Im speechless there's so much wrong with thus you guys cant even answer a fifteen year olds question yet you act like u have so much proof there is mo God. I love you guys and I'll pray for you but if you continue recruiting children to your "beliefs" then there is a special place for you in he'll. Have you ever researched God? Your beliefs are based on a mans opinion who is smarter than you. U put faith in man but not in your creator. Scary to somone who knows the creator personally.
@Southtacomamook So I guess you went to his house and watched the Oscars? Are you that dense. They did explained and answered her question and then gave her references to look for herself,
@Southtacomamook You say my beliefs are based on those of a man who is smarter then myself, yet your beliefs are based on a god who you believe is smarter then your self. I don't see how putting faith in someone is real and alive is dumb but putting faith in something that can never be proven to exist is "smart".
@Southtacomamook Yup, we're all heathens who trust things like "science" and "proof" and "logic"--"critical thinking". We atheists have provided you with Facebook and Microsoft, but we always fall short on the zealot scale of idiot-to-creationist lapse. We should all just not exist. Oh, and when a natural disaster comes, don't board up your house or supply yourself: pray to God. He's all-powerful/present: He'll give all the electricity and substance you need: ask him, he shall provide, somehow.
Nyaaaaaah... y'know, sometimes I'm a little disappointed with the AE guys. She's 15 years old and being perfectly polite... I think sometimes the AE guys just aren't patient enough. They get better as this call goes on, but at the beginning they're just dismissive. Particularly "They did!" - excellent. Come on...
I have to say, it's refreshing to hear a caller stop and listen to what's being said rather than shouting over every factual, rational objection/explanation being presented by these guys. But maybe I just have low standards at this point.
These guys douche it up a fair bit. Sure they're used to dealing with morons but this is just some chick knows what she's been told isn't complete and wants to clear it up so she can kick her mums teeth in with it.
I'm not any kind of expert I'm not saying human embryo to fully grown human is the Evolution. It's the change from one type of mammal to other types over long periods of time. I was just saying that when I looked at different embryos (on Google). It made it much easier for me to grasp the concept of a pre historic fish becoming a man. I posted hoping an expert would put me straight.
Isn't Dimetrodon a transitional form? It's a dinosaur that scientists have labeled a 'proto-mammal'. It's one of the first animals with differentiated teeth and the ability to regulate its core temperature(with a massive back fin) to further extremes than its contemporaries, giving it a huge advantage. It could hunt earlier and later in the day. Still a dinosaur, but taking tiny steps toward distinctly mammalian characteristics.
@Danarchistic1 The point is that 'transitional form' (TF) doesn't mean half-something and half-something else. The dimetrodon isn't a half-toucan/half-dunkleosteus. That's what theists mean by transitional.
What a TF really is is an arbitrary point between two other distantly related species separated by time. To simplify for analogy, your parents are a TF between you and your grandparents, and you are a TF between your great-great-grandparents and your children's grandchildren
@EdwardHowton Thanks for the clarification. I thought TF meant a species with the recognizable features of two different modern species. By my erroneous deffinition, the fossil record is littered with them
@Danarchistic1 Glad I could help! And yes, the fossil record is littered with transitional forms, although it would be more accurate to say that nearly all fossils are transitional forms.
The only exceptions are fossils of species lines that died out entirely and have no descendants left alive today; dead ends
Not all fossils found are likely to have had time to reproduce, as well, so when you see old bones you're not necessarily looking at a direct ancestor of a living animal.
You have to realise every time you speak to creationists get the TIME SCALE clear, many of them think the earth is only a few thousands years old.
Make absolutely clear that all evidence indicates the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old! Emphasise how mind bogglingly long that is, how you could LITERALLY move mountains in that time just with the tiniest force.
When you look at a human embryo and a cat embryo and a whale embryo they are very similar in appearance. It is very easy to see that they are evolved from the same ancestor and that it only actually takes small changes at that level; at the DNA level to get a big change for a fully grown adult. Creationists will look at a man and a whale and see no family resemblance and find it easy to ridicule evolution. LOOK AT EMBRYOS it's obvious. This doesn't prove or disprove a God by itself, but sho
@JanusChristIsRisen you could explaine it alot better, in such a way that a 15 year old that has been told that evolution is false, could understand it? I don't think so, unless, if you are very good (and mind you, they didn't have more than these 7, well, 6, min' to do it in).
also, mind you, that what ever you answer, she would have likely (without even realizing it) moved the goal post, and tell you "well, but you haven't proven this thing".
@eyallev I would have started with explaining how random genetic mutation leads to more adaptable traits to a given environment (which is the core of what natural selection is). I would have pointed out transitional species that clearly show the evolution of animals like horses, whales, and humans all of which have fossilized remains.
@eyallev cracked recently had a cool article on a few 'mutants' that have pretty much super human powers. Theres a guy who can consciously control his body's reactions to hot and cold, and swim naked in freezing water with no problem. There's a guy who, as long as he keeps eating and stuff, could literally run for the rest of his life. There's people who never forget anything, at all. And theres a guy with such fast reactions he can cut a fired airsoft bullet in half with a sword.
If god created us in his image could he look like a tadpole. There is nothing in the bible that says his image is that of a fully formed human. Makes more sense.
Im wondering why people don't look at the way a human evolves from a tadpole (sperm) in just 9 months in to a beautiful fully formed baby. Which is something bloody amazing and almost unbelievable, but then refuse to believe that equally amazing evolutionary changes occur over millions of years. Bacteria to human if you like.
@Tomskie6636 actully, while it's a nice idea, it won't work.
the claim of creationist is that god designed the human "machine" so that it could develop like that (grow from a single cell to a new baby in 9 months), and that such a perfect system could not come from "random mistakes".
using things like "ring speciation" is the way to prove (or demonstrate) evolution.
there is a hovind vid, where he says "I won't really call a chiwaawaa a dog", that is an example of speciation
Christians have developed a method of cognition where they have convinced them selves that
they can support and defend any of their beliefs successfully-- and this includes debating with atheists. Regardless of how well the atheist builds the case for his position with air-tight logic and science--the thiest will always claim victory simply because he never admits defeat. It's all done by faith--what he sees as his greatest virtue. All faith does is remove your farther and farther from reality.
You are making a mistake. You can not argue with a religious person. Religion is a mental illness. The religious deal with anxiety by believing in a giant all powerful father in the sky who protects them. They obsess over behaviors like having to wear special hats, or say certain words in order to appease this ever-watchful disciplinarian. That is simply a cross between OCD, delusion and paranoia. Try defining delusion, and then try to distinguish between that and the belief in God.
It's funny how creationists always try to debunk the theory of evolution, and by that they think to justify their beliefs in their particular God. For the sake of argument let's say the theory of evolution is completely false, you're still at square one as you have zero verifiable evidence for your own claims.
How can creationists say "I've never seen any proof in science that evolution is true." But they believe what the bible says about origins with zero proof? Religious people are deranged.
@nyyght7 I agree. They were too dismissive. If your answer to how planets form, especially to a 15 year old, is "it's called cosmology," then you need your own lesson in how to host a show that's meant to be informative.
@johnjsal When I was 15, I understood the difference between astronomy and biology. And at 14. And at 13. And at 12. Going back at least to age 6, when I read my first book on astronomy for children and my first books on dinosaurs. I had friends with chemistry sets and read books on magnets and general science at age 7. Being 15 is no excuse. Any fairly bright and curious 8-year-old who reads at grade-level would have seen that cosmology and evolution are branches of separate fields.
@cbooth2004 Good for you. I had a telescope and microscope set when I was a child too, but that is irrelevant. The point here is that this particular person clearly was raised in a religious household and has not yet broken free of that influence, so a person like that deserves better explanations than a statement that basically amounts to "Go look it up yourself."
15-year-olds can be very smart but it's still an age when they haven't learned nearly enough to fully defend any kind of worldview.
@johnjsal Matt did give a summary of planet formation. Not a good one in terms of scientific descriptiveness, but it still suffices in regards to the topic of evolution (and the field of biology as a whole).
If she wanted more information on this irrelevant area, she could use the internet and look up "planet formation". Or watch a Discovery Channel series on it. Or go to a library.
Also, looking it up for herself would get her into the mindset of looking for herself. (rant, rant)
@onijester56 First, my comments were directed mainly toward the host on the right. When he spoke, it was very cursory and dismissive. He's the one who said "It's called cosmology," and then stopped talking, as if that was so definitive in itself.
Second, this isn't an either/or situation, where the options are either to explain everything to this girl in extreme detail, or just send her on her way to read about it herself. There is a middle ground that could have been better addressed.
@johnjsal Third, given your defense of the intellectual fortitude of a 15-year old, I'm surprised you don't find the host on the left at least somewhat dismissive when he asks the caller's age and then said "I hope this isn't over Ariel's head." Even *I* found that insulting.
Also, she is confident that "none of that stuff has been proven". She has to have some way to get information on it and done some searching for her to make that claim, which she makes a few times in different phrasings.
She either can look it up for herself or she is lying. The former supports their statements and rebukes your criticism of them. The latter means she never wanted to understand it in the first place and rebukes your criticism of them.
Hmm... I can't give you one fact about evolution that's true, but i can give you 10.
Observed speciation, RNA, DNA, ERV's, phylogeny, vestiges, atavisms, ring species, allelic drift, chromosome nr.2, comparative anatomy, fossils, geological column, just to name a few. Okay my mistake, it was 13 facts not 10.
I guess the closest to a transitional species you'll find is the Archaeopteryx; A raptor that developed feathers and eventually evolved into a plethora of birds still known collectively as 'raptors' like vultures.
Lets look at it this way. Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over, If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?
I have to say, they didn't have to laugh and mock her ignorance of evolutuon. She was really willing to learn. Kind of made them look like assholes. Matt never laughs at a creationist's question, no matter how wild and crazy it might be. Despite her first question seeming kind of condescending, she seemed like she really wanted to learn. I think they realized towards the middle and end, that she was young and just wanted to know what evolutuon was, and how the earth and it's species came to be.
a 15 year old girl is not claiming that a statement she makes is true but that she read/saw it somewhere and listens to what they have to say about it whereas other older callers claim false statements to be true and not listen to what the people on the show have to say. what does that say about the callers?
@amadain17 i'm not talking about magic. I'm talking about evolution. And these guys don't even know where to begin. They said planets come from dust... and the gravity pulled more dust particles together to make a planet really now?..do you believe that?..
@zachariahm10 Yes, it is true. We seriously are nothing more than star dust. Maybe you should look up what a supernova is, assuming that you don't know what it is already. After a star undergoes a supernova, the elements that are formed in the cores of stars are spewed out over millions of miles of space, at the same time cooling down. The motes of dust are the planets you see today. Gravity sometimes forms shapes out of space dust, but nothing like a planet.
@disfigured75 i believe evolution is true after gods creation. and even if that theory about dust was true it would need so much evidence and support to make it true. I understand what you say.But things cannot just spew out randomness.You can't say we are star dust..because something cant come from nothing. its impossible. scientists come up with so many theories that are easy to believe and easy to fall into but they are not proven in anyway what so ever.its simply hypothesis with no evidence
@Nyanx4 no i believe that god created the universe, based on the bible, fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence, historical evidence. and lots more that I cannot fit in here. You believe that out of random chance a cell just happened to appear, and then it replicated into the universe. Sounds very unlikely and not reasonable in any way.
@Nyanx4 no he didn't will himself into the universe. Look at john chapter 1 if you have a bible. And here comes the ad hominem s. And no I payed attention in life science they just never explained to me how the first cell was created. maybe you can. Well then explain to me how the first cell came to being..please.
@zachariahm10 You must have missed the release of the experiment findings for the yeast cells. A unicellular organism evolved into a multicellular organism. Look it up, evolution is fact.
hold on, thats not exactly fair.They go on to attack religion and the bible when she was simply discussing logic and science.She was talking about whats fact and what is not with evolution.She did stay polite and keep a level head but they switchd it.Im not a christian but its kinda like 2 faiths are at war here and not science vs religion.
She's a hell of a lot smarter than people 20 years older than her that call this show. She's at least somewhat open minded and wasn't just spewing off religious claims with no evidence.
@Kayyyleb There's a reason for that, though. Most (if not all) 20-year-old people who call on this show have been raised to believe this all their lives. That's why they feel so strongly.
She also has been raised this way, I suppose... So maybe 'stupid' isn't the word I should have used.
"Brainwashed" is the word I would use. It's not that religious people are stupid (at least not the majority I think). The problem is that they've been conditioned all their lives to ignore logic and rationality whenever their religion is concerned. Religion largely feeds on the gullible and the younger you start the conditioning the stronger it is. For years I lived in the same environment with a religious family trying to force me into their beliefs.
I've been fortunate enough that my family never brings up my atheism anymore so I don't either. To each their own. It's sad that the entire anti-gay marriage movement is fueled by religious bigotry. As soon as I switched to an atheist my homophobia disappeared and I see homosexuals as normal people now.
@Kayyyleb my homophobia will stop when someone tell me why are people gay, (i'm a piece of shit and i'm to lazy to look for the information my self) one dude told me that animals do it also therefore homosexuality is perfectly natural, i agree with that, is just that i've never seen gay animals... my homophobia will stop when i understand it
You have no reason to be homophobic so its my job to find a reason for you not to be? No. YOU go find a reason TO be a homophobe before you decide to take that stance.
@Kayyyleb you are right, i guess i'm not homophobic , i'm just curious of why homosexuality happens!, i mean ,is it hormonal or psychologic or both?, no one knows? or nobody gives a fuck? you don't have to answer me if you don't want to... relax dude
Homosexuality is natural. People are born that way. They are a minority and they are different so they are disliked. Which is sad, because homosexuals just being themselves doesn't hurt anyone yet they attract so much hatred from ignorant people just for being different.
@ryonafan Why are people sometimes born with blue eyes instead of brown? Or blonde hair instead of black? That's essentially what you're asking. It's just a natural occurance that just isn't as common as heterosexuality.
@ryonafan Im curious have you actually tried to find the answers yourself, instead of asking on a youtube video? To be honest your not going to get very good answers. You have a very slim chance that someone who actually studies the subject is going to watch this one video and see your one comment.
If you really want to know the answer actually try to do some research. There have been several scientific studies on the subject.
@ryonafan I am not trying to be rude I just think it is foolish to try to get your answers from youtube. Not saying there are not intelligent people on YT its just unlikely you will get an expert
@ryonafan "i'm just curious of why homosexuality happens!, i mean ,is it hormonal or psychologic or both?"
Evolution has no purposes, things just happen, in a sense it is an "experiment" with different thing that do happens. If it works, over time it will become more frequent in the population of individuals. Homosexuality is just another of these feature evolution experiments with. One "purpose" with homosexuality can be to control population size, we see tendency to this in nature.
@ryonafan "my homophobia will stop when someone tell me why are people gay"
No it wont stop for that reason. It will stop when you come to terms with yourself and start seriously ask yourself why you feel or believe certain things. Nobody can tell you why you feel about something in a certain way. Only you can do that. Start ask yourself why you find it important or why it matters to you what kind of sexual orientation people have. Usually phobias are rooted in some kind of fears...
@brooklynriz brush up on scientific lingo, when a scientist uses the word theory it is not in the same context to which most people assume it is. science has proven evolution a ridiculous amount of time, its all public the research and findings, its up to you to go and educate yourself before throwing out a statement like you just did, because im sorry to tell you it is fact, with tangible proven evidence. Unlike religion
@brooklynriz a theory that has been backed up by tons of evidence, examples, fossils that has been studied and tried and true for over 150 years. a theory isn't just "well i think this makes sense lets go with this". that would be a myth.
@captainclayman sure lets look at fossils. Fossils show millions of missing transitional morphological forms. We find new fossils all the time and they almost always come up as morphologies we already know about. They never come up as a middle point.
Acceptance of the fact of evolution is *not* a prerequisite for nonbelief. There are atheists who don't (or at least they say they don't) accept evolution as fact.
Conversely, there are millions of theists--the pope among them--who understand that evolution is a fact, and yet believe in god(s).
Even if evolution were somehow shown not to be a fact, that *by itself* would not be enough to demonstrate that god(s) exist or have ever existed.
Caller: "can you tell me facts about this and that?"
Hosts: "It's basically like so, but remember, we're not paleontologists or biologists. We suggest you go to this website that explains it way better than we can."
Caller: at 5:10 "I just wanted your opinion. I'm pretty set with my opinion."
(. . . and there it is. Every conversation like this has that point where the religious person sticks their fingers in their ears. Her mind was made up for her by her preachers and/or parents.)
@setmedic Neanderthal wasn't a transitional form it was an evolution offshoot that lead to a dead end. In fact there is now a lot of evidence suggesting that homo sapiens may have mated with neanderthals and some of their genetic background can be seen in certain populations of current modern people. But only a few set groups.
@clebersonpertile No need. Any bio textbook will teach it. While Humans and Bacteria descended from a common ancestor, Humans did not descend from Bacteria. Humans are Eukaryotic which means they have a nucleus, whereas Bacteria are Prokaryotic meaning the cells do not have a nucleus. Furthermore the Domain system is divided into 3, Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya. Humans fall into Eukarya domain, ergo humans are not descended from Bacteria. This is something taught in basic biology.
@Stitchman3875 Yes you are completely right in your argument, but that does not apply to the video because he said that humans evolved from "something LIKE a bacteria", you know? I think he used a "metaphor" so the kid would understand it better, as he is no cientist or something…
Well actually I think Homo Sapiens is not an Animal: it's a Virus. It destroys the place where it leaves, spreads out, and destroys even more stuff. It's harmful to its own inhabitat.
@clebersonpertile Even as a metaphor it still fails. The only organism like Bacteria are Archaea, which is another Prokaryotic lifeform. So he is still wrong in that case.
By the way, Viruses are debated as being organisms because they contain features that deviate from commonly accepted organisms. Viruses have no cells, and no metabolism, and cannot live independently. The comparison of humans to viruses is apples and oranges.
@Stitchman3875 I don't think it fails if you think of "Bacterias" as "Microorganisms", cells and stuff… This is what I would understand if someone told me that we evolved from something *like* a bacteria (a tiny microorganism), not exactly from *a* bacteria…
And btw I was just quoting the movie The Matrix, dude, chill out… just kidding with our destructive nature ^^
@Stitchman3875 well they are only different nowadays. back when there were very simple life forms, there was ONLY (most likely) single celled organisms. However, over the years because life has has millions upon millions of years to mutate and evolve, these have differentiated into the two different Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic beings
@ImJustSayin81 As mentioned earlier in my comment, Humans and Bacteria have a common ancestor, however, Human beings are not descended from Bacteria. The common Ancestor was differentiated into Prokarya and Eukarya. The Prokarya further split into Bacteria and Archaea. So there is not "they are different nowadays", upon the differentiation, they were always separate organisms. The question is not the multiplicity of cells, the question is the presence of a nucleus in the cell.....
Perhaps when people say Bacteria they merely mean 'micro-organism', in which case it is true that we are descended from such. They might not have been classed as bacteria but for people not highly versed in biology, bacteria and micro-organism tend to be fairly synonymous.
@Vire70 I'm afraid that is not a good enough excuse. If creationists are allowed to stretch out definitions to fit their perspective, I would expect their opponents to present a more precise and informed definition. If you're gonna present something on a topic, basic research is warranted. Either, wiggle should not be allowed from either side.
I think you're being a bit pedantic. The guys in the video didn't even say they were bacteria; they said yes we evolved from something LIKE bacteria, which is quite true. They are TV hosts with no significant scientific education, expecting them to explain the precise details of micro-organisms to a 15 year old is just absurd. Especially when they directed her to resources which will more effectively do just that.
@Vire70 It is not quite right that we evolved from something "like bacteria", evolving from a common ancestor from bacteria is not the same as evolving from something like bacteria (unless you stretch it that far, which is fallacious). You don't need to be a science expert to know that. That is basic biology, you can read it in a rudimentary commentary on biology. Ergo, there are no precise details to be explained. What they did was simply misleading.
Really... more with being pedantic. It is 'like bacteria' as in it was a micro-organism. Both would be invisible to the naked eye, and I imagine to the layman would look not too dissimilar under a microscope. 'Like' is an approximation which I would have thought would be obvious but apparently you need everything pointed out in excruciating detail. If they operated the show like that they would never get past the first call.
@Vire70 My demands are not even close to excruciating detail. Believe me, there is way detail to it than what I put in my statements. It is very basic biology, it was actually the first thing I learned in my Microbiology class. It would be like saying a Virus came from a Bacteria like microorganism, which it didn't. Either way, creationists are lay people who use the same stretches to affirm their point. I would expect their opponents to not walk into the same error.
skinks. snakes becoming lizards. 2nd chromosome of the human DNA is combination of 2nd and 3rd chromosome of apes, with redundant markers present, explaining the missing chromosome between us and apes
It's sad seeing kids like this who've been so lied to. Although I guess it's also nice to see that they're willing to inquire to begin with, which is in itself the greatest threat religion faces.
I was an atheist once and I believed the lies of evolution but then God saved me and I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. The Bible explains so many things.
Check out my Videos "Religion is ridiculous" (specifically christianity)...good stuff...rate it! Christians I CHALLENGE you to watch with an open mind. Atheists watch and if you like the videos then give thumbs up!!! Help spread the truth!!
lol the guy acts as if christians do nothing. um hello, they give food, water, houses, supplies, education, etc to those who have nothing ALL OVER THE WORLD! so, for that, he's already dumb in my books. Also, the bible had answers to questions science later found out. The guy needs to stop listening to other people, (even preachers) and start doing his own research.
@marineboy090 If the bible had the answers then why did we have to wait for scientists to tell us about them? Surely a priest or the Pope would have known and told the world. I don't recall anyone winning a Nobel prize for discovering a scientific fact in the bible before a scientist found it.
@peterandfaith im referring to the problem that the claims that the bible makes goes unnoticed while scientists make the same claims and suddenly get all the credit. Also that you didnt have to wait for scientists to "discover" those things, all you had to do was read. (the Bible)
@marineboy090 So where are these things in the bible that were ignored until scientists stole the ideas? I see no mention of microbes, gravity, subatomic particles, electricity, or any explanations of how the universe works anywhere in the bible. If those things were really there how would they go unnoticed?
@marineboy090 That's what you think proves the bible can tell us about science? The Earth is not suspended over nothing - it isn't suspended at all, gravity keeps it in orbit around the sun. Here are some quotes from the bible that perhaps you can explain.
Isaiah 11:12 - how can a spherical Earth have corners?
Daniel 4:11 - a tree so high it can be seen to the end of the Earth?
Leviticus 14 - Try this cure for leprosy and let us know if it works.
@peterandfaith keep reading.. Matthew 5:18 He says that the law will not change until it is fulfilled. ANYWAYS!!! back to the main point. Here's the thing. I provided examples, you did not disprove them. you only provided different verses, why not stick to one thing at a time and then we can get to your verses.
@marineboy090 I did disprove your contention that the Earth is suspended. Nothing in science says anything like that so you are dead wrong in your contention that the bible said something that science later discovered. Job 36:27 is not an explanation of the hydrological cycle. You need to to provide some evidence before I can refute anything. Making baseless assertions is not evidence. All I see is a lot of wishful thinking and retrofitting.
@georgio210 I cant speak for other religions. However, I can speak for the Christian Bible. And i am so glad you asked. I'll give you one that i thought was interesting "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7)
oh something else that's cool is Job 36:27-28 where it talks about hyrdologic cycle.
Science does a great deal going into detail about how these things work through formulas. But the answer was in the bible first.
@georgio210 and if that wasnt convincing enough for you, how about taking a look at proverbs 16:24 and 17:22 where it talks about how kind words and laughter is healthy for your body and how stress and depression is bad for your body. sums it up quite nicely.
@marineboy090 you seriously need a bible to tell you that. you're a joke. your bible offers nothing helpful to human kind. you'd think the god of the desert would have something useful for his people instead of establishing laws about shelfish and pork
@georgio210 of course you laugh at it now, however, this was about 1000B.C. which is about 2,500 years before they discovered the earth was round and suspended. youv read about the studies that laughter is healthy for you, everyone takes it as new news, but it was there in front of them for thousands of years. you asked, i answered.
@georgio210 oh and about the pork, science discovered that back when pork was unclean to eat, it was true. Pigs had a gland inside them that released toxins and such that were harmful to the body. thanks for bringing that point up.
@georgio210 you somewhat have a valid point. but let me just add a few things; in hot climates indulgence in swine's flesh is particularly liable to produce leprosy, scurvy, and various cutaneous eruptions. It was therefore strictly avoided by the Israelites. Its prohibition was further necessary to prevent their adopting many of the grossest idolatries practised by neighboring nations. little research would have showed that to you..
@marineboy090 be that as it may. this no longer applies to modern day living. the bible says its fine to sell your daughter to slavery, to stone your disobedient children, put you're cheating wife to death, and sley non-believers. are you gonna pretend that its not true as well??
@georgio210 i love how you cannot admit that you might have been wrong; therefore you change the subject. It no longer applies, Christianity lives by the New Testament, notice how we dont do sacrifices, notice how we eat pork and it is ok, notice how you dont bring anything like that up, because you wanna try and trap me in the Torah, laws that dont apply anymore. by the way, i think you are totally off the subject. we were talking about bible and science. not old laws.
@marineboy090 Jesus explicitly states that he came to fulfill God's law, not abolish it. You're mincing interpretations because you have no clue what the very book you claim holds so much truth actually says.
So, dust produces gravity that eventually clumps into a planet or star? Wouldn't each dust particle pull against its closest twin/neighbor, keeping the dust from forming at all?
Let me tell you about 'transitional forms'. There are none, but unless the concept is held onto with religious ferver, the theory of evolution may take a dive.
You are a transitional form. You have different sets of alleles to your parents. Genetic errors that occurred at birth distinguishes you from both of them. Give this trillions of times to happen and you really think nothing will change? You must be desperately biased to believe such tripe, as well as ignorant of highschool biology.
This young kid was far more open and intelligent than most, if not all, of the adult callers.
MagatsutheCalamity 2 hours ago
Im speechless there's so much wrong with thus you guys cant even answer a fifteen year olds question yet you act like u have so much proof there is mo God. I love you guys and I'll pray for you but if you continue recruiting children to your "beliefs" then there is a special place for you in he'll. Have you ever researched God? Your beliefs are based on a mans opinion who is smarter than you. U put faith in man but not in your creator. Scary to somone who knows the creator personally.
Southtacomamook 2 days ago
@Southtacomamook So I guess you went to his house and watched the Oscars? Are you that dense. They did explained and answered her question and then gave her references to look for herself,
maggjun 2 days ago
@Southtacomamook "Scary to somone who knows the creator personally." Care to ask him to hurry up and cure the AIDS epidemic?
FrankBiggle 1 day ago
@Southtacomamook You say my beliefs are based on those of a man who is smarter then myself, yet your beliefs are based on a god who you believe is smarter then your self. I don't see how putting faith in someone is real and alive is dumb but putting faith in something that can never be proven to exist is "smart".
gawdofAtheism 1 day ago
@Southtacomamook Yup, we're all heathens who trust things like "science" and "proof" and "logic"--"critical thinking". We atheists have provided you with Facebook and Microsoft, but we always fall short on the zealot scale of idiot-to-creationist lapse. We should all just not exist. Oh, and when a natural disaster comes, don't board up your house or supply yourself: pray to God. He's all-powerful/present: He'll give all the electricity and substance you need: ask him, he shall provide, somehow.
TheOkami1113 1 day ago
Nyaaaaaah... y'know, sometimes I'm a little disappointed with the AE guys. She's 15 years old and being perfectly polite... I think sometimes the AE guys just aren't patient enough. They get better as this call goes on, but at the beginning they're just dismissive. Particularly "They did!" - excellent. Come on...
frankiethefrank 3 days ago
christians should learn fromk this ignorant child
entropy444 3 days ago
I have to say, it's refreshing to hear a caller stop and listen to what's being said rather than shouting over every factual, rational objection/explanation being presented by these guys. But maybe I just have low standards at this point.
TrueScar 3 days ago
These guys douche it up a fair bit. Sure they're used to dealing with morons but this is just some chick knows what she's been told isn't complete and wants to clear it up so she can kick her mums teeth in with it.
mryellow123 4 days ago
Holy shit!!!
Are you saying that the world is round???
gramboliciousness 5 days ago
I'm not any kind of expert I'm not saying human embryo to fully grown human is the Evolution. It's the change from one type of mammal to other types over long periods of time. I was just saying that when I looked at different embryos (on Google). It made it much easier for me to grasp the concept of a pre historic fish becoming a man. I posted hoping an expert would put me straight.
Tomskie6636 5 days ago
@Tomskie6636 watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk one of the strongest single case against creationism.
MrSqurk 5 days ago
Isn't Dimetrodon a transitional form? It's a dinosaur that scientists have labeled a 'proto-mammal'. It's one of the first animals with differentiated teeth and the ability to regulate its core temperature(with a massive back fin) to further extremes than its contemporaries, giving it a huge advantage. It could hunt earlier and later in the day. Still a dinosaur, but taking tiny steps toward distinctly mammalian characteristics.
Danarchistic1 5 days ago
@Danarchistic1 The point is that 'transitional form' (TF) doesn't mean half-something and half-something else. The dimetrodon isn't a half-toucan/half-dunkleosteus. That's what theists mean by transitional.
What a TF really is is an arbitrary point between two other distantly related species separated by time. To simplify for analogy, your parents are a TF between you and your grandparents, and you are a TF between your great-great-grandparents and your children's grandchildren
EdwardHowton 5 days ago
@EdwardHowton Thanks for the clarification. I thought TF meant a species with the recognizable features of two different modern species. By my erroneous deffinition, the fossil record is littered with them
Danarchistic1 4 days ago
@Danarchistic1 Glad I could help! And yes, the fossil record is littered with transitional forms, although it would be more accurate to say that nearly all fossils are transitional forms.
The only exceptions are fossils of species lines that died out entirely and have no descendants left alive today; dead ends
Not all fossils found are likely to have had time to reproduce, as well, so when you see old bones you're not necessarily looking at a direct ancestor of a living animal.
EdwardHowton 4 days ago
@Danarchistic1 Archaeopteryx is another, feathered flying dinosaur.
mryellow123 4 days ago 2
You have to realise every time you speak to creationists get the TIME SCALE clear, many of them think the earth is only a few thousands years old.
Make absolutely clear that all evidence indicates the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old! Emphasise how mind bogglingly long that is, how you could LITERALLY move mountains in that time just with the tiniest force.
Treblaine 5 days ago
When you look at a human embryo and a cat embryo and a whale embryo they are very similar in appearance. It is very easy to see that they are evolved from the same ancestor and that it only actually takes small changes at that level; at the DNA level to get a big change for a fully grown adult. Creationists will look at a man and a whale and see no family resemblance and find it easy to ridicule evolution. LOOK AT EMBRYOS it's obvious. This doesn't prove or disprove a God by itself, but sho
Tomskie6636 5 days ago
These guys are not very good at explaining this stuff and i could answer it A LOT better.
JanusChristIsRisen 6 days ago
@JanusChristIsRisen you could explaine it alot better, in such a way that a 15 year old that has been told that evolution is false, could understand it? I don't think so, unless, if you are very good (and mind you, they didn't have more than these 7, well, 6, min' to do it in).
also, mind you, that what ever you answer, she would have likely (without even realizing it) moved the goal post, and tell you "well, but you haven't proven this thing".
eyallev 6 days ago
@eyallev I would have started with explaining how random genetic mutation leads to more adaptable traits to a given environment (which is the core of what natural selection is). I would have pointed out transitional species that clearly show the evolution of animals like horses, whales, and humans all of which have fossilized remains.
JanusChristIsRisen 5 days ago
@JanusChristIsRisen fair enough, but the most common answer I hear for "look transitional fossiles" is "no, those are fully formed animals".
and the answer to "look vestigial organs" is "no, they are used for x,Y,Z".
and the answer to "look mutations" is "look mutants, they are bad for you".
eyallev 5 days ago
@eyallev cracked recently had a cool article on a few 'mutants' that have pretty much super human powers. Theres a guy who can consciously control his body's reactions to hot and cold, and swim naked in freezing water with no problem. There's a guy who, as long as he keeps eating and stuff, could literally run for the rest of his life. There's people who never forget anything, at all. And theres a guy with such fast reactions he can cut a fired airsoft bullet in half with a sword.
Neylonx 4 days ago
@Neylonx yes, isn't god wonderful?
eyallev 4 days ago
@eyallev lolwhat
Neylonx 4 days ago
If god created us in his image could he look like a tadpole. There is nothing in the bible that says his image is that of a fully formed human. Makes more sense.
Tomskie6636 6 days ago
Im wondering why people don't look at the way a human evolves from a tadpole (sperm) in just 9 months in to a beautiful fully formed baby. Which is something bloody amazing and almost unbelievable, but then refuse to believe that equally amazing evolutionary changes occur over millions of years. Bacteria to human if you like.
Tomskie6636 6 days ago
@Tomskie6636 I never thought of that but you are right.
RavidBunny 6 days ago
@Tomskie6636 actully, while it's a nice idea, it won't work.
the claim of creationist is that god designed the human "machine" so that it could develop like that (grow from a single cell to a new baby in 9 months), and that such a perfect system could not come from "random mistakes".
using things like "ring speciation" is the way to prove (or demonstrate) evolution.
there is a hovind vid, where he says "I won't really call a chiwaawaa a dog", that is an example of speciation
eyallev 6 days ago
@Tomskie6636 That's not evolution.
spiffcorgi 5 days ago
she asks how life can come from dust?
if she is a christian or jew then that question makes no sense! ashes to ashes, dust to dust!
detahdomo 6 days ago
there are much better answers that you could have given to this kid. but both of you fumbled likes idiots.
bukon90 6 days ago
Christians have developed a method of cognition where they have convinced them selves that
they can support and defend any of their beliefs successfully-- and this includes debating with atheists. Regardless of how well the atheist builds the case for his position with air-tight logic and science--the thiest will always claim victory simply because he never admits defeat. It's all done by faith--what he sees as his greatest virtue. All faith does is remove your farther and farther from reality.
casparus52 1 week ago
You are making a mistake. You can not argue with a religious person. Religion is a mental illness. The religious deal with anxiety by believing in a giant all powerful father in the sky who protects them. They obsess over behaviors like having to wear special hats, or say certain words in order to appease this ever-watchful disciplinarian. That is simply a cross between OCD, delusion and paranoia. Try defining delusion, and then try to distinguish between that and the belief in God.
zazen108 1 week ago 4
Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution.
TearsOfWar1 1 week ago
It's funny how creationists always try to debunk the theory of evolution, and by that they think to justify their beliefs in their particular God. For the sake of argument let's say the theory of evolution is completely false, you're still at square one as you have zero verifiable evidence for your own claims.
Helleu1 1 week ago
How can creationists say "I've never seen any proof in science that evolution is true." But they believe what the bible says about origins with zero proof? Religious people are deranged.
derkomissar100 1 week ago
First off, dinosaurs had feathers, and also I would like to point out the amazing similarity birds have with reptiles.
Konicava 1 week ago
first thrums down for the Atheist Experience, didn't explain anything for that poor girl.
nyyght7 1 week ago
@nyyght7 I agree. They were too dismissive. If your answer to how planets form, especially to a 15 year old, is "it's called cosmology," then you need your own lesson in how to host a show that's meant to be informative.
johnjsal 1 week ago
@johnjsal When I was 15, I understood the difference between astronomy and biology. And at 14. And at 13. And at 12. Going back at least to age 6, when I read my first book on astronomy for children and my first books on dinosaurs. I had friends with chemistry sets and read books on magnets and general science at age 7. Being 15 is no excuse. Any fairly bright and curious 8-year-old who reads at grade-level would have seen that cosmology and evolution are branches of separate fields.
cbooth2004 1 week ago
@cbooth2004 Good for you. I had a telescope and microscope set when I was a child too, but that is irrelevant. The point here is that this particular person clearly was raised in a religious household and has not yet broken free of that influence, so a person like that deserves better explanations than a statement that basically amounts to "Go look it up yourself."
15-year-olds can be very smart but it's still an age when they haven't learned nearly enough to fully defend any kind of worldview.
johnjsal 1 week ago
@johnjsal Matt did give a summary of planet formation. Not a good one in terms of scientific descriptiveness, but it still suffices in regards to the topic of evolution (and the field of biology as a whole).
If she wanted more information on this irrelevant area, she could use the internet and look up "planet formation". Or watch a Discovery Channel series on it. Or go to a library.
Also, looking it up for herself would get her into the mindset of looking for herself. (rant, rant)
onijester56 1 week ago
@onijester56 First, my comments were directed mainly toward the host on the right. When he spoke, it was very cursory and dismissive. He's the one who said "It's called cosmology," and then stopped talking, as if that was so definitive in itself.
Second, this isn't an either/or situation, where the options are either to explain everything to this girl in extreme detail, or just send her on her way to read about it herself. There is a middle ground that could have been better addressed.
johnjsal 1 week ago
@johnjsal Third, given your defense of the intellectual fortitude of a 15-year old, I'm surprised you don't find the host on the left at least somewhat dismissive when he asks the caller's age and then said "I hope this isn't over Ariel's head." Even *I* found that insulting.
johnjsal 1 week ago
(cont)
Also, she is confident that "none of that stuff has been proven". She has to have some way to get information on it and done some searching for her to make that claim, which she makes a few times in different phrasings.
She either can look it up for herself or she is lying. The former supports their statements and rebukes your criticism of them. The latter means she never wanted to understand it in the first place and rebukes your criticism of them.
onijester56 1 week ago
Hmm... I can't give you one fact about evolution that's true, but i can give you 10.
Observed speciation, RNA, DNA, ERV's, phylogeny, vestiges, atavisms, ring species, allelic drift, chromosome nr.2, comparative anatomy, fossils, geological column, just to name a few. Okay my mistake, it was 13 facts not 10.
baldurus1 1 week ago 31
@baldurus1 Chromosone number 2's my faveourite. (:
jackhwo1 6 days ago
@baldurus1 ah good ol chromosone 2.. a great discovery which owns creationists by showing our evolution from apes =]
mrkanepker 6 days ago
@5:47 is she talking about the bible?
foofeMobile 1 week ago
I guess the closest to a transitional species you'll find is the Archaeopteryx; A raptor that developed feathers and eventually evolved into a plethora of birds still known collectively as 'raptors' like vultures.
JamesHarlot 1 week ago
@JamesHarlot There is no such thing as a transitional species.
TophBeiFong2 1 week ago
@TophBeiFong2 I know, I'm just saying Archaeopteryx is pretty close to what crazy creationists ask for.
JamesHarlot 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lets look at it this way. Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over, If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?
repomayne 1 week ago
2000 years of religion vs 200 years of aquarian science.... which has improved our lives in the shortest time
Ebolahill88 1 week ago
I have to say, they didn't have to laugh and mock her ignorance of evolutuon. She was really willing to learn. Kind of made them look like assholes. Matt never laughs at a creationist's question, no matter how wild and crazy it might be. Despite her first question seeming kind of condescending, she seemed like she really wanted to learn. I think they realized towards the middle and end, that she was young and just wanted to know what evolutuon was, and how the earth and it's species came to be.
IstillOwnAvcr 1 week ago
a 15 year old girl is not claiming that a statement she makes is true but that she read/saw it somewhere and listens to what they have to say about it whereas other older callers claim false statements to be true and not listen to what the people on the show have to say. what does that say about the callers?
taylan637 1 week ago
evolution sounds like a bunch of crap if you ask me. Just listen to the dudes.
zachariahm10 1 week ago
@zachariahm10
I know right, they haven't even found the transitional fossil between Homo erectus and Homo ergaster
truckcompany 1 week ago
@zachariahm10 does magic sound more realistic to you?
amadain17 1 week ago
@amadain17 i'm not talking about magic. I'm talking about evolution. And these guys don't even know where to begin. They said planets come from dust... and the gravity pulled more dust particles together to make a planet really now?..do you believe that?..
zachariahm10 1 week ago
@zachariahm10 Yes, it is true. We seriously are nothing more than star dust. Maybe you should look up what a supernova is, assuming that you don't know what it is already. After a star undergoes a supernova, the elements that are formed in the cores of stars are spewed out over millions of miles of space, at the same time cooling down. The motes of dust are the planets you see today. Gravity sometimes forms shapes out of space dust, but nothing like a planet.
disfigured75 1 week ago
Comment removed
zachariahm10 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@disfigured75 i believe evolution is true after gods creation. and even if that theory about dust was true it would need so much evidence and support to make it true. I understand what you say.But things cannot just spew out randomness.You can't say we are star dust..because something cant come from nothing. its impossible. scientists come up with so many theories that are easy to believe and easy to fall into but they are not proven in anyway what so ever.its simply hypothesis with no evidence
zachariahm10 1 week ago
@zachariahm10 'Something from nothing?' Isn't that your belief, though?
That God wished life to be there and BLAMO, it was there. Isn't that something from nothing?
Nyanx4 1 week ago
@Nyanx4 no i believe that god created the universe, based on the bible, fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence, historical evidence. and lots more that I cannot fit in here. You believe that out of random chance a cell just happened to appear, and then it replicated into the universe. Sounds very unlikely and not reasonable in any way.
zachariahm10 1 week ago
@zachariahm10 Might I ask what those 'fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence, and historical evidence' are?
And the whole 'God created the universe' is exactly what I just said. He 'willed' it into the universe. Something from nothing.
And a 'random cells' appear all the time... Oh wait... I assume that you didn't pay attention to life-science when you were in 7th grade.
Nyanx4 1 week ago
@Nyanx4 no he didn't will himself into the universe. Look at john chapter 1 if you have a bible. And here comes the ad hominem s. And no I payed attention in life science they just never explained to me how the first cell was created. maybe you can. Well then explain to me how the first cell came to being..please.
zachariahm10 1 week ago
@zachariahm10 Abiogensis. Carbon and lots of energy can, on occasion, form a cell. We've done it in labs before.
TophBeiFong2 1 week ago
@zachariahm10 Pardon. *'random cell'. Not 'random cells'.
Nyanx4 1 week ago
@zachariahm10 You must have missed the release of the experiment findings for the yeast cells. A unicellular organism evolved into a multicellular organism. Look it up, evolution is fact.
disfigured75 1 week ago
@zachariahm10 a 2000 years old book sounds like crap to me , logic is better then a 2000 years old shit
jaberalsalamah 1 week ago
@jaberalsalamah until you can say something worth reading I will not respond to any type of troll comment.
zachariahm10 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hold on, thats not exactly fair.They go on to attack religion and the bible when she was simply discussing logic and science.She was talking about whats fact and what is not with evolution.She did stay polite and keep a level head but they switchd it.Im not a christian but its kinda like 2 faiths are at war here and not science vs religion.
pinball281 1 week ago
These two ate off the wrong tree
PaulMcTube 1 week ago
Comment removed
onijimbo 1 week ago
funny story, dinos HAD feathers.
Alxstef 2 weeks ago
My goodness... I'm only a year younger than she is...
I wish people my age weren't so stupid.
Nyanx4 2 weeks ago
@Nyanx4
She's a hell of a lot smarter than people 20 years older than her that call this show. She's at least somewhat open minded and wasn't just spewing off religious claims with no evidence.
Kayyyleb 1 week ago
@Kayyyleb There's a reason for that, though. Most (if not all) 20-year-old people who call on this show have been raised to believe this all their lives. That's why they feel so strongly.
She also has been raised this way, I suppose... So maybe 'stupid' isn't the word I should have used.
Nyanx4 1 week ago
@Nyanx4
"Brainwashed" is the word I would use. It's not that religious people are stupid (at least not the majority I think). The problem is that they've been conditioned all their lives to ignore logic and rationality whenever their religion is concerned. Religion largely feeds on the gullible and the younger you start the conditioning the stronger it is. For years I lived in the same environment with a religious family trying to force me into their beliefs.
Kayyyleb 1 week ago
@Kayyyleb I agree.
Ha... We've both lived with a crazy religious families...
My dad's side of the family is trying to get me 'cleansed' for being a homosexual and an atheist...
Nyanx4 1 week ago
@Nyanx4
I've been fortunate enough that my family never brings up my atheism anymore so I don't either. To each their own. It's sad that the entire anti-gay marriage movement is fueled by religious bigotry. As soon as I switched to an atheist my homophobia disappeared and I see homosexuals as normal people now.
Kayyyleb 1 week ago 19
@Kayyyleb my homophobia will stop when someone tell me why are people gay, (i'm a piece of shit and i'm to lazy to look for the information my self) one dude told me that animals do it also therefore homosexuality is perfectly natural, i agree with that, is just that i've never seen gay animals... my homophobia will stop when i understand it
ryonafan 4 days ago
@ryonafan I'll stop being stupid-phobic once someone tells me why people ARE AS FUCKING STUPID AS YOU.
KainsVison 4 days ago
@KainsVison if you are calling me stupid you should know why... :( did i ofended you or something?
ryonafan 4 days ago
@ryonafan
Worst. Excuse. Ever.
You have no reason to be homophobic so its my job to find a reason for you not to be? No. YOU go find a reason TO be a homophobe before you decide to take that stance.
Kayyyleb 4 days ago
@Kayyyleb you are right, i guess i'm not homophobic , i'm just curious of why homosexuality happens!, i mean ,is it hormonal or psychologic or both?, no one knows? or nobody gives a fuck? you don't have to answer me if you don't want to... relax dude
ryonafan 3 days ago
@ryonafan
Homosexuality is natural. People are born that way. They are a minority and they are different so they are disliked. Which is sad, because homosexuals just being themselves doesn't hurt anyone yet they attract so much hatred from ignorant people just for being different.
Kayyyleb 3 days ago
homosexuality is natural... ok ,but why does it happens?
ryonafan 3 days ago
@ryonafan Why are people sometimes born with blue eyes instead of brown? Or blonde hair instead of black? That's essentially what you're asking. It's just a natural occurance that just isn't as common as heterosexuality.
Kayyyleb 3 days ago
@ryonafan Im curious have you actually tried to find the answers yourself, instead of asking on a youtube video? To be honest your not going to get very good answers. You have a very slim chance that someone who actually studies the subject is going to watch this one video and see your one comment.
If you really want to know the answer actually try to do some research. There have been several scientific studies on the subject.
XxSequndaEtapaXx 2 days ago
@ryonafan I am not trying to be rude I just think it is foolish to try to get your answers from youtube. Not saying there are not intelligent people on YT its just unlikely you will get an expert
XxSequndaEtapaXx 2 days ago
@XxSequndaEtapaXx is just that i don't care really that much about it, like i said i'm just curious
ryonafan 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ryonafan "i'm just curious of why homosexuality happens!, i mean ,is it hormonal or psychologic or both?"
Evolution has no purposes, things just happen, in a sense it is an "experiment" with different thing that do happens. If it works, over time it will become more frequent in the population of individuals. Homosexuality is just another of these feature evolution experiments with. One "purpose" with homosexuality can be to control population size, we see tendency to this in nature.
jomen112 3 days ago
@ryonafan "my homophobia will stop when someone tell me why are people gay"
No it wont stop for that reason. It will stop when you come to terms with yourself and start seriously ask yourself why you feel or believe certain things. Nobody can tell you why you feel about something in a certain way. Only you can do that. Start ask yourself why you find it important or why it matters to you what kind of sexual orientation people have. Usually phobias are rooted in some kind of fears...
jomen112 3 days ago
@jomen112 read the whole conversation befor you jump in
ryonafan 2 days ago
A theory, that's all it is. NOT A FACT
brooklynriz 2 weeks ago
@brooklynriz brush up on scientific lingo, when a scientist uses the word theory it is not in the same context to which most people assume it is. science has proven evolution a ridiculous amount of time, its all public the research and findings, its up to you to go and educate yourself before throwing out a statement like you just did, because im sorry to tell you it is fact, with tangible proven evidence. Unlike religion
Jayhc19 2 weeks ago
@brooklynriz a theory that has been backed up by tons of evidence, examples, fossils that has been studied and tried and true for over 150 years. a theory isn't just "well i think this makes sense lets go with this". that would be a myth.
captainclayman 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@captainclayman sure lets look at fossils. Fossils show millions of missing transitional morphological forms. We find new fossils all the time and they almost always come up as morphologies we already know about. They never come up as a middle point.
ShawnSwander 1 week ago
@brooklynriz uhhh GRAVITY is a theory. Jump off a building to test it. :D
spdy1020 2 weeks ago
@brooklynriz
You don't know shit about scientific theories then.
Kayyyleb 1 week ago
Interesting video, but:
Acceptance of the fact of evolution is *not* a prerequisite for nonbelief. There are atheists who don't (or at least they say they don't) accept evolution as fact.
Conversely, there are millions of theists--the pope among them--who understand that evolution is a fact, and yet believe in god(s).
Even if evolution were somehow shown not to be a fact, that *by itself* would not be enough to demonstrate that god(s) exist or have ever existed.
lease2coach1 2 weeks ago
"Tell me one fact that is true"
Facts are inherantly true. Otherwise, they would not be facts.
SeedsOfHatred 2 weeks ago
@SeedsOfHatred The creationist's definition of fact is different from those with logical minds, unfortunately.
SuperMegaFl0yd 2 weeks ago
@SuperMegaFl0yd Very true.
SeedsOfHatred 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
CabhanListis 2 weeks ago
Caller: "can you tell me facts about this and that?"
Hosts: "It's basically like so, but remember, we're not paleontologists or biologists. We suggest you go to this website that explains it way better than we can."
Caller: at 5:10 "I just wanted your opinion. I'm pretty set with my opinion."
(. . . and there it is. Every conversation like this has that point where the religious person sticks their fingers in their ears. Her mind was made up for her by her preachers and/or parents.)
rmcdaniel423 2 weeks ago
@setmedic Neanderthal wasn't a transitional form it was an evolution offshoot that lead to a dead end. In fact there is now a lot of evidence suggesting that homo sapiens may have mated with neanderthals and some of their genetic background can be seen in certain populations of current modern people. But only a few set groups.
traptintime12 2 weeks ago
If Neanderthal wasn't a transitional form, I don't know what is...
setmedic 2 weeks ago
Great. A 12 year old tries to attack science which he has been studying his whole long life...
antibulletdodger101 2 weeks ago
Big error on this video: Humans and Bacteria are 2 different domains, ergo, Humans did not evolve from bacteria.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 ooooh, how about publishing your thesis on the Science magazine?
clebersonpertile 2 weeks ago
@clebersonpertile No need. Any bio textbook will teach it. While Humans and Bacteria descended from a common ancestor, Humans did not descend from Bacteria. Humans are Eukaryotic which means they have a nucleus, whereas Bacteria are Prokaryotic meaning the cells do not have a nucleus. Furthermore the Domain system is divided into 3, Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya. Humans fall into Eukarya domain, ergo humans are not descended from Bacteria. This is something taught in basic biology.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 Yes you are completely right in your argument, but that does not apply to the video because he said that humans evolved from "something LIKE a bacteria", you know? I think he used a "metaphor" so the kid would understand it better, as he is no cientist or something…
Well actually I think Homo Sapiens is not an Animal: it's a Virus. It destroys the place where it leaves, spreads out, and destroys even more stuff. It's harmful to its own inhabitat.
clebersonpertile 2 weeks ago
@clebersonpertile Even as a metaphor it still fails. The only organism like Bacteria are Archaea, which is another Prokaryotic lifeform. So he is still wrong in that case.
By the way, Viruses are debated as being organisms because they contain features that deviate from commonly accepted organisms. Viruses have no cells, and no metabolism, and cannot live independently. The comparison of humans to viruses is apples and oranges.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 I meant, Viruses are debated as to whether or not they are organisms.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 I don't think it fails if you think of "Bacterias" as "Microorganisms", cells and stuff… This is what I would understand if someone told me that we evolved from something *like* a bacteria (a tiny microorganism), not exactly from *a* bacteria…
And btw I was just quoting the movie The Matrix, dude, chill out… just kidding with our destructive nature ^^
clebersonpertile 2 weeks ago
@clebersonpertile I kind of wondered if it was a Matrix quote, but wasn't entirely sure.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 well they are only different nowadays. back when there were very simple life forms, there was ONLY (most likely) single celled organisms. However, over the years because life has has millions upon millions of years to mutate and evolve, these have differentiated into the two different Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic beings
ImJustSayin81 2 weeks ago
@ImJustSayin81 As mentioned earlier in my comment, Humans and Bacteria have a common ancestor, however, Human beings are not descended from Bacteria. The common Ancestor was differentiated into Prokarya and Eukarya. The Prokarya further split into Bacteria and Archaea. So there is not "they are different nowadays", upon the differentiation, they were always separate organisms. The question is not the multiplicity of cells, the question is the presence of a nucleus in the cell.....
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 There are Eukaryotic cells which are single celled, but they are not descended from Bacteria.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875
Perhaps when people say Bacteria they merely mean 'micro-organism', in which case it is true that we are descended from such. They might not have been classed as bacteria but for people not highly versed in biology, bacteria and micro-organism tend to be fairly synonymous.
Vire70 2 weeks ago
@Vire70 I'm afraid that is not a good enough excuse. If creationists are allowed to stretch out definitions to fit their perspective, I would expect their opponents to present a more precise and informed definition. If you're gonna present something on a topic, basic research is warranted. Either, wiggle should not be allowed from either side.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875
I think you're being a bit pedantic. The guys in the video didn't even say they were bacteria; they said yes we evolved from something LIKE bacteria, which is quite true. They are TV hosts with no significant scientific education, expecting them to explain the precise details of micro-organisms to a 15 year old is just absurd. Especially when they directed her to resources which will more effectively do just that.
Vire70 2 weeks ago
@Vire70 It is not quite right that we evolved from something "like bacteria", evolving from a common ancestor from bacteria is not the same as evolving from something like bacteria (unless you stretch it that far, which is fallacious). You don't need to be a science expert to know that. That is basic biology, you can read it in a rudimentary commentary on biology. Ergo, there are no precise details to be explained. What they did was simply misleading.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875
Really... more with being pedantic. It is 'like bacteria' as in it was a micro-organism. Both would be invisible to the naked eye, and I imagine to the layman would look not too dissimilar under a microscope. 'Like' is an approximation which I would have thought would be obvious but apparently you need everything pointed out in excruciating detail. If they operated the show like that they would never get past the first call.
Vire70 2 weeks ago
@Vire70 My demands are not even close to excruciating detail. Believe me, there is way detail to it than what I put in my statements. It is very basic biology, it was actually the first thing I learned in my Microbiology class. It would be like saying a Virus came from a Bacteria like microorganism, which it didn't. Either way, creationists are lay people who use the same stretches to affirm their point. I would expect their opponents to not walk into the same error.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
skinks. snakes becoming lizards. 2nd chromosome of the human DNA is combination of 2nd and 3rd chromosome of apes, with redundant markers present, explaining the missing chromosome between us and apes
fishbowl4202 2 weeks ago
The girl or boy caller sounds like He or She wants to learn something, maybe she's startin to question her Mum & Dads bullshit Creationist stories
J0nnyCArr 2 weeks ago
It's sad seeing kids like this who've been so lied to. Although I guess it's also nice to see that they're willing to inquire to begin with, which is in itself the greatest threat religion faces.
Vire70 3 weeks ago
I was an atheist once and I believed the lies of evolution but then God saved me and I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. The Bible explains so many things.
Broconda 3 weeks ago
@Broconda
Good work, you joined the rest of the drones.
Vire70 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my Videos "Religion is ridiculous" (specifically christianity)...good stuff...rate it! Christians I CHALLENGE you to watch with an open mind. Atheists watch and if you like the videos then give thumbs up!!! Help spread the truth!!
gasmask4poop 3 weeks ago
lol the guy acts as if christians do nothing. um hello, they give food, water, houses, supplies, education, etc to those who have nothing ALL OVER THE WORLD! so, for that, he's already dumb in my books. Also, the bible had answers to questions science later found out. The guy needs to stop listening to other people, (even preachers) and start doing his own research.
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
@marineboy090 If the bible had the answers then why did we have to wait for scientists to tell us about them? Surely a priest or the Pope would have known and told the world. I don't recall anyone winning a Nobel prize for discovering a scientific fact in the bible before a scientist found it.
peterandfaith 3 weeks ago
@peterandfaith glad you can see the problem quite clearly. You didnt have to wait, all you had to do was read.. quite simple.
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
@marineboy090 I have no idea what you are referring to.
peterandfaith 3 weeks ago
@peterandfaith im referring to the problem that the claims that the bible makes goes unnoticed while scientists make the same claims and suddenly get all the credit. Also that you didnt have to wait for scientists to "discover" those things, all you had to do was read. (the Bible)
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
@marineboy090 So where are these things in the bible that were ignored until scientists stole the ideas? I see no mention of microbes, gravity, subatomic particles, electricity, or any explanations of how the universe works anywhere in the bible. If those things were really there how would they go unnoticed?
peterandfaith 2 weeks ago
@peterandfaith Read my responses to georgio210
marineboy090 2 weeks ago
@marineboy090 That's what you think proves the bible can tell us about science? The Earth is not suspended over nothing - it isn't suspended at all, gravity keeps it in orbit around the sun. Here are some quotes from the bible that perhaps you can explain.
Isaiah 11:12 - how can a spherical Earth have corners?
Daniel 4:11 - a tree so high it can be seen to the end of the Earth?
Leviticus 14 - Try this cure for leprosy and let us know if it works.
peterandfaith 2 weeks ago
@marineboy090 If you think the OT is no longer valid then Jesus seems to disagree with you: Matthew 5:17.
peterandfaith 2 weeks ago
@peterandfaith keep reading.. Matthew 5:18 He says that the law will not change until it is fulfilled. ANYWAYS!!! back to the main point. Here's the thing. I provided examples, you did not disprove them. you only provided different verses, why not stick to one thing at a time and then we can get to your verses.
marineboy090 2 weeks ago
@marineboy090 I did disprove your contention that the Earth is suspended. Nothing in science says anything like that so you are dead wrong in your contention that the bible said something that science later discovered. Job 36:27 is not an explanation of the hydrological cycle. You need to to provide some evidence before I can refute anything. Making baseless assertions is not evidence. All I see is a lot of wishful thinking and retrofitting.
peterandfaith 2 weeks ago
@marineboy090 care to venture an example of what religion has tought science
georgio210 3 weeks ago
@georgio210 I cant speak for other religions. However, I can speak for the Christian Bible. And i am so glad you asked. I'll give you one that i thought was interesting "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7)
oh something else that's cool is Job 36:27-28 where it talks about hyrdologic cycle.
Science does a great deal going into detail about how these things work through formulas. But the answer was in the bible first.
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
@georgio210 and if that wasnt convincing enough for you, how about taking a look at proverbs 16:24 and 17:22 where it talks about how kind words and laughter is healthy for your body and how stress and depression is bad for your body. sums it up quite nicely.
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
@marineboy090 you seriously need a bible to tell you that. you're a joke. your bible offers nothing helpful to human kind. you'd think the god of the desert would have something useful for his people instead of establishing laws about shelfish and pork
georgio210 3 weeks ago
@georgio210 of course you laugh at it now, however, this was about 1000B.C. which is about 2,500 years before they discovered the earth was round and suspended. youv read about the studies that laughter is healthy for you, everyone takes it as new news, but it was there in front of them for thousands of years. you asked, i answered.
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
@georgio210 oh and about the pork, science discovered that back when pork was unclean to eat, it was true. Pigs had a gland inside them that released toxins and such that were harmful to the body. thanks for bringing that point up.
marineboy090 3 weeks ago
@marineboy090 that's still true today, he could have just told you how to eat it....but he's not very bright
georgio210 3 weeks ago
@georgio210 you somewhat have a valid point. but let me just add a few things; in hot climates indulgence in swine's flesh is particularly liable to produce leprosy, scurvy, and various cutaneous eruptions. It was therefore strictly avoided by the Israelites. Its prohibition was further necessary to prevent their adopting many of the grossest idolatries practised by neighboring nations. little research would have showed that to you..
marineboy090 2 weeks ago
@marineboy090 be that as it may. this no longer applies to modern day living. the bible says its fine to sell your daughter to slavery, to stone your disobedient children, put you're cheating wife to death, and sley non-believers. are you gonna pretend that its not true as well??
georgio210 2 weeks ago
@georgio210 i love how you cannot admit that you might have been wrong; therefore you change the subject. It no longer applies, Christianity lives by the New Testament, notice how we dont do sacrifices, notice how we eat pork and it is ok, notice how you dont bring anything like that up, because you wanna try and trap me in the Torah, laws that dont apply anymore. by the way, i think you are totally off the subject. we were talking about bible and science. not old laws.
marineboy090 2 weeks ago
@marineboy090 Jesus explicitly states that he came to fulfill God's law, not abolish it. You're mincing interpretations because you have no clue what the very book you claim holds so much truth actually says.
Bamont 2 weeks ago
So, dust produces gravity that eventually clumps into a planet or star? Wouldn't each dust particle pull against its closest twin/neighbor, keeping the dust from forming at all?
LothairOfLorraine 3 weeks ago
@LothairOfLorraine
They used to say gas clouds clump together to somehow make stars. :)
rehzon 3 weeks ago
@LothairOfLorraine It's just a really elementary explanation. How it really works is pretty complicated.
RedSandStudios 3 weeks ago
Let me tell you about 'transitional forms'. There are none, but unless the concept is held onto with religious ferver, the theory of evolution may take a dive.
LothairOfLorraine 3 weeks ago
@LothairOfLorraine
You are a transitional form. You have different sets of alleles to your parents. Genetic errors that occurred at birth distinguishes you from both of them. Give this trillions of times to happen and you really think nothing will change? You must be desperately biased to believe such tripe, as well as ignorant of highschool biology.
Vire70 3 weeks ago