How can there be a discussion of what to include in a science text book outside of academia. How could lawyers or businessman be allowed to decide what to include.
These sorts of arguments shouldn't be allowed to exist. The average theist has a lower IQ than the average atheist. We know intelligent design is rubbish but creationists can not comprehend it or refuse to learn. Eventually the atheists should be able to overcome the theists and do what they think is best without having to listen to clearly always irrational people.
Wow, just wow. NOVA has always been a jewel in PBS's crown but this episode is one of those facets that catch the light just right. Keep shining bright.
How dare Pat Robertson criticize the people of Dover for what they did! I don't care how influential you have been in your lifetime, you don't have the right to say something like that when it has already been established that religion and school need to be separated. The people of Dover didn't reject God from their city, they realized that there needs to be separation from religion and school and acted on it. It's disgusting how adults act when they don't get what they want.
Okay let's get this right. Evolution is the FACT. Natural Selection is the THEORY (Charles Darwin's THEORY of Natural Selection. Though it should now be known to be fact as Natural Selection can be supported by the fossil record, adaptations in animals that are living, and in microbiology. The evidence is all around us, I cannot fathom why some people think it does not exist. -_-
Sorry Phillip.. You gotta be happy cause ID is at its most influential now that you are alive, but when you die ID will be discarded like the flat earth, Yec and the Macarena.
How could a retired cop be a creationist? He thinks he made a career out of arresting divinely made creatures? An intellion creator would create things to where people can make careeers out of throwing people in cages?
A god would make creatures that need to spend their lives in cages?
He thinks whats taught in science class is going to cut down on crime I guess......yeah thats what cops want .....LESS crime....LESS to do.....ok...wink wink.
The 'John Loves Mary' argument is a weak one. How often do we see images on toast, watermelons, cows that suggest the name of allah or the image of the virgin mary? What is the christian response to islamic apparitions? What is the islamic response to christian apparitions? Accident? Random occurrence? Religion fails miserably.
"It isn't a law of science, it isn't a fact, it's a theory" @00:48:05. These creationists really need to learn basic history of science. People called some things "laws" and it stuck. It's just naming. It was from a certain era. Nowadays, scientists are more modest, and use the word theory. But it is essentially _THE SAME THING_.
I recommend watching 3min37seconds into v=O7YV6iIxTJ0 ("The Universe 8 - Neil deGrasse Tyson - The Big Bang") which explains this in a way that is easy to grasp.
@0debug Actually no. A scientific law is a repeatable observable occurrence within the universe itself. Thermodynamics is always consistent. Gravity is always consistent. Pressure is always consistent. A scientific theory is a well created explanation relating these various laws to the observations gained from well tested experimentation. Regardless, a scientific theory is STILL considered fact among scientists and not just an assumption. The former is correct, the latter wrong.
@TheAmericanforJesus Again, "law" and "theory" are just words for the same thing, from different eras, and we're not renaming all the "laws" into "theories" because it's easier to let them keep their names. Newton's laws of motion are just theories (i.e. explanations) of things that are observed at normal (low) speeds. Today, it would have been called a theory.
Like I wrote a week ago, Tyson summarizes it efficiently in that clip. You should watch it, and learn some science.
Who controls my body? - My brain? - My mind? - I guess - but who controls my mind? - I AM - WHO I AM?
im not my body since my mind controls it - through the nervous system - and I control my brain/MIND - so I AM NOT that too - im not "my birthgiven name by someone else" WHO AM I?
The hypocritical lies, and shady acts are yet another example of what a belief in an imaginary god character has had creationist doing to promote their nonsensical belief in schools. Ultimately, imaginary/non-existent things cannot be independently tested, and/or verified; therefore they are not science. And the result of the Dover trial; was good because reason, rationality and verifiable truth won over delusion, ignorance and fairy tales. ;O)
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
hello religious people all over the world, this is god speaking, i hacked this dude's account to bring you this message! Darwin was right! you evolved to beings not yet in my image. untill you people start using common sence and the scientific method to find a sustainable way of living, you will not be much more intelligent than monkeys. As long as you blindly follow ancient missinterpreted scriptures or leaders and companies you will be unaware of the gifts i intended you to have. peace 2y'all
Oh! And a freaking great documentary! I just love how the "Darwinists" (that is such a stupid term) presented tons upon endless tons of sophisticated, multi-decade evidence/explanations for the scientifically rigorous evolutionary theory,and LITERALLY all the "cdesignists" (lol) could say was "well... that's still not enough to convince me!" It is painfully obvious that all ID has is negative evidence (hey! you can't explain this one thing to me, so my BS theory is automatically right!)
"So, the correct term for this transitional form is cdesign proponentsist... Everyone now refers to this as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design."
I literally ROFL'ed when I heard this little bit of genius from that guy! xD.
Wow! I think that's the 3rd time I've watched that video and it still blows me away! The science teachers and the ACLU are HEROES! As for Bonsall, and Buckingham; what a pair of unconscionable, despicable, unethical clowns. Attempting to ram religion straight down the throats of a captive audience in the science class in direct violation of the US constitution?! They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Good on the people of Dover for throwing the inept school board out on their collective arses!
"In the beginning god created, that's all I need to know"
This is an example of why this way of thinking is anti-science as it discourages learning, discovery, curiosity, etc which is fundamental to scientific progress.
Robertson "I would like to say to the good citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city"
Well if there is a disaster in the area, why turn to God?, the disaster is caused by your god, you should be happy with his decitions".
@saintpine "[...] I heard about the big bang and the theory of evolution only at the age of about 45."
Sorry to hear that you missed out on some of the most fundamental and important parts of modern knowledge in biology and astrophysics for so long. But I'm glad you finally got to learn about it. The universe as revealed via science is magnificent and interesting.
I'm honestly so happy that these science teachers stood up to this, as they should have. Too many teachers now a days believe in this shit themselves, and cry that they would be depriving their students of something "If they were to teach them only about a natural process, when it's so obvious God doesn't need natural processes". American ignorance sickens me :(
@JungleJargon Too bad this isn't true... 1 minute of simply saying that it's not true, 2 more minutes of hailing our "Maker", and one simple title and short description illustrating a point that's been proven wrong hundreds of times before.
@b33p3rz People doubt evolution is possible because objects forces and mutations do not order any information. Science has failed to show where the supposed information is coming from.
We laugh about it in the morning, we laugh about it in the afternoon and we laugh about it at night or whenever we think about it. Objects, forces and mutations do not order any thing any time any where.
Function, on the other hand, working inside us, proves there is a Maker of the esssential working elements.
1:18:00 -> They proved that Intelligent design evolved from creationism... bravo !! Why does it have to be God or science ? Teaching ID will cause US kids to become non-competitive, is it worth all this smoke and mirrors !!
Intelligent Design/Creationism ultimately isn't about science or being "fair minded", but about pushing a particular social order. Basically, believers want to preserve/restore a society where not just Christianity, but THEIR version of Christianity is the dominant social force -- and naturally they would personally be on top of that social structure. In other words, it is an ultimately selfish movement meant to enforce their social privileges and advantages.
It is not that things are too complex to have come through evolution, it is the science that is too complex for them to understand, so they need something so ridiculously simple to fill that gap.
Sometimes I think that reading fantasy books such as Harry Potter is healthier than reading any religious scriptures. They are tainted with the lowly origins of our morality.
0:25 Well sir, the Civil War can be verified by historical fact. We have firsthand accounts of it. Where are the firsthand accounts of people who were alive millions of years ago that can testify to the theory that species evolve from one form to another?
@leeharveyosmosis We don't either, and that is why ID is called a "theory" too. The only difference between the theory of ID and the theory of evolution is that the education system teaches gives special preference to the theory of evolution. It treats it as though it's fact and does not allow for the objective presentation of alternatives.
Well holocaust "revisionism", the flat earth, and other alternative ideas should be taught in school as well. Intelligent Design has been rejected by almost the entire legitimate scientific community. The United States seems to be about the only industrialized nation where this is a "controversy". On a side note the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about God-who ever is/isn't behind the process is beyond the scope of science.
@leeharveyosmosis Because nobody wants to admit the possibility. Because in doing so, they would have to admit that there is a higher order to the universe, and that, "Oh NO!", they might actually be responsible for certain moral tresspasses that they must atone for. Selfishness is why we are having this discussion. Because those people and everyone else like them do not want to admit that they have to take responsibility for their actions.
....finding out if there is a higher order to the universe is beyond the scope of science. They can only deal with the evidence that is available to them. You're assuming that no religious people agree with evolution.
@leeharveyosmosis And those other ideas have been scientificly proven false. The world has been circumnavigated and pictured from space and records everywhere attest the the Holocaust, unless someone is clever enough to learn how to erase it from official sources.
They would be beyond the scope of science though, because any creator who made this world would have to be otherwise he wouldn't be able to control it.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch "Intelligent" Design isn't a true scientific theory. There is no evidence for the claims it makes. This is why it hasn't been successfully peer-reviewed. Most of the arguments for "Intelligent" Design are arguments to disprove the theory of evolution. The difference between the two is that ID has a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it, but evolutionary theory looks for evidence to come up with a conclusion. Hence why ID Isn't Science.
@j03y2fly If that's tru, then let's take a look at the simple cell or the flagellum's motor. Both of those are so complex that mutation could not have been their origin. In fact, most mutations we see today are disadvantages rather than advantages that evolution claims. If just one of the pieces were out of place it would not work, so if they weren't all together in the beginning how is it possible they could arise. Someone forming them is much more logical and simpler explanation.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch The "irreducible complexity of the flagellum" has been disproven so many times not only in court but right here on YouTube it's really not worth my time getting in to it. Do some research; look up a couple of videos, watch This video, and throw this horrific argument in the garbage.
@laflugantabastardo I watched the clip you pointed out and was disappointed that such an illogical argument comes from university professor. So the syringe thingy is missing parts that the flagellum motor contains and yet functions perfectly, in contrast the the IC argument right? Has anybody stopped to think that the syringe functions perfectly without those other parts because it has a different function that does not require those parts? The argument is invalid.
Not... really. That's not an oversight. In fact, it's the point. IC requires it to be too complexed to have evolved from a different state. It's an oversight on Behe's part that structures can do more than one thing.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch As a non believer I actually find myself on the same page. The mousetrap argument kind of explained it better though. The function changes but the parts remain. But I'm too tired to think if that argument survives the scrutiny. I mean dinosaurs with feathers changed function from simple show-off feathers and became flying ones. Same way a needle can become a motor perhaps. A better mutation occurred that changed to function.
@scrap222666 Show off feathers would have been a big part of sexual selection at a time when they didn't need to compete physically with another species or their own as much, but feathers also acted as amazing ways to preserve heat as well.
@scrap222666 Lol I think it only really allowed a creature to glide slightly when they were big enough, but yea, I probably got the little guy laid :D
@megag52 You're saying that my scientific view of how creationism is wrong is the exact same view held by the 19 men who supposedly had a go at being pilots (Some of them are still alive, like seriously, the official story is bullshit)? Are you saying that because I simply don't believe there is a designer of life, I'll go about taking down a skyscraper? or that because those men didn't believe in your specific designer, thats why they took out the skyscraper? What the hell do you even mean?
@AstroAntaAposAnarch No, that is the exact point of the argument. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, when complex features aren't designed specifically for their current form as they are. The flagellum obviously had a different function, and then it started being able to move itself through it's environment, that it slowly built upon, adding new functions as it went. We're not trying to preserve it's ability to move, what's showcased is it's ability to still live practically.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch people seriously still run on this argument? This has been debunked SO many times that even the research on this flagellum addressed this issue before the argument even existed.
@leeharveyosmosis Theory means the explanation of. That's why it's called a theory, because it explains evolutionary processes. Eye witness accounts mean NOTHING in science. Everything in science has to be tested based on the scientific method, including physical evidence at hand.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Evolution is verified by modern DNA and genetics lol. Forget about the Thousands of fossils, those are just icing on the cake. Whether you agree with how the explanation of how we evolved are true or not, it is a fact that all living things have evolved.
If one chooses to believe only in Darwins theory, I would hope they understand that the probability of any one cell eventually evolving into a human, is close to the probability of one person winning every lottery drawing in the U.S. for a year straight. I certainly wouldn't stake anything I own, on anything with that astronomical of a probability, much less take it as 100% fact
@TheQuestionall I hope you understand that probability means absolutely nothing and is completely disingenuous when the event has already occurred. The simple fact is, the reason life in on earth is because the conditions are here so life would be able to uprise. Life won't uprise on mercury because it doesn't have the conditions for life to exist! No one says any scientific theory is 100% fact. We don't have a 100% concept of gravity nor does any serious scientist claim to.
@j03y2fly You contradict yourself in this very statement, by saying it has already occured, and then turning around and saying its not 100% fact. I am not challenging you to a debate, as I do understand the theory and its compelling arguements, I do however resent the fact that, evolution, which is a theory, is taught as the only option in schools. Creationism has just as compelling of arguements, and since neither can be 100% proven, I would say you would have to be......to simply teach 1
@TheQuestionall Evolution has occurred, but there isn't 100% fact of exactly how. Gravity occurs, but we don't know 100% how it occurs was my analogy. "Which is a theory." Define what a theory is please. I will not read a single word of what you type until you define to me what theory is.
@j03y2fly So just to be clear, your saying the law of gravity is still a theory?
Don't you find it just a little odd that life could rise on Earth, which if Im not mistaken, was once a barren piece of volcanic rock like mercury? If so, then would compels you to say life could never rise on mercury? Couldn't it be a different form of life that we simply haven't observed or concieved yet.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Still a theory? I don't understand what you mean to imply by that, but yes, there is gravitational theory to explain gravity. Theory means to explain scientifically. I don't know what you think theory means, but if you understood the definition of theory, you'd make a lot more sense.
@TheQuestionall Theory in science means "the explanation of." That is why there is gravitational theory to explain how the laws of gravity work. Evolutionary Theory explains how the laws of evolution of earth occurs. You would either have to be ignorant, a psycho, or deliberately ignoring scientific evidence of evolution to say that evolution doesn't occur. A wonderful example is bacteria. You've never wondered why we always need to make new medicines to combat bacteria every year?
@TheQuestionall You started as a single cell and evolved into a full human in about 9 months. The probability of something happening in the past is 1:1. That is why you can't bet on past events in Vegas. The probability of it happening again exactly the same way it already did in the past is astronomical.
@TheQuestionall You realize that no matter how stupid your little anology is, "Winning every lottery drawing in the US for a year straight" isn't that incredible when you finish the sentence. - If you played every lottery drawing in the world every single second of every single day of every single year for hundreds of millions of years. No one takes evolution as 100% fact, because it's a theory, it's an explanation of facts. Organisms evolve, you have to face it.
As far as the seperation of church and state, it sickens me to see this part of our constitution to be bent to protect atheistic views. The reason that was put in, was infact to disallow the crusades of the catholic church from ever happening in our country. The fact of the matter is this country was founded on the principles of religion, if you dont believe that, I challenge you to read the declaration of independence, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
@TheQuestionall It specifically says in the U.S. Constitution that religion is not allowed to be promoted, funded, or disparaged by the state (government). Public schools are funded by the state, therefore no religious ideologies or religious "theories" (creation myths) will be taught in public schools. The fact of the matter is this country was founded on principles of secularism. The U.S. Declaration of Independence was a document freeing us from British control.,,
@j03y2fly Did you read it? I know what the declaration of independence is, I just wonder if you read the same thing I have, it definitely references to a creator or God in the very first declarations.
@TheQuestionall You seem to have your history mixed up. The U.S. Constitution is the one that is the framework for the organization of the government and the relationship of the feds with the states, citizens, ect. No where in the constitution does it say that "Thou shalt not kill because it says so in the bible." It states that killing is against the law because it brings statistical harm to the society. Every human morality can be explained with "divine" inspiration.
@j03y2fly Which would imply the United States being founded on religion would it not? Because without some base of moral absolutes, it is impossible to create a sustainable legal system.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch And where do you think the people that created religion came up with their morals to write in their scripture? They were morals that they already had. Hence why their morals are alright with slavery and dehumanizing towards women, because in those days those things were widely accepted. Just another reason why no religious book is "divinely inspired."
@j03y2fly That is one theory. I don't happen hold that view. Any designer that is intelligent enough to create this universe is intelligent enough to get us a message. If you don't believe that there are moral absolutes given from outside creator or architect then how can you see slavery or dehumanization is wrong. If you have no base to reference your morals too, you cannot prove to me those are wrong. You can have an opinion about them, but opinion is all it will be.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Can you name a single religion that says slavery is bad? No. This is something that humans over time have come to realize is immoral based on statistical evidence for the progress of a society and humanitarian rights. Any morality that religion provides can be achieved by secular means. A shark will devour a human, but why not themselves (same species)? Do sharks believe in a god? Does any god mention sharks being given a moral compass? Morality is not given by the divine.
@j03y2fly Yours clearly; and might imagine Buddhism as well. The modern worlds morality is derived, though certainly not the same, from religion althougth people won't admit it. In any case, you are right that the morality that you follow is not divine. Any morality not inspired by the divine is not morality. That's why there is a need for an outside source. It doesn't matter what the numbers say and animals aren't the issue.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch You still haven't gotten the concept that the morals that humans have kept from religion through the years were first thought up when men wrote them thousands of years ago. They didn't get their morals from a divine being, they thought of them based on what I said in the previous comment. How are animals not the issue? Humans are mammals.
@j03y2fly You just said "from religion." The majority of human race invented their morality true, but got the idea from their religion and twisted those ideas to meet their views. I believe some were divinely inspired though and there is a big difference between humans and animals.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch You do know man-kind and civilization are older then religion correct? How was any morality divinely inspired if all of the religious scripture was written and thought of by man based on simple common senses such as "Murder is bad because if people kill more than we reproduce, our species will go extinct."? It's very simple how pre-historic humans based their moralities.
Referring to morality, describe the differences between Humans and Bonbons.
@j03y2fly Agreed to the first and morality existed before the humans because it was written before they were created to the second. Does a father wait for his children to be born before he decides what is and isn't allowed, or does he have the rules already set? Poor example as some fathers are soft on this issue, but you get the point.
I don't know what a Bonbon is. I'll leave it for the morning.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Well all father's are different, but personally as a father I base my morals on the consequences of my actions and the effect my actions will have on others. This moral base of mine was achieved by secular means due to statistical common sense. Bonbons are these cute primates, I've recently uploaded a video on them, check it out for a better understanding.
@j03y2fly It is my belief that all people are blank slates at birth and they they are given their moral base by the prevailing culture of their initial environment. While they could summon statistics to base their decisions, it may require them to replace their entire foundation, which is uncomfortable. You use the morals you use because I think you were raised that way. Suppose you were put in a culture that held the opposite, despite the statistics,, would your mathematical base hold?
@AstroAntaAposAnarch No, but why would that be considered logical? Simply because I was born in a different culture wouldn't change the answer of 1+1 (metaphor).
@j03y2fly Some cultures like the Aztec held moral bases that we would consider impractical. Famous example, they committed mass human sacrifice which caused their population to tank. If they based their morals on purely on observed statistics, wouldn't you think they would avoid such actions?
Second, would you not agree that any divinely inspired morals, as I've explained the origin of above, would match the statistical practicality, assuming there is a Creator?
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Radical Islamic cultures are considered impractical today, does this mean that they're justified to their moral basis of stoning people for a mere accusation going against their laws? There is an overt moral obviousness that religion seems to miss when civilization is evolving and the religious texts aren't. They would be able to avoid such actions if their religion didn't tell them it was "what god wanted."
Your origin is of your own creation with no empirical evidence.
Now I am not saying evolution dosen't exist at all, there is a difference in Darwins microevolution theory, and macroevolution. Macroevolution is the minor differences in species, such as a great dane and a chihuahua they are different but both are dogs.
@TheQuestionall Says that micro evolution is possible but not macro evolution is saying that walking to the kitchen is possible but walking to the grocery store is impossible. Your reference to dogs is speciation, which isn't an example of macro evolution because we haven't been able to observe macro evolution in dogs. If you watch one of my previous videos on the speciation of butterflies, you'll see that soon we'll actually be able to witnesses this species evolve to much that they won't be...
@AstroAntaAposAnarch The connection with the grocery store is an analogy of describing speciation, which is an evolutionary process. Dogs can be seen to evolving with so much diversity that they won't be able to have offspring with other dogs, it'll just take time. The butterflies in a previous video of mine however have gone through the speciation process - you should watch the video, it's short and simple.
@TheQuestionall Says that micro evolution is possible but not macro evolution is saying that walking to the kitchen is possible but walking to the grocery store is impossible. Your reference to dogs is speciation, which isn't an example of macro evolution because we haven't been able to observe macro evolution in dogs. If you watch one of my previous videos on the speciation of butterflies, you'll see that soon we'll actually be able to witnesses this species evolve to much that they won't be..
@TheQuestionall ..able to mate anymore due to long-term (macro) effects of speciation. Google speciation if you need a definition, I'm not holding a science class.
Darwin himself said: (and I am paraphrasing) If within 100 years, the millions of transitional species are not found, that would need to be present, my theory would completely collapse in on itself. it is now somthing like 150 years later and we are yet to find just one of these species let alone the millions needed to prove his theory to be true. It is a shame people have been programed to believe this garbage, only on the premise that, it is what they've been taught in school.
This is a great documentary. The testimony of the defense experts really highlights how highly educated people can make themselves believe highly questionable things and how faith can make them twist facts to fit their worldview. I look forward to the day when these crazies finally give up trying to destroy science and send us back to the dark ages.
I just wonder if some person way back had not come up with the book of Genesis what would all these intelligent design people cling to?
sabinerey 1 day ago
How can there be a discussion of what to include in a science text book outside of academia. How could lawyers or businessman be allowed to decide what to include.
sabinerey 1 day ago
AND FUCK SANTORUM TOO
flyingfrog23 5 days ago
THERE AINT NO FUCKING CONTROVERSY ABOUT EVOLUTION YOU DIPSHIT
flyingfrog23 5 days ago
@flyingfrog23 It's only a controversy because theists do not have the reasoning ability to accept what we see under the microscope (retarded idiots).
Sneak173 4 days ago
These sorts of arguments shouldn't be allowed to exist. The average theist has a lower IQ than the average atheist. We know intelligent design is rubbish but creationists can not comprehend it or refuse to learn. Eventually the atheists should be able to overcome the theists and do what they think is best without having to listen to clearly always irrational people.
PlaneAU 6 days ago
I saw this on DVD and I love it. I recommend it highly. .
philosophymajor87 1 week ago
Wow, just wow. NOVA has always been a jewel in PBS's crown but this episode is one of those facets that catch the light just right. Keep shining bright.
LiqnLag 1 week ago
That lawyer should have no say on scientific matters, after all he's a lawyer and not a biologist.
foda23 1 week ago
Why is the board of education always filled with laymen?
MalchikBlue 1 week ago
How dare Pat Robertson criticize the people of Dover for what they did! I don't care how influential you have been in your lifetime, you don't have the right to say something like that when it has already been established that religion and school need to be separated. The people of Dover didn't reject God from their city, they realized that there needs to be separation from religion and school and acted on it. It's disgusting how adults act when they don't get what they want.
sezwat121892 2 weeks ago
That Eric Rothchild is doing a good thing in oposite to other Rothchilds
mappingtheshit 3 weeks ago
Okay let's get this right. Evolution is the FACT. Natural Selection is the THEORY (Charles Darwin's THEORY of Natural Selection. Though it should now be known to be fact as Natural Selection can be supported by the fossil record, adaptations in animals that are living, and in microbiology. The evidence is all around us, I cannot fathom why some people think it does not exist. -_-
Icu8p 1 month ago
Sorry Phillip.. You gotta be happy cause ID is at its most influential now that you are alive, but when you die ID will be discarded like the flat earth, Yec and the Macarena.
cperez1000 1 month ago
How could a retired cop be a creationist? He thinks he made a career out of arresting divinely made creatures? An intellion creator would create things to where people can make careeers out of throwing people in cages?
A god would make creatures that need to spend their lives in cages?
He thinks whats taught in science class is going to cut down on crime I guess......yeah thats what cops want .....LESS crime....LESS to do.....ok...wink wink.
wideosvatcher 1 month ago
Creationism is for unevolved PEOPLE
The Constitution does not have anything good to say about religion
hmmm gee think its trying to clue us in on something?
and creationists are so patriotic....they LOVE Americans...they just hate Americans that dont join their cults.those and Americans in different cults.
wideosvatcher 1 month ago
What an awesome feel good story.
Atheeizm 1 month ago in playlist NOVA
Truth and true, belief and believe, very different connotations depending on which side of the fence you are.
benaberry 1 month ago
The 'John Loves Mary' argument is a weak one. How often do we see images on toast, watermelons, cows that suggest the name of allah or the image of the virgin mary? What is the christian response to islamic apparitions? What is the islamic response to christian apparitions? Accident? Random occurrence? Religion fails miserably.
Atheeizm 1 month ago in playlist NOVA
Whatever he is smoking must have been laced with darwinism.
Jestlow 1 month ago
Comment removed
PrivateJoker17 1 month ago
Please subscribe to my new channel /user/joeycmarchio#p/u/8/DKMpNEKUgpg
j03y2fly 1 month ago
"It isn't a law of science, it isn't a fact, it's a theory" @00:48:05. These creationists really need to learn basic history of science. People called some things "laws" and it stuck. It's just naming. It was from a certain era. Nowadays, scientists are more modest, and use the word theory. But it is essentially _THE SAME THING_.
I recommend watching 3min37seconds into v=O7YV6iIxTJ0 ("The Universe 8 - Neil deGrasse Tyson - The Big Bang") which explains this in a way that is easy to grasp.
0debug 1 month ago
@0debug Actually no. A scientific law is a repeatable observable occurrence within the universe itself. Thermodynamics is always consistent. Gravity is always consistent. Pressure is always consistent. A scientific theory is a well created explanation relating these various laws to the observations gained from well tested experimentation. Regardless, a scientific theory is STILL considered fact among scientists and not just an assumption. The former is correct, the latter wrong.
TheAmericanforJesus 1 month ago
@TheAmericanforJesus Again, "law" and "theory" are just words for the same thing, from different eras, and we're not renaming all the "laws" into "theories" because it's easier to let them keep their names. Newton's laws of motion are just theories (i.e. explanations) of things that are observed at normal (low) speeds. Today, it would have been called a theory.
Like I wrote a week ago, Tyson summarizes it efficiently in that clip. You should watch it, and learn some science.
0debug 1 month ago
Who controls my body? - My brain? - My mind? - I guess - but who controls my mind? - I AM - WHO I AM?
im not my body since my mind controls it - through the nervous system - and I control my brain/MIND - so I AM NOT that too - im not "my birthgiven name by someone else" WHO AM I?
Spandex08 1 month ago
i would say: in ya face BITCH!!!!
MrHiller 1 month ago
BURN religious nuts. man, i love happy endings. SCIENCE FTW !!!!
sanriver12 2 months ago
why am i not surprised all this bullshit gets stirred up down there in redneck land
sanriver12 2 months ago 3
The hypocritical lies, and shady acts are yet another example of what a belief in an imaginary god character has had creationist doing to promote their nonsensical belief in schools. Ultimately, imaginary/non-existent things cannot be independently tested, and/or verified; therefore they are not science. And the result of the Dover trial; was good because reason, rationality and verifiable truth won over delusion, ignorance and fairy tales. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 months ago
>.>wasnt there a movie about this made in the 50's?
MsRobotRock 2 months ago in playlist Evolution and Intelligent Design
@MsRobotRock ah, there it is =D
MsRobotRock 2 months ago in playlist Evolution and Intelligent Design
The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 2 months ago
hello religious people all over the world, this is god speaking, i hacked this dude's account to bring you this message! Darwin was right! you evolved to beings not yet in my image. untill you people start using common sence and the scientific method to find a sustainable way of living, you will not be much more intelligent than monkeys. As long as you blindly follow ancient missinterpreted scriptures or leaders and companies you will be unaware of the gifts i intended you to have. peace 2y'all
Dailydose13 2 months ago
Oh! And a freaking great documentary! I just love how the "Darwinists" (that is such a stupid term) presented tons upon endless tons of sophisticated, multi-decade evidence/explanations for the scientifically rigorous evolutionary theory,and LITERALLY all the "cdesignists" (lol) could say was "well... that's still not enough to convince me!" It is painfully obvious that all ID has is negative evidence (hey! you can't explain this one thing to me, so my BS theory is automatically right!)
hahaha!
saxoman1 2 months ago
1:28:47
"So, the correct term for this transitional form is cdesign proponentsist... Everyone now refers to this as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design."
I literally ROFL'ed when I heard this little bit of genius from that guy! xD.
F**king brilliant!
:'-)
saxoman1 2 months ago 2
Wow! I think that's the 3rd time I've watched that video and it still blows me away! The science teachers and the ACLU are HEROES! As for Bonsall, and Buckingham; what a pair of unconscionable, despicable, unethical clowns. Attempting to ram religion straight down the throats of a captive audience in the science class in direct violation of the US constitution?! They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Good on the people of Dover for throwing the inept school board out on their collective arses!
Dennycrane757 2 months ago
Judge Jones is the man.
FknFloppyFish 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
are you an atheist? please check out my channel :)
theUKatheist 3 months ago
"Laced with Darwnism!"
Oh? I bet you'll find chapters on the THEORY of relativity in physics books laced with "Einsteinism".
TurboDally 4 months ago 4
"In the beginning god created, that's all I need to know"
This is an example of why this way of thinking is anti-science as it discourages learning, discovery, curiosity, etc which is fundamental to scientific progress.
TurboDally 4 months ago 3
Robertson "I would like to say to the good citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city"
Well if there is a disaster in the area, why turn to God?, the disaster is caused by your god, you should be happy with his decitions".
saintpine 4 months ago 3
Wow do they teach about Darwin five days a week?
I have compulsory religion all my school years, and I heard about the big bang and the theory of evolution only at the age of about 45.
saintpine 4 months ago
@saintpine "[...] I heard about the big bang and the theory of evolution only at the age of about 45."
Sorry to hear that you missed out on some of the most fundamental and important parts of modern knowledge in biology and astrophysics for so long. But I'm glad you finally got to learn about it. The universe as revealed via science is magnificent and interesting.
0debug 1 month ago
They should have gotten James Spader to do the plaintiff :D That would freaking own
b33p3rz 5 months ago
I'm honestly so happy that these science teachers stood up to this, as they should have. Too many teachers now a days believe in this shit themselves, and cry that they would be depriving their students of something "If they were to teach them only about a natural process, when it's so obvious God doesn't need natural processes". American ignorance sickens me :(
Sincerely, An American.
b33p3rz 5 months ago
Evolution is not science. It is a false belief.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Too bad this isn't true... 1 minute of simply saying that it's not true, 2 more minutes of hailing our "Maker", and one simple title and short description illustrating a point that's been proven wrong hundreds of times before.
b33p3rz 5 months ago
@b33p3rz People doubt evolution is possible because objects forces and mutations do not order any information. Science has failed to show where the supposed information is coming from.
We laugh about it in the morning, we laugh about it in the afternoon and we laugh about it at night or whenever we think about it. Objects, forces and mutations do not order any thing any time any where.
Function, on the other hand, working inside us, proves there is a Maker of the esssential working elements.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
village of hicks
geyza0711 5 months ago
1:18:00 -> They proved that Intelligent design evolved from creationism... bravo !! Why does it have to be God or science ? Teaching ID will cause US kids to become non-competitive, is it worth all this smoke and mirrors !!
therahulrs 5 months ago
"In the beginning god created, that's all I need to know" ...and that ladies and gentleman is the problem with religious followers
Dekar41 5 months ago 43
@Dekar41 Amen. :)
squirreljester2 5 months ago
Intelligent Design my butt
FIGHTFANNERD3 6 months ago
Garbage in, garbage out.
Arcexey 6 months ago
Intelligent Design/Creationism ultimately isn't about science or being "fair minded", but about pushing a particular social order. Basically, believers want to preserve/restore a society where not just Christianity, but THEIR version of Christianity is the dominant social force -- and naturally they would personally be on top of that social structure. In other words, it is an ultimately selfish movement meant to enforce their social privileges and advantages.
Ranillon 6 months ago
Intelligent Design is not even close to science . Teach it in religion class if you want to be keep it out of fucking science class.
warner735 6 months ago
It is not that things are too complex to have come through evolution, it is the science that is too complex for them to understand, so they need something so ridiculously simple to fill that gap.
ChicaLondres 6 months ago
those that reject it need to take a class and be open to new things
225adan 8 months ago
Sometimes I think that reading fantasy books such as Harry Potter is healthier than reading any religious scriptures. They are tainted with the lowly origins of our morality.
someThinkingApe 8 months ago
Good video, been looking for this for a while, deserves more views :L
floisheremuch 9 months ago
0:25 Well sir, the Civil War can be verified by historical fact. We have firsthand accounts of it. Where are the firsthand accounts of people who were alive millions of years ago that can testify to the theory that species evolve from one form to another?
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
....we don't and that is why it's called a "theory", where are the firsthand accounts of people in the various creation stories?
leeharveyosmosis 11 months ago
@leeharveyosmosis We don't either, and that is why ID is called a "theory" too. The only difference between the theory of ID and the theory of evolution is that the education system teaches gives special preference to the theory of evolution. It treats it as though it's fact and does not allow for the objective presentation of alternatives.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
Well holocaust "revisionism", the flat earth, and other alternative ideas should be taught in school as well. Intelligent Design has been rejected by almost the entire legitimate scientific community. The United States seems to be about the only industrialized nation where this is a "controversy". On a side note the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about God-who ever is/isn't behind the process is beyond the scope of science.
leeharveyosmosis 11 months ago
@leeharveyosmosis Because nobody wants to admit the possibility. Because in doing so, they would have to admit that there is a higher order to the universe, and that, "Oh NO!", they might actually be responsible for certain moral tresspasses that they must atone for. Selfishness is why we are having this discussion. Because those people and everyone else like them do not want to admit that they have to take responsibility for their actions.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
....finding out if there is a higher order to the universe is beyond the scope of science. They can only deal with the evidence that is available to them. You're assuming that no religious people agree with evolution.
leeharveyosmosis 11 months ago
@leeharveyosmosis And those other ideas have been scientificly proven false. The world has been circumnavigated and pictured from space and records everywhere attest the the Holocaust, unless someone is clever enough to learn how to erase it from official sources.
They would be beyond the scope of science though, because any creator who made this world would have to be otherwise he wouldn't be able to control it.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch "Intelligent" Design isn't a true scientific theory. There is no evidence for the claims it makes. This is why it hasn't been successfully peer-reviewed. Most of the arguments for "Intelligent" Design are arguments to disprove the theory of evolution. The difference between the two is that ID has a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it, but evolutionary theory looks for evidence to come up with a conclusion. Hence why ID Isn't Science.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly If that's tru, then let's take a look at the simple cell or the flagellum's motor. Both of those are so complex that mutation could not have been their origin. In fact, most mutations we see today are disadvantages rather than advantages that evolution claims. If just one of the pieces were out of place it would not work, so if they weren't all together in the beginning how is it possible they could arise. Someone forming them is much more logical and simpler explanation.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch The "irreducible complexity of the flagellum" has been disproven so many times not only in court but right here on YouTube it's really not worth my time getting in to it. Do some research; look up a couple of videos, watch This video, and throw this horrific argument in the garbage.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
Have you actually watched this video? The flagellum excuse is beaten at 1:11:09.
laflugantabastardo 8 months ago
@laflugantabastardo Owned.
j03y2fly 8 months ago
@laflugantabastardo I watched the clip you pointed out and was disappointed that such an illogical argument comes from university professor. So the syringe thingy is missing parts that the flagellum motor contains and yet functions perfectly, in contrast the the IC argument right? Has anybody stopped to think that the syringe functions perfectly without those other parts because it has a different function that does not require those parts? The argument is invalid.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 8 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
Not... really. That's not an oversight. In fact, it's the point. IC requires it to be too complexed to have evolved from a different state. It's an oversight on Behe's part that structures can do more than one thing.
laflugantabastardo 8 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch As a non believer I actually find myself on the same page. The mousetrap argument kind of explained it better though. The function changes but the parts remain. But I'm too tired to think if that argument survives the scrutiny. I mean dinosaurs with feathers changed function from simple show-off feathers and became flying ones. Same way a needle can become a motor perhaps. A better mutation occurred that changed to function.
scrap222666 6 months ago
@scrap222666 Show off feathers would have been a big part of sexual selection at a time when they didn't need to compete physically with another species or their own as much, but feathers also acted as amazing ways to preserve heat as well.
b33p3rz 5 months ago
@b33p3rz Well still the leap for show off to flight must of been one heck of a mutation. :D
scrap222666 5 months ago
@scrap222666 Lol I think it only really allowed a creature to glide slightly when they were big enough, but yea, I probably got the little guy laid :D
b33p3rz 5 months ago
@b33p3rz your believe in creation is exactally the same as that of the 19 men who had a go at being pilots on september the 11, 10 yrs ago
megag52 4 months ago
@megag52 You're saying that my scientific view of how creationism is wrong is the exact same view held by the 19 men who supposedly had a go at being pilots (Some of them are still alive, like seriously, the official story is bullshit)? Are you saying that because I simply don't believe there is a designer of life, I'll go about taking down a skyscraper? or that because those men didn't believe in your specific designer, thats why they took out the skyscraper? What the hell do you even mean?
b33p3rz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@b33p3rz your belief in creation is exactally the same as that of the 19 men who had a go at being pilots on september the 11, 10 yrs ago
megag52 4 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch No, that is the exact point of the argument. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, when complex features aren't designed specifically for their current form as they are. The flagellum obviously had a different function, and then it started being able to move itself through it's environment, that it slowly built upon, adding new functions as it went. We're not trying to preserve it's ability to move, what's showcased is it's ability to still live practically.
b33p3rz 5 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch people seriously still run on this argument? This has been debunked SO many times that even the research on this flagellum addressed this issue before the argument even existed.
It is not IC
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@leeharveyosmosis Theory means the explanation of. That's why it's called a theory, because it explains evolutionary processes. Eye witness accounts mean NOTHING in science. Everything in science has to be tested based on the scientific method, including physical evidence at hand.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly
I know, I was just talking to a guy that was about the lack of first hand accounts.
leeharveyosmosis 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Evolution is verified by modern DNA and genetics lol. Forget about the Thousands of fossils, those are just icing on the cake. Whether you agree with how the explanation of how we evolved are true or not, it is a fact that all living things have evolved.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
If one chooses to believe only in Darwins theory, I would hope they understand that the probability of any one cell eventually evolving into a human, is close to the probability of one person winning every lottery drawing in the U.S. for a year straight. I certainly wouldn't stake anything I own, on anything with that astronomical of a probability, much less take it as 100% fact
TheQuestionall 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall I hope you understand that probability means absolutely nothing and is completely disingenuous when the event has already occurred. The simple fact is, the reason life in on earth is because the conditions are here so life would be able to uprise. Life won't uprise on mercury because it doesn't have the conditions for life to exist! No one says any scientific theory is 100% fact. We don't have a 100% concept of gravity nor does any serious scientist claim to.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly You contradict yourself in this very statement, by saying it has already occured, and then turning around and saying its not 100% fact. I am not challenging you to a debate, as I do understand the theory and its compelling arguements, I do however resent the fact that, evolution, which is a theory, is taught as the only option in schools. Creationism has just as compelling of arguements, and since neither can be 100% proven, I would say you would have to be......to simply teach 1
TheQuestionall 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall Evolution has occurred, but there isn't 100% fact of exactly how. Gravity occurs, but we don't know 100% how it occurs was my analogy. "Which is a theory." Define what a theory is please. I will not read a single word of what you type until you define to me what theory is.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall Here, here!
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@j03y2fly So just to be clear, your saying the law of gravity is still a theory?
Don't you find it just a little odd that life could rise on Earth, which if Im not mistaken, was once a barren piece of volcanic rock like mercury? If so, then would compels you to say life could never rise on mercury? Couldn't it be a different form of life that we simply haven't observed or concieved yet.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Still a theory? I don't understand what you mean to imply by that, but yes, there is gravitational theory to explain gravity. Theory means to explain scientifically. I don't know what you think theory means, but if you understood the definition of theory, you'd make a lot more sense.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly Well if that is your definition then evolution does a poor job.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall Theory in science means "the explanation of." That is why there is gravitational theory to explain how the laws of gravity work. Evolutionary Theory explains how the laws of evolution of earth occurs. You would either have to be ignorant, a psycho, or deliberately ignoring scientific evidence of evolution to say that evolution doesn't occur. A wonderful example is bacteria. You've never wondered why we always need to make new medicines to combat bacteria every year?
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall
And yet, here we are. Anthropomorphic principle, huzzah.
laflugantabastardo 8 months ago
@TheQuestionall thats why the god of the bible is not real u proved it
FIGHTFANNERD3 6 months ago
@TheQuestionall You started as a single cell and evolved into a full human in about 9 months. The probability of something happening in the past is 1:1. That is why you can't bet on past events in Vegas. The probability of it happening again exactly the same way it already did in the past is astronomical.
ThreeDigitIQ 6 months ago 15
@TheQuestionall You realize that no matter how stupid your little anology is, "Winning every lottery drawing in the US for a year straight" isn't that incredible when you finish the sentence. - If you played every lottery drawing in the world every single second of every single day of every single year for hundreds of millions of years. No one takes evolution as 100% fact, because it's a theory, it's an explanation of facts. Organisms evolve, you have to face it.
b33p3rz 4 months ago
As far as the seperation of church and state, it sickens me to see this part of our constitution to be bent to protect atheistic views. The reason that was put in, was infact to disallow the crusades of the catholic church from ever happening in our country. The fact of the matter is this country was founded on the principles of religion, if you dont believe that, I challenge you to read the declaration of independence, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
TheQuestionall 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall It specifically says in the U.S. Constitution that religion is not allowed to be promoted, funded, or disparaged by the state (government). Public schools are funded by the state, therefore no religious ideologies or religious "theories" (creation myths) will be taught in public schools. The fact of the matter is this country was founded on principles of secularism. The U.S. Declaration of Independence was a document freeing us from British control.,,
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly Did you read it? I know what the declaration of independence is, I just wonder if you read the same thing I have, it definitely references to a creator or God in the very first declarations.
TheQuestionall 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall You seem to have your history mixed up. The U.S. Constitution is the one that is the framework for the organization of the government and the relationship of the feds with the states, citizens, ect. No where in the constitution does it say that "Thou shalt not kill because it says so in the bible." It states that killing is against the law because it brings statistical harm to the society. Every human morality can be explained with "divine" inspiration.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly Which would imply the United States being founded on religion would it not? Because without some base of moral absolutes, it is impossible to create a sustainable legal system.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch And where do you think the people that created religion came up with their morals to write in their scripture? They were morals that they already had. Hence why their morals are alright with slavery and dehumanizing towards women, because in those days those things were widely accepted. Just another reason why no religious book is "divinely inspired."
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Every human morality can be explained without* "divine" inspiration.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly That is one theory. I don't happen hold that view. Any designer that is intelligent enough to create this universe is intelligent enough to get us a message. If you don't believe that there are moral absolutes given from outside creator or architect then how can you see slavery or dehumanization is wrong. If you have no base to reference your morals too, you cannot prove to me those are wrong. You can have an opinion about them, but opinion is all it will be.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Can you name a single religion that says slavery is bad? No. This is something that humans over time have come to realize is immoral based on statistical evidence for the progress of a society and humanitarian rights. Any morality that religion provides can be achieved by secular means. A shark will devour a human, but why not themselves (same species)? Do sharks believe in a god? Does any god mention sharks being given a moral compass? Morality is not given by the divine.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly Yours clearly; and might imagine Buddhism as well. The modern worlds morality is derived, though certainly not the same, from religion althougth people won't admit it. In any case, you are right that the morality that you follow is not divine. Any morality not inspired by the divine is not morality. That's why there is a need for an outside source. It doesn't matter what the numbers say and animals aren't the issue.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch You still haven't gotten the concept that the morals that humans have kept from religion through the years were first thought up when men wrote them thousands of years ago. They didn't get their morals from a divine being, they thought of them based on what I said in the previous comment. How are animals not the issue? Humans are mammals.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly You just said "from religion." The majority of human race invented their morality true, but got the idea from their religion and twisted those ideas to meet their views. I believe some were divinely inspired though and there is a big difference between humans and animals.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch You do know man-kind and civilization are older then religion correct? How was any morality divinely inspired if all of the religious scripture was written and thought of by man based on simple common senses such as "Murder is bad because if people kill more than we reproduce, our species will go extinct."? It's very simple how pre-historic humans based their moralities.
Referring to morality, describe the differences between Humans and Bonbons.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly Agreed to the first and morality existed before the humans because it was written before they were created to the second. Does a father wait for his children to be born before he decides what is and isn't allowed, or does he have the rules already set? Poor example as some fathers are soft on this issue, but you get the point.
I don't know what a Bonbon is. I'll leave it for the morning.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Well all father's are different, but personally as a father I base my morals on the consequences of my actions and the effect my actions will have on others. This moral base of mine was achieved by secular means due to statistical common sense. Bonbons are these cute primates, I've recently uploaded a video on them, check it out for a better understanding.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly It is my belief that all people are blank slates at birth and they they are given their moral base by the prevailing culture of their initial environment. While they could summon statistics to base their decisions, it may require them to replace their entire foundation, which is uncomfortable. You use the morals you use because I think you were raised that way. Suppose you were put in a culture that held the opposite, despite the statistics,, would your mathematical base hold?
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch No, but why would that be considered logical? Simply because I was born in a different culture wouldn't change the answer of 1+1 (metaphor).
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly Some cultures like the Aztec held moral bases that we would consider impractical. Famous example, they committed mass human sacrifice which caused their population to tank. If they based their morals on purely on observed statistics, wouldn't you think they would avoid such actions?
Second, would you not agree that any divinely inspired morals, as I've explained the origin of above, would match the statistical practicality, assuming there is a Creator?
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Radical Islamic cultures are considered impractical today, does this mean that they're justified to their moral basis of stoning people for a mere accusation going against their laws? There is an overt moral obviousness that religion seems to miss when civilization is evolving and the religious texts aren't. They would be able to avoid such actions if their religion didn't tell them it was "what god wanted."
Your origin is of your own creation with no empirical evidence.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
Now I am not saying evolution dosen't exist at all, there is a difference in Darwins microevolution theory, and macroevolution. Macroevolution is the minor differences in species, such as a great dane and a chihuahua they are different but both are dogs.
TheQuestionall 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall Says that micro evolution is possible but not macro evolution is saying that walking to the kitchen is possible but walking to the grocery store is impossible. Your reference to dogs is speciation, which isn't an example of macro evolution because we haven't been able to observe macro evolution in dogs. If you watch one of my previous videos on the speciation of butterflies, you'll see that soon we'll actually be able to witnesses this species evolve to much that they won't be...
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@j03y2fly What's the connection with the grocery store? And why can't dogs be seen to evolve from one species to another like your butterflies?
AstroAntaAposAnarch 11 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch The connection with the grocery store is an analogy of describing speciation, which is an evolutionary process. Dogs can be seen to evolving with so much diversity that they won't be able to have offspring with other dogs, it'll just take time. The butterflies in a previous video of mine however have gone through the speciation process - you should watch the video, it's short and simple.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall Says that micro evolution is possible but not macro evolution is saying that walking to the kitchen is possible but walking to the grocery store is impossible. Your reference to dogs is speciation, which isn't an example of macro evolution because we haven't been able to observe macro evolution in dogs. If you watch one of my previous videos on the speciation of butterflies, you'll see that soon we'll actually be able to witnesses this species evolve to much that they won't be..
j03y2fly 11 months ago
@TheQuestionall ..able to mate anymore due to long-term (macro) effects of speciation. Google speciation if you need a definition, I'm not holding a science class.
j03y2fly 11 months ago
Darwin himself said: (and I am paraphrasing) If within 100 years, the millions of transitional species are not found, that would need to be present, my theory would completely collapse in on itself. it is now somthing like 150 years later and we are yet to find just one of these species let alone the millions needed to prove his theory to be true. It is a shame people have been programed to believe this garbage, only on the premise that, it is what they've been taught in school.
TheQuestionall 11 months ago
This is a great documentary. The testimony of the defense experts really highlights how highly educated people can make themselves believe highly questionable things and how faith can make them twist facts to fit their worldview. I look forward to the day when these crazies finally give up trying to destroy science and send us back to the dark ages.
john5899 11 months ago