORTANT to me about the battle of "Let's put Creationism/ID in our skools!" And furthermore, "Let's take evolution out, cuz it ain't science."

How does that saying go? In an argument..."Never sink to an idiot's level, cuz he'll beat you with experience."

[bobomcgraw]

The battle against creationism is the battle against wilfully crippling our intellect.

The pursuit of knowledge is vital to our race, our intelligence is the one strength we really possess and anyone that tries to sabotage it is a danger to the entire human race.

[Dhesyca]

True. That's a fantastic reason to argue against ID in schools...but I still don't think I have the right to complain about dealing with people I willingly meet. Do I?

Either way, my current goal is to get some dude to define "kind" so that we can have a discussion. He refuses, but I'm not sure if it's on purpose or if he actually thinks he's giving a definition by saying "dogs are dogs, cats are cats"....

[bobomcgraw]

Point out that 'kind' is a vague and non-scientific classification.

Also point out that he has to provide real proof if he hopes to be taken seriously, and part of that real proof is to not make overly generalised or subjective statements.

If any of his evidence is open to interpretation then it is worthless and you can just dismiss it.

You can complain about them, but not about having to talk to them, just about them in general.

[Dhesyca]

About complaining, that makes perfect sense; I'll keep it in mind.

As for "kind" this is what he finally concluded:

"I really don't know how to make it simpler. Whatever it's basic name is, is a kind. As aforementioned, a arctic fox and a fennec are very different but they are both foxes and can be seen as foxes. Stop looking at this so complicated and look at it as a 5 year old would see it."

Specific equals not simple, but at least the 5-year old bit makes sense.

[bobomcgraw]

Is he five years old?

The thing is using the word 'kind' is not simple because it ends up that the two people in the conversation may define it in their own way so they both end up arguing two completely different points without realising it.

That is why we use specific scientific terms that have exact set meanings, so that we know exactly what the other person is trying to say without having to ask them to define anything.

[Dhesyca]

Exactly. He and I are taking our discussion to PM so that we can have more room to write, and I think the first thing I'm going to address is this. We're actually being very civil about it and enjoying each other; it's just getting frustrating in some parts.

I avoided making a joke about him being 5 as best I could. :S

As for "exact set meanings"...I have to point out that "species" is a very confusing term to me. Does it have to do with the ability to reproduce, DNA, or something else?

[bobomcgraw]

A species is a group of animals that can mate and produce viable offspring.

Dogs sperm cannot fertilise a cats egg and vice versa.

Horses and donkeys can mate with each other but the problem is that their offspring, mules and hinnies, cannot reproduce after that (with some rare exceptions but that is not enough to declare them a new or even sub species).

[Dhesyca]

What about domesticated dogs and wolves of proper size enough to mate with each other? I thought that their offspring can mate.

[bobomcgraw]

Dogs are classed as a sub species of wolf so they can mate successfully.

[Dhesyca]

Ah, that makes lots of sense. I was wondering where sub-species fit into the biological taxonomic structure!

Ty. <3

[bobomcgraw]

Uh....

Yes.

[Dhesyca]

...Uh. What's with the hesitation?

I was just saying that I'm uneducated in the subject and I'm glad that you clarified for me...all the resources I keep finding are a bit over my head, especially considering that I have an American education. -.-

[bobomcgraw]

My biology classes never really went into a lot of detail when it came to evolution.

It's unfortunate, the ammunition would have helped against the creationists.

[Dhesyca]

Same here. And unfortunately by the time I got to highschool, I was severely clinically depressed and apathetic about life in general so I didn't take the opportunities to really learn about what was being taught in my classes. I wish I'd been put on medication and in counselling a LONG time ago so I could have enjoyed my life a little more in those years.

Oh well, at least it's never too late to learn! :D

[bobomcgraw]

You live and learn. At any rate, you live.

Douglas Adams

I never really bothered studying, I actually likened the whole affair to cheating, because the exam would then reward you for having a good memory, not for understanding the information.

I also hated second level (highschool), didn't help that I was in boarding school... boring school.

There was absolutely nothing to do.

They had computer labs that never opened, a library no-one was allowed in.

[Dhesyca]

That's actually how it felt for me, also. I always got good grades, but after the test I just shrugged and forgot most of the information. Understanding, rather than memorization, is infinitely more important...and I've noticed that having a strong emotional attachment to the topic helps. My best motivations are, "OMG this is so cool!" and "ARGH! That stupid bastard, I'll show him he's wrong by doing research and making a valid point to debunk his own!"

Hence, my obsession with creationists.

[bobomcgraw]

I'm kind of motivated in a similar fashion.

I love science, mostly biology as I can't wrap my head around physics or chemistry, but I do love hearing about new technologies and breakthroughs.

There is just something so exciting about pushing forward the boundaries of science and understanding.

[Dhesyca]

Last I heard, the collective human knowledge doubles every two years. That just blows my mind. If that information is right, in two years we will know twice as much as we know now.

It actually scares me sometimes, thinking that there are threats to all the years of hard work that have gone into increasing that knowledge and making our lives better. I'm not just talking ignorance, but total nuclear fall-out that would reduce our resources to information down to what we could put our hands on.

[bobomcgraw]

I believe we have bunkers designed to protect knowledge, at least I think we do.

It seems that would be the logical thing to do but when faced with two choices how often does humanity throw common sense to the wind and piss on the electric fence?

What scares me is trying to imagine what society will be like in a thousand years.

Imagine waking up then, the whole world would be alien to you, you probably wouldn't even be able to communicate as language would have evolved a lot in that time.

[Dhesyca]

Being a nerdy hermit, I think I might actually enjoy that. As long as there was sex. v_v I have such a one-track mind...

Anyway, I do HOPE we have bunkers...but still, imagine if the world as we know it ended and we were reduced to medieval technology again. How many of us would have access to those bunkers, and how many of us would die? I think it was Thunderf00t or cdk007 who said in a nuclear fallout, 10% of people would die from the blas, 90% from lack of infrastructure.

[bobomcgraw]

We have grown dependent on technology.

Take it away and society will collapse.

It may rise from the ashes eventually but it will be tough going.

[Dhesyca]

On the other hand, it would be a true (and horrible) test of humanity. The people that came out of such a horrible thing would be very strong, as opposed to how many dependant leeches we have now.

We'd still have leeches, but fewer...and much craftier, at least.

[bobomcgraw]

Well, they'd be strong or else you would have groups working together very well, some form of socialism or communism would probably be necessary, for a while at least, just for basic survival.

[Dhesyca]

Very small tribal societies is what I envision, with either a single leader or a small council as the head. Then again, it would depend on the size of the societies and what the previous social structure was before the "armageddon".

[bobomcgraw]

I think a small group would do best just because their hold would be pretty fragile, resources might be scarce and all that.

If that problem got fixed and they became confident about their lives then they could grow quite large.

[Dhesyca]

I think I understand what you mean. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I agree. :P If not...then I'm lost.

Basically, smaller groups require fewer resources and more involved efforts. They'd have to become very tight-knit societies in order to survive...is that what you mean?

[bobomcgraw]

Yup.

It's like a young company, in the beginning they're trying to just survive but after a while they attract new clients and eventually they can hire more employees as they get more work.

It would be the same thing, as they built their infrastructure, perfected their resource gathering they would eventually be able to increase the size of their community and once they were comfortable enough if they had to rely on Communism just for survival then they could revert to a more capitalistic means.

[Dhesyca]

And then once it became the size of Pepsi Co. or Chevron we'd have problems all over again and it'd be time to squash the population.

Actually, it's more like we need a natural predator that we can't outsmart. *wants to watch Alien all of a sudden*

[bobomcgraw]

But not like Alien, that thing was way too efficient.

[Dhesyca]

Agreed. It was awesome...I still find it terrifying in a very exciting way; H.R. Giger was an amazing and disturbed artist.

But anyway, it would probably have to be disease, at this point. HIV, although it is a horrible pandemic, is not fast enough for it to work for that particular purpose. It would have to be something more akin to the Bubonic Plague.

I also want to say that I hope this doesn't happen: it would be a fast solution to over-population, but not the best solution.

[bobomcgraw]

There was an anime series, Blue Sub 66 which was set in the future.

A scientist had flooded the Earth and killed off billions to try and thing the population.

But then he made genetically modified animal things and they were waging a war against humanity.

[Dhesyca]

I'm going to have to look that up. I've always been fascinated by the idea of people in survival situations, moreso in the sense of people used to our technological comforts being set back to medieval, iron-age, bronze-age, or even stone-age standards. Being stranded on desert islands is a theme that I enjoy seeing in books and movies.

[bobomcgraw]

Robinson Crusoe (based on a real person by the way)

[Dhesyca]

I read a kid's simplified version of Robinson Crusoe when I was young...I loved it, until I realized how easy he had it. He ended up with, like, 20 axes, loads of food supplies, multiple knives, and all sorts of other things.

After that I became interested in people ending up on islands with little more than 1 or 2 useful tools and having to recreate a survivable situation.

[bobomcgraw]

Then read about Alexander Selkirk, the guy Robinson Crusoe is based on.

He was abandoned on an island for four years as he got into a row with the ships captain.

All he was left with was a gun, some gunppowder, some carpentry tools, a knife, a bible and some cloths.

[Dhesyca]

See, that's something I could get into more. I heard about him once...that people found him after he'd been stranded for decades. He could no longer speak in a way that they could understand because he'd been alone so long. Basically, there were still words...just nothing resembling the language he had learned in his earlier life.

[bobomcgraw]

Uh, he was abandoned for four years.

He was rescued by William Dampier (who was on the ship that abandoned him), the man who Gullivers Travels is based on.

[Dhesyca]

Then I was either misinformed or I was told about someone entirely different and mixed them up in my head....or possibly both. ^.^" My bad.

[bobomcgraw]

Mixed up two people possibly, I'm sure he wasn't the only person that ever got stranded alone.

[Dhesyca]

Are you sure? ;)

[bobomcgraw]

Reasonably.

The ocean is a big place and people are, as a rule, quite unbelievably stupid.

[Dhesyca]

I know you're unhappy with the situation: trust me, I find creationists (of any religion) frustrating. But your accent is so damn hot and your nose is so damn cute, especially from the profile view, that I just can't help but grin while watching this vid. :D

[bobomcgraw]

Hmm, never got that one before.

My nose is 'cute'.

[Dhesyca]

Well, it is. So =P

[PopeJohnEdgarIV]

I was pissing myself laughing 4:08 onwards, but you're oh so right!

God, I can't even think of anything to add or comment on. I think the statement: "It's so stupid, I don't get it!" pretty much sums it all up, that's basically all I could say to that sort of an argument.

[bobomcgraw]

It's like how they stopped all the humanoid robots in Star Trek the Original Series.

"He lies all the time", "I'm lying right now", robot head explodes.

[wolvscry]

I think all of your videos are very interesting...I can just never seem to find any opinion I'd like to put out or comment I'd like to share. But I also feel bad not saying anything when I find them intriguing and sometimes insightful and slightly amusing. So thanks for making videos. =)

[bobomcgraw]

Don't worry about it, I'm pretty much in the same boat.

[wolvscry]

haha nice to know I'm not the only one at a loss for words.

[bobomcgraw]

Sometimes it's hard to know what you should say, if the video is supposed to be funny I normally leave a comment like 'Well it made me laugh".

[wolvscry]

Yeah if it's a funny video then it's easy for me to comment. I'll just say that it was amusing and say which part I liked most or something like that. But if it's something that I have to think about like politics or philosiphy or something interesting like that then it's harder to think of what to say. xD

[bobomcgraw]

I'm subbed to some people that make some very well thought out and informative videos and I can never think of a comment that would do the video justice.

[wolvscry]

Yeah, you pretty much get what I mean then.

[jen8infinity]

Not that I'm saying I believe one thing or another but why can't they accept the possibility of evolution into a divine plan? Does it have to be sacreligious to believe in evolution?

[bobomcgraw]

These are the same people who will tell you that parts of the bible are metaphor while other parts are to be taken literally, yet the down to earth, could realistically happen they claim are the metaphor and the ridiculous magic that they believe in despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is the literal part.

There are plenty of christians elsewhere who are nowhere near as closeminded.

Hell when I was still catholic I accepted evolution, I don't know anyone here who didn't.

[MokongX3M]

I know people who say their not sure if evolution can be real, because if it was why can't people fly or have wings now? Try to explain that mankind has had no need to take to skies biologically therfore we haven't, but they don't accept it

[bobomcgraw]

Like Kent Hovind, he once asked sceptically of an evolutionist "how come no monkey today has given birth to a human?"

The answer Kent is rather simple, BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE and also that is not how evolution works!

I hate listening to creationists argue about evolution because they don't even argue about it properly.

They argue against moronic points that they made up about evolution, not against any real points.

[Eathiln]

Sometimes, I just feel bad for these people, because it's evident that they are confused. If I were raised being taught nothing but creationism, I would no doubt be confused, too. But still, you can't just irrationally reject the scientific facts right before you.

[bobomcgraw]

Sure you can, I mean you shouldn't, it's a pretty stupid thing to do, but creationists do it all the time... unfortunately.

[citizenkong]

My first thought was to tear out that added section and burn it, but then I realized that's what they would do.

These people can not separate what is faith from what is science. They are threatened by the facts, so they twist them to fit their beliefs.

[onlywhenprovoked]

we could print bibles with a new introduction clearing up all the bullshit.... oh - but i guess that would be a bible sized novel unto itself.

[citizenkong]

Or phone book sized!

[bobomcgraw]

They don't twist the facts, they lie about them completely, and that is a hell of a lot worse.

[citizenkong]

That's true.