@TheLondondragon Columbia University was started by The Church of England and he was a math teacher not a scientist. He has no answers. The Discovery Institute pays him to point out gaps in the theory of evolution and promote the ''atheists vs religion'' controversy.
I wonder how many of Berlinski's fan club have gone out and researched the claims he makes. Fact checking would be a start. Maybe watch all this, write notes about his claims and check them in some way... like compare them to what scientists and their theories actually say.
But wait, that's so hard, why bother when you can nod and avoid reality, secure that life isn't as hard as that mean science shows it is!
@Ahabite Its one thing to gather the facts, it is another to interpret them. What makes you think gathering facts will make people support your view, it didn't do it for those who have researched and reached a different conclusion to your own.
And to give him full credit and fair analysis: I've never heard another human being (Wm Craig is close) as capable of eloquently and articulating absolutley nothing relevant to his cause. He is paid by the Discovery Institute to sound viable to the undiscerning or uneducated ear.... This he likely achieves.
But for relevant context and argumentative content?... Berlinsky is articulately vacuos, a black hole of verbage
I cannot abide by the novel notion that an unborn child's dismemberment by vacuum tube and forceps is righteous. All that we can hope for, in these darkening days is, that our bowel movements be timely and local.
Population-reducers Ted Turner, Bill Gates & Warren Buffet MUST set examples for people who remain unconvinced and intractable, unmoved and apathetic in regards to voluntary genocide as advocated by Red China's favorite Austrian: Henry Kissinger. Their notable suicides will shine as beacons beckoning kith & kin to follow.
Most cops are good except for the majority of them--the blood-thirsty maniacs. All that the good cops can do is to bear witness to the bad cops who routinely punch, kick, tase and pummel handcuffed citizens. Let us put in our Chinese choppers and laugh, laugh, laugh...smiley virus, Miley Cyrus...Because: It's not who you keep out so much as who you let in, not: Who you keep in as who you let out, etc...
You see his strategy here? He can't win debates on facts and logic, so he wants to drag everyone down to the level of schoolchildren name-calling, where he actually has a chance of winning the "debate".
So, in the last comment we find out that Berlinski is also a critic of QM. It seems odd that he chooses to dismiss [without actually being able to offer a valid criticism] two of the most well supported scientific theories which exist today.
He's right , the situation has been created where one is made to feel an outsider or odd if you question evolutionary theory... this is neither right or democratic. Richard Dawkins is very good at that, much to his discredit i think. All it does is stifle the debate. More power to Berlinski.
@samwgdavis "this is neither right or democratic. "
.
All those in favour of revoking the Law of Gravity, raise your hands. - Motion carried!
.
Berlinski, lies in another segment of this interview, claiming that John Von Neumann "hooted" with derision at Darwin's theory. The absolute opposite was the case. von Neumann used Darwin's theories as a basis for his own work and NEVER derided or even disagreed with Darwin.
.
Name Calling? Oh, boo-hoo Dr. Berlinski, boo-hoo, you hypocritical creep!
@Noisegator I fail to see the relevance of your Law of gravity comment in reply to my previous post. Dawkins nearly always resorts to ridicule when discussing evolution with those who question it.....not what one would expect from someone who thinks he owns the copyright to what he calls scientific evidence &/or fact... THAT was my point. Also It is impossible for anyone to say that Von Nuemann never derided or disagreed with Darwin..have you a recording of every word he ever spoke?
@samwgdavis My point is that science is not a democratic process. Ii the majority of people are wrong, that doesn't make them right.
.
I don't need a "recording of every word". If you'd care to do some research you'd find that von Neumann clearly supported evolutionary theory and quotes to the contrary have inevitably been mined and mangled.
.
Google 'berlinski horse's mouth" or "von neumann on darwin". Or go to The Panda's Thumb and search any combination of von neumann and berlinski.
@samwgdavis As for Berlinski's source for the Hooting von Neumann story, let's hear it in his own words...
.
"I got my information about Von Neumann from the horse's mouth, **the horse one step removed from the horse himself**. Quite obviously I did not know Von Neumann personally."
.
Apparently Berlinski has a novel definition of the term "from the horse's mouth" of which the rest of the world was heretofore unaware. Given the ease with which Berlinski abuses basic speech, how can we trust him?
@samwgdavis Hey, no problem. I didn't really pull any punches but you seem to be thick skinned enough to not mind a bit of sarcasm. I hope I shed some light along with the heat and smoke - lol.
@Mattprole "This man seems like he is articulate enough to manipulate the metaphysical confusions of theists for his own success. "
.
Well said! He is also the master of the big lie, spoken so boldly that even people who know it is crap, are silenced by his sheer audacity. Google "berlinski horse's mouth" and click the first citation (at science-blogs-dot-com). About half way down the page is a link called 'tells the story' - click it for a good laugh at the Prince of Pomposity's expense.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
@gregrutz Proving Darwin wrong?? LMAO Who thinks he was ever right, has his brains in his ass. I won't have to prove darwin wrong. He did that all by himself.
Is there anywhere on the internet I can find an explanation of Berlinski's criticisms of Darwinian theory? I'm not saying the guy doesn't have any, and he makes some very good points about the nature of debate and criticism in this video, but everything I can find about him so far is mainly just rhetoric of rhetoric of some form.
The man's obviously not stupid, you can't just write him off without first adressing any legitimate criticisms he may have produced.
I think Coldwater Media should make this into 35 fucking clips and spread this Bull Shit all over the Internet so this math/philosopher can spread his misunderstanding of Biology.
@gregrutz as if you are the example extraordinaire of what someone knowing biology is. PfffT everyone's a "scientist" as long as he is atheist. Yeah riiight
The moment you disagree with evolution, it's always because "you don't understand it" LMAO Can't POSSIBLY be that perhaps they DO and just disagree huh? Yeah you have just proved berlinski's point dumb ass
@gregrutz I love it when the Philosopher kings of science known as atheist's automatically think if someone disagrees with them, they must be the same people that hallucinated seeing the age of the earth in the ancient text's. Real Demonstration of superior logic eh shit for brains. The difference between an atheist and a evolutionary theist is the spelling. Other than that, they may both go to hell
@gregrutz If evolution is how we got where we are, no why do you keep suggesting I said something about going to hell? This is about science, not religion so please save it for the heathens
I represent Leprechaun science and I have the same problems with the (so called) "Mainstream Scientists." They make fun of me too! And where's the guys to douse them with a bucket of water??? Got some good ideas from this! An army of inner-city Rappers! Yeah.... that's what I need to be on my side, arguing my science! Thanks for the tip!
Berlinski is right.once they challenge Darwinian ortodoxy these self called "scientists" instead of showing evidence for their words they do go personal,insults and personals attacks as psychiatric evaluations to the oposer,discredited the competition by saying the person have some mental illness,even do the person have the same degree and scientific background as the Darwinian,beg the question,if a delusional person can get a scientific possition,do this Darwinians can be delusional too?
You have been brainwashed to think evolution has not evidence and is just a 'theory'
Creationist have no idea how much scientist know about the fossils and the geology of the earth. Sorry but they, like Mr. Butinski, don't know what they are talking about a how silly they sound. Silly, they are just plain lies.
I don't know if these creationists are wrong,they may be,but something is for sure,these man(Berlinski) got plenty education,graduated from the best schools in france,math/biology astronomy and thats just a few of the chart this man have,so thats why i said "beg the question"if this man is a proffesional scientist,(his record shows that) and according to many Darwinians he is a joke,how come i have to trust the Darwinians only cause they call themselfs scientists?
Because scientists are looking for the answers, they don't care what the outcome is, just the facts.
Mr. Butinski, a philosopher, is paid by creationists, The Discovery Institute, to make up crap to make evolution look bad. He has no evidence, he is not an evolutionary Biologist. He is wrong.
can a well spoken graduated intelligent scientists can be pay to lie?
so as far i can see even Richard Dawkins can be pay to lie don't you think?
if a scientist with extreme education,reputation as a proffesor(Berlinski was a proffesor in Yale,Harvard ect) can lie just for the matter of money then ANY SCIENTISTS CAN BE BUY,Dawkins was wrong,religion is not the root of all evil,MONEY is the root of all evil..
@gregrutz Ideally you're correct but that isn't the case. Oh and quit poisoning the well moron. If you are going to act like you know what you're talking about, then at least shut up. You will have a much better chance of sounding credible than you are spewing logical fallacies ridiculing someone without so much as a shred of proof berlinski's opinions are bought. I can say the same thing about Dawkins, that atheists buy his bullshit.
Knowing atheist's It's more likely they suck his dick
@breedofthe45 thing is Darwin wasn't a scientist on the beagle and he stole natural selection and most other ideas he got from other scientists. He is without a doubt the most undeserving name in science history. Nothing but a liar cheater and thief. Character like that, NO wonder atheist's adore him
@AllenTheAllen I believe (if you were listening and obviously you were not) berlinkski suggested they use their talents in something other than rap. Say like SCIENCE and for the to start an assault on science the same way atheists assault their opposing interlocutors.
Me, I don't listen to the atheists, who are always talkin out both sides of their mouths.
I just punch em in the face right away. saves time and 98% of them end up agreeing with me and saying they were wrong. It's really just the physical equivalent of what they do verbally.
I just Googled "Berlinski podcast" and found several.
That was a great idea, thanks!
PS He just published a new book, which I got from Amazon. It's titled "The Deniable Darwin". It's actually a collection of different things he's written over the years, so it doesn't really have a beginning, middle and end like most books. So far I'm enjoying it though.
Thanks, I'd heard of it, thought it would be good, now you've recommended it, I'll order it sooner rather than later.
I like the way he stands up for what he believes -and it helps that he's got excellent academic credentials. imo those of us that are less distinguished, should do the same. Not to 'pick a side' -- there are some implications of the idea of detecting design that I find problematic, but I *definitely* disagree with the sweeping metaphysical assumptions of Dawkins, Dennett etc.
.... regarding such things as consciousness and the validity of all religion, and it's V annoying when their views are presented as unadorned 'objective' fact. Regarding doubts over neo-darwinism, I'm not so sure, but I'm willing to consider that there's a link between secular humanist metaphysics and a belief in the universal explanatory power of adaptationalism, and also that the modern synthesis is not in fact, as well supported as we're led to believe.
Darwinism is an old-fashioned doctrine which is now rejected by many biologists. My blog has a link to an interview with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a scientist who is a materialist and an atheist, but who nevertheless debunks the old notion that species somehow evolved by chance and natural selection. Follow the link on my channel profile to my blog.
What percentage of biologists actually reject evolution? Please tell me.
By the way, skepticism of evolution does not = rejection. Skepticism is what drives people to test theories, and i havent heard anyone "debunk" evolution without using lame old arguments that have already been rejected by the scientific community.
Someones been watching ben steins propaganda peice. I suggest you actually do a bit of research on the names and stories he uses. What you will find is that they lost their job because they tried to publish untested ideas into scientific journals without peer review.
In the real world, science DEPENDS on skeptisism in order to find the truth and to find and correct mistakes. Without it, there would be no independent testing and the whole scientific method would not be effective.
If you think scientists don''t have political agendas, you haven't been reading the news for the past four months. Just look at the Climategate scandal where the covers were taken off of peer review, and it was found to be a fraudulent system controlled by unethical people bent on pursuing their own personal agendas.
The CRU and IPCC and NASA and NCDC, etc comprise the ENTIRE CLIMATE RESEARCH INSTITUTION. They have all been proven to have been complicit in the global warming scandal.
The peer review process of an entire branch of science has been discovered to have been corrupted.
There is no excuse. Don't even try.
Nobody should trust ANY peer review journal anywhere.
This proves just how corrupt and petty and political scientists are.
"Nobody should trust ANY peer review journal anywhere"
Right, so we should abandon the scientific method because of a small number of dishonest individuals and start living in the dark ages again? Because without it, that's where we would still be.
Get over it you twat. Whenever politics mix with anything there is going to be lies, but most scientific research is done without political agendas.
Not abandon the scientific method, stop attacking the application of philosophy, stop defending the indefensible, stop lying, admit your political agendas.
"Nobody should trust ANY peer review journal anywhere"
Then you say that we shouldn't abandon the scientific method? Peer review is the most important part of the entire method as it prevents fictitious/biased claims and pseudoscience being published.
You cant seriously say the entire method fails (which is effectively what your saying when you say nobody should trust any peer reviewed journal) because of a few dishonest people with obvious ties to politics.
@Ultramediacorp So if scientific review is such a myth, what do you suggest take its place?
Berlinski is purposely misinformed. His basic philosophy is to question responsible scientists, yet to offer nothing of his own. He is paid to be a thorn in the side of science in general...
@spiderpig85 Well I'm just glad SOMEBODY is challenging that idiotic consensus science we have now. In fact Scientists USED to rip on their own theories REQUESTING their colleagues challenge theory. Today, ha ha science is nothing more than a politically corruptible, greedy agenda to bask in the presence of peers who smile and wave and stab you in the back as soon as yu turn around. They seem to be nothing but liars anymore and they are FAR too arrogant, put on pedestals and worshiped
@gregrutz It has been proven? Really? you better tell the The Altenberg 16 that then! Or google : An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry. The fact is darwit, not even the top evolutionary scientist's have agreed it is a fact! Consensus science is great but not when the consensus is more about keeping religion out of science using NLP tactics calling it a scientific fact when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Evolution is a fact is a SLOGAN spewed by atheist fundamentalist zealots
@spiderpig85 No I am NOT as Naive to believe the peer review is the be all end all of scientific truth. In fact it is the most corruptible part of science
@spiderpig85 Peer review is an important part of the process but I personally find it refreshing to see someone stepping out from the ranks and approaching the problem from a different point of view. Please let me add that I do respect your opinion and don't wish to add fuel to the fire of what is already a very contentious issue.
@gregrutz You have added nothing to the debate. If it was settled 150 years ago you would not have made this comment here. Darwinism is more in question now than ever. They thought the cell was a simple globule of protoplasm! We now know a single cell is more complicated than all downtown NY City with all it's phone, power, gas, plumbing, lines, all systems, structures, but IT IS self maintaining! Not a single plausible theory of how life COULD HAVE started naturalisticly. No science.
@gregrutz "Evolution happened, proven". When? Where? If I say gravity is 9.28m/sec squared, I prove it by dropping objects and timing. I prove chemical reactions by reproducing them in a lab. That is science. No one has EVER shown any species changing into another, or how it could, or even one beneficial mutation that added new useful information.
If "How life started has nothing to do with evolution of species" why is a statement of how it DID happened in almost every evolution textbook?
@gregrutz Micro evolution, yes; macro evolution, one species turning into another, new limbs forming, new organs forming, never. They have mutated thousands if not millions of generations of fruit flies and what did they get? Fruit flies! Some with two wings, some with no wings, some infertile, many dead... but always fruit flies. If one species has turned into another, which? Where? How? We've gotten different sized and shaped dogs, horses, cows, cats, etc...
@gregrutz You say, "Everything you think of as bird-like, dinosaures evolved: hollow bones, feathers, three toes, oval eggs in nests, warm blood, etc." This is not science!!! No evidence of these things, no transitions(have been many claims but all debunked, questionable, and none provable), no proof that they can evolve. Science please... not anecdotes.
@nakedBison69 - "Evolution is a myth, time to reject it"
I suppose that you have empirical evidence for your position? Another person with no science background offers an uneducated opinion. [sigh] Why not try reality, for a change?
@nakedBison69 Religious people already reject it, but they can't prove it is wrong. Calling it a myth or a religion can't do it. Mr. Butinski asking questions won't do it.
gregrutz already rejects the Bible, without being able to prove it is wrong. calling it a myth cannot do it. gregrutz not appreciating Dr Berlinski's brilliance will not do it
@enoch1844 What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. A better question (perhaps) is- How often has speciation been produced or observed in nature? Then we could say 99 times perhaps in the last 6000 years. Now the next question is- how many species have gone extinct in any 100 years, now or in the past? We will quickly see that if evolution "happens" it is not happening fast enough to keep up with extinction.
@enoch1844 I have only been able to locate about 40 speciation events. Most of those are in plants. And almost all of the rest are in insects. I will give them 90 in case we missed some. And who is to say that speciation event is not an observation of devolution? Then look at the "Cambrian Explosion" and the math does not add up. We may actually be looking at the "Cambrian Massive Burial Event" but I will give the Evolutionist credit for always looking at the glass as half full.
@callingheyzeus 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct, not just the Cambrian marine creatures, there are no trilobites, no dinosaurs [except the small ones with feathers].
Creationists are the ones who get everything backwards, any change is evolution, there is no devolution.
@gregrutz Personally, I believe in special creation. I believe any evolution and speciation that took place was already in the genetic information and range of variation in the individual species and was not acquired through mutation and adding of the vast amounts of new information required for new morphology. I don't think this theory is outside of observed evidence even if it can't be proved or disproved and it lacks a definitive time line.
Here is the evidence, the facts, go look. The fossils are layered like this: In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils. No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers. No dating method used
@gregrutz There are more then 500 instances of the fossil record appearing in reverse order. Either we have rock layers forming and flipping over without leaving evidence of that event or the theory is flawed. Most of the large dino fossils are missing their heads and their bones are perpendicular to each other indicating water transport and rapid burial. Water transport indicates hydrological sorting and grouping of large deposits such as found in coal beds.
@callingheyzeus Floods don't sort anything, fossils are in order > simple to complex. Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock. All the vegitation in the world put together could not make a single coal bed. There was never a global flood, no mud layer with all the dead bodies.
@gregrutz "Floods don't sort anything"- sounds like a testable hypothesis. We could go to the local pet store and dump a bunch of different animals into a swimming pool. Start adding water and concrete and see if the cats and puppies end up in layers above the fish. I doubt they would fossilize without rapid burial so you could use another pool as a control and observe it while throwing a new species in every few years or so and see if it sorts them or if they fossilize at all.
@callingheyzeus But fish fossils are found with cat and dog fossils. You don't even know the facts, how things are sorted. The fossils are layered like this:
In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils
@gregrutz Is that the one where they point at the ground and say, "See that? That is why we don't have to be accountable for our actions!" I've seen that one. Off in the background there is a guy pointing at a huge section where the geologic column is inverted. He's all like, "What about this evidence?" And then they are all like trying to explain how it flipped over like a pancake on top of the other one without breaking. After a while they all resort to name calling. That's one of my favorites
@callingheyzeus It sounds like you are learning a lot about geology. Then you know that floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossils in them.
@callingheyzeus There is more coal than one layer of trees could make.
''required for new morphology. ''
They where did the new morphology come from? The Cambrian Period only had small marine creatures. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160,000,000 years, changing over time.
@luker4459 Let me ask you something lurker, are YOU a scientist? The peer review is NOT the most important part of the scientific method (what ever that is at the time) The united states senate has found the Smithsonian GUILTY the following indictments for fraud, abuse of taxpayer funded schemes and a myriad of other illegal and un-ethical acts perpetrated by a science community more interested in advancing their ideology of atheism, than any REAL concern for an objective study of science.
How is atheism a religion? You're avoiding the question. An ideology? Well, i think reason and logic is a greatly beneficial "ideology". People are dishonest, not the method.
Peer review ensures that erroneus assumptions/claims will be rejected and dishonesty will always be exposed. It's being exposed now isnt it? It's happened all through history - but they all get exposed. You can't cover things up because science is testable and claims are independently verified.
@luker4459 first of all you are not an atheist their is no such thing and I am not avoiding the question flunknuts . Google "Atheism is a religion" supreme court ruling oh and by the way, your argument isn't with me jack ass, its with atheists. They are the ones that sued to get it classed as a religion .
You have yet to explain to me how atheism is a religion.
Atheism can only be a religion if you are making a faith based assumption (such as, there is definitely no god). Atheists generally refer to people who reject theism - not just those who beleive there certainly is no god. Most will say they don't know, but will remain unconvinced either way until sufficient evidence is provided.
@luker4459 so you're not atheist then if you merely reject God, the fact is you don't KNOW he doesn't exist. I can prove shit doesn't exist jerk but only if I know it doesn't
I asked you if you are a scientist lurker and you continue avoiding the question. I take that as a NO, so QUIT FUCKING SPEAKING FOR SCIENCE GOT IT SHIT STAIN! Here is your tweaked embryos DUMB ASS Youtube "Icons of Evolution: Don't Question Our Theory (Clip 3)"
I'm not allowed to speak for science unless im a scientist? Thats a new one. I guess that makes you a scientist then? You wouldnt want to be a hypocrite would you now?
Of course i don't know whether a god exists. Nobody does. But like bigfoot, alien abductions and leprechauns - i will assume its bullshit until someone can provide some proof.
Still waiting on your explaination on how atheism is a religion.
@luker4459 I don't speak for science jack ass, YOU ARE and you're not a scientist so quit speaking as if you are. The fact is YOU DON'T KNOW SO STFU
You don't know their is a big foot so don't say their isn't unless YOU KNOW their isn't when you KNOW their isn't THEN you can say "you know they don't exist" otherwise just be honest and say " I don't know they exist" You are agnostic when you don't know. True atheism is impossible
1) I can quote you a large number of bullshit assertions and assumptions thats been typed here by you about science. You telling me i can't speak for science unless im a scientist is not only childishly pathetic but also highly hypocritcal.
2) I never said "i know they dont exist". I said i'll assume its bullshit. That does not equal "i know they dont exist". Look up atheism in the dictionary; "a disbelief in the existence of deity". That makes no claim.
@luker4459 Sorry lurker I quote what Science says not as science like you do and your opinions are none of my business. Disbelief is to deny existence, Un belief means you don't know of its existence Atheism is an oxymoron
So you are "quoting" that science says "Peer review process has been relegated to the prestige of used car sales man", and "science is nothing more than a politically corruptible, greedy agenda"?
dis·be·lief
noun
1.the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
If i refuse to accept something as true, that doesn neassarily mean i am making the claim that it is defintely false. You fail again. I'm getting tired of this.
Guess why they got exposed? Because the system fucking works! This just proves further that the systems we have in place DO work because this shit does get exposed.
I guess you would assume that all cops are corrupt just because there have been cops exposed as corrupt? Does this render the entire legal system a failure? It should do based on your logic.
@luker4459 No you dumb son of a bitch! How can the "system" that is being investigated be the one that did it's JOB and be found Guilty of NOT doing it's Job. Take your fuckin head OUT OF YOUR ASS. Your Cops analogy doesn't have a peer review claiming to be so fuckin perfect, IN FACT we EXPECT Cops to be corrupt now days like we should SCIENCE YOU IDIOT!
Refusal TO ACCEPT SOMETHING AS TRUE. If you assert that something is true, and i deny that assertion - that doesn't mean i am saying that it is DEFINITELY false. What happened to "i dont know"?
I reject all claims that god exists, but that doesn't mean i claim that god definitely does not exist.
Read carefully before you make yourself look like an idiot.
If you say to me "There is a monster behind that door", my disbeleif of your claim doesnt mean that would claim that i "know" there isnt one there. I just remain unconvinced.
Atheism can mean claiming there is definitely no god - but it is more often used to describe someone who remains unconvinced and treats it like any other outlandish claim.
@luker4459 Oh and by the way, ya might want to tell science to quit using ernst haekels tweaked embryos . whats it been like a hundred years they have been known to be deliberate frauds. Yeah some peer review process
Name me a single scientific text book being produced today which includes known frauds such as haeckels embryo's.
You scoff at peer review, yet peer review (independent verification) is exactly what revealed those embryo's as frauds in the first place. See why science works yet?
@Ultramediacorp Yeah good one dumbass we're in the dark ages alright, with our computers, tv's, portable electronics, particle accelerators, and all these other amazing things that science has enabled. Yeah we haven't come far from horses and carts have we?
Science is not a religion and it never can be. The truth is what it is regardless of what people want it to be.
Hey Jack ass, Take your fucking head out of your gaytheist asshole and READ the POST you responded to. I wasn't making an indictment to inventors and engineers or computer tech heads or electronics engineers or any of them.
JUST the atheist element in that regard that seems to think teaching kids how to fist another school boy is more valuable than teaching math and science and why our students are failing. The MATH DOESN''T LIE SHIT HEAD.
"atheist and their turning science into a fuckin religion" - your implying that atheism is a religion?
Please explain to me how science is becoming a religion or how atheism is a religion. I'd love to hear it... I really would.
"Science gave us WMD's, Anthrax, agent, O"
Why do you blame science for that? Evil things are done by evil people - not science. It's like saying "its not his fault he shot the guy, its the guns fault".
@luker4459 I am not implying anything LIKE that lurker. I am making a statement of fact that has nothing to do with science being anything but about what Atheists are trying to use it as a fulcrum to bludgeon believers with using the tactics of pure bullshit to do it in the same voice they are accusing religion of same. Atheist's have become EVERYTHING they have always hated about Christian fundamentalists and THAT is undeniable
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny !
Philosophers should not be allowed to explain Biology.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheLondondragon 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz He was actually a researcher in Microbiology at Columbia University
TheLondondragon 3 weeks ago
@TheLondondragon Columbia University was started by The Church of England and he was a math teacher not a scientist. He has no answers. The Discovery Institute pays him to point out gaps in the theory of evolution and promote the ''atheists vs religion'' controversy.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
I wonder how many of Berlinski's fan club have gone out and researched the claims he makes. Fact checking would be a start. Maybe watch all this, write notes about his claims and check them in some way... like compare them to what scientists and their theories actually say.
But wait, that's so hard, why bother when you can nod and avoid reality, secure that life isn't as hard as that mean science shows it is!
Why read many books when you can read only one?
Ahabite 5 months ago
@Ahabite Its one thing to gather the facts, it is another to interpret them. What makes you think gathering facts will make people support your view, it didn't do it for those who have researched and reached a different conclusion to your own.
loremdolorfu 3 weeks ago
@loremdolorfu Creationists don't look at the facts. They don't study the fossils or geology. Saying ''We all have the same evidence'' is bull shit.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@Ahabite Ironic how he talks about how evolutionists do exactly what you're accusing people in Berlinski's "fan club" of doing/not doing.
irhjma30000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've listened to hours and hours of Berlinsky.
And to give him full credit and fair analysis: I've never heard another human being (Wm Craig is close) as capable of eloquently and articulating absolutley nothing relevant to his cause. He is paid by the Discovery Institute to sound viable to the undiscerning or uneducated ear.... This he likely achieves.
But for relevant context and argumentative content?... Berlinsky is articulately vacuos, a black hole of verbage
nolobede 8 months ago
@nakedBison69 Me and Berlinski both then
shandcunt 9 months ago
True, creationists always resort to ad hominem attacks.
baldurus1 10 months ago
baldurus1 always resorts to ad hominem attacks on Bible believers
nakedBison69 9 months ago
@nakedBison69 I dare you to back up your claim.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@nakedBison69 I dare you to back up your claim.
baldurus1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
baldurus1 is unable to back up his claim
nakedBison69 9 months ago
I cannot abide by the novel notion that an unborn child's dismemberment by vacuum tube and forceps is righteous. All that we can hope for, in these darkening days is, that our bowel movements be timely and local.
procommenter 10 months ago
Population-reducers Ted Turner, Bill Gates & Warren Buffet MUST set examples for people who remain unconvinced and intractable, unmoved and apathetic in regards to voluntary genocide as advocated by Red China's favorite Austrian: Henry Kissinger. Their notable suicides will shine as beacons beckoning kith & kin to follow.
procommenter 10 months ago
Most cops are good except for the majority of them--the blood-thirsty maniacs. All that the good cops can do is to bear witness to the bad cops who routinely punch, kick, tase and pummel handcuffed citizens. Let us put in our Chinese choppers and laugh, laugh, laugh...smiley virus, Miley Cyrus...Because: It's not who you keep out so much as who you let in, not: Who you keep in as who you let out, etc...
procommenter 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
berlinski FTW!
sadathusain 10 months ago
berlinski FTW!
sadathusain 10 months ago
Ohhh, such a smarmy, smug, fuck
shandcunt 1 year ago
shandcunt is such a smarmy smug fuck
nakedBison69 9 months ago
Dawkins check under his bed and in the closet for Berlinski before putting on his night gown for the night
salmagnum 1 year ago 7
fellow of the Discovery Institute. what more needs be said.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
Go after the other scienties with rgument.
It appears that aging and years of failules has turned this wackjob into an extremist racist, bitter, violent and angry man.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
You see his strategy here? He can't win debates on facts and logic, so he wants to drag everyone down to the level of schoolchildren name-calling, where he actually has a chance of winning the "debate".
sleazybtd 1 year ago
What a fucking douchebag. Hey! I'm a debater!
dangerics 1 year ago
This shit happens every time a philosopher / math teacher tries to understand Biology.
gregrutz 1 year ago
True. If Lil' Wayne was rapping about the Kerb cycle - I would be more inclined to learn it!
queenrage1 1 year ago
So, in the last comment we find out that Berlinski is also a critic of QM. It seems odd that he chooses to dismiss [without actually being able to offer a valid criticism] two of the most well supported scientific theories which exist today.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Well....at least Daniel Dennett has made made an intellectual achievement. Berlinski? None, and counting.
kshackleton 1 year ago
lol This guy serves the pretensious bullshit right back to the athiest's. It's so lovely to listen to.
Docta305 1 year ago
@Docta305 And he gets paid to make shit up too, what a dildo.
gregrutz 1 year ago
He's right , the situation has been created where one is made to feel an outsider or odd if you question evolutionary theory... this is neither right or democratic. Richard Dawkins is very good at that, much to his discredit i think. All it does is stifle the debate. More power to Berlinski.
samwgdavis 1 year ago
@samwgdavis "this is neither right or democratic. "
.
All those in favour of revoking the Law of Gravity, raise your hands. - Motion carried!
.
Berlinski, lies in another segment of this interview, claiming that John Von Neumann "hooted" with derision at Darwin's theory. The absolute opposite was the case. von Neumann used Darwin's theories as a basis for his own work and NEVER derided or even disagreed with Darwin.
.
Name Calling? Oh, boo-hoo Dr. Berlinski, boo-hoo, you hypocritical creep!
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator I fail to see the relevance of your Law of gravity comment in reply to my previous post. Dawkins nearly always resorts to ridicule when discussing evolution with those who question it.....not what one would expect from someone who thinks he owns the copyright to what he calls scientific evidence &/or fact... THAT was my point. Also It is impossible for anyone to say that Von Nuemann never derided or disagreed with Darwin..have you a recording of every word he ever spoke?
samwgdavis 1 year ago
@samwgdavis My point is that science is not a democratic process. Ii the majority of people are wrong, that doesn't make them right.
.
I don't need a "recording of every word". If you'd care to do some research you'd find that von Neumann clearly supported evolutionary theory and quotes to the contrary have inevitably been mined and mangled.
.
Google 'berlinski horse's mouth" or "von neumann on darwin". Or go to The Panda's Thumb and search any combination of von neumann and berlinski.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@samwgdavis As for Berlinski's source for the Hooting von Neumann story, let's hear it in his own words...
.
"I got my information about Von Neumann from the horse's mouth, **the horse one step removed from the horse himself**. Quite obviously I did not know Von Neumann personally."
.
Apparently Berlinski has a novel definition of the term "from the horse's mouth" of which the rest of the world was heretofore unaware. Given the ease with which Berlinski abuses basic speech, how can we trust him?
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator I enjoyed our conversation & thankyou for not being abusive, so many are. A long life and peace to you & yours.
samwgdavis 1 year ago
@samwgdavis Hey, no problem. I didn't really pull any punches but you seem to be thick skinned enough to not mind a bit of sarcasm. I hope I shed some light along with the heat and smoke - lol.
Noisegator 1 year ago
What's with his homo-erotic holding something long and hard in his hand all the time thing there?
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
This man seems like he is articulate enough to manipulate the metaphysical confusions of theists for his own success.
Mattprole 1 year ago
@Mattprole "This man seems like he is articulate enough to manipulate the metaphysical confusions of theists for his own success. "
.
Well said! He is also the master of the big lie, spoken so boldly that even people who know it is crap, are silenced by his sheer audacity. Google "berlinski horse's mouth" and click the first citation (at science-blogs-dot-com). About half way down the page is a link called 'tells the story' - click it for a good laugh at the Prince of Pomposity's expense.
Noisegator 1 year ago
"it should require justification" NO, but it should require facts and proof! Moron!
gary031183 1 year ago
So if he calls people names, he is doing his job, muddy the water, don't talk about the facts the prove evolution happened.
This IDiot brought to you by The Discovery Institute, an anti-science group.
gregrutz 1 year ago
"His (Daniel Dennett's) greatest achievement is growing that stupid beard of his" Hahahaha Berlinki is my hero
packe777 1 year ago 16
@packe777 ''growing that stupid beard''. wow, he really has some strong evidence against evolution. IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
LoL!!
imissbubby 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
gregrutz 1 year ago
He thinks if he proves Darwinism wrong, it proves evolution didn't happen.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Proving Darwin wrong?? LMAO Who thinks he was ever right, has his brains in his ass. I won't have to prove darwin wrong. He did that all by himself.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
Darwin discovered the main cause of evolution, Natural Selection.
Evolution has been accepted ever since then. It has withstood 150 years of IDiots like Mr. Butinski
gregrutz 1 year ago
Is there anywhere on the internet I can find an explanation of Berlinski's criticisms of Darwinian theory? I'm not saying the guy doesn't have any, and he makes some very good points about the nature of debate and criticism in this video, but everything I can find about him so far is mainly just rhetoric of rhetoric of some form.
The man's obviously not stupid, you can't just write him off without first adressing any legitimate criticisms he may have produced.
LordyCyrus 1 year ago
@LordyCyrus He works for the Discovery Inst. He is paid to make shit up. He is not a scientist and does not understand how evolution works.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I think Coldwater Media should make this into 35 fucking clips and spread this Bull Shit all over the Internet so this math/philosopher can spread his misunderstanding of Biology.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz as if you are the example extraordinaire of what someone knowing biology is. PfffT everyone's a "scientist" as long as he is atheist. Yeah riiight
The moment you disagree with evolution, it's always because "you don't understand it" LMAO Can't POSSIBLY be that perhaps they DO and just disagree huh? Yeah you have just proved berlinski's point dumb ass
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp You are the dumb ass, you don't know the difference between a christian biologist and an atheist.
Tell us what you think evolution is. Can't wait, this should be funny.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I love it when the Philosopher kings of science known as atheist's automatically think if someone disagrees with them, they must be the same people that hallucinated seeing the age of the earth in the ancient text's. Real Demonstration of superior logic eh shit for brains. The difference between an atheist and a evolutionary theist is the spelling. Other than that, they may both go to hell
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp Why do you keep talking about atheists? Who cares about them.
Why would you go to hell because evolution happened?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz If evolution is how we got where we are, no why do you keep suggesting I said something about going to hell? This is about science, not religion so please save it for the heathens
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
I represent Leprechaun science and I have the same problems with the (so called) "Mainstream Scientists." They make fun of me too! And where's the guys to douse them with a bucket of water??? Got some good ideas from this! An army of inner-city Rappers! Yeah.... that's what I need to be on my side, arguing my science! Thanks for the tip!
AllenTheAllen 1 year ago
Berlinski is right.once they challenge Darwinian ortodoxy these self called "scientists" instead of showing evidence for their words they do go personal,insults and personals attacks as psychiatric evaluations to the oposer,discredited the competition by saying the person have some mental illness,even do the person have the same degree and scientific background as the Darwinian,beg the question,if a delusional person can get a scientific possition,do this Darwinians can be delusional too?
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45
You have been brainwashed to think evolution has not evidence and is just a 'theory'
Creationist have no idea how much scientist know about the fossils and the geology of the earth. Sorry but they, like Mr. Butinski, don't know what they are talking about a how silly they sound. Silly, they are just plain lies.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I don't know if these creationists are wrong,they may be,but something is for sure,these man(Berlinski) got plenty education,graduated from the best schools in france,math/biology astronomy and thats just a few of the chart this man have,so thats why i said "beg the question"if this man is a proffesional scientist,(his record shows that) and according to many Darwinians he is a joke,how come i have to trust the Darwinians only cause they call themselfs scientists?
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45
Because scientists are looking for the answers, they don't care what the outcome is, just the facts.
Mr. Butinski, a philosopher, is paid by creationists, The Discovery Institute, to make up crap to make evolution look bad. He has no evidence, he is not an evolutionary Biologist. He is wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
can you listen to yourself??
scientists do have a price?
can a well spoken graduated intelligent scientists can be pay to lie?
so as far i can see even Richard Dawkins can be pay to lie don't you think?
if a scientist with extreme education,reputation as a proffesor(Berlinski was a proffesor in Yale,Harvard ect) can lie just for the matter of money then ANY SCIENTISTS CAN BE BUY,Dawkins was wrong,religion is not the root of all evil,MONEY is the root of all evil..
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45
He is not a scientists, never had a job as a scientist. He is a math teacher.
His Dr. is NOT in Biology, you can tell by his misunderstanding of evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz HA HA as if ANYONE REALLY understands Evolution. It's like trying to understand Bullshit
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@gregrutz Ideally you're correct but that isn't the case. Oh and quit poisoning the well moron. If you are going to act like you know what you're talking about, then at least shut up. You will have a much better chance of sounding credible than you are spewing logical fallacies ridiculing someone without so much as a shred of proof berlinski's opinions are bought. I can say the same thing about Dawkins, that atheists buy his bullshit.
Knowing atheist's It's more likely they suck his dick
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@breedofthe45 thing is Darwin wasn't a scientist on the beagle and he stole natural selection and most other ideas he got from other scientists. He is without a doubt the most undeserving name in science history. Nothing but a liar cheater and thief. Character like that, NO wonder atheist's adore him
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@AllenTheAllen I believe (if you were listening and obviously you were not) berlinkski suggested they use their talents in something other than rap. Say like SCIENCE and for the to start an assault on science the same way atheists assault their opposing interlocutors.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
Me, I don't listen to the atheists, who are always talkin out both sides of their mouths.
I just punch em in the face right away. saves time and 98% of them end up agreeing with me and saying they were wrong. It's really just the physical equivalent of what they do verbally.
Only I think my way is a helluva lot more fun
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
that was very funny.
KiwiChristian 1 year ago
I too am dismayed by the decline in standards of vituperation LOL
UT0013 1 year ago
They are not critisizing him, just his stupid, wrong ideas about evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I can't get enough of this guy.
He's brilliant and funny.
ianmac2010 2 years ago
He's suave *and* funny. Reminds me of The Pink Panther. Makes some good points too imo.
gerontodon 2 years ago
Berlinski is my hero. I could listen to him for hours.
ianmac2010 2 years ago 3
I think I can see why. Can you recommend any podcasts or downloads?
gerontodon 1 year ago
I just Googled "Berlinski podcast" and found several.
That was a great idea, thanks!
PS He just published a new book, which I got from Amazon. It's titled "The Deniable Darwin". It's actually a collection of different things he's written over the years, so it doesn't really have a beginning, middle and end like most books. So far I'm enjoying it though.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
Thanks, I'd heard of it, thought it would be good, now you've recommended it, I'll order it sooner rather than later.
I like the way he stands up for what he believes -and it helps that he's got excellent academic credentials. imo those of us that are less distinguished, should do the same. Not to 'pick a side' -- there are some implications of the idea of detecting design that I find problematic, but I *definitely* disagree with the sweeping metaphysical assumptions of Dawkins, Dennett etc.
gerontodon 1 year ago
2
.... regarding such things as consciousness and the validity of all religion, and it's V annoying when their views are presented as unadorned 'objective' fact. Regarding doubts over neo-darwinism, I'm not so sure, but I'm willing to consider that there's a link between secular humanist metaphysics and a belief in the universal explanatory power of adaptationalism, and also that the modern synthesis is not in fact, as well supported as we're led to believe.
gerontodon 1 year ago
"Get these rappers off MTV, put them to work...focus direction on Darwin."
mhearstify 2 years ago
Darwinism is an old-fashioned doctrine which is now rejected by many biologists. My blog has a link to an interview with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a scientist who is a materialist and an atheist, but who nevertheless debunks the old notion that species somehow evolved by chance and natural selection. Follow the link on my channel profile to my blog.
sherwoodstars 2 years ago
What percentage of biologists actually reject evolution? Please tell me.
By the way, skepticism of evolution does not = rejection. Skepticism is what drives people to test theories, and i havent heard anyone "debunk" evolution without using lame old arguments that have already been rejected by the scientific community.
luker4459 2 years ago
"What percentage of biologists actually reject evolution? "
What percentage of people would dare question an orthodoxy, when doing so would cost them their careers?
The answer, of course is almost zero.
What percentage of biologists would admit publicly that they are ever skeptical of Evolution?
Again, the answer is nearly zero.
And when someone did dissent in the slightest, you can bet they would preface their words VERY CAREFULLY.
SCIENCE IS A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE.
ianmac2010 2 years ago
Someones been watching ben steins propaganda peice. I suggest you actually do a bit of research on the names and stories he uses. What you will find is that they lost their job because they tried to publish untested ideas into scientific journals without peer review.
In the real world, science DEPENDS on skeptisism in order to find the truth and to find and correct mistakes. Without it, there would be no independent testing and the whole scientific method would not be effective.
luker4459 2 years ago
Peer review standards my arse.
If you think scientists don''t have political agendas, you haven't been reading the news for the past four months. Just look at the Climategate scandal where the covers were taken off of peer review, and it was found to be a fraudulent system controlled by unethical people bent on pursuing their own personal agendas.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
No. A few people MAY have been dishonest it does not at all mean the entire peer review system fails and is riddled with corruption.
Would you also think that a few corrupt cops in a department means the entire legal system is a failure too?
luker4459 1 year ago
The CRU and IPCC and NASA and NCDC, etc comprise the ENTIRE CLIMATE RESEARCH INSTITUTION. They have all been proven to have been complicit in the global warming scandal.
The peer review process of an entire branch of science has been discovered to have been corrupted.
There is no excuse. Don't even try.
Nobody should trust ANY peer review journal anywhere.
This proves just how corrupt and petty and political scientists are.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
"Nobody should trust ANY peer review journal anywhere"
Right, so we should abandon the scientific method because of a small number of dishonest individuals and start living in the dark ages again? Because without it, that's where we would still be.
Get over it you twat. Whenever politics mix with anything there is going to be lies, but most scientific research is done without political agendas.
luker4459 1 year ago
Not abandon the scientific method, stop attacking the application of philosophy, stop defending the indefensible, stop lying, admit your political agendas.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
First you say;
"Nobody should trust ANY peer review journal anywhere"
Then you say that we shouldn't abandon the scientific method? Peer review is the most important part of the entire method as it prevents fictitious/biased claims and pseudoscience being published.
You cant seriously say the entire method fails (which is effectively what your saying when you say nobody should trust any peer reviewed journal) because of a few dishonest people with obvious ties to politics.
luker4459 1 year ago 3
@luker
"Then you say that we shouldn't abandon the scientific method? Peer review is the most important part of the entire method..."
Bollocks!
Peer review is not even part of the "scientific method".
Where did you get the idea that it was?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
Peer review is a major part of the scientific method actually. You seem to be misinformed about many things...
spiderpig85 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@spider
"Peer review is a major part of the scientific method actually. You seem to be misinformed about many things..."
Please name an authoritative source for that assertion.
If you cannot, then admit that you are the one who is misinformed.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@spiderpig85 No he isn't mis-informed. Peer review process has been relegated to the prestige of used car sales man and as for the scientific method?
MYTH
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
Why don't religious people understand science or logic?
Never opened a science book?
Home schooled?
Brainwashed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp So if scientific review is such a myth, what do you suggest take its place?
Berlinski is purposely misinformed. His basic philosophy is to question responsible scientists, yet to offer nothing of his own. He is paid to be a thorn in the side of science in general...
spiderpig85 1 year ago
@spiderpig85 Well I'm just glad SOMEBODY is challenging that idiotic consensus science we have now. In fact Scientists USED to rip on their own theories REQUESTING their colleagues challenge theory. Today, ha ha science is nothing more than a politically corruptible, greedy agenda to bask in the presence of peers who smile and wave and stab you in the back as soon as yu turn around. They seem to be nothing but liars anymore and they are FAR too arrogant, put on pedestals and worshiped
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
Scientists don't argue about the fact of evolution any more, it has been proven.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz It has been proven? Really? you better tell the The Altenberg 16 that then! Or google : An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry. The fact is darwit, not even the top evolutionary scientist's have agreed it is a fact! Consensus science is great but not when the consensus is more about keeping religion out of science using NLP tactics calling it a scientific fact when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Evolution is a fact is a SLOGAN spewed by atheist fundamentalist zealots
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@spiderpig85 No I am NOT as Naive to believe the peer review is the be all end all of scientific truth. In fact it is the most corruptible part of science
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp Look, humans are corruptible, it is our nature. To say the scientific method is corruptible is pointless and damaging actually.
Read Micheal Specter's book 'Denialism' to understand what damage people like Berlinski actually do...
spiderpig85 1 year ago
@spiderpig85 Peer review is an important part of the process but I personally find it refreshing to see someone stepping out from the ranks and approaching the problem from a different point of view. Please let me add that I do respect your opinion and don't wish to add fuel to the fire of what is already a very contentious issue.
PjD3nn1s 1 year ago
@PjD3nn1s He is paid by the Discovey Institue to make crap up. He has no answers, adds nothing to science, a dildo.
The contentious issue was setteled 150 years ago.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You have added nothing to the debate. If it was settled 150 years ago you would not have made this comment here. Darwinism is more in question now than ever. They thought the cell was a simple globule of protoplasm! We now know a single cell is more complicated than all downtown NY City with all it's phone, power, gas, plumbing, lines, all systems, structures, but IT IS self maintaining! Not a single plausible theory of how life COULD HAVE started naturalisticly. No science.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 Darwinism is 150 years out of date, Evolution happened, proven.
How life started has nothing to do with evolution of species. You only add>>
''It's complex, we don't know, so god dun it''
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Evolution happened, proven". When? Where? If I say gravity is 9.28m/sec squared, I prove it by dropping objects and timing. I prove chemical reactions by reproducing them in a lab. That is science. No one has EVER shown any species changing into another, or how it could, or even one beneficial mutation that added new useful information.
If "How life started has nothing to do with evolution of species" why is a statement of how it DID happened in almost every evolution textbook?
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 No one has EVER shown any species changing into another, ''
YES IT HAS, Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab.
Evolution textbook. ?? LOL, No it was a Biology book that is why it talks about Abiogenesis also.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Micro evolution, yes; macro evolution, one species turning into another, new limbs forming, new organs forming, never. They have mutated thousands if not millions of generations of fruit flies and what did they get? Fruit flies! Some with two wings, some with no wings, some infertile, many dead... but always fruit flies. If one species has turned into another, which? Where? How? We've gotten different sized and shaped dogs, horses, cows, cats, etc...
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 Yes, fruit flys make fruit flys, apes make apes, that is why we are still apes, still mammals, still vertebrates.
Everything you think of as bird-like, dinosaures evolved: hollow bones, feathers, three toes, oval eggs in nests, warm blood, etc.
Different sizes and shapes is called variation in species, needed for natural selection to work.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz You say, "Everything you think of as bird-like, dinosaures evolved: hollow bones, feathers, three toes, oval eggs in nests, warm blood, etc." This is not science!!! No evidence of these things, no transitions(have been many claims but all debunked, questionable, and none provable), no proof that they can evolve. Science please... not anecdotes.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 what is a hyena??
scottpastry 1 year ago
@enoch1844 So glad you accept m. evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Yes... micro.. not macro.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 - "Yes... micro.. not macro."
There is no difference. Evolutionary theory is a fact; time to deal with it.
CamW30 1 year ago
Evolution is a myth, time to reject it
nakedBison69 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nakedBison69 - "Evolution is a myth, time to reject it"
I suppose that you have empirical evidence for your position? Another person with no science background offers an uneducated opinion. [sigh] Why not try reality, for a change?
CamW30 9 months ago
@nakedBison69 Religious people already reject it, but they can't prove it is wrong. Calling it a myth or a religion can't do it. Mr. Butinski asking questions won't do it.
gregrutz 7 months ago
gregrutz already rejects the Bible, without being able to prove it is wrong. calling it a myth cannot do it. gregrutz not appreciating Dr Berlinski's brilliance will not do it
nakedBison69 7 months ago
@enoch1844 What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. A better question (perhaps) is- How often has speciation been produced or observed in nature? Then we could say 99 times perhaps in the last 6000 years. Now the next question is- how many species have gone extinct in any 100 years, now or in the past? We will quickly see that if evolution "happens" it is not happening fast enough to keep up with extinction.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus Excellent point! Thank you.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 I have only been able to locate about 40 speciation events. Most of those are in plants. And almost all of the rest are in insects. I will give them 90 in case we missed some. And who is to say that speciation event is not an observation of devolution? Then look at the "Cambrian Explosion" and the math does not add up. We may actually be looking at the "Cambrian Massive Burial Event" but I will give the Evolutionist credit for always looking at the glass as half full.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct, not just the Cambrian marine creatures, there are no trilobites, no dinosaurs [except the small ones with feathers].
Creationists are the ones who get everything backwards, any change is evolution, there is no devolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The "evidence" for dinosaur to bird evolution is backwards in the fossil record.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus So you think birds evolved from lizards and dinosaurs evolved feathers independently.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Personally, I believe in special creation. I believe any evolution and speciation that took place was already in the genetic information and range of variation in the individual species and was not acquired through mutation and adding of the vast amounts of new information required for new morphology. I don't think this theory is outside of observed evidence even if it can't be proved or disproved and it lacks a definitive time line.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz There are more then 500 instances of the fossil record appearing in reverse order. Either we have rock layers forming and flipping over without leaving evidence of that event or the theory is flawed. Most of the large dino fossils are missing their heads and their bones are perpendicular to each other indicating water transport and rapid burial. Water transport indicates hydrological sorting and grouping of large deposits such as found in coal beds.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus Yes fossils get moved, rocks flip over. Not all fossils are in water sediments, there is no evidence of a global floood.
How did the flood sort the fossils.
shells.
shells and fish
shells and fish and amphibians
shells and fish and amphibians and reptiles
shells and fish and amphibians and reptiles and dinosaurs.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus Floods don't sort anything, fossils are in order > simple to complex. Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock. All the vegitation in the world put together could not make a single coal bed. There was never a global flood, no mud layer with all the dead bodies.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Floods don't sort anything"- sounds like a testable hypothesis. We could go to the local pet store and dump a bunch of different animals into a swimming pool. Start adding water and concrete and see if the cats and puppies end up in layers above the fish. I doubt they would fossilize without rapid burial so you could use another pool as a control and observe it while throwing a new species in every few years or so and see if it sorts them or if they fossilize at all.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus But fish fossils are found with cat and dog fossils. You don't even know the facts, how things are sorted. The fossils are layered like this:
In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils
and dinosaur fossils
Got it
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz My pet store only sells birds and the cat jumped out of the pool and ran off. I don't think this is going to work.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus The experiment is done on YouTube, watch>> noah's flood debunked
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Is that the one where they point at the ground and say, "See that? That is why we don't have to be accountable for our actions!" I've seen that one. Off in the background there is a guy pointing at a huge section where the geologic column is inverted. He's all like, "What about this evidence?" And then they are all like trying to explain how it flipped over like a pancake on top of the other one without breaking. After a while they all resort to name calling. That's one of my favorites
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus It sounds like you are learning a lot about geology. Then you know that floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossils in them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus There is more coal than one layer of trees could make.
''required for new morphology. ''
They where did the new morphology come from? The Cambrian Period only had small marine creatures. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160,000,000 years, changing over time.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@enoch1844 Darwin wrote ''Origin of Species'' Not origin of life.
He did not know about cells, DNA or mutations and still figured it out.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@luker4459 Let me ask you something lurker, are YOU a scientist? The peer review is NOT the most important part of the scientific method (what ever that is at the time) The united states senate has found the Smithsonian GUILTY the following indictments for fraud, abuse of taxpayer funded schemes and a myriad of other illegal and un-ethical acts perpetrated by a science community more interested in advancing their ideology of atheism, than any REAL concern for an objective study of science.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
How is atheism a religion? You're avoiding the question. An ideology? Well, i think reason and logic is a greatly beneficial "ideology". People are dishonest, not the method.
Peer review ensures that erroneus assumptions/claims will be rejected and dishonesty will always be exposed. It's being exposed now isnt it? It's happened all through history - but they all get exposed. You can't cover things up because science is testable and claims are independently verified.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 first of all you are not an atheist their is no such thing and I am not avoiding the question flunknuts . Google "Atheism is a religion" supreme court ruling oh and by the way, your argument isn't with me jack ass, its with atheists. They are the ones that sued to get it classed as a religion .
DEAL WITH IT
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
You have yet to explain to me how atheism is a religion.
Atheism can only be a religion if you are making a faith based assumption (such as, there is definitely no god). Atheists generally refer to people who reject theism - not just those who beleive there certainly is no god. Most will say they don't know, but will remain unconvinced either way until sufficient evidence is provided.
Again, you fail.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 so you're not atheist then if you merely reject God, the fact is you don't KNOW he doesn't exist. I can prove shit doesn't exist jerk but only if I know it doesn't
I asked you if you are a scientist lurker and you continue avoiding the question. I take that as a NO, so QUIT FUCKING SPEAKING FOR SCIENCE GOT IT SHIT STAIN! Here is your tweaked embryos DUMB ASS Youtube "Icons of Evolution: Don't Question Our Theory (Clip 3)"
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
I'm not allowed to speak for science unless im a scientist? Thats a new one. I guess that makes you a scientist then? You wouldnt want to be a hypocrite would you now?
Of course i don't know whether a god exists. Nobody does. But like bigfoot, alien abductions and leprechauns - i will assume its bullshit until someone can provide some proof.
Still waiting on your explaination on how atheism is a religion.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 I don't speak for science jack ass, YOU ARE and you're not a scientist so quit speaking as if you are. The fact is YOU DON'T KNOW SO STFU
You don't know their is a big foot so don't say their isn't unless YOU KNOW their isn't when you KNOW their isn't THEN you can say "you know they don't exist" otherwise just be honest and say " I don't know they exist" You are agnostic when you don't know. True atheism is impossible
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp Again, you fail.
1) I can quote you a large number of bullshit assertions and assumptions thats been typed here by you about science. You telling me i can't speak for science unless im a scientist is not only childishly pathetic but also highly hypocritcal.
2) I never said "i know they dont exist". I said i'll assume its bullshit. That does not equal "i know they dont exist". Look up atheism in the dictionary; "a disbelief in the existence of deity". That makes no claim.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 Sorry lurker I quote what Science says not as science like you do and your opinions are none of my business. Disbelief is to deny existence, Un belief means you don't know of its existence Atheism is an oxymoron
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
So you are "quoting" that science says "Peer review process has been relegated to the prestige of used car sales man", and "science is nothing more than a politically corruptible, greedy agenda"?
dis·be·lief
noun
1.the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
If i refuse to accept something as true, that doesn neassarily mean i am making the claim that it is defintely false. You fail again. I'm getting tired of this.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 No asshole I am quoting the UNITED STATES SENATE THAT FOUND THEM GUILTY OF FRAUD!
1) Allegations of adjusting or manipulating data and why various individuals refused to disclose raw data
(2) The refusal to disclose names for corroborating data
(3) The refusal of various persons to release for review by other scientists the methods and actual adjustments to raw data
(4) attempts to influence scientific journals
Science has been NOTHING BUT fraud for Years jack ass
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
Guess why they got exposed? Because the system fucking works! This just proves further that the systems we have in place DO work because this shit does get exposed.
I guess you would assume that all cops are corrupt just because there have been cops exposed as corrupt? Does this render the entire legal system a failure? It should do based on your logic.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 No you dumb son of a bitch! How can the "system" that is being investigated be the one that did it's JOB and be found Guilty of NOT doing it's Job. Take your fuckin head OUT OF YOUR ASS. Your Cops analogy doesn't have a peer review claiming to be so fuckin perfect, IN FACT we EXPECT Cops to be corrupt now days like we should SCIENCE YOU IDIOT!
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
"IN FACT we EXPECT Cops to be corrupt now days"
I dont and i dont know of anyone else who does.
You are wasting my time. You're just one of those conspiracy freaks.
luker4459 1 year ago
("that doesn neassarily mean i am making the claim that it is defintely false. You fail again. I'm getting tired of this." - luker4459 )
Hey SHIT FOR FUCKIN BRAINS READ YOUR POST
REFUSAL is to DENY so YOU FAIL DUMB ASS!
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
"REFUSAL is to DENY so YOU FAIL DUMB ASS"
Refusal TO ACCEPT SOMETHING AS TRUE. If you assert that something is true, and i deny that assertion - that doesn't mean i am saying that it is DEFINITELY false. What happened to "i dont know"?
I reject all claims that god exists, but that doesn't mean i claim that god definitely does not exist.
Read carefully before you make yourself look like an idiot.
luker4459 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
If you say to me "There is a monster behind that door", my disbeleif of your claim doesnt mean that would claim that i "know" there isnt one there. I just remain unconvinced.
Atheism can mean claiming there is definitely no god - but it is more often used to describe someone who remains unconvinced and treats it like any other outlandish claim.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 Oh and by the way, ya might want to tell science to quit using ernst haekels tweaked embryos . whats it been like a hundred years they have been known to be deliberate frauds. Yeah some peer review process
sheesh
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
Name me a single scientific text book being produced today which includes known frauds such as haeckels embryo's.
You scoff at peer review, yet peer review (independent verification) is exactly what revealed those embryo's as frauds in the first place. See why science works yet?
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 We live in the dark ages now shit head, thanks to atheist and their turning science into a fuckin religion.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
No, the Dark Ages is when religion ruled and the earth was flat and 6000 years old.
gregrutz 1 year ago
60% of Biologists accept God.
Science does not use religion, does not comment on the supernatural.
Why don't religious people know the difference?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp Yeah good one dumbass we're in the dark ages alright, with our computers, tv's, portable electronics, particle accelerators, and all these other amazing things that science has enabled. Yeah we haven't come far from horses and carts have we?
Science is not a religion and it never can be. The truth is what it is regardless of what people want it to be.
luker4459 1 year ago
Hey Jack ass, Take your fucking head out of your gaytheist asshole and READ the POST you responded to. I wasn't making an indictment to inventors and engineers or computer tech heads or electronics engineers or any of them.
JUST the atheist element in that regard that seems to think teaching kids how to fist another school boy is more valuable than teaching math and science and why our students are failing. The MATH DOESN''T LIE SHIT HEAD.
Science gave us WMD's, Anthrax, agent, O
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
"atheist and their turning science into a fuckin religion" - your implying that atheism is a religion?
Please explain to me how science is becoming a religion or how atheism is a religion. I'd love to hear it... I really would.
"Science gave us WMD's, Anthrax, agent, O"
Why do you blame science for that? Evil things are done by evil people - not science. It's like saying "its not his fault he shot the guy, its the guns fault".
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 I am not implying anything LIKE that lurker. I am making a statement of fact that has nothing to do with science being anything but about what Atheists are trying to use it as a fulcrum to bludgeon believers with using the tactics of pure bullshit to do it in the same voice they are accusing religion of same. Atheist's have become EVERYTHING they have always hated about Christian fundamentalists and THAT is undeniable
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@luker4459 shit dude what do you do, at home, masturbate to theorems.
HOW DARE! YOU CRITICIZE SCIENCE! ha ha Typical fundamentalist
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny !
gregrutz 2 years ago
I'd like to see a video of a debate with this guy against Hitchens, unfortunately, Hitchens isn't a scientist.
jessc1979 2 years ago 2
"I'd like to see a video of a debate with this guy against Hitchens, unfortunately, Hitchens isn't a scientist."
Neither is Berlinski.
luker4459 1 year ago 3