How can you teach evolution written by a crackpot scientist like Darwin, when the talking snake theory explains everything and fits all the piece together so perfectly?
two things. I cant understand how the goverment can let this intelligent design thing even happen. And secondly, isnt not believing in evolution as a stupid as not believing in gravity?
Banning comprehensive sex-ed, banning evolution, re-writing history books, moving kids around from school to school like pawns on a chessboard, so each school has the "correct" racial mix of students, taking away teachers' authority to properly disipline students, banning toy guns, banning "Tag", removing "dangerous" playground equipment like slides and monkey-bars...
And some people wonder why the majority of Middle-Class Americans now send their kids to private school.
@SinnFein4ever That's pretty sick. I feel like I dodged a bullet being born in 1985. (Even though I remember the day my school banned class pets because a girl got a tarantula hair stuck in her eye..)
@SinnFein4ever That's a great idea, why don't the public schools do that?
We had all that stuff in public school, actually, (well, except the merry-go-round..) plus red rover AND dodge ball.
And for a while I went to private school too, and we were under-funded so all we could do was play tag in the woods every single day. I don't know if there was any waiver involved, but I can't remember anyone actually getting hurt, despite the fact that there were downed tree limbs across all the paths, etc.
Why public schools don't do that, is because if low-class parents were required to sign a waver agreeing that their child would follow the rules, and that the principal had the authority to give detention, suspension, or expullsion if the student broke those rules, they'd cry racism, and have the NAACP slap the school with a huge lawsuit.
I find it astonishing that in the world's most powerful country, where science has brought to the masses abundant food, clean water, health care, knowledge of the Earth and our universe, hi-tech manufacturing, electronics, computers, multiple choices in communication and transportation - the myriad things millions use and rely upon every day - there is actually argument going on between religious myth and science. It is a shameful embarrassment to America and its education system.
@carmium THANK YOU. You have said what I've been trying to tell creationists for YEARS. They don't listen! "well I can use a computer and try to tell everyone that science LIES" It's complete stupidity on their part and they don't realize how hypocritical they're being.
@SkelanimalKitteh Thank you, Skel'. I'm losing interest in debating literal religists, frankly. To them, you might as well be arguing for the legalization of murder; they just won't consider it. What we need to do is promote science in the schools from first grade, instilling some idea of basic logic and common sense. Currently, it seems you can graduate high school with neither, and that is reprehensible. We need kids to ask their Sunday school teachers knowledgeable questions about the world.
@carmium "promote science in the schools from first grade, instilling some idea of basic logic and common sense. " if children were taught about logical fallacies: - argument from ignorance - circular reasoning - non sequitur - false dichotomy - red herring - strawman .etc And other logical sentiments: - burden of proof - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence .etc im confident religiosity would drop like a stone.
@types10000 Oh, how I agree with that! Many a time I have got on my proverbial soapbox to bemoan the fact that children are given NO instruction in basic logic and fallacies in school. I had to stumble upon an article on the "Seven Errors in Logic" years ago to really appreciate the subject. (Wish I still had it!) But even with a ragtag understanding of logic, I had often been frustrated by the lack of simple common sense people had when arguing a point. People need to learn how to think.
People do realize scientists love to prove their concepts and ideas wrong right? I mean, generally speaking there isn't as much bias in the scientific community as there is in a religious one, especially if it's contrary to their belief. If you think i'm wrong then whens the last time you saw scientists picketing a church? When is the last time you saw scientists arguing to get their point of view taught in schools?
learing about inteligent desing in school would be VERY boring. first class. "ok its time to learn about inteligent design. ok, lets start with the basics: god created everything as it is today. and,,, well, uhm,,,, thats pretty much it"" XD
Can someone update me on how all this ended? I wander since I don't live in the US all of this went silent by here where I live and I didn't know about this until I started watching old AE clips.
I'm confused - do US schools then not have religious education as standard? That's where ID belongs, in whatever class they teach myths and legends.
In the UK what used to be compusory Scripture classes2 - 3 times a week turned into R.E. - and has to teach about all main religions. But not science; that's taught in science classes. We're funny like that.
@queenastilon There's a difference to teach ABOUT religion and to teach the religion as truth. The ID guys want to have their creationist theory in the science textbooks, 'cause then it's not "The ID movement says this and this" it's "The earth was created this and that way".
@Jostedalsosten I see the distinction. My confusion is to why religionists are whining that religion is being taken out of schools - and ID-ers(creationists) are complaining that kids are not getting to hear the other side. If they teach R.E. as they do here in England, they can't really argue that.
I do get that ID was a deliberate deception trying to hide it's really just creationism, to try to get it taught as science. But it's been squashed - legally declared non-science, so that's it.
@queenastilon Religion isn't taken out of school. If you're talking about the prayer thing, the thing they removed was school lead prayer. They still teach about religion. The I.D. guys are complaining because they have failed yet again at pushing their creationist agenda into the schools. They will continue to complain, but hopefully they wont ever accomplish what they are trying to do.
@Jostedalsosten Creationists tried it here, in England. Teams tried to get in to make presentations to classes - they didn't get very far.
There's no chance for "folks 'round here don't cotton much to evo-looshun talk" as curriculum is fixed nationally, the exams set & marked nationally too. Science is a compulsory subject up to GCSE, 3 different levels for different abilities. If a science teacher fails to teach the required elements he'll lose his job or the school its funding.
No, no, no. Fail, fail, fail. Please do not feed our children anymore archaic bullshit and confuse them well into adult life. Please give them truth so they may live full and productive lives free from the unnecessary burden and enslavement to the fantasy of religious hogwash.
Fact: Galileo was derided by his own colleagues in academia to a far greater degree than the "Catholic Church" ever did.
Fact: Science has always operated upon the basic premise of the existence of truth and testable data. This was never at odds with religion for the previous millenia, in fact, belief in God supported the insurmountable data (as noted in the literature of many prominent scientists that spoke about their understanding of God). Atheism is, in fact, anti-existentialism.
If you're going to preach Christianity in science class, then what about Islam, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Satanism...
My point is, it's unfair to teach one religion and leave all of the others out. This is why we keep religion out of school. (And because it's bogus)
i wouldnt mind teaching id as a theory if it was a theory tcreationist dont know the definition of theory or they would know its not a theory but would still demand it be taught pretty much god did it is there answer aka wishfull (non)thinking bullshit
Thing is, it's not even a theory in a scientific sense. It's simply an idea. Personally, I believe it should be optionally taught, in a class called something similar to 'Christian Mythos'.
@Acorafication but then theres the problem of choosing a religion over the others they would have to include muslim jews all of it thats why we cant do that and lol what would they teach other then "god did it"
@patrickledford420 1. True. Still, if they could balance it so that all of the major religions are represented, then it would be nice, though people would eventually bitch about it.
2. Possibly they would teach the students how to be deluded and lie to themselves?
@patrickledford420 That's how all religions are, in their most basic forms. Sure, there are those who only wish to spread the knowledge about their religion and wish for people to choose for themselves. I love those people, but they're few and far between.
@Acorafication i agree and those are the most reasonable ones and thats why theres not that many because someone always shows them that there wrong and they accept it unlike the others
Fox News or Conservatives on anything: Anything contradicting their bullshit theories will be censored and they'll accuse you of pedophilia and have you banned from youtube as a pedophile and youtube, of course won't even look into it.
1:02 Galileo never proved that the earth revolved around the sun, Johannes Kepler did. They arrested galileo fro agreeing with the heliocentric theory and mainly for proving that the planets weren't made up of divine material and consisted of the same stuff that makes up earth.
That's funny. Imagine an Intelligent Design "science" class. The very first lecture of the class would go something like this "Everything is incredibly complex. Therefore it was designed. Ok, kids, that's it. See you next semester."
they should actually do what he said near the end,.. but make it a theology class in school and provide it with out bias over all religion, children aren't as retarded as we are, they like to expand on what they know "why? Why? Why?" they will see religion is full of shit if proposed to them on equal terms with all others,...
i god hate womn because magic appel dam u al fag biycuj as fhu8d asn 13 666 gsdsk fag fag fag fag fag fag hell bur i'll preatcjh the hell oput of ya!!!
Science calls for collecting data and fact then proposing testable and repeatable theories. ID/Creationism (which is the same thing, we all know which creator is being referred to as the designer and it isnt Budda or Vishnu) starts with a conclusion and then seeks data that seems to support the conclusion. It is not science. Anyone that proposes ID as science is lying. Liars are easy to dismiss.
@ThieleM I agree with your sentiments, Thiele, but please review the Scientific Method. The Scientifice Method by definition calls for developing a hypothess, or theory, as you call it, and then setting about to prove the hypothesis. The four main elements of the scientific method are: hypothesis, procedures (experiements), data (results), findings (conclusions). Be careful what you post!
No offense but the person that needs to bone up on the scientific method and scientific definitions is you.
A hypothesis is NOT a theory. The theory is much larger and functions to explain the facts and hypothesis that contribute to the framework of the theory. Your 4 points are correct but sit below what a theory is and does.
@friedie1jeff "for developing a hypothess, or theory, as you call it" this is the primary weapon creationists/id proponents use to keep you ignorant regarding the facts of how science works. A theory is NOT a hypothesis. far from it.
@BillKiernan BillKiernan, I am not ignorant as to how science works. In fact, I have three degrees in engineering, one from NYU, which is in your hometown. I have spent a good deal of my career in R&D and experimental engineering, and have become a fellow of my professional society. However, I do stand corrected on the difference between hypothesis and theory. It has been awhile and I lost sight of that.
@friedie1jeff i was saying that is the tactic they use "just a theory" to try to keep people not knowing what a theory really means in scientific terms. didn't mean you necessarily were one of the ignorant ones (though as you say it was easy to think so from your statement)
@ThieleM is everyone missing the point of this episode?? The song. Everyone is missing how great of a song this is! They should intro the day in schools around the world with this little ditty from a gem of a Canadian artist. Screw Celine Dion, man you Americans have poor taste in music because any time our artists get famous outside our own country its because they either are sellouts or have to in order to spread their musical influence.
But I was and you later replied that I was wrong because some sects exist :D
Buddhism is very confusing like satanism which is addressed falsly on this show many times.
Satanism is a philosophy in which human natural instincts and selfishness is encouraged and every satanist ins egoistic atheist that want to tax religion lol however they don't believe in actual satan they just used word satan because it means oposser.
I never said you were wrong. I said that what you stated was not completely true. As there are both non theistic and theistic buddhists your statement was....by logical extension not completely true.
@ThieleM I wouldn't say science to disprove itself but to gain a better approximation for what really happens, a better mechnism for observable phenomena. Newton's theory of gravity for example is perfectly fine but general relativity is a better approximation but still not the best (possibly). But general relativity does not disprove Newton, but is a better explanation of gravity.
Newton's Laws dont work when you look at Mercury's motion or black holes. They work well most of the time so they are, absolutely, worth knowing and teaching....but the issues with Newtonian mechanics must be understood.
@ThieleM No in school they don't, that is the job for university. Ther student can read around the subject (as I did) but no harm will come to them if they are not taught the issues around Newtoniam mechanics. Besides the majority of the kids will not need the fact that Newtoniam mechanics is wrong in extreme cases.
I am not sure where you are from but in the school district I was in we were taught Newtonian Mechanics and the flaws in Newtonian mechanics. Also, the orbit of mercury is NOT extreme...it is simply an instance where Newton's Laws don't work. Black holes are quite common and thus cannot be defined as an extreme situation. There are other areas that Newton's laws break down. I just grabbed 2 that most people know about.
@ThieleM I come from England, so the teaching structure is different. If you are at a university then fine, nothing is sacred and you should be prepared to question everthing. I think what I was referring to school, you would refer to high school. Is this the case?
@ThieleM Really? That's odd, any good scientist and science teacher should be able to demonstrate to students, the Newtonian mechanics if very accurate for the world and speeds that we see in everyday life.
@ThieleM As for science disproving itself as a purpose, you can mention it since the scientific method. A lot of people, even educated people, don't know that after formulating a hypothesis, the experiment must be designed to prove the hypothesis wrong. Science is that comitted to finding actual knowledge.
intelligant design is not a attempt to over throw evolution and it is not creationism that is a religious idea ID is not ID is a ligit theory but isnt exepted because it contridicts with evolution and because it does it is said to be false and that is sorta what the catholic church does to new ideas and that is wrong evolution can be argued to have a religious back round just like ID. ID is being pushed to be put in schools because it is another idea on the same subject and that way things arent
If ID is a legit scientific theory then give me at least ONE standard experiment, with a control and a variable and a measurable outcome. Just 1 experiment which can be used to corroborate the ID claim.
Can you do that? Because I can give you some experiments for evolution.
(FYI) If you can't measure it then it isn't science.
ID is evolution mixed with religion. It has no scientific backing and therefore should not be taught in schools. ID is a religious person's way of getting around evolution.
there is also something called separation of church and state. You can teach whatever you want in a private school....not a public school. You could maybe teach about it in HISTORY, where you could teach how christianity as well as judaism borrowed many stories of pre-existing religions such as the greeks (poseidon's flood = noah's ark, prometheus = jesus, and they have a creation story as well). I've actually taken such courses in college that teach the HISTORY of religion and...
There is one place i can think of that ID can be taught. That one place would be history class because that's all ID is. Sad and pitiful that not everyone sees it that way.
A particular intelligence, belonging to one known as a architect, drafted a design. Then a engineering intelligence, designed it's constructing plausibility. Then a constructing intelligence, designed a plan with which to go about constructing it. After it's constructing, intelligences of administrative management, designed a method of applying the criteria by which to hire the intelligences that designed a curriculum & agenda for teaching within that school, classes excluding intelligent design
Of course, there's always the possibility that I may be incorrect in my paragraph written above. Perhaps, the school, books, desks, curriculum and everything else within that building, were all produced from naturalistic causes??? Thus, it would then be completely understandable why they would be so adamantly opposed to any mention of "Intelligent Design". For where would there exist any sign or evidence of it's existence?
Way I see it is the same way I see weed or no weed. We can't legalize cigarettes and make weed illegal. We can't teach the big bang or evolution without teaching intelligent design. (I believe in evolution but still) Evolution, the big bang, and God AREN'T PROVEN so why do we even mention them!
And I am sorry that there are so many dumass Christians out there to make us look like bastards.
Big bang theory is based on the fact the the celestial bodies are moving farther and farther apart.. Evolution has plenty of evidence in the fossil record and the observation of bacteria. the big difference is that ID deals with the supernatural, which has no place in science classes.
Hey, I don't believe in God or His way by Creation.. Can anyone explain to me how the most intelligent being ever to exist created the universe in seven days (or six) and left no trace of evidence for his existence at all?
yeh thanks V. proof of Creator God is in creation itself, it's His workmanship,his signature..e.g. a carpenter built the house I live in and proof that the carpenter exists is in the house itself..it did not naturally select itself to become a 4 bedroom house with intricate design nor did it evolve as the result of an explosion at he local woodmill..it was created with skill,intelligent design,and a bit of muscle by an intelligent designer..
well,i said mate and read this carefully-"CREATION ITSELF IS EVIDENCE OF A CREATOR"-try not to sidestep the mainpoint please.Leave the sidestepping to the All Blacks when we come north to tidy up England and co. in the end of year rugby tour...
Lol...whatever Trevor...All Whites is the name of our New Zealand Soccer team because of the colour of our uniform like red sox etc...don't be such an ignoramus...
That argument doesn't work. We have evidence of carpenters-- we can even go talk to one in real life-- and can learn about the means by which houses are built and the materials required. We also have absolutely no evidence of naturally occurring houses.
The appearance of design does not imply design. We have no evidence of a creator nor do we have any understanding of the means by which our universe could be created by something else, while having ample evidence of how it naturally evolved.
what ;side step the english rugby team?no the all blacks will do that.come the end of year tour of europe.although rugby is one of the games played in Heaven...
just some friendly bantering mate..?it's not as if these guys aren't mocking us Christians..I'm just saying I enjoy having these debates...surely amongst all this we can have some form of mutual respect and a bit of humoour without taking it too seriously..?
tee hee it's not like you atheists don't poke fun at us Christians..so what's wrong with a bit of friendly,mutual banter..?cant take life too seriously...plus,my creationism stance is far superior to evolution as creation proves itself;I'm just sitting back and having fun with these debates...
I wonder when creationists are going to realize that even if they manage to disprove evolution, a feat they've been trying and failing at for the past 150 years, that still wouldn't prove creationism right.
See, I agree with you and I'm a Christian. Proving that evolution is false or true wouldn't prove or disprove God, not in the way that scientist define proof. And lets face it, we don't want science to come out with a medicine that they "believe" will work without scientific proof to back it up. I think Christians (unless they are credible, trained scientist) should let the scientist get to work being scientist-questioning, researching, testing, and discovering. Quit fighting all the damn time.
why is it that evolution is a theory but yet they teach it in schools as if its the only way.. idk.. it hasnt been proven yet but they say they know it happened and u cant question that it happened just b/c.. if u ask me the school system is just anti-christian if anything
The word "theory" means two different things when used every day and when used scientifically. When your average Joe says he has a theory, he means he has an idea about something. When a scientist says he has a theory, he means he has a clear model set forth that will successfully predict future actions when the theory is tested. Think of things like gravity, the Earth revolving around the Sun, these are all theories scientifically. To say evolution "hasn't been proven" is insane.
First evolution is not anti christian. It explains natural occurrences, it makes no statement on religion.
Second, evolution is fact. The fact that species change over time is not in dispute. The THEORY of evolution is a well documented, fully observed, tested, set of rules for those natural occurrences that are testable, repeatable, and make predictions that are backed up by a mountain of evidence and is the ONLY current explanation for speciation. ID doesn't stand up to peer review
If you want information on the bible go to a church. That's my opinion. I don't think bible should be taught in schools because it can be highly graphic at times. Just read the Old Testament. Slavery, rape, murder and God Wrath is very graphic. The bible CAN also teach hate. And that can be seen in everyday society. People like Pastor Fred Phelps use the bible to justify his hate. Going as far as saying 9/11 is Gods wrath for America's tolerance of 'fags'.
@Pacman provided an interesting message.Creationists and Evolutionists are looking at the result of THE SAME THING:neither has a copy of the official blueprint stamped with an official/divine seal proving that their theory is authentic.So,that leaves COMMON SENSE,and EYES TO SEE,A MIND TO LOOK EMPIRICALLY AT PHENOMENA/CREATION. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT PHENOMENA you SEE DESIGN. A 100yr. old house was designed by an architect who left no signatured blueprint, logic would NEVER say he didn't exist.
@Solablueangel That's right. Houses were obviously put together by builders; life forms were put together by evolution. When you look at the evidence, logic says so in both cases. Sophomoric exercises in meaningless semantics prove nothing, however satisfied religists seem to be with them. Thinking people need more than that.
I would like to start an argument with someone!!!! Ill start by saying GOD EXISTS! but wait i dont know that...... ok GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!!, wait i dont know that either.... ok, so i BELIEVE God exists!! beliefs are not solid.. So i believe God does not EXIST!, wait beliefs are not solid.... How do i escape these silly primitive constrictions set on me!!!! Anyone up to reply???
Yes, the answer is saying "I don't know." That's what Matt in this video tries to tell people, don't be afraid to admit that you don't know instead of automatically accepting a belief system.
I don't know, but i still have a belief, a belief is not put forth as absolute certainty, except in almost all religious people, and very few atheistic people. Absolute certainty can't be put on either side
@keggerous Lmao good point. Another thing that bugs me about creationism, Is that christians believe that the universe and earth was created in a week. Well, What about all of the other plants in our solar system? And also the ones not in it.m Were they created in a week to? Fail.
How many mutations would you need on which chromosones all happening as chance random events all at the same time at the same place on the first individual that developed the first human eye. If you cant even understand how it might have happened how can they be random chance events. Stop misleading people.
You not understanding evolution does not make it impossible.
That is as stupid as saying since you dont understand rocket science rockets cannot fly.
The only reason you are not complaining about rocket science is because it is not contradicting your belief in a god who is too weak to defend himself.
You created ears. You can hear what they say! You created eyes you can see what they do. Forgive them and reveal yourself to them by your Holy Spirit with POWER!
why do all u fucking retards insist on saying chance random? its kind of fucking redundant dont u think? ow wait u dont think....learn the word adaptation u fucking mook
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Mutations are almost always non beneficial. How are you going to get the variety of organisms from a single cell by mutations. unscientific, illogical, rubbish. Sure youll have your answer but make it believable. Natural selection doesnt provide new genetic info. ID is a good logical scientific first stepping stone with overwhelming evidence which the scientific community is embracing and should debate where to go from there.
"ID is a good logical scientific first stepping stone with overwhelming evidence which the scientific community is embracing and should debate where to go from there."
Except they can't go ANYWHERE from there. The ID "method" consists of looking at something you don't understand, concluding that it must have been poofed into existence by an otherworldly entity because of that, and leaving it at that. That's not a stepping stone, that's a dead end. You just replaced one unknown with another.
WHAT evidence? The only thing approaching a decent argument the CDesign Proponentsists ever had was Irreducible Complexity, which was utterly destroyed both scientifically and in court. The evidence supports speciation, which is what you call macroevolution. If you want to see it, just Google "observed instances of speciation."
try to remember that there are scientists that would rather be published that to be right. the beauty of science is all you really need to do is come up with an idea that fits common belief and put a new twist on it. this will get him well funded and popular. especially where the universe is concerned much of what we believe is based on "if's"
the big bang theory is a good example of how ur WRONG. ppl didnt want a universe that had a definite beginning. they thought the universe should be static and eternal....well guess what? when they found out it wasnt they didnt just come up with some bs to get funded...they did tests and experiments like all scientists do. the evisence is what ,makes our knowledge not popularity
its odd that atheists make more definate claims than the scientists that make obsevations. scientists merely claim "evidence suggests", "if this is true than that must also be true", "lead us to believe" etc, etc. some atheist seem to take this as undisputed truths. i hardly see a difference between atheists and theists since atheists believe what scientists suggest, and theist believe what they themselves believe is true. regardless of what is argued, no one really knows the truth of afterlife
belief in what the scientific method has discovered is much different then belief in some bronze age ideology....to be honest there isnt enough time to do all of the scientific research ourselves. it requires that many ppl work for thousands of man hours and spread the knowledge to future generations. beleif in science isnt the same as in a god. ur right though the afterlife is a mystery and really it isnt even something ppl should worry about.
and much of what is scientifically reasarched today will be deemed useless tomorrow. most of the degrees earned 20 years ago are proven false or useless today. its been noted that the 1st year of a BS will be useless before a college student completes his 4 year degree. thus, much of the information that is used to validate todays thinking will be nonsense in the future, as it has always been.
and thats called the process of science...thats why it will probably always be the best tool we have for figuring thngs out. because its always correcting itself and with every new advance we make we open new doors and close others. scientists actually enjoy proving themselves and each other wrong. thats how the scientific method works. the fact that u say the research is useless is just plain wrong. in fact we compound and revise that "useless" research that is the nature of science.
yes, but correcting its self means it was once wrong. the fact that you have a comprehention disability in thinking that i claim its useless instead of acknowledging that i claimed it becomes useless along with the appearance that you're full of hate and/or evil intentions, impling that you are some kind of athority in the matter, etc simply proves that you have mental issues with yourself, need an ego boost, had some kind of traumatic episode in life that makes you hate God and/or other issues
u said "deemed" useless and no scientist would ever deem any research or study useless.... well i guess sense u have nothing constuctive to say its pretty typical for somebody like u to fall back on insults. the fact that i've research many of the aspects of science that creationists tend to reject may make me seem condecending but actually im just informed and i suggest u do the same. fyi....u cant hate what doesnt exist.
im not falling back on insults, simply pointing out your possible downfall(s). unlike you, jumping stright on to the insults. i am fully imformed. if you didnt have issues with yourself you would not be concerned with what other think or what others write on walls. calling others fucking retards does not make you seem condecending, it makes you a narcissistic asshole in this situation. claiming something doesnt exist and beliving it are two different things.
not so much narcissistic as arrogant....but that doesnt matter cuz ur still the type that likes to rely on.....pointing out ppl downfalls...? wtf is wrong with u? who do u think u are? kind of ironic that ud prosume to judge me and call me a narcissist. how about u back up ur claims that science is some how bias and then u can say all u want cuz u wont be dodging the facts liek the punk mook u are. u cant stop believing in god cuz ur a weak minded fool..... science>religion
song name?
bander87 7 months ago
@bander87 0:29
HolyEggRollys 1 month ago
How can you teach evolution written by a crackpot scientist like Darwin, when the talking snake theory explains everything and fits all the piece together so perfectly?
somethingdiffereable 7 months ago 10
@somethingdiffereable
Nicely done with the satire.
UnknownUserName4267 7 months ago
@somethingdiffereable Did the Talking Snake have a name ? I would find it more convincing.
lewisner 2 hours ago
two things. I cant understand how the goverment can let this intelligent design thing even happen. And secondly, isnt not believing in evolution as a stupid as not believing in gravity?
gulbirk 10 months ago 3
Banning comprehensive sex-ed, banning evolution, re-writing history books, moving kids around from school to school like pawns on a chessboard, so each school has the "correct" racial mix of students, taking away teachers' authority to properly disipline students, banning toy guns, banning "Tag", removing "dangerous" playground equipment like slides and monkey-bars...
And some people wonder why the majority of Middle-Class Americans now send their kids to private school.
SinnFein4ever 11 months ago
@SinnFein4ever Wait. Who the fuck banned tag?
GuacamoleKun 9 months ago
@GuacamoleKun
Here are a few:
usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-26-recess-bans_x.htm
SinnFein4ever 9 months ago
@SinnFein4ever That's pretty sick. I feel like I dodged a bullet being born in 1985. (Even though I remember the day my school banned class pets because a girl got a tarantula hair stuck in her eye..)
GuacamoleKun 9 months ago
@GuacamoleKun
Well, I went to private school (not the rich kind), so I guess my school was pretty modern.
We played "Tag", "Hide-And-Seek", "Duck, Duck, Goose", "Heads Up, 7-Up", "Simon Says", and things like that.
We had swings, a jungle-gym, a slide, a sand-box, and even (gasp!) a Merry-Go-Round!
The faculty could do this, because all parents had to sign a legal waiver before their children were allowed to enroll.
So the school didn't have to worry about frivolous lawsuits.
SinnFein4ever 9 months ago
@SinnFein4ever That's a great idea, why don't the public schools do that?
We had all that stuff in public school, actually, (well, except the merry-go-round..) plus red rover AND dodge ball.
And for a while I went to private school too, and we were under-funded so all we could do was play tag in the woods every single day. I don't know if there was any waiver involved, but I can't remember anyone actually getting hurt, despite the fact that there were downed tree limbs across all the paths, etc.
GuacamoleKun 9 months ago
@GuacamoleKun
Why public schools don't do that, is because if low-class parents were required to sign a waver agreeing that their child would follow the rules, and that the principal had the authority to give detention, suspension, or expullsion if the student broke those rules, they'd cry racism, and have the NAACP slap the school with a huge lawsuit.
Even if the school won, it could be bankrupted.
This has happened many times in the U.S.A.
SinnFein4ever 9 months ago
@GuacamoleKun
I went to Catholic school, and the school was funded partly by the Church, partly by parishners' donations, and partly by tuition fees.
So it always had the funds for whatever it needed.
We only played dodgeball in P.E. class (I was pretty good at it).
We played tetherball at recess somtimes.
But recess wasn't organized.
They just let us out onto the playground, the teacher on duty would watch us, and we'd baisically do whatever we wanted (within reason).
SinnFein4ever 9 months ago
I find it astonishing that in the world's most powerful country, where science has brought to the masses abundant food, clean water, health care, knowledge of the Earth and our universe, hi-tech manufacturing, electronics, computers, multiple choices in communication and transportation - the myriad things millions use and rely upon every day - there is actually argument going on between religious myth and science. It is a shameful embarrassment to America and its education system.
carmium 1 year ago
@carmium I think im going to use your post as a quote on my facebook cuz it is so true- i will give your youtube name credit. i love your post.
420simpson 1 year ago
@420simpson Thank you kindly.
NVanWendy 1 year ago
@420simpson I shall too... Too much charactars.. damn it.. Gonna have to cut it a bit.
rangergxi 1 year ago
@carmium Agreed (except about the healthcare bit).
alienlifeform11 1 year ago
@alienlifeform11 Point taken. 8-\
carmium 1 year ago
@carmium THANK YOU. You have said what I've been trying to tell creationists for YEARS. They don't listen! "well I can use a computer and try to tell everyone that science LIES" It's complete stupidity on their part and they don't realize how hypocritical they're being.
SkelanimalKitteh 1 year ago
@SkelanimalKitteh Thank you, Skel'. I'm losing interest in debating literal religists, frankly. To them, you might as well be arguing for the legalization of murder; they just won't consider it. What we need to do is promote science in the schools from first grade, instilling some idea of basic logic and common sense. Currently, it seems you can graduate high school with neither, and that is reprehensible. We need kids to ask their Sunday school teachers knowledgeable questions about the world.
carmium 1 year ago
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 Oh, how I agree with that! Many a time I have got on my proverbial soapbox to bemoan the fact that children are given NO instruction in basic logic and fallacies in school. I had to stumble upon an article on the "Seven Errors in Logic" years ago to really appreciate the subject. (Wish I still had it!) But even with a ragtag understanding of logic, I had often been frustrated by the lack of simple common sense people had when arguing a point. People need to learn how to think.
carmium 1 year ago
People do realize scientists love to prove their concepts and ideas wrong right? I mean, generally speaking there isn't as much bias in the scientific community as there is in a religious one, especially if it's contrary to their belief. If you think i'm wrong then whens the last time you saw scientists picketing a church? When is the last time you saw scientists arguing to get their point of view taught in schools?
Antimidation 1 year ago
learing about inteligent desing in school would be VERY boring. first class. "ok its time to learn about inteligent design. ok, lets start with the basics: god created everything as it is today. and,,, well, uhm,,,, thats pretty much it"" XD
gulbirk 1 year ago
Religion is a poison. These christofacsists are just as bad as the taliban
ArcyTheFurryArcanine 1 year ago
im a creationist because its a lot easier to read one book than a bunch of hard ones
geiuy 1 year ago 23
if parents want to brainwash their child then they can send them to private religious schools, or hogwarts......
420simpson 1 year ago
Can someone update me on how all this ended? I wander since I don't live in the US all of this went silent by here where I live and I didn't know about this until I started watching old AE clips.
Jostedalsosten 1 year ago
I'm confused - do US schools then not have religious education as standard? That's where ID belongs, in whatever class they teach myths and legends.
In the UK what used to be compusory Scripture classes2 - 3 times a week turned into R.E. - and has to teach about all main religions. But not science; that's taught in science classes. We're funny like that.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon There's a difference to teach ABOUT religion and to teach the religion as truth. The ID guys want to have their creationist theory in the science textbooks, 'cause then it's not "The ID movement says this and this" it's "The earth was created this and that way".
Can you see the distinction?
Jostedalsosten 1 year ago
@Jostedalsosten I see the distinction. My confusion is to why religionists are whining that religion is being taken out of schools - and ID-ers(creationists) are complaining that kids are not getting to hear the other side. If they teach R.E. as they do here in England, they can't really argue that.
I do get that ID was a deliberate deception trying to hide it's really just creationism, to try to get it taught as science. But it's been squashed - legally declared non-science, so that's it.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon Religion isn't taken out of school. If you're talking about the prayer thing, the thing they removed was school lead prayer. They still teach about religion. The I.D. guys are complaining because they have failed yet again at pushing their creationist agenda into the schools. They will continue to complain, but hopefully they wont ever accomplish what they are trying to do.
Jostedalsosten 1 year ago
@Jostedalsosten Creationists tried it here, in England. Teams tried to get in to make presentations to classes - they didn't get very far.
There's no chance for "folks 'round here don't cotton much to evo-looshun talk" as curriculum is fixed nationally, the exams set & marked nationally too. Science is a compulsory subject up to GCSE, 3 different levels for different abilities. If a science teacher fails to teach the required elements he'll lose his job or the school its funding.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon yea, we've got the same system in Norway. I just tried to point out that the reason why the ID movement in the US is pissed.
Jostedalsosten 1 year ago
No, no, no. Fail, fail, fail. Please do not feed our children anymore archaic bullshit and confuse them well into adult life. Please give them truth so they may live full and productive lives free from the unnecessary burden and enslavement to the fantasy of religious hogwash.
dirtydonki 1 year ago
Fact: Galileo was derided by his own colleagues in academia to a far greater degree than the "Catholic Church" ever did.
Fact: Science has always operated upon the basic premise of the existence of truth and testable data. This was never at odds with religion for the previous millenia, in fact, belief in God supported the insurmountable data (as noted in the literature of many prominent scientists that spoke about their understanding of God). Atheism is, in fact, anti-existentialism.
ThisIDig 1 year ago
If you pay me, I can sum up creation to kids. "God made everything seperate and evolution didn't happen. Now where's my damn paycheck?"
Alphabet195 1 year ago
If you're going to preach Christianity in science class, then what about Islam, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Satanism...
My point is, it's unfair to teach one religion and leave all of the others out. This is why we keep religion out of school. (And because it's bogus)
JokinJoe 1 year ago
i wouldnt mind teaching id as a theory if it was a theory tcreationist dont know the definition of theory or they would know its not a theory but would still demand it be taught pretty much god did it is there answer aka wishfull (non)thinking bullshit
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Exactly, Patrick. Theory? It hardly qualifies as a hypothesis.
Bfdidc 1 year ago
@Bfdidc it doesnt even qualify as a hypothosis at all its not testable
patrickledford420 1 year ago
I'm willing to settle for ad hoc hypothesis.
Bfdidc 1 year ago
@Bfdidc i dont know what that means buyt lol yeh its pretty much a fail on there part
patrickledford420 1 year ago
I would teach it as mythology. Interesting stuff and not as complex/boring as evolution
MrJesusNazi 1 year ago
@MrJesusNazi it makes good comedy
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Thing is, it's not even a theory in a scientific sense. It's simply an idea. Personally, I believe it should be optionally taught, in a class called something similar to 'Christian Mythos'.
Acorafication 1 year ago
@Acorafication but then theres the problem of choosing a religion over the others they would have to include muslim jews all of it thats why we cant do that and lol what would they teach other then "god did it"
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 1. True. Still, if they could balance it so that all of the major religions are represented, then it would be nice, though people would eventually bitch about it.
2. Possibly they would teach the students how to be deluded and lie to themselves?
Acorafication 1 year ago
@Acorafication yeh and if they did allow all relgions the christians would change there mind its not knowlege they want its doctrine
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 That's how all religions are, in their most basic forms. Sure, there are those who only wish to spread the knowledge about their religion and wish for people to choose for themselves. I love those people, but they're few and far between.
Acorafication 1 year ago
@Acorafication i agree and those are the most reasonable ones and thats why theres not that many because someone always shows them that there wrong and they accept it unlike the others
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Fox News or Conservatives on anything: Anything contradicting their bullshit theories will be censored and they'll accuse you of pedophilia and have you banned from youtube as a pedophile and youtube, of course won't even look into it.
AggressiveAtheist 2 years ago 2
Fox News on Intelligent Design: adding comments has been disabled for this video.
AggressiveAtheist 2 years ago
1:02 Galileo never proved that the earth revolved around the sun, Johannes Kepler did. They arrested galileo fro agreeing with the heliocentric theory and mainly for proving that the planets weren't made up of divine material and consisted of the same stuff that makes up earth.
sunset261 2 years ago
O Design Inteligente é apenas o "criacionismo" disfarçado, ou seja, prova mais ainda que o Evolucionismo é fato..
pentelhosam 2 years ago
That's funny. Imagine an Intelligent Design "science" class. The very first lecture of the class would go something like this "Everything is incredibly complex. Therefore it was designed. Ok, kids, that's it. See you next semester."
obdami 2 years ago 4
in fact it would also help in creating awareness in to problems of fundamentalist cults, i don't know it's just an idea :)
OccultistPriest 2 years ago
they should actually do what he said near the end,.. but make it a theology class in school and provide it with out bias over all religion, children aren't as retarded as we are, they like to expand on what they know "why? Why? Why?" they will see religion is full of shit if proposed to them on equal terms with all others,...
OccultistPriest 2 years ago
@OccultistPriest That's impossible. Every single class will be biased, it's inevetable.
zachywackyt 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
niggervfa !!!!!
BlueNote4003 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i god hate womn because magic appel dam u al fag biycuj as fhu8d asn 13 666 gsdsk fag fag fag fag fag fag hell bur i'll preatcjh the hell oput of ya!!!
BlueNote4003 2 years ago
Science exists to disprove itself.
Science calls for collecting data and fact then proposing testable and repeatable theories. ID/Creationism (which is the same thing, we all know which creator is being referred to as the designer and it isnt Budda or Vishnu) starts with a conclusion and then seeks data that seems to support the conclusion. It is not science. Anyone that proposes ID as science is lying. Liars are easy to dismiss.
ThieleM 2 years ago 62
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThieleM uah fugh sciments homo fah!!!HHHHHHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNIGGER!!!!!!!
BlueNote4003 2 years ago
@ThieleM I agree with your sentiments, Thiele, but please review the Scientific Method. The Scientifice Method by definition calls for developing a hypothess, or theory, as you call it, and then setting about to prove the hypothesis. The four main elements of the scientific method are: hypothesis, procedures (experiements), data (results), findings (conclusions). Be careful what you post!
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
@friedie1jeff
No offense but the person that needs to bone up on the scientific method and scientific definitions is you.
A hypothesis is NOT a theory. The theory is much larger and functions to explain the facts and hypothesis that contribute to the framework of the theory. Your 4 points are correct but sit below what a theory is and does.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM I stand corrected. I lost sight of that difference.
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
@friedie1jeff
No worries, the definition of Theory is confusing since the common everyday definition is not the same as the definition used in science.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@friedie1jeff "for developing a hypothess, or theory, as you call it" this is the primary weapon creationists/id proponents use to keep you ignorant regarding the facts of how science works. A theory is NOT a hypothesis. far from it.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan BillKiernan, I am not ignorant as to how science works. In fact, I have three degrees in engineering, one from NYU, which is in your hometown. I have spent a good deal of my career in R&D and experimental engineering, and have become a fellow of my professional society. However, I do stand corrected on the difference between hypothesis and theory. It has been awhile and I lost sight of that.
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
@friedie1jeff i was saying that is the tactic they use "just a theory" to try to keep people not knowing what a theory really means in scientific terms. didn't mean you necessarily were one of the ignorant ones (though as you say it was easy to think so from your statement)
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan You give them far too much credit.
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
@ThieleM is everyone missing the point of this episode?? The song. Everyone is missing how great of a song this is! They should intro the day in schools around the world with this little ditty from a gem of a Canadian artist. Screw Celine Dion, man you Americans have poor taste in music because any time our artists get famous outside our own country its because they either are sellouts or have to in order to spread their musical influence.
adamelnyk 1 year ago
@ThieleM
Budda is not a god.
Buddhism is "atheistic" religion because traditional buddhism doesn't have god at all it is just personal "enlightment"
PhreakStep 1 year ago
@PhreakStep
That is not completely true.
There are sects of Buddhism that view him as a God that was born from a slit in his mothers abdomen.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM
Yes they are SECTS of Buddhism however I was talking about traditional buddhism. not thie newer age shit from lets say 18-21 century.
PhreakStep 1 year ago
@PhreakStep
Fantastic and I know that. However I WASNT talking about non theistic, traditional Buddhism.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM
Yeah I kinda get that :D
But I was and you later replied that I was wrong because some sects exist :D
Buddhism is very confusing like satanism which is addressed falsly on this show many times.
Satanism is a philosophy in which human natural instincts and selfishness is encouraged and every satanist ins egoistic atheist that want to tax religion lol however they don't believe in actual satan they just used word satan because it means oposser.
Devil worship on other hand is theism.
PhreakStep 1 year ago
@PhreakStep
I never said you were wrong. I said that what you stated was not completely true. As there are both non theistic and theistic buddhists your statement was....by logical extension not completely true.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM I wouldn't say science to disprove itself but to gain a better approximation for what really happens, a better mechnism for observable phenomena. Newton's theory of gravity for example is perfectly fine but general relativity is a better approximation but still not the best (possibly). But general relativity does not disprove Newton, but is a better explanation of gravity.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@huntmatuk
Newton's Laws dont work when you look at Mercury's motion or black holes. They work well most of the time so they are, absolutely, worth knowing and teaching....but the issues with Newtonian mechanics must be understood.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM No in school they don't, that is the job for university. Ther student can read around the subject (as I did) but no harm will come to them if they are not taught the issues around Newtoniam mechanics. Besides the majority of the kids will not need the fact that Newtoniam mechanics is wrong in extreme cases.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@huntmatuk
I am not sure where you are from but in the school district I was in we were taught Newtonian Mechanics and the flaws in Newtonian mechanics. Also, the orbit of mercury is NOT extreme...it is simply an instance where Newton's Laws don't work. Black holes are quite common and thus cannot be defined as an extreme situation. There are other areas that Newton's laws break down. I just grabbed 2 that most people know about.
University IS school.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM I come from England, so the teaching structure is different. If you are at a university then fine, nothing is sacred and you should be prepared to question everthing. I think what I was referring to school, you would refer to high school. Is this the case?
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@huntmatuk
I was taught about Newton's laws in High School Physics. I went to school in Austria.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Perhaps teaching is different in Austria. I only learnt that stuff formally in university.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@huntmatuk
We didnt learn things in any real depth but the chapter on Newton gave a lot of people anxiety.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Really? That's odd, any good scientist and science teacher should be able to demonstrate to students, the Newtonian mechanics if very accurate for the world and speeds that we see in everyday life.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@huntmatuk
Our teacher was excellent. Newtonian principles are rather deep for high school kids....as you noted.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM As for science disproving itself as a purpose, you can mention it since the scientific method. A lot of people, even educated people, don't know that after formulating a hypothesis, the experiment must be designed to prove the hypothesis wrong. Science is that comitted to finding actual knowledge.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
so biased it is just another theory that way people dont have to be tought about something they dont believe and arent pushed to do so
TheAlaskan42 2 years ago
intelligant design is not a attempt to over throw evolution and it is not creationism that is a religious idea ID is not ID is a ligit theory but isnt exepted because it contridicts with evolution and because it does it is said to be false and that is sorta what the catholic church does to new ideas and that is wrong evolution can be argued to have a religious back round just like ID. ID is being pushed to be put in schools because it is another idea on the same subject and that way things arent
TheAlaskan42 2 years ago
If ID is a legit scientific theory then give me at least ONE standard experiment, with a control and a variable and a measurable outcome. Just 1 experiment which can be used to corroborate the ID claim.
Can you do that? Because I can give you some experiments for evolution.
(FYI) If you can't measure it then it isn't science.
jessemaurais 2 years ago 42
ID is evolution mixed with religion. It has no scientific backing and therefore should not be taught in schools. ID is a religious person's way of getting around evolution.
sunset261 2 years ago
no its rejected because there is no evidence for it. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed journal articles proving evolution....
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
there is also something called separation of church and state. You can teach whatever you want in a private school....not a public school. You could maybe teach about it in HISTORY, where you could teach how christianity as well as judaism borrowed many stories of pre-existing religions such as the greeks (poseidon's flood = noah's ark, prometheus = jesus, and they have a creation story as well). I've actually taken such courses in college that teach the HISTORY of religion and...
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
put it into historical context, as well as drew connections between how religions spread and evolved over time.
now THAT would be educational.
not teaching creation as science.
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago 2
Massive win :) ID to the trash!
ksym 2 years ago 2
lol.........people still believe ID should be taught in schools?? like, wtf. its not science.
OSHUNLIDE 2 years ago
There is one place i can think of that ID can be taught. That one place would be history class because that's all ID is. Sad and pitiful that not everyone sees it that way.
toshiba9821 2 years ago
holy smokes, it must be tough to be an atheist in Texas.
kabloozie 2 years ago
A particular intelligence, belonging to one known as a architect, drafted a design. Then a engineering intelligence, designed it's constructing plausibility. Then a constructing intelligence, designed a plan with which to go about constructing it. After it's constructing, intelligences of administrative management, designed a method of applying the criteria by which to hire the intelligences that designed a curriculum & agenda for teaching within that school, classes excluding intelligent design
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
just a note: "its" = possessive, whereas "it's" = contraction of "it is." :)
heyguysinternet 2 years ago
Of course, there's always the possibility that I may be incorrect in my paragraph written above. Perhaps, the school, books, desks, curriculum and everything else within that building, were all produced from naturalistic causes??? Thus, it would then be completely understandable why they would be so adamantly opposed to any mention of "Intelligent Design". For where would there exist any sign or evidence of it's existence?
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Way I see it is the same way I see weed or no weed. We can't legalize cigarettes and make weed illegal. We can't teach the big bang or evolution without teaching intelligent design. (I believe in evolution but still) Evolution, the big bang, and God AREN'T PROVEN so why do we even mention them!
And I am sorry that there are so many dumass Christians out there to make us look like bastards.
DeadSquirrelPro 2 years ago
but id isnt science..... so you cant teach it.... DUCY?
OSHUNLIDE 2 years ago
Big bang theory is based on the fact the the celestial bodies are moving farther and farther apart.. Evolution has plenty of evidence in the fossil record and the observation of bacteria. the big difference is that ID deals with the supernatural, which has no place in science classes.
sunset261 2 years ago
Hey,I believe in God and His way by Creation..Can anyone tell me how physical matter manifested...?
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
No, I can't. And neither can the person who told you god did it.
tehDave08 2 years ago 2
123breakdancer.
Hey, I don't believe in God or His way by Creation.. Can anyone explain to me how the most intelligent being ever to exist created the universe in seven days (or six) and left no trace of evidence for his existence at all?
VermilionUK 2 years ago
yeh thanks V. proof of Creator God is in creation itself, it's His workmanship,his signature..e.g. a carpenter built the house I live in and proof that the carpenter exists is in the house itself..it did not naturally select itself to become a 4 bedroom house with intricate design nor did it evolve as the result of an explosion at he local woodmill..it was created with skill,intelligent design,and a bit of muscle by an intelligent designer..
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
Dude, I wasn't supporting your statement. I was using your initial point and applying it to God (with sarcasm)
Nevermind, I'm sure you're probably sarcastic also. Afterall, nobody would assume creation without evidence to back it up. Would they?
VermilionUK 2 years ago
well,i said mate and read this carefully-"CREATION ITSELF IS EVIDENCE OF A CREATOR"-try not to sidestep the mainpoint please.Leave the sidestepping to the All Blacks when we come north to tidy up England and co. in the end of year rugby tour...
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
If our All Whites make the World Cup Football Finals then England better watch out too(now,that's sarcasm)
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
@1234breakdancer Not only are you an idiot, But you also sound a bit racist. Pretty christian like.
spikeman23 2 years ago
Lol...whatever Trevor...All Whites is the name of our New Zealand Soccer team because of the colour of our uniform like red sox etc...don't be such an ignoramus...
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
That argument doesn't work. We have evidence of carpenters-- we can even go talk to one in real life-- and can learn about the means by which houses are built and the materials required. We also have absolutely no evidence of naturally occurring houses.
The appearance of design does not imply design. We have no evidence of a creator nor do we have any understanding of the means by which our universe could be created by something else, while having ample evidence of how it naturally evolved.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
didn't god do that? i remember reading that this super-awesome space ghost named "god" made everything, i think it was a kids book or something.
tzeentch5 2 years ago 3
what ;side step the english rugby team?no the all blacks will do that.come the end of year tour of europe.although rugby is one of the games played in Heaven...
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
shut up tzeentch5,I'm having fun with these atheists and you're trying to make it all serious...
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
The beautiful cop out. *whispers in your ear* I am sorry but we were are having fun with you, I hope you did not mind us laughing at your expense.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
just some friendly bantering mate..?it's not as if these guys aren't mocking us Christians..I'm just saying I enjoy having these debates...surely amongst all this we can have some form of mutual respect and a bit of humoour without taking it too seriously..?
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
tee hee it's not like you atheists don't poke fun at us Christians..so what's wrong with a bit of friendly,mutual banter..?cant take life too seriously...plus,my creationism stance is far superior to evolution as creation proves itself;I'm just sitting back and having fun with these debates...
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
I wonder when creationists are going to realize that even if they manage to disprove evolution, a feat they've been trying and failing at for the past 150 years, that still wouldn't prove creationism right.
Tavereen 2 years ago 2
Probably about 10 minutes after Entropy results in the heat-death of the Universe
Macrochenia 2 years ago
they Will never disprove evolution =D
helloenemy 2 years ago
See, I agree with you and I'm a Christian. Proving that evolution is false or true wouldn't prove or disprove God, not in the way that scientist define proof. And lets face it, we don't want science to come out with a medicine that they "believe" will work without scientific proof to back it up. I think Christians (unless they are credible, trained scientist) should let the scientist get to work being scientist-questioning, researching, testing, and discovering. Quit fighting all the damn time.
gwenthorn24 2 years ago
Glad to see that there are still some christians with common sense on youtube.
Tavereen 2 years ago
That's the false dichotomy that they live in, that if evolution is disproven then it's creation by default.
Shaggy6386 2 years ago
why is it that evolution is a theory but yet they teach it in schools as if its the only way.. idk.. it hasnt been proven yet but they say they know it happened and u cant question that it happened just b/c.. if u ask me the school system is just anti-christian if anything
PacmanBonez 2 years ago
The word "theory" means two different things when used every day and when used scientifically. When your average Joe says he has a theory, he means he has an idea about something. When a scientist says he has a theory, he means he has a clear model set forth that will successfully predict future actions when the theory is tested. Think of things like gravity, the Earth revolving around the Sun, these are all theories scientifically. To say evolution "hasn't been proven" is insane.
MagnusIan 2 years ago 3
First evolution is not anti christian. It explains natural occurrences, it makes no statement on religion.
Second, evolution is fact. The fact that species change over time is not in dispute. The THEORY of evolution is a well documented, fully observed, tested, set of rules for those natural occurrences that are testable, repeatable, and make predictions that are backed up by a mountain of evidence and is the ONLY current explanation for speciation. ID doesn't stand up to peer review
Peace
AtheistEvolution 2 years ago 3
If you want information on the bible go to a church. That's my opinion. I don't think bible should be taught in schools because it can be highly graphic at times. Just read the Old Testament. Slavery, rape, murder and God Wrath is very graphic. The bible CAN also teach hate. And that can be seen in everyday society. People like Pastor Fred Phelps use the bible to justify his hate. Going as far as saying 9/11 is Gods wrath for America's tolerance of 'fags'.
PlainsofWar 2 years ago
dont you have to know something about evolution to debunk it?
"just b/c" is indicative of a significant level of ignorance.
tehKap0w 2 years ago
@Pacman provided an interesting message.Creationists and Evolutionists are looking at the result of THE SAME THING:neither has a copy of the official blueprint stamped with an official/divine seal proving that their theory is authentic.So,that leaves COMMON SENSE,and EYES TO SEE,A MIND TO LOOK EMPIRICALLY AT PHENOMENA/CREATION. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT PHENOMENA you SEE DESIGN. A 100yr. old house was designed by an architect who left no signatured blueprint, logic would NEVER say he didn't exist.
Solablueangel 1 year ago
@Solablueangel That's right. Houses were obviously put together by builders; life forms were put together by evolution. When you look at the evidence, logic says so in both cases. Sophomoric exercises in meaningless semantics prove nothing, however satisfied religists seem to be with them. Thinking people need more than that.
carmium 1 year ago
I would like to start an argument with someone!!!! Ill start by saying GOD EXISTS! but wait i dont know that...... ok GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!!, wait i dont know that either.... ok, so i BELIEVE God exists!! beliefs are not solid.. So i believe God does not EXIST!, wait beliefs are not solid.... How do i escape these silly primitive constrictions set on me!!!! Anyone up to reply???
Gazer1234567 2 years ago
Yes, the answer is saying "I don't know." That's what Matt in this video tries to tell people, don't be afraid to admit that you don't know instead of automatically accepting a belief system.
TheR33l 2 years ago 2
I don't know, but i still have a belief, a belief is not put forth as absolute certainty, except in almost all religious people, and very few atheistic people. Absolute certainty can't be put on either side
cabot2jville2010 2 years ago
WTF! GTFO YOUTUBE YOU BELIEVER. READ A BOOK OF SCIENCE FOO! OR the DIVINE SPAGHETTI MONSTER WILL KILL YOU!
PlainsofWar 2 years ago
if we were made in gods image, then why arent we invisible
keggerous 2 years ago
@keggerous Lmao good point. Another thing that bugs me about creationism, Is that christians believe that the universe and earth was created in a week. Well, What about all of the other plants in our solar system? And also the ones not in it.m Were they created in a week to? Fail.
spikeman23 2 years ago
Let it go ....it's not worth worrying about...stress can cause premature balding and I'm not sure whether your hair will be able to evolve back...
1234breakdancer 2 years ago
Dear Evolutionists,
How many mutations would you need on which chromosones all happening as chance random events all at the same time at the same place on the first individual that developed the first human eye. If you cant even understand how it might have happened how can they be random chance events. Stop misleading people.
jirah222 2 years ago
misleading ppl is all they have. thats why i avocate against this argument.
crashoppe 2 years ago
also a fucking mook
keggerous 2 years ago
You not understanding evolution does not make it impossible.
That is as stupid as saying since you dont understand rocket science rockets cannot fly.
The only reason you are not complaining about rocket science is because it is not contradicting your belief in a god who is too weak to defend himself.
(hard to defend yourself when you are imaginary)
ChemEBeaver 2 years ago 2
Praise the Lord!
Creator of the universe! Hallelujah!
You created ears. You can hear what they say! You created eyes you can see what they do. Forgive them and reveal yourself to them by your Holy Spirit with POWER!
jirah222 2 years ago
oh stfu preacher.
WaywardSonCRO 2 years ago
why do all u fucking retards insist on saying chance random? its kind of fucking redundant dont u think? ow wait u dont think....learn the word adaptation u fucking mook
keggerous 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mutations are almost always non beneficial. How are you going to get the variety of organisms from a single cell by mutations. unscientific, illogical, rubbish. Sure youll have your answer but make it believable. Natural selection doesnt provide new genetic info. ID is a good logical scientific first stepping stone with overwhelming evidence which the scientific community is embracing and should debate where to go from there.
jirah222 2 years ago
"ID is a good logical scientific first stepping stone with overwhelming evidence which the scientific community is embracing and should debate where to go from there."
Except they can't go ANYWHERE from there. The ID "method" consists of looking at something you don't understand, concluding that it must have been poofed into existence by an otherworldly entity because of that, and leaving it at that. That's not a stepping stone, that's a dead end. You just replaced one unknown with another.
TBTabby 2 years ago
Real scientists follow what they know to be true whatever the consequences. Macroevolution is rubbish. ID fits the evidence.
jirah222 2 years ago
WHAT evidence? The only thing approaching a decent argument the CDesign Proponentsists ever had was Irreducible Complexity, which was utterly destroyed both scientifically and in court. The evidence supports speciation, which is what you call macroevolution. If you want to see it, just Google "observed instances of speciation."
TBTabby 2 years ago
try to remember that there are scientists that would rather be published that to be right. the beauty of science is all you really need to do is come up with an idea that fits common belief and put a new twist on it. this will get him well funded and popular. especially where the universe is concerned much of what we believe is based on "if's"
crashoppe 2 years ago
the big bang theory is a good example of how ur WRONG. ppl didnt want a universe that had a definite beginning. they thought the universe should be static and eternal....well guess what? when they found out it wasnt they didnt just come up with some bs to get funded...they did tests and experiments like all scientists do. the evisence is what ,makes our knowledge not popularity
keggerous 2 years ago
its odd that atheists make more definate claims than the scientists that make obsevations. scientists merely claim "evidence suggests", "if this is true than that must also be true", "lead us to believe" etc, etc. some atheist seem to take this as undisputed truths. i hardly see a difference between atheists and theists since atheists believe what scientists suggest, and theist believe what they themselves believe is true. regardless of what is argued, no one really knows the truth of afterlife
crashoppe 2 years ago
belief in what the scientific method has discovered is much different then belief in some bronze age ideology....to be honest there isnt enough time to do all of the scientific research ourselves. it requires that many ppl work for thousands of man hours and spread the knowledge to future generations. beleif in science isnt the same as in a god. ur right though the afterlife is a mystery and really it isnt even something ppl should worry about.
keggerous 2 years ago
and much of what is scientifically reasarched today will be deemed useless tomorrow. most of the degrees earned 20 years ago are proven false or useless today. its been noted that the 1st year of a BS will be useless before a college student completes his 4 year degree. thus, much of the information that is used to validate todays thinking will be nonsense in the future, as it has always been.
crashoppe 2 years ago
and thats called the process of science...thats why it will probably always be the best tool we have for figuring thngs out. because its always correcting itself and with every new advance we make we open new doors and close others. scientists actually enjoy proving themselves and each other wrong. thats how the scientific method works. the fact that u say the research is useless is just plain wrong. in fact we compound and revise that "useless" research that is the nature of science.
keggerous 2 years ago
yes, but correcting its self means it was once wrong. the fact that you have a comprehention disability in thinking that i claim its useless instead of acknowledging that i claimed it becomes useless along with the appearance that you're full of hate and/or evil intentions, impling that you are some kind of athority in the matter, etc simply proves that you have mental issues with yourself, need an ego boost, had some kind of traumatic episode in life that makes you hate God and/or other issues
crashoppe 2 years ago
u said "deemed" useless and no scientist would ever deem any research or study useless.... well i guess sense u have nothing constuctive to say its pretty typical for somebody like u to fall back on insults. the fact that i've research many of the aspects of science that creationists tend to reject may make me seem condecending but actually im just informed and i suggest u do the same. fyi....u cant hate what doesnt exist.
keggerous 2 years ago
im not falling back on insults, simply pointing out your possible downfall(s). unlike you, jumping stright on to the insults. i am fully imformed. if you didnt have issues with yourself you would not be concerned with what other think or what others write on walls. calling others fucking retards does not make you seem condecending, it makes you a narcissistic asshole in this situation. claiming something doesnt exist and beliving it are two different things.
crashoppe 2 years ago
not so much narcissistic as arrogant....but that doesnt matter cuz ur still the type that likes to rely on.....pointing out ppl downfalls...? wtf is wrong with u? who do u think u are? kind of ironic that ud prosume to judge me and call me a narcissist. how about u back up ur claims that science is some how bias and then u can say all u want cuz u wont be dodging the facts liek the punk mook u are. u cant stop believing in god cuz ur a weak minded fool..... science>religion
keggerous 2 years ago