@Answerquestions1 Ahem. "The Angry Canuck" - Prime example of someone who outright denies the holocaust ever happened.
There are people who outright deny the holocaust ever happened, and that anyone who died were simply unlucky POW's, that the jews were not in fact targeted, and that gas chambers were in fact never used.
Or, instead of being a libertarien, which will only create more caos. You can actually vote for a goverment that has power and is honest. Seriously, you libertarians. If the goverment doesnt have any power to interfare at all, then society will only go down. Look at the top ranking countries in the world, NONE are libertarian countries.
or even consider the stick bug.. is it accidental evolution? How many random mutations and messed up pear shaped.. and purple oval stick bugs had to occur before one was actually accidentally shaped like a stick? How can you assume that just because these millions of others would die out just because their camouflage was infierior? Why is it we don't see ANY examples of these myriad design flaws throughout nature? You really think that ANY design that is slightly worse goes extinct? really?
NO evolution is "accidental". the very fact you call it so is proof enough that you haven't understood the theory you, for some reason, feel qualified to judge here.
Why don't you go debate your biology teacher? Oh wait... if he had any understanding, you wouldn't be here talking such nonsense.
@DancingInChains You clearly hate God, and hate all Christians, and the fact is that you are a scared believer, and nothing more. The logic in which you use to post is a little more than a veritable wasteland.
Now.. these stump legs would not only be not useful.. but require the assumption of a vast number of changes in the form of the brain.. muscles, nerves etc to occur - they not only would occur once - but millions of times in every species and also forms like legs would happen in different species in nearly the exact same way. Before claiming that evolution is right.. just consider the implications - all you have to do is mentally imagine the process.
Imagine the evolution of legs.. from say fins - the first step would be for 2 of these fins to simultaneously change into similar identical but mirrored stumps on their way to legs.. these would be 'bad' fins.. and bad legs. - they would not be an evolutionary improvement.. and would die out - but still, if it did occur - this is not 1 change - its millions of cells, neurons, musculature bone.. etc. that changed - twice in mirrored versions.
Your banana comment and the thing about the leg's mutations occuring "twice, mirrored" as well as your claim that the "leg mutation" would have had to occur "millions of times in every species" as well as the other things you say prove that you do not understand the first thing about evolution, nor do you have any understanding of genetic mutations and the process of transcription, and how genes finally manifest themselves as phenotype. How come you feel qualified to judge this matter?
@xnothingbutthetruth Go look at mud skippers. Pretty good legs, and pretty good fins. We have huge quantities of fossil intermediate forms, and a time line.
The introduction was absolutely ridiculous. Privatize schools??? That ranks high among the most stupid things that I have ever heard! Parent's mustn't be allowed to indoctrine their children with whatever nonsense they choose. Children have a right for proper education, the idea of giving parents absolute control over their kids' worldview is nothing short of fascism.
Allowing parents to put their kids in any school they want... is fascism?? Now you are actually saying that granting someone freedom to choose is fascist.
No, I'm saying that it is facism if there's no control over what the schools teach them. If the schools are free to teach anything, no matter how unsupported by evidence, and the parents are free to choose whatever bullshit their children are being indoctrinated with is facism. It ignores the children's rights and interests completely. And on a free market there will be NO wish, however strange, that isn't being catered. Schools mustn't be free to teach whatever conspiracy theory they like.
oh my goodness people evolution is not debatory, its allele frequencies. the bird with shorter wings will fly slower, get eaten, not reproduce and pass its genes on. that is a phoenomona u can see and know, not a mystical hypothesis about an all knowing man in the sky. christ
erm... thats the point. he DOESNT. creationists claim that god made people a couple thousand years ago. scientists can use the half life of carbon to date the earth back over a billion years, and there werent any humans then. we evolved from apes; chromosomal fusion and dna consistencies agree with this. and the dinos? u'd think mathew wouldve put in jesus saved nazareth from a freaking megalosaur or helped an injured iguanadon. look it up if u like
first off i hope to the gods of old that you're kidding
but you'd think if that was a gospel that was left out of the bible, the church would've taken it out and said: look! there rilly WAS dinos back with jesus. the fact that there are gospels that they ARENT publishing should be fishy in and of itself though, dont you think?
You also share 70% of the genes of a banana - does that mean it's a common ancestor?
Also..you are speaking of natural selection.. which isn't disputed - but it doesn't provide new information.. and I also dispute the idea that just because you have a slightly better eye.. or leg.. or what the hell ever.. that it implies you will survive over those that lack it - instead million years of so called evolution may be lost.. cause you'd die anyway, with 0 progeny.
look back far enough, a relatively short time after abiogenesis, and you'd see the split in kingdoms from plantae to animalae (whatever the hell it is). so yes, like it or not you and that banana can be traced back to the same single celled organism that managed to replicate itself. as for natural selection not being debated, im glad you think so but this isnt always the case with some people i've come across. it isnt in the scientific community, but sc also sez earth is OLD. ppl dont.
wut i was trying to say with that earlier one is that whatever science thinks is irrellavent, people believe what they want. providing new info (?) theories dont necessarily have to yield info, they're explanations.
and no, a SLIGHTYLY better eye makes very little reproductive difference. but randomnly you might mate with someone also with this better eye, making a BETTER one. this would take a while, but evolution is recognized as painfully slow. often, they die and it takes a while for a new 1
i can't belive this show has been watched on 1500 times ??? damn ignorant americans ! this is history ! this can change the world !! but as always young and old people are to busy been quiet obediant workers that belive in some spooky invisible incopetent father who doesnt give a shit !!!
This blew my mind. Shermer is a leading refuter against Intelligent Design and yet these are his greatest arguments? Wow. I was really hoping that he'd convince me that ID is false but the case for ID is just getting stronger and stronger.
The 'non-scientific' judge was appointed by the Bush administration for his conservative values. This judge didn't come to his decision arbitrarily; he had to hear both sides of the argument.
Having heard the testimony of several scientists (an exercise most creationists avoid, fear and abhor), he had little choice but to rule in favor of baring ID.
Throw into the mix the wanton perjury of A. Bonsel, and Dover stands as a monument to the defeat of ID.
After hearing both sides of the argument, the judge clearly showed a lack of understanding by literally copying, almost word for word and grammatical error for grammatical error, the argument against ID from the darwin guys in his final judgement.
Either way, a judgement from ONE non-scientific judge doesn't settle a scientific argument. That's not how science is done. Mathematicians don't rely on the courts to prove the Pythagorean theorem.
I DON'T think it should be taught in schools. But that isn't the issue anyway.
The debate was about whether ID was actually a science and whether Darwin's theory of evolution had weaknesses. From what I saw, Shermer focused on rhetoric about religion as his strongest arguments and Wells focused on real logical arguments.
I'll repeat what I said in my first comment: I was really hoping that he'd convince me that ID is false but the case for ID is just getting stronger and stronger.
In the public, it is the fact that it cannot be disproved that makes it stronger. Thus, it is a danger to all of us, but especially the children.
Texas, for instance, might try to adopt ID textbooks by 2011. The most important thing we can do right now is simply to correct the layman when he is confused.
I once heard a customer at the deli I work at say "Well, the best way I've heard evolution explained is 'why would God sit around for thousands of years doing nothing?' "
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well it's obvious where you stand on the Evolution v ID debate.
To be frank, f you have to resort to parodies to defend your position then that doesn't give me much confidence in your arguments. Shermer was the same - he simply tried to mock ID with strawmen examples and hid away from the real issues brought up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Try to say something that's worth replying to next time.
Maybe, if you're so confident on the issue, you'll offer up one of your irrefutable arguments, rather than continue to make the same mistake that Shermer did?
Well if that's all you can manage, I feel sorry or you. You have been sucked in by this so called 'theory of gravity' which is total BS! It just some idea that some folks use to try to explain falling without God. You're a total fool. I'll pray for you.
this country has thrived and flourished on it's freedom to question ... if "your" side is right, then you should have nothing to fear and no need to supress.
If you had that libertarian system, kids going to the creationists schools would struggle to adapt into society after leaving, they will be laughed at and probably struggle to get jobs.
right ... because all the statistics point in your favor. public schools who teach only evolution have the highest literacy rates and continued education rates.
@jjukil Typical atheist kook. Why don't you go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favour by removing yourself from the gene pool. Just a suggestion.
Then please define what is a religion and how evolution fits. Then show me how ID is science and not religion. If it was so simple there would be no debate. Study BOTH sides and you'll see how seriously wrong you are.
no one denys the holocaust, the so called holocaust deniers are people who claim that the standard version is an overexageration.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Ahem. "The Angry Canuck" - Prime example of someone who outright denies the holocaust ever happened.
There are people who outright deny the holocaust ever happened, and that anyone who died were simply unlucky POW's, that the jews were not in fact targeted, and that gas chambers were in fact never used.
BigLundi 5 months ago
Or, instead of being a libertarien, which will only create more caos. You can actually vote for a goverment that has power and is honest. Seriously, you libertarians. If the goverment doesnt have any power to interfare at all, then society will only go down. Look at the top ranking countries in the world, NONE are libertarian countries.
gulbirk 8 months ago
Do I smell some poison in the well, or is that supposed to be a video info section? Couldn't tell.
joshuawilsonanderson 1 year ago
If they're gonna teach creation (=Jewish mythology) please also teach Egyptian, Greek, Babylonian, Hindu, Indian and Germanic mythology.
What makes these guys think that their mythology is any less nonsensical than other mythologies?
LanteanKnight 1 year ago
Lol. Shermer is exhibiting massive bias and dogmatic fear when he addressed the 911 issue.
He is supposed to represent scientific thought?
He is letting his desire to live in a fluffy warm paradigm blanket hinder is ability to see brutally obvious compelling evidence about 911.
What a choad.
2bornot2b1984 2 years ago
or even consider the stick bug.. is it accidental evolution? How many random mutations and messed up pear shaped.. and purple oval stick bugs had to occur before one was actually accidentally shaped like a stick? How can you assume that just because these millions of others would die out just because their camouflage was infierior? Why is it we don't see ANY examples of these myriad design flaws throughout nature? You really think that ANY design that is slightly worse goes extinct? really?
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
NO evolution is "accidental". the very fact you call it so is proof enough that you haven't understood the theory you, for some reason, feel qualified to judge here.
Why don't you go debate your biology teacher? Oh wait... if he had any understanding, you wouldn't be here talking such nonsense.
DancingInChains 2 years ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@DancingInChains You clearly hate God, and hate all Christians, and the fact is that you are a scared believer, and nothing more. The logic in which you use to post is a little more than a veritable wasteland.
Seigu007 3 months ago
continued from below comment..
Now.. these stump legs would not only be not useful.. but require the assumption of a vast number of changes in the form of the brain.. muscles, nerves etc to occur - they not only would occur once - but millions of times in every species and also forms like legs would happen in different species in nearly the exact same way. Before claiming that evolution is right.. just consider the implications - all you have to do is mentally imagine the process.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
all I ask is that you guys think for a moment.
Imagine the evolution of legs.. from say fins - the first step would be for 2 of these fins to simultaneously change into similar identical but mirrored stumps on their way to legs.. these would be 'bad' fins.. and bad legs. - they would not be an evolutionary improvement.. and would die out - but still, if it did occur - this is not 1 change - its millions of cells, neurons, musculature bone.. etc. that changed - twice in mirrored versions.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Your banana comment and the thing about the leg's mutations occuring "twice, mirrored" as well as your claim that the "leg mutation" would have had to occur "millions of times in every species" as well as the other things you say prove that you do not understand the first thing about evolution, nor do you have any understanding of genetic mutations and the process of transcription, and how genes finally manifest themselves as phenotype. How come you feel qualified to judge this matter?
DancingInChains 2 years ago 4
@xnothingbutthetruth You need to do some basic learning about evolution as its obvious you havent a clue.
Rockster969 1 year ago
@xnothingbutthetruth Go look at mud skippers. Pretty good legs, and pretty good fins. We have huge quantities of fossil intermediate forms, and a time line.
gamesbok 1 year ago
The introduction was absolutely ridiculous. Privatize schools??? That ranks high among the most stupid things that I have ever heard! Parent's mustn't be allowed to indoctrine their children with whatever nonsense they choose. Children have a right for proper education, the idea of giving parents absolute control over their kids' worldview is nothing short of fascism.
DancingInChains 2 years ago
It's child abuse.
Proletariat12 2 years ago
in reply to DaningInChains.
Allowing parents to put their kids in any school they want... is fascism?? Now you are actually saying that granting someone freedom to choose is fascist.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
No, I'm saying that it is facism if there's no control over what the schools teach them. If the schools are free to teach anything, no matter how unsupported by evidence, and the parents are free to choose whatever bullshit their children are being indoctrinated with is facism. It ignores the children's rights and interests completely. And on a free market there will be NO wish, however strange, that isn't being catered. Schools mustn't be free to teach whatever conspiracy theory they like.
DancingInChains 2 years ago
fucking libertarians ugghh I want to gag
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
oh my goodness people evolution is not debatory, its allele frequencies. the bird with shorter wings will fly slower, get eaten, not reproduce and pass its genes on. that is a phoenomona u can see and know, not a mystical hypothesis about an all knowing man in the sky. christ
a7xbeacon 2 years ago 3
Yeah that's all nice but where does Jesus fit it?
madzyzome 2 years ago
erm... thats the point. he DOESNT. creationists claim that god made people a couple thousand years ago. scientists can use the half life of carbon to date the earth back over a billion years, and there werent any humans then. we evolved from apes; chromosomal fusion and dna consistencies agree with this. and the dinos? u'd think mathew wouldve put in jesus saved nazareth from a freaking megalosaur or helped an injured iguanadon. look it up if u like
a7xbeacon 2 years ago
You know I think Jesus did help a injured iguanadon, but I think it was one of the gospels left out of the bible. I am sure it happened though.
madzyzome 2 years ago
first off i hope to the gods of old that you're kidding
but you'd think if that was a gospel that was left out of the bible, the church would've taken it out and said: look! there rilly WAS dinos back with jesus. the fact that there are gospels that they ARENT publishing should be fishy in and of itself though, dont you think?
a7xbeacon 2 years ago
You also share 70% of the genes of a banana - does that mean it's a common ancestor?
Also..you are speaking of natural selection.. which isn't disputed - but it doesn't provide new information.. and I also dispute the idea that just because you have a slightly better eye.. or leg.. or what the hell ever.. that it implies you will survive over those that lack it - instead million years of so called evolution may be lost.. cause you'd die anyway, with 0 progeny.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
look back far enough, a relatively short time after abiogenesis, and you'd see the split in kingdoms from plantae to animalae (whatever the hell it is). so yes, like it or not you and that banana can be traced back to the same single celled organism that managed to replicate itself. as for natural selection not being debated, im glad you think so but this isnt always the case with some people i've come across. it isnt in the scientific community, but sc also sez earth is OLD. ppl dont.
a7xbeacon 2 years ago
wut i was trying to say with that earlier one is that whatever science thinks is irrellavent, people believe what they want. providing new info (?) theories dont necessarily have to yield info, they're explanations.
and no, a SLIGHTYLY better eye makes very little reproductive difference. but randomnly you might mate with someone also with this better eye, making a BETTER one. this would take a while, but evolution is recognized as painfully slow. often, they die and it takes a while for a new 1
a7xbeacon 2 years ago
i cant believe that the teaching of evolution is still being debated in american schools what the fuck is wrong with this country
Greig1424 2 years ago 4
i WOULD LOVE TO ASK THIS GUY THE QUESTION...WHAT MAKES YOU YOU WHY AM I NOT YOU??? DID THE GENE FAIRY MAGICALLY DECIDE WHO YOUR PARENTS WOULD BE???
samson5791 2 years ago
Ignorance, funny and sad at the same time...
levi799 2 years ago
Thank you, sometimes the simple explanations tend to be the correct one.
samson5791 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow you're stupid
aldraw 2 years ago
i can't belive this show has been watched on 1500 times ??? damn ignorant americans ! this is history ! this can change the world !! but as always young and old people are to busy been quiet obediant workers that belive in some spooky invisible incopetent father who doesnt give a shit !!!
thugnappy69 3 years ago
This blew my mind. Shermer is a leading refuter against Intelligent Design and yet these are his greatest arguments? Wow. I was really hoping that he'd convince me that ID is false but the case for ID is just getting stronger and stronger.
YinHoNg 3 years ago
No, it isn't. See: Dover trials.
brengun42 3 years ago
I see. So a non-scientific judge is a more authoritative figure than the leading skeptic of Intelligent Design?
YinHoNg 3 years ago
The 'non-scientific' judge was appointed by the Bush administration for his conservative values. This judge didn't come to his decision arbitrarily; he had to hear both sides of the argument.
Having heard the testimony of several scientists (an exercise most creationists avoid, fear and abhor), he had little choice but to rule in favor of baring ID.
Throw into the mix the wanton perjury of A. Bonsel, and Dover stands as a monument to the defeat of ID.
brengun42 3 years ago
After hearing both sides of the argument, the judge clearly showed a lack of understanding by literally copying, almost word for word and grammatical error for grammatical error, the argument against ID from the darwin guys in his final judgement.
Either way, a judgement from ONE non-scientific judge doesn't settle a scientific argument. That's not how science is done. Mathematicians don't rely on the courts to prove the Pythagorean theorem.
YinHoNg 3 years ago
Very well. Let's hear your side then.
Why should ID be taught in public schools?
brengun42 3 years ago
I DON'T think it should be taught in schools. But that isn't the issue anyway.
The debate was about whether ID was actually a science and whether Darwin's theory of evolution had weaknesses. From what I saw, Shermer focused on rhetoric about religion as his strongest arguments and Wells focused on real logical arguments.
I'll repeat what I said in my first comment: I was really hoping that he'd convince me that ID is false but the case for ID is just getting stronger and stronger.
YinHoNg 3 years ago
Since ID is not science, it cannot be disproved and it's case cannot get stronger.
hereticprophecy 2 years ago 2
In the public, it is the fact that it cannot be disproved that makes it stronger. Thus, it is a danger to all of us, but especially the children.
Texas, for instance, might try to adopt ID textbooks by 2011. The most important thing we can do right now is simply to correct the layman when he is confused.
I once heard a customer at the deli I work at say "Well, the best way I've heard evolution explained is 'why would God sit around for thousands of years doing nothing?' "
*facepalm* & *sigh*
ThorsDecree 2 years ago
"the case for ID is just getting stronger and stronger"
I wonder where you stand on the Intelligent Falling vs the theory of Gravity issue?
artyfarty2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well it's obvious where you stand on the Evolution v ID debate.
To be frank, f you have to resort to parodies to defend your position then that doesn't give me much confidence in your arguments. Shermer was the same - he simply tried to mock ID with strawmen examples and hid away from the real issues brought up.
YinHoNg 3 years ago
"To be frank, f you have to resort to parodies to defend your position"
I don't know what you mean. Are you skeptical of the theory of intelligent falling?
artyfarty2 3 years ago 3
"Well it's obvious where you stand on the Evolution v ID debate."
Well it's obvious where you stand on the Gravity v IF issue.
You were completely unable to defend your religion of gravity.
I was really hoping that you'd convince me that IF is false but the case for Iintelligent Falling is just getting stronger and stronger
artyfarty2 3 years ago 2
That was the most pathetic attempt at mockery I've ever read.
YinHoNg 3 years ago
what mockery?
artyfarty2 3 years ago
Seriously, is that the best you can do to defend your gravity religion?
artyfarty2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Try to say something that's worth replying to next time.
Maybe, if you're so confident on the issue, you'll offer up one of your irrefutable arguments, rather than continue to make the same mistake that Shermer did?
YinHoNg 3 years ago
Well if that's all you can manage, I feel sorry or you. You have been sucked in by this so called 'theory of gravity' which is total BS! It just some idea that some folks use to try to explain falling without God. You're a total fool. I'll pray for you.
artyfarty2 3 years ago 3
That was the second and third most pathetic attempt. Your first one still wins by an evolutionary mile.
YinHoNg 3 years ago
that's fine.
this country has thrived and flourished on it's freedom to question ... if "your" side is right, then you should have nothing to fear and no need to supress.
trenton1980 3 years ago
If you had that libertarian system, kids going to the creationists schools would struggle to adapt into society after leaving, they will be laughed at and probably struggle to get jobs.
ajuk1 3 years ago
right ... because all the statistics point in your favor. public schools who teach only evolution have the highest literacy rates and continued education rates.
pull your head out.
trenton1980 3 years ago
Eh, I am in favor of evolution.
ajuk1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If only Shermer learns to be SKEPTICAL of evolution, he would know that evolution is junk science.
RebelRay 3 years ago
If only you learned to THINK, you would realize how wrong that statement is.
jjukil 3 years ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@jjukil Typical atheist kook. Why don't you go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favour by removing yourself from the gene pool. Just a suggestion.
Seigu007 3 months ago
"Scientist can debate scientific issue in private" scientists don't debate ID and evolution. ID is not science. ID is religion. Simple.
cdog4100 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is religion. ID is science. Simple.
RebelRay 3 years ago
Really?
Then please define what is a religion and how evolution fits. Then show me how ID is science and not religion. If it was so simple there would be no debate. Study BOTH sides and you'll see how seriously wrong you are.
theWinterline 3 years ago