lolwut? natural selection...? when did anyone say natural selection changes deer into horses. what the fuck. this video is so full of shit. so full lies about what is said about evolution.
I think creationists talk a little too much about darwinism, like he was/is the only person to ever look at evolution. This whole video is a load of crap. I would disprove every single statement he said, but there isn't enough room in a youtube comment box.
you had sociology? yet do not grasp that the love of some imaginary person you have never seen, heard or talked to is something different than a reward! interesting!
ok, half-time: what have we learned so far about you:
do you undersand the terms agnostic and atheist: nope! do you know the correlation between the supernatural and natural: nope! do you understand science, its logic and how it is applied: nope! do you understand sociology: not a clue! any idea about population dynamics: nope! had any history-lessons: nope! have you read the bible: most evidently NOPE!
science is bad! atheism is bad! evolution is wrong! god is good for us; he will save us! thinks humanity needs saving! the motivation of a person (if towards god) far more than outweighs their findings, no matter how important they are!
DO YOU SEE ANY CORRELATION, between what you do not understand and what you think is right & wrong? while i am not 100% sure that you haven't read the bible, it seems so, as someone who did would know that it very well contradicts itself!
on more thing: the fact that believers are happier and do more good! the fact that a drunk person is happier than a sober one has the same point, plus: who are the better do-gooders: the ones doing it because they want to help their fellow man & do not expect a reward in afterlife & do it out of the goodness in their hearts (in the truest sense) or the ones who have been taught from childhood on that god rewards only the good ?!?? think about that ;)
i must be speaking german, dunno: to who newton, tesla and all the other acredited their findings to, is once again, besides the point! its about their findings itself and that they stand and fall on a scientific podium and not on the basis of how devout they believed in god! is this really so hard to understand? i fail to understand why you still think that this argument is valid in any way FOR your prefered belief-system ?!??
no one is born agnostic, as the definition of such requires an awareness of a certain conflict, but not enough given thought to make a (conscious) choice! children are born without any knowledge of human-invented mytho-historical figures and are therefore atheists, but can be taught to believe in god! we do and practice after all only what we have learned from our parents, teachers, friends, etc.
also to describe humans as corrupt, is a fallacy based on theology, which also assumes out of nothing, that our species needs saving from a devine creator, instead of utilizing the capacity our species has, to better our own self, people wait for rapture ... how smart! someone who had studied philosophy without a god in the back of his mind and had any idea about population mechanics and the former mentioned should understand that!
and once more, scientific understanding and atheism, do have a strong correlation, which is proven in countless figures of people with greater understanding of biology, chemistry, etc. being 10 times more like to not hold any belief! science by default tries to explain the natural, not the supernatural, which god is part of! but there is another correlation here too, the fact that the more and more we understand the smaller the portion of the supernatural world becomes!
and it is a fairy-tale book, considering that it has been historically proven that its been rewritten a few times, to suit the ones in power at the time, and revised, copy and pasted, moderatly improved, but still the same boring self-contradicting theory! the bible/quran/torah needs no further falsification when you understand the wider connection between certain dates and events happening in all three of them ;) just look up how many saviors have been resurrected on easter!
and once more, scientific understanding and atheism, do have a strong correlation, which is proven in countless figures of people with greater understanding of biology, chemistry, etc. being 10 times more like to not hold any belief! science by default tries to explain the natural, not the supernatural, which god is part of! but there is another correlation here too, the fact that the more and more we understand the smaller the portion of the supernatural world becomes!
if you care to read about it, you'll notice that at least newton more or less stumbled about his 3 laws! and by that i do not mean that he had an apple fall on his head, but a few conveniently timed circumstances in his life led to the discoveries he made! as for tesla, i'm admittedly not this familiar with his lively background, but still it is highly unlikely they set out directly to prove something about god/religion and become historically recognized on purpose!
and if you had any history lessons at all that included communist regimes and their workings, you'd know that in these regimes the will of people to believe, and their belief in itself was as strong as in most cases comparable to the bible-belt in the USA, because of the very fact that the state tries/tried to decide FOR the people, that religion was bad! communism works just awesome on paper, but is given our animal heritage and drive unachievable ;)
when raised theistic you can educate yourself to a point where your belief becomes unimportant or unnecessary or you actively decide to not believe, which is agreeably pretty stupid, as it looks like an act of defiance ... the worst atheists come from this! but when raised without religion, there is absolutely NOTHING missing in your life ... something, seeing where you apparently come from, is impossible for you, as you have obviously been raised religious ...!
no actually it is a quite logical argument by which to discredit your opponent, as you evidently base your assumptions (and thats what you said yourself) on metaphysics and philosophy instead of the field its taking place in: biology! and again i am NOT trying to invalidate the bible, as no fairy-tale book needs veri- or falsification, instead i am attempting to disprove uneducated ideas about evolution and the way it works!
math, is a language and can by definition not been discovered but must've been invented! and yes, in advance to your next stupid assumption: it is the language of physics and subsequently of all natural sciences! and math got nothing to do with truth, its the language we use to describe and further investigate our assumptions of the universe! kudos, on not understanding even the simplest of terms ;)
i don't need to meassure myself to tesla and newton in anyway, and if i had to, i'd do it in the arena of science, were those two had credit! as said only creationist morons stick to the beliefs of past geniuses in the faint hope of somehow turning the tide and inspiring a new generation of people to throw their life aways because the device accelleration pusher said so!
YOUR bias, is far beyond debatable, you're half way up gods ass the way you act & fight evolution! i on the other hand was raised in eastern europe while still communist, therefore knew about god, but was never motivated to learn anything about it! though i admit that the concept of god does sound nice & around puberty i had a very brief time where my interesst in it exceeded its use! but hey i'm a big star trek fan too, and you don't see me praying to gene roddenberry
the problem with atheism to put it bluntly, although i can imagine your answer is: we're one step further, yes nobody wants to be left behind or be the last to cross the finish line, but that's the way the rules are! a few winners, a whole lot of losers ... i didn't make the rules, i live by them! a theist will NEVER be able to understand an atheist truly as a true polytheist (not this crap from today, but say someone from rome ca. 0 AD) could never understand a monotheist!
only difference here to most other systems of this basis, is that atheism is nothing actively declarable! you don't wake up one day and say "hey, i am an atheist" you actually don't give a damn about god and don't bother your mind with anything religious until one day the topic is brought up somewhere and you realise that it has no bearing for you, therefore you are an atheist.
by saying that evolution is flawed, you are implying (i knew you were to chicken) that you have some sort of creditbility in this area! you're a philosopher, fine then practice your profession and phantasize about the world but stop advancing stupidity in the world by being too narrowminded to learn about a topic before spouting shit, you know virtually nothing about!
darwin: anglican, einstein: deist, hawking: agnostic, newton: catholic, galileo: catholic, gregor mendel: augustinian monk (FFS) ... you see a pattern there? their religiousity as said before, may be interessting on a philosophical level, but on a scientific one, it has no merrit! their findings led to a better understanding of the physical world in a purely scientific way, one which does not require a god! but is governed (if you will) by physically measurable forces!
@ newton & tesla: YES on a philosophical level they failed, because only creationist give a crap today about their religious world-views, because they can then claim that "those discoveries were made by believers" whoo ... only someone who does NOT comprehend the implications of their findings in today's physics would claim that it reinforces belief in anyway! their beliefs maybe interesting on a philosophical level, granted, but on a scientific on theiy're just IRRELEVANT
i understand the notion to understand more, but common, can you honestly tell me that you are unbiased when it concerns the conflict of religion and science? and contrary to the general belief, there is one ... at least the fact that 99% of people engaged in scientific areas, are atheists/agnostics/deists should give you a clue as to the "why" of this fact! better understanding of the physical world does not lead instantly away from religion but will do so in most cases!
you still fail to deliver an argument, period! but i am starting to feel sorry for your inability to see that, you're watching creationist propaganda videos, that every biology-teacher can refute, yet claim to have, based on this crap-science ideas, proof of evolution being flawed ?!?? i can only repeat myself: philosophy, bible stuff and the study of the greek language do NOT qualify you in any way to do so in any realistic way! !!!
plus you either don't understand or don't want to understand my newton argument! what i meant was that newton's world-views are completely irrelevant to his laws! wether he was atheist, deist, catholic, etc. doesn't matter and has nothing to do with his theories and the 3 laws devised from them!
i also added that, what ever his intent was, it led to new discoveries and advancement, not reinforcement in believe, as his laws showed no need for a devine acceleration-pusher ;)
so you just showed that for you its all about god, not the advancement of knowledge or some disputable holes in a scientific theory! and my argument still stands as you have again failed to deliver any explanation that would contradict it! simple as that ... but i do have to give you credit for being a true philosopher in dancing around the issue instead of taking up on it and delivering a counter-argument!
that is THE weakest argument ever: it doesn't matter what certain historical figures believed at the time they came up with their ideas ... newton's laws hold their ground, and would still do so, even if he had been a catholic priest or the pontifex himself! he may have set out to reinforce the believe in a devine creator, but it ultimately went the other way around, same goes for every other notable figure that has contributed to real science!
how about you google the genome of the banana and when you understand why we share 50% of our genes with a plant and its fruit you may be a little closer in understanding our relationship to a few other species and our own ancestry!
as for philosophy teaching critical thinking, well didn't do the job right for you! especially not, when considering that evolutionary biology has proven creationism/id time and again wrong! again, you have NO evidence for your claims!
so philosophers are DEEP thinkers ... nice, never knew that i need to take a curriculum in using my own brain to give a little thought about the things happening in the world ;) and don't bother writing an answer to that as your last 3 were just rants, because you have still nothing scientifically valid to add to the topic except for your outcry of "how could a fish change into a man" ... pretty childish, some DEEP thinkers might agree on O_o
i was merely implying that a 2nd semester physics student has a little more insight into applied science that someone who took philosophy and/or the other mentioned subjects! but if you don't like it, hey who am i to argue with an philosopher, right?
and "chose your pick" was meant as in "take your pick" but i guess the english language is too hard on some of us ...!
as for phylosophy, i fail to understand why people of this profession always think that anyone gives a crap about their most sincere "thoughts" ... once again, if we're talking science, we're talking observation and understanding of the underlying conditions! that's actual evidence corroborating with your findings and postulating a theory which then, stands or falls!
phylosophy by that token ist shallow at best and realtive, depending your stance at worst! choose your pick
ok so to sum up, what took 2 posts for you: you have NO idea of the fields i have mentioned !!! sorry, but : phylosophy, bible study, graphic design ?!?? the best you are entitled to, with such an educational background, is assmumtions on the human condition in sociological terms and aestethics! what little "science" was encompassed in it is most likely negligable ...
honor student, deans list ... say what? and in what field or subject would that be ?!?? perhaps philosophy or some other subject that doesn't even touch evolutionary biology?
what ever your area of expertise is, it surely has nothing to do with chemistry, biology or physics for that matter, does it? but then again this is youtube and every wackjob with the IQ of a lemon can claim what ever he wants to because he has found the right podium to show his mental dick and pomp!!
you pose no real question to answer, period! you have engrained this curious thought of an aquatic creature resembling todays fish that will somehow miraculously transform into a human being, in your head & hammer it where ever you can!
you want to be this dead beat stupid? okay ... over the course of 2 billion years we evolved from an aquatic creature (or fish if you will) into homo sapiens! i fail to see the problem with this, somehow you do still have an issue with that!
look, if you accept, that micro-evolution exists, but flat out deny macro-evolution, then you obviously didn't even attend math-class in school! one is the subset of the other! if micro-evolution exists, then the amount of mutations and gradual progressions will, given enough time, constitute what we call a "new" species (!) and you call THIS illogical?
ahh, ok, i see ... you do understand, but are more the "willfully ignorant" type, aren't you?
i do always wonder: do you even understand the words you're using, or do you just catch 'em in as the fly around you and what ever sounds good is just parroted until it not only sounds right, but you think is right!
the logical conclusion to a long chain of micro-evolutionary events IS macro-evolution! but i guess willful ignorance is way better than to actually have to think about the whole issue, is it now? as said: you don't believe it, fine, then stop using any meds!!!
text book evolution is that random mutations in DNA result in new species. if there is another thoory of evo. please tell me what it is and complain that it is not being taught in schools or universities.
why must evolution be the bane of scientific and medical advancement? ther are so many discoveries made by scientists using an intelligent desighn method (use an engineering degree to understand the complex nature of cells and organs) that are ignored and thown out along with their discoverers for rejecting darwin while evolution has not contribute anything besides a scientific excuse for racism and genocide.
if evolution didn't work, every pharmaceutical, every inch of medicine we know and apply, from genetics to vaccination, would unravel itself !!! they are so intertwined that you cannot pull this one string out, without the whole thing coming apart ... applied inconsistencies held as truth and propagated as such, is the realm of mysticism and religion, not science!
no one looking at the facts can deny that, unless he/she's into religion or some other form of supernaturalism
Evolution was absaloutley not by coincidence.This video says that micro-organisms cannot occur randomly in nature,but then says that all life occured in a flash.How is that possible?When has that ever happened?All organisms GRADUALLY form from conception.Why dont we still appear in a flash,why would"god" hinder our reproduction by prolonging our development by 9 months.If you find a tiny crack in the theory of evolution,dont just say "It was all thanks to god"
This is so ignorant it's funny. Firstly Evolution occurs only within a population over time, so a population of deer could evolve into horses if given the correct stimuli and about ten million years. Also physical traits are coded in genes, and therefor can be inherited. examine the pea plant experiments which have been performed for 600 years, they demonstrate the inheriting of traits.
For over thousands of years, jewish and Arab people circumcised their men.. so why are they still born with the skin still attached when evolution should have done its work through inheritance like you say, being born without the skin?
This is a misconception regarding evolution, acquired physical Traits cannot be inherited via genetics. An acquired physical trait such as circumcision is not coded into the DNA and it not a inheritable trait. something such as skin color, or body shape is coded, and facilitates evolution. inheritance of physical traits hasn't been considered for centuries.
@facezy Because circumcision doesn't alter an individual's genetics. If you know so little about this subject to think that is a real argument, you really shouldn't be voicing an opinion.
This has been flagged as spam show
pretty sure deer are horses
20regan06 3 months ago
Whats this song called lol?????
meanEugene1 7 months ago
lolwut? natural selection...? when did anyone say natural selection changes deer into horses. what the fuck. this video is so full of shit. so full lies about what is said about evolution.
1robopm 7 months ago
i lol'ed
Cdubzhappy 7 months ago
I think creationists talk a little too much about darwinism, like he was/is the only person to ever look at evolution. This whole video is a load of crap. I would disprove every single statement he said, but there isn't enough room in a youtube comment box.
pianoman8778 8 months ago
Hilarious. Using the internet to tell us science doesn't work. D'oh!
Ozzyman200 9 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
you had sociology? yet do not grasp that the love of some imaginary person you have never seen, heard or talked to is something different than a reward! interesting!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
ok, half-time: what have we learned so far about you:
do you undersand the terms agnostic and atheist: nope! do you know the correlation between the supernatural and natural: nope! do you understand science, its logic and how it is applied: nope! do you understand sociology: not a clue! any idea about population dynamics: nope! had any history-lessons: nope! have you read the bible: most evidently NOPE!
no lets focus on what you know:
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
science is bad! atheism is bad! evolution is wrong! god is good for us; he will save us! thinks humanity needs saving! the motivation of a person (if towards god) far more than outweighs their findings, no matter how important they are!
DO YOU SEE ANY CORRELATION, between what you do not understand and what you think is right & wrong? while i am not 100% sure that you haven't read the bible, it seems so, as someone who did would know that it very well contradicts itself!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
on more thing: the fact that believers are happier and do more good! the fact that a drunk person is happier than a sober one has the same point, plus: who are the better do-gooders: the ones doing it because they want to help their fellow man & do not expect a reward in afterlife & do it out of the goodness in their hearts (in the truest sense) or the ones who have been taught from childhood on that god rewards only the good ?!?? think about that ;)
Medhiv83 1 year ago
Comment removed
Medhiv83 1 year ago
Comment removed
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
i must be speaking german, dunno: to who newton, tesla and all the other acredited their findings to, is once again, besides the point! its about their findings itself and that they stand and fall on a scientific podium and not on the basis of how devout they believed in god! is this really so hard to understand? i fail to understand why you still think that this argument is valid in any way FOR your prefered belief-system ?!??
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
no one is born agnostic, as the definition of such requires an awareness of a certain conflict, but not enough given thought to make a (conscious) choice! children are born without any knowledge of human-invented mytho-historical figures and are therefore atheists, but can be taught to believe in god! we do and practice after all only what we have learned from our parents, teachers, friends, etc.
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
also to describe humans as corrupt, is a fallacy based on theology, which also assumes out of nothing, that our species needs saving from a devine creator, instead of utilizing the capacity our species has, to better our own self, people wait for rapture ... how smart! someone who had studied philosophy without a god in the back of his mind and had any idea about population mechanics and the former mentioned should understand that!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lichtspielhaus234
and once more, scientific understanding and atheism, do have a strong correlation, which is proven in countless figures of people with greater understanding of biology, chemistry, etc. being 10 times more like to not hold any belief! science by default tries to explain the natural, not the supernatural, which god is part of! but there is another correlation here too, the fact that the more and more we understand the smaller the portion of the supernatural world becomes!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
and it is a fairy-tale book, considering that it has been historically proven that its been rewritten a few times, to suit the ones in power at the time, and revised, copy and pasted, moderatly improved, but still the same boring self-contradicting theory! the bible/quran/torah needs no further falsification when you understand the wider connection between certain dates and events happening in all three of them ;) just look up how many saviors have been resurrected on easter!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
and once more, scientific understanding and atheism, do have a strong correlation, which is proven in countless figures of people with greater understanding of biology, chemistry, etc. being 10 times more like to not hold any belief! science by default tries to explain the natural, not the supernatural, which god is part of! but there is another correlation here too, the fact that the more and more we understand the smaller the portion of the supernatural world becomes!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
Comment removed
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
if you care to read about it, you'll notice that at least newton more or less stumbled about his 3 laws! and by that i do not mean that he had an apple fall on his head, but a few conveniently timed circumstances in his life led to the discoveries he made! as for tesla, i'm admittedly not this familiar with his lively background, but still it is highly unlikely they set out directly to prove something about god/religion and become historically recognized on purpose!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
and if you had any history lessons at all that included communist regimes and their workings, you'd know that in these regimes the will of people to believe, and their belief in itself was as strong as in most cases comparable to the bible-belt in the USA, because of the very fact that the state tries/tried to decide FOR the people, that religion was bad! communism works just awesome on paper, but is given our animal heritage and drive unachievable ;)
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
when raised theistic you can educate yourself to a point where your belief becomes unimportant or unnecessary or you actively decide to not believe, which is agreeably pretty stupid, as it looks like an act of defiance ... the worst atheists come from this! but when raised without religion, there is absolutely NOTHING missing in your life ... something, seeing where you apparently come from, is impossible for you, as you have obviously been raised religious ...!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
no actually it is a quite logical argument by which to discredit your opponent, as you evidently base your assumptions (and thats what you said yourself) on metaphysics and philosophy instead of the field its taking place in: biology! and again i am NOT trying to invalidate the bible, as no fairy-tale book needs veri- or falsification, instead i am attempting to disprove uneducated ideas about evolution and the way it works!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
math, is a language and can by definition not been discovered but must've been invented! and yes, in advance to your next stupid assumption: it is the language of physics and subsequently of all natural sciences! and math got nothing to do with truth, its the language we use to describe and further investigate our assumptions of the universe! kudos, on not understanding even the simplest of terms ;)
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
i don't need to meassure myself to tesla and newton in anyway, and if i had to, i'd do it in the arena of science, were those two had credit! as said only creationist morons stick to the beliefs of past geniuses in the faint hope of somehow turning the tide and inspiring a new generation of people to throw their life aways because the device accelleration pusher said so!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
YOUR bias, is far beyond debatable, you're half way up gods ass the way you act & fight evolution! i on the other hand was raised in eastern europe while still communist, therefore knew about god, but was never motivated to learn anything about it! though i admit that the concept of god does sound nice & around puberty i had a very brief time where my interesst in it exceeded its use! but hey i'm a big star trek fan too, and you don't see me praying to gene roddenberry
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
the problem with atheism to put it bluntly, although i can imagine your answer is: we're one step further, yes nobody wants to be left behind or be the last to cross the finish line, but that's the way the rules are! a few winners, a whole lot of losers ... i didn't make the rules, i live by them! a theist will NEVER be able to understand an atheist truly as a true polytheist (not this crap from today, but say someone from rome ca. 0 AD) could never understand a monotheist!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
only difference here to most other systems of this basis, is that atheism is nothing actively declarable! you don't wake up one day and say "hey, i am an atheist" you actually don't give a damn about god and don't bother your mind with anything religious until one day the topic is brought up somewhere and you realise that it has no bearing for you, therefore you are an atheist.
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
by saying that evolution is flawed, you are implying (i knew you were to chicken) that you have some sort of creditbility in this area! you're a philosopher, fine then practice your profession and phantasize about the world but stop advancing stupidity in the world by being too narrowminded to learn about a topic before spouting shit, you know virtually nothing about!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
darwin: anglican, einstein: deist, hawking: agnostic, newton: catholic, galileo: catholic, gregor mendel: augustinian monk (FFS) ... you see a pattern there? their religiousity as said before, may be interessting on a philosophical level, but on a scientific one, it has no merrit! their findings led to a better understanding of the physical world in a purely scientific way, one which does not require a god! but is governed (if you will) by physically measurable forces!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
@ newton & tesla: YES on a philosophical level they failed, because only creationist give a crap today about their religious world-views, because they can then claim that "those discoveries were made by believers" whoo ... only someone who does NOT comprehend the implications of their findings in today's physics would claim that it reinforces belief in anyway! their beliefs maybe interesting on a philosophical level, granted, but on a scientific on theiy're just IRRELEVANT
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
i understand the notion to understand more, but common, can you honestly tell me that you are unbiased when it concerns the conflict of religion and science? and contrary to the general belief, there is one ... at least the fact that 99% of people engaged in scientific areas, are atheists/agnostics/deists should give you a clue as to the "why" of this fact! better understanding of the physical world does not lead instantly away from religion but will do so in most cases!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
you still fail to deliver an argument, period! but i am starting to feel sorry for your inability to see that, you're watching creationist propaganda videos, that every biology-teacher can refute, yet claim to have, based on this crap-science ideas, proof of evolution being flawed ?!?? i can only repeat myself: philosophy, bible stuff and the study of the greek language do NOT qualify you in any way to do so in any realistic way! !!!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
plus you either don't understand or don't want to understand my newton argument! what i meant was that newton's world-views are completely irrelevant to his laws! wether he was atheist, deist, catholic, etc. doesn't matter and has nothing to do with his theories and the 3 laws devised from them!
i also added that, what ever his intent was, it led to new discoveries and advancement, not reinforcement in believe, as his laws showed no need for a devine acceleration-pusher ;)
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
so you just showed that for you its all about god, not the advancement of knowledge or some disputable holes in a scientific theory! and my argument still stands as you have again failed to deliver any explanation that would contradict it! simple as that ... but i do have to give you credit for being a true philosopher in dancing around the issue instead of taking up on it and delivering a counter-argument!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
that is THE weakest argument ever: it doesn't matter what certain historical figures believed at the time they came up with their ideas ... newton's laws hold their ground, and would still do so, even if he had been a catholic priest or the pontifex himself! he may have set out to reinforce the believe in a devine creator, but it ultimately went the other way around, same goes for every other notable figure that has contributed to real science!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
how about you google the genome of the banana and when you understand why we share 50% of our genes with a plant and its fruit you may be a little closer in understanding our relationship to a few other species and our own ancestry!
as for philosophy teaching critical thinking, well didn't do the job right for you! especially not, when considering that evolutionary biology has proven creationism/id time and again wrong! again, you have NO evidence for your claims!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
so philosophers are DEEP thinkers ... nice, never knew that i need to take a curriculum in using my own brain to give a little thought about the things happening in the world ;) and don't bother writing an answer to that as your last 3 were just rants, because you have still nothing scientifically valid to add to the topic except for your outcry of "how could a fish change into a man" ... pretty childish, some DEEP thinkers might agree on O_o
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
i was merely implying that a 2nd semester physics student has a little more insight into applied science that someone who took philosophy and/or the other mentioned subjects! but if you don't like it, hey who am i to argue with an philosopher, right?
and "chose your pick" was meant as in "take your pick" but i guess the english language is too hard on some of us ...!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
as for phylosophy, i fail to understand why people of this profession always think that anyone gives a crap about their most sincere "thoughts" ... once again, if we're talking science, we're talking observation and understanding of the underlying conditions! that's actual evidence corroborating with your findings and postulating a theory which then, stands or falls!
phylosophy by that token ist shallow at best and realtive, depending your stance at worst! choose your pick
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
ok so to sum up, what took 2 posts for you: you have NO idea of the fields i have mentioned !!! sorry, but : phylosophy, bible study, graphic design ?!?? the best you are entitled to, with such an educational background, is assmumtions on the human condition in sociological terms and aestethics! what little "science" was encompassed in it is most likely negligable ...
@ myself: 2nd semester into physics
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
honor student, deans list ... say what? and in what field or subject would that be ?!?? perhaps philosophy or some other subject that doesn't even touch evolutionary biology?
what ever your area of expertise is, it surely has nothing to do with chemistry, biology or physics for that matter, does it? but then again this is youtube and every wackjob with the IQ of a lemon can claim what ever he wants to because he has found the right podium to show his mental dick and pomp!!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
you pose no real question to answer, period! you have engrained this curious thought of an aquatic creature resembling todays fish that will somehow miraculously transform into a human being, in your head & hammer it where ever you can!
you want to be this dead beat stupid? okay ... over the course of 2 billion years we evolved from an aquatic creature (or fish if you will) into homo sapiens! i fail to see the problem with this, somehow you do still have an issue with that!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
look, if you accept, that micro-evolution exists, but flat out deny macro-evolution, then you obviously didn't even attend math-class in school! one is the subset of the other! if micro-evolution exists, then the amount of mutations and gradual progressions will, given enough time, constitute what we call a "new" species (!) and you call THIS illogical?
ahh, ok, i see ... you do understand, but are more the "willfully ignorant" type, aren't you?
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
i do always wonder: do you even understand the words you're using, or do you just catch 'em in as the fly around you and what ever sounds good is just parroted until it not only sounds right, but you think is right!
the logical conclusion to a long chain of micro-evolutionary events IS macro-evolution! but i guess willful ignorance is way better than to actually have to think about the whole issue, is it now? as said: you don't believe it, fine, then stop using any meds!!!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
Mutiliating ones willy after one is born will not influence natural selection!
JurassicPlank 1 year ago
Is this a junior high school project or something?
Full marks for effort, Well done!
Old Charlie would be shaking in his boots.
6 day creation sounds so much more plausible.
amul83 1 year ago
Intelligent Design rules!
Go check out Ben Stein vs Richard Dawkins, lmao!
Then the next one is Lee Strobel, case for a creator...
I hope you people are not bias at all...
KevinVang1000 2 years ago
text book evolution is that random mutations in DNA result in new species. if there is another thoory of evo. please tell me what it is and complain that it is not being taught in schools or universities.
ruben18753 2 years ago
why must evolution be the bane of scientific and medical advancement? ther are so many discoveries made by scientists using an intelligent desighn method (use an engineering degree to understand the complex nature of cells and organs) that are ignored and thown out along with their discoverers for rejecting darwin while evolution has not contribute anything besides a scientific excuse for racism and genocide.
ruben18753 2 years ago
@ruben18753
if evolution didn't work, every pharmaceutical, every inch of medicine we know and apply, from genetics to vaccination, would unravel itself !!! they are so intertwined that you cannot pull this one string out, without the whole thing coming apart ... applied inconsistencies held as truth and propagated as such, is the realm of mysticism and religion, not science!
no one looking at the facts can deny that, unless he/she's into religion or some other form of supernaturalism
Medhiv83 1 year ago
Why must religion be the bane of scientific and societal advancement?
JWonn 3 years ago
Evolution was absaloutley not by coincidence.This video says that micro-organisms cannot occur randomly in nature,but then says that all life occured in a flash.How is that possible?When has that ever happened?All organisms GRADUALLY form from conception.Why dont we still appear in a flash,why would"god" hinder our reproduction by prolonging our development by 9 months.If you find a tiny crack in the theory of evolution,dont just say "It was all thanks to god"
cornflakeclusters 3 years ago
R.I.C.H.A.R.D. D.A.W.K.I.N.S. = "Random Innovation Couldn't Have Arranged RNA/DNA! DNA's Alphabet/Working Kinetics Impugns Natural Selection!"
Acronym77 4 years ago
OMG this must be true. animals cant arise by "chance". This must mean they just appeared one day and started humping and eating one another.
KitPandorius 4 years ago 2
This is so ignorant it's funny. Firstly Evolution occurs only within a population over time, so a population of deer could evolve into horses if given the correct stimuli and about ten million years. Also physical traits are coded in genes, and therefor can be inherited. examine the pea plant experiments which have been performed for 600 years, they demonstrate the inheriting of traits.
LordOOTFD 4 years ago
these are no more than mere 'ássumptions'and it will always be no more than that.
facezy 4 years ago
Look up Gregor Mendel, his experiments prove inheritance, which is the keystone of evolution.
LordOOTFD 4 years ago
For over thousands of years, jewish and Arab people circumcised their men.. so why are they still born with the skin still attached when evolution should have done its work through inheritance like you say, being born without the skin?
facezy 4 years ago 2
This is a misconception regarding evolution, acquired physical Traits cannot be inherited via genetics. An acquired physical trait such as circumcision is not coded into the DNA and it not a inheritable trait. something such as skin color, or body shape is coded, and facilitates evolution. inheritance of physical traits hasn't been considered for centuries.
LordOOTFD 4 years ago
@facezy Because circumcision doesn't alter an individual's genetics. If you know so little about this subject to think that is a real argument, you really shouldn't be voicing an opinion.
captainpanic08 1 year ago 2
ALLAH a nasıl hesap veriyosun acaba
CARSI49 4 years ago