lol, this guy pwned all the liberals and they have to come up with more nonsense to try and pretend this isn't their point of view, even though it obvious is. You guys are just dumb, admit it and move on.
@S4M4R1T4N As opposed to his logic? Molotov doesn't understand Darwin's theory of natural selection, which is an explanation for the creation of life on earth, not means to an end (scientists, in fact, are careful to not describe evolution as an "upwards process" for fear of making the argument made in this video). The theory described in this video is "social Darwinism," which has been discredited by just about everyone.
@S4M4R1T4N It shouldn't take half an hour to research natural selection, its pretty straightforward basic knowlege and accepted by nearly all of the scientific community. Than again, if you are a fan of this guy, all bets are off.
@earthwormjah (Scientific consensus doesn't equal fact.) = Fact. I have nothing else to say to you, especially over the internet. Its a waste of time. Like anyone ever changed their opinion over a youtube argument. Seriously bro.
The path of human evolution no longer physical as we adapt the environment to US. Our future evolution is purely mental. That is why the fat kid gets to play baseball, so he learns that he can make contributions to society despite what he is physically capable of.
@HobbsO big business is actually a type of market. i am not referring to "big businesses" but instead "big business." if you knew anything about politics and economics besides rhetoric you would know these things. and no, if you knew anything about capitalism you would know it hates big businesses, as capitalism thrives on competition in the market, not multi-national conglomerates.
You can't use those examples and say it's capitalism. That's like me saying you're a lying fascist therefore you must be a Nazi...not far off but you get my point. Anyway if you're ever heard of the selfish gene you'll know that humanity thrives on helping one another (yes it does make sense just look it up). Capitalism is all about screwing other people over any chance you get...like the poor...capitalism will die. Also Darwin is right AND there is no God. Natural disaster 101 teaches that.
@HobbsO and i just read your crying about capitalism comment. if you and all your liberal buddies managed to stay awake during government/economics class in 3rd grade you would realize that america has not been a capitalist market in over 70 years as we dropped it in favor of big business shortly after ww2. since then the laws have been changed in favor of big business due to corporate greed/political corruption and now the market is so fucked up it couldnt be capitalist anymore if it tried.
Hey, here's a game for you. Find a NEW TESTAMENT quote from JESUS saying homosexuality is wrong. Taking Stuff from the old testament alone is picking and choosing. Why don't we go back to men raping women then marrying them along with there 699 other wives and 300 whore?
@HobbsO and furthermore i think its adorable you automatically assumed im christian. you probably think im republican too. and if you cannot realize that fetus's are in fact little people then wow. i know you have to be mentally sick to be a liberal, but the fact you have no issue with murdering a baby made me get a chill. and as for your vids, theyre from a university in commiefornia... no doubt friends with the same retards who helped invent the crock of shit global warming for funding
@dammitcrap I'm assuming you're a Christian republican because you called me a "crazy" liberal and we're watching a video from a right wing christian. We are in a capitalist society because big businesses do compete against each other. There is very little monopoly situations. Admittedly your right, bail outs are not capitalist but they came AFTER the market fall. "true capitalism" can never work because it will form monopolies eventually that will have no restrictions.
@dammitcrap Commiefornia...really. That just shows you ignorance. Oh and the the one with John Barrowmen was funded by the NON BIAS BBC who make many informative documentaries and programmed using government funding. Simply saying someone is wrong about gays AFTER they have posted credible evidence because the evidence falls on deaf hateful ears. Finally scientifically speaking an embryo is a sack of cells that is not even self aware. Sure I'm not to on the 32 weeks but I'm prochoice
@HobbsO well clearly you failed reading comprehension much like you failed economics. if you cannot wrap your minuscule mind around the difference between the markets of big business and capitalism, without continually referring to "big businesses" which nobody is even talking about, then i cant help you. you wont even acknowledge the only reason the political corruption behind said monopolies for them to bend the laws in favor of big business over capitalism.
@HobbsO yes commiefornia. it is the most socialist, liberal leaning, over-regulated state in the union. nothing ignorant about that. and bbc is also about as biased as msnbc or fox. they havent been balanced since the mid 90s. and besides, ive always known gays are born that way. one of my lifelong friends was very gay long before any of us hit puberty. i merely stated i will never understand and you come out calling me an idiot. that still doesnt make it any less disgusting.
@dammitcrap Well that's just worse. That essentially means you fully understand the whole gay brain thing but just can't fathom it. Not due to a lack of understanding just gears in your brain not clicking.
BBC is as balanced as it gets these days so don't say they're as bad as msnbc and CERTAINLY don't call them on par with Fox who have been loosly described as bad as Nazis when it comes to propergander.
i really, for the life of me, will never be able to understand how a male would rather suck a dick than eat a pussy. i seriously cannot understand. pussy is usually smooth, tastes like butter, soft and related to titties and a scrumptious ass with smooth legs and hairless armpits... how THE FUCK can you prefer another male over that?
@dammitcrap Um ok. You do know that wasn't just a random insult. I was genuinely pointing out that you are extremely misinformed.
Scientists have proven that gay men and women have different brain. There brain genetically different so they naturally prefer same sex relations. You on the other hand look from your own narrow minded perspective. How do you think women feel around you if that's you perspective. Gay guys have women's minds. Gay women have men's minds.
@HobbsO actually if you ever did any research on your own except for what you hear on pmsnbc, you would know that the gay condition has absolutely nothing to do with the brain and is instead largely dependant upon the amount of testosterone vs estrogen the fetus (you know, those little people you like killing) recieved in utero. that in turn tweaks the amounts of either that the body produces during its lifetime. im pretty sure testosterone is formed in the testes/ovaries, not the brain. dumbass
@earthwormjah well, its not like you made a groundbreaking argument there, giving me much of anything to work with. as if comparing a heterosexual female to a homosexual man was a valid argument.
@dammitcrap Ladies and gents, we bring you proof that evolution exists, the pride of goatfuck West Virginia, the missing link: "Og no get sister joke, sister fine in bed. Og values voter, plus Santorum promise Og jesus dashboard figurine, Nascar hoodie and one pound of squirrel jerky for vote."
@earthwormjah oh, you all are just the same. resorting to insults when i was prepared to keep this civil. and nope, from arizona, not republican, not christian, dont watch any sports. but no, its easier to hurl insults and complain about repression when you would be stoned to death on 90% of any of the other countries you couldve been born in. im so sorry for having a different opinion. i know, i know... anybody who disagrees with you should die. you all really know how to advance your own cause
@dammitcrap Dammitcrap: "oh, you all are just the same. resorting to insults when i was prepared to keep this civil." dammitcrap two comments before: "i take it that you are gay. eeewwww." Pot, paging kettle...
Yeah, just "for the record" re: evolution and gays, if I'm gay and my siblings are not, in a natural human setting, my efforts in food gathering, hunting and fighting still result in my genes being passed down, thru my siblings children. Still my genes, pal- evolution's a TEAM sport, it's not straight (lol) line down. One need not directly produce offspring to ensure the survival of ones genetic line. Thus the genetic predisposition toward homosexuality persists.
Do you think the entire population of Britain is made up of liberals? Do you think that liberals, and only liberals decide what goes on British money?
Elizabeth Fry is also on the British £5 note. Does that mean everyone in Britain is not only a Darwinian and Liberal, but also a chocolate making Quaker?
The Queen is on EVERY denomination of British money ~ this may shock you but not every Brit is a royalist and yet still her face is on British money.
Proponents of natural selection hold that that's the way things are, not necessarily how they ought to be. Although your gene's continued existence remains a mystery...
he believed in a God not god, and he believed in a form of evolution NOT the evolution of today, your probly the type of person that likes obama and uses food stamps
@Dman33599 is that all you have? this video is just a load of badly arranged arguments by an american conservative christian to cry about evolution, full of strawmen arguments and lacking in any facts. you can be conservative and believe in evolution, you can be a liberal and believe in god, you can even believe in god and evolution, but if you want your vids boiled down into bullet points by a shouty man trying very hard to make a point - that's up to you!
@luthalutha u cant believe in GOD and evolution. EVOLUTION is a pile of crap, u cant b a conservative and believe in evolution, not if u r a true conservative, but u can b a liberal and believe in god.
First of all our culture is based on Juduism/Christianity/Modern humanism (invented by a Christian) and old Greek philisophical norms and values. Believes cause action and result .. a culture for instance. Now same thing happens in Islamic countries, their culture is based and formed (or misformed) by sharia law. Than you have Atheism that seems to . isn't anything, just blaming. Like all the unemployment started because finally someone did something. The rest became unemployed. Before that..
okay a gene can do something dif in each gender so a gene might make men gay and woman bustier, making them more attractive IE more likely to reproduce IE more likely to have kids IE more likely to give birth to busty daughters and gay sons the daughters same thing.
@death9719 - you know a gene is just code for a piece of protein right? No protein i know can give a woman fantastic tits, you could try jiz (applied either orally or topically) and the only thing guaranteed to make a guy gay is reality t.v.
@tjmac7 you don't understand genes at all there are genes that make you schizo, make you a soiciopath, make you charitable, make you kind, make you gay
@death9719 - On the contrary, Dna is basically a blue print for protein, different combinations of base pairs coding for different amino acids. True, behaviour is influenced by our genetic inheritance but the characteristics you list may just as easily be expressed due to environmental cicumstances, such as in your case ie) ingesting too much jiz as a child.
@tjmac7 yes, so you can't prove its not i can't prove it is, so lets live by this principle "your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose."
@death9719 - show me a gene that makes a person schizo, soiciopath, charitable, kind, or gay and ill concede the point but until then i maintain reality t.v is the main cause of homosexuality, anything before that is propaganda.
who you gonna die for, God or Darwin? Religion hasnt stuck around 10,000 years because it's a bad idea. Without religion civilisations realise life is futile, spend their life drinking, fucking or meditating then either start a war with someone with a belief worth dying for or spend their life eating mushrooms in the forrest.
@tjmac7 Stupid question... neither is worth dying (or killing for). The first probably doesn't exist and even if it does it is not possible to know anything about; therefore it is pointless to try and pray, talk, negotiate or speculate about it. The latter died a long time ago, never asked anyone to die or kill for him and neither does the field of science that he originated; as it is a description of reality NOT a prescription for it, there is no opinion on what should or should not be.
@student123456 - I was making a subtle point about the extension of Darwinism into the realm of ideas, what Dawkins named the 'meme'. When i said 'who you gonna die for' the point i was alluding to was that some memes, just like genes, are more resilient and pervasive than others.
@tjmac7 Darwinism? I'm a rationalist, agnostic atheist and when I hear this term I can't help but think there is a deep misunderstanding of my position. What exactly are you trying to say by "Darwinism"? If memory serves Darwin never started a political movement, or philosophical one for that matter, he merely originated the field of evolutionary study through his research and writings (evolution by means of natural selection) that describes the diversity of life; atheists do not follow him.
@student123456 - I dont really care who, what, where or whether you follow, lead or just float pointlessly through your life to be honest. Darwinism is simply a set of ideas based on the concept of natural selection first formulated by Charles Darwin hence 'Dawinism'. Pleased to be of service but next time try google 1st.
@tjmac7 1) If darwinism is a "set of ideas based on the concept of natural selection" then your earlier claim "subtle point about the extension of darwinism into the realm of ideas" is redundant- this is why i asked how you defined darwinism (because I have encountered various definitions). However I find most often that those whom choose to use this word use it to misrepresent people in my position, which is why I mentioned it (I realized beforehand you prob. didn't care). (2) (con't)
@tjmac7 (2) Your first point about the propensity of religion as an idea to propagate as indicative of its good qualities is erronious for several reasons. Primarily your assumption that an idea is good simply because historically lots of people were either gullible, ignorant or forced to believe it (child indoctrination) is wrong. Ideas stand and fall to logical reasoning and evidence, if they cannot be supported by either then regardless of how popular it is at any point in time, it is 'bad'.
@student123456 - I have no interest in misrepresenting you or anybody else, you however appear to be doing just that. Are you an extremely crappy troll? The only value ideas (or memes) and genes hold is their ability to replicate so using this measure religion is extremely successful or 'good' . Darwinism extends to ideas as it does to anything that replicates, your alternative definitions are erroneous. Read or google the selfish gene by Dawkins before you continue your pointless argument.
@tjmac7 You are saying that being successful equates to being 'good', I argue that the successful propagation of an idea (or set of) is really irrelevant for judging whether the meme is good or bad for the people carrying it. In other words I'm saying ideas can be deemed 'bad' or 'good' for the population carrying them through logical reasoning and evidence. For example religion, may be good at propagating itself, but that doesn't mean its good for the population its propagating within.
@student123456 - if an idea decreases the population it is perpetuated within then it decreases itself, the strategy is similar to parasitism. If ‘Ideas stand and fall to logical reasoning and evidence’ as you say, then how do you explain the persistence of religion? For the record the term Darwinism has no negative connotation in the UK (Unlike some other countries).
@tjmac7 For an idea to be 'bad' it doesn't necessarily have to diminish the population it perpetuates within, for example the abrahamic religions have stood in the way of progress for millenia. ex. christianity stood against the round earth, it stood against equal rights for women and ethnic minorities for a long time (only changing in the last few hundred years), it stood against tolerance for other religions and it now stands against evolution & the big bang theory (at least in the U.S).con't
@tjmac7 con't here: What I meant from 'Ideas stand and fall to logical reasoning and evidence' is that in science the popularity of an idea means nothing, for example creationism being popular in the general community means does not have an impact on whether it is a good explanation of reality or not. As for the persistance of religion that should be obvious, it is good at propagating itself becuase of the enviroment of ignorance and superstition, when that changes it goes out the window.
@student123456 Progress is relative, its value is in its ability to sustain and perpetuate a population, other definitions are propaganda. If religion propagates in an environment of ignorance and superstition how can you explain Einstein’s belief: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." There are many well educated people who practice religion and Islam is spreading through the educated west like a virus.
@tjmac7 quote mining Einstein, really?...Einstein did not believe in a personal God, nor in any of the past/present religions (though he was born Jewish). He got a lot of hate mail because of his public opinions during his life time (from christians & jews), you should look into it there are plenty of reliable sources out there that describe Einstein and his thoughts on the universe, often he is misquoted because he uses poetic language when describing his work including use of the word 'God'.
@tjmac7 Hey man your the one misquoting Einstein in an attempt to lend credability to your religous views. To that I maintain that you should try to be more careful when quoting dead scientists. Now for your point on the historical figures in science whom believed in a Religion. Consider that most of these minds lived before our modern age so they were not privy to our knowledge and understanding also in those times it was life/career threatening to disagree with your church so its irrelevant.
@student123456 - I used a famous quote of Einsteins to show how he always refused to deny the existence of God and i wasnt referring to long dead historical figures but educated contemporary figures, the absolute antithesis to the 'enviroment of ignorance and superstition' you claim will see the fall of religion. To reiterate, how do you explain the persistence of religion amongst the well educated citizens of modern societies?
@tjmac7 Common mistake, that quote is famous but it is often misunderstood. Einstein explains this and other quotes himself, detailing how the words "religion" & "God" have different meaning to him. Indeed many of those quotes often used by religous proponents for example the one you mentioned here are meant to describe his work and not at all a God in your sense of the word. It would take to long to explain in replies here so check the video by dracumelenios titled "Einstein on God" it explains
@tjmac7 Now as for your final question, my answer is simple, the majority of people aren't well educated even in first world nations at least in regards to matters of science & mathematics. The grad 12 math, phyics,chem,bio classes barely scratch the surface in terms of the depth of knowledge we have accumulated, not to mention secondary schools fail to truly give students a strong foundation in critical thinking - which university studies do. con't.
@tjmac7 Con't: Consider that roughly 1/5 of the population doesnt even complete highschool level education, & a good portion of those whom do graduate don't take science courses & you can begin to see why so many don't understand science and are easy pray for new age superstitions and faith based beliefs. Still above that is the level of child indoctrination that starts at an early age & often ensures that kids close their minds to reason when evidence challenges their faith for fear of hell.
Einstein knew full well the implications of what he said yet chose the word God to describe the enormity of what he perceived, however peoples personal belief is not what interests me. What interests me is why religion persists. It seems religion offers an advantage to those who spread it and as long as religious communities encourage procreation and protect the sanctity of life then religion may offer an advantage to those who practice it. It appears religion will be around for a long time2come
@tjmac7 well I also think faiths will be around for some time, though I think the west will become more secular as 1) public schools get better & general knowledge of science increases, 2) science & technology march on relentlessly, reducing the god of the gaps 3) fundamentalism demonstrating why unquestioned dogma can be dangerous- whether your a wannabe templar in Norway or a lunatic who's looking to get lucky with a lot of virgins...it'll make people think more rationally about the faiths.
@student123456 - I see you are sticking to your personal ideas of progress, do you think your goals are the same as those of an Islamic Imam or a Jewish Rabbi and that you measure progress the same way? What makes your beliefs superior to Islam, Judaism or Christianity? If the natural goal of humanity is to survive and prosper then is it not possible that a science based civilization will end in extinction and religion is the best strategy.
@tjmac7 1)Well I think you've misunderstood, I said thats what I think will happen, whether it is what I want to see happen is another conversation. 2) I didn't say anything about progress or measuring it 3) What makes my "beliefs superior", is too general a question because I hold a view on every topic - agnostic atheism is only a view point on the religious topic, that is the extent of that. 4) "is it not possible" a better question would be- is it Probable? Look into the past con't
@tjmac7 Cont: we can see many examples of civlizations collapsing because of religion and other prospering becasue of on an emphasis for knowledge and intellectual freedom. For example the Maya, Easter Island, the Romans, look into the arabic empire the period between 800AD-1100AD was one of greatness for them because baghdad was the intellectual center of the world...unitl Islam took over and since then middle east has never regained its status, only violence, human rights abuses and ignorance.
@tjmac7 Con't pt3: So will a science based civilization end in extinction? Unlikely, technology has allowed us to conquer and spread around the world, where previously we had a hard time living we now build massive structures; Where once we died at 30-45 years age we now have a life expectancy that will soon reach 100; Where at one time an empire fell and a millenia of dark ages ensued, now science has made the tower of knowledge so strong it is almost impossilbe to destroy by a single nation.
@tjmac7 Con't pt4: Is religion the best strategy? 1) that doesn't make 'x' religions beliefs true 2) the beliefs do not help us discover anything new and ergo cannot help us avoid or counter disasters/extend our time as a species 3) The reason humanity has been able to survive is not our mythology but our endless curiosity and powerful imaginatoins - often these go against the established religous dogama 4) Even if religion is a good suvival strategem con't
@tjmac7 cont pt5: then truth doesn't really matter, because their not meant for truth only as survival mechanism. If so then as Hitchens points out why not just make up a new religion, with better moral codes, one that doesn't say how to beat a slave, whom to take as slaves or one that doesn't say not to kill non-believers and take their virigin daughters as spoils of war. One that lists commandments like 1)do not kill 2) do not rape 3) do not decieve for self gain etc. instead of useless orders
You forget to allow for the effects of environment in your ideas. The pyramids of Egypt were not built in the desert you see today (but may have contributed to it) and Islam flourished precisely because it enabled its followers to survive an inhospitable and barren environment, as with Judaism before it. The land, the people and their ideas are related, our current set of ideas are rapidly outstripping the available land.
@tjmac7 Well I understand that there are other factors, I think religion isn't a positive one because it hinders rational thought on many other topics. For example Islam wasn't always there, it is a decendent of the jewish religion like christianity, before that people still survived & thrived, using math, & producing art & culture. Religion may be a by-product of normal human behaviour that is historically propogated by emperors and dynasties as a form of control over the masses ex. Constantine
@tjmac7 Well I understand that there are other factors, I think religion isn't a positive one because it hinders rational thought on many other topics. For example Islam wasn't always there, it is a decendent of the jewish religion like christianity, before that people still survived & thrived, using math, & producing art & culture. Religion may be a by-product of normal human behaviour that is historically propogated by emperors and dynasties as a form of control over the masses ex. Constantine
Wouldn't this video's message seem to suggest that because of the supposed connection between Capitalism and Evolution, the GOP should support it? Yet only the Liberals are mentioned? As a Republican, I am baffled why the GOP despises it so much.
Also, Evolution only states that things get selected that are useful, not necessarily what is true. So your argument for the Muslims and Police really don't have the impact I assume you want, especially since they believe in Allah.
Atheism is a Religion, non-belief is still a belief. While claiming that science is infallible gives you your bible. "Scientists say that Evolution is true" is all you need to hear to give you faith in your religion.
@SrgGoofy In order for something to be a religion, it must have a doctrine/set of belief. Atheism claims no idols, no book, etc. - All atheists don't share the same philosophies. I know atheist who believe in a spirits and energies, while many other atheists claim their absolute disbelief in ANY supernatural existence. The point is, two Christian minds are more similar than two atheist minds being compared.It does not even fit the standard of being accepted as a religion.
@RedSkyNord You are right, Atheism is not one religion, it is many religions with a similar base. The opponent of Atheism isn't Christianity, it is Monotheism.
@SrgGoofy ... You are aware that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, right? So, how could atheism possibly relate to monotheism, when monotheism (by definition) means, 'the doctrine or belief that there is only one God'?
Atheism is the [disbelief] in a god. Like I previously stated, atheism has [no doctrine].
Judaism, Christianity, Islam - are all Abrahamic religions with the monotheistic (One God) belief.
Atheists do not believe in a God of any nature nor the possibility of a God.
@RedSkyNord Read my comment again, I didn't say that Atheism was RELATED to monotheism. I said it was the OPPONENT of, ie. Atheism is to Darwinism what Monotheism is to Christianity.
@SrgGoofy Correct. I read too fast. But you're still wrong.
You said:
"Atheism is not one religion, it is many religions with a similar base." - What religions have similar bases to Atheism?
"The opponent of Atheism isn't Christianity, it is Monotheism." - Right there you're saying Christianity is not the opponent of Atheism. You're either saying that, or your punctuation is incorrect. All theistic beliefs, whether it be Hinduism, Sikhism, or Judaism, etc. are the opposition of atheism itself.
@SrgGoofy "While claiming that science is infallible gives you your bible."
I've never once claimed that science is "infallible".
If science were infallible, there would be no need for scientists to even test theories because everyone would just accept that what's proposed is fact. But, it doesn't work like that. Science is more complex than a dusty old book complied by old white men thousands of years ago under "divine authority".
Christians actually claim that the Bible is infallible.
@SrgGoofy You are kidding yourself. Do you believe in unicorns? No? Is that a religion? Do you believe in elves? No? Is that a religion? Exactly how many religions are you a member? There's are 3000 gods you DON'T believe in. Are you 'religious' for all those? Atheism is NOT a religion. It has nothing that religion requires. Try to understand something before making such a ridiculous and embarrassing comment.
@SrgGoofy I just have to step in this...1) " non-belief is still a belief" thats like saying non-collecting is still collecting, it is a logical absurdity. 2) Science is not infallible, it has never been claimed to be perfect, science is like a self sharpenning tool that gets more useful (and capable) over time. 3) scientists saying that is not all I as an athiest need to believe it, far from it in fact there is a mountin of evidence that supports evolution & even directly contradicts religion.
@student123456 'Non-belief is still belief' is a poor choice of words on my part. What I mean to say is, choosing what to believe is still believing something. Non-belief would be not choosing a side in the Christian/Atheist argument. You have chosen to believe in the accepted scientific theory, thus these scientific theories are your -definition of religion- 'specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.'
@SrgGoofy I accept the scientific theory (evolution) as fact due to the overwhelming abundance of evidence for it, the logical reasoning behind it that explains most every aspect of reality very well and because it has predictive (testable) properties. I would change my mind (as would all of science) if a demonstrably true fact that was previously unknown was discovered and look for a better explanation. Religion is dogma, which means you cannot even consider changing your mind for any reason.
@SrgGoofy "Non-belief would be not choosing a side in the Christian/Atheist argument"- If I were to tell you that there was a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and didn't provide you with any credible evidence to support it and there was no way you could test my story, you would require faith to believe me because it is a positive assertion. Not believing this story would require no faith because non-belief is the neutral position to unsupported assertions of extraordinary proportions.
Are morals ojective or subjective? I would say: Ethics are subjective, society decides for itself, what it wants to be right and wrong. While Morals are ojective, the problem here is, we don't know what they are. So we turn to the divine, if the Bible is true, and there is a God, then he knows what is good and what is evil. So the society decides they want to believe the Bible, and thus they construct their Ethics based on the Morals taught in the Bible.
Anyone who has passed 10th grade biology knows more about evolution than you. If you think homosexuals should be condemned for not producing offspring, then what about people who are infertile? Do you think they should be deemed as no use to society and a genetic failure too? Do you realize that a species that can't keep it's population under control can lead to it's own downfall? We have enough people already. There's no reason to condemn anyone for not producing offspring.
@adoptedoneathotmail I clearly said, "Science has since proven his theories." - Darwin only proposed the concept of evolution. He did not prove anything in his note other than diversity within species and the idea that the human race are cousin species to the great apes. Did I state that evolution was "no longer a theory"? -No. Evolution is a theory. It is still being studied. There are many aspects of evolution that has been proven, e.g fossils of primitive ancestors. To deny such is ignorant.
How the fuck did you get believing in a god in the next evolutionary step? Why cant atheists have morals? Religious people ranting about atheism is just great.
@zackman40 I think the bigger problem is that Atheists claim to have all the base for all the answers. Christians have the bible to base their morals off of. What do atheists have? Yes, an individual atheist can believe in being a good person, but there is no unifying factor that atheists can rally behind to define their morals, unlike Christians, Muslims, and Jews who have their respective books that define what their morals should be.
@Stokedish atheists do not claim to have all the base answers, atheism is based off scientific theories as such as religion is nothing more than a theory itself. Not all christians, jews, muslims follow the morals off their bibles. this unifying factor you speak of is still split, as such an example would be the westboro baptist church they say they are christians so why dont many christians follow there mind set and morals?
- so, if you are a liberal then you're presumably an Atheist? *scratching head*
and, if you don't believe in God, you don't value morals? - I never knew that I lacked moral convictions. Btw, have you ever heard of 'Atheist conservatives'? yeah, we exist.
- Why is it negative to acknowledge the notes of Darwin? Science has since proven his theories. Denying what is proven is the most ignorant thing one can do.
@RedSkyNord science proves nothing until it welcomes dissent from opposing theories and it certainly has not done that with non-darwinists. the excuse of "creations aren't published in scientific journals" is a fallacy.
@jbbremerton Scientific law of evidence states that it is not science until proven factual. There has yet to have been any dissent theory's to prove Darwin's theory incorrect, while there are plausible opposing theory's to the Big Bang.
@RedSkyNord By Darwin's own standard his hypothesis has not been proven. Only when the 'proof' required was redefined and assumptions are applied to known quantities can one even attempt to claim "evolution has been proven without laughing
Of course atheists have morals and many are very moral individuals, however, their worldview does not adequately explain why. Just like someone who claims to be post-modern, lots of rhetoric, but their actual lifestyle betrays the illegitimacy of their claim
@RedSkyNord Darwinian Evolution has not been proven true, and by saying that you are showing your own ignorance. Theories can not be PROVEN, they can only be verified, meaning it CAN be true, but more information can be braught forward to disprove it. As for your comment on morally right atheists, there is no such thing, moral behavior can only be handed down by the divine, otherwise you are only doing what YOU think is right. What if YOU think murder is morally right?
@SrgGoofy First off, there's no such thing as "Darwinian Evolution" It is called Darwinism. Second, "Theories can not be PROVEN"?? That is (by far) the most stupid claim I've ever heard. ALL facts were one theories until proven factual. Darwin did not invent the concept of evolution, he only proposed his theories from his travels and observations, of which has since been proven. Name one claim in Darwin's notes that scientists have disproved?
@RedSkyNord There is a HUGE divide between theory and fact. Newton's 1st law is a fact. Newton's theory of gravity, is a theory. Newton's theory of gravity, was accepted until Einstien came up with his General Theory of Reletivity, thus disproving Newton's theory. Regardless of what scientists (who are just seeking grant money) say, a theory is just a guess. A theory with supporting evidence has not been proven, it is just wating on more information, so that it can be disproven.
@SrgGoofy Well, no shit.... because theory and facts are two different things.
And Newton's law has absolutely no correlation to Charles Darwin.
Definition of THEORY: 'system of ideas intended to explain something'.
A theory is NOT a guess, but but an idea that can better explain the subject in question.
I think you should really stop debating with people and just get an education or at least do yourself a favor and research shit before you go around making yourself look like a complete moron.
@RedSkyNord I'm a Philosophy student, so I am getting educated, sorry if it's not the same indoctrination that you are undergoing. I am sitting here with a first year biology book and 7 web tabs. I think I have the resources to debate you, but you won't listen, so I'll just go camping.
@SrgGoofy ... You're a 'philosophical' student. That means you're studying philosophy, not science. So stop debating science which you're unacquainted with. I would expect a philosophical student to be a bit more open-minded than you. In philosophy class you're supposed to be taught about several different religions and spiritual beliefs. Yet, you're ignorance is so bliss... How could a philosophical student call Atheism a religion? Apparently, you're not paying attention in class.
@RedSkyNord My main area of interest is the Philosophy of Science, so I do study science. The difference between us, is I don't believe everything I'm taught in school. I have studied most religions, and I don't see a difference between the fanatical belief in religion or the authoritarian belief in science. As for my Biology book, I'm only on chapter 3, but I already know how it ends.
@SrgGoofy I don't base by beliefs on what I'm told, but by what I find logical. There is no "authoritarian belief in science." Religion, gov't, and parenting are the only forms of authoritarian. No one can be force to believe science. Philosophy of Science is the bases of all science. Where do you go from there? To understand science is to understand the mentality of those great scientists and mathematicians who actually brainstormed their ingenious concepts and rules. We study THEIR logic...
@RedSkyNord The Philosophy of Science asks, what is a theory, and should you believe it? Today's Science is Authoritarian, if you disagree with the consensus, you are labeled ignorant, or uneducated, as I'm sure you're labeling me. If a scientists tries to find evidence for intelligent design he is called a pseudo-scientist, or a crack pot. If in my biology class, I wrote that I thought that Genetic Drift was the primary factor in evolution, and not Natural Selection, I'd get a C at best.
@SrgGoofy No. Philosophy of Science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. - "Today's Science is Authoritarian, if you disagree with the consensus, you are labeled ignorant, or uneducated" lmfao! where do you come up with this crap?
How do you define "intelligent design"?
Why would a scientist be a Pseudo-Scientist if he were to find evidence?
Genetic Drift is a dead concept because in fact, most offspring's live on to create new offspring's.
@SrgGoofy Okay. Well, you're talking to someone who's Jewish father is a physics professor and Roman Catholic mother who is an anthropologist. I was raised pretty intellectually. I get very impatient with those who insist that they know what they're talking about when in fact, they know nothing. Btw... I'm a biology major, so bring on the debate, or just shut up already. Open your biology t(hat you so claim to have) and actually read the damn thing.
@RedSkyNord Seeing Darwinism disproved is as likely as the Pope pointing out contradictions in the Bible. Evidence for Darwinism is kept, evidence against Darwinism is swept under the carpet. The people who study evolution are bias. If they weren't they'd be studying theology or philosophy.
@SrgGoofy "Seeing Darwinism disproved is as likely as the Pope pointing out contradictions in the Bible." Your logic is comical. You speak directly out of your ass; no thought process, no logicality. How can you compare a medieval book of fallacy (the Bible), to Charles Darwin's notes? The man was a scientists. He studied nature. How much studies went into compiling the Bible? Absolutely none. The Bible is precisely a book of stories - nothing more. Use your brain, you dolt.
Great job of beating the poor strawman. If you keep beating him up so much in very video you make he's going to fall a part and show all the lies and misconception you put in to him.
For the record: England isn't liberal under a conservative government, and Darwin is on our notes because he is one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, pioneering a science that you clearly don't understand, and don't try to. He isn't on the notes because of some liberal agenda; in this country, conservatives and liberals alike believe in evolution, because we have a better standard of education than America.
And you did a terrible accent and know nothing about this country.
You messed this one up at the end. According to Darwin we should ENCOURAGE homosexuals to come out of the closet, but DISCOURAGE them from pro-creating.
@Dgen717 David Berlinski, Jason Lisle, Antony Flew, Sir Ernest Chain, to name just a few very intelligent people who both understand and reject the hypothesis of evolution. Disagree with them if you want, but they are smart people (among many others - though admittedly in the minority) who took the time to evaluate the idea and simply disagree with it.
@staum607 Evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a fact. Natural selection is not a hypothesis, it's a theory. If those people you mention think the way you do, then clearly my point still stands.
@Dgen717 Has macro evolution ever been observed or objectievly tested? If not you cannot make the definitive statement "it is a fact." As for your 2nd point, it is an "All true scotsman" logical fallacy.
@staum607 You are comming a strawman fallacy. I say evolution is a fact and you argue against macro-evolution. Nice attempt at all true scotsman but again you're wrong. Since my original statement was about people I know, the point is still valid and correct. Also, none of those people you've mentioned have shown me their understanding of evolution so I can't say whether or not they understand it. Evolution IS a fact. Observable.
@Dgen717 I think that I do understand evolution, BUT if I reject it, you will automaticly say that I don't understand it. Because that is how people who have been indoctrinated into evolution defend their beliefs. Also, you must clarify what you mean by evolution, because that can become an argument unto itself.
@SrgGoofy Create a web page, detail on it your understanding of evolution, post the link and I'll assess. Of course, to demonstrate you have a proper understanding of evolution you would need to show examples of evolution happening (therefore not rejecting it) OR you would have to show examples of what is known to be evolution and why (scientifically) this understanding is in fact wrong. Be my guest....
Read a lot into it and found no evidence. I understand perfectly how evolution is supposed to work, but there is just no evidence to show it has happened that way.
@1faithchick7 "just no evidence to show it has happened that way." NO evidence? Wow!. A good place to start is the Berkeley evolution 101 page. LOTS of evidence there. Talk Origins is good too. Visit the biology department of a secular university. Research Ring species.
lol, this guy pwned all the liberals and they have to come up with more nonsense to try and pretend this isn't their point of view, even though it obvious is. You guys are just dumb, admit it and move on.
Kinosis79 1 month ago
@Kinosis79 You don't believe in evolution? Seriously?
earthwormjah 1 month ago
I don't blame this guy for not responding to these comments. A lot of them are just silly.
S4M4R1T4N 1 month ago
@S4M4R1T4N As opposed to his logic? Molotov doesn't understand Darwin's theory of natural selection, which is an explanation for the creation of life on earth, not means to an end (scientists, in fact, are careful to not describe evolution as an "upwards process" for fear of making the argument made in this video). The theory described in this video is "social Darwinism," which has been discredited by just about everyone.
earthwormjah 1 month ago
@earthwormjah Calm down bro. I'm not about to spend half an hour on research just to argue with you. This is the internet after all.
S4M4R1T4N 1 month ago
@S4M4R1T4N It shouldn't take half an hour to research natural selection, its pretty straightforward basic knowlege and accepted by nearly all of the scientific community. Than again, if you are a fan of this guy, all bets are off.
earthwormjah 1 month ago
@earthwormjah (Scientific consensus doesn't equal fact.) = Fact. I have nothing else to say to you, especially over the internet. Its a waste of time. Like anyone ever changed their opinion over a youtube argument. Seriously bro.
S4M4R1T4N 1 month ago
The path of human evolution no longer physical as we adapt the environment to US. Our future evolution is purely mental. That is why the fat kid gets to play baseball, so he learns that he can make contributions to society despite what he is physically capable of.
CueBaudcot 1 month ago
You fail so epically at biology I don't even know
ShadowPrometheus 1 month ago
@dammitcrap Big businesses are a state of free market capitalism. That's pretty much capitalism in a nut shell. Capitalism thrives on greed.
Also hormone levels are CONTROLLED by the brain. Hopefully not your brain, but a brain at least.
Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait
Google it, nuff said.
Also don't say little people. Your getting dwarfs mixed up with a sack of cells.
Finally, yes economy screwed thanks to Bush
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO big business is actually a type of market. i am not referring to "big businesses" but instead "big business." if you knew anything about politics and economics besides rhetoric you would know these things. and no, if you knew anything about capitalism you would know it hates big businesses, as capitalism thrives on competition in the market, not multi-national conglomerates.
/watch?v=KGPa5Ob-5Ps&feature=player_embedded
you are in need of education. watch it.
dammitcrap 1 month ago
You can't use those examples and say it's capitalism. That's like me saying you're a lying fascist therefore you must be a Nazi...not far off but you get my point. Anyway if you're ever heard of the selfish gene you'll know that humanity thrives on helping one another (yes it does make sense just look it up). Capitalism is all about screwing other people over any chance you get...like the poor...capitalism will die. Also Darwin is right AND there is no God. Natural disaster 101 teaches that.
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO and i just read your crying about capitalism comment. if you and all your liberal buddies managed to stay awake during government/economics class in 3rd grade you would realize that america has not been a capitalist market in over 70 years as we dropped it in favor of big business shortly after ww2. since then the laws have been changed in favor of big business due to corporate greed/political corruption and now the market is so fucked up it couldnt be capitalist anymore if it tried.
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap
Here is some info on the "gay brain":
/watch?v=Di-wiGSF7LE
/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c
/watch?v=MfBOGXFkC8c
Hey, here's a game for you. Find a NEW TESTAMENT quote from JESUS saying homosexuality is wrong. Taking Stuff from the old testament alone is picking and choosing. Why don't we go back to men raping women then marrying them along with there 699 other wives and 300 whore?
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO and furthermore i think its adorable you automatically assumed im christian. you probably think im republican too. and if you cannot realize that fetus's are in fact little people then wow. i know you have to be mentally sick to be a liberal, but the fact you have no issue with murdering a baby made me get a chill. and as for your vids, theyre from a university in commiefornia... no doubt friends with the same retards who helped invent the crock of shit global warming for funding
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap I'm assuming you're a Christian republican because you called me a "crazy" liberal and we're watching a video from a right wing christian. We are in a capitalist society because big businesses do compete against each other. There is very little monopoly situations. Admittedly your right, bail outs are not capitalist but they came AFTER the market fall. "true capitalism" can never work because it will form monopolies eventually that will have no restrictions.
HobbsO 1 month ago
@dammitcrap Commiefornia...really. That just shows you ignorance. Oh and the the one with John Barrowmen was funded by the NON BIAS BBC who make many informative documentaries and programmed using government funding. Simply saying someone is wrong about gays AFTER they have posted credible evidence because the evidence falls on deaf hateful ears. Finally scientifically speaking an embryo is a sack of cells that is not even self aware. Sure I'm not to on the 32 weeks but I'm prochoice
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO well clearly you failed reading comprehension much like you failed economics. if you cannot wrap your minuscule mind around the difference between the markets of big business and capitalism, without continually referring to "big businesses" which nobody is even talking about, then i cant help you. you wont even acknowledge the only reason the political corruption behind said monopolies for them to bend the laws in favor of big business over capitalism.
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@HobbsO yes commiefornia. it is the most socialist, liberal leaning, over-regulated state in the union. nothing ignorant about that. and bbc is also about as biased as msnbc or fox. they havent been balanced since the mid 90s. and besides, ive always known gays are born that way. one of my lifelong friends was very gay long before any of us hit puberty. i merely stated i will never understand and you come out calling me an idiot. that still doesnt make it any less disgusting.
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap Well that's just worse. That essentially means you fully understand the whole gay brain thing but just can't fathom it. Not due to a lack of understanding just gears in your brain not clicking.
BBC is as balanced as it gets these days so don't say they're as bad as msnbc and CERTAINLY don't call them on par with Fox who have been loosly described as bad as Nazis when it comes to propergander.
HobbsO 1 month ago
i really, for the life of me, will never be able to understand how a male would rather suck a dick than eat a pussy. i seriously cannot understand. pussy is usually smooth, tastes like butter, soft and related to titties and a scrumptious ass with smooth legs and hairless armpits... how THE FUCK can you prefer another male over that?
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap You're an idiot. Fact
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO you are a faggot socialist. fact
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap Um ok. You do know that wasn't just a random insult. I was genuinely pointing out that you are extremely misinformed.
Scientists have proven that gay men and women have different brain. There brain genetically different so they naturally prefer same sex relations. You on the other hand look from your own narrow minded perspective. How do you think women feel around you if that's you perspective. Gay guys have women's minds. Gay women have men's minds.
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO actually if you ever did any research on your own except for what you hear on pmsnbc, you would know that the gay condition has absolutely nothing to do with the brain and is instead largely dependant upon the amount of testosterone vs estrogen the fetus (you know, those little people you like killing) recieved in utero. that in turn tweaks the amounts of either that the body produces during its lifetime. im pretty sure testosterone is formed in the testes/ovaries, not the brain. dumbass
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap How can you prefer dick to pussy? Ask your sister.
earthwormjah 1 month ago
@earthwormjah i take it that you are gay.
eeewwww.
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap Seriously? That was the best you could do? watch?v=UKhglxToKIA
earthwormjah 1 month ago
@earthwormjah well, its not like you made a groundbreaking argument there, giving me much of anything to work with. as if comparing a heterosexual female to a homosexual man was a valid argument.
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap Ladies and gents, we bring you proof that evolution exists, the pride of goatfuck West Virginia, the missing link: "Og no get sister joke, sister fine in bed. Og values voter, plus Santorum promise Og jesus dashboard figurine, Nascar hoodie and one pound of squirrel jerky for vote."
earthwormjah 1 month ago
@earthwormjah oh, you all are just the same. resorting to insults when i was prepared to keep this civil. and nope, from arizona, not republican, not christian, dont watch any sports. but no, its easier to hurl insults and complain about repression when you would be stoned to death on 90% of any of the other countries you couldve been born in. im so sorry for having a different opinion. i know, i know... anybody who disagrees with you should die. you all really know how to advance your own cause
dammitcrap 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dammitcrap Dammitcrap: "oh, you all are just the same. resorting to insults when i was prepared to keep this civil." dammitcrap two comments before: "i take it that you are gay. eeewwww." Pot, paging kettle...
earthwormjah 1 month ago
MUSLIM YOOOOTHZ! :D
dammitcrap 1 month ago 2
Rage moar!
bigun89 2 months ago
Yeah, just "for the record" re: evolution and gays, if I'm gay and my siblings are not, in a natural human setting, my efforts in food gathering, hunting and fighting still result in my genes being passed down, thru my siblings children. Still my genes, pal- evolution's a TEAM sport, it's not straight (lol) line down. One need not directly produce offspring to ensure the survival of ones genetic line. Thus the genetic predisposition toward homosexuality persists.
nabcunion 2 months ago
@nabcunion there isn't a gay gene.
mrrossn 2 months ago
hahaha I love these videos!! great material!!
ProConstitutioner 2 months ago
Do you think the entire population of Britain is made up of liberals? Do you think that liberals, and only liberals decide what goes on British money?
Elizabeth Fry is also on the British £5 note. Does that mean everyone in Britain is not only a Darwinian and Liberal, but also a chocolate making Quaker?
The Queen is on EVERY denomination of British money ~ this may shock you but not every Brit is a royalist and yet still her face is on British money.
DeeDemonwitch 2 months ago
Proponents of natural selection hold that that's the way things are, not necessarily how they ought to be. Although your gene's continued existence remains a mystery...
revanspalace 3 months ago
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, sir.
varanidguy 3 months ago
Naturalistic Fallacy for the win!
thePhilosotroll 3 months ago
he believed in a God not god, and he believed in a form of evolution NOT the evolution of today, your probly the type of person that likes obama and uses food stamps
Dman33599 4 months ago
so stupid. clearly aimed at stupid people.
luthalutha 4 months ago
@luthalutha idiot
Dman33599 4 months ago
@Dman33599 is that all you have? this video is just a load of badly arranged arguments by an american conservative christian to cry about evolution, full of strawmen arguments and lacking in any facts. you can be conservative and believe in evolution, you can be a liberal and believe in god, you can even believe in god and evolution, but if you want your vids boiled down into bullet points by a shouty man trying very hard to make a point - that's up to you!
luthalutha 4 months ago
@luthalutha u cant believe in GOD and evolution. EVOLUTION is a pile of crap, u cant b a conservative and believe in evolution, not if u r a true conservative, but u can b a liberal and believe in god.
Dman33599 4 months ago
@Dman33599 Darwin believed in God, and Evolution you sound really confused.
luthalutha 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dman33599 Actually you can believe in God and evolution.
DeeDemonwitch 2 months ago
The word work didn't exist nor the word unemployment.
Brulluhman 4 months ago
First of all our culture is based on Juduism/Christianity/Modern humanism (invented by a Christian) and old Greek philisophical norms and values. Believes cause action and result .. a culture for instance. Now same thing happens in Islamic countries, their culture is based and formed (or misformed) by sharia law. Than you have Atheism that seems to . isn't anything, just blaming. Like all the unemployment started because finally someone did something. The rest became unemployed. Before that..
Brulluhman 4 months ago
Hey, Fucktard.
Liberalism does not equal atheism does not equal darwinism.
One's political views does not necessarily inform you of your god belief or scientific theory beliefs.
Are you really that much of a moron?
By the way, Jesus is purported to have told his followers to sell all their possessions. Not exactly a conservative financial philosophy, eh?
The stupid, it hurts.
Peace out, you dumbass.
LetReasonPrevail1 4 months ago
Is this for real? Can someone be this stupid?
whchain 5 months ago
correct me if i'm wrong but isn't Banning Gay Marriage against the constitution and our civil rights. You know the right to free speech and privacy?
Also, if its ever proven that Homosexuality is passed on through genes, how will your views on abortion change, then? I'm curious to know
Acard89 5 months ago
Yo retard evolution is biology not politics.
TheMrgoku1985 5 months ago
okay a gene can do something dif in each gender so a gene might make men gay and woman bustier, making them more attractive IE more likely to reproduce IE more likely to have kids IE more likely to give birth to busty daughters and gay sons the daughters same thing.
death9719 5 months ago
@death9719 - you know a gene is just code for a piece of protein right? No protein i know can give a woman fantastic tits, you could try jiz (applied either orally or topically) and the only thing guaranteed to make a guy gay is reality t.v.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 you don't understand genes at all there are genes that make you schizo, make you a soiciopath, make you charitable, make you kind, make you gay
death9719 5 months ago
@death9719 - On the contrary, Dna is basically a blue print for protein, different combinations of base pairs coding for different amino acids. True, behaviour is influenced by our genetic inheritance but the characteristics you list may just as easily be expressed due to environmental cicumstances, such as in your case ie) ingesting too much jiz as a child.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 yes, so you can't prove its not i can't prove it is, so lets live by this principle "your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose."
death9719 5 months ago
@death9719 - show me a gene that makes a person schizo, soiciopath, charitable, kind, or gay and ill concede the point but until then i maintain reality t.v is the main cause of homosexuality, anything before that is propaganda.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 i doesn't really matter, you have no right to stop therm from marring any more than i do to force you to buy health insurance
death9719 5 months ago
theres a dif between believing and agreeing with.
death9719 5 months ago
who you gonna die for, God or Darwin? Religion hasnt stuck around 10,000 years because it's a bad idea. Without religion civilisations realise life is futile, spend their life drinking, fucking or meditating then either start a war with someone with a belief worth dying for or spend their life eating mushrooms in the forrest.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Stupid question... neither is worth dying (or killing for). The first probably doesn't exist and even if it does it is not possible to know anything about; therefore it is pointless to try and pray, talk, negotiate or speculate about it. The latter died a long time ago, never asked anyone to die or kill for him and neither does the field of science that he originated; as it is a description of reality NOT a prescription for it, there is no opinion on what should or should not be.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 - I was making a subtle point about the extension of Darwinism into the realm of ideas, what Dawkins named the 'meme'. When i said 'who you gonna die for' the point i was alluding to was that some memes, just like genes, are more resilient and pervasive than others.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Darwinism? I'm a rationalist, agnostic atheist and when I hear this term I can't help but think there is a deep misunderstanding of my position. What exactly are you trying to say by "Darwinism"? If memory serves Darwin never started a political movement, or philosophical one for that matter, he merely originated the field of evolutionary study through his research and writings (evolution by means of natural selection) that describes the diversity of life; atheists do not follow him.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 - I dont really care who, what, where or whether you follow, lead or just float pointlessly through your life to be honest. Darwinism is simply a set of ideas based on the concept of natural selection first formulated by Charles Darwin hence 'Dawinism'. Pleased to be of service but next time try google 1st.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 1) If darwinism is a "set of ideas based on the concept of natural selection" then your earlier claim "subtle point about the extension of darwinism into the realm of ideas" is redundant- this is why i asked how you defined darwinism (because I have encountered various definitions). However I find most often that those whom choose to use this word use it to misrepresent people in my position, which is why I mentioned it (I realized beforehand you prob. didn't care). (2) (con't)
student123456 5 months ago
@tjmac7 (2) Your first point about the propensity of religion as an idea to propagate as indicative of its good qualities is erronious for several reasons. Primarily your assumption that an idea is good simply because historically lots of people were either gullible, ignorant or forced to believe it (child indoctrination) is wrong. Ideas stand and fall to logical reasoning and evidence, if they cannot be supported by either then regardless of how popular it is at any point in time, it is 'bad'.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 - I have no interest in misrepresenting you or anybody else, you however appear to be doing just that. Are you an extremely crappy troll? The only value ideas (or memes) and genes hold is their ability to replicate so using this measure religion is extremely successful or 'good' . Darwinism extends to ideas as it does to anything that replicates, your alternative definitions are erroneous. Read or google the selfish gene by Dawkins before you continue your pointless argument.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 You are saying that being successful equates to being 'good', I argue that the successful propagation of an idea (or set of) is really irrelevant for judging whether the meme is good or bad for the people carrying it. In other words I'm saying ideas can be deemed 'bad' or 'good' for the population carrying them through logical reasoning and evidence. For example religion, may be good at propagating itself, but that doesn't mean its good for the population its propagating within.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 - if an idea decreases the population it is perpetuated within then it decreases itself, the strategy is similar to parasitism. If ‘Ideas stand and fall to logical reasoning and evidence’ as you say, then how do you explain the persistence of religion? For the record the term Darwinism has no negative connotation in the UK (Unlike some other countries).
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 For an idea to be 'bad' it doesn't necessarily have to diminish the population it perpetuates within, for example the abrahamic religions have stood in the way of progress for millenia. ex. christianity stood against the round earth, it stood against equal rights for women and ethnic minorities for a long time (only changing in the last few hundred years), it stood against tolerance for other religions and it now stands against evolution & the big bang theory (at least in the U.S).con't
student123456 5 months ago
@tjmac7 con't here: What I meant from 'Ideas stand and fall to logical reasoning and evidence' is that in science the popularity of an idea means nothing, for example creationism being popular in the general community means does not have an impact on whether it is a good explanation of reality or not. As for the persistance of religion that should be obvious, it is good at propagating itself becuase of the enviroment of ignorance and superstition, when that changes it goes out the window.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 Progress is relative, its value is in its ability to sustain and perpetuate a population, other definitions are propaganda. If religion propagates in an environment of ignorance and superstition how can you explain Einstein’s belief: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." There are many well educated people who practice religion and Islam is spreading through the educated west like a virus.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 quote mining Einstein, really?...Einstein did not believe in a personal God, nor in any of the past/present religions (though he was born Jewish). He got a lot of hate mail because of his public opinions during his life time (from christians & jews), you should look into it there are plenty of reliable sources out there that describe Einstein and his thoughts on the universe, often he is misquoted because he uses poetic language when describing his work including use of the word 'God'.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 - i was begining to think you had something interesting to say but now i just think your a tit.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Hey man your the one misquoting Einstein in an attempt to lend credability to your religous views. To that I maintain that you should try to be more careful when quoting dead scientists. Now for your point on the historical figures in science whom believed in a Religion. Consider that most of these minds lived before our modern age so they were not privy to our knowledge and understanding also in those times it was life/career threatening to disagree with your church so its irrelevant.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 - I used a famous quote of Einsteins to show how he always refused to deny the existence of God and i wasnt referring to long dead historical figures but educated contemporary figures, the absolute antithesis to the 'enviroment of ignorance and superstition' you claim will see the fall of religion. To reiterate, how do you explain the persistence of religion amongst the well educated citizens of modern societies?
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Common mistake, that quote is famous but it is often misunderstood. Einstein explains this and other quotes himself, detailing how the words "religion" & "God" have different meaning to him. Indeed many of those quotes often used by religous proponents for example the one you mentioned here are meant to describe his work and not at all a God in your sense of the word. It would take to long to explain in replies here so check the video by dracumelenios titled "Einstein on God" it explains
student123456 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Now as for your final question, my answer is simple, the majority of people aren't well educated even in first world nations at least in regards to matters of science & mathematics. The grad 12 math, phyics,chem,bio classes barely scratch the surface in terms of the depth of knowledge we have accumulated, not to mention secondary schools fail to truly give students a strong foundation in critical thinking - which university studies do. con't.
student123456 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Con't: Consider that roughly 1/5 of the population doesnt even complete highschool level education, & a good portion of those whom do graduate don't take science courses & you can begin to see why so many don't understand science and are easy pray for new age superstitions and faith based beliefs. Still above that is the level of child indoctrination that starts at an early age & often ensures that kids close their minds to reason when evidence challenges their faith for fear of hell.
student123456 5 months ago
Einstein knew full well the implications of what he said yet chose the word God to describe the enormity of what he perceived, however peoples personal belief is not what interests me. What interests me is why religion persists. It seems religion offers an advantage to those who spread it and as long as religious communities encourage procreation and protect the sanctity of life then religion may offer an advantage to those who practice it. It appears religion will be around for a long time2come
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 well I also think faiths will be around for some time, though I think the west will become more secular as 1) public schools get better & general knowledge of science increases, 2) science & technology march on relentlessly, reducing the god of the gaps 3) fundamentalism demonstrating why unquestioned dogma can be dangerous- whether your a wannabe templar in Norway or a lunatic who's looking to get lucky with a lot of virgins...it'll make people think more rationally about the faiths.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 - I see you are sticking to your personal ideas of progress, do you think your goals are the same as those of an Islamic Imam or a Jewish Rabbi and that you measure progress the same way? What makes your beliefs superior to Islam, Judaism or Christianity? If the natural goal of humanity is to survive and prosper then is it not possible that a science based civilization will end in extinction and religion is the best strategy.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 1)Well I think you've misunderstood, I said thats what I think will happen, whether it is what I want to see happen is another conversation. 2) I didn't say anything about progress or measuring it 3) What makes my "beliefs superior", is too general a question because I hold a view on every topic - agnostic atheism is only a view point on the religious topic, that is the extent of that. 4) "is it not possible" a better question would be- is it Probable? Look into the past con't
student123456 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Cont: we can see many examples of civlizations collapsing because of religion and other prospering becasue of on an emphasis for knowledge and intellectual freedom. For example the Maya, Easter Island, the Romans, look into the arabic empire the period between 800AD-1100AD was one of greatness for them because baghdad was the intellectual center of the world...unitl Islam took over and since then middle east has never regained its status, only violence, human rights abuses and ignorance.
student123456 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Con't pt3: So will a science based civilization end in extinction? Unlikely, technology has allowed us to conquer and spread around the world, where previously we had a hard time living we now build massive structures; Where once we died at 30-45 years age we now have a life expectancy that will soon reach 100; Where at one time an empire fell and a millenia of dark ages ensued, now science has made the tower of knowledge so strong it is almost impossilbe to destroy by a single nation.
student123456 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Con't pt4: Is religion the best strategy? 1) that doesn't make 'x' religions beliefs true 2) the beliefs do not help us discover anything new and ergo cannot help us avoid or counter disasters/extend our time as a species 3) The reason humanity has been able to survive is not our mythology but our endless curiosity and powerful imaginatoins - often these go against the established religous dogama 4) Even if religion is a good suvival strategem con't
student123456 5 months ago
@tjmac7 cont pt5: then truth doesn't really matter, because their not meant for truth only as survival mechanism. If so then as Hitchens points out why not just make up a new religion, with better moral codes, one that doesn't say how to beat a slave, whom to take as slaves or one that doesn't say not to kill non-believers and take their virigin daughters as spoils of war. One that lists commandments like 1)do not kill 2) do not rape 3) do not decieve for self gain etc. instead of useless orders
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 Typo alert: I meant to say *one that doesn't order you to kill non-believers* not ->" doesn't say not to kill" that was mistake.
student123456 5 months ago
You forget to allow for the effects of environment in your ideas. The pyramids of Egypt were not built in the desert you see today (but may have contributed to it) and Islam flourished precisely because it enabled its followers to survive an inhospitable and barren environment, as with Judaism before it. The land, the people and their ideas are related, our current set of ideas are rapidly outstripping the available land.
tjmac7 5 months ago
@tjmac7 Well I understand that there are other factors, I think religion isn't a positive one because it hinders rational thought on many other topics. For example Islam wasn't always there, it is a decendent of the jewish religion like christianity, before that people still survived & thrived, using math, & producing art & culture. Religion may be a by-product of normal human behaviour that is historically propogated by emperors and dynasties as a form of control over the masses ex. Constantine
student123456 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjmac7 Well I understand that there are other factors, I think religion isn't a positive one because it hinders rational thought on many other topics. For example Islam wasn't always there, it is a decendent of the jewish religion like christianity, before that people still survived & thrived, using math, & producing art & culture. Religion may be a by-product of normal human behaviour that is historically propogated by emperors and dynasties as a form of control over the masses ex. Constantine
student123456 5 months ago
Wouldn't this video's message seem to suggest that because of the supposed connection between Capitalism and Evolution, the GOP should support it? Yet only the Liberals are mentioned? As a Republican, I am baffled why the GOP despises it so much.
Also, Evolution only states that things get selected that are useful, not necessarily what is true. So your argument for the Muslims and Police really don't have the impact I assume you want, especially since they believe in Allah.
BrellK 5 months ago
Atheism is a Religion, non-belief is still a belief. While claiming that science is infallible gives you your bible. "Scientists say that Evolution is true" is all you need to hear to give you faith in your religion.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
Comment removed
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy In order for something to be a religion, it must have a doctrine/set of belief. Atheism claims no idols, no book, etc. - All atheists don't share the same philosophies. I know atheist who believe in a spirits and energies, while many other atheists claim their absolute disbelief in ANY supernatural existence. The point is, two Christian minds are more similar than two atheist minds being compared.It does not even fit the standard of being accepted as a religion.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord You are right, Atheism is not one religion, it is many religions with a similar base. The opponent of Atheism isn't Christianity, it is Monotheism.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy ... You are aware that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, right? So, how could atheism possibly relate to monotheism, when monotheism (by definition) means, 'the doctrine or belief that there is only one God'?
Atheism is the [disbelief] in a god. Like I previously stated, atheism has [no doctrine].
Judaism, Christianity, Islam - are all Abrahamic religions with the monotheistic (One God) belief.
Atheists do not believe in a God of any nature nor the possibility of a God.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord Read my comment again, I didn't say that Atheism was RELATED to monotheism. I said it was the OPPONENT of, ie. Atheism is to Darwinism what Monotheism is to Christianity.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy Correct. I read too fast. But you're still wrong.
You said:
"Atheism is not one religion, it is many religions with a similar base." - What religions have similar bases to Atheism?
"The opponent of Atheism isn't Christianity, it is Monotheism." - Right there you're saying Christianity is not the opponent of Atheism. You're either saying that, or your punctuation is incorrect. All theistic beliefs, whether it be Hinduism, Sikhism, or Judaism, etc. are the opposition of atheism itself.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy "While claiming that science is infallible gives you your bible."
I've never once claimed that science is "infallible".
If science were infallible, there would be no need for scientists to even test theories because everyone would just accept that what's proposed is fact. But, it doesn't work like that. Science is more complex than a dusty old book complied by old white men thousands of years ago under "divine authority".
Christians actually claim that the Bible is infallible.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy You are kidding yourself. Do you believe in unicorns? No? Is that a religion? Do you believe in elves? No? Is that a religion? Exactly how many religions are you a member? There's are 3000 gods you DON'T believe in. Are you 'religious' for all those? Atheism is NOT a religion. It has nothing that religion requires. Try to understand something before making such a ridiculous and embarrassing comment.
Dgen717 5 months ago 2
@SrgGoofy I just have to step in this...1) " non-belief is still a belief" thats like saying non-collecting is still collecting, it is a logical absurdity. 2) Science is not infallible, it has never been claimed to be perfect, science is like a self sharpenning tool that gets more useful (and capable) over time. 3) scientists saying that is not all I as an athiest need to believe it, far from it in fact there is a mountin of evidence that supports evolution & even directly contradicts religion.
student123456 5 months ago
@student123456 'Non-belief is still belief' is a poor choice of words on my part. What I mean to say is, choosing what to believe is still believing something. Non-belief would be not choosing a side in the Christian/Atheist argument. You have chosen to believe in the accepted scientific theory, thus these scientific theories are your -definition of religion- 'specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.'
SrgGoofy 5 months ago
@SrgGoofy I accept the scientific theory (evolution) as fact due to the overwhelming abundance of evidence for it, the logical reasoning behind it that explains most every aspect of reality very well and because it has predictive (testable) properties. I would change my mind (as would all of science) if a demonstrably true fact that was previously unknown was discovered and look for a better explanation. Religion is dogma, which means you cannot even consider changing your mind for any reason.
student123456 5 months ago
@SrgGoofy "Non-belief would be not choosing a side in the Christian/Atheist argument"- If I were to tell you that there was a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and didn't provide you with any credible evidence to support it and there was no way you could test my story, you would require faith to believe me because it is a positive assertion. Not believing this story would require no faith because non-belief is the neutral position to unsupported assertions of extraordinary proportions.
student123456 5 months ago
Are morals ojective or subjective? I would say: Ethics are subjective, society decides for itself, what it wants to be right and wrong. While Morals are ojective, the problem here is, we don't know what they are. So we turn to the divine, if the Bible is true, and there is a God, then he knows what is good and what is evil. So the society decides they want to believe the Bible, and thus they construct their Ethics based on the Morals taught in the Bible.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
It isn't the necessarily the "stongest" that survive, but those most adaptive to change (which is the last thing conservatives are).
dodgeysmith1 6 months ago
Anyone who has passed 10th grade biology knows more about evolution than you. If you think homosexuals should be condemned for not producing offspring, then what about people who are infertile? Do you think they should be deemed as no use to society and a genetic failure too? Do you realize that a species that can't keep it's population under control can lead to it's own downfall? We have enough people already. There's no reason to condemn anyone for not producing offspring.
Stigmatikk 6 months ago
it's so funny, he denies evolution but he probably listens to his doctor when he talks about antibiotics.
micro-evolution.
FREEAMERICANOW69 6 months ago
@adoptedoneathotmail
all the good parts, you know the ones that supports murder, bigotry, incest, abortion, genocide, infanticide, and slavery.
FREEAMERICANOW69 6 months ago
@adoptedoneathotmail I clearly said, "Science has since proven his theories." - Darwin only proposed the concept of evolution. He did not prove anything in his note other than diversity within species and the idea that the human race are cousin species to the great apes. Did I state that evolution was "no longer a theory"? -No. Evolution is a theory. It is still being studied. There are many aspects of evolution that has been proven, e.g fossils of primitive ancestors. To deny such is ignorant.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
why should anyone believe in the judeo-christian god for morality, when the bible itself supports incest, slavery, and genocide?
i guess, this fool doesn't read his bible or actually supports these things.
what does liberalism ( a political philosophy) has what to do with capitalism and evolution, not Darwinism?
why should gays disenfranchised because they don't want to reproduce, and not barren ppl who can't?
uk isn't taken over by extremists on both ends, just the government.
FREEAMERICANOW69 6 months ago
Comment removed
FREEAMERICANOW69 6 months ago
I am impressed at how many misconceptions about evolution this presenter crams into less than 3 minutes. Truly impressed.
klaateuu 7 months ago
How the fuck did you get believing in a god in the next evolutionary step? Why cant atheists have morals? Religious people ranting about atheism is just great.
zackman40 7 months ago
@zackman40 I think the bigger problem is that Atheists claim to have all the base for all the answers. Christians have the bible to base their morals off of. What do atheists have? Yes, an individual atheist can believe in being a good person, but there is no unifying factor that atheists can rally behind to define their morals, unlike Christians, Muslims, and Jews who have their respective books that define what their morals should be.
Stokedish 6 months ago
@Stokedish atheists do not claim to have all the base answers, atheism is based off scientific theories as such as religion is nothing more than a theory itself. Not all christians, jews, muslims follow the morals off their bibles. this unifying factor you speak of is still split, as such an example would be the westboro baptist church they say they are christians so why dont many christians follow there mind set and morals?
zackman40 6 months ago
@zackman40 You are right. We DON'T all follow the guidelines, which is sad. However, we do have the set-in-stone guidelines.
Stokedish 6 months ago
lol
memback01 7 months ago
- so, if you are a liberal then you're presumably an Atheist? *scratching head*
and, if you don't believe in God, you don't value morals? - I never knew that I lacked moral convictions. Btw, have you ever heard of 'Atheist conservatives'? yeah, we exist.
- Why is it negative to acknowledge the notes of Darwin? Science has since proven his theories. Denying what is proven is the most ignorant thing one can do.
RedSkyNord 7 months ago 10
@RedSkyNord science proves nothing until it welcomes dissent from opposing theories and it certainly has not done that with non-darwinists. the excuse of "creations aren't published in scientific journals" is a fallacy.
jbbremerton 6 months ago
@jbbremerton Scientific law of evidence states that it is not science until proven factual. There has yet to have been any dissent theory's to prove Darwin's theory incorrect, while there are plausible opposing theory's to the Big Bang.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord By Darwin's own standard his hypothesis has not been proven. Only when the 'proof' required was redefined and assumptions are applied to known quantities can one even attempt to claim "evolution has been proven without laughing
Of course atheists have morals and many are very moral individuals, however, their worldview does not adequately explain why. Just like someone who claims to be post-modern, lots of rhetoric, but their actual lifestyle betrays the illegitimacy of their claim
staum607 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord Darwinian Evolution has not been proven true, and by saying that you are showing your own ignorance. Theories can not be PROVEN, they can only be verified, meaning it CAN be true, but more information can be braught forward to disprove it. As for your comment on morally right atheists, there is no such thing, moral behavior can only be handed down by the divine, otherwise you are only doing what YOU think is right. What if YOU think murder is morally right?
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy First off, there's no such thing as "Darwinian Evolution" It is called Darwinism. Second, "Theories can not be PROVEN"?? That is (by far) the most stupid claim I've ever heard. ALL facts were one theories until proven factual. Darwin did not invent the concept of evolution, he only proposed his theories from his travels and observations, of which has since been proven. Name one claim in Darwin's notes that scientists have disproved?
PLEASE SEEK FURTHER EDUCATION.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord There is a HUGE divide between theory and fact. Newton's 1st law is a fact. Newton's theory of gravity, is a theory. Newton's theory of gravity, was accepted until Einstien came up with his General Theory of Reletivity, thus disproving Newton's theory. Regardless of what scientists (who are just seeking grant money) say, a theory is just a guess. A theory with supporting evidence has not been proven, it is just wating on more information, so that it can be disproven.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy Well, no shit.... because theory and facts are two different things.
And Newton's law has absolutely no correlation to Charles Darwin.
Definition of THEORY: 'system of ideas intended to explain something'.
A theory is NOT a guess, but but an idea that can better explain the subject in question.
I think you should really stop debating with people and just get an education or at least do yourself a favor and research shit before you go around making yourself look like a complete moron.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord I'm a Philosophy student, so I am getting educated, sorry if it's not the same indoctrination that you are undergoing. I am sitting here with a first year biology book and 7 web tabs. I think I have the resources to debate you, but you won't listen, so I'll just go camping.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy ... You're a 'philosophical' student. That means you're studying philosophy, not science. So stop debating science which you're unacquainted with. I would expect a philosophical student to be a bit more open-minded than you. In philosophy class you're supposed to be taught about several different religions and spiritual beliefs. Yet, you're ignorance is so bliss... How could a philosophical student call Atheism a religion? Apparently, you're not paying attention in class.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord My main area of interest is the Philosophy of Science, so I do study science. The difference between us, is I don't believe everything I'm taught in school. I have studied most religions, and I don't see a difference between the fanatical belief in religion or the authoritarian belief in science. As for my Biology book, I'm only on chapter 3, but I already know how it ends.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy I don't base by beliefs on what I'm told, but by what I find logical. There is no "authoritarian belief in science." Religion, gov't, and parenting are the only forms of authoritarian. No one can be force to believe science. Philosophy of Science is the bases of all science. Where do you go from there? To understand science is to understand the mentality of those great scientists and mathematicians who actually brainstormed their ingenious concepts and rules. We study THEIR logic...
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord The Philosophy of Science asks, what is a theory, and should you believe it? Today's Science is Authoritarian, if you disagree with the consensus, you are labeled ignorant, or uneducated, as I'm sure you're labeling me. If a scientists tries to find evidence for intelligent design he is called a pseudo-scientist, or a crack pot. If in my biology class, I wrote that I thought that Genetic Drift was the primary factor in evolution, and not Natural Selection, I'd get a C at best.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy No. Philosophy of Science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. - "Today's Science is Authoritarian, if you disagree with the consensus, you are labeled ignorant, or uneducated" lmfao! where do you come up with this crap?
How do you define "intelligent design"?
Why would a scientist be a Pseudo-Scientist if he were to find evidence?
Genetic Drift is a dead concept because in fact, most offspring's live on to create new offspring's.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy If you want to carry on this conversation. Write it in comments on my page. It get's ridiculous keeping up with all this on this vid.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy Okay. Well, you're talking to someone who's Jewish father is a physics professor and Roman Catholic mother who is an anthropologist. I was raised pretty intellectually. I get very impatient with those who insist that they know what they're talking about when in fact, they know nothing. Btw... I'm a biology major, so bring on the debate, or just shut up already. Open your biology t(hat you so claim to have) and actually read the damn thing.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
@RedSkyNord Seeing Darwinism disproved is as likely as the Pope pointing out contradictions in the Bible. Evidence for Darwinism is kept, evidence against Darwinism is swept under the carpet. The people who study evolution are bias. If they weren't they'd be studying theology or philosophy.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy "Seeing Darwinism disproved is as likely as the Pope pointing out contradictions in the Bible." Your logic is comical. You speak directly out of your ass; no thought process, no logicality. How can you compare a medieval book of fallacy (the Bible), to Charles Darwin's notes? The man was a scientists. He studied nature. How much studies went into compiling the Bible? Absolutely none. The Bible is precisely a book of stories - nothing more. Use your brain, you dolt.
RedSkyNord 6 months ago
So religion is an evolutionary advantage?
This is likely true, especially in wars involving hand-to-hand combat.
calmreason 7 months ago
You are funny
ari1234a 7 months ago
what the hell is this..? have i missed somthing somewhere...? o.o
Lindholmer5k 7 months ago
Great job of beating the poor strawman. If you keep beating him up so much in very video you make he's going to fall a part and show all the lies and misconception you put in to him.
kokofan50 7 months ago
For the record: England isn't liberal under a conservative government, and Darwin is on our notes because he is one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, pioneering a science that you clearly don't understand, and don't try to. He isn't on the notes because of some liberal agenda; in this country, conservatives and liberals alike believe in evolution, because we have a better standard of education than America.
And you did a terrible accent and know nothing about this country.
milone0 8 months ago
Looking at the like/dislike meter, I guess liberals dont like the rock and hard place they are stuck between!
staum607 8 months ago
i like this guy, he has simplified my arguments so awesomely.
Deadside127 8 months ago
@Deadside127 Yes I think Mr Mitchell has a very simple way of looking at things!!
MsCrazyCuckoo 7 months ago
You messed this one up at the end. According to Darwin we should ENCOURAGE homosexuals to come out of the closet, but DISCOURAGE them from pro-creating.
Llosgli 8 months ago
evolution does not deal with god or hell.. wtf. do ur research before u spend hours making points that arent valid
bossdog31291 8 months ago
Never knew this...I learned something.
ThingsThatVexMe 8 months ago
this could very well be the dumbest thing i watched this month.
yoeldg 8 months ago
I don't know anyone that both understands and rejects evolution. Still the case after watching this video.
Dgen717 8 months ago 8
@Dgen717 David Berlinski, Jason Lisle, Antony Flew, Sir Ernest Chain, to name just a few very intelligent people who both understand and reject the hypothesis of evolution. Disagree with them if you want, but they are smart people (among many others - though admittedly in the minority) who took the time to evaluate the idea and simply disagree with it.
staum607 6 months ago
@staum607 Evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a fact. Natural selection is not a hypothesis, it's a theory. If those people you mention think the way you do, then clearly my point still stands.
Dgen717 6 months ago
@Dgen717 Has macro evolution ever been observed or objectievly tested? If not you cannot make the definitive statement "it is a fact." As for your 2nd point, it is an "All true scotsman" logical fallacy.
staum607 6 months ago
@staum607 You are comming a strawman fallacy. I say evolution is a fact and you argue against macro-evolution. Nice attempt at all true scotsman but again you're wrong. Since my original statement was about people I know, the point is still valid and correct. Also, none of those people you've mentioned have shown me their understanding of evolution so I can't say whether or not they understand it. Evolution IS a fact. Observable.
Dgen717 6 months ago
@Dgen717 I think that I do understand evolution, BUT if I reject it, you will automaticly say that I don't understand it. Because that is how people who have been indoctrinated into evolution defend their beliefs. Also, you must clarify what you mean by evolution, because that can become an argument unto itself.
SrgGoofy 6 months ago
@SrgGoofy Create a web page, detail on it your understanding of evolution, post the link and I'll assess. Of course, to demonstrate you have a proper understanding of evolution you would need to show examples of evolution happening (therefore not rejecting it) OR you would have to show examples of what is known to be evolution and why (scientifically) this understanding is in fact wrong. Be my guest....
Dgen717 5 months ago
@Dgen717 I do. ;)
Read a lot into it and found no evidence. I understand perfectly how evolution is supposed to work, but there is just no evidence to show it has happened that way.
1faithchick7 5 months ago
@1faithchick7 "just no evidence to show it has happened that way." NO evidence? Wow!. A good place to start is the Berkeley evolution 101 page. LOTS of evidence there. Talk Origins is good too. Visit the biology department of a secular university. Research Ring species.
Dgen717 5 months ago