23. Evolution vs. Creationism:Position of Science in U.S. Today

[TrumpetCallofGodLT]

Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."

Watch:

"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQ­Zg"

"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6­ys"

"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd­8U"

Regards.

[Ryakki]

@TrumpetCallofGodLT

Bat shit crazy delusional fantasy helps no one.

[daverigby23]

He's right,,the rest of the world thinks the USA is crazy

[JungleJargon]

You evolutionists are cowards unable to present or defend your case against the facts.

There is nothing scientific about evolution. It is all a fraud.

CO2 is good if there are enough plants to make oxygen.

There is nothing wrong with science. It is evolution that has no basis.

Where is the evidence supporting your ideology?

The evidence is that ordered functions in life forms require a Maker.

The design, the making and ordering of the functions all require a Maker.

watch?v=lEledPONpkQ

[transtlantic]

@JungleJargon

Quite easy to defend evolution:

Where is the explanation to Plant speciation without using evolution theory?

if it has "no basis", why can't you answer to my challenge?

"ordered functions"? no such thing. "maker"? no such thing. you are JUST FULL of shit.

"design"' evidence for that crap?

[JungleJargon]

@transtlantic The variation of species is what the genome does. The variation is limited because the information in the genome is limited.

Design is required for the ordered function that hydrogen and most of the most common elements obey in life forms.

The truth will set you free.

[transtlantic]

@JungleJargon

Variation exists because of random mutations that introduce novelty into the genome. therefore no limits as the genome can change randomly into novel things.

there is no "design". nothing "Obeys" anything in nature. You are JUST full of shit and without evidence to support your claims.

Truth: God doesn't exist. as proven.

[JungleJargon]

@transtlantic Changing existing information is not a novelty. Adam and Eve wanted to know what bad information would do and look what happened to us.

What you believe mutations are able to do is fantasy.

The order functions requiring design is observable.

Intelligence does not result from not having intelligence.

[transtlantic]

@JungleJargon

changing existing info is novelty. or else why would Cystic fibrosis appear?

Adam and who? Lolol fairy tales! LOLOLOL try reality next! lololol

Mutations originate Down syndrome, how is that fantasy?

"order functions"? lolol why would they require design? typical post hoc fallacy, you are just full of shit.

Intelligence is the result of evolution. nothing to do with gods.

[JungleJargon]

@transtlantic Disaster is not a novelty. Changing existing information can result in disaster and that is nothing new.

Adam and your far removed great grandmother thought that bad information was a good thing.

I am glad you attribute Down's syndrome to mutations. The fantasy is that you think it is good information that caused it.

Simple functions require design so ordered functions require more design.

Intelligence does not result from having no intelligence. Our Maker is God.

[transtlantic]

@JungleJargon ofc disaster is novelty. changing existing information creates novel information. stands to reasons. and that's something new.

Adam? buy bull induced shit. Adam never existed.

I attribute? it's me and all the scientists in the planet. "good information"? what the fuck is that?

ALL functions in nature are proof that design does not exist, that design is not required for anything

Intelligence is the product of an evolutionary process

there is no maker. you are just full of shit

[JungleJargon]

@transtlantic Evolution has problem with reality, history and the fact that function requires a Maker.

Good information allows for your existence. You can take time to thank your Maker for that now.

The next time you get into a car, remember that you said design is not required for anything.

I am not even getting into quantum function and design.

Intelligence is a product of intelligence. Your Maker made it possible for you to exist and you are saying He does not exist.

[transtlantic]

@JungleJargon

It's History and FACT that no function in nature requires a maker. you are just making stuff up.

Evolution is quite real: try explain plant speciation without using evo theory.

"good information"? more made up bullshit. There is no maker to thank for anything.

car is designed by humans, not gods. it just proves that god is incapable of making cars! lolol or anything else! lolol

there is no design in nature. NO evidence.

Intelligence is product of evolution, in nature.

[ndrthrdr1]

@JungleJargon said "Evolution has problem with reality"

No, YOU have a problem with reality. That's why you cling to an imaginary friend. :P

[TheEnglishAthiest]

Gravity is just a theory

[ndog37]

@Londron - precisely my point why we should teach creationism as a theory.. Some people have no idea what creation theory teaches. How can one attack something they know nothing about? It is simply dishonest and errs on dogmatism.

[TheZooCrew]

@ndog37

"Some people have no idea what creation theory teaches"

It doesn't teach anything other than "ACCEPT THIS AS TRUE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER."

There's no such thing as "creation theory." Creationism isn't science, thus it does not belong in the science classroom. Either you didn't understand my previous comment or you ignored it altogether, which is wholly dishonest. But I shouldn't be surprised that a creationist is dishonest.

[Londron]

To the normal Americans I'm sorry but the entire civilized world is laughing with you.

It's sad to see really.

[ndog37]

To be fair why dont we just teach creation science as a theory and evolution as a theory in school? That way we can make up our own minds and stop being so bias towards one or the other. I have studied both and think they are both fascinating, to know is to be empowered, stops people from being bigots and holding prejudices.

[TheZooCrew]

@ndog37

What, so we should teach the flat earth theory as well? We should present the geocentric model?

This is not only irresponsible, but outright shameful. We teach the evidence. There is no such thing as "creation science." Creationism relies on misrepresenting and misunderstanding science as well as baldfaced lies.

This has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with religiously motivated political corruption. This is entirely a political "controversy," not a scientific one.

[Londron]

@ndog37

Both theories hey?

Flat earth, hollow earth, globe earth

Demons or germs or sins

Christian creation story, Indian creation story, Aztec creation story, cosmology, (add a 100+ creationstories here)

You can say God created the earth in 7 days if you also teach that the earth is carried around on a big turtle.

[imnotdavidxnsx]

@Londron don't diss Turtulus

[blaisingm]

It is important to understand that their is a BIG, BIG difference between science and religious belief systems. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are things you believe in. You don't believe in science. Instead, you use it to solve problems just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Science and religious belief systems are completely unrelated and unfit for comparison.

[MorganMarvinson]

Kevin Padian talks about America as coming out of the enlightenment and says it was "one of the systems" spawned by it. He is correct. The other system was the "enlightened" state of France, which has been transplanted a number of times now.

That ditch isn't one I want to drive in--nor will we benefit from steering in that direction.

[MorganMarvinson]

1. The politicization of this issue comes from the NCSE. Intelligent design simply addresses matters of science.

2. The NCSE's backdoor assault on scientific investigation and the insulting and assaulting of credentialed scientists because of a particular philosophical overlay placed upon actual science will come back to bite them.

Maybe this kind of heavy handedness is OK in Russia. It shouldn't be OK in the United States.

[MultiFisherofmen]

These people are at the height of they're bigotry.

[MultiFisherofmen]

@AstronomyGuru1 It must be extreamly lonely being an atheist.

[DSkaz89]

@MultiFisherofmen at least my friends are not zombies worshipping an interstellar zombie.

[jwbrushpl]

@MultiFisherofmen Pathfinders usually start out alone. It brings great comfort to know that despite suffering ostracism, indoctrination and hate there is a world teeming with opportunities and wealth of knowledge for people who are willing to look a little bit deeper.

[fudrick43]

@MultiFisherofmen It must be extremely retarded being a theist.

[BlissByIgnorance]

Eventually the scientific evidence will be too overwhelming for creationists and the facts will simply be irrefutable.

Maybe not now, but in anywhere from a day to as much as 100 years we will be able to simulate evolution and abiogenesis (natural creation of life) and science can go on without being limited by supernatural unsupported beliefs drawn from a book full of contradictions and inconsistances.

[dude131138]

i want to be a teacher now so i can teach science

[McAnkkuli]

I'm gonna lol when american lunatics destroy their own country.. unless they take the whole world with them of course.

[Darkninja105]

Religious fundementalism must fade from the world. That is the natural course of things.

[diomedes39]

Sooooooo is he talking about marijuana or something else when he mentions the drug?

[Bf2009]

Looks like the creationist votebots have hit this video.

[drumrnva]

The last ten seconds....word.

[Einsteinian99]

Religion is silly and for weak minded fools! Dumbasses! I feel sorry for them really. Must suck to be so paltry!

[ProtoSteward]

What an arrogant, whiny prick.  "Oh, people don't listen to me. The experts aren't allowed to rule over the plebians. It's the end of the world."

[mike7ace]

Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. (Proverbs 23:9)

[MWcrazyhorse]

seems another vote bot is going around. folks never forget to vote! 5 stars if you agree, always!

[Yevhen123]

They are spot on.. Sadly not many can se this. All these 23 videos are spot on the problems religion has on the America. Wake up America before its to late...:(

[Dargo099]

Rationaliti,Rationaliti,Ration­aliti,Rationaliti!!!!!!!!

[lekegrind]

I can also imagine why...but after all, it is not "comment pending approval" on this video!

[theBatou]

why are these videos rated so low?

ok, i can imagine why... aaarrrggg!

[imikewillrockyou]

Well lets forget that sometimes the government needs to step in for ethical reasons and stop science. When our so-called scientists cross ethical boundaries then they may need to be restrained. For example, if a painless suicide pill is developed by science it would be perfectly appropriated to outlaw the marketing of such a pill, even if science approves of it. And how about all the so-called scientists in Nazi Germany that did horrific experiments to advance science.

[crazypants88]

Why would it be ok to outlaw the painless suicide pill?

[imikewillrockyou]

You are kidding right?

[codyhess46]

Fuck You

[imikewillrockyou]

In reference to what?

[Saber0003]

lol People dont like you for somereason.

Ahh, "Why would it be ok to outlaw the painless suicide pill?" Thats just funny. It would be okay to outlaw because people who are batshit crazy would use it to kill people you goofy shit!

lol "Fuck You" I dunno who that was directed to but it makes me laugh.

[wormbaby79]

Only 62 comments and you all ready arrive at Godwins law. We call what you just did reductio ad Hitlerum and it is generally not accepted as an intelligent form of debate. Nazi Germany also belived the Christian god was on their side. Check their belt buckles it says "God with us". Now i can't use that as an argument against Christianity can I. Of course not because it is a stupid argument.

[ApemanD]

You really have gone off the map, huh? Nazi scientists contracted by the government, not independent of with no oversight. Kinda like what we have now. Just replace government with corporation and scientist with mercenary.

We already have the suicide pill. Ever watch some of the possible side effects from these drug company adds? Look up the definition of "Corporatism" and "propaganda" because you fell for it. So stop watching that weasel news "FOX". And get real!!!!

[imikewillrockyou]

Huh? I don't watch FOX I don't even have cable TV. But I have seen the drug ads and yes, lol, I wonder what in the hell are they giving us. The side effects sound worse than the condition they are trying to correct. But at least they disclose the risks to the public.

And actually Fascism is when private interests take complete control of the government. Communism is when government takes complete control over private interests. What we have now is not anything close to Nazi Germany. So far!

[itry2brational]

"Fascism is when private interests take complete control of the government. Communism is when government takes complete control over private interests."

Uh, I think you need to utilize a dictionary or encyclopedia for how those two terms are defined. You are way off.

[imikewillrockyou]

No that definition is about the best short definition you can get. The long definition is very complex. But in simplistic terms the underlying characteristic of Fascism is private interests ruling over other interests. Such interests may even be held by the majority. Be it a religion or a philosophy such as Hitler's Mine comp. Communism generally seeks to suppress all private interests for the so-called good of the whole. Do you have a better short definition?

[itry2brational]

Define 'private interests'.

[imikewillrockyou]

A religion, a corporation, a philosophy are examples are private interests.

[imikewillrockyou]

I suppose I could add "a world view" in there as well.

[itry2brational]

Well Mike, I suppose if you cant even get evolution right I should not be surprised that you have a twisted and false view of other things. True communism does not fit within your grossly over-simplified definition. Neither does fascism.

"it was Galtons reading of Darwins writings that inspired the entire concept."

You should then also include the fact that he misused or twisted it as well. Because the concept of eugenics is not something Darwin believed it at all.

[imikewillrockyou]

Strange how you say it "doesn't fit" and yet can't offer your own definition to refute mine. Im starting to think you like to just make false assertions just to argue, whatever.

"...the concept of eugenics is not something Darwin believed it at all..."

Did I say that? Others used Darwin's ideas to come up with that concept. That was the point.

[damianpoirier]

"Others used Darwin's ideas to come up with that concept. That was the point."

It's a bad point to raise without also noting that it's the failure to understand evolutions principles that allows such idiocy to gain any foothold.

[imikewillrockyou]

Perhaps there is a grain of truth to that. Darwin never wrote that we should selectively breed humans in order to promote the survival of the fittest. Others made that sick comparison all on their own.

[bdragon660]

Darwin would argued against it. Selective breeding completely negates natural selection, which was the foundation of his proposed mechanism for evolution.

Natural selection gave us wolves; apex predators. Selective breeding gave us yorkies; useless toy animals. I vote natural selection. It makes cooler animals...

[imikewillrockyou]

"Selective breeding completely negates natural selection"

True but selective breeding exploits the same biological mechanism Darwin observed in a non-natural way. They are opposite and yet related concepts. The problem with selective breeding is it ALWAYS results in genetic isolation and thus genetic loss. For example you can never breed the yorkie back into a wolf due to loss of genetic information in the domestic dog. Same problem we have we our food crops, year over year genetic loss.

[BlueCrystalGem]

I think the point here is taht humans can't make a decisionon which gene is "good" yet.

that pair of useless gene might be the key to a mutation or resistance to deadly poison or disease.

So if humans chose to do selective breeding on a large scale, we must have the knowledge or at least the means to safeguard diversity.

[imikewillrockyou]

"...humans can't make a decisionon which gene is "good" yet..."

Exactly I agree 100%. Even if Nazi style human engineering was moral and ethical (it's not) our knowledge is sorely lacking. So if we mess around like that we actually could destroy ourselves. And knowing the history of mankind someone will create a new genetic based weapon of mass destruction, it always happens. The Wright brothers never thought they were inventing super bombers.

[B94241]

Selective breeding is more for our own benefit. We select fat cows because we want alot of meat. Plus, it's alot quicker and more efficient than natural selection.

Selective breeding is streamlined natural selection with our own preset aims in mind e.g. we want fat cows. It could, for example, be used to breed only lions that are fast and have sharp claws so that we can breed a race of superlions. However, releasing the superlions into natural ecosystems might cause unseen consequences.

[Meskiagkasher]

Selective breeding is actually taking to the extreme what natural selection does. Selective breeding selects for certain characteristics just as natural selection does, but without allowing for the margin of uncertainty of the latter.

[itry2brational]

"Strange how you say it "doesn't fit" and yet can't offer your own definition to refute mine."

I referred you to a dictionary or encyclopedia because the ACTUAL definitions for those terms is much more nuanced/detailed.

"Did I say that?"

No, you ARE attempting to blame Darwin for Eugenics. "the Darwin/Eugenics connection" Its akin to blaming the discoverer of the atom for atomic bombs. Its a logical fallacy called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' or correlation equates to causation, which is false

[imikewillrockyou]

Communism

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

That describes precisely the government control of private interests. Just like I said. Ok?

[itry2brational]

"That describes precisely the government control of private interests."

Actually, it doesnt. Like I said, its more nuanced. Notice the part about "actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole"

Pure communism: "communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions."

You are making the same mistake as with Eugenics and evolution.

[itry2brational]

You are trying to say that because some psychopath or fool misunderstood and twisted one person's theory into another, that the theory(and its creator) are to blame. Like I said, this is a logical fallacy. Lenin had his OWN ideas about communism just like Galton and evolution.

I will agree that Lenin's communist ideas and fascism in general are tyrannical forms of government. I do not agree that people who invent political/scientific theories are to blame for misguided/bastardized uses of them.

[imikewillrockyou]

No actually it does. You are picking the part of the definition that describes a small scale community not national communism controlled by a government. I suppose the hippies back in the 1960s tried small scale communism (communes), it didn't work for them so maybe it just doesn't work very good. The early Christian Church lived that way also, but it apparently didnt last, although there is still an element of that today.

[itry2brational]

You are picking the part of the definition that describes a small scale community not national communism controlled by a government.

Not at all. How does system of social organization automatically mean small scale community? I can find no definition which limits the scale as you are. Also, the two definitions you provided are not the same, despite sharing the name. That is why your original statements were gross over-generalizations. And my other points still stand or go unaddressed.

[imikewillrockyou]

Where in history can you give an example of large scale communism not held together by state control? Such a society is pure fiction.

What other statements? Look, I pasted the dictionary definition next to my "gross generalizations" and there is no conflict.

But if you want to end this debate I give you this. You are correct those are generalized definitions, so what's your point? Just that? Do you have a better short definition? How about "Peace and Love" the hippie short version?

[imikewillrockyou]

Fascism is a little more complex. However, it's signature is a nationalist movement that seeks impose a private interest or ideal. Such groups seek to promote their ideals (private interests) by taking control of the government and thereby imposing such private interests upon everyone.

I think we agree its all just forms of tyranny.

[Ing213]

You invoke Godwin's Law...YOU LOOSE.

Science is still held to the standard laws and ethics as all other aspects of a society are. The ethical guidelines already exist as part of the legal system. The Government interfering for religious and idealistic close minded issues is not moral.

And for your info Nazi Germany DID step in for science ALOT. Why do you think so many scientists who prior to Hitler had great potential and careers packed everything up and moved to America or England?

[imikewillrockyou]

Well "Godwin's Law" is not law at all. And putting science above morality always will draw VALID comparisons to Nazi Germany.

I also have a law called Mike's law. Once a rabid secularist is confronted with their own fallacies they will be reduced to name calling, swearing and false claims (such as "you lose" and spell it "loose").

And Nazi Germany was controlled by a world view with Darwinian pseudo science overtones, thus related to this discussion. Fact.

[damianpoirier]

"And Nazi Germany was controlled by a world view with Darwinian pseudo science overtones"

you mean "..with pseudo Darwinian science overtones"

It's an important distinction. Eugenics is the antithesis of natural selection. We see the results in our beloved purebred dogs. Neurotic, frail, prone to You-Name-It dysfunction or disease. Evolution teaches of the value of diversity. Variation in kind finds suitable survivors on its own. It doesn't need any added boast from narrow criteria laden men.

[imikewillrockyou]

NO I meant "Darwinian pseudo science."

And you can run from the Darwin/Eugenics connection all you like but history is not on your side. It was actually Darwin's cousin Francis Galton that coined the word Eugenics. Oh, and yes it was Galtons reading of Darwins writings that inspired the entire concept. Sorry, thats just what it is.

[damianpoirier]

The history of the world doesn't show one example of anything that wasn't misused by some one for a nefarious purpose and person profit. Since we first picked up sticks and used fire people have used technology for evil and good. Using fire to kill people doesn't make the chemistry of fire basically evil. Do you want to promote the abused interpretation of the ToE that leads to using it as an excuse for sick twisted people to murder others or the rational one that doesn't? Diversity = strength.

[Ing213]

No, Eugenics is a pseudo science. Purifying a race is anti-darwinian in its founding. It makes a population less genetically fit. The escence of evolutionary adaptation is diversity, the less diverse a population the lower its chance to survive an environment change. All of the Nazi stuff was bad science that was supported by a government that didn't want to HEAR facts that went against their world view.

Godwin's law is used to spot bad arguments. After all Hitler also painted and ate.

[Ing213]

And you showed no fallacies. You were just all "SCIENCE IS EVIL and must be controlled by those who ethically know better" a very anti-intellectual point of view. You showed NOTHING wrong with the Evolutionary theory other than trying to do a "Godwin" fallacy yourself. IE. If someone bad approved of this than what they approve of was also bad.

Hitler also approved of painting, dogs as pets, submarines, and that the government should address massive inflation.

[maroom1]

The woman in the video is extremely stupid

Fuck her and fuck all stupid creationist like her. I hope she dies....

[Scottdins]

Well, mr. maroom1, anyone who isn't stupid will know the startling statistic that 10/10 people die. Thus, you need not fret that her physical body will soon perish, like yours. Contrarily, you won't get your wish if your speaking in terms of eternity, because I am guessing that this woman might understand that eternal life or death awaits each soul, and has therefore chosen the former. I recommend you do the same, and I shall pray that you seek Truth and choose Christ as the savior of your soul.

[FHomeBrew]

You're a christian? May I know your opinion on science in general? I'm just curious.

[IrreducibleParadox]

Furthermore if something has to have a creator to be created then so does the creator unless the creator is the exception. In which case the argument is invalid because the universe itself without divine providence could be as much the creator as the God you imagine.

[IrreducibleParadox]

Aaron a better analogy than yours with the leaves would be to say that someone placed a pie which he had been eating on in the refrigerator. He then picks it out and looks at it with a microscope and discovers a new breed of bacteria similar to the ones he has in his mouth. Should he then assume that they'd mutated from his saliva or that they'd been created from out of nowhere on the pie?

[frogcombat]

I stopped it at 3:52 because I couldn't stand the attack on science by that evolutionist. Everyone is supposed to take as 'gospel truth,' what the evolutionary theory scientists say is true and when scientists who believe in God put forth evidence they are simply labeled as wrong, crazy, deluded etc... It seems that people 'allowed' to speak are strongly stacked or pre arranged in support of the theory of evolution. It's almost as if what they say is all that's left by someone's(?) decision.

[IrreducibleParadox]

#frogcombat

Or by the providence of Gods influence, the same that guided evolution? If you cannot withstand debate then you are not of faith but in fear of something. They bash creationism on solid grounds. Namely that all the theories put forward by creationists are presumptuous. They do backward computations of the odds of events that they do not possess sufficient knowledge to estimate. They simplify the interactions of million year processes and create a field of research with an agenda.

[sacrosanct24]

I don't understand what you are talking about. There is no "gospel truth" in science. There is evidence and theories derived from that evidence.

There are no other theories to challenge evolution. Not a single one.

[IaintNoGood]

frog, it is very simple, prove it. Scientifically prove the "god hypothesis". The reason scientists who put forth the god hypothesis are denounced is because their hypothesis cannot observed, tested or repeated. It is a hypothesis not a theory. If ID can be proven, by all means prove it. No one is denying peer review or scientific hypothesis to be put forth in peer review. NO ONE. Conspiracy theories against ID are a pathetic & paranoid rebuttal with no substance. Sad but true.

[FHomeBrew]

If someone finds scientific roof for god, they become rich and famous. If anything, creationists and ID-ers should be using science to try and prove their god to accomplish these goals: proving god, becoming rich and famous AND converting the rest of the world based on that scientific report/evidence. That's like, three of the highest goals a creationistic scientist can achive, at least, IMO. I'd go for that if I were a ID-scientist.

[bootsielon]

That's the thing: If politics is able to override scientific advice, then there is definitely a problem with democracy. I think democracy was great when mathematics of areas of economics such as policy, strategy and finance weren't as well developed as they are today. But with the advances in mathematics of decision making, simulation and game theory, we could replace democracy for a "math knows best" government; or at least simulate the outcomes so voters know the consecuences of their votes.

[FHomeBrew]

About the voting, it's an expectation on the outcome at best. Even with todays best computers and models we still cannot even predict the weather, let alone the future of a nation depending on votes. Also, the "calculated" expectations can still be biassed depending on who reports the results.

[hanslochoch]

Here in Europe, we can only laugh about creationism. How backwards can one single human be? Huhu, middle ages are over!

But this ID movement is really scary. If they are succesful in their challenge, USA is going to become some fundamental religious country like Iran etc. (dictatorship of dogma included). The most powerful army in the world in the hands of some brain turds. Thats a really horrible thought.

[atheoszoic]

huh throght that was the current state of the Us Army? well its up to us to stop it, for the good of the future

[aaronkraicshtein]

Since when has evolution been science? Science can and is proven, Evolution has still to be! Where are the intermediates? Where is the proof? Come-on folks, I thought you had more brains than that! Or is 2% too little? Or are you waiting for the renewal of the earth in order for us to return to how the earth was before the 'Big-Flood" and the ability to use 89% of your noggen? Wake-up!

[jct329]

You don't understand the scientific method. Very little in science is actually "proven." The evidence strongly supports evolution. Time after time after time, evolution predicts a certain outcome, the experiment is carried out, and the predicted result holds up. Evolution is just about as "proven" as a scientific theory can possibly be. Have you done much research on the topic? Go read about human chromosome #2 for starters.

[aaronkraicshtein]

Rather try this. Place 5 large leaves on the ground in your lounge or on your desk. When someone asks why you placed them there tell that person, "I didn't it just happened that way!" They will say, "Lier!" That's how stupid the Evolution Theory is, there has to be a creator. Or rather place all the parts of your wristwatch n a tumble-dryer and wait for the next 1 billion years for them to attach themselves together. While one screws itself up the other will screw itself down. Now you're screwed

[jct329]

Evolution does not make a prediction of where matter came from. It is the idea that all living beings have a common ancestor. There is no point to your analogy. It has been demonstrated in thousands upon thousands of scholarly papers that evolution is responsible for the development of life that we see today. Do you know what the implications are of a unifying theory being "wrong"? If scientists were that incompetent, we would never have been able to go to the moon or make an atomic bomb.

[neonmagek]

You are using a false analogy. In the example you provided, the leaves being placed is not in question as the thing you are comparing it to. An accurate analogy is if you find five leaves on the ground. You ask who put them there. The person answers with no one, they landed there on their own and you call them a liar.

[awormyourhonor]

Dare I say amen?

[youmissedyourturn]

When the light of your eye is good, your entire body will be filled with light. When the light of your eye is bad, your body will be filled with darkness. When the light you think you have is really darkness, how deep the darkness!

[DeadFishFactory]

That's right you creationist asshole. Preach to people more, asshole. That's what science is about. It's about preaching to people about they'll go to hell if they don't believe what you believe. Asshole.

[dsfgdsfg324]

Couldn't agree more with him. five stars from me.

[divvy1400yam600]

Regarding the last speakers POV I agree wholeheartedly that a coming if not existing struggle is between religion and rationality.

[supruzr]

By the way, the "drug" Dave is talking about? The one that should be made available to the American public, that's available in Europe, and that is being suppressed here for religious reasons? He means THC. Just in case you were too dense to figure it out on your own.

[supruzr]

There's a difference between having an open mind, and having a hole in your head that your brain falls out of.

[youmissedyourturn]

Exactly, I've seen the brain fall of more than one evolutionist when the facts of the young earth are presented. Layers dated 35 million years... then shoes found in them, etc.

The smart ones shut up or deprogram themselves.

[DeadFishFactory]

Source? Send me the source of the shoe found in a 35 million year old layer. Any creationist websites or links and I'll ignore you, asshole.

[foxmeatyum]

Notice how not a single source has come up? lol

[JaymaBear]

hahahahahhahahahah

[jfeucht82]

If the first guy had his way, the government would be run by experts, not representatives.

That third lady is a nut. "ID is really about politics..." As much as the government ought to stay out of the scientific debate, ID is based in science and philosophy, and scientists ought to approach the idea with an open mind and not feel threatened by it. They claim they do, but they don't.

[youmissedyourturn]

jfeucht82, You are correct. These tools don't see that 'someone' does not want them to believe creation & the Bible. They don't see they have been led like lambs (suckers) to the slaughter. They are blind pawns fighting viciously to defend the work of their own betrayers.

[DeadFishFactory]

Make some sense first, then enter the science arena, asshole.

[AJWalton12]

I'm assuming by "someone" you mean "any rational human being" right? Because I certainly don't want anyone to believe in the Bible. That would be unhealthy with all the slavery, rape, incest,  genocide, murder...

[bktennis2006]

ID isn't based in science at all. It basically says that life was too complex to have evolved (which isn't true), therefore it must have been designed by an "intelligent agent" (in other words, a god or other supernatural being whose existence can't be proven).

Why approach ID with an open mind when it leads to an intellectual dead end?

[feuchtster]

Obviously, you haven't looked into it much at all. "It basically says that life was too complex to have evolved" is an oversimplification of ID thought, since it relies on statistical analysis and a genuine understanding of the machinery of cells (i.e., science) in order to derive that conclusion.

[bktennis2006]

Statistical analysis of the probability of certain biochemical systems evolving is meaningless because it assumes that the systems form at random, which isn't true.

[IrreducibleParadox]

I think about it like this. To exclude randomness and the laws of nature as the cause of perceived complexities you'd have to state that you know all the constraints on all the processes that result in an "isolated" event of creation. As well as the entire state space in terms of time and space that surrounds the creation. Which no one does, hence probabilistic measures of the likeliness of the emergence of species can hardly be very accurate.

[bootsielon]

Very well said, and spoken like only a true mathematician could do.

[Erech01]

the heart and soul of D is the idea of 'irriducible complexity' which was falsified by ken miller several years ago now. the poster-chld for ID was the bacterial flagellum, which, with a little research was shown to have a simpler mechanism at its core, and over 52 peer reviewed papers and 5 book were presented to behe on it, and he said it wasnt enough, which for a claimed 'scientists' to say that in the face of empirical evidence really shows you their credibility.

[Erech01]

the fact the the bacterial flagellum could have evolved easily just shows you how lazy the research for irriducible complexity was, and then for the originater of that idea to say that he could not accept his idea was wrong and to say 'its simply not enough' in the face of overwhelming evidence is evident to the REAL agenda behind ID, even creationists are begining to abandon ID since in court it was declared 'not science' tells you alot

[AlienCommando2012]

if god is all powerfull and all knowing then why did the dumbass let one of his angels turn into the devil why did he let him betray him huh religion is so freakin stupid our country is messed up because of religion. when someone is doing surgery they might as well say hand me a bible im going to read and let god heal him then watch he dies. I swear the iq of all christians combind is like 50 thats really pathetic

[eddydeez]

That guy said zionist are bad :)

[krew1618]

Too true. The U.S is fast becomming the laughing stock of western society. Please people pull yourselves out of this rut.

[darkpheonix262]

i think the last guy is right about his last statements, we are being dragged into darkness by radicals bent on destroying this world

[Kurpalac]

yeah that is awesome - that first guy was being sarcastic.

[nihilinanutshell]

I think that first guy was just joking. Emporor Jerry Falwell? That's hilarious.

[acme181169]

Don't listen to them people with the learnin. there're just doin SATAN's work. Science is the wages of sin. What we need is liberty university science and emporer Jerry Falwell in charge. Pat Robertson could lead the CIA and foreign policy. REMEMBER - EVOLUTION IS SATANS CREATION

[Thunderf00t]

science is not about sin, satan or some liberal conspiricy. If u try to publish something in the peer review literature, u will find there is a whole world or very smart people who will be only to happy 2 prove u wrong if they can. Evolution has survived in this environment for 150 years, creationism was debunked 150 years ago and is more of a joke now than it was then.

[MajinOtaku83]

It is interesting how many different things people are willing to dub 'creation/creations of satan' or involve satan...

[constust]

I don't think he was serious. He's mocking creationist. No one can be that dumb.

[nospacesallowed]

ummmmm I think he was being sarcastic. soo yeah lighten up man.

[RankAndFileGuy]

lol they didn't get the joke ... oh well

[julounin]

I think he was being sarcastic, but I don't blame you for falling for it. Given the fundamentalists we have today, it's almost impossible to tell which preaching is serious and which is satire.

[Censeo]

Did Adam have one more rib than humans have now, before Eve was created?

[Greyghostvol1]

lol, whats funny about that genesis story is that the one right before it contradicts it. in genesis 1, god made the universe, the world and everything in it including other animals, THEN he created man. in genesis 2 god made man before he created the animals.