Dover Trial and the Evolution of Anti-Evolution - Part 1

[Megamildman]

If all you're going to do is restate your opinion that you don't believe there's a natural explanation for the variety of life, despite evidence to the contrary then we have nothing to discuss.

I'm done replying for now.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Except all those things have natural, not supernatural or divine explanations for their workings

Again, if you want to believe that a god created the laws of the universe for all those things to function (through natural means) fine, I have no problem with that.

However, if you try to say that all life on the planet and the entire universe was suddenly poofed into existence as is, then we have a problem.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman "If you want to say that all life...poofed into existence..." But that is exactly what evolution teaches. The media, some evoutionists and books for little kids on evo tell us about a magical primal pond whose existence has not 1 shred of evidence. The LAW of biogenesis says, because that is all that has ever been observed historically, that life comes only from life, never from inorganic matter. And no C. Ventner did not create a "synthetic" cell. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman Cont. We're also asked to believe scales & lizards poofed into feathers & birds, & fins & fish into feet & tetrapods, tho billions of fossils show only 100% scales, feathers,birds, fish or feet. There are 0 fish-tetrapods or lizard-birds including Tiktaalik who is 100% fish. We're told o believe in nvisible descendants of invisible descendants of Tik & all "transitional forms" & in "missing" (how do you tell missing from never exitsted?) links. Hate magical thinking? Ditch evo.

[Megamildman]

@LoricaLady

There is so much wrong with that post I don't even know where to start.

I think the fact you don't know quite a few dinosaurs had feathers says a lot.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman The only place you'll find feathered dinos is in the typical phony evo ART work. Or...give 1 Google phrase leading to a site that shows dinos ever had feathers - with fossil pics. Use real evolutionary scientists' sites as your sources. Be sure to read it yourself first. Look for the typical evo buzz words used in place of any actual data, or evidence, like "likely....characteristics of....we infer...must have...could have...." Then try to find a part fish-part tetrapod.

[Megamildman]

@LoricaLady

Easily visible quill knobs aren't evidence? Damn you're even more willfully ignorant on the subject than I thought.

Okay, so you're just going to remain willfully ignorant of anything that challenges your worldview.

Good to know I don't need to take you seriously.

Let me guess, you want scientists to show you a real living velociraptor before you accept it?

You're as thick as the other guy, if you're not the same person.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman You have followed the usual patterns of YT evo fans. When pressed for actual evidence for your....belief....system you give something that is no evidence at all (an analysis of that coming up soon) and then start piling on personal insults and name calling. Since I only debate where true debate is possible, with those who can remain civil & objective, this will be mylast time posting to you. I hope you will start to learn, however, what real science & real logic are. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman Cont. The claim, quoting from sciencemag is that they found "feathers or [!!] filamentous protofeathers." What is a filamentous protofeather? Why it's something that in their humble opinon looks like it is going to turn into a feather. Some day. They're so unsure about it, however, that they aren't even sure what to call it. As usual we are given invisible descendants of the "transition" & are to fill in invisible dots to real feathers. Cont.

[Megamildman]

@LoricaLady

Too bad the "filamentous protofeathers" part was talking about older specimens that lacked quill knobs.

Classic creationist dishonesty and quote mining.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman Cont. There is 0 feather to be seen on any velociraptor. I looked at the pictures of the fossils. They ain't feathers! You oughta wonder why evo put useless quill knobs on an animal before it had feathers. Anyone can look at a fossil, like the one with velociratpor and make up stories about what they think is going to happen to its descendants. The real truth is that it has no feathers. None. Nor are any seen "evolving" into real feathers anywhere in the fossil record. Cont.

[Megamildman]

@LoricaLady

"You oughta wonder why evo put useless quill knobs on an animal before it had feathers."

Yes, you've got to wonder why a velociraptor would have quill knobs if it didn't have feathers.

Are you trying to destroy your own argument? I thought that was my job.

"tho billions of fossils show only 100% scales, feathers,birds, fish or feet. "

Then by that logic protofeathers shouldn't exist at all. After all there are only 100% feathers, right?

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman I don't think there are quill knobs anymore than I think they had feathers. Calling them "protofeathers" is the usual faith-based evo magical thinking where they tell us they know what a fossil's invisible descendants'( conveniently "missing links") body parts turned into, with of course 0 supporting data.

It ain't science.  And you, sir, have not acted like a gentleman or a scholar. Those who go into verbal abuse return to it, usually more virulently. Have a NICE life! FINIS.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman Cont. Evolutionist John Ruben says he thinks the filaments are just "collagenous fibres." The usual in evo land. Disagreement about the "evidence", and no real evidence at all when you really look at it.

You wouldn't be your salary dbl or 0 that those so called "protofeathers" turned into real feathers because, tho you are acting like you don't know what real evidence is, you do know. Come out of the matrix. The truth is outside. BYE!

[Megamildman]

@LoricaLady

Not to mention you can see the feathers impressions clearly in fossils such as micro-raptor and Caudipteryx.

But let me guess "they're not REAL FEATHERS so they don't count! But they're not half feathers either because there's no such things as transitional forms. Please ignore my contradictions!"

Or maybe you'll try to claim they're both 100% birds. Because that always works so well.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman On 2nd thought I will leave a comment on the "quill knobs" before taking off in case it can be of benefit to any lurkers out there. Evoultionists have made all kinds of claims for all kinds of things historically which later turned out to be bogus, which other evoutionists have totally contradicted. There is the so called horse evolution sequence, coelacanth which was supposedly transitioning to land millions of years ago until they found some live ones - 100% fish etc. etc. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@Megamildman Cont. There is 0 evidence for feathers with the "knobs." Analysis of a bone fragment can have varioius interpretations. I already gave you one, by another evoutionist, below. Just because an evolutionist tells you it's so, that no way makes it so. In fact, they frequently say things that are not true. I gave many examples of that below- which you have totally ignored.  They are still relying, as always, on made up stories about invisible descendants & calling that science.

[Megamildman]

@LoricaLady

Too bad he was talking about an entirely different specimen called Sinosauropteryx, which lacks quill knobs.

If only creationists spent their time doing actual useful research instead of quote mining, maybe they'd accomplish something (maybe)

[Megamildman]

@LoricaLady

"Alan Turner, lead author on the study and a graduate student of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History and at Columbia University in New York. "Finding quill knobs on velociraptor, though, means that it definitely had feathers." - Science Daily

Of course, being a creationist I know that you'll deny the obvious no matter how much evidence is placed before you, but it's always useful so display your ignorance in front of youtube.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Again, you're making conclusions purely from your presupposition that there is no natural explanation for these phenomena. That is purely religion.

"If man wasn't made in His image then how is it that man creates?"

Actually plenty of animals use tools and build structures as well.

Also both Einstein and Spinoza believed in god as the universe or nature as a whole, not as an anthropomorphised "human" figure

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Yes, I know that's your opinion and you'll stick to it regardless of evidence to the contrary. I think we're done here. You're attempt to appeal to authority and misrepresent Einstein as a creationist was cute though.

Just be aware that not everyone who believes in a god shares your belief that all life simultaneously poofed into existence.

[Megamildman]

In fact, many theists (such as the majority of catholics) believe that god designed the natural laws of the universe that allowed evolution to happen. Kenneth Miller who actually a witness for the plantiffs in the dover trial is an example of this.

Stop trying to set up a false dichotomy between evolution and belief in god.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Trying to redefine intelligent design now? The discovery institute defines it as "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera."

A belief in a rational god that set up the natural laws of the universe has absolutely NOTHING to do with the idea above

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

And this has what to do with evolution? If anything it's supporting what I'm saying that he believed in a rational god that worked through natural means.

Find a quote by him saying he believes in god that interferes with the workings of natural laws and works through supernatural means. Until then you have exactly zero evidence he would have supported creationism. 

[Megamildman]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954

[Megamildman]

In fact he criticized the "god of the gaps" argument, the argument that just because we can't explain something, it must be the work of a supernatural force. "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [...] by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.[19]

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Yes, he believed in a rational god who worked through rational means, and this is hardly an uncommon belief. If you're trying to argue that belief in a god is incompatible with evolution, then you're barking up the wrong tree

[Megamildman]

Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York (1941); later published in Out of My Later Years (1950) Full text online

[Megamildman]

Science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. - Einstein

[Megamildman]

Expanding on this he later wrote: "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza... I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

I'm going by his actual quotations of the subject. There is nothing to suggest he was a creationist, that's just your speculation.

The conclusions jumped to by Conservapedia "The trusworthy(sic) encyclopedia" aren't relevant

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

And what does him believing the historical existence of jesus have to do with him being a creationist?

Everything about his religious views showed he believed in a god that worked through the natural workings of the universe, not a theistic god that poofs everything into existence through magic.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Clearly that part of the gene isn't normally active as most people aren't born with tails. Duh.

The point is still the genetics to make a tail were there in the first place.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

>conservavpedia

I never said he was an atheist, his lack of belief in a god that takes interest in human affairs, punished good or rewarded evil. . He believed god was unknowable outside of the natural laws of the universe. The fact he didn't believe in a god that supernaturally interfered with the universe shows he was not a creationist.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

"As with other atavistic structures, human tails are most likely the result of either a somatic mutation, a germline mutation, or an environmental influence that reactivates an underlying developmental pathway which has been retained, if only partially, in the human genome" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Hall 1984; Hall 1995).

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

How the mutation happened is again, irrelevant, the point is the gene was there in the first place, just inactive.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Einstein used God as a metaphor, and there is nothing to suggest he was a creationist. Stop trying to misrepresent him.

And of course someone who was educated only in creationism (religion) isn't going to understand evolution, but that wouldn't make him qualified to debate the student who was taught actual science (evolution) on science.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Actually, for once, you're partially correct, there are growths along the tailbone that are simply growths and are referred to as "pseudo tails"

However, there are also plenty of medical cases of "true tails" that have some degree of functionality and aren't simply growths. There's a page on Talk Origins that explains this.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Although human tails usually lack skeletal structures (some medical articles have claimed that true tails never have vertebrae), several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae (see Figure 2.2.3; Bar-Maor et al. 1980; Dao and Netsky 1984; Fara 1977; Sugumata et al. 1988)

Pretty functional for something that's just a growth

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Criticizing me for ad hominem? Need I remind you of "This is my last com w/ u. Ur gray matter is seriously messed up. Get off the drugs! "

Hypocrisy at its best.

And I've never called you stupid, I've just pointed out that you've displayed a complete ignorance on the subject you're attempting to argue, from the number of sheer factual inaccuracies and fallacies you've made in the course of this discussion, which anyone can see.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Still utterly irrelevant , since not one biologist believe that white people came from albinos, just a gradual lightening of pigment over successive generations. It still shows your vast ignorance as to the subject of genetics and evolution and biology as a whole.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

You know compared to the 28 countries ahead of the united states, the US is LESS ACCEPTING of evolution than those other countries, right?

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Einstein used "god" as a metaphor for the laws of the universe, and he said quite a few times he didn't believe in a personal god that took interested in human affairs. It's cute when you creationists try to rely on appeal to authority and paint Einstein as a theist though.

Whoops, but I thought ID didn't have to do with gods?

[sol3a1]

@TheoryIsSpeculation: The "scientists" from the DI were excluded? Excluded by whom? The DI, Discovery Institute or "Disco 'Tute", and the Thomas Moore Law Center, TMLC, had differences of opinion on how they wanted the trail to go

Remember the TMLC and Disco 'Tute both have lawyers and they didn't see eye to eye

As far as the analogy to OJ trial", not even the case. The defendants were caught red handed and made to pay for their shoving their own beliefs down others throats

[nancy6ify]

@TheoryIsSpeculation you are the brainwashed one. Evolution is a fact and every intelligent educated person knows it. Creationism should stay where it belongs, back in the dark ages of human history.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

"But, I.D. was on trial (affirmative) which there's evidence(E) 4 the judge ignored the (E) & found in favor of the ACLU. Stinks of the ScopesTrial sham."

I know you're not talking to me anymore, but you do know the creationists" won" the scopes trial, right?

Actually considering the rest of your "knowledge" on the subject you probably don't.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

"This is my last com w/ u."

I wonder how long that will last. You seem to be the type who has "revolving door syndrome."

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

@TheoryIsSpeculation

"What does religion have to do w/ real proveable science?" I

It doesn't, that's why I'm against intelligent design/neo-creationism.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Rather than dispute my evidence you use more personal attacks. Yawn.

You already stated you wouldn't accepted any evidence from anything other than an experiment conducted and observed by yourself, which is funny because I doubt you've done any scientific work since high school science class.

You're asking for evidence that you know you'll ignore no matter how well it matches your criteria. You're being dishonest and you must realize that by now.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

And if Kent Hovind told you fire-breathing dragons were real you'd believe him.

Wait, he did actually say that, didn't he?

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Actually, one more thing

"What does god have to do w/ intelligent design?"

ID proponents tried the "intelligent has no connection to religion!" excuse in the trial. Maybe you can actually watch the video you're commenting on and see how that went for them. The ID textbook they proposed was originally a christian creation science textbook, and they just went through it and changed "creator" into "agency" while using the exact same definition for creationism and ID

[Megamildman]

@Megamildman

Not to mention the change between the drafts of Panda's and People was done immediately following a court decision in 1987 disallowing creationism to be taught in schools, and that also marks when the term "intelligent design" started showing up. Not to mention The Discovery Institute's own wedge document, were they clearly state the goal of pushing intelligent design is to make "materialistic" modern science more compatible with CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL VALUES.

[Megamildman]

Your "intelligent creator" must have an odd sense of humor, otherwise why would he give chickens the inactive gene for teeth, or humans the inactive genes for a tail?

Or make the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe wind all the way down from the giraffes neck, through the veins of its heart, only to wind all the way back up only to plug in two inches from its starting position?

/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

Evolutionary remnants? Nah, god's just being silly

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Either way it's clear you've run out of arguments (though it's arguable you never had any in the first place, since it's not scientists' fault you can't comprehend that the word "theory" can mean different things in different contexts) and your ignorance filled posts of nonsense speak for themselves, I think I'll live this section be too.

Of course I'm not "worth wasting your time on" but you'll probably still keep responding anyway.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

@TheoryIsSpeculation

A post entirely made up by personal attacks and vulgarity, followed by "grow the fuck up." Huh.

Please tell me your work into the biology of microorganisms that somehow makes you qualified to comment on flagellum .

Oh wait, you think Caucasians are albino, so you've clearly demonstrated that you have no understanding of biology whatsoever.

P.S. every claim you make here is just print too, so that's not "admissible" either.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

By your own standards, the only way to have real "evidence" for intelligent design is if you actually saw God make flagellum poof into existence on the spot. And of course going by other's experiments and observations is here-say, so you'd have to see the flagellum yourself to even comment on the subject!

See how silly you're being now?

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Also you still seriously think the term "albino" and "Caucasian" are interchangeable. Thanks for showing how qualified you are to comment on anything scientific.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

All the examples of irreducible complexity that have been given by neo-creationist proponents have been reduced.

/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

And even if they weren't, how far would saying "we can't currently explain something, so therefore God must have done it!" have gotten scientists in the past?

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

You already said you woudn't accept any lab reports or peer reviewed documents. In other words you're intentionally requesting evidence you know you won't accept no matter how closely it matches your criteria. Isn't that more than a little dishonest?

[Killer0fTheSun]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Again your showing your retardation here and i feel most sorry for you and i shouldnt argue with mentally handicapped people such as yourself. I will leave you alone now retard....enjoy trolling.

[Killer0fTheSun]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Your still a blatant retard for thinking my belief in god is an act of faith...so fuck yourself.....heh!

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Linking to the Daily Mail?

Why am not surprised...

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Name me one actual scientist (not Kent Hovind) who would describe a scientific theory as pure speculation.

It's cute you seem to think scientists don't know what their own terms mean, but yet you. someone who is so scientifically illiterate you think Caucasians and albinos are the same thing, somehow does.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

"U.S. life expectancy is dropping; weren't u aware of this?"

You really should cite your sources, especially when your "information" runs contrary to all other known information about the subject

And if you don't think the scientific advances made in the last century are why the life expectancy has grown so much, then you're just being willfully ignorant on the matter.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

You mean Kent "you can make a whole person from a single chromosome" Hovind? The fake dr. who got his degree from a shack in the middle of the dessert?

[Megamildman]

I already showed you several examples such as nylon eating bacteria and citrate eating e-coli. First you tried playing the game of trying to state that an organism undergoing a genetic change to adapt to its surroundings WASN'T EVOLUTION (lol) and then after I explained to you that those examples demonstrate exactly what evolution is, like a good creationists you changed the goalposts and said that peer reviewed papers don't count, and you have the see the experiment yourself to accept it.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Actually theory has had a scientific meaning separate from its casual meaning since the creation of the scientific method in the 17the century

Also the "scientific corruption of the world" is why you're probably going to live to age 80 than die at age 50.

You're welcome

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation From the university of rochester: A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been (this is the important part) confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Yes you've already stated this, that's what I was responding to.

You do now that words have multiple definitions right? I just explained that the definition of theory in relation to the scientific method is different than the layman's definitions. In fact, I think you know this, which is why you're looking up the etymology rather than a dictionary list of accepted definitions

[Megamildman]

On another note, intelligent design is not a theory, since it's based on pure speculation, is un-testable, un-falsifiable, and presents no mechanisms or framework to explain its process. It's pure pseudo-science, which is why the vast majority scientific community rejects it, not because of a global conspiracy or hatred of christians.

[Megamildman]

For those of you (I won't name names) who were obviously asleep in high school chemistry, here's a nice video on the scientific method for you

/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

[Megamildman]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Yes, that's the everyday use of the word theory. The scientific definition of a theory, however, is not blind speculation by any means. Speculation would be a "hypothesis" A theory in science is by definition backed with evidence and observations. They teach you this in high school science for crying out loud. The fact you think a scientific theory = pure speculations shows that you are not qualified to comment on the validity of any scientific concept, including evolution.

[Megamildman]

@Megamildman

A theory is something that explains observed phenomena, such as germ theory, gravitational theory, or how the theory of evolution is used to explain the (observed and true) variety and gradual change in organisms over successive generations.

When creationists say that evolution is "just a theory" they might as well be saying that gravity is debatable because it's "only a theory" or germs don't really exist because they're "just a theory"

[Londron]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

I learned about homophones in 6th grade...

[Londron]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

I cba to argue with a person like you but a theory ain't a speculation.

[Killer0fTheSun]

@TheoryIsSpeculation

Your retarded sir...and i cannot help this. I disbelieve in your god due to no evidence....i dont say there is no god i just deny yours on that premise. Just as YOU deny every other god on the same outcome.

[truckcompany]

What stopped Creationists from presenting the evidence at the Dover Trial???

They claim that evolution is wrong, that the earth is 6000 years old, yet they didn't bother to show up with the evidence...

Anyone see an error in there ways?

[sol3a1]

@truckcompany "What stopped Creationists from presenting the evidence at the Dover Trial??? the fact they knew their science was non-existent and they could not show their faces unless they were going to expose themselves to the world

[Exsecrabilis]

fishyfred:

Interesting video, thank you for sharing this with us ytbers

P.S. Greetings and salutation.

[guitaristwagner]

cant believe i went to that high school

[bigblakblob2]

we so-called "evolutionists" will never "win" in a debate against somone that belives in id because they are trying to prove what they believe and we are trying to find proof of what to believe. so evolutionists need proof of what to believe but creationists dont.

[darkvisage]

*sigh*

It's not about being afraid. Evolution has nothing to be afraid of.

It's more a matter of fact vs fantasy.

True vs Falsehood

[jsloan777]

I find it rather amusing that those who call themselves free-thinkers would actually endorse the censorship of ideas like was done by Nova in Judgement

Day ID On Trial. They were so afraid of ID that they had to do a lopsided hit piece on the Trial. Not even re-enacting a single Cross-examination of a plaintiff expert witness . I did a commentary on it showing the blatant bias. Reading the actual transcript exposes what the anti-ID crowd doesn't want people to know.

[charadester]

I am very afraid of ID. Proponents know it isn't science and does not conform to the rules of scientific investigation. I find it amusing that ID supporters point out the gaps in evolutionary theory as a weakness while upholding their own beliefs with no scientific evidence whatsoever. From the NOVA video, it is evident that ID supporters began their quest with an end goal in mind. They have no interest in process, and that is what science is all about.

[VanGoghsEar1890]

@charadester Do you know that tax payers money is going to assist in the building of ID museums? I thought faith based organizations ( over $5 billion of tax money gone so far, and no one seems to know where ), was a blatant violation of ' Church and State,' but it is getting scary. If you haven't read ' God and His Demons', by Michael Parenti, I strongly recommend it to see the whole hypocritical, and sanctimonious evils being perpetrated by the fundalmentalist. There is good news too.

[charadester]

@VanGoghsEar1890 I didn't know the museums used taxpayer money, but I'm not surprised. I'll check out Parenti's book. Thanks for the info.

[PROOlson]

If the two sides were to meet in the middle, I would suggest that the year might be 2525 or so... Until proven otherwise ( probably not in my lifetime ), I will choose to believe that all is from a beginning known as one. From that one, all is existant as it divided and multiplied. Can we agree that this is a possibility? That one is what I will call GOD. But let it be known that I object to the way that all church is a breach to the commandments. Church represents a weak and docile society. PRO

[strouze]

ever thought abput the fact that, the simple Laws pf Physics are the cause of "intelligent" Design ? its called evolution :p

[strouze]

hey, how can God create the World in 7 Days ? what is Time ? what is a Day ? As far as i know A Day is the Time the earth need to rotate one time around her own axis, A year is the Time the earth need to travel around the Sun (a year) therfore Time is nothing but the relative position of the Earth in the Solar System - how can a Day Pass without the Sun existing ?

[bigblakblob2]

a day can pass without the sun existing because when the bible was written people didnt belive that the earth rotated around the sun and when galaleo stated this theory he was put under house arrest for it.

[mrfreakyinastar]

i love how everyone strongly argues for and against evolution when there is no evidence for either side. Jeez, don't make asses of yourselves.

[fishyfred]

To grossly oversimplify the body of evidence in favor of evolution, "We have the fossils. We win."

[bshieldsbb01]

(Don't forget, we've also got the DNA as well)

[janmango]

no evidence for evolution? go educate yourself.

[mrfreakyinastar]

show me one piece of physical proof that didn't turn out to be bullshit.

[TMotley]

Archaeopteryx isn't bullshit. Tiktaalik isn't bullshit. Creationists claim they both are but mainstream science still recognizes them. If we're going to say anything that either side denies is bullshit, then there are no real answers: everything is bullshit.

[mrfreakyinastar]

ummmm.... both of those things have been proven false in National Geographic.

[TMotley]

Show me.

[mrfreakyinastar]

good god look it up for yourself you ass. anybody who says "my theory is right and 100% proven" is an ass. Be it about evolution, creation, or religion. Good god, I accept the fact that I may be wrong. I beleive, but it doesn't mean I'm right. I dont think anybody's ever going to have all the right answers. Does what happened at the beginning really affect our daily lives? Does it matter if the worlds billions of years old or thousands? I have important things to worry about.

[Aaberg123]

mrfreakyinastar: "I have important things to worry about."

Evidentially, no you don't. Why else would you be posting on this video.

I do like your agnostic stance on your religion. The same goes for most atheists and scientists. They don't 100% know anything, because we can, but we can try to get close. And yes, evolution have been proven time and time again.

It's dogma vs evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

[FromBoomTown]

Yes, because it dispels ignorance. It may not matter to you what facts are cropped up by science, but the rationalization of things that science encourages is important. I'm sure you wouldn't have liked to live in the Dark Ages.

[CosmicMutty]

Life, nature and the age of the earth does matter to the inquisitive mind seeking knowledge.

[mrfreakyinastar]

Thanks. Finally someone who gets it.

[Andylocksigma]

National Geographic isn't a science peer review journal!

[zzyzx0788]

Tru dat.

Although I have occasionally used Nat Geo and NOVA/PBS for research papers. It does make a good read

[Andylocksigma]

Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus garhi Paranthropus aethiopicus Paranthropus boisei Paranthropus robustus Homo habilis Homo rudolfensis Homo ergaster Homo erectus Homo heidelbergensis Homo neanderthalensis Homo sapiens

[jerdew]

many of the former links to man have been proven to be fake or 100% ape.

[Andylocksigma]

"many of the former links to man have been proven to be fake or 100% ape."

Many you say? How many? Which ones? can you direct me to the peer reviewed paper on these fakes?

[Andylocksigma]

@jerdew

Also an ape is any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all. So how can you be less than 100% ape?

[BW022]

Folks,

Although jerdew is an idiot... he is correct. All links are 100% ape, but only because all humans are apes as were all early hominids.

Apes are the mominoidea sub-family which includes all homo genus, australopithecus afarensis, etc. In order to find a link which is not an ape you would have to go back to a non-ape primate... say an early baboon.

Of course I don't think for a moment that jerdew actually knows what an ape is, but all early humaniods were 100% apes.

[VanGoghsEar1890]

@BW022 We are all in the primate family, but to say we are 100% apes is absolutely incorrect. We evolved as a separate species, and are about 98% the same DNA, so how can you say we are apes? A truer statement is wolves are dogs, or vice-versa, but that's not correct either.

[BW022]

@VanGoghsEar1890

Animalia -> chordata -> mammalia -> primates -> hominidae (apes) -> hominini -> homo (human)

Any creature under a group is also a member of a group. We are under mammalia so we are mammals. We are under hominidae so we are apes. The homindae group goes back 15-20 million years. The homo split happened 6 million years ago, so the common ancestor of humans and chimps was still a hominidae (ape).

[chroniclerofthe70s]

@VanGoghsEar1890 Humans are apes. We are closer to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to the gorilla. Together with Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangutans we belong to the family homonidae or great apes.

Recall: Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Fam­ily-Genus-Species.

[VanGoghsEar1890]

@chroniclerofthe70s We're so close that it's hardly worth arguing, but I've always thought that we're all primates with a common ancestor, but evolved as separate species, so if we're separate we can no more be called an ape than an ape can be called a human being. Ironically, I was reading 'The Greatest Show On Earth' last night, mostly about how just a difference of 1.6 in our DNA can cause such a great difference in our species. I think we're mainly having a syntax disagreement, and thanks.

[chroniclerofthe70s]

@VanGoghsEar1890 Yes, humans ( homo sapiens sapiens ) are primates. Lions and tigers are also separate species but are both cats. Apes ( which includes humans ) share similar traits such as same dental formula and fingerprints. The difference in geometrical morphology such as skeletal and vocal structure are due to point mutations in regulatory genes. I read Dawkin's " the blind watchmaker " as part of my undergraduate evolutionary biology course and have great respect for him.

[VanGoghsEar1890]

@chroniclerofthe70s Btw, when I quickly ended my last comment to you with "thanks", I wish I had more room to elaborate that I meant thanks for the new info and I learned something from you. I completely understand what you now mean and I agree completely. Cheers.....

[chroniclerofthe70s]

@VanGoghsEar1890 Your welcome.

[rkyeun]

@VanGoghsEar1890

Classifications vary.

Primates are generally considered the monkeys. So a white-fronted capuchin and a human, both being primates, are monkeys by that reckoning. Similarly, the hominids are apes. Gorillas and humans, both being hominids, a kind of primate, are apes in addition to being monkeys. The branches continue until we are left alone, but wherever you try to draw that line, we're going to have something that flings poo, because some of /us/ are crazy enough to fling poo!

[justawordaway]

Even if we forget science and agree that everything was designed how does it suggest it was designed by an almighty anot not a group of people or an Alien civilization?

[MsBlackPhotography]

Then where did THEY come from?

[justawordaway]

Where did God came from? Your solution (God) doesn't solve the problem either.

[WareSquirrel]

For crying out loud. Are we getting into the religion fight *again*? Get over yourself, creationists. There are plenty of religious people who acknowledge the fact that evolution is real. Cell biologist and practicing Catholic Ken Miller is a good one:

YouTube video: watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

He says, "I believe in a creator, but I do not believe in a deceptive one."

[supruzr]

Not believing in god is a religion in the same way that not drinking alcohol is a way to get drunk.

[Xicano82]

lol

[justawordaway]

You have no idea what you talking about there are many religions in this world much older than christianity that are more close to atheism than theism. You will see Christianity is the most stupid religion if you study them all froma neutral perspective.

[darwinbeatgod]

Christianity is NOT the stupidest religion. This can be demonstrated empirically. As Sam Harris says, Mormonism is objectively less likely than Christianity, because it's essentially Christianity plus some rather unlikely stuff.

[velvetsack]

"no religion is a religion in itself"

Could you possibly be any more stupid?

[werehyenataur]

I enjoy this more than anything.

It's neither proving science or religion, it's proving at what lengths and lies a religion will go in depth to promote their little book.

[larbaud]

Dover trial was not a parochial question of Dover community, as you may know. It was an attempt to silence the opposition to a sheer metaphysical point of view that rules the educational institutions all over the world. Nothing to do with science. On the contrary. I can see by your answer that you never even read any of ID major texts. Cheers from Brazil.

[highlander7]

Then you would not have a problem if Scientology was taught in school side by side with evolution and ID?

[MrFacet]

lilfixit1 said "Take into consideration that by promoting no religion in public schools, you are actually suppressing mine. no religion is a religion in itself. Called atheism."

1. Atheism is nothing more, nothing less than saying there is no deity.

2. Religion involves belief, faith.

3. From 1. and 2.: atheism is not a religion.

[Killer0fTheSun]

Atheisim is a disbelief in god,its not a religion.

[PLScotland]

@Killer0fTheSun I think that quite often as a system of belief with prophecy linked to the pie in the sky of "how things will or could be..." and the equivalent creation story of the big bang, the multi-verse, the primeval swamp from which life emerges and then common descent. It also seems to require some compliance and group-think from it's adherents. So I think that it's fair to call it a religion? Similar to early forms of Buddhism with no deity.

[Killer0fTheSun]

@PLScotland

Atheism requires nothing from you since it doesn't explain how we got here but rather the meaning is one who doesnt hold a belief in a diety.

[PLScotland]

@Killer0fTheSun Atheism tends not to be the stand alone belief you are saying it is. It is usually linked to some vague notion of scientific proof to the contrary or a political set of values?

[Killer0fTheSun]

@PLScotland

Scientific proof to the contrary? To what? Contrary to what? Science has ZERO bearing on the existence or non-existence of dieties. And as for the political area? What the fuck are you even talking about.....

[PLScotland]

@Killer0fTheSun I think it fair to say most atheists justify their beliefs by linking them to evolution and cosmological explanations of the beginning of the universe as alternatives to "The Creation Story". The political aspects are anything that relates to population control and/or other liberal agendas which are hindered by organised religious groups. Thomas Huxley understood this in the time of Darwin when he sprung on Darwin's work to further his own quasi scientific social ends.

[Killer0fTheSun]

@PLScotland

Its fair for who? You? Evolution well its a reality and yes its accepted s fact since we can witness change. Creation story is completely mythological. And what the fuck? Population control? Retarded.

[PLScotland]

@Killer0fTheSun It's fair to you, if your atheism is a stand alone belief then it's little more than blind faith or intuition. Secondly, are you Doctor Who...jumps into his time machine to witness evolution? The Creation story is not completely mythological, after all it has been proclaiming for for 4000 years what science only discovered in the last century, that the universe came into being from a creation event and had not (as was believed) always been existent.

[Killer0fTheSun]

@PLScotland

1. Atheism is blind faith? I dont believe in any god's due to NO evidence to the contrary. Thats not blind anything.....there is nothing to believe.

2.Witness evolution? Asshole.....its even a fact to most THEISTS!! You stupid fuck.

3. The creation story is ENTIRELY mythological since there is nothing to support that an invisible man in the sky created everything out of thin air.

[Londron]

@PLScotland

This makes the non-belief in Bigfoot religion, stop making an ass of yourself.

[MrFacet]

4. Evolution theory is the -according to scientists- most likely explanation of how the first lifeform evolved into all the present and past species. Backed by all available evidence.

5. From 1. and 4. Atheism and evolution are two separate entities.

[MrFacet]

So if scientists think evolution is the most likely explanation, that is why that is taught in SCIENCE class. Get your ideas proven in scientific circles, and it will get a place in science class.

[jacobins3000]

I don't understand why religious people think that that calling people religious is an insult.

[highlander7]

Not promoting religion and promoting atheism are two different things. School should not promote religion. Your family and your community are much better suited for that. What if your school had promoted religion but it was not the one your followed. BIG PROBLEM!!!

[highlander7]

The difference between good science and dogma is that a good scientist makes changes when he sees that he is wrong. Ken Miller made a change in the embryo drawings in his book to correct inaccuracies.

[worldlystone]

"I can see by your answer that you never even read any of ID major texts"

I can see you never read any of the major text on evolution.

[shonkey]

Onde você mora no Brazil? Qual tipo da escolá você assistiu que diria ID é certo? Você precisa  uma educação nova meu amigo. Você não entende a questão. A problema é sobre a invasão da religião na escola pública. ID/Creationism não é legal no Estados Unidos porque infringe na separação do igreja e estado.

Oi do Estados Unidos

[KarlFeuerbach]

People don;t need to read texts in ID in the same way they don;t need to read texts on fairies, or goblins, or Santa's North Pole homestead.

[larbaud]

A theory that has to put its opponents on trial to impose itself is a dead theory.

[hanzo138]

An idea that can't stand on it's own legs, and fails in court to prove it's "point" while the spokesman of said idea is at the frontlines of it's defense, has no right to be taught in ANY learning institution.

[larbaud]

Darwinism today has nothing to do with science. It's just the ideological motto of a worldwide police of ideas, KGB style. That's why its main activity is to sue its opponents.

[hanzo138]

Actually "Darwinism" wasn't sueing anyone. It was members of the Dover community who were standing up for the Constitution by taking the school board to court. Did you pay attention to this trial? It has nothing to do with some world wide conspiracy headed by the Illuminati. As soon as a true opposition

[hanzo138]

appears, that has actual evidence, it will be taken seriously. The only thing that creation/ID does is try to disprove evolution. It brings NOTHING to the table and attempts to answer no questions. They are groundless and can't stand on their own accord. Here in America we have a seperation of church and state, it's in our "rulebook".

[highlander7]

Strange that you should mention that. That is what the scopes-monkey trial was all about. ID or creationism won that time.

[themadhair]

Terrific stuff.

[azatrox]

Thanks for posting Fishyfred.