this needs to be an updated version..with the fossils they have found now completely intact even scientist have said they left no room to write in that Dinosaurs were found fully skinned and blood vessels inside ,dna etc..scientist said no way can they say Dino are millions or even a million,or even 100,000 years old anylonger..they are stumped...evolution debates will be much fewer now they have been shut down..peace
Is Berlinski suggesting (at 5:11) that all those scientists who accept evolution, including Dr Miller (who is present), are not of a "scientifically-respectable temperament"? Would he, by extension accept that this would render all scientists who don't accept his view, likewise not "scientifically-respectable"? How would Mr Berlinski suggest the problems of biology be investigated? I wonder why he never mentions this...
Berlinski wastes everyone's time. He is nothing more than a contrarian and obstructionist. Does he also suggest that Einstein should have kept his ideas on relativity to himself because we are still involved in the proof of some of them?
Is it at the guy who asked the question about fossil records -or- the guy who could not answer the question? Were they Clapping to give thanks for Nothing? A Clapping Habit? To Act like they care? I hope it was with the guy who asked the Question because there was no real answer given as to the gapping holes in the so called fossil record.
Macro evolution and millions upon millions of years are the religion of these people no matter what they say they are all athiest that just want a materialistic view,
@glendaweil Guess what, you can buy a $100 telescope at walmart and look at light that is millions of years old. You should be embarrassed but you haven't a clue do you?? Obviously you believe calling evolution a religion is demeaning..... sounds like you believe religion is pretty dumb then?? Maybe there is hope for you yet.
@glendaweil Millions of years = religion...?? that sure sounds like your claiming the universe is young.... and trying to insult the idea by calling it a religion. Why is calling it a religion bad exactly? What do you have against religion!!?
@sfg911 It was not millions or billions of years ago. The Entire universe including Time, Space, Elements and laws were ALL stretched out together as one event. I can find at least 5 Biblical passages that talk about GOD stretching the universe. All of it During Creation. The laws of the Universe themselves rapidly changed during the process. Why would you believe all the other elements evolved but NOT light speed? All of it was changing SUPER FAST and slowing down. Even Time and Light.
@NoneBeforeNoneAfter You can find 5 passages about stretching? Good for you. What about the passages that talk about pillars, firmament, immovable earth, sky shield, etc...?? Ignore those right!
I am not a scientist but it's quite obvious the massive problems with your 'idea' about the age of the universe / explaining light. Is there ANYTHING you won't believe? E=MC^2 You are suggesting god increased C by a huge factor which is then squared and multiplied by all mass.
@sfg911 [cont] And WHY is also a problem. WHY create all that we can see (so far) and then zoom it all away from a central spot at impossible speeds millions of times greater than the speed of light just to then abruptly SLOW it all down without destroying everything... sounds quite deceiving to me. Then there is RED / BLUE shift. God messed with the light waves themselves to make them appear like he hadn't altered light on a monumental scale?
@sfg911 [cont] You'll also have to explain observations like the visible shock waves of exploding stars. Did they travel faster in the past too? Why do galaxies that are farther away appear much more primitive? Why can we see other galaxies in different stages of forming and it actually seems to take millions of years for god to finish them... but ours was just POOF here you go!
It takes more than faith to believe time is limited to thousands of years. Willful ignorance gone wild!
It is really aggravating to see the guy keep bringing up fossil records. Just because there are gaps in the fossil records does NOT mean evolutionary theory is falsified in any way. The key is that fossil records ALONE don't necessarily 'prove' evolution. Actually, it's a combination of many things, including molecular DNA analysis, geographical distribution, etc. I would even go as far as saying fossil records are trivial in the grand scheme of things. They give such an incomplete image!
@pureAstonishment (cont...) Now what would be valid is if he had found some fossil record that actually disproved evolution, like a fully developed human being (as they are today) in a fossil that dates back several million years or something. That would raise some serious questions... But you can't point to a lack of information in ONE (arguably insignificant) source of evidence as a valid argument against something, especially when that source is KNOWN to be very incomplete to begin with.
All the matter we see, the sun and so forth, are said by evolutionists to have begun by a mixture of gases in the atmosphere. But, from where did the gases come and where did even the space for them come? Science cannot account for something coming from nothing and this is not to even mention the complexity of matter which even adds to this absurdity. In fact, as mentioned, when you have nothing, you do not even have the space for the something that is to come from it.
@heightboosting The point of science is to admit that we dont have all the answers and using the brains we have developed and finding out. So yes your right that we dont know at the moment but eventually we will. It will not be long before we have the answers and you will change the goalposts again.
so how did the organic soup come about? who wrote our dna who created our genotype? where did all the protons and nutrons and electrons not even atoms just lesser particules who made em wat caused the cosmic rays? wat are the chances of a bomb under a pile of wood blowing and creating a perfect house with fountional windows and doors? i u r that educated as u claim u would know wat am talking about, so HOW?
The idiot evolutionists that think God "guided" evolution are almost as stupid as the creationists. Why the fuck would any "God" that's not as insane as Jared Lee Loughner create a process that results in 99% of all species that ever lived to be dead, tireless and endless killing and competing between species, and a billions-year timespan of life on Earth BEFORE HUMANS EVEN EXISTED!!!!?!
It seems to me that a Christian will admit that they are trusting in someone they have not seen. In a place they hope exist (heaven). Where as the evolutionist refuse to admit that their is a level of faith in their understanding of how existence came to be. It seems like their ideology is above what science has proven. One thousand years from now how primitive will our science seem. The deeper science explores the universe the more questions they will create for themselves as to how we got here
@theflarpus The Law of biogenesis declares that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to originate from non-life. This, of course, is unproven and an unprovable assumption.
I wish more that believe in evolution would intelligently debate it, as opposed to using the childish approach of "I am smart and you are stupid". That tells me that they are ignorant of the facts, and must turn to the more common, least informed approach, ridicule. Sadly, I can argue the evolutionists case far better than many that try. This video is a good debate though.
@cperez1000 I don't think he said that the gaps disprove evolution, he is saying that with the gaps, you cannot be used as a tool to prove evolution. Big difference. In fact, it does not disprove evolution, no more than not finding Noah's ark disproves Intelligent Design. He is saying that fossil records should not be presented as a good case for evolution, since there is no way to connect them.
Through this whole debate Berlinky insists in that the transitions are missing, and when he's confronted with the evidence, he goes, "well ok, but that's not enough". No matter how many transitions these people are shown and how many gaps are filled, they won't stop shut up as there will always be gaps!
Berlinsky is dead wrong of course. There are lots of transitions, if they don't find the amount of transitions convincing, well, that's their bias.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to teach my kids neo-darwinian evolution, don't try to sweep the gaps in the fossil record under the carpet.
@pbaylis1 and if u want to teach my kids about noahs ark, FIND IT. About the ten commanments, SHOW EM TO ME, and maybe u can demonstrate that people can actually walk on water and rise from the dead. Yes extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.
If your children would be willing, I will show then A) the scientific reports on the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, B) the amazing image of Our Lady of Las Lajas, coloured in the rock itself to a depth of several feet (impossible for science to explain). C) I would let them read about the miracle of the sun at Fatima in 1917, witnessed by 70,000 people at one time. Need I take them to see genuine stigmatics or even something as simple as showing them a Ghost Hunters video
5:34 -very scientifically.what they belive is that bones are somewhere,no matter do i see them or do they even exist i will just belive =that is the real proof that its a religion already!you sound like a guy who's writting a story about baseball comes in in the fourth inning and says well in on the right reporting on the first three things didn'nt happen because i wasn't there to see..So he was there to see.I'd rather say that there was no baseball game at all
creationists think theyre right because they assert evolution has holes when they dont count their explanation of "it happend by magic" as 1 gigantic hole
@spaceghost1313 ask an evolutionist how the universe came to be? where did the matery or energy came from. he will say either : I don't know, either from a parallel universe . Ask them how could starines of aminoacids form when you need 02 to create ozone for the atmosphere (otherwise life can not be formed) but on reaction with oxygen or with water aminoacids decompose ... hm... really problematic. Or ask an evolutionist how do you get from 2 aminoacids they were able to create to 350 complex
complex genes, that is the minimum for an organism to survive (the simplest form of life in existence has 450 BTW)? or why there are two planets in our solar system that spin backwards? or how did the symbiotic organism appeared? or why they pretend you can divide an integer number by 2 forever(C14 dating theory)?
The fossil record has gaps. In no other study of the fossil record do we have incomplete data. Yet evolutionists say oh we just do not have them weve only been discovering for 130 years. Hmmm? Seems like they could simply close the debate right then and there. Until they can find the appropriate fossil records to support evolution it should be dismissed. The debate is pretty much a farce. Darwins theory is flawed.
The fossil record will always have gaps. For example, every time we find a fossil it leaves 2 gaps where there was only 1. There is not a definite point in time where dinosaurs become birds for example or reptiles amphibians.
where is your evidence for christgod making the universe?
They have tested evolution in the lab. What about the nylon eating bacteria for one example. nylon didnt exist unitll the 1930s. or the salmonella that evolved in the lab to digest citrate.
@spaceghost1313 Synthetics are not creation. And you are right, I cannot give you proof that christ god created the universe or that he is creator of the DNA in organisms or the cell creator. But I can give you plausable evidence for a Intelligent designer. However, when it comes to evolution??? There is no reason to believe in it as well. It is absolutely a giant leap of faith to believe in it as well. And it is being force fed to children as fact. It is deplorable!!!
@SuperGuitarman69 Natural selection has never been debunked. There is concrete data that supports natural selection. Where do you morons get your information?
@REVwilliebeamon actually what SuperGuitarman69 says is that natural selection has it limits . If you break those limits or try to enlarge them even in the lab the organism will not survive . That is why you cannot use it to prove evolution. Because natural selection only works inside a very limited scale.
@NegativeBeef The fact that the liberal agenda runs the school system. They control what is taught. Even when it is only theory they teach it as fact. This is un exceptable.
@SuperGuitarman69 In science a theory is the highest level of proof, if you do not understand what the word theory means in science then you should not be weighing in on this discussion, end of.
@BooMeRLiNSKi A theory is NOT a fact. In science a theory is the highest level of "proof". NO IT IS NOT!!!! It is to be debated and scrutinized. You DO NOT know the difference apparently. So SHHHHHHH
@SuperGuitarman69 You could solve your ignorance by typing in "Scientific Theory Wiki" and even that sometimes meagre information source would have informed you of the very barest facts you need to know.
@BooMeRLiNSKi I just explained something to you that every scientist learn in the 3rd grade general science class they have to take in elementary school. Maybe you didn't make it that far, or perhaps you failed the class. It's amazing that you even argue something like that. Clueless? You are looking like a fool dude. Everyone knows that unless something is proven to be 100% conclusive it is to be scrutinized until it can be. That is how something becomes fact. It is an unproven THEORY!
@SuperGuitarman69 Because of retards like you? I agree it should not be debated with creationists, because it is the equivalent of an astronomer debating with a guy who believes the sky is a magic carpet pinned to the heavens with string.
@BooMeRLiNSKi Yeah. There you have it. You were doing good until you said that. Have fun in your life. I guess it's the only one you have so do whatever dude.
@SuperGuitarman69 I'm still doing good and we cannot continue the discussion anyway because you have failed to admit that you don't know what the word theory means in a scientific context and have also denied yourself the opportunity to go off and educate yourself, a process taking less than 5 minutes, on the real meaning.
As it stands currently, you're not capable of participating in this conversation on any meaningful level.
@BooMeRLiNSKi You irrelevant atheists kill me. You will lie and be convinced you are telling the truth. You are irrelevant. You will never be relevant. That is why you are leftists and Stalin and Mao are your heros. (fellow atheists). Take over a country and outlaw religion. Therefore, you can push out God by un-provable weak Theories such as evolution. Then change the definition to make it FACT. OH MY GOD THE HYPOCRISY!
@BooMeRLiNSKi NO I have told you the meaning of it. It is taught in a 3rd grade class. It is really astounding to me the utter lack of being able to see your foolishness. It is a THEORY!!!!!!!!!! This particular THEORY has been around and criticized for 2 centuries. It is no further closer to the truth than it was then. In fact, it is more debated now than ever. A THEORY is NOT FACT!!!! It is to be scrutinized within the scientific community until it is fact. Now, did I not describe you? Part 1
@SuperGuitarman69 Really? I invite you to counter the Theory of Gravity in that case and fly away.
Writing in capitals doesn't make you any less wrong. Like I said if you don't even know what a scientific theory is, you are utterly unprepared at a very, very basic level to participate in any debate about science.
@BooMeRLiNSKi and evolution. In the spirit of scientific debate. Evolution has too many holes to be conclusive FACT (once again in hopes you'll think). Gravity cannot be proven but has no holes. Therefore, it is more grounded. Are you still in college? You have that absolute about you. You do not question, you accept. Which is youth for sure. You are a follower.
@BooMeRLiNSKi There are great numbers of `genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range of variation in the individual members of a basic `kind' of plant or animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular `kind. Evolution is a fairytale for grown ups and is a religion in itself !!
@BooMeRLiNSKi i just left an argument where a creationist's argument failed because he started saying "ahahhahaa, so you admit evolution is just a THEORY!" I think it must be the most common failing in the logic of creationists, that they do not understand the massive amount of evidence that is required to produce a theory, and that it is infinitely more evidence than is required to accept creationism, which is of course based on nothing but faith and conjecture.
@BooMeRLiNSKi Except that these are not idiots debating, these are PhD scientists from two different sides of the aisle debating a scientific idea. Ergo, there is a debate within the scientific community. These are all members of the scientific community, they are debating, Ergo there is a debate within the scientific community clearly.
@GreenSlugg No you have scientists on the evolution side and on the other you have at best one and a mathematician, both of whom have made no contribution to science and are considered a joke in serious scientific circles.
@BooMeRLiNSKi a theory is something that has yet to be proven . More than that many of the physics facts we all come to agree no matter of personal convinction seem to work well only on earth. That is how relativity theory appeared. If I would select a scientific theory I would choose string theory because not only it explains better things around , but is even consistent with genesis. Spoken word is a vibrating string of energy.
@BooMeRLiNSKi I do not have complete knowledge, but I know the basics. The basic ideea is that all the Universe is composed by vibrating strings of something . If you want I will find an exact definition!
@GreenSlugg No, my field is biological. I did however ask one and the answer was "not only do you need a degree but a specialisation". There is "some" debate over whether it can rightly be called a theory.
@BooMeRLiNSKi I do not completely understand String Theory. Neither do I completely understand God. So often Atheists say that God is an "irrational" concept, because it is not one that they can completely understand. Whether or not I completely understand String Theory has no more bearing on its existence than whether I completely understand God has any bearing on His existence. Just a musing that popped into my head from your concept.
@GreenSlugg Most theists have a problem even defining "God" unless they resort to scripture, in which case "God" becomes very understandable.
Besides, I wasn't espousing any "concept" either way. My point was that invoking "String Theory" in the middle of what amounts to a barely coherent ramble, when the writer clearly has no real idea of what those two words together mean, did nothing to strengthen his argument.
But you are correct, what you don't understand has no bearing whatsoever.
@BooMeRLiNSKi Thank you for that comment. I take it as a compliment.
On the nature of God, however, I would like to point out that the "God" of the Koran is very straightforward in his nature, and can be completely summarized in the space of a fortune cookie. The God of the Bible, however, is extremely complicated. Notice that Jesus said that He affirmed the law of Moses, yet He asked the crowd to have the one who is without sin to be the one to cast the first stone. John chapter 8
@GreenSlugg You're seeing complexity when what is actually there is, essentially, a mess.
Which is exactly what you'd expect with a bunch of thrown together mythology, edited and reinterpreted over generations by people with varying agendas and levels of literacy.
@BooMeRLiNSKi I disagree. What I see here is actually very elegant. You see a mess when you look at the Bible, just as I see a mess when I look at the Chinese language. This scripture on adultery was quoted at Jesus in John 8. Jesus then writes in the sand (presumably the sins of those present) and asks the one who is without sin to be the first to cast a stone at her. We all deserve death by the Holy Law of Moses (God's Law), but Christ went to die a physical death on the cross for us...
@GreenSlugg Funny you should bring up the Chinese language...
"The gentleman calls attention to the good points in others; he does not call attention to their defects. The small man does just the reverse of this." Confucianism. Analects 12.16
Already said more eloquently 500 odd years prior. There are, of course, other examples. If you use the Bible as a source of morality you can end up justifying anything.
Additionally, I do not believe that the doctrine of scapegoating is a worthy one.
@BooMeRLiNSKi I bring up the Chinese language (particularly Mandarin), because it is a language that I only know a few words of. I am not saying that it is defective at all. I said that TO ME it sounds like jibberish, because I do not understand it, but that does not detract from the elegance that is actually there.
You see jibberish in the Bible, because you do not understand the Bible. There is objectively an elegance there though, especially when you understand the Greek/Hebrew connotations.
Why is Miller a Catholic? Is he afraid to let go of stupidity? The same goes for Lynn. Why do these people give the appearance of holding on to beliefs they were spoon fed as infants, toddlers, and adolescents? These stories that "believers" hold onto perpetuate ignorance and superstition. The creationists are biblical literalists and desperately want their sky-daddy to be maintained by the masses. Their incredulity is their only argument. Who cares if they refuse to understand it? Fuck 'em.
@talktoyourmamma I very much do agree with you. If it weren't for our lives depend on it, I disagree with the "fuck em" stand, only on the basis that religeon costs lives, not only lives but the loss of life in the most brutal violent deaths in history. They out do even the most insane serial killers. And so my conscience cannot rest without trying to advoacate it to cease for good Athiests do have morals, more than any believer I think because nothing stops us from caring
@splicedenergy Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, the Genocides of the Communists and Nazis, the slaughter and torture of Christians in China, Vietnam, etc. All of these are examples of Evolutionary ideas / Atheism leading to the mass murder and genocide of human beings. More people have been killed in the name of Evolution than in the name of "Religion".
@GreenSlugg Hitler was a Catholic, in the first chapter of Mein Kampf he says he is doing Gods work and executing Gods will in destroying the Jewish people, the oath Nazi officer took started "I swear in the name of almighty God", on the belt of every Nazi soldier it had "God on our side", the first treaty that Hitler signed was with the Vatican, and the churches celebrated the birthday of Hitler until he was defeated.
None of your other examples have anything to do with atheism or evolution.
@talktoyourmamma Miller is also an Evolutionist-Catholic, and is about the most hostile person in the world to Biblical Creation. BTW, these people (the Intelligent Design advocates) are not Biblical Creationists. One does not have to believe the Bible to see design in nature. Many religions have seen design in nature, and also many Atheists have believed that there is design in the natural world, even today. This includes multitudes of scientists.
@GreenSlugg No, for the most part they are biblical creationists trying to work against science because they see it as hostile to their beliefs. Not only are they doing this, they are doing it in a rather dishonest fashion.
There are not a multitude of scientists who see design in nature, and there certainly aren't in the field of biology. Evolution doesn't make sense if you start adding design.
@BooMeRLiNSKi There are plenty of scientists who see design in nature. They are a minority, but they are there.
Michael Behe has no theological problem with Evolution. I read his first book, and much of his second book. He is very clear on this. Not once in his first book does he quote the Bible, and "religion" is barely mentioned. He uses accepted facts about the cell to logically defend his theory.
@GreenSlugg Michael Behe is considered little more than a joke by other scientists. His own university felt the need to release the following statement about him:
"While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific"
I wonder what Berlinski keeps on teaching now that the transition fossils HAVE been found. I haven´t followed his work (yawn) but I am sure he does not give up because that is the method of that way of thinking: first think the conclusion you want to arrive to and THEN find the arguments that will "lead" you there :)
hes right though. If evolution is change over time then theoretically you would know where to look geographically to find the missing links assuming you have fossils believed to be a predecessor of a given species.
@YHWHisSovereign ; You are the dumbest kid on the block. The fossil record will never be 100% complete. Do you reject gravity because not everything abourt gravity is known ? How can you expect the fossil record to be complete in 100 years, when the research spans billions of years ?
@lizazoon Listen moron, gravity is able to and has been tested multiple times. The fact that the fossil record is incomplete means that evolution cannot be tested with it. Evolution cannot even be considered a theory according to the standards that scientific theories are subjected to. Why don't you learn to think?
How about all the studies of speciation occuring right now? Just search ring species, there are loads of examples of speciation occurring right now (for example mice have been known evolved into fourty different species in the past 400 years). The fossil record is just a bonus, and every fossil found fits perfectly with an evolutionary framework. Your red herring is starting to smell kind of fishy.
@alexicoff wow did you got a mouse with wings? or a mouse as big as a pig? if no what you are talking is micro-evolution, or what would be better called variation. Evolution means adding new information, not making use of available one.
@nightcrawlercyp Bro I am really impressed with your observations. I too, even tho string theory is just that, a theory, it is no doubt a very interesting one that has been gaining signifigant ground in the scientific community. It does lend itself to Genesis like no other theory.
@SuperGuitarman69 You do make me laugh, you have no knowledge whatsoever of string theory and should only be discussing it if you happen to be a theoretical physicist.
No, i didn't "got" a mouse with wings, or a mouse as big as a pig. However, the bat and the Large Mindoro Forest Mouse already exist, rendering your point moot. One has wings and the other is the size of a small pig. BTW pigs have been bred to be large, and they can't interbreed with their wild ancestors anymore- new species
PS. Nowhere in the definition of evolution does it say anything about information. Don't make up definitions.
@lizazoon May I suggest that this video is not the most appropriate place to hear about the debate about Paleontology? Stephen J Gould, the greatest Paleontologist of the twentieth century, and an Evolutionist, who died just a few years ago, maintained that the fossil record does not support Darwinian Evolution. (He proposed punctuated equilibrium in Darwin's place.)
Paleontologists very often maintain that the fossil record does not support Darwinian Evolution.
@GreenSlugg You misrepresent the ideas of Stephen J Gould entirely. Additionally, characterizing Stephen J Gould as "the greatest Paleontologist of the twentieth century" is a conjuring trick designed to make an argument from authority, a logical fallacy in and off itself, and stooping to such measures has up to this point been beneath you.
@YHWHisSovereign;The concurrence of the conclusions of all appropriate sciences makes evolution; FACT "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%
@YHWHisSovereign -- But this democracy gives favorable treatment to those with the "right" view.-- That is your personal, biased, bigoted, baseless point of view. Science is no popularity contest, but the numbers in favor of evolution should make any reasonable person THINK.
@rationalanarchy Your problem is that you are not rational as your name suggests. Life has not been observed to arise naturally or independantly without a supernatural agency.
Your second problem is that your rationale for believing such nonsense is because you are an anarchist...enough said!
@kruset11 actually the gaps are a fact: If you know mathematics you would know about a very simple question : does any equation x^n+y^n=z^n has a complex solution? the results you get for n-2, n=3 would tend to point to that, but we still cannot prove it is true or not . it's the same with the gaps: you have 2 bilion gaps and only two bridges... this is not valid science..
@BooMeRLiNSKi every person on the planet disagreed with Galileo . That does not mean he was not right. The fact is that hese so called scientists start from a premise that cannot be proven like "we must presume there is no God, there must be a scientific explination for everything" and then trow so called facts at us and claim to believe them only on faith in them. Onestly, if it's all about faith, I rather believe in God than in your scientists. If I'm wrong I have nothing to lose,
@BooMeRLiNSKi Or are you not a leftist? Are you not an atheist? If you are a conservative and an agnostic, then be proud and admit it. If you are an atheist and a leftist say it. Or are you afraid of being exposed? Evolution is an agenda based on junk science. No different than Man made Global Warming. I believed in BOTH til I did research and realized NEITHER one were true. They both were based on an agenda. So if you are a conservative then perhaps these should be debated. If not? I'm done W U
@SuperGuitarman69 You do know that Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms, right? Because it would seem that you do not. Atheism being a statement about belief and agnosticism being a statement about what is knowable.
@BooMeRLiNSKi Look chief, you are debating with someone that holds degrees in both Economics and Computer Science. I have had plenty of studies in theories. Agnosticism is NOT in capitals hoping you will think for a change about needing scientific proof. It is about being unsure. That is a viable position to have. Atheism is about non proof. There now you know. Gravity and evolution are entirely different. Try not to use that in your argument. In Physics 2, my professor discussed gravity part 1
@SuperGuitarman69 Quite frankly, I think your full of shit. You can barely throw a sentence together, so I find it doubtful you could ham-fist your way through several degrees.
Not that it would be relevant anyway, but I'd be more then happy to check. You can PM me the details and I will confirm them.
I'm 33 by the way. Do you know what you have about you? The reek of bullshit and taint of idiocy.
@BooMeRLiNSKi I don't really care what you believe. Anyone like you who cannot tell the difference between theory and fact is a total and complete moron. 2ndly, you are a problem within this country. Someone who claims to be 33 years old and does not possess critical thinking at that point in thier lives? Is suspect and dangerous. The reason why you did not reply to my comments about your leftist and atheist idiology is it calls you out. And the only bullshit here is the bullshit in between P1
@BooMeRLiNSKi You are british? That pretty much says it all. How does it feel to see your own countrymen starting to pull away from your line of thinking. And my degrees were from Mizzou and Wash.U. I have more skills than you apparently. And, you still have not answered my question.
@BooMeRLiNSKi “This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Quote from Sir Issac Newton. Who provided us the theory of gravity. Interesting you brought up Gravity in comparison to evolution.
@BooMeRLiNSKi Chruchill once said, "if you are 20 years old and you are not a socialist there is something wrong with your heart. If you are 40 years old and still a socialist there is something wrong with your head!" No doubt this applies to critical thinking when it comes to Scientific theory. I got both of my degrees seperate from one another. The Comp Sci degree I got at 28. I went back with critical thinking. I see through BS. AGW and evolution are both BS. And so is what is between Ur ears
@BooMeRLiNSKi Who are those individuals? Those who do not believe. Why? Not because they are horrible or have no personal merit. It is THEIR CHOICE! Their choice alone. Upon the moment you are searching in the afterlife you have nothing to reach for. Eternal seperation from god. Says in the bible any question you can think of you will just know. So scientists who have spent their entire lives seeking answers not god. Will never know. But the simpleton from Georgia will know it all. Hmmm
@nightcrawlercyp You have to remember with that guy you are dealing with is a leftist/atheists. Nothing could be more dangerous. I do not know if you've ever seen Logans Run. But, a society, godless, collective, and having to live in "collective buildings" like cattle would be fine with him. He is irrelevant now, but he could as time goes on will be dangerous. That is why we have to fight them now. To keep them in irrelevance. Loved your point about faith in God over science FYI.
@nightcrawlercyp So you don't have a lifetime of servitude to a non-existent deity to risk? What if you pick the wrong religion? Would a god not be more kindly disposed to those who picked none rather than another God? After all, isn't the Christian God a jealous one?
What if there is a power that judges you in the afterlife but on the criteria of how rational you were during your life?
I think you should think your arguments through more.
@BooMeRLiNSKi The bible, the Koran, Buddhism, Judeism, basically all religions call God by different names. Some believe Christ was the messiah, Some believe he was a prophet and some he was a lunitic. Observation of the historical Jesus is clear to Christians. Make no mistake tho. Those who want to have a relationship with God are not turned away. Seek him and ye shall reveal himself. As he has to me and billions of others. The only one who is cast to darkness (hell) are those who do not seekP1
@kruset11 His question is so disingenuous and he knows it. It's the type of false dichotomy that is required to get the answer you need. It's not honest at all. Can we slap them all?
@Taahadegr8 Scientists have been filling the gaps for the last century and a half. You know what evolution deniers say every time a transitional form is found? "Now show me the transitional forms between these three." The scientific response has been to call upon multiple disciplines of science for testing methods. If you don't like the fossils, check out the work of biological geneticists.
evolution explains how life could have become more complex but it can never account for lifes emergence the only logical conclusion that one can come to at this time is that there was some kind of intelligent intervention
@Unlocktube in fairness no one does but i think life occurring accidentaly is a ridiculous prospect DNA is simply to complex to have occurred on its own especially inside of a cell membrane with all the required cell organelles by pure luck I mean come on
That does not address the matter of how any type of "god" came about. It is not enough or even logical to say:
"i think life occurring accidentaly is a ridiculous prospect "
If DNA is too complex to have come about by accident, it follows that an intelligence that created such DNA, can not possibly come about by accident. So it must have been there for eternity, yet another unsubstantial suggestion.
You are making assumptions on that which you can never know, these scientists are using there intellect to try and work their way to the truth. You on the other hand are happy enough with a fairytale.
You say something can't have happened by accident. Then for some reason you pluck this idea out of the sky that something a whole lot more complex must have made it. There is no sense in such an argument.
@Unlocktube how do you know the other intelligence has dna it could work totally differently its a better answer than a series of random events dat could not possibly have happened
You are missing the point. No matter what your supposed god is made of, you still cannot explain why/when/how he was made. If you think he/she/it has been there for eternity, you have yet more explaining to do.
Why are you so adamant that life is too complex to not have a creator, when the creator you describe is infinitely more complex than life itself yet you believe he/she/it has been around forever with no creator? Can you see the faulty logic in such thought processes?
if you get dna and how a cell works you would see that theres somthing going on in its original formation beyond accident
evolution is more flawed at explaining how life started than the idea of intelligent design because theres no way life as we know it started on its own look at a dna molecule and the functions of the most basic cell and you'll get what im saying
@businessman4321 . Perhaps you should read the theory. you'll then find that the fact of evolution does not intend to explain how life started. Your talking about abiogenesis. Abiogeneis has succesfully created life from non life in a lab. While there was an intelligence behind the experiments, it was human, not a supernatural one.
cell continuity is an impossibility because it assumes that there must have been an original cell from which all future cells are derived
so can someone tell me where the first one came from...
no one can suggest that DNA an incredibly complex molecule simply randomly occurred in a cell membrane which remember cant exist yet with all the necessary cell organelles to carry out its biological reactions
Geez. Basically that Berlinsky dude wants to see every single fossil of every single animal that ever existed. Then he'll accept the theory of evolution. There are so many fossils of transitional fossils that has been found already, but it's just enough for him. The amount of evidence apparently has to be as much as his ego. What an ignorant douchebag.
Mr. Lynn handles Dr. Berlinski’s question quite well. Berlinski is only showing his personal incredulity. Bravo Mr. Lynn.
Why did they put Dr. Behe with Dr. Ruse? Once is a scientists and the other is a philosopher. They should have put Dr. Ruse with Berlinski (so Ruse can hand Berlinski his ass) and Dr. Behe with Dr. Miller (so Miller could hand Behe his ass).
(continued) If Berlinski applied this same logic to a murder case, he would be saying: "Do you have a record of my client's actions for every single second of the night of the murder? No? Then you can't find him guilty! What's that? Fingerprints on the murder weapon? Signed confession? Not good enough...you weren't following him around with a camcorder that night, recording his every move, were you? Well then!"
It's great a non believer is on the creationist side!
tnmusicman1 1 month ago
Oh Gosh Kent Hovind Would Own all these evolutionist
kdash64 1 month ago
this needs to be an updated version..with the fossils they have found now completely intact even scientist have said they left no room to write in that Dinosaurs were found fully skinned and blood vessels inside ,dna etc..scientist said no way can they say Dino are millions or even a million,or even 100,000 years old anylonger..they are stumped...evolution debates will be much fewer now they have been shut down..peace
Projectinsighter 1 month ago
Is Berlinski suggesting (at 5:11) that all those scientists who accept evolution, including Dr Miller (who is present), are not of a "scientifically-respectable temperament"? Would he, by extension accept that this would render all scientists who don't accept his view, likewise not "scientifically-respectable"? How would Mr Berlinski suggest the problems of biology be investigated? I wonder why he never mentions this...
Ahabite 6 months ago
Next thing you know, the religious no longer believe in gravity since it's only a theory
jojogonzo 8 months ago in playlist Evolution -VS- Creationism - DEBATE
Berlinski wastes everyone's time. He is nothing more than a contrarian and obstructionist. Does he also suggest that Einstein should have kept his ideas on relativity to himself because we are still involved in the proof of some of them?
Upstreamswimmer 9 months ago
Why the Hell is the audience clapping at 6:00?
Is it at the guy who asked the question about fossil records -or- the guy who could not answer the question? Were they Clapping to give thanks for Nothing? A Clapping Habit? To Act like they care? I hope it was with the guy who asked the Question because there was no real answer given as to the gapping holes in the so called fossil record.
NoneBeforeNoneAfter 10 months ago
Darwins theory doesnt require a continuous fossil record, what a lying sack of shit.
Feralus69 11 months ago
Macro evolution and millions upon millions of years are the religion of these people no matter what they say they are all athiest that just want a materialistic view,
glendaweil 11 months ago
@glendaweil Guess what, you can buy a $100 telescope at walmart and look at light that is millions of years old. You should be embarrassed but you haven't a clue do you?? Obviously you believe calling evolution a religion is demeaning..... sounds like you believe religion is pretty dumb then?? Maybe there is hope for you yet.
sfg911 11 months ago
@sfg911 Never said the universe was not old, not religion as a hole just you evolution religion.
glendaweil 11 months ago
@glendaweil Millions of years = religion...?? that sure sounds like your claiming the universe is young.... and trying to insult the idea by calling it a religion. Why is calling it a religion bad exactly? What do you have against religion!!?
sfg911 11 months ago
@sfg911 It was not millions or billions of years ago. The Entire universe including Time, Space, Elements and laws were ALL stretched out together as one event. I can find at least 5 Biblical passages that talk about GOD stretching the universe. All of it During Creation. The laws of the Universe themselves rapidly changed during the process. Why would you believe all the other elements evolved but NOT light speed? All of it was changing SUPER FAST and slowing down. Even Time and Light.
NoneBeforeNoneAfter 10 months ago
@NoneBeforeNoneAfter You can find 5 passages about stretching? Good for you. What about the passages that talk about pillars, firmament, immovable earth, sky shield, etc...?? Ignore those right!
I am not a scientist but it's quite obvious the massive problems with your 'idea' about the age of the universe / explaining light. Is there ANYTHING you won't believe? E=MC^2 You are suggesting god increased C by a huge factor which is then squared and multiplied by all mass.
sfg911 10 months ago
@sfg911 [cont] And WHY is also a problem. WHY create all that we can see (so far) and then zoom it all away from a central spot at impossible speeds millions of times greater than the speed of light just to then abruptly SLOW it all down without destroying everything... sounds quite deceiving to me. Then there is RED / BLUE shift. God messed with the light waves themselves to make them appear like he hadn't altered light on a monumental scale?
sfg911 10 months ago
@sfg911 [cont] You'll also have to explain observations like the visible shock waves of exploding stars. Did they travel faster in the past too? Why do galaxies that are farther away appear much more primitive? Why can we see other galaxies in different stages of forming and it actually seems to take millions of years for god to finish them... but ours was just POOF here you go!
It takes more than faith to believe time is limited to thousands of years. Willful ignorance gone wild!
sfg911 10 months ago
It is really aggravating to see the guy keep bringing up fossil records. Just because there are gaps in the fossil records does NOT mean evolutionary theory is falsified in any way. The key is that fossil records ALONE don't necessarily 'prove' evolution. Actually, it's a combination of many things, including molecular DNA analysis, geographical distribution, etc. I would even go as far as saying fossil records are trivial in the grand scheme of things. They give such an incomplete image!
pureAstonishment 1 year ago
@pureAstonishment (cont...) Now what would be valid is if he had found some fossil record that actually disproved evolution, like a fully developed human being (as they are today) in a fossil that dates back several million years or something. That would raise some serious questions... But you can't point to a lack of information in ONE (arguably insignificant) source of evidence as a valid argument against something, especially when that source is KNOWN to be very incomplete to begin with.
pureAstonishment 1 year ago
All the matter we see, the sun and so forth, are said by evolutionists to have begun by a mixture of gases in the atmosphere. But, from where did the gases come and where did even the space for them come? Science cannot account for something coming from nothing and this is not to even mention the complexity of matter which even adds to this absurdity. In fact, as mentioned, when you have nothing, you do not even have the space for the something that is to come from it.
heightboosting 1 year ago
@heightboosting The point of science is to admit that we dont have all the answers and using the brains we have developed and finding out. So yes your right that we dont know at the moment but eventually we will. It will not be long before we have the answers and you will change the goalposts again.
metalheadoj666 1 year ago
so how did the organic soup come about? who wrote our dna who created our genotype? where did all the protons and nutrons and electrons not even atoms just lesser particules who made em wat caused the cosmic rays? wat are the chances of a bomb under a pile of wood blowing and creating a perfect house with fountional windows and doors? i u r that educated as u claim u would know wat am talking about, so HOW?
beedip84 1 year ago
The idiot evolutionists that think God "guided" evolution are almost as stupid as the creationists. Why the fuck would any "God" that's not as insane as Jared Lee Loughner create a process that results in 99% of all species that ever lived to be dead, tireless and endless killing and competing between species, and a billions-year timespan of life on Earth BEFORE HUMANS EVEN EXISTED!!!!?!
Slacktoo 1 year ago
Berlinski is an idiot of the first water, the others on his panel must have been squirming in their seats.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
It seems to me that a Christian will admit that they are trusting in someone they have not seen. In a place they hope exist (heaven). Where as the evolutionist refuse to admit that their is a level of faith in their understanding of how existence came to be. It seems like their ideology is above what science has proven. One thousand years from now how primitive will our science seem. The deeper science explores the universe the more questions they will create for themselves as to how we got here
theflarpus 1 year ago
@theflarpus The Law of biogenesis declares that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to originate from non-life. This, of course, is unproven and an unprovable assumption.
heightboosting 1 year ago
I wish more that believe in evolution would intelligently debate it, as opposed to using the childish approach of "I am smart and you are stupid". That tells me that they are ignorant of the facts, and must turn to the more common, least informed approach, ridicule. Sadly, I can argue the evolutionists case far better than many that try. This video is a good debate though.
siskaybee 1 year ago
Saying that there are gaps is plainly stupid.
Find the intermediates between 1 and 5: 2-3-4.
Now the intermediates between 2.1 and 2.5: 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.
Now the intermediates between 2.21 and 2.25: 2.22, 2.23, 2.24.
Now the intermediates between 2.221 and 2.225: 2.222, 2.223, 2.224.
Now the intermediates between 2.2221 and 2.2225... 2.2222, 2.2223, 2.2224
....
There is no end to that shit, as there is no end in saying: "ha, there are gaps in the fossil record and that disproves evolution". Pff
cperez1000 1 year ago
@cperez1000 I don't think he said that the gaps disprove evolution, he is saying that with the gaps, you cannot be used as a tool to prove evolution. Big difference. In fact, it does not disprove evolution, no more than not finding Noah's ark disproves Intelligent Design. He is saying that fossil records should not be presented as a good case for evolution, since there is no way to connect them.
siskaybee 1 year ago
@siskaybee,
Through this whole debate Berlinky insists in that the transitions are missing, and when he's confronted with the evidence, he goes, "well ok, but that's not enough". No matter how many transitions these people are shown and how many gaps are filled, they won't stop shut up as there will always be gaps!
Berlinsky is dead wrong of course. There are lots of transitions, if they don't find the amount of transitions convincing, well, that's their bias.
cperez1000 1 year ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to teach my kids neo-darwinian evolution, don't try to sweep the gaps in the fossil record under the carpet.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
@pbaylis1 and if u want to teach my kids about noahs ark, FIND IT. About the ten commanments, SHOW EM TO ME, and maybe u can demonstrate that people can actually walk on water and rise from the dead. Yes extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.
piercedis 1 year ago
@piercedis
If your children would be willing, I will show then A) the scientific reports on the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, B) the amazing image of Our Lady of Las Lajas, coloured in the rock itself to a depth of several feet (impossible for science to explain). C) I would let them read about the miracle of the sun at Fatima in 1917, witnessed by 70,000 people at one time. Need I take them to see genuine stigmatics or even something as simple as showing them a Ghost Hunters video
pbaylis1 1 year ago
glad the weird moderator got rid of that asshat at the start :p
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
5:34 -very scientifically.what they belive is that bones are somewhere,no matter do i see them or do they even exist i will just belive =that is the real proof that its a religion already!you sound like a guy who's writting a story about baseball comes in in the fourth inning and says well in on the right reporting on the first three things didn'nt happen because i wasn't there to see..So he was there to see.I'd rather say that there was no baseball game at all
Ruslankin2010 1 year ago
goddamn, berlinski is an idiot!
cristoballs 1 year ago
creationists think theyre right because they assert evolution has holes when they dont count their explanation of "it happend by magic" as 1 gigantic hole
spaceghost1313 1 year ago
@spaceghost1313 ask an evolutionist how the universe came to be? where did the matery or energy came from. he will say either : I don't know, either from a parallel universe . Ask them how could starines of aminoacids form when you need 02 to create ozone for the atmosphere (otherwise life can not be formed) but on reaction with oxygen or with water aminoacids decompose ... hm... really problematic. Or ask an evolutionist how do you get from 2 aminoacids they were able to create to 350 complex
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
complex genes, that is the minimum for an organism to survive (the simplest form of life in existence has 450 BTW)? or why there are two planets in our solar system that spin backwards? or how did the symbiotic organism appeared? or why they pretend you can divide an integer number by 2 forever(C14 dating theory)?
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
So practically evolutionists say also: It happened by magic. The difference the evolutionists say It cannot be a God responsible. Evolution is faith!
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
The fossil record has gaps. In no other study of the fossil record do we have incomplete data. Yet evolutionists say oh we just do not have them weve only been discovering for 130 years. Hmmm? Seems like they could simply close the debate right then and there. Until they can find the appropriate fossil records to support evolution it should be dismissed. The debate is pretty much a farce. Darwins theory is flawed.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
The fossil record will always have gaps. For example, every time we find a fossil it leaves 2 gaps where there was only 1. There is not a definite point in time where dinosaurs become birds for example or reptiles amphibians.
where is your evidence for christgod making the universe?
They have tested evolution in the lab. What about the nylon eating bacteria for one example. nylon didnt exist unitll the 1930s. or the salmonella that evolved in the lab to digest citrate.
spaceghost1313 1 year ago
@spaceghost1313 Synthetics are not creation. And you are right, I cannot give you proof that christ god created the universe or that he is creator of the DNA in organisms or the cell creator. But I can give you plausable evidence for a Intelligent designer. However, when it comes to evolution??? There is no reason to believe in it as well. It is absolutely a giant leap of faith to believe in it as well. And it is being force fed to children as fact. It is deplorable!!!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 There is reason believe in evolution. There is fact data to support it. How can anyone reject facts and embrace ignorance?
REVwilliebeamon 1 year ago
@REVwilliebeamon Facts? In actuallity? Natural selection was dubunked 2 decades ago. Look it up
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Natural selection has never been debunked. There is concrete data that supports natural selection. Where do you morons get your information?
REVwilliebeamon 1 year ago
@REVwilliebeamon actually what SuperGuitarman69 says is that natural selection has it limits . If you break those limits or try to enlarge them even in the lab the organism will not survive . That is why you cannot use it to prove evolution. Because natural selection only works inside a very limited scale.
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
You need to see a doctor...
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
@NegativeBeef No I think your side needs to read the constitution
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
wtf does the constitution have to do with evolution?
you need to check yourself into an asylum IMMEDIATELY!!
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
@NegativeBeef The fact that the liberal agenda runs the school system. They control what is taught. Even when it is only theory they teach it as fact. This is un exceptable.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 In science a theory is the highest level of proof, if you do not understand what the word theory means in science then you should not be weighing in on this discussion, end of.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi A theory is NOT a fact. In science a theory is the highest level of "proof". NO IT IS NOT!!!! It is to be debated and scrutinized. You DO NOT know the difference apparently. So SHHHHHHH
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You could solve your ignorance by typing in "Scientific Theory Wiki" and even that sometimes meagre information source would have informed you of the very barest facts you need to know.
Then come back with a clue.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi I just explained something to you that every scientist learn in the 3rd grade general science class they have to take in elementary school. Maybe you didn't make it that far, or perhaps you failed the class. It's amazing that you even argue something like that. Clueless? You are looking like a fool dude. Everyone knows that unless something is proven to be 100% conclusive it is to be scrutinized until it can be. That is how something becomes fact. It is an unproven THEORY!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi If was proven then why would they be DEBATING it on this video? Geez I swear you libs are unbelievable, this is why the left is a joke!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Because of retards like you? I agree it should not be debated with creationists, because it is the equivalent of an astronomer debating with a guy who believes the sky is a magic carpet pinned to the heavens with string.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Yeah. There you have it. You were doing good until you said that. Have fun in your life. I guess it's the only one you have so do whatever dude.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I'm still doing good and we cannot continue the discussion anyway because you have failed to admit that you don't know what the word theory means in a scientific context and have also denied yourself the opportunity to go off and educate yourself, a process taking less than 5 minutes, on the real meaning.
As it stands currently, you're not capable of participating in this conversation on any meaningful level.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago 10
@BooMeRLiNSKi You irrelevant atheists kill me. You will lie and be convinced you are telling the truth. You are irrelevant. You will never be relevant. That is why you are leftists and Stalin and Mao are your heros. (fellow atheists). Take over a country and outlaw religion. Therefore, you can push out God by un-provable weak Theories such as evolution. Then change the definition to make it FACT. OH MY GOD THE HYPOCRISY!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Are you retarded, insane or both?
We have not discussed atheism or politics, all we have discussed is your lack of knowledge concerning the word theory and what it means in science.
Like I said, when you have educated yourself on the meaning we can continue. The end.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi NO I have told you the meaning of it. It is taught in a 3rd grade class. It is really astounding to me the utter lack of being able to see your foolishness. It is a THEORY!!!!!!!!!! This particular THEORY has been around and criticized for 2 centuries. It is no further closer to the truth than it was then. In fact, it is more debated now than ever. A THEORY is NOT FACT!!!! It is to be scrutinized within the scientific community until it is fact. Now, did I not describe you? Part 1
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Really? I invite you to counter the Theory of Gravity in that case and fly away.
Writing in capitals doesn't make you any less wrong. Like I said if you don't even know what a scientific theory is, you are utterly unprepared at a very, very basic level to participate in any debate about science.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi and evolution. In the spirit of scientific debate. Evolution has too many holes to be conclusive FACT (once again in hopes you'll think). Gravity cannot be proven but has no holes. Therefore, it is more grounded. Are you still in college? You have that absolute about you. You do not question, you accept. Which is youth for sure. You are a follower.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi There are great numbers of `genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range of variation in the individual members of a basic `kind' of plant or animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular `kind. Evolution is a fairytale for grown ups and is a religion in itself !!
heightboosting 1 year ago
@heightboosting Sorry, but I don't argue with people who don't believe in evolution any more. Total waste of my time.
There is no argument, it's over. Don't try and waste my time with your utter gibberish.
FFS get an education you fucking nutbar.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi i just left an argument where a creationist's argument failed because he started saying "ahahhahaa, so you admit evolution is just a THEORY!" I think it must be the most common failing in the logic of creationists, that they do not understand the massive amount of evidence that is required to produce a theory, and that it is infinitely more evidence than is required to accept creationism, which is of course based on nothing but faith and conjecture.
imnotdavidxnsx 6 months ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Except that these are not idiots debating, these are PhD scientists from two different sides of the aisle debating a scientific idea. Ergo, there is a debate within the scientific community. These are all members of the scientific community, they are debating, Ergo there is a debate within the scientific community clearly.
GreenSlugg 3 months ago
@GreenSlugg No you have scientists on the evolution side and on the other you have at best one and a mathematician, both of whom have made no contribution to science and are considered a joke in serious scientific circles.
BooMeRLiNSKi 3 months ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi a theory is something that has yet to be proven . More than that many of the physics facts we all come to agree no matter of personal convinction seem to work well only on earth. That is how relativity theory appeared. If I would select a scientific theory I would choose string theory because not only it explains better things around , but is even consistent with genesis. Spoken word is a vibrating string of energy.
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp You have no knowledge of string theory and absolutelyno clue about what it means.
Neither do I, but at least I am smart enough to realise that.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago 10
@BooMeRLiNSKi I do not have complete knowledge, but I know the basics. The basic ideea is that all the Universe is composed by vibrating strings of something . If you want I will find an exact definition!
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp Do you have a degree in physics?
No? Then you don't understand the basics, not by a long shot and it just betrays a massive ignorance of the subject to think you could.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Do you have a degree in physics? If not then how do you know that you would need a degree to understand string theory?
GreenSlugg 3 months ago
@GreenSlugg No, my field is biological. I did however ask one and the answer was "not only do you need a degree but a specialisation". There is "some" debate over whether it can rightly be called a theory.
BooMeRLiNSKi 3 months ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi I do not completely understand String Theory. Neither do I completely understand God. So often Atheists say that God is an "irrational" concept, because it is not one that they can completely understand. Whether or not I completely understand String Theory has no more bearing on its existence than whether I completely understand God has any bearing on His existence. Just a musing that popped into my head from your concept.
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg Most theists have a problem even defining "God" unless they resort to scripture, in which case "God" becomes very understandable.
Besides, I wasn't espousing any "concept" either way. My point was that invoking "String Theory" in the middle of what amounts to a barely coherent ramble, when the writer clearly has no real idea of what those two words together mean, did nothing to strengthen his argument.
But you are correct, what you don't understand has no bearing whatsoever.
BooMeRLiNSKi 4 months ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Thank you for that comment. I take it as a compliment.
On the nature of God, however, I would like to point out that the "God" of the Koran is very straightforward in his nature, and can be completely summarized in the space of a fortune cookie. The God of the Bible, however, is extremely complicated. Notice that Jesus said that He affirmed the law of Moses, yet He asked the crowd to have the one who is without sin to be the one to cast the first stone. John chapter 8
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg You're seeing complexity when what is actually there is, essentially, a mess.
Which is exactly what you'd expect with a bunch of thrown together mythology, edited and reinterpreted over generations by people with varying agendas and levels of literacy.
BooMeRLiNSKi 4 months ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi I disagree. What I see here is actually very elegant. You see a mess when you look at the Bible, just as I see a mess when I look at the Chinese language. This scripture on adultery was quoted at Jesus in John 8. Jesus then writes in the sand (presumably the sins of those present) and asks the one who is without sin to be the first to cast a stone at her. We all deserve death by the Holy Law of Moses (God's Law), but Christ went to die a physical death on the cross for us...
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg Funny you should bring up the Chinese language...
"The gentleman calls attention to the good points in others; he does not call attention to their defects. The small man does just the reverse of this." Confucianism. Analects 12.16
Already said more eloquently 500 odd years prior. There are, of course, other examples. If you use the Bible as a source of morality you can end up justifying anything.
Additionally, I do not believe that the doctrine of scapegoating is a worthy one.
BooMeRLiNSKi 4 months ago 5
@BooMeRLiNSKi I bring up the Chinese language (particularly Mandarin), because it is a language that I only know a few words of. I am not saying that it is defective at all. I said that TO ME it sounds like jibberish, because I do not understand it, but that does not detract from the elegance that is actually there.
You see jibberish in the Bible, because you do not understand the Bible. There is objectively an elegance there though, especially when you understand the Greek/Hebrew connotations.
GreenSlugg 3 months ago
Why is Miller a Catholic? Is he afraid to let go of stupidity? The same goes for Lynn. Why do these people give the appearance of holding on to beliefs they were spoon fed as infants, toddlers, and adolescents? These stories that "believers" hold onto perpetuate ignorance and superstition. The creationists are biblical literalists and desperately want their sky-daddy to be maintained by the masses. Their incredulity is their only argument. Who cares if they refuse to understand it? Fuck 'em.
talktoyourmamma 1 year ago
@talktoyourmamma I very much do agree with you. If it weren't for our lives depend on it, I disagree with the "fuck em" stand, only on the basis that religeon costs lives, not only lives but the loss of life in the most brutal violent deaths in history. They out do even the most insane serial killers. And so my conscience cannot rest without trying to advoacate it to cease for good Athiests do have morals, more than any believer I think because nothing stops us from caring
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, the Genocides of the Communists and Nazis, the slaughter and torture of Christians in China, Vietnam, etc. All of these are examples of Evolutionary ideas / Atheism leading to the mass murder and genocide of human beings. More people have been killed in the name of Evolution than in the name of "Religion".
GreenSlugg 3 months ago
@GreenSlugg Hitler was a Catholic, in the first chapter of Mein Kampf he says he is doing Gods work and executing Gods will in destroying the Jewish people, the oath Nazi officer took started "I swear in the name of almighty God", on the belt of every Nazi soldier it had "God on our side", the first treaty that Hitler signed was with the Vatican, and the churches celebrated the birthday of Hitler until he was defeated.
None of your other examples have anything to do with atheism or evolution.
BooMeRLiNSKi 3 months ago
@talktoyourmamma Miller is also an Evolutionist-Catholic, and is about the most hostile person in the world to Biblical Creation. BTW, these people (the Intelligent Design advocates) are not Biblical Creationists. One does not have to believe the Bible to see design in nature. Many religions have seen design in nature, and also many Atheists have believed that there is design in the natural world, even today. This includes multitudes of scientists.
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg No, for the most part they are biblical creationists trying to work against science because they see it as hostile to their beliefs. Not only are they doing this, they are doing it in a rather dishonest fashion.
There are not a multitude of scientists who see design in nature, and there certainly aren't in the field of biology. Evolution doesn't make sense if you start adding design.
BooMeRLiNSKi 4 months ago 4
@BooMeRLiNSKi There are plenty of scientists who see design in nature. They are a minority, but they are there.
Michael Behe has no theological problem with Evolution. I read his first book, and much of his second book. He is very clear on this. Not once in his first book does he quote the Bible, and "religion" is barely mentioned. He uses accepted facts about the cell to logically defend his theory.
Who on this panel is a Biblical Creationist?
GreenSlugg 3 months ago
@GreenSlugg Michael Behe is considered little more than a joke by other scientists. His own university felt the need to release the following statement about him:
"While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific"
BooMeRLiNSKi 3 months ago
I wonder what Berlinski keeps on teaching now that the transition fossils HAVE been found. I haven´t followed his work (yawn) but I am sure he does not give up because that is the method of that way of thinking: first think the conclusion you want to arrive to and THEN find the arguments that will "lead" you there :)
flounderize 1 year ago
hes right though. If evolution is change over time then theoretically you would know where to look geographically to find the missing links assuming you have fossils believed to be a predecessor of a given species.
stangman1993 1 year ago
That Berlinski is a disgusting slimeball.
Primordialfan1 1 year ago
Berlinski is right! Since there are gaps in the fossil record, it can by no means support evolution.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign ; You are the dumbest kid on the block. The fossil record will never be 100% complete. Do you reject gravity because not everything abourt gravity is known ? How can you expect the fossil record to be complete in 100 years, when the research spans billions of years ?
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Listen moron, gravity is able to and has been tested multiple times. The fact that the fossil record is incomplete means that evolution cannot be tested with it. Evolution cannot even be considered a theory according to the standards that scientific theories are subjected to. Why don't you learn to think?
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign
How about all the studies of speciation occuring right now? Just search ring species, there are loads of examples of speciation occurring right now (for example mice have been known evolved into fourty different species in the past 400 years). The fossil record is just a bonus, and every fossil found fits perfectly with an evolutionary framework. Your red herring is starting to smell kind of fishy.
alexicoff 1 year ago
@alexicoff wow did you got a mouse with wings? or a mouse as big as a pig? if no what you are talking is micro-evolution, or what would be better called variation. Evolution means adding new information, not making use of available one.
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp Bro I am really impressed with your observations. I too, even tho string theory is just that, a theory, it is no doubt a very interesting one that has been gaining signifigant ground in the scientific community. It does lend itself to Genesis like no other theory.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You do make me laugh, you have no knowledge whatsoever of string theory and should only be discussing it if you happen to be a theoretical physicist.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago 2
@nightcrawlercyp
No, i didn't "got" a mouse with wings, or a mouse as big as a pig. However, the bat and the Large Mindoro Forest Mouse already exist, rendering your point moot. One has wings and the other is the size of a small pig. BTW pigs have been bred to be large, and they can't interbreed with their wild ancestors anymore- new species
PS. Nowhere in the definition of evolution does it say anything about information. Don't make up definitions.
alexicoff 1 year ago
@lizazoon May I suggest that this video is not the most appropriate place to hear about the debate about Paleontology? Stephen J Gould, the greatest Paleontologist of the twentieth century, and an Evolutionist, who died just a few years ago, maintained that the fossil record does not support Darwinian Evolution. (He proposed punctuated equilibrium in Darwin's place.)
Paleontologists very often maintain that the fossil record does not support Darwinian Evolution.
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg You misrepresent the ideas of Stephen J Gould entirely. Additionally, characterizing Stephen J Gould as "the greatest Paleontologist of the twentieth century" is a conjuring trick designed to make an argument from authority, a logical fallacy in and off itself, and stooping to such measures has up to this point been beneath you.
Palaeontologists maintain no such thing.
BooMeRLiNSKi 4 months ago 4
@YHWHisSovereign;The concurrence of the conclusions of all appropriate sciences makes evolution; FACT "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon According to you, science is based on a democracy. But this democracy gives favorable treatment to those with the "right" view.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign -- But this democracy gives favorable treatment to those with the "right" view.-- That is your personal, biased, bigoted, baseless point of view. Science is no popularity contest, but the numbers in favor of evolution should make any reasonable person THINK.
lizazoon 1 year ago
This is sad
not about how ridiculous the creationist's sound but
how badly the Darwin side is beating them
just ouch if i was a creationist which i am not i would have left
monimstarfox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@monimstarfox What planet are you on?
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@rationalanarchy Your problem is that you are not rational as your name suggests. Life has not been observed to arise naturally or independantly without a supernatural agency.
Your second problem is that your rationale for believing such nonsense is because you are an anarchist...enough said!
jesophica 1 year ago
is the guy who keeps talking about the gaps in the fossil record retarded?
kruset11 1 year ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
@kruset11
"is the guy who keeps talking about the gaps in the fossil record retarded? "
Yes. He's Berlinski.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@kruset11 No, you are.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@kruset11 actually the gaps are a fact: If you know mathematics you would know about a very simple question : does any equation x^n+y^n=z^n has a complex solution? the results you get for n-2, n=3 would tend to point to that, but we still cannot prove it is true or not . it's the same with the gaps: you have 2 bilion gaps and only two bridges... this is not valid science..
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp What a hilarious attempt at sophism.
You know who would disagree with your conclusion? 99.999999999% of all scientists on the planet.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi every person on the planet disagreed with Galileo . That does not mean he was not right. The fact is that hese so called scientists start from a premise that cannot be proven like "we must presume there is no God, there must be a scientific explination for everything" and then trow so called facts at us and claim to believe them only on faith in them. Onestly, if it's all about faith, I rather believe in God than in your scientists. If I'm wrong I have nothing to lose,
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp Scientists don't start from that premise, you have failed to follow the flow of events.
God is irrelevant to science, which when it comes down to it is what you religious folks really don't like.
That and the fact that science is hard and religion is easy.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Or are you not a leftist? Are you not an atheist? If you are a conservative and an agnostic, then be proud and admit it. If you are an atheist and a leftist say it. Or are you afraid of being exposed? Evolution is an agenda based on junk science. No different than Man made Global Warming. I believed in BOTH til I did research and realized NEITHER one were true. They both were based on an agenda. So if you are a conservative then perhaps these should be debated. If not? I'm done W U
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Those labels have no meaning to me.
I wonder, do you know how fucking crazy you are?
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You do know that Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms, right? Because it would seem that you do not. Atheism being a statement about belief and agnosticism being a statement about what is knowable.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Look chief, you are debating with someone that holds degrees in both Economics and Computer Science. I have had plenty of studies in theories. Agnosticism is NOT in capitals hoping you will think for a change about needing scientific proof. It is about being unsure. That is a viable position to have. Atheism is about non proof. There now you know. Gravity and evolution are entirely different. Try not to use that in your argument. In Physics 2, my professor discussed gravity part 1
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Quite frankly, I think your full of shit. You can barely throw a sentence together, so I find it doubtful you could ham-fist your way through several degrees.
Not that it would be relevant anyway, but I'd be more then happy to check. You can PM me the details and I will confirm them.
I'm 33 by the way. Do you know what you have about you? The reek of bullshit and taint of idiocy.
Here's a link
en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Scientific_theory
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi I don't really care what you believe. Anyone like you who cannot tell the difference between theory and fact is a total and complete moron. 2ndly, you are a problem within this country. Someone who claims to be 33 years old and does not possess critical thinking at that point in thier lives? Is suspect and dangerous. The reason why you did not reply to my comments about your leftist and atheist idiology is it calls you out. And the only bullshit here is the bullshit in between P1
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I'm British you idiot.
You can blather all you like, the fact of the matter is you don't even have the most very basic of skills to discuss this topic.
Like I already said. Once you have gone off and educated yourself on what a scientific theory actually is, then we can talk.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi You are british? That pretty much says it all. How does it feel to see your own countrymen starting to pull away from your line of thinking. And my degrees were from Mizzou and Wash.U. I have more skills than you apparently. And, you still have not answered my question.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 That's all nice, now PM me your name and I will check those credentials and at what level.
However, it has no relevance as I already said. I just think you're full of shit, which does.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@BooMeRLiNSKi “This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Quote from Sir Issac Newton. Who provided us the theory of gravity. Interesting you brought up Gravity in comparison to evolution.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Chruchill once said, "if you are 20 years old and you are not a socialist there is something wrong with your heart. If you are 40 years old and still a socialist there is something wrong with your head!" No doubt this applies to critical thinking when it comes to Scientific theory. I got both of my degrees seperate from one another. The Comp Sci degree I got at 28. I went back with critical thinking. I see through BS. AGW and evolution are both BS. And so is what is between Ur ears
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 At which University? Like I Said, PM the details and I will check.
I strongly suspect that you wont, because you're full of shit and live in a fantasy world.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Who are those individuals? Those who do not believe. Why? Not because they are horrible or have no personal merit. It is THEIR CHOICE! Their choice alone. Upon the moment you are searching in the afterlife you have nothing to reach for. Eternal seperation from god. Says in the bible any question you can think of you will just know. So scientists who have spent their entire lives seeking answers not god. Will never know. But the simpleton from Georgia will know it all. Hmmm
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperGuitarman69 Yeah you keep telling yourself that buddy, must be very comforting...
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp You have to remember with that guy you are dealing with is a leftist/atheists. Nothing could be more dangerous. I do not know if you've ever seen Logans Run. But, a society, godless, collective, and having to live in "collective buildings" like cattle would be fine with him. He is irrelevant now, but he could as time goes on will be dangerous. That is why we have to fight them now. To keep them in irrelevance. Loved your point about faith in God over science FYI.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
but if I'm right, I have everything to gain...
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp So you don't have a lifetime of servitude to a non-existent deity to risk? What if you pick the wrong religion? Would a god not be more kindly disposed to those who picked none rather than another God? After all, isn't the Christian God a jealous one?
What if there is a power that judges you in the afterlife but on the criteria of how rational you were during your life?
I think you should think your arguments through more.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi The bible, the Koran, Buddhism, Judeism, basically all religions call God by different names. Some believe Christ was the messiah, Some believe he was a prophet and some he was a lunitic. Observation of the historical Jesus is clear to Christians. Make no mistake tho. Those who want to have a relationship with God are not turned away. Seek him and ye shall reveal himself. As he has to me and billions of others. The only one who is cast to darkness (hell) are those who do not seekP1
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 If God has revealed himself to you can you please tell me what he look like? What exactly did he say to you when you met him?
REVwilliebeamon 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 The only mistake I have made is gracing you with conversation as opposed to barely suppressed laughter.
Do you not understand that your posts come off as the witterings of a lunatic to me?
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago 3
@BooMeRLiNSKi Anyone who thinks a theory is a fact? Is insane
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Who said it did you numpty? It may well contain a number of facts.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
@BooMeRLiNSKi Lol, what is a numpty? If I am to be belittled and ridiculed, it makes it much more fun knowing what it means so I can try it on! :)
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@kruset11 His question is so disingenuous and he knows it. It's the type of false dichotomy that is required to get the answer you need. It's not honest at all. Can we slap them all?
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
@kruset11 Have you heard of the Cambrian explosion?
Paulkazey1 1 year ago
@kruset11
NO you are retarded cuz u cant see the gaps asshole
Taahadegr8 1 year ago
@Taahadegr8 Scientists have been filling the gaps for the last century and a half. You know what evolution deniers say every time a transitional form is found? "Now show me the transitional forms between these three." The scientific response has been to call upon multiple disciplines of science for testing methods. If you don't like the fossils, check out the work of biological geneticists.
Ematched 1 year ago
evolution explains how life could have become more complex but it can never account for lifes emergence the only logical conclusion that one can come to at this time is that there was some kind of intelligent intervention
businessman4321 1 year ago
@businessman4321
Really, what logical conclusion would follow as to where this intelligence emerged from?
Unlocktube 1 year ago
@Unlocktube lol
businessman4321 1 year ago
@businessman4321
Exactly, you have no answer.
Unlocktube 1 year ago
@Unlocktube in fairness no one does but i think life occurring accidentaly is a ridiculous prospect DNA is simply to complex to have occurred on its own especially inside of a cell membrane with all the required cell organelles by pure luck I mean come on
businessman4321 1 year ago
@businessman4321
That does not address the matter of how any type of "god" came about. It is not enough or even logical to say:
"i think life occurring accidentaly is a ridiculous prospect "
If DNA is too complex to have come about by accident, it follows that an intelligence that created such DNA, can not possibly come about by accident. So it must have been there for eternity, yet another unsubstantial suggestion.
Unlocktube 1 year ago
Comment removed
Unlocktube 1 year ago
@Unlocktube
You are making assumptions on that which you can never know, these scientists are using there intellect to try and work their way to the truth. You on the other hand are happy enough with a fairytale.
You say something can't have happened by accident. Then for some reason you pluck this idea out of the sky that something a whole lot more complex must have made it. There is no sense in such an argument.
Unlocktube 1 year ago
@Unlocktube how do you know the other intelligence has dna it could work totally differently its a better answer than a series of random events dat could not possibly have happened
businessman4321 1 year ago
@businessman4321
You are missing the point. No matter what your supposed god is made of, you still cannot explain why/when/how he was made. If you think he/she/it has been there for eternity, you have yet more explaining to do.
Why are you so adamant that life is too complex to not have a creator, when the creator you describe is infinitely more complex than life itself yet you believe he/she/it has been around forever with no creator? Can you see the faulty logic in such thought processes?
Unlocktube 1 year ago
@Unlocktube i never said anything about god
if you get dna and how a cell works you would see that theres somthing going on in its original formation beyond accident
evolution is more flawed at explaining how life started than the idea of intelligent design because theres no way life as we know it started on its own look at a dna molecule and the functions of the most basic cell and you'll get what im saying
businessman4321 1 year ago
@businessman4321
"theres no way life as we know it started on its own"
What do you think started life?
Unlocktube 1 year ago
@Unlocktube no one knows ur mom for all anyone knows im sick a dis debate
businessman4321 1 year ago
@businessman4321
Whatever man, I believe the answers are there (if we look). You can believe that funky stuff if you want.
Unlocktube 1 year ago
@businessman4321 . Perhaps you should read the theory. you'll then find that the fact of evolution does not intend to explain how life started. Your talking about abiogenesis. Abiogeneis has succesfully created life from non life in a lab. While there was an intelligence behind the experiments, it was human, not a supernatural one.
exconguitar 1 year ago
these people are idiots
cell continuity is an impossibility because it assumes that there must have been an original cell from which all future cells are derived
so can someone tell me where the first one came from...
no one can suggest that DNA an incredibly complex molecule simply randomly occurred in a cell membrane which remember cant exist yet with all the necessary cell organelles to carry out its biological reactions
businessman4321 1 year ago
Geez. Basically that Berlinsky dude wants to see every single fossil of every single animal that ever existed. Then he'll accept the theory of evolution. There are so many fossils of transitional fossils that has been found already, but it's just enough for him. The amount of evidence apparently has to be as much as his ego. What an ignorant douchebag.
isamu135 1 year ago
Mr. Lynn handles Dr. Berlinski’s question quite well. Berlinski is only showing his personal incredulity. Bravo Mr. Lynn.
Why did they put Dr. Behe with Dr. Ruse? Once is a scientists and the other is a philosopher. They should have put Dr. Ruse with Berlinski (so Ruse can hand Berlinski his ass) and Dr. Behe with Dr. Miller (so Miller could hand Behe his ass).
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
(continued) If Berlinski applied this same logic to a murder case, he would be saying: "Do you have a record of my client's actions for every single second of the night of the murder? No? Then you can't find him guilty! What's that? Fingerprints on the murder weapon? Signed confession? Not good enough...you weren't following him around with a camcorder that night, recording his every move, were you? Well then!"
garethac81 1 year ago