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.
@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.
HOMESCHOOLING CAN DAMAGE A 15-YEAR OLD'S BRAIN THAT MUCH? Honeshooling should be made a crime then! The public school is pretty bad too now, And all of this is already doing so much damage to America! The american kids are turning into morons, and the asians and others who come have to take all the science and engineering jobs because the americans have simply grown too dumb now or become lawyers!
You wanna transitional fossil eh? You REALLY want one? What, you want a mammal that lays eggs or produces venom, like a snake or reptile? You want a mammal that that has the reproductive system of a bird? That kind of thing? Well stick around for awhile kid, cos as soon as you find a duck-billed platypus fossil you found one... Or you could just look at a live platypus today?
whenever arguing with a christian and they bring up transitional form,s say this: you wanna see a transitional form, you are looking at one, Im at transitional form, you are a transitional form. Are you exactly the same as your parents? No, you are a transitional form then, are your parents exactly the same as your grandparents? no, they are a transitional form then.
@firedawgMD In science theories are explanations of facts. You are making the common error of thinking a theory in science is some kind of idle speculation with no factual support.
@firedawgMD Yes I do see the difference but you obviously don't. It is clear from your original statement that you don't understand what a theory is in science.
@peterandfaith : I have to correct you there because I absolutely see the difference -- that's why I took the time to point it out. The young caller simply asked for facts and the speaker gave her anything but. Listen to the clip again if you missed it.
@firedawgMD I am not sure about Ashley's profession, but Jeff Dee is a game designer, not a scientist. He is not the person that should be teaching evolution to children, because people with expertise in biology can do a far better job at it. I think he did the right thing to direct Ariel to a site where she can find the facts by herself.
@firedawgMD You still don't understand what a theory is in science. Where did they give her a theory that was not based on fact? They gave her as many facts as they could in spite of her complete ignorance and very poor questions.
@peterandfaith: Let me put it to you this way. Scientific theories change all the time don't they? Facts remain the same. Fact: 2 plus 2 is four, that's as true today as it has always been. Fact: humans drown if they stay underwater without breathing apparatus -- also unchanging. Can you think of any Scientific theories that have changed?
@firedawgMD Yes, scientific theories change but that in no way means they are speculations. Theories change as new evidence is uncovered. You are trying to move the goalposts to avoid the fact that you still don't understand what a theory is. All you did in your original post was to point out that fact.
@peterandfaith: thank you. theories change and facts do not. All I did from the beginning was point this out to you. The caller asked for facts -- that is what was behind my initial post.
@firedawgMD Thank you for remaining willfully ignorant. Theories don't necessarily change. They can change in the face of new evidence so don't try to make it look like they change all the time. No, you did not point that out to me. You tried to give theories a meaning which they do not have in science.
Theories are explanations of fact and are the most powerful weapon science has for determining the truth. You simply demeaned the word theory in the context of science.
@peterandfaith:"Thank you for remaining willfully ignorant"? What does this even mean? If someone had remained willfully ignorant why would you then say thanks? Do you know what "thanks" means? aren't you demeaning that word? Anyway, people grasp concepts at different rates, and I had to take you around this subject in a particular way so you could grasp it but it still escapes you. There's nothing I do about that. I'm at least glad you're able to understand what a theory is and that they change
@firedawgMD I see you don't understand sarcasm which is a sign of limited mental ability. You still don't understand how a theory in science is more valuable than any fact since theories explain facts. Thinking that someone is shortchanged by theory over fact shows your ignorance. Theories do not change - they can change. This simple idea seems beyond your comprehension. Nothing you said escapes me but everything I said remains out of your grasp.
@peterandfaith: Talk about your broken records ... none of your comments differs from another ... "you don't understand theories" ... give it a rest already. Do you live with anybody? you must drive them insane! Is that why you keep coming back here -- they can't stand you? go work on a relationship or get a hobby because you have nothing meaningful to say here.
@firedawgMD None of my comments differ because you still don't understand the value of theory over simple facts. Facts have no explanatory or predictive power. Theories lead us to new facts but you still think because a theory can change that it is somehow defective.
I am happily married and have been for many years. I suspect from the number of angry comments I see from you that you live alone and likely will remain that way.
@peterandfaith: I know, I know ... I don't understand theories right? Ok. you said that already, and I get that you love theories because they're the greatest thing since sliced bread ... anything else?
@firedawgMD No you don't get it or you wouldn't make the statements you did. There is something else - you don't understand facts either. Here are a few facts you can check, perhaps you can explain why they don't change.
@peterandfaith: That's good! and you didn't mention the word theory once ... but you still hinted at it. Welcome back. So now I don't understand facts either? Ok, well I'm doing your homework assignment, but I'll say this (I'll just take the first one from your list). When a population changes, the fact doesn't. Its simple math, like I explained earlier. The fact here is that population reflects a number of people living in a certain place, the math is the actual count
@firedawgMD That's what rational people call a tortured explanation. Unless you can convince me that the population of a place is not a fact then your explanation is pure fantasy. I guess you missed your own comment that the fact is the actual count - which changes.
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 7 hours ago
Holy shit!!!
Are you saying that the world is round???
gramboliciousness 18 hours 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 22 hours ago
@Tomskie6636 watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk one of the strongest single case against creationism.
MrSqurk 17 hours 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 1 day 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 20 hours 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 8 hours 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 3 hours ago
@Danarchistic1 Archaeopteryx is another, feathered flying dinosaur.
mryellow123 7 hours ago
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 1 day 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 1 day ago
These guys are not very good at explaining this stuff and i could answer it A LOT better.
JanusChristIsRisen 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day 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 hours ago
@Neylonx yes, isn't god wonderful?
eyallev 3 hours ago
@eyallev lolwhat
Neylonx 3 hours 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 1 day 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 1 day ago
@Tomskie6636 I never thought of that but you are right.
RavidBunny 1 day 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 1 day ago
@Tomskie6636 That's not evolution.
spiffcorgi 1 day 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 1 day ago
there are much better answers that you could have given to this kid. but both of you fumbled likes idiots.
bukon90 2 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 2 days 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 2 days ago 4
Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution.
TearsOfWar1 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days ago
First off, dinosaurs had feathers, and also I would like to point out the amazing similarity birds have with reptiles.
Konicava 4 days ago
first thrums down for the Atheist Experience, didn't explain anything for that poor girl.
nyyght7 4 days 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 4 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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 2 days 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 2 days 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 3 days 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 5 days ago 23
@baldurus1 Chromosone number 2's my faveourite. (:
jackhwo1 2 days ago
@baldurus1 ah good ol chromosone 2.. a great discovery which owns creationists by showing our evolution from apes =]
mrkanepker 1 day ago
@5:47 is she talking about the bible?
foofeMobile 5 days 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 6 days ago
@JamesHarlot There is no such thing as a transitional species.
TophBeiFong2 4 days ago
@TophBeiFong2 I know, I'm just saying Archaeopteryx is pretty close to what crazy creationists ask for.
JamesHarlot 3 days 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 6 days 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 6 days 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 6 days ago
@zachariahm10 Abiogensis. Carbon and lots of energy can, on occasion, form a cell. We've done it in labs before.
TophBeiFong2 4 days ago
@zachariahm10 Pardon. *'random cell'. Not 'random cells'.
Nyanx4 6 days 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 1 week ago
My goodness... I'm only a year younger than she is...
I wish people my age weren't so stupid.
Nyanx4 1 week 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 15
A theory, that's all it is. NOT A FACT
brooklynriz 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago
"Tell me one fact that is true"
Facts are inherantly true. Otherwise, they would not be facts.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred The creationist's definition of fact is different from those with logical minds, unfortunately.
SuperMegaFl0yd 1 week ago
@SuperMegaFl0yd Very true.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
Comment removed
CabhanListis 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago
@Stitchman3875 There are Eukaryotic cells which are single celled, but they are not descended from Bacteria.
Stitchman3875 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 2 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 2 weeks ago
@Broconda
Good work, you joined the rest of the drones.
Vire70 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 weeks ago
@marineboy090 I have no idea what you are referring to.
peterandfaith 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 weeks ago
@LothairOfLorraine
They used to say gas clouds clump together to somehow make stars. :)
rehzon 2 weeks ago
@LothairOfLorraine It's just a really elementary explanation. How it really works is pretty complicated.
RedSandStudios 2 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 2 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 2 weeks ago
HOMESCHOOLING CAN DAMAGE A 15-YEAR OLD'S BRAIN THAT MUCH? Honeshooling should be made a crime then! The public school is pretty bad too now, And all of this is already doing so much damage to America! The american kids are turning into morons, and the asians and others who come have to take all the science and engineering jobs because the americans have simply grown too dumb now or become lawyers!
winterstellar 2 weeks ago
Evolution sounds good BUT....... LOL
moobyman46 3 weeks ago
You wanna transitional fossil eh? You REALLY want one? What, you want a mammal that lays eggs or produces venom, like a snake or reptile? You want a mammal that that has the reproductive system of a bird? That kind of thing? Well stick around for awhile kid, cos as soon as you find a duck-billed platypus fossil you found one... Or you could just look at a live platypus today?
bigglyguy 3 weeks ago
whenever arguing with a christian and they bring up transitional form,s say this: you wanna see a transitional form, you are looking at one, Im at transitional form, you are a transitional form. Are you exactly the same as your parents? No, you are a transitional form then, are your parents exactly the same as your grandparents? no, they are a transitional form then.
frandeman123 3 weeks ago
Girl calls for facts and gets theories instead .... "when enough stuff pulls toward itself, it starts to clump" ... then you get planets and stuff.
firedawgMD 3 weeks ago
@firedawgMD In science theories are explanations of facts. You are making the common error of thinking a theory in science is some kind of idle speculation with no factual support.
peterandfaith 3 weeks ago
@peterandfaith: Are you certain that's what i was thinking? is that also a fact? or is that your theory? See the difference?
firedawgMD 3 weeks ago
@firedawgMD Yes I do see the difference but you obviously don't. It is clear from your original statement that you don't understand what a theory is in science.
peterandfaith 3 weeks ago 2
@peterandfaith : I have to correct you there because I absolutely see the difference -- that's why I took the time to point it out. The young caller simply asked for facts and the speaker gave her anything but. Listen to the clip again if you missed it.
firedawgMD 3 weeks ago
@firedawgMD I am not sure about Ashley's profession, but Jeff Dee is a game designer, not a scientist. He is not the person that should be teaching evolution to children, because people with expertise in biology can do a far better job at it. I think he did the right thing to direct Ariel to a site where she can find the facts by herself.
Nidair 3 weeks ago 2
@firedawgMD You still don't understand what a theory is in science. Where did they give her a theory that was not based on fact? They gave her as many facts as they could in spite of her complete ignorance and very poor questions.
peterandfaith 3 weeks ago
@peterandfaith: Let me put it to you this way. Scientific theories change all the time don't they? Facts remain the same. Fact: 2 plus 2 is four, that's as true today as it has always been. Fact: humans drown if they stay underwater without breathing apparatus -- also unchanging. Can you think of any Scientific theories that have changed?
firedawgMD 3 weeks ago
@firedawgMD Yes, scientific theories change but that in no way means they are speculations. Theories change as new evidence is uncovered. You are trying to move the goalposts to avoid the fact that you still don't understand what a theory is. All you did in your original post was to point out that fact.
peterandfaith 3 weeks ago
@peterandfaith: thank you. theories change and facts do not. All I did from the beginning was point this out to you. The caller asked for facts -- that is what was behind my initial post.
firedawgMD 3 weeks ago
@firedawgMD Thank you for remaining willfully ignorant. Theories don't necessarily change. They can change in the face of new evidence so don't try to make it look like they change all the time. No, you did not point that out to me. You tried to give theories a meaning which they do not have in science.
Theories are explanations of fact and are the most powerful weapon science has for determining the truth. You simply demeaned the word theory in the context of science.
peterandfaith 3 weeks ago
@peterandfaith:"Thank you for remaining willfully ignorant"? What does this even mean? If someone had remained willfully ignorant why would you then say thanks? Do you know what "thanks" means? aren't you demeaning that word? Anyway, people grasp concepts at different rates, and I had to take you around this subject in a particular way so you could grasp it but it still escapes you. There's nothing I do about that. I'm at least glad you're able to understand what a theory is and that they change
firedawgMD 3 weeks ago
@firedawgMD I see you don't understand sarcasm which is a sign of limited mental ability. You still don't understand how a theory in science is more valuable than any fact since theories explain facts. Thinking that someone is shortchanged by theory over fact shows your ignorance. Theories do not change - they can change. This simple idea seems beyond your comprehension. Nothing you said escapes me but everything I said remains out of your grasp.
peterandfaith 3 weeks ago
@peterandfaith: Talk about your broken records ... none of your comments differs from another ... "you don't understand theories" ... give it a rest already. Do you live with anybody? you must drive them insane! Is that why you keep coming back here -- they can't stand you? go work on a relationship or get a hobby because you have nothing meaningful to say here.
firedawgMD 3 weeks ago
@firedawgMD None of my comments differ because you still don't understand the value of theory over simple facts. Facts have no explanatory or predictive power. Theories lead us to new facts but you still think because a theory can change that it is somehow defective.
I am happily married and have been for many years. I suspect from the number of angry comments I see from you that you live alone and likely will remain that way.
peterandfaith 2 weeks ago
@peterandfaith: I know, I know ... I don't understand theories right? Ok. you said that already, and I get that you love theories because they're the greatest thing since sliced bread ... anything else?
firedawgMD 2 weeks ago
@firedawgMD No you don't get it or you wouldn't make the statements you did. There is something else - you don't understand facts either. Here are a few facts you can check, perhaps you can explain why they don't change.
The population of any country, city, or town.
The height of Mount Everest.
The distance from the Earth to the Moon.
The position of the North Magnetic Pole.
peterandfaith 2 weeks ago
@peterandfaith: That's good! and you didn't mention the word theory once ... but you still hinted at it. Welcome back. So now I don't understand facts either? Ok, well I'm doing your homework assignment, but I'll say this (I'll just take the first one from your list). When a population changes, the fact doesn't. Its simple math, like I explained earlier. The fact here is that population reflects a number of people living in a certain place, the math is the actual count
firedawgMD 2 weeks ago
@firedawgMD That's what rational people call a tortured explanation. Unless you can convince me that the population of a place is not a fact then your explanation is pure fantasy. I guess you missed your own comment that the fact is the actual count - which changes.