What a horrible system science has fallen prey too. The people need to regain control of this body of research because it's been hijacked by the wrong type of people.
He's right. There IS something wrong with the system: Religions ideologues have been working for CENTURIES to undermine scinece, because science shows that religion is wrong. Nowhere is the scientific community more defended than on the issue of evolution - and for good reason - evolution debunks religion more than any other theory AND it tells us who we are to boot. If you don't get this, then you have a HUGE blind spot as a scientist. I think his board did just fine.
Saying that evolution does not apply to biology is simply not true, and any graduate student in any field even remotely close to science as yours should know this fact. I think your professors just wanted to be sure that you fully understood the theory, the evidence behind it (pretty much all of biology), and not just blindly dismissing it.
I didn't say it doesn't apply; I said it works better applied to human organizations. We are allowed to say that an organization was designed by creative human minds, but not so for the cell. Evolution says it occurred as an accumulation of errors, even though it is much more complex and functional than any Fortune 500 company.
Sure you are allowed to say anything, express any opinion, in academia and in all free societies. However, if you want to make a convincing argument in any field of science, you must provide evidence. If you do not have evidence, than you cannot make that argument and expect to not hear any objections. Evolution does not just say..., it is scientifically supported by an ever increasing body of evidence, for over the past 100+ years.
Yes, I was allowed to say anything I wanted, but if I wanted my PhD I had to say, "Thank you for explaining it to me." Academia is not a good example of "free society." My arguments were not objected to, because they were not allowed to be heard.
If you don't have EVIDENCE to support your claims in science, there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously. Should they give you a degree if you believe the earth is flat? No.
Comparing living organisms to things that people design and build, as creatinists often do makes for an extremely poor analogy and weak argument from the creationist side. Reproduction is very unique to life; objects that we produce do not reproduce themeselves, and if they could they would evolve as computer models have demonstrated. Reproduction, the success of which is heavily reliant on environmental conditions, is key to evolution.
I would be glad to address your argument, if it was on the point. The point is that they would not hear me out. Unwillingness to hear another's argument is taking a position by faith without fact; and fits my definition of religion more than my definition of science.
It was your point to compare a cell to a fortune 500 company...
Your professors would not hear you on this issue because they were trying to help you graduate, since they know you had no evidence for such claims, and did not want your thesis to head in that direction. Science does not come about from unsubstantiated arguments and opinions; it is the data that is important. They knew you had no evidence, so they would not hear such false claims.
You clearly don't understand evolutionary theory. You need to go get a basic science education at a proper university...and I don't mean bible "school."
Make new video that explains what you told the professors. I wouldn't trust the universities in your area so I will send number of professors and see if they agree with your professors.
The subject never came up again, once I faked "understanding." What you mean by "wouldn't trust the universities in your area?" The problem is common in sociology. Christian sociologists told me not to show my faith until I was tenured. I had one professor in the very first lecture say, "There is no such (blank) thing as God!" As for my university, I do not name it, because I am proud of my university. It should not be singled out, because it is no worse than any other in terms of this problem.
It's important to point out that every attack on evolution to date has been religiously motivated. Scientists in relevant degrees should be asked that question for one simple reason. People who don't accept evolution are viewed (rightfully so) as people who disregard physical evidence in favor of centuries old religious ideas. Of course, this frame of thought isn't very scientific :p
Here is what I have always found odd. A religion with no support is a fact and a scientific theory with massive support is an item of mere faith. Any conclusion from debate is possible if debate is framed wrongly. Stating a faith is fact and a scientific theory is religion is framing debate wrongly. Any and all outcomes are invalid and without merit.
...Except he never said religion was fact...or really that Darwinism was faith. He expressed that survival of the fittest might have more --and better observable--application to social situations than to biological.
He presents his case through rhetorical questions. He is forced into this type of indirect communication because of theweakness of his position. He is FORCED into indirectness. First, with religion, no proof is needed. Women were created from men and not a shred of proof is needed for this "fact." Yet, on the other hand evolution is a religion...a mere theory of man. His underlining point of vivid and clear. A platform he agrees with requires no proof. One he does not requires mountains.
LOL. That's a stupid argument. It's called a strawman argument if you can't respond to any of the things somebody actually said. "Mind reading" is not an argument. Insinuation is not an argument.
First, my comments were general and addressing the title of the video. Second, my comments still stand as valid. The general trend is to accept religion as fact without any proof while attacking scientific theories, which have mountains of proof, as religions. This practice is intellectually deceitful. Moreover, to further obscure intellectual deceit, the man goes on for some time about his mental abilities.
You can't find "fact" in the title and there is no positive claims about in the clip. In fact what he *does* say at the end can only weaken the connection (and this is important) as the *doc* represents it, where he clearly links *belief* with *religion*, not *fact*.
>Evolutionists, your days are numbered.. you will be seen as the biggest charlatans and crackpots in scientific history.
Erm, no... the bigger charlatans will soon be seen to be the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists. The planet hasn't been warming for almost a decade, and the truth will soon be out!
Evolution is a dead theory, it has been for a long time, it lives only because atheists need it as their creation story. The reason you cannot submit criticisms of this stupid theory is because in peer review, the 'peers' are hard core atheists and evolutionists. They accept no dissent.
You moron. Not only in you're own delusional make-believe land do you think it's dead, when 98% of biologists and biochemists (the people that matter) support Evolution, and back it up with overwhelming evidence. But you also mention the word "creation". If you knew anything about what you're challenging, you would realize Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, that is Abiogenesis, a completely different field to Evolution.
How do I know? It's called getting off my ass & researching. The people who oppose Evolution more often than not are braindeads. Kent Hovind, Zaik Nakir ect. You have no idea about science, you are one of those such people. Scientists aren't stupid enough to tell people they can fly, what a juvenile & stupid example to use. No wonder you think an imaginary man sits in the sky creating things, you're about as dumb as they come. Next time you take medicine, remember it exists because of evolution.
Now you prove the following lines of evidence wrong:
.Genetics - 98% the same as Chimpanzees.
.Fossils - Transitional fossils.
.Comparative anatomy.
.Geographical distribution of species.
.Comparative physiology and biochemistry.
.Speciation
.Observed mutation within microorganisms.
.Complex iteration.
If you have any idea about evolution, which when challening an idea you should, you'll be able to understand those lines of evidence, and provide full proofed evidence against them.
Comparative anatomy shows how all life has the same basic anatomy, pointing to a COMMON ANCESTOR. I've provided logical arguments & evidence, because they can all be proven & observed if you take the time out of your ignorant life to research these things. You could notr even write 100 educated words disproving evolution, because it's YOU who is clueless on the subject, hence you confused evolution & abiogenesis & can't provide counter evidence to factual lines.
A diety, apparently a man (would have to be *hint hint*) randomly comes into existance, makes the Universe for no reason, decides to make the Earth, them to make man from dirt, put two nudists in a garden with a talking snake, one eats a fruit, sins, man lives in sin, Jesus dies for that sin and some desert madman creates a new god called Allah (how cute he named it).
And i'm the one who is a fantacist. Jeez, how old are you? Fairy tales are for kids.
I'm clueless. Says the 'clued up' one who is unable to understand even the basics behind evolution, gets evolution mized up with abiogenesis and believes in an imaginary man he can't prove exists. Lol.
My ignorance & arrgoance?! Look in the mirror you dummy. Well you would be that pathetic person. An adult not able to think rationally and who has an imaginary friend who loves him as a crutch of consolation.
Get a fucking education, because you don't me to tell you you're poorly educated.
We are not. No, course not. It's all made up. So you go examine the DNA of Human and a Chimp and tell me their not 98% the same, infact do you even know what DNA is? Transitional fossils are not rare at all. Maybe googling them would show you there are many hundreds of millions. Slight? It's overwhelming. My lines of evidence are so rubbish you have not even disproved them. So that raizes the question are you educated enough to challenge evolution? The answer to that is no, so get educated.
Theres 3,661,329 Biological Scientists in the U.S. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor). Of those, the Discovery Institute (creationist organization) has provided a list of 101 individual 'scientists' (most are infact not) who oppose Evolution. But if we included the 101 on their books & divide it by the total we get 0.00275% of scientists reject Evolution, or 1 in 36,500.
Overwhelming to me. Evolution has billions of years worth of evidence. Creationism has none.
Evolutionary theory explains nothing, its is a retroactive theory (looks at the data and say, oh yeah, evolution can explain that... how? well it must, its true by default!). All there is is variation and differential survival in the natural world. No new animal species, no new organs, no new single celled organisms even appear, and evolutionary theory cannot even explain the most trivial of changes on the whole scale of thing.
What a horrible system science has fallen prey too. The people need to regain control of this body of research because it's been hijacked by the wrong type of people.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
He's right. There IS something wrong with the system: Religions ideologues have been working for CENTURIES to undermine scinece, because science shows that religion is wrong. Nowhere is the scientific community more defended than on the issue of evolution - and for good reason - evolution debunks religion more than any other theory AND it tells us who we are to boot. If you don't get this, then you have a HUGE blind spot as a scientist. I think his board did just fine.
psusac 2 years ago 4
Thank you for illustrating my point. I could not have stated their position better myself.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
because you are blinded by your faith
nghitani 3 years ago
Saying that evolution does not apply to biology is simply not true, and any graduate student in any field even remotely close to science as yours should know this fact. I think your professors just wanted to be sure that you fully understood the theory, the evidence behind it (pretty much all of biology), and not just blindly dismissing it.
nghitani 3 years ago
I didn't say it doesn't apply; I said it works better applied to human organizations. We are allowed to say that an organization was designed by creative human minds, but not so for the cell. Evolution says it occurred as an accumulation of errors, even though it is much more complex and functional than any Fortune 500 company.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
Sure you are allowed to say anything, express any opinion, in academia and in all free societies. However, if you want to make a convincing argument in any field of science, you must provide evidence. If you do not have evidence, than you cannot make that argument and expect to not hear any objections. Evolution does not just say..., it is scientifically supported by an ever increasing body of evidence, for over the past 100+ years.
nghitani 3 years ago
Yes, I was allowed to say anything I wanted, but if I wanted my PhD I had to say, "Thank you for explaining it to me." Academia is not a good example of "free society." My arguments were not objected to, because they were not allowed to be heard.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
If you don't have EVIDENCE to support your claims in science, there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously. Should they give you a degree if you believe the earth is flat? No.
Jeremyguru 3 years ago
Comparing living organisms to things that people design and build, as creatinists often do makes for an extremely poor analogy and weak argument from the creationist side. Reproduction is very unique to life; objects that we produce do not reproduce themeselves, and if they could they would evolve as computer models have demonstrated. Reproduction, the success of which is heavily reliant on environmental conditions, is key to evolution.
nghitani 3 years ago
I would be glad to address your argument, if it was on the point. The point is that they would not hear me out. Unwillingness to hear another's argument is taking a position by faith without fact; and fits my definition of religion more than my definition of science.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
It was your point to compare a cell to a fortune 500 company...
Your professors would not hear you on this issue because they were trying to help you graduate, since they know you had no evidence for such claims, and did not want your thesis to head in that direction. Science does not come about from unsubstantiated arguments and opinions; it is the data that is important. They knew you had no evidence, so they would not hear such false claims.
nghitani 3 years ago
You clearly don't understand evolutionary theory. You need to go get a basic science education at a proper university...and I don't mean bible "school."
Jeremyguru 3 years ago
@DrDonMc because we know that an organization cant be formed without some being but we KNOW that animals evolve, evolution is a biological process
blazereef 1 year ago
Make new video that explains what you told the professors. I wouldn't trust the universities in your area so I will send number of professors and see if they agree with your professors.
gummi666 3 years ago
The subject never came up again, once I faked "understanding." What you mean by "wouldn't trust the universities in your area?" The problem is common in sociology. Christian sociologists told me not to show my faith until I was tenured. I had one professor in the very first lecture say, "There is no such (blank) thing as God!" As for my university, I do not name it, because I am proud of my university. It should not be singled out, because it is no worse than any other in terms of this problem.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
When truth is heard falsehood shall perish, for falsehood by it's nature is bound to perish!!!
Utuber19831983 4 years ago
Unless the truth is scientific and the falsehood is religious, then somehow the falsehood will persist, as it has in the USA
nghitani 3 years ago
It's important to point out that every attack on evolution to date has been religiously motivated. Scientists in relevant degrees should be asked that question for one simple reason. People who don't accept evolution are viewed (rightfully so) as people who disregard physical evidence in favor of centuries old religious ideas. Of course, this frame of thought isn't very scientific :p
jbl5764801 4 years ago
Here is what I have always found odd. A religion with no support is a fact and a scientific theory with massive support is an item of mere faith. Any conclusion from debate is possible if debate is framed wrongly. Stating a faith is fact and a scientific theory is religion is framing debate wrongly. Any and all outcomes are invalid and without merit.
awalkalongmingocreek 4 years ago
...Except he never said religion was fact...or really that Darwinism was faith. He expressed that survival of the fittest might have more --and better observable--application to social situations than to biological.
theaxemeister 4 years ago 2
He presents his case through rhetorical questions. He is forced into this type of indirect communication because of theweakness of his position. He is FORCED into indirectness. First, with religion, no proof is needed. Women were created from men and not a shred of proof is needed for this "fact." Yet, on the other hand evolution is a religion...a mere theory of man. His underlining point of vivid and clear. A platform he agrees with requires no proof. One he does not requires mountains.
awalkalongmingocreek 4 years ago
LOL. That's a stupid argument. It's called a strawman argument if you can't respond to any of the things somebody actually said. "Mind reading" is not an argument. Insinuation is not an argument.
theaxemeister 4 years ago 2
"His underlining point of vivid and clear." Yet without reference to any of that. I congratulate you on your mind reading, sir.
theaxemeister 4 years ago
First, my comments were general and addressing the title of the video. Second, my comments still stand as valid. The general trend is to accept religion as fact without any proof while attacking scientific theories, which have mountains of proof, as religions. This practice is intellectually deceitful. Moreover, to further obscure intellectual deceit, the man goes on for some time about his mental abilities.
awalkalongmingocreek 4 years ago
You can't find "fact" in the title and there is no positive claims about in the clip. In fact what he *does* say at the end can only weaken the connection (and this is important) as the *doc* represents it, where he clearly links *belief* with *religion*, not *fact*.
theaxemeister 4 years ago
>Evolutionists, your days are numbered.. you will be seen as the biggest charlatans and crackpots in scientific history.
Erm, no... the bigger charlatans will soon be seen to be the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists. The planet hasn't been warming for almost a decade, and the truth will soon be out!
y0utube000 4 years ago
Comment removed
Marwanboustany 3 years ago
evolution it self is a natural phenomina.
theory of evolution discribes the natural phenomina.
if u can discribe it better then submit your writings to scientists for peer revieuw.
grthzjil 4 years ago
Evolution is a dead theory, it has been for a long time, it lives only because atheists need it as their creation story. The reason you cannot submit criticisms of this stupid theory is because in peer review, the 'peers' are hard core atheists and evolutionists. They accept no dissent.
Marwanboustany 4 years ago
You moron. Not only in you're own delusional make-believe land do you think it's dead, when 98% of biologists and biochemists (the people that matter) support Evolution, and back it up with overwhelming evidence. But you also mention the word "creation". If you knew anything about what you're challenging, you would realize Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, that is Abiogenesis, a completely different field to Evolution.
Class dismissed you fool. And do a biology class.
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago
Comment removed
Marwanboustany 3 years ago
How do I know? It's called getting off my ass & researching. The people who oppose Evolution more often than not are braindeads. Kent Hovind, Zaik Nakir ect. You have no idea about science, you are one of those such people. Scientists aren't stupid enough to tell people they can fly, what a juvenile & stupid example to use. No wonder you think an imaginary man sits in the sky creating things, you're about as dumb as they come. Next time you take medicine, remember it exists because of evolution.
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago
Now you prove the following lines of evidence wrong:
.Genetics - 98% the same as Chimpanzees.
.Fossils - Transitional fossils.
.Comparative anatomy.
.Geographical distribution of species.
.Comparative physiology and biochemistry.
.Speciation
.Observed mutation within microorganisms.
.Complex iteration.
If you have any idea about evolution, which when challening an idea you should, you'll be able to understand those lines of evidence, and provide full proofed evidence against them.
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago
Comment removed
Marwanboustany 3 years ago
Comment removed
Marwanboustany 3 years ago
Comparative anatomy shows how all life has the same basic anatomy, pointing to a COMMON ANCESTOR. I've provided logical arguments & evidence, because they can all be proven & observed if you take the time out of your ignorant life to research these things. You could notr even write 100 educated words disproving evolution, because it's YOU who is clueless on the subject, hence you confused evolution & abiogenesis & can't provide counter evidence to factual lines.
Does evolution hurt your ego?
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago 2
@SayNoToIslamofascism ego is the only reason anyone in this day and age denies evolution
blazereef 1 year ago
Lets sum you're unproven belief up:
A diety, apparently a man (would have to be *hint hint*) randomly comes into existance, makes the Universe for no reason, decides to make the Earth, them to make man from dirt, put two nudists in a garden with a talking snake, one eats a fruit, sins, man lives in sin, Jesus dies for that sin and some desert madman creates a new god called Allah (how cute he named it).
And i'm the one who is a fantacist. Jeez, how old are you? Fairy tales are for kids.
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago 4
Comment removed
Marwanboustany 3 years ago
I'm clueless. Says the 'clued up' one who is unable to understand even the basics behind evolution, gets evolution mized up with abiogenesis and believes in an imaginary man he can't prove exists. Lol.
My ignorance & arrgoance?! Look in the mirror you dummy. Well you would be that pathetic person. An adult not able to think rationally and who has an imaginary friend who loves him as a crutch of consolation.
Get a fucking education, because you don't me to tell you you're poorly educated.
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago
We are not. No, course not. It's all made up. So you go examine the DNA of Human and a Chimp and tell me their not 98% the same, infact do you even know what DNA is? Transitional fossils are not rare at all. Maybe googling them would show you there are many hundreds of millions. Slight? It's overwhelming. My lines of evidence are so rubbish you have not even disproved them. So that raizes the question are you educated enough to challenge evolution? The answer to that is no, so get educated.
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago
Theres 3,661,329 Biological Scientists in the U.S. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor). Of those, the Discovery Institute (creationist organization) has provided a list of 101 individual 'scientists' (most are infact not) who oppose Evolution. But if we included the 101 on their books & divide it by the total we get 0.00275% of scientists reject Evolution, or 1 in 36,500.
Overwhelming to me. Evolution has billions of years worth of evidence. Creationism has none.
I suspect u're not a biologist?
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago
Comment removed
Marwanboustany 3 years ago
Evolutionary theory explains nothing, its is a retroactive theory (looks at the data and say, oh yeah, evolution can explain that... how? well it must, its true by default!). All there is is variation and differential survival in the natural world. No new animal species, no new organs, no new single celled organisms even appear, and evolutionary theory cannot even explain the most trivial of changes on the whole scale of thing.
Marwanboustany 4 years ago
Evolutionists, your days are numbered.. you will be seen as the biggest charlatans and crackpots in scientific history.
Marwanboustany 4 years ago