@MrThezho Australasia was when the Australian mainland, plus Samoa, Tasmania, Papua and other islands were all one landmass. It's also the name of the continent, also known as Oceania. But I think he's referring to several thousand years ago when the koala was evolving
I think everyone's forgetting that, even in the early generations of Biblical man, there wasn't much incest necessary, because when Cain and Abel were of marrying age, there was suddenly an entire town of people in which they could find wives.
don't know what convergent evolution is, but i'm guessing it's the idea that two completely different species evolve similarities due to their environments becoming similar, more or less.
yet if the kuala evolved in isolation as he says...
Australia is a country AND a continent. It is specifically cited in most definitions of the word continent, any attempt to argue otherwise automatically mark you as an idiot and therefore make your statements irrelevant.
The results of an IQ test can be given as a percentile, 95% would mean you scored higher than 95% of the people who have taken the same test.
I have noticed that people who are openly homophobic also happen to be the most intellectually backward.....vis a vis hard-line Christians, Muslims and the Far Right
@daniel1100ify He goes on to explain what it means. It means that two species that have evolved in isolation from each other have come up with the same solution. To which Alan replies: "Or they were all made by God".
Australia itself is not a continent but rather part of the continent Australasia. Like other continents eg; Europe or Asia, it includes many different countries and outlying islands. Australasia includes some Pacific Island nations and New Zealand. Just as England isn't a continent but a country part of Europe.
P.S. I have never used the word Continent so often in one go. And as far as I know IQ tests are not scored on percentages but by a point system but I'm probably wrong ......
@draxonsgirl Yeah, not a credible source if this was a University History thesis but it's general facts which wikipedia is perfectly acceptable for. You're trying to sound as if you know what you're talking about but you don't.
@draxonsgirl Would you prefer a link to the dept. of foreign affairs and trade? dfat.gov.au. slash aib/island_continent.html Or just google for "Australia Continent," and you'll find plenty of information. :)
@Vector88 I apologise wholeheartedly. No offence was meant and I thank you indeed to the education on the status of the great nation/continent/country/island of Australia. The expansion of knowledge can be a great thing - perhaps that is the reason we find each other watching the wonderful QI. Also I've been told I can come across as inadvertently sarcastic, so please in reading this know that that is not my intent.
@jaypeddie Okay okay so I was wrong that is easy enough to admit but why do you feel the need to personally attack me? My comment hurt no-one really and indeed has wonderfully schooled me in an obviously lacking part of my education but yours, while maybe not entirely baseless should you ask some who have actually gotten to know me, can be seen as unnecessarily hurtful.
lol - can see the story - "The fingerprints matched a koala who is known to police. He was apprehended in the botanical gardens attempting to hide in a eucalyptus tree."
well whatever translation you choose its irrellivent. The bible is an outdated form of how we came to be, theres a thing called science and evolution now that tells the truth on that subject, science changes and unlocks mysteries, better than 1 deluded and blind view which ignores all other evidence like god, what a load of rubbish god is, hahaha
@spardaking He stopped calling himself asexual ni 1995. When he did call himself that it was motivated mostly by self-loathing and such things. Don't get any ideas though, he is mine.
@lizzyluv96 .I think a few of Bible followers have done their far share of murder, rape, child abuse, drink driving. Dont belive me? well lets see,
The spanish Inquistion I belive was by Bible followers and a hell of a lot of murder and rape occured,
Child abuse, oh come on, really do I need to explain this one, Just google 'Catholic priest' and the second auto surgestion come up as 'catholic priest abuse' (at least where I live)
And drink driving again just google Drunk driving priest
@spacedmonkey98 Those catholic priests who hurt children wern't following the Bible. Just because someone claims to follow the Bible it dosn't mean everything they do is in acordence with it. If everyone really followed what the Bible ACTUALY says there would be no crime.
lol, a debate about evolution.. the only reason it's a theory is because science is an empirical system based around disproving itself. If a better explanation became prevalent, more plausible what have you, then most scientists would abandon it in a heartbeat. Religion spreads itself as fact and therein the confusion lies. Ban the whole fucking thing if you ask me.
@lizzyluv96 evolution is a simple logical effect on a given species over time. it's completely observable and is well documented in lots of separate and verifiable cases. you can see it happening in front of your eyes if you breed cultures of bacteria. each subsequent generation has evolved from the last and over thousands of generations there are significant differences from when you started. geological evidence also provides excellent proof of progressive evolution. go read a book.
@purklefluff i no all about da theory of evolution, i just wish theyd stop talking about it like it's proven fact. Ofcorce i believe in evovultion, evolution is just, proggres. Dog breeding is an example of evolution. but i don't believe in natrual selection, mutations causing benifits 2 a speicies, or 1 speicies evolving into another.
@lizzyluv96 you just contradicted yourself.... you believe in evolution but you don't believe in natural selection? that's absurd! you're trying to tell me you don't think that an animal which is more equipped for its environment will prevail over an animal that isn't? that's basically what you're saying. natural selection IS proven fact. the more successful animals are generally the ones that get to reproduce, thereby proliferating their more successful genes! agh! what school did you go to?
@purklefluff no, you've misunderstood me. i was talking about the definition of evolution. Progress, remember? Ofcorce if one animal is better adapted it will thrive. But it will never form a new species.
@lizzyluv96 and one species does not just magically evolve into another. there's a gradual progression of biological change over millions of years. and mutations aren't by definition positive or negative, they are just changes... so of COURSE some mutations are going to be beneficial! .... i'm really intrigued as to what weird-ass science books you've been reading where (evidently) nothing is explained properly.
@purklefluff I never said a species just magically changes. I know how the theory of evolution works i just don't believe it. An experiment was once done, were scientists deliberately caused mutations on fruit flies. None of the mutations were beneficial. You may think that does not matter, but what happened to these mutated genes? Over the next few generations they faded away until normal fruit Flies were formed again. So how could a mutation, even beneficial, ever form a new species?
@lizzyluv96 what you've failed to realise is that in your example of the fruit flies, those negative mutations "fading away" over a series of generations is actually just more mutation. the fruit flies which have negative mutations will be less successful and be able to reproduce less... therefore the ones that do get to reproduce will produce offspring without (or with less) of the negative genes. over many generations the negative genes are slowly weeded out. this is simple stuff, really.
@purklefluff I thought u might say tht, but i wasn't sure how to write it so you's understand. The mutated genes just disapeard natrualy, not sure y, maby coz it was built into their DNA to rejects these unatrual genes? But my point is, the same thing would happen if the gene had been benificial.
@lizzyluv96 i'm sorry that's simply not the case. if a species develops a beneficial mutation which makes it more successful in its habitat, there's no way such mutations would just disappear over time. if anything they'd become more pronounced. also, your comment about DNA "rejecting unnatural" genes is just ridiculous. if animals breeding naturally produce small changes in their physiology over generations (i.e. mutations) then these are natural.... seriously you need to get a new teacher.
@purklefluff I wasn't saying "reject unatrual DNA" was true, i was just making a suggestion. What I'm saying is even if a mutation is benificial it won't make a new speicies. So evolution is impossible
@lizzyluv96 agh ok. you clearly don't understand the fundamentals of evolution enough to be able to form a coherent argument about it, so i'm going to stop discussing it with you. but i'll leave you with a simple question: if evolution is "impossible" (your words), how do you explain geological evidence showing gradual progressions between different species over time? and how you you explain the results of the experiments on bacteria where one form evolves into a different strain? read up on it.
@purklefluff y do u think i dnt uderstand evolution? what dnt i understand? BOOM! living cells apear frm who no's wer. random mutations giv sum cells a better ability to reproduse, making them pass on this mutated gene. Thins goes on over billions of years and you hav the diversity of life today. thts how the theory goes isn't it? what am i missing!? Just coz i dnt believe it nd am pointing out evidence against it?
@lizzyluv96 i'll rephrase what i said before; you have a rather simplistic understanding of the fundamentals of evolution (which i guess is why you don't believe in it). and as far as i'm aware you haven't cited or pointed out ANY evidence against evolution. just your own ideas about how stuff works, which is very different from evidence.
@purklefluff I asked u what i didnt no about evolution. u answerd with nothing. Any lack of understanding isn't the reason i dont believe in evolution. It is parcialy because i hav always been raised as a christian, and also becoz the more i luk into it, the more redicules evolution seems!
@purklefluff I pointed out the expererment about the fruitfles, and if u want more evidence. well. 4 life u need three things, DNA, RNA, and protien. u need RNA 2 make protien, and protien to make RNA. How did the both come about by chance? i dont no if u hav an answer...
@lizzyluv96 You are an ignorant person. To think that one of the major scientific theories of the day can be explained a youtube comment is silly. People get Doctorates of this subject. People dedicate their entire life to biology and you think it is so simple as to be explainable so easily? It isnt. You must seek to educate yourself to a greater degree than you have.
@Mouldywart I am not ignorent, so don't call me that. I was trying to explain the basics of the theory, and that is them! Sum1 told me i didn't understand ti so i was asking what i didnt understand. For me, life is just to complex to hav came about by chance. We all need faith, and i choose to put it in God.
@lizzyluv96 I need to repeat myself. This subject is too deep and complex to be explained in a youtube comment. I advise you study biology to at least A-Level standard before criticising what you do not grasp. Do you criticise germ theory? No. Because you do not understand it and are therefore in no position to criticise experts on the subject. There is no point asking for a decent explanation since you clearly do not understand the science that underpins the subject matter.
@Mouldywart I was trying to explain the basics of the theory, the BASICS. Cut it right down to its skeleton, shredding away every last piece of detail. I was asking a question, not trying to explain the whole thing.
@lizzyluv96 To ridicule something as complex as a central scientific theory, you cannot miss out the details. You must understand it to a good level of detail in order to appreciate the processes outlined and the underlying molecular biology involved. The only people who are in a real position to attack the theory are qualified academics and researchers. Among this group of people, resistance is very low since understanding is very high.
@lizzyluv96 i differ in my opinion from the other commenters: i think it's noble for you to try to learn more and shed your ignorance. i'm afraid, however you are ignorant of the subject. yet, that is not a bad thing - it just means you have more to learn! you have some of the key ideas correct regarding evolution. but at this point i'll say there is not much point objecting to evolution, it is not a matter of opinion, it is simply an explanation for what is. but keep up the inquiring!
@CheStillFighting There is no proof for evolution, and there is much evidence of a creator. So we must all faithfully believe in a theory that is not proven to be true?
@lizzyluv96 well, its not a theory in the sense that you understand a theory as. in science, some explanations are called "theories" like the theory of gravity, or the "theory" that our earth revolves around the sun. but we know these are simply explanations.
you can argue that a cat is a reptile.
you can argue that 2 + 2 = 13.
but it would be absurd to argue that the 2 and 2 are joined together in a mathmatical expression. this is not debatable, it's merely an explanation for our reality.
@lizzyluv96 that's what i'm saying. it is NOT a theory in the meaning you understand. in normal language, "theory" means "proposed idea". but "theory" has 2 definitions. in SCIENCE, an explanation for some phenomena is called "theory" also. it's a bit confusing and they should discussed this one before using the same word for 2 totally different definitions. thus, evolution is not "unproven". there is a staggeringly massive amount of proof confirming evolution. my point was it's surer than math.
@lizzyluv96 if you want an example of the false math, i could say "math is not a set of facts, it is our interpretation of ideas. therefore 2+2 could be 13, or it could be whatever i believe it to be, because it is subjective." this is obviously a denial of reality, but it is possible. the other option is i could say "2+2=13 becuase god said so, and i know he said so because long ago someone wrote that he said so. therefore don't be a fascist, let me teach both views in math class."
@cleverandrew123@cleverandrew123 Well for a start there's the Bibles scientific knowledge. Waay ahead of its time! For example, In 1919 B.C.E, God commanded Abraham that every man in his household must be circumcised. He commanded that the operation must be performed only once they are 8 days old. (Genesis 17:12) At the time it would not have made sense to the people why they had to wait 8 days, but they followed as commanded anyway...
@cleverandrew123 ...And it's a good thing they did! Now scientists know the the blood clotting agent vitamin K only rises to an adequate level by then. If they had ignored Gods word the babies would have bled to death! But remember people did not know this back then, so how could those men have known to write it down unless they were inspired by an expert, the one who created life it's self! Some may put this down to coincidence, but it is not the only case...
@lizzyluv96 if your christian then you should know that the bible wasnt written by your god it was written by other people some who were even born hundreds of years after Jesus had died and it even says that at the beginning of the bible so how is that the word of god
@cleverandrew123 ...God told the Israelites that dead bodies were unclean, as was anyone who touched one, and he had very strict hygiene laws. (Numbers 19:11-13) Right up to the 19th century many doctors were ignoring these commandments, causing many deaths. Only now do we have scientific evidence to back up what the bible says.
@cleverandrew123 Also the Bible can accurately predict the future. Take a quick look at Matthew 24:7. does any of that sound familiar? Wars, Food shortages, Earthquakes. That's been happening allot recently hasn't it? Similar things are mentioned In Luke 21:10,11. The Bible has predicted many different events, and so far none have been proved false. So why would any other predictions the Bible makes be false?...
@lizzyluv96@lizzyluv96 Yes, coz it's impossible that the people of that time had tried circumcising babies of all ages and had noticed that they only stopped dying if they waited a few days. And granted, the bible predicted wars, floods, etc. But seriously, the law of probability says that all they had to do was wait long enough and they'd be proven correct eventually. 2000 years is too long to turn around and say "I told you so".
@Vladess Why is 2000 years too long what would be an acceptableamount of time? The Bible never said exactley when it would happen. And after all 1000 years is like a day to Jehovah.
@lizzyluv96 Because in that time, the bible has been translated so many times that it can no longer be considered accurate. For example, in the 17th century, they had to recall a reprint of the KJV because an error in printing meant the 7th commandment read "Thou shalt commit adultery". And there wasn't any translation required for that. How many other errors have been introduced over the centuries that they've missed? And that's not even starting on deliberate alterations.
@Vladess Well, that is how it works. When someone notices a mistake, they fix it. After nearly 2000 years of proof reading, I'd say that it's pretty good.
@Patience1138 But there hasn't been 2000 years of proof reading, that's my point. There's been 2000 years of it being translated and copied and retranslated and recopied countless times by countless people. You put your shopping list through that, you're gonna be surprised at what you get for dinner. And yet people take it as the absolute gospel truth? That's not just stupid and unrealistic, it's dangerous.
@Vladess lol Well, that's an easy problem to fix. Check it against the original. If the translation matches up, it's a good one. If not, TOSS IT! Yeah, people made mistakes along the way, but that doesn't make them ALL bad.
I'm good friends with several Wycliffe Bible translators. To say that they are careful in their work would be the understatement of the century! Also, they always start with the earliest manuscripts possible, NEVER a translation of a translation.
@Patience1138 There's still the problem of the fact that they're working with 2000 year old writing. Langauges change in that time, words take on different meanings. Case in point, they recently authorised changing the word 'booty' in the bible to a more modern alternative because 'booty' now means something else. Not to mention that sometimes there is no direct translation of a concept from one langauge to another, and it's left to the translator (and his/her bias) to decide what fits best
@Vladess As far as I know, languages change, yes. However, DEAD languages do NOT change. I think that helps. On a side note, these examples for translation mistakes are hilarious! Where did you find them all? lol!
@Patience1138 Our interpretation of dead languages changes, though. People think translation is like code breaking, with everything there just jumbled up. It's not; it requires and understanding of the concepts behind the words and the context they were written in. I'm not convinced we have that 2000 years down the line. I'm not saying modern bibles are horribly inaccurate, I'm just saying people taking every word as the absolute truth is unrealistic. And in the case of fanatics, dangerous
@Patience1138 As to the mistakes: there's an entire wiki page of them. Search 'bible errata'. Some of them are truly hilarious, and part of me wishes they'd let them slide, because it would've made Christianity so much more fun.
@lizzyluv96 wait its not that hard to predicte that theres going to be a war in the future or earthquakes i mean earthquakes happen naturally all the time and there is bound to be at least one war in the future
@javahab Yes that's true, but it's the fact that there are so many wars, and so many earthquakes. There's been a great increase in these sorts of events in recent times. Think of all the wars like WW1, that was the first ever WORLD war, on such a grand scale. And have you noticed how many natural disasters have been reported on the news recently? Yes these sorts have things have always occourd but not to the scale of which they do today.
@cleverandrew123 There is evidence for God that does not need to be looked up. All around us there is design. Life is so complex, the universe so vast, how could any of it possibly come about by blind chance? Do you see my logic? That is just some of the evidence for God.
@cleverandrew123 The bible ahead of it's time scientificly, making acurate predictions of the future, the world aroud us. How is that not evidence? May I hear some of this evidence for evolution you have?
@lizzyluv96 - 1) Comparative sequence analysis of genes of different species. 2) Fossil record. 3) Radioactive dating. 4) Geographical distribution of species.
This is actual proof. Not cherry picked quotes from a two thousand year old book which is chock full of enough scientific innacuracies to completely invalidate it's usefulness as a form of evidence,
@cleverandrew123 I'm sorry but that 'evidence' is not as reliable as what i gave you. That's just you giving you opinion of what you think is true. I gave actual evidence you could look up for yourself and confirm by looking at it with your own eyes. You seem to be missing the point with the bible quotations. They are showing how the Bible is scientifically accurate. And could you please tell me some of these scientific inaccuracies?
@lizzyluv96 - You really are not aware of the scientific innacuracies of the Bible? You really should read it if you are as religious as you claim. Start from the creation story.
And I think you'll find that the points I made are facts, not opinion.
@cleverandrew123 I am reading the Bible but i have not completed it yet. I have read the creation story, it has been my favourite point so far. But I did not notice any scientific inaccuracies in it? I wasn't saying that points you made were not fact, I was just saying that the way you wrote them didn't make them evidence. They were more statements, just saying something is true doesn’t prove it. They may well be true, but just you saying them doesn’t prove they are.
@lizzyluv96 The Bible is evidence? You do realise that even some of the most devout Christians in the world have dismissed the "stories" in the Bible as being fictional as they believe they were designed to explain how Human beings should behave towards one another, not to suggest that people actually come back from the dead, move boulders and then levitate into Heaven in a glowing light. The Bible is a book of fables, not scientific facts. Christian lifestyle= Healthy. Beliefs=Jibberish
@scaryninja1693 yes, i do realise that, and i disagree with those people. the Bible does contain some parables but also contains many accurate accounts. You can't deny that if everyone followed the bible, the world would be ALOT better place. Even in this imperfect system of things.
@lizzyluv96 But on that logic it would make more sense for the people of the world to follow Buddism, as it maintains a healthy way of living physically and mentally without the need to commit to beliefs in the supernatural and the absurd. Im afraid the idea of God is an old fashioned combination of our natural instinct to crave direction from a higher source, an "alpha" as it were, and an example of governments using this primative instinct to enforce control on a population for power and money
@cleverandrew123 If everyone followed the Bible: There'd be far less deaths. There’d be no crime. There’d be no AIDS. People would be happier, children would not be bullied. There'd be no murder, rape, drunk drivers, speeding, or child abuse. Basically we'd all benefit! You can't just say whatever you like about the Bible without backing it up with some evidence. Do you seriously expect me to believe those things you say when you don't even tell me WHERE it says them?
@lizzyluv96 No crime, no rape and no aids? are u kidding me? unless u are in fact excluding priests/popes who commited numerous child abuse crimes, banning of condoms in catholic church, slavery, racism and im not even going to bother list the masscres in the names of christ. It depends on the individual, therefore religion is pointless and certainly does not make a person any better by reading a book
@Pussyfluid Those catholic priests who hurt children wern't following the Bible. Just because someone claims to follow the Bible it dosn't mean everything they do is in acordence with it. If everyone really followed what the Bible ACTUALY says there would be no crime.
@lizzyluv96 God mandated the slaughter and enslavement of the Amalakites and the Midianites and he slaughered the babies of the Egyptians as revenge on the adults. Lot offered his daughters to the men of Sodom for gang rape to protect the angelic visitors, the exhalted King David was a murderer (but that's ok, he said sorry). He then lets Satan torture Job for decades pretty much to settle a bet (God being omniscient you'd have to wonder about the story logic here).
@lizzyluv96 You are the classic example of how much of negative impact religion can have on people who are raised blindly in beliefs that have NO actual evidence. Don't get me wrong, I am not a hater of all faith, as obviously some of the messages that the bible and other such religous texts give out are good ones, such as telling people not to kill or steal etc. but the bible itself is such a hypocritical piece of shit that nobody should take it seriously.
@dan333onlyhalfevil The Bible does talk about incest, but it actualy condemns it. (Leviticus 18:6-7) I believe that incest may have been alowed very early on in human history but not any more.
@dan333onlyhalfevil Yes as I mentioned incest was allowed early on in human history. It was OK for the first few generations, that was before any law against it was made. I’m not 100% sure why, but I think it may have been because humans were closer to perfection then, so they were healthier and were less likely to pass on diseases to their children.
@dan333onlyhalfevil Remember that when Adam and Eve were first created they were perfect, and all their descendants we supposed to be to. If things had gone to plan perhaps there would not have been much of a problem with incest at all? As for the case of Abraham and his nieces I’m not sure I’ve heard of that one?
@lizzyluv96 they were never said to be perfect but ignorant to right and wrong.
abrahama neices had to flee with their father, his name was Lot, and when they realised there was no men around to get them pregnant they decided it best to get their father drunk and have sex with him.
@dan333onlyhalfevil Oh yes I have heard of that story before. The Bible gives no comment respecting God’s approval or disapproval of the incident. What we do know is that God disapproves of drunkenness, incest, and intercourse outside of marriage. The fact that the 2 girls had to get their farther drunk shows that he would not have usually have been willing to do something like that, as he was a righteous man.
@lizzyluv96 Sorry to be a pain. I saw your comment and had to make a comment. "Remember that...", How exactly? None of this actually happened, it was written as an allegory to justify gods existence to non-believers and followers. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to criticize your belief in god - atheist/agnostic/theist, whatever floats your boat - but I'm just stunned at how completely convinced you seem to be that this is actually an historical fact.
@lizzyluv96 i have read the first page of the bible and the way it described how the world was made was completely wrong and i understand how people believed it ages ago but if you believe it know is just ridiculous as scientist have already proven how it was made
@javahab What was it exactly about the part of the creation acount you read that you fount so ilogical? And may I say I'm not sure it's best to just read a small portion of a book as detailed and significant as the Bible and make a judgement of it from that. I belive that certain scriptures are not always entierly clear at first when read on their own or without proper thought or understanding.
Austrolasia?
MrThezho 1 month ago
@MrThezho Australasia was when the Australian mainland, plus Samoa, Tasmania, Papua and other islands were all one landmass. It's also the name of the continent, also known as Oceania. But I think he's referring to several thousand years ago when the koala was evolving
LusoAustralian 4 weeks ago
@LusoAustralian Thank you :)
MrThezho 4 weeks ago
@MrThezho No Problem ;)
LusoAustralian 4 weeks ago
That's the smartest thing I've ever heard Alan say :P
Davepotnoodle 2 months ago
What episode is this!?
skeilty101 2 months ago
I think everyone's forgetting that, even in the early generations of Biblical man, there wasn't much incest necessary, because when Cain and Abel were of marrying age, there was suddenly an entire town of people in which they could find wives.
chinadollsyndrome 3 months ago
"Australazia"
ConourP 4 months ago
don't know what convergent evolution is, but i'm guessing it's the idea that two completely different species evolve similarities due to their environments becoming similar, more or less.
yet if the kuala evolved in isolation as he says...
waldoman7 4 months ago
A couple of points to clear up:
Australia is a country AND a continent. It is specifically cited in most definitions of the word continent, any attempt to argue otherwise automatically mark you as an idiot and therefore make your statements irrelevant.
The results of an IQ test can be given as a percentile, 95% would mean you scored higher than 95% of the people who have taken the same test.
z3r0t0l3r4ns 4 months ago
Alan Davies knew something xd waw..
AngelBiLove 5 months ago
I have noticed that people who are openly homophobic also happen to be the most intellectually backward.....vis a vis hard-line Christians, Muslims and the Far Right
.....coincidence....
I think not!
AziMeX 6 months ago 4
Convergent evolution my a**, they all share a common ancestor.
baldurus1 6 months ago
@baldurus1 Yes, but that was a bloody long time ago, and that common ancestor's fingerprints where nothing like the three shown.
HenrikOlsen 6 months ago
@baldurus1 lol yah that's what i was thinking
seanlin1202 5 months ago
Lesson: To forge fake identity, use Koala's or Chimpanzee's fingerprints.
spiritfired 6 months ago 82
@spiritfired And in lesson 2 I hope you´ll tell us how to go about doing that :)
TheGrindsprint 2 months ago
@spiritfired To get away with murder?
JSampson1991 1 week ago
@spiritfired so you want us to get an animals finger by either chopping it off or taking a chimp around with you without anyone realizing
javahab 4 days ago
Alan forgot he's supposed to be stupid on this show.
trlkly 7 months ago 3
"its called convergent evolution"
*video finishes*
me: you cant just leave it there!
daniel1100ify 7 months ago 145
@daniel1100ify it's funny because your comment relates with Evolution...
example: Evolution stopping as just "left it there"
sorry I sound like a fool!
nukebacon876 6 months ago
@daniel1100ify He goes on to explain what it means. It means that two species that have evolved in isolation from each other have come up with the same solution. To which Alan replies: "Or they were all made by God".
mocthezuma 2 months ago
@daniel1100ify its when things evolve simultaneously even with geogprahical isolation
frooberty 20 hours ago
Australia itself is not a continent but rather part of the continent Australasia. Like other continents eg; Europe or Asia, it includes many different countries and outlying islands. Australasia includes some Pacific Island nations and New Zealand. Just as England isn't a continent but a country part of Europe.
P.S. I have never used the word Continent so often in one go. And as far as I know IQ tests are not scored on percentages but by a point system but I'm probably wrong ......
draxonsgirl 7 months ago
@draxonsgirl Yeah, not a credible source if this was a University History thesis but it's general facts which wikipedia is perfectly acceptable for. You're trying to sound as if you know what you're talking about but you don't.
Ub3rSk1llz 5 months ago
dont call me dumbass i did an iq test last year and got like 95% or something
aussieosbourne 7 months ago
@aussieosbourne there are no percentages in IQ tests the result is your IQ 95 is not a great score so i would not brag
revolution0inc 7 months ago
@revolution0inc Not that this matters at all, but IQ and other scores are sometimes given in percentiles. 95%ile would be just shy of 130 IQ.
JeremyBanks89 7 months ago in playlist QI
it's pronounced australia
aussieosbourne 8 months ago
@aussieosbourne He was not referring to the continent Australia, but Australasia, a region of Oceania. Check out wikipedia/en/Australasia
Vector88 8 months ago 5
@Vector88 Australia isn't a continent, it's a country.
lughanodlum 7 months ago
@lughanodlum wikipedia/wiki/Australia_(continent)
Vector88 7 months ago
@Vector88 I'm sorry to probably offend you here but to use Wikipedia as a certifiably reliable source of definitive knowledge is laughable.
draxonsgirl 7 months ago
@draxonsgirl Would you prefer a link to the dept. of foreign affairs and trade? dfat.gov.au. slash aib/island_continent.html Or just google for "Australia Continent," and you'll find plenty of information. :)
Vector88 7 months ago
@draxonsgirl Even better, if you google for "worldislandinfo CONTISLAND" you'll also get a rationale!
Vector88 7 months ago
@Vector88 I apologise wholeheartedly. No offence was meant and I thank you indeed to the education on the status of the great nation/continent/country/island of Australia. The expansion of knowledge can be a great thing - perhaps that is the reason we find each other watching the wonderful QI. Also I've been told I can come across as inadvertently sarcastic, so please in reading this know that that is not my intent.
draxonsgirl 4 months ago
@draxonsgirl you suck
jaypeddie 5 months ago
@jaypeddie Okay okay so I was wrong that is easy enough to admit but why do you feel the need to personally attack me? My comment hurt no-one really and indeed has wonderfully schooled me in an obviously lacking part of my education but yours, while maybe not entirely baseless should you ask some who have actually gotten to know me, can be seen as unnecessarily hurtful.
draxonsgirl 4 months ago
@lughanodlum It's a continent, island and country. Do some research.
Ub3rSk1llz 5 months ago
@aussieosbourne wow you're stupid.
0oPadmano0 7 months ago
@aussieosbourne its a different place dumbass
shzze 7 months ago
Great, now we're going to be hearing all about the "koala defense." :)
paxpaul 8 months ago
its called convergent bullshit!!
fowzie777 8 months ago
lol - can see the story - "The fingerprints matched a koala who is known to police. He was apprehended in the botanical gardens attempting to hide in a eucalyptus tree."
losthor1zon 8 months ago 5
Thumbnail win
MomSaysImCool 8 months ago
well whatever translation you choose its irrellivent. The bible is an outdated form of how we came to be, theres a thing called science and evolution now that tells the truth on that subject, science changes and unlocks mysteries, better than 1 deluded and blind view which ignores all other evidence like god, what a load of rubbish god is, hahaha
TheLysander666 8 months ago
Thumbs up if you googled convergent evolution the second this ended. :P
gregorycawthorne 9 months ago
@gregorycawthorne darn, i knew it already
Pimpmastahanhduece 9 months ago
I would turn gay for Stephen Fry.......
supermanondrugs1 9 months ago 16
This has been flagged as spam show
if stephen fry is so smart why does he like sucking dick?
hari2012 10 months ago
@hari2012 Because he's gay. What's your excuse for being a dumbass?
arna11420 10 months ago 159
@hari2012 i am afraid you just got told
Neall07 10 months ago 88
@hari2012 Stephen Fry doesn't like sex, he finds it repulsive so i would guess he doesn't suck anything.
wodm 10 months ago 9
@wodm What? how is that possible?
thelostpiranha 9 months ago
@thelostpiranha i dont know but it is what he said.
wodm 9 months ago
@hari2012 HE IS OPENLY HOMO
MrKoiking1 9 months ago
@MrKoiking1 homosapiens I presume?
kustomkure 9 months ago
@hari2012 He doesn't like sucking dick. When it comes to sexual intercourse, he is asexual.
spardaking 9 months ago
@spardaking He stopped calling himself asexual ni 1995. When he did call himself that it was motivated mostly by self-loathing and such things. Don't get any ideas though, he is mine.
TheStrangerInTheRye 8 months ago
@hari2012 your such a fucking idiot.
SnakeJake23 6 months ago
@titsbumfanny Don't think he'd be willing. There is a difference between brilliant and willing to be prime minister.
HappyGuyxlii 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 .I think a few of Bible followers have done their far share of murder, rape, child abuse, drink driving. Dont belive me? well lets see,
The spanish Inquistion I belive was by Bible followers and a hell of a lot of murder and rape occured,
Child abuse, oh come on, really do I need to explain this one, Just google 'Catholic priest' and the second auto surgestion come up as 'catholic priest abuse' (at least where I live)
And drink driving again just google Drunk driving priest
spacedmonkey98 1 year ago
@spacedmonkey98 Those catholic priests who hurt children wern't following the Bible. Just because someone claims to follow the Bible it dosn't mean everything they do is in acordence with it. If everyone really followed what the Bible ACTUALY says there would be no crime.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 there would be crime because people would have slaves, stone people to death and commit genocide.
JGHunter12345 9 months ago
@lizzyluv96 not really it says in the bible if someone hurt ther mother in someway they would get killed
javahab 3 weeks ago
Alan Davies is not dumb. He is probably just as smart as Stephen Fry, he just likes to take risks and talk alot.
leapingfury 1 year ago 12
@titsbumfanny Prime Minister? Bollocks to that, he should be the new Sith lord of the galaxy.
Xanatos712 1 year ago
I was with Alan davies on that one.
lillyshak 1 year ago
Did Alan just say Australasia instead of Australia?
karik333 1 year ago
@karik333 Yes. Australasia is a region that includes Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and neighbouring islands.
tml4873 1 year ago
@karik333 no he ment Australaisa
javahab 3 weeks ago
youknow whats odd? alan got them right at first, then changed his mind!
ROBOCAM3000 1 year ago
@titsbumfanny wow your comment got more votes than our current government got XD
gamerzndplayerz 1 year ago
lol, a debate about evolution.. the only reason it's a theory is because science is an empirical system based around disproving itself. If a better explanation became prevalent, more plausible what have you, then most scientists would abandon it in a heartbeat. Religion spreads itself as fact and therein the confusion lies. Ban the whole fucking thing if you ask me.
hjenkinz 1 year ago
@hjenkinz Easy, dude.
Patience1138 8 months ago
evolution bla, bla, bla. When are they gonna stop talking about that rubbish. convergent evolution? Ha!
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 evolution is a simple logical effect on a given species over time. it's completely observable and is well documented in lots of separate and verifiable cases. you can see it happening in front of your eyes if you breed cultures of bacteria. each subsequent generation has evolved from the last and over thousands of generations there are significant differences from when you started. geological evidence also provides excellent proof of progressive evolution. go read a book.
purklefluff 1 year ago
@purklefluff i no all about da theory of evolution, i just wish theyd stop talking about it like it's proven fact. Ofcorce i believe in evovultion, evolution is just, proggres. Dog breeding is an example of evolution. but i don't believe in natrual selection, mutations causing benifits 2 a speicies, or 1 speicies evolving into another.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 you just contradicted yourself.... you believe in evolution but you don't believe in natural selection? that's absurd! you're trying to tell me you don't think that an animal which is more equipped for its environment will prevail over an animal that isn't? that's basically what you're saying. natural selection IS proven fact. the more successful animals are generally the ones that get to reproduce, thereby proliferating their more successful genes! agh! what school did you go to?
purklefluff 1 year ago
@purklefluff no, you've misunderstood me. i was talking about the definition of evolution. Progress, remember? Ofcorce if one animal is better adapted it will thrive. But it will never form a new species.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 and one species does not just magically evolve into another. there's a gradual progression of biological change over millions of years. and mutations aren't by definition positive or negative, they are just changes... so of COURSE some mutations are going to be beneficial! .... i'm really intrigued as to what weird-ass science books you've been reading where (evidently) nothing is explained properly.
purklefluff 1 year ago
@purklefluff I never said a species just magically changes. I know how the theory of evolution works i just don't believe it. An experiment was once done, were scientists deliberately caused mutations on fruit flies. None of the mutations were beneficial. You may think that does not matter, but what happened to these mutated genes? Over the next few generations they faded away until normal fruit Flies were formed again. So how could a mutation, even beneficial, ever form a new species?
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 what you've failed to realise is that in your example of the fruit flies, those negative mutations "fading away" over a series of generations is actually just more mutation. the fruit flies which have negative mutations will be less successful and be able to reproduce less... therefore the ones that do get to reproduce will produce offspring without (or with less) of the negative genes. over many generations the negative genes are slowly weeded out. this is simple stuff, really.
purklefluff 1 year ago
@purklefluff I thought u might say tht, but i wasn't sure how to write it so you's understand. The mutated genes just disapeard natrualy, not sure y, maby coz it was built into their DNA to rejects these unatrual genes? But my point is, the same thing would happen if the gene had been benificial.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 i'm sorry that's simply not the case. if a species develops a beneficial mutation which makes it more successful in its habitat, there's no way such mutations would just disappear over time. if anything they'd become more pronounced. also, your comment about DNA "rejecting unnatural" genes is just ridiculous. if animals breeding naturally produce small changes in their physiology over generations (i.e. mutations) then these are natural.... seriously you need to get a new teacher.
purklefluff 1 year ago
@purklefluff I wasn't saying "reject unatrual DNA" was true, i was just making a suggestion. What I'm saying is even if a mutation is benificial it won't make a new speicies. So evolution is impossible
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 agh ok. you clearly don't understand the fundamentals of evolution enough to be able to form a coherent argument about it, so i'm going to stop discussing it with you. but i'll leave you with a simple question: if evolution is "impossible" (your words), how do you explain geological evidence showing gradual progressions between different species over time? and how you you explain the results of the experiments on bacteria where one form evolves into a different strain? read up on it.
purklefluff 1 year ago
@purklefluff y do u think i dnt uderstand evolution? what dnt i understand? BOOM! living cells apear frm who no's wer. random mutations giv sum cells a better ability to reproduse, making them pass on this mutated gene. Thins goes on over billions of years and you hav the diversity of life today. thts how the theory goes isn't it? what am i missing!? Just coz i dnt believe it nd am pointing out evidence against it?
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 i'll rephrase what i said before; you have a rather simplistic understanding of the fundamentals of evolution (which i guess is why you don't believe in it). and as far as i'm aware you haven't cited or pointed out ANY evidence against evolution. just your own ideas about how stuff works, which is very different from evidence.
purklefluff 1 year ago
@purklefluff I asked u what i didnt no about evolution. u answerd with nothing. Any lack of understanding isn't the reason i dont believe in evolution. It is parcialy because i hav always been raised as a christian, and also becoz the more i luk into it, the more redicules evolution seems!
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@purklefluff I pointed out the expererment about the fruitfles, and if u want more evidence. well. 4 life u need three things, DNA, RNA, and protien. u need RNA 2 make protien, and protien to make RNA. How did the both come about by chance? i dont no if u hav an answer...
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 You are an ignorant person. To think that one of the major scientific theories of the day can be explained a youtube comment is silly. People get Doctorates of this subject. People dedicate their entire life to biology and you think it is so simple as to be explainable so easily? It isnt. You must seek to educate yourself to a greater degree than you have.
Mouldywart 1 year ago
@Mouldywart I am not ignorent, so don't call me that. I was trying to explain the basics of the theory, and that is them! Sum1 told me i didn't understand ti so i was asking what i didnt understand. For me, life is just to complex to hav came about by chance. We all need faith, and i choose to put it in God.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 I need to repeat myself. This subject is too deep and complex to be explained in a youtube comment. I advise you study biology to at least A-Level standard before criticising what you do not grasp. Do you criticise germ theory? No. Because you do not understand it and are therefore in no position to criticise experts on the subject. There is no point asking for a decent explanation since you clearly do not understand the science that underpins the subject matter.
Mouldywart 1 year ago
@Mouldywart I was trying to explain the basics of the theory, the BASICS. Cut it right down to its skeleton, shredding away every last piece of detail. I was asking a question, not trying to explain the whole thing.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 To ridicule something as complex as a central scientific theory, you cannot miss out the details. You must understand it to a good level of detail in order to appreciate the processes outlined and the underlying molecular biology involved. The only people who are in a real position to attack the theory are qualified academics and researchers. Among this group of people, resistance is very low since understanding is very high.
Mouldywart 1 year ago
@Mouldywart I wasn't ridiculing it i was trying to explain it, in the most basic way possible.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 Are you not critical/sceptical of evolution? That was the impression I got from your comments.
Mouldywart 1 year ago
@Mouldywart I am critical of evolution, the theory dosn't seem to hold very strong for me.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 i differ in my opinion from the other commenters: i think it's noble for you to try to learn more and shed your ignorance. i'm afraid, however you are ignorant of the subject. yet, that is not a bad thing - it just means you have more to learn! you have some of the key ideas correct regarding evolution. but at this point i'll say there is not much point objecting to evolution, it is not a matter of opinion, it is simply an explanation for what is. but keep up the inquiring!
CheStillFighting 1 year ago
@CheStillFighting There is no proof for evolution, and there is much evidence of a creator. So we must all faithfully believe in a theory that is not proven to be true?
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 well, its not a theory in the sense that you understand a theory as. in science, some explanations are called "theories" like the theory of gravity, or the "theory" that our earth revolves around the sun. but we know these are simply explanations.
you can argue that a cat is a reptile.
you can argue that 2 + 2 = 13.
but it would be absurd to argue that the 2 and 2 are joined together in a mathmatical expression. this is not debatable, it's merely an explanation for our reality.
CheStillFighting 1 year ago
@CheStillFighting All i'm saying is if it's only a theory, unprooven, they why should anybody be expected to believe in it?
But I am intreegd by how 2+2 could =13!?
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 that's what i'm saying. it is NOT a theory in the meaning you understand. in normal language, "theory" means "proposed idea". but "theory" has 2 definitions. in SCIENCE, an explanation for some phenomena is called "theory" also. it's a bit confusing and they should discussed this one before using the same word for 2 totally different definitions. thus, evolution is not "unproven". there is a staggeringly massive amount of proof confirming evolution. my point was it's surer than math.
CheStillFighting 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 if you want an example of the false math, i could say "math is not a set of facts, it is our interpretation of ideas. therefore 2+2 could be 13, or it could be whatever i believe it to be, because it is subjective." this is obviously a denial of reality, but it is possible. the other option is i could say "2+2=13 becuase god said so, and i know he said so because long ago someone wrote that he said so. therefore don't be a fascist, let me teach both views in math class."
CheStillFighting 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 - You need to do some fucking research then because there is an abundance of evidence for evolution.
cleverandrew123 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 Evidence, but no proof. there is also evidence of God.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 - Let's have this evidence for god then.
This should be fun.
cleverandrew123 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 @cleverandrew123 Well for a start there's the Bibles scientific knowledge. Waay ahead of its time! For example, In 1919 B.C.E, God commanded Abraham that every man in his household must be circumcised. He commanded that the operation must be performed only once they are 8 days old. (Genesis 17:12) At the time it would not have made sense to the people why they had to wait 8 days, but they followed as commanded anyway...
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 ...And it's a good thing they did! Now scientists know the the blood clotting agent vitamin K only rises to an adequate level by then. If they had ignored Gods word the babies would have bled to death! But remember people did not know this back then, so how could those men have known to write it down unless they were inspired by an expert, the one who created life it's self! Some may put this down to coincidence, but it is not the only case...
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 Just because the bible has some good advice doesn't mean it's the word of God.
CashMoneyMoore 8 months ago
@lizzyluv96 if your christian then you should know that the bible wasnt written by your god it was written by other people some who were even born hundreds of years after Jesus had died and it even says that at the beginning of the bible so how is that the word of god
javahab 3 weeks ago
@cleverandrew123 ...God told the Israelites that dead bodies were unclean, as was anyone who touched one, and he had very strict hygiene laws. (Numbers 19:11-13) Right up to the 19th century many doctors were ignoring these commandments, causing many deaths. Only now do we have scientific evidence to back up what the bible says.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 Also the Bible can accurately predict the future. Take a quick look at Matthew 24:7. does any of that sound familiar? Wars, Food shortages, Earthquakes. That's been happening allot recently hasn't it? Similar things are mentioned In Luke 21:10,11. The Bible has predicted many different events, and so far none have been proved false. So why would any other predictions the Bible makes be false?...
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 @lizzyluv96 Yes, coz it's impossible that the people of that time had tried circumcising babies of all ages and had noticed that they only stopped dying if they waited a few days. And granted, the bible predicted wars, floods, etc. But seriously, the law of probability says that all they had to do was wait long enough and they'd be proven correct eventually. 2000 years is too long to turn around and say "I told you so".
Vladess 9 months ago
@Vladess Why is 2000 years too long what would be an acceptableamount of time? The Bible never said exactley when it would happen. And after all 1000 years is like a day to Jehovah.
lizzyluv96 8 months ago
@lizzyluv96 Because in that time, the bible has been translated so many times that it can no longer be considered accurate. For example, in the 17th century, they had to recall a reprint of the KJV because an error in printing meant the 7th commandment read "Thou shalt commit adultery". And there wasn't any translation required for that. How many other errors have been introduced over the centuries that they've missed? And that's not even starting on deliberate alterations.
Vladess 8 months ago
@Vladess Well, that is how it works. When someone notices a mistake, they fix it. After nearly 2000 years of proof reading, I'd say that it's pretty good.
Patience1138 8 months ago
@Patience1138 But there hasn't been 2000 years of proof reading, that's my point. There's been 2000 years of it being translated and copied and retranslated and recopied countless times by countless people. You put your shopping list through that, you're gonna be surprised at what you get for dinner. And yet people take it as the absolute gospel truth? That's not just stupid and unrealistic, it's dangerous.
Vladess 8 months ago
@Vladess lol Well, that's an easy problem to fix. Check it against the original. If the translation matches up, it's a good one. If not, TOSS IT! Yeah, people made mistakes along the way, but that doesn't make them ALL bad.
I'm good friends with several Wycliffe Bible translators. To say that they are careful in their work would be the understatement of the century! Also, they always start with the earliest manuscripts possible, NEVER a translation of a translation.
Patience1138 8 months ago
@Patience1138 There's still the problem of the fact that they're working with 2000 year old writing. Langauges change in that time, words take on different meanings. Case in point, they recently authorised changing the word 'booty' in the bible to a more modern alternative because 'booty' now means something else. Not to mention that sometimes there is no direct translation of a concept from one langauge to another, and it's left to the translator (and his/her bias) to decide what fits best
Vladess 8 months ago
@Vladess As far as I know, languages change, yes. However, DEAD languages do NOT change. I think that helps. On a side note, these examples for translation mistakes are hilarious! Where did you find them all? lol!
Patience1138 8 months ago
@Patience1138 Our interpretation of dead languages changes, though. People think translation is like code breaking, with everything there just jumbled up. It's not; it requires and understanding of the concepts behind the words and the context they were written in. I'm not convinced we have that 2000 years down the line. I'm not saying modern bibles are horribly inaccurate, I'm just saying people taking every word as the absolute truth is unrealistic. And in the case of fanatics, dangerous
Vladess 8 months ago
@Vladess Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh! Well, if that's what you mean, then yes. I have to agree with that. Yes, that would be dangerous.
Patience1138 8 months ago
@Patience1138 As to the mistakes: there's an entire wiki page of them. Search 'bible errata'. Some of them are truly hilarious, and part of me wishes they'd let them slide, because it would've made Christianity so much more fun.
Vladess 8 months ago
@Vladess Lol No one would be able to keep a straight face in church if they did!
Patience1138 8 months ago
@Vladess lol People are going to read this thread and wonder "What the heck are they talking about?"
Patience1138 8 months ago
@Patience1138 lol, they really are. Also lol at this starting with fingerprints. Epic random segue.
Vladess 8 months ago
@Patience1138 wait are you trying to say that your god makes mistakes and you still believe in the bible
javahab 3 weeks ago
@javahab What makes you say that?
Patience1138 3 weeks ago
@lizzyluv96 wait its not that hard to predicte that theres going to be a war in the future or earthquakes i mean earthquakes happen naturally all the time and there is bound to be at least one war in the future
javahab 3 weeks ago
@javahab Yes that's true, but it's the fact that there are so many wars, and so many earthquakes. There's been a great increase in these sorts of events in recent times. Think of all the wars like WW1, that was the first ever WORLD war, on such a grand scale. And have you noticed how many natural disasters have been reported on the news recently? Yes these sorts have things have always occourd but not to the scale of which they do today.
lizzyluv96 3 weeks ago
@lizzyluv96 but did it say that they were going to happen in about 2000 years or does it just say that there going to come
javahab 4 days ago
@cleverandrew123 There is evidence for God that does not need to be looked up. All around us there is design. Life is so complex, the universe so vast, how could any of it possibly come about by blind chance? Do you see my logic? That is just some of the evidence for God.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 - That's all nonsense I'm afraid, and none of it is evidence.
I'd rather not keep this discussion going because you're clearly out of your mind.
cleverandrew123 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 The bible ahead of it's time scientificly, making acurate predictions of the future, the world aroud us. How is that not evidence? May I hear some of this evidence for evolution you have?
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 - 1) Comparative sequence analysis of genes of different species. 2) Fossil record. 3) Radioactive dating. 4) Geographical distribution of species.
This is actual proof. Not cherry picked quotes from a two thousand year old book which is chock full of enough scientific innacuracies to completely invalidate it's usefulness as a form of evidence,
cleverandrew123 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 I'm sorry but that 'evidence' is not as reliable as what i gave you. That's just you giving you opinion of what you think is true. I gave actual evidence you could look up for yourself and confirm by looking at it with your own eyes. You seem to be missing the point with the bible quotations. They are showing how the Bible is scientifically accurate. And could you please tell me some of these scientific inaccuracies?
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 - You really are not aware of the scientific innacuracies of the Bible? You really should read it if you are as religious as you claim. Start from the creation story.
And I think you'll find that the points I made are facts, not opinion.
cleverandrew123 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 I am reading the Bible but i have not completed it yet. I have read the creation story, it has been my favourite point so far. But I did not notice any scientific inaccuracies in it? I wasn't saying that points you made were not fact, I was just saying that the way you wrote them didn't make them evidence. They were more statements, just saying something is true doesn’t prove it. They may well be true, but just you saying them doesn’t prove they are.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 - You're either as troll or you've been completely brainwashed by your parents.
Honestly, do not believe everything they tell you.
cleverandrew123 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 Usaly, but not just because they tell me. Because theres lots of evidence to back it up.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 The Bible is evidence? You do realise that even some of the most devout Christians in the world have dismissed the "stories" in the Bible as being fictional as they believe they were designed to explain how Human beings should behave towards one another, not to suggest that people actually come back from the dead, move boulders and then levitate into Heaven in a glowing light. The Bible is a book of fables, not scientific facts. Christian lifestyle= Healthy. Beliefs=Jibberish
scaryninja1693 1 year ago 4
@scaryninja1693 yes, i do realise that, and i disagree with those people. the Bible does contain some parables but also contains many accurate accounts. You can't deny that if everyone followed the bible, the world would be ALOT better place. Even in this imperfect system of things.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 But on that logic it would make more sense for the people of the world to follow Buddism, as it maintains a healthy way of living physically and mentally without the need to commit to beliefs in the supernatural and the absurd. Im afraid the idea of God is an old fashioned combination of our natural instinct to crave direction from a higher source, an "alpha" as it were, and an example of governments using this primative instinct to enforce control on a population for power and money
scaryninja1693 1 year ago 4
@lizzyluv96 - Yes, a book which authorises slavery and genicide definitely makes the world a better place...
cleverandrew123 1 year ago 3
@cleverandrew123 If everyone followed the Bible: There'd be far less deaths. There’d be no crime. There’d be no AIDS. People would be happier, children would not be bullied. There'd be no murder, rape, drunk drivers, speeding, or child abuse. Basically we'd all benefit! You can't just say whatever you like about the Bible without backing it up with some evidence. Do you seriously expect me to believe those things you say when you don't even tell me WHERE it says them?
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 I don't expect you to believe them because you haven't acknowledged anything I've said so far. I'm not even going to try.
So...er...good luck with that.
cleverandrew123 1 year ago
@cleverandrew123 What do you meen i havn't 'acknoledged' anything you said?
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 No crime, no rape and no aids? are u kidding me? unless u are in fact excluding priests/popes who commited numerous child abuse crimes, banning of condoms in catholic church, slavery, racism and im not even going to bother list the masscres in the names of christ. It depends on the individual, therefore religion is pointless and certainly does not make a person any better by reading a book
Pussyfluid 1 year ago
@Pussyfluid Those catholic priests who hurt children wern't following the Bible. Just because someone claims to follow the Bible it dosn't mean everything they do is in acordence with it. If everyone really followed what the Bible ACTUALY says there would be no crime.
lizzyluv96 1 year ago
@lizzyluv96 Right, because if law was defined according to the bible, there would be slavery, but it wouldn't be considered a crime.
Tr1ploid 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@lizzyluv96 Apparently you have not read the Bible. I suggest you read it cover to cover.
jag305 1 year ago
@jag305 More like tear it to bits cover to cover
MickyKelly91 7 months ago
@lizzyluv96 Except rape, incest, murder, genocide. But why sweat the small stuff?
croutonfada 9 months ago
@croutonfada Why would these things happen? Most of these things are said to be wrong in the bible, if not all!
lizzyluv96 9 months ago
@lizzyluv96 God mandated the slaughter and enslavement of the Amalakites and the Midianites and he slaughered the babies of the Egyptians as revenge on the adults. Lot offered his daughters to the men of Sodom for gang rape to protect the angelic visitors, the exhalted King David was a murderer (but that's ok, he said sorry). He then lets Satan torture Job for decades pretty much to settle a bet (God being omniscient you'd have to wonder about the story logic here).
croutonfada 9 months ago
@lizzyluv96 You are the classic example of how much of negative impact religion can have on people who are raised blindly in beliefs that have NO actual evidence. Don't get me wrong, I am not a hater of all faith, as obviously some of the messages that the bible and other such religous texts give out are good ones, such as telling people not to kill or steal etc. but the bible itself is such a hypocritical piece of shit that nobody should take it seriously.
Wilks228 9 months ago
@lizzyluv96 just incest, slavery and so.
dan333onlyhalfevil 3 months ago
@dan333onlyhalfevil Were in the Bible do you find that these things are somanded may I ask?
lizzyluv96 3 months ago
@lizzyluv96 incest appears very early in genesis as it goes.
dan333onlyhalfevil 3 months ago
@dan333onlyhalfevil The Bible does talk about incest, but it actualy condemns it. (Leviticus 18:6-7) I believe that incest may have been alowed very early on in human history but not any more.
lizzyluv96 3 months ago
@lizzyluv96 it didnt condemn the incest of abrahams nieces or the fact that every human came from two people . . .
dan333onlyhalfevil 3 months ago
@dan333onlyhalfevil Yes as I mentioned incest was allowed early on in human history. It was OK for the first few generations, that was before any law against it was made. I’m not 100% sure why, but I think it may have been because humans were closer to perfection then, so they were healthier and were less likely to pass on diseases to their children.
lizzyluv96 3 months ago
@dan333onlyhalfevil Remember that when Adam and Eve were first created they were perfect, and all their descendants we supposed to be to. If things had gone to plan perhaps there would not have been much of a problem with incest at all? As for the case of Abraham and his nieces I’m not sure I’ve heard of that one?
lizzyluv96 3 months ago
@lizzyluv96 but after gods plan went to shit he still encouraged them to procreate . . .
dan333onlyhalfevil 3 months ago
@lizzyluv96 they were never said to be perfect but ignorant to right and wrong.
abrahama neices had to flee with their father, his name was Lot, and when they realised there was no men around to get them pregnant they decided it best to get their father drunk and have sex with him.
dan333onlyhalfevil 3 months ago
@dan333onlyhalfevil Oh yes I have heard of that story before. The Bible gives no comment respecting God’s approval or disapproval of the incident. What we do know is that God disapproves of drunkenness, incest, and intercourse outside of marriage. The fact that the 2 girls had to get their farther drunk shows that he would not have usually have been willing to do something like that, as he was a righteous man.
lizzyluv96 3 months ago
@lizzyluv96 Sorry to be a pain. I saw your comment and had to make a comment. "Remember that...", How exactly? None of this actually happened, it was written as an allegory to justify gods existence to non-believers and followers. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to criticize your belief in god - atheist/agnostic/theist, whatever floats your boat - but I'm just stunned at how completely convinced you seem to be that this is actually an historical fact.
ceolceol 3 months ago
@lizzyluv96 i have read the first page of the bible and the way it described how the world was made was completely wrong and i understand how people believed it ages ago but if you believe it know is just ridiculous as scientist have already proven how it was made
javahab 4 days ago
@javahab What was it exactly about the part of the creation acount you read that you fount so ilogical? And may I say I'm not sure it's best to just read a small portion of a book as detailed and significant as the Bible and make a judgement of it from that. I belive that certain scriptures are not always entierly clear at first when read on their own or without proper thought or understanding.