Having the courts on your side doesn't spark great confidence in me. In a big business friendly country the team with the best lawyers will have great pull. This seams to be Scott plan and not deal with the real issues.
@smoothpeople33 In fact that is good evidence towards how crappy ID is: they are the best endowed, the have people debating for it professionally, and still can't get it to be rated as science. Wonder why? because it's not science. Period. Finito. Bye bye. here: "IT'S NOT SCIENCE" to quote the court decision.
Ben Stein's "Expelled" is possibly the funniest shit I have ever seen in my life. It rivals Kent Hovind's master-piece Thesis for a laugh.
Sadly "Expelled" got the worst ratings of any video ever released on nearly every website..... if only they could realize what potential comedic value it has.
@Sheldonwh 'creeped out' *teehee* no worries, I don't have a shrine to her in my bedroom or anything :) I just have a great deal of respect for her obvious intelligence, integrity and great communication skill(s) She's a fantastic person to take on the 'cdesign proponentsists' :)
strong rhetoric usually attends a strong sense of curiosity / inquiry. for science to help the human psyche assimilate reality, it must bear the rhetorical capacity to disseminate such a message. what progress will come if either side perpetuates polarization (even incidentally)? i feel the implications of science are beyond such contest. as you say, science teaches us to confront reality clearly, directly 'whether we like it or not' which is a tremendously important revolution in human thought.
...and we have come so far with it... that to even still be debating it's legitimacy within society, there must also be some sociological shortcoming. i see creationism as a part of a larger problem of religious psychological incoherence in general... and lack of communication and interaction is a big part of that.
Yes, creationism is a problem. However,it isn't really the main problem. Its, belief without evidence, that's the main problem. As far as science's legitimacy in society, well, modern society wouldn't exist without it. Science is the reason we have the modern world.
yes, and it is of course ironic in that way that creationists deny the understandings of science using the internet.
the psychological revolution implied by science is, sociologically, more important than accomplishments. science tends to build in the direction of society. accomplishments are an externalization of what the human psyche finds important at a given point in time.
learning to face reality directly, inquisitively, purely, 'whether we like it or not' has even deeper implications.
actually, i think her pandering to her audience, when viewed by people of polar opposite theological points of view is actually inflammatory. granted we here all know ID is ridiculous, but i think perhaps a little more modesty on Eugenie's part might help when trying to overcome such social abrasion.
we might show these religious zealots we are indeed nice people, rather than feeding prejudged perceptions of our morality. much of the forceful, violent anger comes from them to begin with.
How is she 'pandering to her audience'? Also, why should she care that others will have opposite theological points of view? She is talking about science; not religion. People believe many silly things. However, that doesn't mean that we have to respect those ideas. For example, if there were scientologists in the audience, should she respect their views as well? When talking about science, leave religion at the door...
it is subtle... in that she talks with the vaguely elitist aire and presteige of academia. ...and I find nothing wrong with it personally... but i supose i'm just not sure what to do about the creationists. clearly they don't understand science. they also find the proponents of it stuffy, antagonistic, and cynical.
we have to somehow bridge the gap (not in logic, but in a human sense) and clearly this is not going to happen when people are more concerned with being right than being kind.
there is an error in human thought that has to be corrected, deeply so on the side of creationism. Like most of us, many of these individuals are well-meaning people ( as I converse with many of them ). Though misled, they hold merely an idea, nothing tangible.
i believe we, as scientists, can approach the problem in a more human sense. those of science have the intelligence to approach in such a way. we are able comprehend how the mind works, we have insight and tools to bridge such matters.
Creationists aren't all 'well-meaning' people. They shape the world based on their own religious beleifs. And many would be quite happy to teach ID crap to Children. The 'error in human thought' has to do with the fact that humans want emotional comfort, other than truth. THats the whole problem with ID. Again, science is about 'truth'; not pandering to emotions. ANd if I may speak 'geek', science is about the 'Prefrontal cortex'; not the 'limbic system'...
yes; that is granted. it's not in dispute. it is the logical basis of science.
what do you do when these people are your neighbors? part of your community? that's the question i find important. despite what the media shows, most aren't so extreme in their advocacy.
She isn't talking with an 'elitist aire'. I think you are interpreting her intelligence, as arrogance. I've heard Eugenie speak many times, she is always cordial, but she doesn't shy away from debate. Also, why should we 'bridge the gab' between what is true and what is Bullshit(like ID)? ID doesn't deserve respect. Respect is something you earn. And with ID, it deserves all the scorn and ridicule it receives. The quest for truth is about being honest;not pandering to emotions.
i didn't say that science needs to concede anything... i see only a matter of rhetoric. in that, scientists can't simply propound what is obvious to them, because creationists won't think that way. so there has to be some effort to increase the rhetoric and communication of the scientific understanding. it's hardly a matter of respectability- we all know creationism is junk. but i wonder: how can we, as the educated, help them to understand and accept science?
"so there has to be some effort to increase the rhetoric and communication of the scientific understanding" I don't understand what you mean. Science has nothing to do with being 'rhetorical'. As far as helping the public in understanding science. Well, that's what Hugenie is trying to do (help people understand science). ALso, it would help if the media was more educational in regards to science.
rhetoric - as in, using language effectively, insightfully, persuasively. - "stepping into the other's mind".
i do see value in relating to the misled in a way that may persuade them into the correct point of observation. i see too much polarization, which comes from an emotional reaction more than a logical one. educating and approaching creationists more carefully could help to stem off the division, sociologically.
much as we dislike it, we have to follow a calm, logical path when dealing with social difficulties. with the religious one must tread lightly, or no progress can be made psychologically with them. it is difficult. they have so much cathexis, that when we are blunt with them, we create in them a sense of martyrdom... which they find noble (appealing to their cathexis) and so they become more fastidious, often making the belief stronger.
You're use of the word rhetoric is congruent for the topic. I was using the term, to express how people use 'bullshit' language to get 'bullshit' ideas across. Such is the case with ID, or religious arguments in general.
absolutely; bullshit, contradiction, and delusion. they paint over such incoherence with verbal calisthenics... never begging their own questions, while gliding over an inherited assumptions about reality. religion is "the old cycle" which still reverberates strongly in the human psyche despite all evidence to it's contrary.
scientists are not inherently arrogant or dogmatic. they seem so only incidentally- in being cast into sharp contrast to something that makes no sense to them. polarization creates inflammation.
they're atheists largely because seeing the natural world produces deep questions about reality itself. arguments analogous to "because I said so" aren't a good enough answer for them.
i wonder why ID people post here. there's really nothing to argue. clearly this is a revolution in thinking that is going on. evolution has been happening, and is happening. if people care to observe the world, have interest in life it becomes obvious how insightful evolution is. it has been cross-confirmed repeatedly in so many areas of science... not to mention it's roots are deeply a part of genetics.
with all we now know, disputing evolution is the same as saying "the earth is flat"
and i mean this profoundly. if you have variability, and you have selection (struggle for life), and you have heredity... then evolution is inevitable. inevitable. the principle is so simple.
ID people post here, because they have a powerful negative emotional reaction to ID. And that emotional reaction motivates them in such a way, that they have to say something. It's all Psychology. ID is all about theology; not science. Good posts...
JUST AN IDEA! allow a theology class in public schools. whackos, wiccans and wierdos might spend so much time fighting each other (they seem to like it) that they'll leave science alone.
I had 12 years of private catholic school under the pragmatic Ignatians, my younger brother was a Marionist, why do creationists want it taught as a science and not theology? What's the agenda to have it placed next to a scientific theory which has evidence? Teach faith-based concepts in religion class, right? Why are public schools being bullied to teach this crap?
Because their faith is too weak to stand without bolstering it with evidence. They've gone far enough with this that they've lost sight of the fact that the evidence must be true to be meaningful.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Very funny lady, but a very scared one. Are afraid that the students in school will see the hoax of evolution and the lies that they have been fed for years.
Do not make this about religion. Lets see the scientific evidences. I dare you.
Your lack of education does not discredit the body of work that explains evolutionary theory. Go to school and learn - everything that you need to know can be learned by about 8th grade science. Good luck to you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
With you evolutionists has always been about attacking the caracter of a person and not scientific facts. For your information, I do have B.S & M.S degrees in Engineering and Science and have many Patents. I have studied evolution and can read and comprehend scientific articles and books and critically think about the theories. I have found that the evolution theory to be a bankrupt one which has turned into an athiestic religion of the day. That is my investigation for the truth.
Good, you are an educated man. Please list the specific fallacies that you find in the theory of evolution...what exactly makes it a bankrupt theory? And why is it that your investigation for the truth results in discoveries so vastly different than most of the scientific community? After all evolution is nothing more than a hoax? Lies? Please enlighten the masses.
All I can see in this comment is "I think im intelligent... i think evolution is wrong... therefore it is".
As 1n354a says here, give reasons. Just saying something is true or false doesnt automatically turn it into being true and false. Your comment above is long but is completely devoid of any actual content.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's great to have a center of science for something that so evidently true. What a waste of money. Uh, no, keep pouring your atheist sweat and tears into her career as an anti-Christian bigot.
"It's great to have a center of science for something that so evidently true. What a waste of money. Uh, no, keep pouring your atheist sweat and tears into her career as an anti-Christian bigot."
Disgusting little troll. How very CHRISTIAN of you to attack someone and NOT their argument. Hypocrite.
Amusing how some of the pro-evolutionary expert witnesses were practicing Christians...don't you think? Kinda shoots down your anti-Christian approach, eh?
You are so right, anybody who is against evolution is really a good Christian. What an intellect you got there. Wish I could brain like you. True seeker of ultimate truth you are.
Keep up the most grand work, you doer of wonderful reason lover you.
"Wish I could brain like you" - firstly I don't know what that means...quite frankly, I don't know that anybody knows what you mean.
However, assuming you meant to say "wish I could have a brain similar to yours"...I would disagree. I don't think that you do, because I think that you love living in a state of blind faith and assumed ignorance. The ability to go beyond what your preacher has told you would probably burst your little noodle.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"assume the position," oh yes, I too pine for those glory hole days in prison. I like to put sand around my anoose to add texture, you know what I like, Cheer-boy.
No, my and my pastor are not in a monkey-see, monkey-do relationship as you and your Barack the Changer minions have. But, I have gotten in touch with my inner brain and find you forgetable as I forgot why I'm even responding to such a cipher as yourself.
It's funny how the people who believe in evolution sounds a lot smarter and much more educated than the people who try to "attack" it in this thread...
And your comments on evolving from monkeys are as silly as it gets... You really do need to go away and read a few science books..We did not evolve directly from modern monkeys or apes... Rather, thus and monkeys and apes and indeed every living species share a common ancesto... For example, we share a common ancestor with Orangutans in the more distant past than chimps and thus share less genetic similarity... Modern apes and monkeys are our genetic cousins.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sorry to say but. PEOPLE ARE STUPID think this way for a sec. Why arn't monkeys evoling now? wouldn't monkeys evolve faster around humens? and try to copy us. my theroy is
if we did evolve from monkeys. monkeys would start evolving faster then they ever did on there own with out humens. cuase they have 95% of our DNA dosn't mean we evolve from Monkeys. We dont have 100% proof that we evolve from moneys right now its just a theroy. and i don't think any one will ever
Everything is constantly in a state of evolution, though sometimes this evolution doesn't involve perceivable changes in the phenotype, only the genotype.
You have a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is... To say "It's just a theory" only shows your ignorance. Theory in it's scientific definition does not mean the same as theory when used in everday usage.... It doesn't mean guess or hunch. A scientific theory is actually higher in the hiarachy than fact... A scientific theory integrates the facts. Thus, a scientific theory never becones a fact... The theory of relativity will never become the fact of relativi
Also, your comments on rates of evolution are faulty too. Not everything evolves at the same rate.... It depends on survival pressure within the particular environment... There is often stasis within evolution and under that stasis evolutionary pressures are not as prominent and so evolution slows down.... It can also do the opposite and speed up such as in the Cambrian Explosion.
humans are classified under the Primate order - we are 95% similar, as far as DNA sequencing goes, to the bonobo and chimp. - All of our human brains operate differently - some of us have learning disabilities, while some of us have a greater capacity for learning. People who pursue science and who tackle complicated tasks develop stronger brain structure, and i'm sure create smarter people. Multiply that by five million years.
I'm sorry that you are misinformed. I hope that you will read up on evolution and natural selection - it's a triumph of human reason. It hurts to see it attacked based on claims it doesn't make.
The monkeys that are around right now haven't been untouched by evolution, they have evolved just as much as we have.. But they do share a common ancestor with us, and that's the important part.
The only problem with confronting Creationism with reason, is that you begin to assume there will always be rational people to hear and decide the arguments.
If the ID/Creationists get a stronger foothold, the rationally trained thinkers will be truly outnumbered.
We don't want to teach the controversy in evolution because most of it is based around deliberate creationist lies. Most of the rest of the controversy is high level stuff a highschool student probably won't understand.
Why not teach the controversy in physics? How come no one is concerned about the holes in gravity?
It's so hard to get a consensus in science, especially with a radical theory like evolution by natural selection and common descent. VERY hard and tedious. It's not fair to teach something that bypasses the process of science and expects to law to give it a shoe-in. That's not fair in the least. Besides, ID = religion.
There's no internal controversy of evolution in science. The only controversy exists in the public eye, so any talk of the controversy class belongs in a social studies classes and in that context only. Science belongs in a science class.
Exactly. Nobody in the actual functioning scientific community even gives the factuality of evolution a second thought at this point. The only people calling it controversial or unproven are dimbulbs who don't understand it or dimbulbs who believe in creationism.
1. Science is based on the scientific method. If there is not a reasonable or logical reason to believe something exists (i.e. the flying spaghetti monster or god) than don't believe in it.
What are these supposed "gaps" in the theory of evolution that need to be taught?
Fossilization is a process that occurs rarely, under very specific conditions. Nobody ever claimed that the "fossil record" should be "complete." Although in Darwin's time fossils were crucial to evolutionary theory, in 2007 we have genetic evidence that entirely confirms modern evolutionary theory.
Fossel evidence does not conferm evolution. Neither does genetic evidence. DNA is so complex, it could not have arrisen by chance, as Materialsitic evolution says it must ! John
"Fossel evidence does not conferm evolution. Neither does genetic evidence."
A blind assertion on which the scientific community overwhelmingly disagrees with you.
"DNA is so complex, it could not have arrisen by chance..."
No one suggests it arose by chance, what is known to science is that it arose through evolution, which is not directed by chance but by natural selection. WHY do you continually try to criticize a science you know THAT LITTLE about?
Natural selection doesn't explain variation from within a species. That's what genetic drift explains. And if you seriously think that evolution claims that the origin of life happened by chance, i.e. that matter just flew together in the proper order to create a strand of DNA, then you know nothing at all about evolution and are arguing against a position which no evolutionary scientist holds.
So if life did not arise by chance,(random variations within the environment, including chmical, energy,including gases in the atmosphere) then how did it arise ? Are you suguesting an intellegent design ? Well Well !
Life didn't "arise" in the way you are thinking. There is no distinction between life and non-life at the molecular level, it's just chemistry. Amino acids replicating and being sorted by natural selection.
We know that there is a difference between life and non life. When there was not life, how did life get arise ? What was the teransision point between non life and a living organism ? Natural selection only comes in when youhave life ! JT
"We know that there is a difference between life and non life... Natural selection only comes in when you have life!"
No, there is no distinction between "life" and "non-life" at the molecular level. How do you tell a "living" molecule of acid from a non-living molecule of acid? It's just chemistry at that level, so the question of how molecular "life" can come from molecular "non-life" is totally without meaning.
Portein, organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain and joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues, is the very basic form for living things on earth which
existed when earth in the early form from extremly heat and other chemical reaction and
other words, it can exist is pure COINCIDENCE , that also explain why there is no life on mars.
The fossil record is always going to be incomplete, but it matches evolution's predictions perfectly. To say there is a contradiction between what evolution predicts and what we find in the fossil record is to misunderstand both subjects entirely.
Because like I said in my last comment, the fossil record, even though it confirms evolutionary predictions, is always going to be incomplete. And that leaves plenty of room for debate over the details.
Just goes to show how much science you actually understand. Why is it that people who makes claim to what science can and cannot explain display an amazingly bad grasp of science themselves?
Not sure who this is aimed at. Science involves philosophical assumtions, a scientific method of expermentation, deduction, propositions, and potneital falsification of propositions. Some propositions,such as the origin of life,are not falsifiable. Look at the work of the philosopher Carl Popper for more info. John T
I'm afraid that Popper is not resolving this issue, as he's said quite a lot. Besides, we don't argue over falsification, we argue over irreducible complexity and your statement that DNA is too complex to just happen without a designer. Evolution is a design process, nothing more, so we're *really* arguing the intelligence of said design process. I claim there is none (and I've got most scientists on my side) but simple mechanisms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
An open debate on !
The nature of scientific propositions. Carl Poper argued evolution theory Not scientific -not flasifiable
origin of living organisms from a non living world. Naturalistuc explanations (mathmatical probability theory) v metaphysics.
Development of life once it emerged.
Do naturalistic explanations, (natural selection, gene mutation,resorting genetic codes, explain macro -evolution, or is design is a more rational explanation?. JT
evo is easily falsified. what a poser. a human with only tomato dna would be an easy evolution killer. there's billions of ways . just makeup anything almost.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Teaching the gaps in the evolution theory is just good science ! And teaching the alternatives to materialism is a really good thing,. but they seem opposed to this !
Real education taches people to think, and when YE Creationsits and materialsitic evolutionsists oppose this it is anti educational John
"Teaching the gaps in the evolution theory is just good science!"
The scientific community repeatedly, unequivocally and overwhelmingly says that these "gaps" of yours stem from a misunderstanding of the science. Therefore teaching such nonsense to students would be to lie to them. It would be *bad* science and bad behavior.
Eugenie, This is a superb lecture and quantifies precisely the weak arguments for ID, as well as the appalling situation prevalent in education, in permitting any form of creationism to be taught in the guise of a science subject, thanks.
I am not a young earth creationist ! I am however appauled that cricicsms of Evolution are excluded. That is not education this is indoctrination ! A liberal education should include a wide range of views, and the teaching of logic and reason.
Evolution is of course predominantly Materialistic evolution, something that they evolutionists are not always honest about this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
in what way do you see critisism of ToE being excluded? The reason IC>ID notion wasn't tossed on it's ear from the start is because people ARE objective and when serious contenders challenge a well grounded science people DO listen. IC>ID had it's moment of limelight but it failed in every regard, not just because it's proponants were creationists with an anti-constitutional adgenda.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Listen to the video ! she rejoyces that a teacher can not include criticisms /problems of evoution' and they are excluded.
Actually materialistic evolution is a faith, because the propositions of evolution, ie that life came from non life ex million years ago, is un forcifiable, and fails Carl Popper's falsification principle !
OK ! A cat giving birth to a Dog, would definatly varify evolution, it would solve the gaps in the fossel reccord !
Falsifiable - in principle a proposition if scientific is able to be falified or shown to be false. The proposition that life arose spontaniously x million years ago, through the process of chemical evlolution could not be falified or verified in theory or in reality. It is a beliefe, not a scientific theory.JOhn
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
if you are going to be facitious and idiotic you lose.
idiotic statment like claims that ToE suggests cat>dog is patently absurd and you aught to know better. so evo is falsifiable.
as for abiogenisis being falsifiable, it as well is as easily done. all you have to do is prove that the chemicals of life can NOT join in such a way as to allow life.
One of the evolutionists I forget his name but could look this up, suguested the 'hopefull monster theory' ( ie one sepcies giving boith to a new one) to expalin the gaps in the fossel reccord.
Re Chemical evolution, it is not falsifiable as a historical proposition. Please refrane from instults it just makes your arguments look weak John T
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
your"evolutionist' is what a 3rd grader?
You claim to be 47 years old. At your age you sould know what the ToE does and doesn't claim. So tell me how a grown man like you has no clue about it. Also given that you've got no clue, think to argue with anone who does.
I've demolished your claims that evo and abio aren't falsifiable. because you feel inclined to wriggle and squirm to avoid saying you were wrong, i sense that any further discussion with you would result in more of the same.
Hopeful Monster Mechanism was put forward by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard.He did so becaause the mecahnaisms of evolution dont work, and the fossel reccord does not support TOE.If you choose to call him a third grader ???????
Have a look at Tiktaalik, probably the clearest "transitional fossil" ever found. Yet another intermediate form between fish and tetrapod (four-legs). Google it, wiki it, whatever. Just go and educate yourself. Maybe you should (just an idea) read a, you know, "science book".
Instead of browsing the AIG (Answers In Genesis) website for "arguments" against evolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Listen to the video ! she rejoyces that a teacher can not include criticisms /problems of evoution' and they are excluded."
Because that is clearly just a disingenous backdoor way of suggesting to children that there is merit in ID when the entire scientific community repeatedly and unequivacally says that there is none. Or in other words, to LIE TO CHILDREN. It won't happen, get it through your head.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Its obvious that the entire scientific communty does not support evolution. Many Scientists are scepical.Sceince use to believe in Newtonian physics, now it believes in Quantum physics. Concepts changed !John T
A 'new' theory of evolution would have to do everything that the ToE does first then if it can do more or do it better, then it will be appended to the ToE. ToE explains the fossil record, it predicts adaptations, it predicts irriducible complexity too.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Some evolutionists talk about the chemical evolution of life. What ever you call it, we are talking about the same process.How did Life arise from a non living universe ? That is the key question. No speculations, be they materialist or metahysical are falsifiable. scientits need to be aware of their philosophical assumptions,as what they do is not value free. JT
its ok to have a religion just keep it away from school in fact if these believer's god really exist, since we are born we don't need to be thought about faith and religion, now that what I call miracle.
none of the creationist replies to these videos seem to actually respond to the video's content. They just know the general topic and tone of the video, and then throw out some rehashed propaganda against evolution.
JesusisLord111, we've all heard of Pascal's Wager and we've all heard it refuted and torn down a million times.
Christ's salvation doesn't ask for mere belief in God, it asks for belief and worship and a moral code that is very specific to one particular model of god. So your wager is over-simplified.
If Allah's Word the Koran is correct then you're in just as much shit as we. If Odin is lord, then less so... but if Cthulu is lord supreme then oh boy the bets are all off.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How can Pseudointellectual Atheistic Evilutionists Morons be stupid enough to believe in a " billions of years " ago fairy tale story... that requires Alot Of FAITH!
av161truth, kent hovind's arguments are so discredited that other YECs even distance themselves from him, so stop alluding to rehashed ideas from his lectures.
There's no faith required, except if you mean faith in evidence and reality.
So what you are saying, av1611truth, is that crime scene investigators are useless because it's impossible to figure out what happened in the past by looking at the current evidence?
av1611truth is too much of a fucking pussy to answer me:
So what you are saying, av1611truth, is that crime scene investigators are useless because it's impossible to figure out what happened in the past by looking at the current evidence?
We're not the ones claiming there's a god. The only 'proof' religious people have of a god is...wait, there isn't any. As for the bacteria, the exact same mechanism that drives what you'd like to call 'adaptation' also drives evolution. Its the same thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Alright, you're admittedly not a scientist. However by the sounds of your proposition it would seem that you would not be able likely to believe someone if they told you the only limitations of evolution were those of biochemistry and physics, despite the fact you lack the scientific knowledge to refute it. Is that fair?
Yup, Eugenie Scott is still my Princess Leia!
Ironside783 2 months ago
Having the courts on your side doesn't spark great confidence in me. In a big business friendly country the team with the best lawyers will have great pull. This seams to be Scott plan and not deal with the real issues.
smoothpeople33 11 months ago
@smoothpeople33 In fact that is good evidence towards how crappy ID is: they are the best endowed, the have people debating for it professionally, and still can't get it to be rated as science. Wonder why? because it's not science. Period. Finito. Bye bye. here: "IT'S NOT SCIENCE" to quote the court decision.
nessunnick 8 months ago
Ben Stein's "Expelled" is possibly the funniest shit I have ever seen in my life. It rivals Kent Hovind's master-piece Thesis for a laugh.
Sadly "Expelled" got the worst ratings of any video ever released on nearly every website..... if only they could realize what potential comedic value it has.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@thkaal1
Lol wtf!?
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
kasunikaanjana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Sexy Girls in Your Area busizz4me.info
bolgendolki 1 year ago
Thank you Eugenie! We can only hope one day reason will prevail over superstition, myth and magical thinking. Regards
1Skeptik1 1 year ago 2
25:20 So that's why I saw an ICR building last time I was in Texas to visit my grandmother.
Darkninja105 1 year ago
Genie is a friend of mine, and I'm sure she'd be flattered. Perhaps a bit creeped out, but flattered nonetheless. : )
Sheldonwh 2 years ago
@Sheldonwh 'creeped out' *teehee* no worries, I don't have a shrine to her in my bedroom or anything :) I just have a great deal of respect for her obvious intelligence, integrity and great communication skill(s) She's a fantastic person to take on the 'cdesign proponentsists' :)
AxeGrrrl 2 years ago
No, you're not the only one! I have a girl-crush on her myself :)
Such intelligence and articulate communication are _very_ attractive :)
AxeGrrrl 2 years ago
Man I wish I had Eugenie as a science teacher in school.
Protoman85 2 years ago 6
strong rhetoric usually attends a strong sense of curiosity / inquiry. for science to help the human psyche assimilate reality, it must bear the rhetorical capacity to disseminate such a message. what progress will come if either side perpetuates polarization (even incidentally)? i feel the implications of science are beyond such contest. as you say, science teaches us to confront reality clearly, directly 'whether we like it or not' which is a tremendously important revolution in human thought.
abyssquick 3 years ago 3
...and we have come so far with it... that to even still be debating it's legitimacy within society, there must also be some sociological shortcoming. i see creationism as a part of a larger problem of religious psychological incoherence in general... and lack of communication and interaction is a big part of that.
abyssquick 3 years ago
Yes, creationism is a problem. However,it isn't really the main problem. Its, belief without evidence, that's the main problem. As far as science's legitimacy in society, well, modern society wouldn't exist without it. Science is the reason we have the modern world.
crazykb 3 years ago 2
yes, and it is of course ironic in that way that creationists deny the understandings of science using the internet.
the psychological revolution implied by science is, sociologically, more important than accomplishments. science tends to build in the direction of society. accomplishments are an externalization of what the human psyche finds important at a given point in time.
learning to face reality directly, inquisitively, purely, 'whether we like it or not' has even deeper implications.
abyssquick 3 years ago
Perhaps, rhetoric is usefull in seducing people into science. However, after that, the science is interesting enough, even without the rhetoric.
crazykb 3 years ago 2
@crazykb Exactly! "Science is interesting and if you dont agree with me you can fuck off!" Lol
Ryosuke1208 1 year ago 4
Eugenie Scott as such an intellectual ass kicker.
crazykb 3 years ago 2
actually, i think her pandering to her audience, when viewed by people of polar opposite theological points of view is actually inflammatory. granted we here all know ID is ridiculous, but i think perhaps a little more modesty on Eugenie's part might help when trying to overcome such social abrasion.
we might show these religious zealots we are indeed nice people, rather than feeding prejudged perceptions of our morality. much of the forceful, violent anger comes from them to begin with.
abyssquick 3 years ago
How is she 'pandering to her audience'? Also, why should she care that others will have opposite theological points of view? She is talking about science; not religion. People believe many silly things. However, that doesn't mean that we have to respect those ideas. For example, if there were scientologists in the audience, should she respect their views as well? When talking about science, leave religion at the door...
crazykb 3 years ago
it is subtle... in that she talks with the vaguely elitist aire and presteige of academia. ...and I find nothing wrong with it personally... but i supose i'm just not sure what to do about the creationists. clearly they don't understand science. they also find the proponents of it stuffy, antagonistic, and cynical.
we have to somehow bridge the gap (not in logic, but in a human sense) and clearly this is not going to happen when people are more concerned with being right than being kind.
abyssquick 3 years ago
there is an error in human thought that has to be corrected, deeply so on the side of creationism. Like most of us, many of these individuals are well-meaning people ( as I converse with many of them ). Though misled, they hold merely an idea, nothing tangible.
i believe we, as scientists, can approach the problem in a more human sense. those of science have the intelligence to approach in such a way. we are able comprehend how the mind works, we have insight and tools to bridge such matters.
abyssquick 3 years ago
Creationists aren't all 'well-meaning' people. They shape the world based on their own religious beleifs. And many would be quite happy to teach ID crap to Children. The 'error in human thought' has to do with the fact that humans want emotional comfort, other than truth. THats the whole problem with ID. Again, science is about 'truth'; not pandering to emotions. ANd if I may speak 'geek', science is about the 'Prefrontal cortex'; not the 'limbic system'...
crazykb 3 years ago 3
yes; that is granted. it's not in dispute. it is the logical basis of science.
what do you do when these people are your neighbors? part of your community? that's the question i find important. despite what the media shows, most aren't so extreme in their advocacy.
abyssquick 3 years ago
She isn't talking with an 'elitist aire'. I think you are interpreting her intelligence, as arrogance. I've heard Eugenie speak many times, she is always cordial, but she doesn't shy away from debate. Also, why should we 'bridge the gab' between what is true and what is Bullshit(like ID)? ID doesn't deserve respect. Respect is something you earn. And with ID, it deserves all the scorn and ridicule it receives. The quest for truth is about being honest;not pandering to emotions.
crazykb 3 years ago
i didn't say that science needs to concede anything... i see only a matter of rhetoric. in that, scientists can't simply propound what is obvious to them, because creationists won't think that way. so there has to be some effort to increase the rhetoric and communication of the scientific understanding. it's hardly a matter of respectability- we all know creationism is junk. but i wonder: how can we, as the educated, help them to understand and accept science?
abyssquick 3 years ago
"so there has to be some effort to increase the rhetoric and communication of the scientific understanding" I don't understand what you mean. Science has nothing to do with being 'rhetorical'. As far as helping the public in understanding science. Well, that's what Hugenie is trying to do (help people understand science). ALso, it would help if the media was more educational in regards to science.
crazykb 3 years ago
rhetoric - as in, using language effectively, insightfully, persuasively. - "stepping into the other's mind".
i do see value in relating to the misled in a way that may persuade them into the correct point of observation. i see too much polarization, which comes from an emotional reaction more than a logical one. educating and approaching creationists more carefully could help to stem off the division, sociologically.
abyssquick 3 years ago
much as we dislike it, we have to follow a calm, logical path when dealing with social difficulties. with the religious one must tread lightly, or no progress can be made psychologically with them. it is difficult. they have so much cathexis, that when we are blunt with them, we create in them a sense of martyrdom... which they find noble (appealing to their cathexis) and so they become more fastidious, often making the belief stronger.
abyssquick 3 years ago
You're use of the word rhetoric is congruent for the topic. I was using the term, to express how people use 'bullshit' language to get 'bullshit' ideas across. Such is the case with ID, or religious arguments in general.
crazykb 3 years ago
absolutely; bullshit, contradiction, and delusion. they paint over such incoherence with verbal calisthenics... never begging their own questions, while gliding over an inherited assumptions about reality. religion is "the old cycle" which still reverberates strongly in the human psyche despite all evidence to it's contrary.
abyssquick 3 years ago
scientists are not inherently arrogant or dogmatic. they seem so only incidentally- in being cast into sharp contrast to something that makes no sense to them. polarization creates inflammation.
they're atheists largely because seeing the natural world produces deep questions about reality itself. arguments analogous to "because I said so" aren't a good enough answer for them.
abyssquick 3 years ago
i wonder why ID people post here. there's really nothing to argue. clearly this is a revolution in thinking that is going on. evolution has been happening, and is happening. if people care to observe the world, have interest in life it becomes obvious how insightful evolution is. it has been cross-confirmed repeatedly in so many areas of science... not to mention it's roots are deeply a part of genetics.
with all we now know, disputing evolution is the same as saying "the earth is flat"
abyssquick 3 years ago
and i mean this profoundly. if you have variability, and you have selection (struggle for life), and you have heredity... then evolution is inevitable. inevitable. the principle is so simple.
abyssquick 3 years ago
"wonder why ID people post here."
ID people post here, because they have a powerful negative emotional reaction to ID. And that emotional reaction motivates them in such a way, that they have to say something. It's all Psychology. ID is all about theology; not science. Good posts...
crazykb 3 years ago
"...fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings..."
I'm working on the t-shirt for you Dr. Scott! I'll let you know what I come up with.
CB563 3 years ago
JUST AN IDEA! allow a theology class in public schools. whackos, wiccans and wierdos might spend so much time fighting each other (they seem to like it) that they'll leave science alone.
est794 3 years ago 2
Expelled on IMDb currently is rated 3.6/10.
Most votes are either 1 or 10 for some reason.
x246869 3 years ago 12
Creationists vote it 10, people who passed 8th grade biology vote it 1.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago 35
I had 12 years of private catholic school under the pragmatic Ignatians, my younger brother was a Marionist, why do creationists want it taught as a science and not theology? What's the agenda to have it placed next to a scientific theory which has evidence? Teach faith-based concepts in religion class, right? Why are public schools being bullied to teach this crap?
sonofject 3 years ago 9
Because their faith is too weak to stand without bolstering it with evidence. They've gone far enough with this that they've lost sight of the fact that the evidence must be true to be meaningful.
lytrigian 3 years ago 10
The chick makes funnies, hehe
copyfaxscan 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Very funny lady, but a very scared one. Are afraid that the students in school will see the hoax of evolution and the lies that they have been fed for years.
Do not make this about religion. Lets see the scientific evidences. I dare you.
Sonshine1000 3 years ago
Your lack of education does not discredit the body of work that explains evolutionary theory. Go to school and learn - everything that you need to know can be learned by about 8th grade science. Good luck to you.
1n354a 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
With you evolutionists has always been about attacking the caracter of a person and not scientific facts. For your information, I do have B.S & M.S degrees in Engineering and Science and have many Patents. I have studied evolution and can read and comprehend scientific articles and books and critically think about the theories. I have found that the evolution theory to be a bankrupt one which has turned into an athiestic religion of the day. That is my investigation for the truth.
Sonshine1000 3 years ago
Good, you are an educated man. Please list the specific fallacies that you find in the theory of evolution...what exactly makes it a bankrupt theory? And why is it that your investigation for the truth results in discoveries so vastly different than most of the scientific community? After all evolution is nothing more than a hoax? Lies? Please enlighten the masses.
1n354a 3 years ago 33
All I can see in this comment is "I think im intelligent... i think evolution is wrong... therefore it is".
As 1n354a says here, give reasons. Just saying something is true or false doesnt automatically turn it into being true and false. Your comment above is long but is completely devoid of any actual content.
irishmauddib 3 years ago 8
She's is a hotty.....
stewstudboy 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's great to have a center of science for something that so evidently true. What a waste of money. Uh, no, keep pouring your atheist sweat and tears into her career as an anti-Christian bigot.
Dr0pDuckC0ver 3 years ago
Yeah, it is a real shame that so much time and money has to be wasted combatting the creationist campaign of ignorance.
plevyman 3 years ago 14
only in a your closed view of reality are athiests or scientists anti-christian. they are only anti-anti-intellectualism.
TheProf1988 3 years ago 7
"It's great to have a center of science for something that so evidently true. What a waste of money. Uh, no, keep pouring your atheist sweat and tears into her career as an anti-Christian bigot."
Disgusting little troll. How very CHRISTIAN of you to attack someone and NOT their argument. Hypocrite.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago 4
Amusing how some of the pro-evolutionary expert witnesses were practicing Christians...don't you think? Kinda shoots down your anti-Christian approach, eh?
1n354a 3 years ago
You are so right, anybody who is against evolution is really a good Christian. What an intellect you got there. Wish I could brain like you. True seeker of ultimate truth you are.
Keep up the most grand work, you doer of wonderful reason lover you.
dingorex 3 years ago
"Wish I could brain like you" - firstly I don't know what that means...quite frankly, I don't know that anybody knows what you mean.
However, assuming you meant to say "wish I could have a brain similar to yours"...I would disagree. I don't think that you do, because I think that you love living in a state of blind faith and assumed ignorance. The ability to go beyond what your preacher has told you would probably burst your little noodle.
Head back in sand! Assume the position!
Cheers!
1n354a 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"assume the position," oh yes, I too pine for those glory hole days in prison. I like to put sand around my anoose to add texture, you know what I like, Cheer-boy.
No, my and my pastor are not in a monkey-see, monkey-do relationship as you and your Barack the Changer minions have. But, I have gotten in touch with my inner brain and find you forgetable as I forgot why I'm even responding to such a cipher as yourself.
dingorex 3 years ago
Two seconds into a McDonalds and you'll be agreeing that ... tonight ... we dine ... in hell!!
oilotnoM 3 years ago
Facebooking her...
GBart 3 years ago 3
What is the NCSC/NCSE (?) she keeps referring to (that she works at)? Info plz / link in description.
grambottle033 3 years ago
National Center for Science Education.
Google it.
DeamonCohln 3 years ago 6
The National Center for Science Education is great. I have given them money and plan to give more.
marjoe77 3 years ago 7
My dad works for them. I've had dinner at Eugenie's house.
IDisBS 3 years ago 2
I watched the trailer. Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself.
kenthovindspimp 3 years ago 18
It's funny how the people who believe in evolution sounds a lot smarter and much more educated than the people who try to "attack" it in this thread...
ricknitro 3 years ago 15
funny as in comical... yes
funny as in unexpected... no
Scrapheap71 3 years ago 14
lol
ricknitro 3 years ago 3
Haha!
IDisBS 3 years ago
Von Mises Law: No one quits. If you think you have won against a bad idea, you must keep fighting because: No one quits.
MetaMorphy 3 years ago
Excellent pair of videos! Keep religion out of science classes.
EvoBiologist 4 years ago 11
And your comments on evolving from monkeys are as silly as it gets... You really do need to go away and read a few science books..We did not evolve directly from modern monkeys or apes... Rather, thus and monkeys and apes and indeed every living species share a common ancesto... For example, we share a common ancestor with Orangutans in the more distant past than chimps and thus share less genetic similarity... Modern apes and monkeys are our genetic cousins.
30hawkins 4 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry to say but. PEOPLE ARE STUPID think this way for a sec. Why arn't monkeys evoling now? wouldn't monkeys evolve faster around humens? and try to copy us. my theroy is
if we did evolve from monkeys. monkeys would start evolving faster then they ever did on there own with out humens. cuase they have 95% of our DNA dosn't mean we evolve from Monkeys. We dont have 100% proof that we evolve from moneys right now its just a theroy. and i don't think any one will ever
understand how we became
WannaBeNinjaIDoSo 4 years ago
Everything is constantly in a state of evolution, though sometimes this evolution doesn't involve perceivable changes in the phenotype, only the genotype.
logician360 4 years ago 6
You have a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is... To say "It's just a theory" only shows your ignorance. Theory in it's scientific definition does not mean the same as theory when used in everday usage.... It doesn't mean guess or hunch. A scientific theory is actually higher in the hiarachy than fact... A scientific theory integrates the facts. Thus, a scientific theory never becones a fact... The theory of relativity will never become the fact of relativi
30hawkins 4 years ago 6
Also, your comments on rates of evolution are faulty too. Not everything evolves at the same rate.... It depends on survival pressure within the particular environment... There is often stasis within evolution and under that stasis evolutionary pressures are not as prominent and so evolution slows down.... It can also do the opposite and speed up such as in the Cambrian Explosion.
30hawkins 4 years ago 4
humans do not COME FROM monkeys, you don't even know what evolution means and you say it isn't science? pathetic
AR333 4 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolution is not science
if humans came from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?
migkillertwo 4 years ago
humans are classified under the Primate order - we are 95% similar, as far as DNA sequencing goes, to the bonobo and chimp. - All of our human brains operate differently - some of us have learning disabilities, while some of us have a greater capacity for learning. People who pursue science and who tackle complicated tasks develop stronger brain structure, and i'm sure create smarter people. Multiply that by five million years.
ADAMKTN 4 years ago 2
migkillertwo,
The theory of evolution makes no such claim.
Do you even know what it is that you are arguing against? It does no good to attack straw men (except for displaying your ignorance).
kilroy1964 4 years ago 4
Read up what evolution is and then come back to us when you have a BASIC understanding of it.
shraleina 4 years ago 6
I'm sorry that you are misinformed. I hope that you will read up on evolution and natural selection - it's a triumph of human reason. It hurts to see it attacked based on claims it doesn't make.
nevagin 4 years ago 4
The monkeys that are around right now haven't been untouched by evolution, they have evolved just as much as we have.. But they do share a common ancestor with us, and that's the important part.
Sindegra 4 years ago 3
Great talk.
Masenko 4 years ago
LOL! Priceless stuff.
ClumsyRoot 4 years ago
The only problem with confronting Creationism with reason, is that you begin to assume there will always be rational people to hear and decide the arguments.
If the ID/Creationists get a stronger foothold, the rationally trained thinkers will be truly outnumbered.
Seeker64 4 years ago 4
Eugenie Scott,
she's good.
converse02 4 years ago 3
And she has a great sense of humour
lurconis666 4 years ago 4
We don't want to teach the controversy in evolution because most of it is based around deliberate creationist lies. Most of the rest of the controversy is high level stuff a highschool student probably won't understand.
Why not teach the controversy in physics? How come no one is concerned about the holes in gravity?
TheShak 4 years ago 4
It's so hard to get a consensus in science, especially with a radical theory like evolution by natural selection and common descent. VERY hard and tedious. It's not fair to teach something that bypasses the process of science and expects to law to give it a shoe-in. That's not fair in the least. Besides, ID = religion.
AdIgnorantiam 4 years ago 3
There's no internal controversy of evolution in science. The only controversy exists in the public eye, so any talk of the controversy class belongs in a social studies classes and in that context only. Science belongs in a science class.
AdIgnorantiam 4 years ago 4
Exactly. Nobody in the actual functioning scientific community even gives the factuality of evolution a second thought at this point. The only people calling it controversial or unproven are dimbulbs who don't understand it or dimbulbs who believe in creationism.
lucash21158 4 years ago 4
2 things, ironjohn:
1. Science is based on the scientific method. If there is not a reasonable or logical reason to believe something exists (i.e. the flying spaghetti monster or god) than don't believe in it.
2. Why do you have FAITH in God?
EncryptedSoldier 4 years ago 3
What are these supposed "gaps" in the theory of evolution that need to be taught?
Fossilization is a process that occurs rarely, under very specific conditions. Nobody ever claimed that the "fossil record" should be "complete." Although in Darwin's time fossils were crucial to evolutionary theory, in 2007 we have genetic evidence that entirely confirms modern evolutionary theory.
ogieogie 4 years ago
Fossel evidence does not conferm evolution. Neither does genetic evidence. DNA is so complex, it could not have arrisen by chance, as Materialsitic evolution says it must ! John
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
"Fossel evidence does not conferm evolution. Neither does genetic evidence."
A blind assertion on which the scientific community overwhelmingly disagrees with you.
"DNA is so complex, it could not have arrisen by chance..."
No one suggests it arose by chance, what is known to science is that it arose through evolution, which is not directed by chance but by natural selection. WHY do you continually try to criticize a science you know THAT LITTLE about?
quiIl 4 years ago
It is such a shame that you have so little understnading of the evidence and issues.
1) Chemical origin of live does not happen my natural selection, materialstic evolution requirs it to happen by chance.
2) Natural selection simply explains variaations within species, when commined with genetic variation. It can not explain macro evolution.
4)one evolutionary scientits even suguested the Hopeful Monster Theory in order to account for gaps in the fossel reccord.
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
Natural selection doesn't explain variation from within a species. That's what genetic drift explains. And if you seriously think that evolution claims that the origin of life happened by chance, i.e. that matter just flew together in the proper order to create a strand of DNA, then you know nothing at all about evolution and are arguing against a position which no evolutionary scientist holds.
quiIl 4 years ago
So if life did not arise by chance,(random variations within the environment, including chmical, energy,including gases in the atmosphere) then how did it arise ? Are you suguesting an intellegent design ? Well Well !
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
Life didn't "arise" in the way you are thinking. There is no distinction between life and non-life at the molecular level, it's just chemistry. Amino acids replicating and being sorted by natural selection.
quiIl 4 years ago
We know that there is a difference between life and non life. When there was not life, how did life get arise ? What was the teransision point between non life and a living organism ? Natural selection only comes in when youhave life ! JT
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
"We know that there is a difference between life and non life... Natural selection only comes in when you have life!"
No, there is no distinction between "life" and "non-life" at the molecular level. How do you tell a "living" molecule of acid from a non-living molecule of acid? It's just chemistry at that level, so the question of how molecular "life" can come from molecular "non-life" is totally without meaning.
frellthat 4 years ago 2
Portein, organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain and joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues, is the very basic form for living things on earth which
existed when earth in the early form from extremly heat and other chemical reaction and
other words, it can exist is pure COINCIDENCE , that also explain why there is no life on mars.
collateral121 4 years ago
It also shows that for early bacteria to survive
, they have to adapte srounding eviroment, and
that confrims the Natrual Selection in Darwin's
Theory.
collateral121 4 years ago
The fossil record is always going to be incomplete, but it matches evolution's predictions perfectly. To say there is a contradiction between what evolution predicts and what we find in the fossil record is to misunderstand both subjects entirely.
quiIl 4 years ago
If the fosel reccord matches the TOE then why did Prof Gould put forward the 'hopeful monster mechanism' of evoution ?
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
Because like I said in my last comment, the fossil record, even though it confirms evolutionary predictions, is always going to be incomplete. And that leaves plenty of room for debate over the details.
quiIl 4 years ago
You know as little about science as you do about spelling.
ogieogie 4 years ago
Ok so you also discrimate against people who are dyslexic then as well !
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How is observing what's evident "discrimination"? You should quit posting and start studying.
ogieogie 4 years ago
Just goes to show how much science you actually understand. Why is it that people who makes claim to what science can and cannot explain display an amazingly bad grasp of science themselves?
shelterit 4 years ago 2
Not sure who this is aimed at. Science involves philosophical assumtions, a scientific method of expermentation, deduction, propositions, and potneital falsification of propositions. Some propositions,such as the origin of life,are not falsifiable. Look at the work of the philosopher Carl Popper for more info. John T
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
I'm afraid that Popper is not resolving this issue, as he's said quite a lot. Besides, we don't argue over falsification, we argue over irreducible complexity and your statement that DNA is too complex to just happen without a designer. Evolution is a design process, nothing more, so we're *really* arguing the intelligence of said design process. I claim there is none (and I've got most scientists on my side) but simple mechanisms.
shelterit 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
An open debate on !
The nature of scientific propositions. Carl Poper argued evolution theory Not scientific -not flasifiable
origin of living organisms from a non living world. Naturalistuc explanations (mathmatical probability theory) v metaphysics.
Development of life once it emerged.
Do naturalistic explanations, (natural selection, gene mutation,resorting genetic codes, explain macro -evolution, or is design is a more rational explanation?. JT
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
evo is easily falsified. what a poser. a human with only tomato dna would be an easy evolution killer. there's billions of ways . just makeup anything almost.
damianpoirier 4 years ago 4
Hey dumb shit, put up or shut up. We're sick of hearing your bullshit with nothing to back it up. Cite something or gtfo.
Di66en6ion 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Teaching the gaps in the evolution theory is just good science ! And teaching the alternatives to materialism is a really good thing,. but they seem opposed to this !
Real education taches people to think, and when YE Creationsits and materialsitic evolutionsists oppose this it is anti educational John
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Filling the gaps with relition has NOTHING to do with science.
GaleAnders 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
*religion
GaleAnders 4 years ago
"Teaching the gaps in the evolution theory is just good science!"
The scientific community repeatedly, unequivocally and overwhelmingly says that these "gaps" of yours stem from a misunderstanding of the science. Therefore teaching such nonsense to students would be to lie to them. It would be *bad* science and bad behavior.
quiIl 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Eugenie is hot!!! I wish me and her could get together to do some "intelligent designing". j/k
erockbrox 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Eugenie Scott is kind of a Cougar ...
GeoffreyDinosaurs 4 years ago
Eugenie, This is a superb lecture and quantifies precisely the weak arguments for ID, as well as the appalling situation prevalent in education, in permitting any form of creationism to be taught in the guise of a science subject, thanks.
HoleyJ
holeyjumper 4 years ago
I am not a young earth creationist ! I am however appauled that cricicsms of Evolution are excluded. That is not education this is indoctrination ! A liberal education should include a wide range of views, and the teaching of logic and reason.
Evolution is of course predominantly Materialistic evolution, something that they evolutionists are not always honest about this.
John T
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
in what way do you see critisism of ToE being excluded? The reason IC>ID notion wasn't tossed on it's ear from the start is because people ARE objective and when serious contenders challenge a well grounded science people DO listen. IC>ID had it's moment of limelight but it failed in every regard, not just because it's proponants were creationists with an anti-constitutional adgenda.
damianpoirier 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Listen to the video ! she rejoyces that a teacher can not include criticisms /problems of evoution' and they are excluded.
Actually materialistic evolution is a faith, because the propositions of evolution, ie that life came from non life ex million years ago, is un forcifiable, and fails Carl Popper's falsification principle !
John T
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
a cat giving birth to a dog would sure falsify evolution i think.
and 1000's of other things would too.
What does "unforcifiable" mean?
damianpoirier 4 years ago
OK ! A cat giving birth to a Dog, would definatly varify evolution, it would solve the gaps in the fossel reccord !
Falsifiable - in principle a proposition if scientific is able to be falified or shown to be false. The proposition that life arose spontaniously x million years ago, through the process of chemical evlolution could not be falified or verified in theory or in reality. It is a beliefe, not a scientific theory.JOhn
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
if you are going to be facitious and idiotic you lose.
idiotic statment like claims that ToE suggests cat>dog is patently absurd and you aught to know better. so evo is falsifiable.
as for abiogenisis being falsifiable, it as well is as easily done. all you have to do is prove that the chemicals of life can NOT join in such a way as to allow life.
damianpoirier 4 years ago
One of the evolutionists I forget his name but could look this up, suguested the 'hopefull monster theory' ( ie one sepcies giving boith to a new one) to expalin the gaps in the fossel reccord.
Re Chemical evolution, it is not falsifiable as a historical proposition. Please refrane from instults it just makes your arguments look weak John T
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your"evolutionist' is what a 3rd grader?
You claim to be 47 years old. At your age you sould know what the ToE does and doesn't claim. So tell me how a grown man like you has no clue about it. Also given that you've got no clue, think to argue with anone who does.
I've demolished your claims that evo and abio aren't falsifiable. because you feel inclined to wriggle and squirm to avoid saying you were wrong, i sense that any further discussion with you would result in more of the same.
damianpoirier 4 years ago
Hopeful Monster Mechanism was put forward by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard.He did so becaause the mecahnaisms of evolution dont work, and the fossel reccord does not support TOE.If you choose to call him a third grader ???????
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
Have a look at Tiktaalik, probably the clearest "transitional fossil" ever found. Yet another intermediate form between fish and tetrapod (four-legs). Google it, wiki it, whatever. Just go and educate yourself. Maybe you should (just an idea) read a, you know, "science book".
Instead of browsing the AIG (Answers In Genesis) website for "arguments" against evolution.
Mattnesss 4 years ago
like mattnesss says, get your nose out of AiG.
damianpoirier 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Listen to the video ! she rejoyces that a teacher can not include criticisms /problems of evoution' and they are excluded."
Because that is clearly just a disingenous backdoor way of suggesting to children that there is merit in ID when the entire scientific community repeatedly and unequivacally says that there is none. Or in other words, to LIE TO CHILDREN. It won't happen, get it through your head.
quiIl 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its obvious that the entire scientific communty does not support evolution. Many Scientists are scepical.Sceince use to believe in Newtonian physics, now it believes in Quantum physics. Concepts changed !John T
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
Oh. So the entire scientific community doesn't support evolution. Were are are you living? On the moon?
...
Google "Project Steve", if you have at least a tiny little bit of intellectual honesty in yourself.
Mattnesss 4 years ago
QD does not replace Newton it refines his laws.
A 'new' theory of evolution would have to do everything that the ToE does first then if it can do more or do it better, then it will be appended to the ToE. ToE explains the fossil record, it predicts adaptations, it predicts irriducible complexity too.
damianpoirier 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it doesn't predict irreducible complexity, because IC doesn't exist. It explains how these so called "irreducibly complex" organisms evolved.
Mattnesss 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
actually, that IC systems would be found was predicted useing ToE in 1905. IC systems do exist, this doesn't mean they didn't evolve.
mearly that they evolved to a state of such interdependance that to remove part is to fail catastrophicly.
damianpoirier 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
or a compltly differnet theory with diffferent philosophical assumptions ? JOhn T
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
I don't want to be "nit-picky" (haha) here, but:
a) evolution doesn't say ANYTHING about how life first arose, that's called "abiogenesis". Evolution only tells us how life developed afterwards.
b) it arose "billions" of years ago, you're off by a factor of 1000.
Mattnesss 4 years ago
how lame is this? I'm stating FACTS here (just fucking google it!) Abiogenesis ISN'T evolution.
And I only corrected the person who wrote that life arose a few millions years ago a few posts back.
There's no opinion involved here. Of course you can still "rate" my comment as "bad" (-6? yay).
Mattnesss 4 years ago 10
Sorry about the thumbs downs. Just remember you can have a million thumbs downs and still be right.
paleosmoker 4 years ago 4
there's someone who's gone abusive on youtubes thumbs on a number of related sites. youtube needs to fix or ditch this feature.
damianpoirier 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Some evolutionists talk about the chemical evolution of life. What ever you call it, we are talking about the same process.How did Life arise from a non living universe ? That is the key question. No speculations, be they materialist or metahysical are falsifiable. scientits need to be aware of their philosophical assumptions,as what they do is not value free. JT
ironjohnlad 4 years ago
To quote THE doctor:
What is life? A way to keep meat fresh.
thkaal 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
mh, she's hot
heloizyjhenifer 4 years ago
its ok to have a religion just keep it away from school in fact if these believer's god really exist, since we are born we don't need to be thought about faith and religion, now that what I call miracle.
metabolgia 4 years ago
none of the creationist replies to these videos seem to actually respond to the video's content. They just know the general topic and tone of the video, and then throw out some rehashed propaganda against evolution.
spiderofdoom 4 years ago
Yes. They are truly becoming desperate. Spamming copy-pasted fallacies is becoming some creationists' only remaining card.
danmoore5000 4 years ago 2
Plus they're the same stupid objections over and over again.
GBart 4 years ago
JesusisLord111, we've all heard of Pascal's Wager and we've all heard it refuted and torn down a million times.
Christ's salvation doesn't ask for mere belief in God, it asks for belief and worship and a moral code that is very specific to one particular model of god. So your wager is over-simplified.
If Allah's Word the Koran is correct then you're in just as much shit as we. If Odin is lord, then less so... but if Cthulu is lord supreme then oh boy the bets are all off.
spiderofdoom 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOU are the Idiot----MORON!
TruthIsTruth01 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are the idiot MORON !
TruthIsTruth01 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How can Pseudointellectual Atheistic Evilutionists Morons be stupid enough to believe in a " billions of years " ago fairy tale story... that requires Alot Of FAITH!
av1611truth 4 years ago
Idiot, just belive in your fairy tale about some genie of the lamp creating the universe in 6 days.
A11ex 4 years ago
av161truth, kent hovind's arguments are so discredited that other YECs even distance themselves from him, so stop alluding to rehashed ideas from his lectures.
There's no faith required, except if you mean faith in evidence and reality.
spiderofdoom 4 years ago
You are deprived of intelligence. How is evidence fairy tale-like? Your an idiot.
KainenDarkley 4 years ago
So what you are saying, av1611truth, is that crime scene investigators are useless because it's impossible to figure out what happened in the past by looking at the current evidence?
tingtangs 4 years ago
av1611truth is too much of a fucking pussy to answer me:
So what you are saying, av1611truth, is that crime scene investigators are useless because it's impossible to figure out what happened in the past by looking at the current evidence?
tingtangs 4 years ago
Adaptation.....IS evolution. Natural Selection is what drives adaptation.
If it were not still bacteria in such a short time, it would disprove evolution, not support it.
Read something other then the bible.
Greyghostvol1 4 years ago
Great video.
SilentBombr 4 years ago
We're not the ones claiming there's a god. The only 'proof' religious people have of a god is...wait, there isn't any. As for the bacteria, the exact same mechanism that drives what you'd like to call 'adaptation' also drives evolution. Its the same thing.
jbl5764801 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Another great presentation, the only problem I have is that I would want people to be taught the limitations of Evolution.
Isn't that what Science is all about?
Real limitations mind, not the ridiculous Creationist claims.
JamesPR87 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What are the limitations of evolution?
tingtangs 4 years ago
I'm no scientist, but it would be foolish to claim there aren't any.
I'm merely saying that refusing to discuss the potential faults with it is ignorant rather than "Bright".
JamesPR87 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Alright, you're admittedly not a scientist. However by the sounds of your proposition it would seem that you would not be able likely to believe someone if they told you the only limitations of evolution were those of biochemistry and physics, despite the fact you lack the scientific knowledge to refute it. Is that fair?
Viral9 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you don't know what these limitations are, but you are all for teaching them?
How can you be for something you haven't a clue about?
tingtangs 4 years ago