Christine O'Donnell: "...What I believe is irrelevant". She finally speaks the truth. Even what I believe is irrelevant. Also, evolution is a theory, just like gravity. Now, fly the fuck away.
You need to adjust the color key to take out the green screen bleed around your character. Adding a simple choker in after effects should take that straight off. Nice video, its important to show people like Christine O'Donnell up as the ignorant fools they are. Saying that, I'd definitely giver her one! I presume she's pretty horny from all her masturbation abstinence.
no no no no- you dont let people decide what they want taught in schools- you teach fact! you teach truth! evolution is fact and that is the truth! you dont teach one plus one can equal two or it can equal three -you decide- you teach one plus one equals two and nothing else beacuse it does and there are no other options no matter how you attempt to argue otherwise- this womans self interest is discusting and an insult to intelligence!
God (figure of speech) it's so unfair being a partly conservative Atheist, because you just know science is true because there is no supernatural, but regardless hippies just suck.
great video..... but one little issue. no matter how well supported by evidence, evolutionary theory will always be that, a scientific theory. when you say things like 'evolution is so well supported you cant even call it a theory anymore' you fail to recognize the true meaning of a scientific theory.
First, we need to let the experts in the field decide how that field is taught. Second, all schools should have minimum standards so that children can be prepared for whatever future opportunities they choose to pursue. Third, religion is NOT on equal footing with science; they are two completely different systems asking completely different questions; one is based on verifiable evidence found in the natural world, the other is made up, explains nothing, and is wholely useless practically.
Perhaps when chemistry is taught in schools, they should give equal time to teaching alchemy as an alternative theory. Also perhaps astrology should be taught along side astronomy. Perhaps numerology could be taught along with mathematics. Maybe in history class we should teach that theories about The lost continent of Atlantis are scientific and valid. or maybe we could teach alternative views about the Holocaust and American slavery.
It's definitely a fair question. If you like her answer or if you don't, the question is fair. If you believe in Creationism you should be able to plainly say that. If you think Creationism belongs in school you should be able to plainly say that. If you feel like your answer sounds stupid or embarrassing, don't blame the question. Do you believe in Evolution or not?
HER CONVICTION TO RELIGION WONT ALLOW HER TO ADMIT TO EVOLUTION, BUT SHE KNOWS ANYONE WITH AN I/Q ABOVE 12 WILL THINK SHES A RETARD IF SHE DIS AGREES WITH %100 OF THE EDUCATED SCIENCE FIELD
At first I was thinking, "who are the 9 dislikes from? Are they people that think Christine O'Donnell understands evolution? Come on, nobody thinks that."
But then I saw that gay ass cartoon appear and start talking. And then I understood why 9 people hit the dislike button. I'm glad I didn't hit "like" right away.
@instereovideos At least he isn't one of those pussies who disable the ratings on his videos. Or even worse, one of the losers who has to "approve" any comment made on his video. At least he has the guts to let the community vote if they want to vote. Know what I mean?
Thanks to him, we all got to hear your amazing and important opinion.
@dremmeths Oh, see what you did there? You really meant, my really "unimportant" opinion, but you're so clever that you slipped that one in right under the radar by disguising it as praise. Genius!
I think you're just upset because you're lame enough to enjoy the talking cartoon douchebag, and my comment made you feel kinda insecure about it.
@instereovideos - Close, but you missed it tough guy. What I slipped "under the radar" was how you're a hypocritical loser. How the one lame upload on your page doesn't allow ratings. And how it doesn't have a fraction of these views even though it's been up way longer. You get it now? How you're a douche, I mean? And why I'm upset? Because you're a douche, I mean?
she doesnt need a shrink or a simple 'couch-trip' she needs to go str8 to Vienna and have a team of psychologists sort her twisted wiring out...with the rest of the religionists as well.lol
If we're going to teach kids about creationism as a theory in public schools then we might as well also teach them about the anicent Greek and Roman myths as theories as well.
actually i believe the creationists are going to cause the death of religion by their stupidity.. instead they should focus on prayer and other stuff which does not take on real science
Evolution IS still a theory...it will always be a theory. People need to stop saying it isnt a theory it is a fact. The fact is that a Theory is more significant than a fact or law. The word theory in science means explanation, the Theory of Evolution explains a tested and verified set of facts. THere is no single fact of evolution therefore calling evolution a fact is a gross oversimplification.
People need to start checking their wording when dealing with evolution
@ThieleM would you say that calling a butterfly an insect is "gross oversimplification?" there is nothing wrong with simplifying information when speaking to the masses. if science overwhelmingly accepts evolution as a fact then it is simply a fact. these are the smartest kids in every classroom accross the world and when they all agree on something through evidence and testable experimentation it is in our best interest to take it seriously.
@ThieleM would you say that calling a butterfly an insect is "gross oversimplification?" there is nothing wrong with simplifying information when speaking to the masses. if science overwhelmingly accepts evolution as a fact then it is simply a fact. these are the smartest kids in every classroom accross the world and when they all agree on something through evidence and testable experimentation it is in our best interest to take it seriously.
You clearly arent getting it. In science facts are the least important bits, a fact is one bit of information. Facts have no explanatory power. A scientific theory takes sets of facts and laws that have been tested and confirmed then explains how these facts and laws fit together.
In evolutionary theory you have facts like allele frequencies, DNA replication etc that are explained by the theory of evolution.
The word evolution simply put means change over time
What a mess it would be if every school district made up its own curriculum!
I agree that states should be in charge of their own education. However, it cannot be brought all the way down to localities. It makes no sense.
Teaching religion should not be in schools, end of story. Teaching ABOUT religion is another story... it is part of civics & history. However, teaching creationism is promoting a religious idea & that is not what our public schools are for. Religion is a private matter.
I was not taught evolution in school, my parents send me to a christian school where it was only brought up as something to mock. This left me completely unprepared for life and education outside that school. I'm an atheist now, don't lie to your kids people, they will find out and they WILL be angry.
@dickensonfam Ok then, what are these facts? All the facts i've seen for it have been rebutted. I'm asking legitimately what is the fact it is based on?
@dickensonfam OK I will play your game. Explain how creation accounts for the development of the vaccine. Also, explain how people who accept evolution are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc (as well as highly educated in the sciences) when the only people who accept divine creation belong to that particular religion and tend not to be as well educated in the sciences.
@dickensonfam Wow! You must have evidence that no other scientist on the planet has :-o! Please tell me and convert my atheistic ass oh great one! Prick!!!
ANYONE THAT DOUBTS THE TRUE LIVING GOD (MINE OF COURSE) WILL BURN N EVERLASTING HELL AND DAMNATION, WHERE YOUR SKIN WILL SEAR OFF AND YOU WILL BE IN UNIMAGINABLE AGONY FOREVER AND EVER WITH NO HOPE OF ESCAPE, because god loves you.
@Salnsd now, put aside your ego for ONE, only ONE sec... do you realize how much hatred is in the words you posted on here. i always hear christains say that atheists have no morals. how do you justify your morals of spreading so much hate?
Blitzer's look after asking the question is one of disdain, disbelief and shock. The man looks like a walking emoticon. Seldom has the phrase "read something from someone's face" rung more true.
A man can live 900 years and somehow fit two of every species in a boat but a reasonable scientific explanation of why every living thing, to varying degrees, share the same dna is bullshit... You sir are really fucking stupid, period.
Creationism is not allowed in US public classrooms. The reason is that it does not present, measure, or observe evidence then open itself to peer review-THAT is what science does and THEN it draws conclusions. Creation draws THE conclusion and then makes assertions. It flunks all standards by which science is adjudicated.
A true scientist would never hold on to any theory when new evidence is presented. Calling a theory a de facto fact is perfectly reasonable. Science operates on many "de facto" facts. It takes a lot of evidence and research for a theory to become a de facto fact, but it happens all the time. And in the rare cases a de facto fact is proven false by evidence, most scientists rejoice at having learned something new and having moved closer to the truth.
@jessie2580 A fact within a limited context can be overturned but a scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and has withstood the test of time. Yes, evolution based on the theory of natural selection is a firm scientific theory which has withstood over a century of testing, yet continuous to be slightly modified as new lines of scientific evidence accumulates. I agree, scientists once considered all life directly or indirectly linked to solar energy as fact.
GOD,. MANKIND IS Fact! just read the holy bible. Listen so you have a voice in the world,thats great,,freedom of voice!.....when you die and see the son of GOD JESUS face to face..wHAT WILL YOU SAY THEN??..i GOT NEWS FOR YOU..IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
@thetimesatickin - Can a person believe in human evolution and also believe in God? Is it acceptable to believe that God's creation of humans was done with His hand guiding evolution?
This is not sarcasm or a trick question. Just looking to see where you stand on those people getting into Heaven.
@sueells I was raised Christian, but I'm an atheist now. My path to atheism started when I read "Hens' Teeth and Horses' Toes" by Stephen Jay Gould - a book about evolution. When I suddenly understood natural selection, it was like a door opened in my brain and I felt like I understood the world more clearly. So, yes evolution and atheism kind of go hand in hand - in spite of what a lot of people say.
@Vincentaneous I was an atheist before I knew anything about evolution. Critically examining the claims made by religions, and reading the christian bible did it for me. In fact, many theists accept evolution, yet still believe in a god or gods, so evolution does not necessarily "go hand in hand" with atheism.
@YY4Me133 Studying ancient history, ancient Greek, and the history of Christianity destroyed any faith that I had left from my childhood. Also, I have a question for you: What is the theory of evolution and what are the major bodies of evidence that support it?
@Vincentaneous Go to TalkOrigins(.org), then click "Index" for articles. Also StephenJayGould(.org), NewScientist(.com), MachinesLikeUs(,com). Those sites should keep you busy for a while.
@YY4Me133 I read my first Stephen Jay Gould book when I was 12, and it was the one that set me on the atheist path (although Gould would not have liked that fact). I read through talkorigins all the time. Now, back to my question ... What is the theory of evolution and what are the major bodies of evidence that support it? (This question rarely gets answered by creationists/intelligent designers)
@Vincentaneous I gave you some of the sources I used to learn about the ToE. I'm not a scientist, and there isn't room to cover it all here, even if I were. ToE is the best explanation scientists have to describe the process of evolution. Fossils (including distribution thereof), vestigial organs, and DNA are evidence.
I don't understand the point of this question. I'm not a creationist. I believed I was related to other animals before I ever heard about evolution. It seemed obvious.
@YY4Me133 OK you're not a creationist. Then my asking you about the evidence for evolution was a moot point. However, I don't understand why you think it's likely that a just and loving God would use 4 billion years of suffering and death and extinction so that He could endow one large-brained primate with a soul. Also, biology shows us that the human mind is nothing but an electrochemical machine. Biology shows us that there is no good reason to believe in souls or spirits. Why do you?
@Vincentaneous I don't. My original post was in response to your assertion that "evolution and atheism kind of go hand in hand." I gave two reasons why I disagree: 1) I'm an atheist, but evolution had nothing to do with it; 2) Some theists believe in evolution. Perhaps you misread "I was an atheist" as meaning I no longer am. However, the second sentence explains why I became an atheist. Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that I'm a theist.
The prevailing scientific theory on human evolution is de facto a fact. This is more of a philosophical point than a scientific one- but is perfectly valid in either arena. Creationists claim that this theory needs to be taught with equal credibility as their theory- because it is not a proven fact. Labeling it de facto a fact is a useful way to make the distinction for them. Disputing the phrasing seems silly and ego driven.
The commentary on this really annoyed me. When the scientific community widely agrees on something it doesn't make it fact. Take physics, newtons ideas and energy equations were widely accepted to be correct but relativity showed that the theories were incorrect (or at least changed the scientific community's view on them).
@EHJBoyd - As the person who made this video has tried to point out several times- he did not say wide spread scientific agreement makes "something" a fact. I will not type out exactly what he said- it is plainly in the video above.
What annoys me is when people only half listen to something- and then proceed to comment on the thing they didn't fully listen to or fully understand.
@MsGardenPest He said 'de facto a fact.' Which means is a fact in practice. The original Newtonian physics was accepted for a very long time by the whole scientific community. If Newtonian physics were 'de facto a fact' then we'd be able to use it for modelling (for example) particle accelerators, but it doesn't work. Therefore it's not 'defacto a fact' as it isn't true in practice.
I just think the creator undermines his own (excellent point) by making a mistake on the scientific method.
@EHJBoyd - I disagree. The theory on human evolution is de facto a fact. "Accepted as fact in practice- though not officially established." No mistake here on the scientific method because saying it is "de facto" exempts him. Some "de facto facts" in history were proven wrong or changed but that doesn't mean they cease to exist. And it is a 100% accurate rebuttal to the creationists. It's inexplicably something people want to challenge in this video.
@MsGardenPest Sorry, you're wrong again. Going back to the example of classical mechanics, these 'de facto' laws were tested in more extreme situations and didn't work, hence they weren't 'de facto' facts because they don't work in practice. No scientific theory can be said to be a fact (in practice or in theory) because once you go down that road science will begin to stagnate and people will hold on to their models too tightly when new evidence damns them (eg that the ether didn't exist).
@EHJBoyd - A de facto fact is not a fact in practice. It is a fact in practice that hasn't been officially established. That's the full definition and it's a huge difference from what you are saying. Of course those laws were de facto facts- until they were disproved. De facto facts are an essential tool for scientific progress- and for proper education. To deny the existence of de facto facts is laughable. As long as they are identified as de facto they are perfectly valid for use in science.
@MsGardenPest Thank you for the defense, friend, but please don't spend too much energy on arguing my behalf. People with brains hard wired for science apparently don't like some phrasing in the video, but I hate to see people who so closely agree on the major point arguing over a minor one.
@EHJBoyd Yes, but do you see physics majors demanding that both sides of the idea get taught? Or only the incorrect one? Religion needs to get it in its thick head that can't go on teach impressionable minds that god made everything; The End. Not until it shows us some actual proof.
Yes, let the local community decide because we all know that every community has a at least several PhDs of biology in it. Geez, what a terrible idea.
Theories never become facts, evolution is both an observed fact, and a theory that explains these observations. Minor correction to the start of your video, but it is an important distinction to make.
@tielec01 - I think what is specifically being discussed here is not the theory as a whole- but that humans evolved from more primitive life forms- and this still remains theoretical in the traditional sense. And while I agree theories do not become facts- I state that the theory of evolution- meaning human evolution- is de facto a fact- which of course I realize by scientific definition it isn't a fact at all- but is accepted as one.
@tielec01 - Semantics are most often used by blowhards to make a worthless point. If someone is willing to overlook meaning and intention to score hollow points in a self designed contest- it shouldn't garner much attention. It certainly doesn't get mine.
However your advice isn't needed in this case. Saying that this unproven theory is de facto a fact is a fully accurate and valid statement- so no changes are necessary.
Actually, no. I theory never becomes a fact. However, 1. Evolution is also a fact and 2. you're right, you can't EVER let the local district decide what is science. That's not how science works.
C'omon! Every one knows why education is a complete joke in this country.
We have teachers who ultimately cannot be fired because of their teachers union. We limit the school your son or daughter can go to by the district you live in. That means no government school no matter how poorly it performs can fail. And here we are spending more on education than any other country in the world and yet we're sub par at best.
I think the difference between a theory and a fact, is that you can't see the theory for itself. You have to "think".
I can see a dog in front of me, sure. But I can't see life evolving. But I CAN see the effects of evolution, I can see it's traces of history around me and INSIDE me.
Theory or fact isn't about proof or being true. It's just about whether you had to use reason or experience to understand it.
What is a theory to one, maybe a fact to another, seeing as our experiences differ.
its funny is that she believes that specifically CHRISTIAN creationism should be taught equally with evolution. first of all evolution has been proven and should be taught while creationism should not. in public schools creationism can't be taught because what if youre muslim, jewish, buddhist or some other religion whos creationism is different than the christians? then they would be forcing christianity onto them, which is unconstitutional. it is ILLEGAL to discuss religion at public schools.
You've misrepresented 'theory'. Evolution IS and will continue to be a theory. In science, theory has a differant meaning than the common usage. A scientific theory is the HIGHEST level of proof/truth possible. At no point in the future will evolution be called the fact of science. Evolution is a fact, in the same way that the sun rises in the morning. Please do not concede the word 'theory' to creationists, educate the wider public instead!
@acme181169 YES YES YES - I have made the same post to a number a videos. People need to understand that the scientific definition of "theory" is not the same as the general definition.
Its good to know that there are others who point this out
I should say "some" creationists are desperate- not all. Some creationists just believe what they believe but aren't obsessed with jamming their beliefs into public schools, and don't shoot spitballs at the Sherman tank that is the "theory" of evolution.
Creationists are a desperate, ignorant group. I don't think they're stupid, no independent living person could be that stupid and survive.
Because evolution hasn't been "proven" does not put it in the same class as a myth that has absolutely no scientific merit what so ever- but it's a cute way to trick children. Has it been "proven" that the earth revolves around the sun? Before you answer- think. Evolution hasn't been proven because it can not be- either by observation or by experiment.
I completely agree with you, super...creationism and creationism haven't been proven. Was that comment by you a Freudian slip for what's really kicking around in the back of your mind?
I completely agree with you, super...creationism and creationism hasn't been proven. Was that comment by you a Freudian slip for what's really kicking around in the back of your mind?
@ruslanbarabolkin - OK genius- I'll study some science if you promise to take some comprehension, vocabulary, and listening skills classes. Because you're way off.
If you're capable- listen to the video- and you will see that I said is when a theory is accepted by the scientific community for a certain period of time- it is de facto a fact. And that statement is 100% accurate. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference- but please stop wasting my time with nonsensical comments.
@IamHolyShrink LOL ok "genius". Keep your religion out of the classroom and don't use my taxes to pay for it. I wasn't aware that there were "listening skills" classes. And there are MANY scientists who do not accept your evolutionary theory.
1) Evolution is basic population dynamics, a scientific theory is a description of how a phenomenon happens and is not the same thing as a colloquial definition of a theory is.
2) The observation that population allelic frequencies change over time is and observation, the theory of evolution explains how it happens.
3) Creationism proposes magic and isn't falsifiable or testable in any meaningful way because it is merely an argument from ignorance.
4) There are "MANY scientists" that aren't experts in relevant fields that still think that the sun revolves around the earth. What's important is what's indicated by the evidence and what can be observed, evolution is observed and the theory of evolution explains how it happens. That's why it's accepted as the general scientific consensus, just like how Einstein overturned much of what was held true in regards to Newton's ideas of time and gravity
@flyboymd82 - Exactly how was her answer edited? What gem of brilliance was left out of her warbling answer that showed her to be an intelligent, rational person?
Sorry scooter- that was her answer. Don't shoot the messenger because your tea party nominated an idiot for the seat.
This desperate creationist argument- Forever trying to put the burden of proof back on evolutionists despite the fact that the evidence has already satisfied the scientific community. Then insisting creationism be allowed equal time- without offering even a shred of evidence? Creationists need to leave God out of evolution. Evolution does not dispute God- just your version of him. If you pit God against good science- you will lose him forever. Let God become part of science.
@IamHolyShrink so what you are saying is that there is a total consensus in the "scientific community" concerning evolution? With so many gaps in the scientific evidence, riddled with many examples of manipulated data to support proofs of evolution, how can anyone put total confidence in this same "scientific community?" To dismiss anyone who disputes evolutionary theory and favors creationism perspective as scientifically ignorant appears to be a community that has something to hide.
@AR485 - Favoring a theory with zero evidence over a theory with significant and plentiful evidence will not be respected by people of science. Ever. How could it be? Creationists continue to demand complete and water tight evidence to support evolution- and simultaneously demand acceptance of a half baked theory with positively zero evidence or scientific support. Creationism is scientifically ignorant. There is no disputing that. What scientific method was used to develop creationism?
@AR485 - No one has to put total confidence in the scientific community- but it is a fast and convenient way to know the current scientific standards. If preferred- and with the time and mental capacity- they can study and observe all the evidence and observation data and reach their own conclusions. And someone of proper intellect with no hidden agenda will conclude that evolution is a solid scientific theory- factual in many aspects-and the best explanation for human existence.
@AR485 - The attempts for creationists to label evolution as having "so many gaps" and riddled with data integrity problems may work in church- but not in a scientific discussion. Gaps in a fossil timeline do not translate to gaps in the theory. There is an abundance of excellent evidence in support of evolution. The attempt to paint evolution as a theory with integrity problems never comes with a detailed explanation.
@AR485 Most educated people, that is, educated with some sort of scientific background, dismiss creationists not because they are mindlessly adhering to what is accepted as true (evolution) but because creationists redefine words to mean whatever they like and show a fundamental lack of education in the topic. For example: arguing that a theory means it's just some guy's unverified idea means you have no flying clue what a scientific theory is (gravity is a theory, etc).
To paraphrase Darwin, he stated that his theory had major holes if the fossil record could not show large quantities of transitional fossils. If evolution is true, then why has such a record not been found? In short, whey hasn't the junkyard of tried-and-failed transitional species been found?
@AR485 That isn't a paraphrase- it's a misrepresentation. That line of debate is worn out. Creationists used to cling to a lack of fossil evidence. Then after much excellent evidence emerged they claimed there just wasn't "enough" to make sense. Not offering any valid dispute to the existing evidence mind you- just ignoring it and saying there isn't enough. Finding 10 million year old bone fragments and rock impressions isn't as easy as finding a clam shell on the beach...
The "danger" of teaching ID at any level is that this "theory" does not qualify as a scientific theory. There is no credible evidence that contradicts evolution. There are only relatively minor holes in the theory of evolution- small gaps of evidence in certain theorized chains of evolution- but nothing that contradicts it what so ever. Everyone has plenty of opportunity to learn about God in church and at home- but to be in a science class requires some scientific merit.
Shrink & Metube, although I respectfully disagree with you both, I thank you for your intelligent and dignified responses. Hard to find in such a forum. Although I am unashamed creationist Christian, I refuse to hide myself from discussion on such a difficult topic. My point was that law comes from order, not from chaos. Order comes from design. And design must have a creator. If evolution is true, what is its end? If there is no purpose, then what is the point of having law or order?
@atheistrage then what do you base your truth upon? "Science" is changing all the time the more we find out just how complex life really is. By man's own definition of science, doesn't a theory have to be replicated before proven as fact? Atheistrage, if evolution is just what nature has given us, where did nature come from? To say that it just came about from nothing is much more of a fairy tale. You know in your heart there is more to this story than man tells us that we should accept.
@AR485 I agree a theory must be replicated in a lab to be a proven fact- and proving evolution by experiment is impossible. That is why evolution will always be a theory. However, with the preponderance of evidence being accepted by the scientific community at large it is de facto a fact. Evolution explains the emergence of man from primitive life forms- not the origins of the universe. Evolution is indisputable- a rational Christian might suggest God guided evolution.
@IamHolyShrink, I used to ascribe to theistic evolution, but empirical evidence does not support that theory either. If evolution is maintained as just theory, then why does the academic community condemn any opposing theory that contradicts evolution? What's the danger of teaching intelligent design at even the most basic molecular level? The underlying agenda here is not science, but instead, using evolution theory as a tool to make a truth claim about reality. One that God does not exist.
@AR485 There is no empirical evidence to support theistic evolution- because there is no empirical evidence to support theism. To introduce a deity into a scientific theory or fact takes an act of faith. Evolution is not really a theory. It is accepted as fact. The earth revolving around the sun is a theory also- but is it not fact? Evolution is truth- and any conspiracy theory around it is simply paranoia. The theory was not sought to disprove God- it was discovered while searching for truth.
@AR485 - Thanks for stopping by and engaging in the discussion. Hope you don't feel ganged up on- this is a generally a liberal channel (liberally skewed vids) so you may be outnumbered from time to time- but when the passion of the conversation fades- it's only a small part of who we all are.
@AR485 No, I don't "know in my heart" that your religion has any merit. That's the same kind of arrogant nonsense christians are famous for.
To say god "came from nothing" is the EXACT same thing as saying "nature came from nothing". So that argument doesn't have any merit to me.
The world being round is also "just a theory" too.
I you were the apply the same scientific standard to the bible that we demand from evolution, then bible doesn't even amount to a credible hypothesis.
@atheistrage I can understand you not being emotionally invested or sold on Darwinian evolution, but your expressed disdain of an intelligent designer is rather intriguing to me. Yes, I am a Christian, but with all due respect, I am not trying to shove my theological belief onto you. It would be counterproductive in this venue. What I am trying to point out is that if you are saying that "we just don't know," then how can you automatically dismiss a creator, Christian God or otherwise?
@AR485 No one practicing good science would "automatically" dismiss anything. They would systematically dismiss it. In this case- the "theory" of creationism is suggested- people of science request evidence and data to support the theory- none can possibly be presented- and then it would be dismissed.
And then it could be placed in a world history or theology class- or possibly just left to the church where it belongs.
@AR485 Right. I don't "know" if there was(is) an "intellegnet designer". But neither does anybody else. The reason I "favor" evolution is because the evidence seems convining to me.
When it comes to intellegent design, I just don't see how any evidence supports that idea one way or the other. The arguement in favor of I.D. (which many christians do angrily insist is indisputable fact) seems to be based entirely on emotions, philosophy, and faith. It's an empty arugment (to me anyway).
@AR485 I think the term "Darwinian Evolution" is oversimplification. Sure he wrote the "origin of speices" back in the mid 1800's, but he wasn't the first (or last) person to connent their observations in such a way. In fact I think a lot of his opinions actually turned out to be wrong (and were replaced with new ideas that better fit the evidence). We now have a much more complete fossiol record and DNA evidence. I don't think modern biology really requires "Darwin" much anymore.
@atheistrage Yep. Most of what you say is correct, but it might be interpreted by loonies as meaning modern science doesn't support evolution, when all it means (and you mean, and I agree with) is that biology's gone beyond Darwinian evolution, and built upon it and refined it (and added to it, in aspects that Darwin couldn't have dreamed of - i.e. molecular evolution).
To add an analogy: if you refer to modern biology and Darwin in the same sentence and assume that scientists are basing their current studies mainly/only on a hundred and fifty year old work would be like asking your electrician how he manages to harness lighting from the sky to fuel all your appliances, or where the coal goes in your steam powered car and then acting shocked or insulted when either of these people dismiss you.
So yeah, I don't blame modern biology/science for mostly ignoring intelligent design when researchers have far better things to spend their time on, instead of trying to educate people who are fundamentally opposed to being educated.
@pantelopes Right. That comment was a rebuttal to the same christian you have apparently been conversing with. I"m not a scientist. Nor I do speak for the science community. I just think its absurd how christians consistantly attack evoltion based on what it was 150 years ago
They keep trying to use Darwin as some kind of atheist messiah. I just don't (personally) think Darwin is any more necessary to evolution than Gallieo's credibility is to the established fact the earth orbits the sun
@AR485 I guess that's a good philosophical question about what we "base truth on".
Evolution makes good sense to me, but I don't have any emotional investment in it. If something superseeds it tommorow. Then fine. I just have not heard anything better yet.
I you have some better to offer (other than debunked fairy tales about talking snakes), then I'm sure the scientific community would like to hear it.
Ultimately we may have to accept that there are things we just don't know.
Maybe if we (as a country) had better standards about teaching biological science, political history, and ecomonics, then half of America wouldn't still believe in a talking snake, Noah's magic arc, or that "god" is comming back to save us from our own problems any fucking minute now like this bitch does !
Religious zealots are truly worthy of mocking attacks. This woman and her mentor Sarah Palin would cheerfully destroy our liberal democracy and substitute religious rule with themselves in power. Indeed ending democracy is their end game.
If you want to be elected to the U.S. Senate you're going to be asked about the policies you support and the agenda you seek to advance. O'Donnell had been quoted as saying evolution was a myth and that creationism should be taught in public schools. That's a dangerous and irresponsible position to have. Asking her about it is not an attack. It's the duty of any citizen who cares about our education system.
@MrShopJack Yeah well, that's not how a lot of christians see it.
They arrogantly like believe that their "true religion" superseeds everyone else's rights and that questioning the debunked creation myths in the bible is a personal attach on them.
Their religion automatically applies to everyone else.
This O'donnel creature would fit right into the "jesus camp" movie.
@atheistrage Try spell checking your posts before you put them out there for everyone to see. Otherwise, you make your point of view look like it issues forth from a cadre of dimwits. You certainly have an interesting point to make, but you're presenting it as if it comes from a mind that is too lazy to look up basic facts, like proper spelling. Take some pride in your thought process.
@metube854 Correct spelling AND grammar is relevant even if the campaign determines it is not relevant. Only the electorate gets to decide what's relevant. Otherwise, the electorate may fall prey to campaign brainwashing of the masses.
@metube854 Well right, I probably do make a few errors in my spelling like 90% of the other users who leave comments. But I don't think particularly bad about it.
There isn't any spell check feature here (that I'm aware of). I have large hands, and my time isn't unlimited.
Who are you to say that you have more "pride" than me, or that I'm "lazy" ?
What "basic facts" of mine are you cliaming are in error ?
Why are you pin pointing me for grammer specifically ?
Why do liberals constantly mock people for their beliefs? This is America, right? We have freedom of religion. That doesn't just mean atheists have freedom from religion.... it means Christians have freedom to practice also, and to believe what they believe without being called stupid. Make fun of a gay person and they lock you up. Make fun of a Christian and they make you President.
@FredBoss100 Christians (and everyone else) do have the right to believe what they want (even if it is stupid). They just don't have the right to incorprate their religion into the government or teach it as "science" without a shred of proof.
By the way, you're being deliberately ignorant. No one will "lock you up" for ridiculing gays if want, and (unfortunately) the president is an avid christian.
Aren't christians the assholes who walk around with signs that "Gog Hates Fags" ?
A "trap question" is one where the obvious (and likely correct) answer to a question puts the individual in a difficult position trying to defend or respond to a pre-determined point. That does not apply here. There is only one answer to this question: "No, evolution is not a myth. It is good science. I misspoke earlier." And then she would be free from this. She chose wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I think she should have answered the question. However, Blitzer's intention is no myth either. I would like to see more philosophical consistency from the "scientific community at large" regarding evolution. I never see anyone who declares it as fact really live by what they profess. For example, evolution is taught in schools as scientific fact, but bullying is outlawed. Only the strong survive, right?
@atheistrage Just asking what I think is a legitimate question, not provoking a personal attack. If evolution is true and we are being taught as such, why should we even have laws in society? At their core, laws are intended to control behavior of the strongest while protecting those who cannot protect themselves. A true evolutionist, in this case, our school systems, should not have rules to govern behavior and protect students while they are also teaching evolution as unavoidable truth.
@AR485 - I think you are confusing people who understand that evolution is a vital part of science education- and people who think "survival of the fittest" should still dominate our society today.
Evolution is the scientific explanation of how humans evolved from primitive life forms. What humans have done with our evolved intelligence does not change that. Evolutionists do not support a certain lifestyle- they support good science.
@AR485 You're misinterpreting both evolution and law. The presence of law allows for everyone to benefit, not just the weak at the expense of the poor. Without law, it's a Hobbesian world (see Leviathan). The presence of law is in no way antithetical to evolution; rather, rule of law is an active contributor to human evolution. It is one component of what would be called an "evolutionarily stable strategy." See the work of Stephan Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins to learn more about this.
@AR485 Well, your argument (to me) seems rather frivolous. Evolution being true and chosing to have laws in society are completely irrelevant. We can't pick what facts science gives us, but no one is saying that we have to model our society on the harshest aspects of the natural world. Evolution is as "true" as it's going to get. The concept of a round earth is "just a therory". If you're suggesting that your confussion somehow justifies religion, then you're being deliberately ignorant.
@AR485 I think evolution is taught in school (as science) because there is an overwhelmimg amount of tangible evidence. A progressive fossiol record, DNA, etc. (I'm not a scientist).
Where as religion offers nothing of the sort. (except "faith"). Not to mention there is real evidence to debunk the biblical creation myths (if you take them literally).
If you have something better to offer (other than a silly fables), I'm sure science would be quite open to hearing it.
@AR485 It's a legitamte question (for any candidate) whether it's a politcal trap or not.
I like to know if the people running for office are stupid enough to take bibical myths like the talking snake, Noah'h magic arc, or "god" spontaneously making man out of dirt 6,000 years ago lterally.
I particularly want to know if they believe it should be taught to kids as science.
She blames the media for her troubles and suggests the liberal media is "picking on her". But the bottom line is that she chose to make her position public on these issues and now she has to answer for them. Certain views might work in small circles, but then flop on a larger stage.
Christine O'Donnell: "...What I believe is irrelevant". She finally speaks the truth. Even what I believe is irrelevant. Also, evolution is a theory, just like gravity. Now, fly the fuck away.
therealjammit 1 month ago
You need to adjust the color key to take out the green screen bleed around your character. Adding a simple choker in after effects should take that straight off. Nice video, its important to show people like Christine O'Donnell up as the ignorant fools they are. Saying that, I'd definitely giver her one! I presume she's pretty horny from all her masturbation abstinence.
TheGroggler 1 month ago
no no no no- you dont let people decide what they want taught in schools- you teach fact! you teach truth! evolution is fact and that is the truth! you dont teach one plus one can equal two or it can equal three -you decide- you teach one plus one equals two and nothing else beacuse it does and there are no other options no matter how you attempt to argue otherwise- this womans self interest is discusting and an insult to intelligence!
dancingnancy09 2 months ago
God (figure of speech) it's so unfair being a partly conservative Atheist, because you just know science is true because there is no supernatural, but regardless hippies just suck.
Sigh, so unfair .....
Curas1 2 months ago
great video..... but one little issue. no matter how well supported by evidence, evolutionary theory will always be that, a scientific theory. when you say things like 'evolution is so well supported you cant even call it a theory anymore' you fail to recognize the true meaning of a scientific theory.
scottpastry 2 months ago
First, we need to let the experts in the field decide how that field is taught. Second, all schools should have minimum standards so that children can be prepared for whatever future opportunities they choose to pursue. Third, religion is NOT on equal footing with science; they are two completely different systems asking completely different questions; one is based on verifiable evidence found in the natural world, the other is made up, explains nothing, and is wholely useless practically.
resistnzisfutl 2 months ago
Perhaps when chemistry is taught in schools, they should give equal time to teaching alchemy as an alternative theory. Also perhaps astrology should be taught along side astronomy. Perhaps numerology could be taught along with mathematics. Maybe in history class we should teach that theories about The lost continent of Atlantis are scientific and valid. or maybe we could teach alternative views about the Holocaust and American slavery.
elderberry9 3 months ago
It's definitely a fair question. If you like her answer or if you don't, the question is fair. If you believe in Creationism you should be able to plainly say that. If you think Creationism belongs in school you should be able to plainly say that. If you feel like your answer sounds stupid or embarrassing, don't blame the question. Do you believe in Evolution or not?
pumpkinbowling 3 months ago
HER CONVICTION TO RELIGION WONT ALLOW HER TO ADMIT TO EVOLUTION, BUT SHE KNOWS ANYONE WITH AN I/Q ABOVE 12 WILL THINK SHES A RETARD IF SHE DIS AGREES WITH %100 OF THE EDUCATED SCIENCE FIELD
KRAUCH74 3 months ago
At first I was thinking, "who are the 9 dislikes from? Are they people that think Christine O'Donnell understands evolution? Come on, nobody thinks that."
But then I saw that gay ass cartoon appear and start talking. And then I understood why 9 people hit the dislike button. I'm glad I didn't hit "like" right away.
instereovideos 3 months ago
@instereovideos At least he isn't one of those pussies who disable the ratings on his videos. Or even worse, one of the losers who has to "approve" any comment made on his video. At least he has the guts to let the community vote if they want to vote. Know what I mean?
Thanks to him, we all got to hear your amazing and important opinion.
dremmeths 3 months ago
@dremmeths Oh, see what you did there? You really meant, my really "unimportant" opinion, but you're so clever that you slipped that one in right under the radar by disguising it as praise. Genius!
I think you're just upset because you're lame enough to enjoy the talking cartoon douchebag, and my comment made you feel kinda insecure about it.
instereovideos 3 months ago
@instereovideos - Close, but you missed it tough guy. What I slipped "under the radar" was how you're a hypocritical loser. How the one lame upload on your page doesn't allow ratings. And how it doesn't have a fraction of these views even though it's been up way longer. You get it now? How you're a douche, I mean? And why I'm upset? Because you're a douche, I mean?
dremmeths 3 months ago
@dremmeths whoaa, you got maaaadd.
instereovideos 3 months ago
@instereovideos - Yeah. Blatant, unchecked stupidity does that to normal people. But we're getting used to it... so thanks for that.
dremmeths 3 months ago
@dremmeths dangerous wit, man, dangerous.
instereovideos 3 months ago
@instereovideos That's funny, I was going to say the opposite about yours. Your posts are empty, impotent garbage.
dremmeths 3 months ago 2
she doesnt need a shrink or a simple 'couch-trip' she needs to go str8 to Vienna and have a team of psychologists sort her twisted wiring out...with the rest of the religionists as well.lol
PAULOcbi 3 months ago
If we're going to teach kids about creationism as a theory in public schools then we might as well also teach them about the anicent Greek and Roman myths as theories as well.
petercharleskrug 3 months ago
0We dun get a quality edumucation neways liek mai ball
iluvshawndx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no evidence for macroevolution.
goonsnak2k 4 months ago
@goonsnak2k Yes there is.
aegis027 1 month ago
Lets not forget this women ran on the "I'm not a witch" platform
finderfinder100 5 months ago 3
@finderfinder100 lol just like a witch would say
linkforever92 4 months ago 2
actually i believe the creationists are going to cause the death of religion by their stupidity.. instead they should focus on prayer and other stuff which does not take on real science
madmax797 5 months ago
Holy Shrink:
Evolution IS still a theory...it will always be a theory. People need to stop saying it isnt a theory it is a fact. The fact is that a Theory is more significant than a fact or law. The word theory in science means explanation, the Theory of Evolution explains a tested and verified set of facts. THere is no single fact of evolution therefore calling evolution a fact is a gross oversimplification.
People need to start checking their wording when dealing with evolution
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM would you say that calling a butterfly an insect is "gross oversimplification?" there is nothing wrong with simplifying information when speaking to the masses. if science overwhelmingly accepts evolution as a fact then it is simply a fact. these are the smartest kids in every classroom accross the world and when they all agree on something through evidence and testable experimentation it is in our best interest to take it seriously.
ilikelazers 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThieleM would you say that calling a butterfly an insect is "gross oversimplification?" there is nothing wrong with simplifying information when speaking to the masses. if science overwhelmingly accepts evolution as a fact then it is simply a fact. these are the smartest kids in every classroom accross the world and when they all agree on something through evidence and testable experimentation it is in our best interest to take it seriously.
ilikelazers 5 months ago
@ThieleM ok then everything a theory then evolution is as close to a fact as it can get with out the afore mentioned
DrChrispocalypse 4 months ago
@DrChrispocalypse
You clearly arent getting it. In science facts are the least important bits, a fact is one bit of information. Facts have no explanatory power. A scientific theory takes sets of facts and laws that have been tested and confirmed then explains how these facts and laws fit together.
In evolutionary theory you have facts like allele frequencies, DNA replication etc that are explained by the theory of evolution.
The word evolution simply put means change over time
ThieleM 4 months ago
What a mess it would be if every school district made up its own curriculum!
I agree that states should be in charge of their own education. However, it cannot be brought all the way down to localities. It makes no sense.
Teaching religion should not be in schools, end of story. Teaching ABOUT religion is another story... it is part of civics & history. However, teaching creationism is promoting a religious idea & that is not what our public schools are for. Religion is a private matter.
esigus 5 months ago 2
I was not taught evolution in school, my parents send me to a christian school where it was only brought up as something to mock. This left me completely unprepared for life and education outside that school. I'm an atheist now, don't lie to your kids people, they will find out and they WILL be angry.
Rivalen5 5 months ago 2
I actually agree with her, creationism isn't a superstition, it is based on scientific fact. Deal with it atheists!!!
dickensonfam 5 months ago
@dickensonfam Scientific fact? Which one?
Ko252 5 months ago
@dickensonfam Ok then, what are these facts? All the facts i've seen for it have been rebutted. I'm asking legitimately what is the fact it is based on?
CDragnetti 5 months ago
@dickensonfam OK I will play your game. Explain how creation accounts for the development of the vaccine. Also, explain how people who accept evolution are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc (as well as highly educated in the sciences) when the only people who accept divine creation belong to that particular religion and tend not to be as well educated in the sciences.
damasta00138 5 months ago
@dickensonfam Your comments are just to inflame people and get a response. Either that or you're retarded.
MrJpmoneypants 5 months ago
@dickensonfam Wow! You must have evidence that no other scientist on the planet has :-o! Please tell me and convert my atheistic ass oh great one! Prick!!!
FrancoHitlini 5 months ago
ANYONE THAT DOUBTS THE TRUE LIVING GOD (MINE OF COURSE) WILL BURN N EVERLASTING HELL AND DAMNATION, WHERE YOUR SKIN WILL SEAR OFF AND YOU WILL BE IN UNIMAGINABLE AGONY FOREVER AND EVER WITH NO HOPE OF ESCAPE, because god loves you.
Salnsd 6 months ago 2
@Salnsd sounds like fun. i'll see ya there
hennaert 6 months ago 3
Haha, that last sentence in regard to those "sweet, loving words" is truly cracking me up. You're a moron, filled with fear and hate.
E59th 6 months ago
@Salnsd now, put aside your ego for ONE, only ONE sec... do you realize how much hatred is in the words you posted on here. i always hear christains say that atheists have no morals. how do you justify your morals of spreading so much hate?
redrum41987 5 months ago
@Salnsd LOL keep troll'n dude - I think you got some people fooled ...
vohshkab 5 months ago
good vid. good sense.
mrduffy1100 7 months ago
Blitzer's look after asking the question is one of disdain, disbelief and shock. The man looks like a walking emoticon. Seldom has the phrase "read something from someone's face" rung more true.
Brogel 7 months ago
Ugly, stupid bitch. Look! You can clearly see her stupidity in her dumb, insecure eyes.
MagnusRulerHardt 7 months ago
A man can live 900 years and somehow fit two of every species in a boat but a reasonable scientific explanation of why every living thing, to varying degrees, share the same dna is bullshit... You sir are really fucking stupid, period.
ryansling 7 months ago
Jungle jargon is a moron
ryansling 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is not science. It is not even based on any fact.
watch?v=t0dcH9RFfX8
JungleJargon 8 months ago
It's a good thing she's somewhat attractive because she is really dumb!
daddyrich3701 8 months ago
Creationism is not allowed in US public classrooms. The reason is that it does not present, measure, or observe evidence then open itself to peer review-THAT is what science does and THEN it draws conclusions. Creation draws THE conclusion and then makes assertions. It flunks all standards by which science is adjudicated.
dwolfcoach 8 months ago 16
A true scientist would never hold on to any theory when new evidence is presented. Calling a theory a de facto fact is perfectly reasonable. Science operates on many "de facto" facts. It takes a lot of evidence and research for a theory to become a de facto fact, but it happens all the time. And in the rare cases a de facto fact is proven false by evidence, most scientists rejoice at having learned something new and having moved closer to the truth.
jessie2580 10 months ago 27
@jessie2580 A fact within a limited context can be overturned but a scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and has withstood the test of time. Yes, evolution based on the theory of natural selection is a firm scientific theory which has withstood over a century of testing, yet continuous to be slightly modified as new lines of scientific evidence accumulates. I agree, scientists once considered all life directly or indirectly linked to solar energy as fact.
chroniclerofthe70s 5 months ago
GOD,. MANKIND IS Fact! just read the holy bible. Listen so you have a voice in the world,thats great,,freedom of voice!.....when you die and see the son of GOD JESUS face to face..wHAT WILL YOU SAY THEN??..i GOT NEWS FOR YOU..IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
thetimesatickin 10 months ago
@thetimesatickin - Can a person believe in human evolution and also believe in God? Is it acceptable to believe that God's creation of humans was done with His hand guiding evolution?
This is not sarcasm or a trick question. Just looking to see where you stand on those people getting into Heaven.
sueells 10 months ago
@sueells I was raised Christian, but I'm an atheist now. My path to atheism started when I read "Hens' Teeth and Horses' Toes" by Stephen Jay Gould - a book about evolution. When I suddenly understood natural selection, it was like a door opened in my brain and I felt like I understood the world more clearly. So, yes evolution and atheism kind of go hand in hand - in spite of what a lot of people say.
Vincentaneous 8 months ago
@Vincentaneous I was an atheist before I knew anything about evolution. Critically examining the claims made by religions, and reading the christian bible did it for me. In fact, many theists accept evolution, yet still believe in a god or gods, so evolution does not necessarily "go hand in hand" with atheism.
YY4Me133 8 months ago
@YY4Me133 Studying ancient history, ancient Greek, and the history of Christianity destroyed any faith that I had left from my childhood. Also, I have a question for you: What is the theory of evolution and what are the major bodies of evidence that support it?
Vincentaneous 8 months ago
@Vincentaneous Go to TalkOrigins(.org), then click "Index" for articles. Also StephenJayGould(.org), NewScientist(.com), MachinesLikeUs(,com). Those sites should keep you busy for a while.
YY4Me133 8 months ago
@YY4Me133 I read my first Stephen Jay Gould book when I was 12, and it was the one that set me on the atheist path (although Gould would not have liked that fact). I read through talkorigins all the time. Now, back to my question ... What is the theory of evolution and what are the major bodies of evidence that support it? (This question rarely gets answered by creationists/intelligent designers)
Vincentaneous 8 months ago
@Vincentaneous I gave you some of the sources I used to learn about the ToE. I'm not a scientist, and there isn't room to cover it all here, even if I were. ToE is the best explanation scientists have to describe the process of evolution. Fossils (including distribution thereof), vestigial organs, and DNA are evidence.
I don't understand the point of this question. I'm not a creationist. I believed I was related to other animals before I ever heard about evolution. It seemed obvious.
YY4Me133 8 months ago
@YY4Me133 OK you're not a creationist. Then my asking you about the evidence for evolution was a moot point. However, I don't understand why you think it's likely that a just and loving God would use 4 billion years of suffering and death and extinction so that He could endow one large-brained primate with a soul. Also, biology shows us that the human mind is nothing but an electrochemical machine. Biology shows us that there is no good reason to believe in souls or spirits. Why do you?
Vincentaneous 8 months ago
@Vincentaneous I don't. My original post was in response to your assertion that "evolution and atheism kind of go hand in hand." I gave two reasons why I disagree: 1) I'm an atheist, but evolution had nothing to do with it; 2) Some theists believe in evolution. Perhaps you misread "I was an atheist" as meaning I no longer am. However, the second sentence explains why I became an atheist. Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that I'm a theist.
YY4Me133 8 months ago
@thetimesatickin WHERES THE PROOF FOR GOD AND DON'T GIVE ME THE BIBLE IT IS JUST STORIES I WANT HARD EVEIDENCE
kevinkards1 9 months ago 2
@thetimesatickin How do you know the Bible is not a collection of semi-historical myths?
Vincentaneous 8 months ago
@thetimesatickin I will say: How can you blame me for how you made me?
satanisthetruegod666 8 months ago
@thetimesatickin I will call Jesus an asshole.
grayziehobbes 3 months ago
The earth revolving around the sun is de facto a fact.
FillMeOver 10 months ago
The prevailing scientific theory on human evolution is de facto a fact. This is more of a philosophical point than a scientific one- but is perfectly valid in either arena. Creationists claim that this theory needs to be taught with equal credibility as their theory- because it is not a proven fact. Labeling it de facto a fact is a useful way to make the distinction for them. Disputing the phrasing seems silly and ego driven.
IamHolyShrink 10 months ago
The commentary on this really annoyed me. When the scientific community widely agrees on something it doesn't make it fact. Take physics, newtons ideas and energy equations were widely accepted to be correct but relativity showed that the theories were incorrect (or at least changed the scientific community's view on them).
EHJBoyd 10 months ago
@EHJBoyd - As the person who made this video has tried to point out several times- he did not say wide spread scientific agreement makes "something" a fact. I will not type out exactly what he said- it is plainly in the video above.
What annoys me is when people only half listen to something- and then proceed to comment on the thing they didn't fully listen to or fully understand.
MsGardenPest 10 months ago
@MsGardenPest He said 'de facto a fact.' Which means is a fact in practice. The original Newtonian physics was accepted for a very long time by the whole scientific community. If Newtonian physics were 'de facto a fact' then we'd be able to use it for modelling (for example) particle accelerators, but it doesn't work. Therefore it's not 'defacto a fact' as it isn't true in practice.
I just think the creator undermines his own (excellent point) by making a mistake on the scientific method.
EHJBoyd 10 months ago
@EHJBoyd - I disagree. The theory on human evolution is de facto a fact. "Accepted as fact in practice- though not officially established." No mistake here on the scientific method because saying it is "de facto" exempts him. Some "de facto facts" in history were proven wrong or changed but that doesn't mean they cease to exist. And it is a 100% accurate rebuttal to the creationists. It's inexplicably something people want to challenge in this video.
MsGardenPest 10 months ago
@MsGardenPest Sorry, you're wrong again. Going back to the example of classical mechanics, these 'de facto' laws were tested in more extreme situations and didn't work, hence they weren't 'de facto' facts because they don't work in practice. No scientific theory can be said to be a fact (in practice or in theory) because once you go down that road science will begin to stagnate and people will hold on to their models too tightly when new evidence damns them (eg that the ether didn't exist).
EHJBoyd 10 months ago
@EHJBoyd - A de facto fact is not a fact in practice. It is a fact in practice that hasn't been officially established. That's the full definition and it's a huge difference from what you are saying. Of course those laws were de facto facts- until they were disproved. De facto facts are an essential tool for scientific progress- and for proper education. To deny the existence of de facto facts is laughable. As long as they are identified as de facto they are perfectly valid for use in science.
MsGardenPest 10 months ago
@MsGardenPest Thank you for the defense, friend, but please don't spend too much energy on arguing my behalf. People with brains hard wired for science apparently don't like some phrasing in the video, but I hate to see people who so closely agree on the major point arguing over a minor one.
IamHolyShrink 10 months ago
@EHJBoyd Yes, but do you see physics majors demanding that both sides of the idea get taught? Or only the incorrect one? Religion needs to get it in its thick head that can't go on teach impressionable minds that god made everything; The End. Not until it shows us some actual proof.
aegis027 1 month ago
Thank Science that O'Donnell lost and is now consigned to the dustbin of history.
gspendlove 10 months ago
Yeah!
doriamedina 10 months ago
Yes, let the local community decide because we all know that every community has a at least several PhDs of biology in it. Geez, what a terrible idea.
seiferganon 11 months ago
thenoblequran(Ctrl+Enter)
thankallahalltime 11 months ago
Theories never become facts, evolution is both an observed fact, and a theory that explains these observations. Minor correction to the start of your video, but it is an important distinction to make.
tielec01 1 year ago
@tielec01 - I think what is specifically being discussed here is not the theory as a whole- but that humans evolved from more primitive life forms- and this still remains theoretical in the traditional sense. And while I agree theories do not become facts- I state that the theory of evolution- meaning human evolution- is de facto a fact- which of course I realize by scientific definition it isn't a fact at all- but is accepted as one.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@IamHolyShrink
Semantics can so often bite you in the ass that it is worth being accurate where being accurate is easy.
tielec01 1 year ago
@tielec01 - Semantics are most often used by blowhards to make a worthless point. If someone is willing to overlook meaning and intention to score hollow points in a self designed contest- it shouldn't garner much attention. It certainly doesn't get mine.
However your advice isn't needed in this case. Saying that this unproven theory is de facto a fact is a fully accurate and valid statement- so no changes are necessary.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
Actually, no. I theory never becomes a fact. However, 1. Evolution is also a fact and 2. you're right, you can't EVER let the local district decide what is science. That's not how science works.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
C'omon! Every one knows why education is a complete joke in this country.
We have teachers who ultimately cannot be fired because of their teachers union. We limit the school your son or daughter can go to by the district you live in. That means no government school no matter how poorly it performs can fail. And here we are spending more on education than any other country in the world and yet we're sub par at best.
Privatize. Privatize. Privatize.
davitodude 1 year ago
i would bang christine odonnell. you know what they say, crazy in the head easy to take advantage of sexually
pistolpete667 1 year ago
I think the difference between a theory and a fact, is that you can't see the theory for itself. You have to "think".
I can see a dog in front of me, sure. But I can't see life evolving. But I CAN see the effects of evolution, I can see it's traces of history around me and INSIDE me.
Theory or fact isn't about proof or being true. It's just about whether you had to use reason or experience to understand it.
What is a theory to one, maybe a fact to another, seeing as our experiences differ.
noobenstein 1 year ago
@noobenstein Sure you can see evolution, when you breed to species of dog there you have it. Human controlled Evolution of a species.
Beopenthinkfree 1 year ago
its funny is that she believes that specifically CHRISTIAN creationism should be taught equally with evolution. first of all evolution has been proven and should be taught while creationism should not. in public schools creationism can't be taught because what if youre muslim, jewish, buddhist or some other religion whos creationism is different than the christians? then they would be forcing christianity onto them, which is unconstitutional. it is ILLEGAL to discuss religion at public schools.
wake0321 1 year ago
You've misrepresented 'theory'. Evolution IS and will continue to be a theory. In science, theory has a differant meaning than the common usage. A scientific theory is the HIGHEST level of proof/truth possible. At no point in the future will evolution be called the fact of science. Evolution is a fact, in the same way that the sun rises in the morning. Please do not concede the word 'theory' to creationists, educate the wider public instead!
PS cool vid. she's a lunatic!
acme181169 1 year ago
@acme181169 YES YES YES - I have made the same post to a number a videos. People need to understand that the scientific definition of "theory" is not the same as the general definition.
Its good to know that there are others who point this out
skydive7273x 1 year ago
oh god, i lol'd so hard at the "bigger hug from jesus" part.
influenztial 1 year ago
I should say "some" creationists are desperate- not all. Some creationists just believe what they believe but aren't obsessed with jamming their beliefs into public schools, and don't shoot spitballs at the Sherman tank that is the "theory" of evolution.
phillyduster 1 year ago
Creationists are a desperate, ignorant group. I don't think they're stupid, no independent living person could be that stupid and survive.
Because evolution hasn't been "proven" does not put it in the same class as a myth that has absolutely no scientific merit what so ever- but it's a cute way to trick children. Has it been "proven" that the earth revolves around the sun? Before you answer- think. Evolution hasn't been proven because it can not be- either by observation or by experiment.
phillyduster 1 year ago
so i guess man made global warming is fact according to this guys logic lol. creationism hasnt been proven and neither has creationism.
super16g123 1 year ago
Comment removed
CollinRoche 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@super16g123
I completely agree with you, super...creationism and creationism haven't been proven. Was that comment by you a Freudian slip for what's really kicking around in the back of your mind?
CollinRoche 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@super16g123
I completely agree with you, super...creationism and creationism hasn't been proven. Was that comment by you a Freudian slip for what's really kicking around in the back of your mind?
CollinRoche 1 year ago
@super16g123 ...you know what, we'll be nice and let you have a nother shot at that :)
HeartlessSora1234 1 year ago
@HeartlessSora1234 another shot at what?
super16g123 1 year ago
HUH?? once a theory is accepted it BECOMES A FACT??? Go study some science.
ruslanbarabolkin 1 year ago
@ruslanbarabolkin - OK genius- I'll study some science if you promise to take some comprehension, vocabulary, and listening skills classes. Because you're way off.
If you're capable- listen to the video- and you will see that I said is when a theory is accepted by the scientific community for a certain period of time- it is de facto a fact. And that statement is 100% accurate. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference- but please stop wasting my time with nonsensical comments.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@IamHolyShrink LOL ok "genius". Keep your religion out of the classroom and don't use my taxes to pay for it. I wasn't aware that there were "listening skills" classes. And there are MANY scientists who do not accept your evolutionary theory.
ruslanbarabolkin 1 year ago
@ruslanbarabolkin
1) Evolution is basic population dynamics, a scientific theory is a description of how a phenomenon happens and is not the same thing as a colloquial definition of a theory is.
2) The observation that population allelic frequencies change over time is and observation, the theory of evolution explains how it happens.
3) Creationism proposes magic and isn't falsifiable or testable in any meaningful way because it is merely an argument from ignorance.
garith21 1 year ago
@ruslanbarabolkin
4) There are "MANY scientists" that aren't experts in relevant fields that still think that the sun revolves around the earth. What's important is what's indicated by the evidence and what can be observed, evolution is observed and the theory of evolution explains how it happens. That's why it's accepted as the general scientific consensus, just like how Einstein overturned much of what was held true in regards to Newton's ideas of time and gravity
garith21 1 year ago
Nice editing of her answer!! Can you Libtards be fair, honest, an not cheat on ANYTHING?
flyboymd82 1 year ago
@flyboymd82 - Exactly how was her answer edited? What gem of brilliance was left out of her warbling answer that showed her to be an intelligent, rational person?
Sorry scooter- that was her answer. Don't shoot the messenger because your tea party nominated an idiot for the seat.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
It's fucking crazy how in 2010 a U.S. poltical candidates campaign platform could revovle around openly reject science in favor of a fairy tale.
What the fuck is a matter with people ?
atheistrage 1 year ago
This desperate creationist argument- Forever trying to put the burden of proof back on evolutionists despite the fact that the evidence has already satisfied the scientific community. Then insisting creationism be allowed equal time- without offering even a shred of evidence? Creationists need to leave God out of evolution. Evolution does not dispute God- just your version of him. If you pit God against good science- you will lose him forever. Let God become part of science.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@IamHolyShrink so what you are saying is that there is a total consensus in the "scientific community" concerning evolution? With so many gaps in the scientific evidence, riddled with many examples of manipulated data to support proofs of evolution, how can anyone put total confidence in this same "scientific community?" To dismiss anyone who disputes evolutionary theory and favors creationism perspective as scientifically ignorant appears to be a community that has something to hide.
AR485 1 year ago
@AR485 - Favoring a theory with zero evidence over a theory with significant and plentiful evidence will not be respected by people of science. Ever. How could it be? Creationists continue to demand complete and water tight evidence to support evolution- and simultaneously demand acceptance of a half baked theory with positively zero evidence or scientific support. Creationism is scientifically ignorant. There is no disputing that. What scientific method was used to develop creationism?
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@AR485 - No one has to put total confidence in the scientific community- but it is a fast and convenient way to know the current scientific standards. If preferred- and with the time and mental capacity- they can study and observe all the evidence and observation data and reach their own conclusions. And someone of proper intellect with no hidden agenda will conclude that evolution is a solid scientific theory- factual in many aspects-and the best explanation for human existence.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@AR485 - The attempts for creationists to label evolution as having "so many gaps" and riddled with data integrity problems may work in church- but not in a scientific discussion. Gaps in a fossil timeline do not translate to gaps in the theory. There is an abundance of excellent evidence in support of evolution. The attempt to paint evolution as a theory with integrity problems never comes with a detailed explanation.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@AR485 Most educated people, that is, educated with some sort of scientific background, dismiss creationists not because they are mindlessly adhering to what is accepted as true (evolution) but because creationists redefine words to mean whatever they like and show a fundamental lack of education in the topic. For example: arguing that a theory means it's just some guy's unverified idea means you have no flying clue what a scientific theory is (gravity is a theory, etc).
pantelopes 1 year ago
To paraphrase Darwin, he stated that his theory had major holes if the fossil record could not show large quantities of transitional fossils. If evolution is true, then why has such a record not been found? In short, whey hasn't the junkyard of tried-and-failed transitional species been found?
AR485 1 year ago
@AR485 That isn't a paraphrase- it's a misrepresentation. That line of debate is worn out. Creationists used to cling to a lack of fossil evidence. Then after much excellent evidence emerged they claimed there just wasn't "enough" to make sense. Not offering any valid dispute to the existing evidence mind you- just ignoring it and saying there isn't enough. Finding 10 million year old bone fragments and rock impressions isn't as easy as finding a clam shell on the beach...
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
The "danger" of teaching ID at any level is that this "theory" does not qualify as a scientific theory. There is no credible evidence that contradicts evolution. There are only relatively minor holes in the theory of evolution- small gaps of evidence in certain theorized chains of evolution- but nothing that contradicts it what so ever. Everyone has plenty of opportunity to learn about God in church and at home- but to be in a science class requires some scientific merit.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
Shrink & Metube, although I respectfully disagree with you both, I thank you for your intelligent and dignified responses. Hard to find in such a forum. Although I am unashamed creationist Christian, I refuse to hide myself from discussion on such a difficult topic. My point was that law comes from order, not from chaos. Order comes from design. And design must have a creator. If evolution is true, what is its end? If there is no purpose, then what is the point of having law or order?
AR485 1 year ago
Love the t-shirt- and so true. Chris Coons is a deeply religious man, but he isn't going to destroy the public education system trying to prove it.
A "bigger hug from Jesus".... classic.
mskillerwalnut 1 year ago
Creationism ISN'T an equal theory to evolutoion.
Because there's no fucking evidence.
Of course that fact is irrelevant to this tea party shit sack.
atheistrage 1 year ago
@atheistrage then what do you base your truth upon? "Science" is changing all the time the more we find out just how complex life really is. By man's own definition of science, doesn't a theory have to be replicated before proven as fact? Atheistrage, if evolution is just what nature has given us, where did nature come from? To say that it just came about from nothing is much more of a fairy tale. You know in your heart there is more to this story than man tells us that we should accept.
AR485 1 year ago
@AR485 I agree a theory must be replicated in a lab to be a proven fact- and proving evolution by experiment is impossible. That is why evolution will always be a theory. However, with the preponderance of evidence being accepted by the scientific community at large it is de facto a fact. Evolution explains the emergence of man from primitive life forms- not the origins of the universe. Evolution is indisputable- a rational Christian might suggest God guided evolution.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@IamHolyShrink, I used to ascribe to theistic evolution, but empirical evidence does not support that theory either. If evolution is maintained as just theory, then why does the academic community condemn any opposing theory that contradicts evolution? What's the danger of teaching intelligent design at even the most basic molecular level? The underlying agenda here is not science, but instead, using evolution theory as a tool to make a truth claim about reality. One that God does not exist.
AR485 1 year ago
@AR485 There is no empirical evidence to support theistic evolution- because there is no empirical evidence to support theism. To introduce a deity into a scientific theory or fact takes an act of faith. Evolution is not really a theory. It is accepted as fact. The earth revolving around the sun is a theory also- but is it not fact? Evolution is truth- and any conspiracy theory around it is simply paranoia. The theory was not sought to disprove God- it was discovered while searching for truth.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@AR485 - Thanks for stopping by and engaging in the discussion. Hope you don't feel ganged up on- this is a generally a liberal channel (liberally skewed vids) so you may be outnumbered from time to time- but when the passion of the conversation fades- it's only a small part of who we all are.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@AR485 No, I don't "know in my heart" that your religion has any merit. That's the same kind of arrogant nonsense christians are famous for.
To say god "came from nothing" is the EXACT same thing as saying "nature came from nothing". So that argument doesn't have any merit to me.
The world being round is also "just a theory" too.
I you were the apply the same scientific standard to the bible that we demand from evolution, then bible doesn't even amount to a credible hypothesis.
atheistrage 1 year ago
@atheistrage I can understand you not being emotionally invested or sold on Darwinian evolution, but your expressed disdain of an intelligent designer is rather intriguing to me. Yes, I am a Christian, but with all due respect, I am not trying to shove my theological belief onto you. It would be counterproductive in this venue. What I am trying to point out is that if you are saying that "we just don't know," then how can you automatically dismiss a creator, Christian God or otherwise?
AR485 1 year ago
@AR485 No one practicing good science would "automatically" dismiss anything. They would systematically dismiss it. In this case- the "theory" of creationism is suggested- people of science request evidence and data to support the theory- none can possibly be presented- and then it would be dismissed.
And then it could be placed in a world history or theology class- or possibly just left to the church where it belongs.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@AR485 Right. I don't "know" if there was(is) an "intellegnet designer". But neither does anybody else. The reason I "favor" evolution is because the evidence seems convining to me.
When it comes to intellegent design, I just don't see how any evidence supports that idea one way or the other. The arguement in favor of I.D. (which many christians do angrily insist is indisputable fact) seems to be based entirely on emotions, philosophy, and faith. It's an empty arugment (to me anyway).
atheistrage 1 year ago
@AR485 I think the term "Darwinian Evolution" is oversimplification. Sure he wrote the "origin of speices" back in the mid 1800's, but he wasn't the first (or last) person to connent their observations in such a way. In fact I think a lot of his opinions actually turned out to be wrong (and were replaced with new ideas that better fit the evidence). We now have a much more complete fossiol record and DNA evidence. I don't think modern biology really requires "Darwin" much anymore.
atheistrage 1 year ago
@atheistrage Yep. Most of what you say is correct, but it might be interpreted by loonies as meaning modern science doesn't support evolution, when all it means (and you mean, and I agree with) is that biology's gone beyond Darwinian evolution, and built upon it and refined it (and added to it, in aspects that Darwin couldn't have dreamed of - i.e. molecular evolution).
pantelopes 1 year ago
Comment removed
pantelopes 1 year ago
To add an analogy: if you refer to modern biology and Darwin in the same sentence and assume that scientists are basing their current studies mainly/only on a hundred and fifty year old work would be like asking your electrician how he manages to harness lighting from the sky to fuel all your appliances, or where the coal goes in your steam powered car and then acting shocked or insulted when either of these people dismiss you.
pantelopes 1 year ago
So yeah, I don't blame modern biology/science for mostly ignoring intelligent design when researchers have far better things to spend their time on, instead of trying to educate people who are fundamentally opposed to being educated.
pantelopes 1 year ago
@pantelopes Right. That comment was a rebuttal to the same christian you have apparently been conversing with. I"m not a scientist. Nor I do speak for the science community. I just think its absurd how christians consistantly attack evoltion based on what it was 150 years ago
They keep trying to use Darwin as some kind of atheist messiah. I just don't (personally) think Darwin is any more necessary to evolution than Gallieo's credibility is to the established fact the earth orbits the sun
atheistrage 1 year ago
@AR485 I guess that's a good philosophical question about what we "base truth on".
Evolution makes good sense to me, but I don't have any emotional investment in it. If something superseeds it tommorow. Then fine. I just have not heard anything better yet.
I you have some better to offer (other than debunked fairy tales about talking snakes), then I'm sure the scientific community would like to hear it.
Ultimately we may have to accept that there are things we just don't know.
atheistrage 1 year ago
Maybe if we (as a country) had better standards about teaching biological science, political history, and ecomonics, then half of America wouldn't still believe in a talking snake, Noah's magic arc, or that "god" is comming back to save us from our own problems any fucking minute now like this bitch does !
atheistrage 1 year ago
Religious zealots are truly worthy of mocking attacks. This woman and her mentor Sarah Palin would cheerfully destroy our liberal democracy and substitute religious rule with themselves in power. Indeed ending democracy is their end game.
writcheyc 1 year ago
@writcheyc Absolutely !
atheistrage 1 year ago
If you want to be elected to the U.S. Senate you're going to be asked about the policies you support and the agenda you seek to advance. O'Donnell had been quoted as saying evolution was a myth and that creationism should be taught in public schools. That's a dangerous and irresponsible position to have. Asking her about it is not an attack. It's the duty of any citizen who cares about our education system.
MrShopJack 1 year ago
@MrShopJack Yeah well, that's not how a lot of christians see it.
They arrogantly like believe that their "true religion" superseeds everyone else's rights and that questioning the debunked creation myths in the bible is a personal attach on them.
Their religion automatically applies to everyone else.
This O'donnel creature would fit right into the "jesus camp" movie.
atheistrage 1 year ago
@atheistrage Try spell checking your posts before you put them out there for everyone to see. Otherwise, you make your point of view look like it issues forth from a cadre of dimwits. You certainly have an interesting point to make, but you're presenting it as if it comes from a mind that is too lazy to look up basic facts, like proper spelling. Take some pride in your thought process.
metube854 1 year ago
@metube854 Correct spelling AND grammar is relevant even if the campaign determines it is not relevant. Only the electorate gets to decide what's relevant. Otherwise, the electorate may fall prey to campaign brainwashing of the masses.
chesval 1 year ago
@metube854 Well right, I probably do make a few errors in my spelling like 90% of the other users who leave comments. But I don't think particularly bad about it.
There isn't any spell check feature here (that I'm aware of). I have large hands, and my time isn't unlimited.
Who are you to say that you have more "pride" than me, or that I'm "lazy" ?
What "basic facts" of mine are you cliaming are in error ?
Why are you pin pointing me for grammer specifically ?
atheistrage 1 year ago
Why do liberals constantly mock people for their beliefs? This is America, right? We have freedom of religion. That doesn't just mean atheists have freedom from religion.... it means Christians have freedom to practice also, and to believe what they believe without being called stupid. Make fun of a gay person and they lock you up. Make fun of a Christian and they make you President.
FredBoss100 1 year ago
It's a demonstration of all that love, compassion, and tolerance we're told so much about.
AR485 1 year ago
@FredBoss100 Christians (and everyone else) do have the right to believe what they want (even if it is stupid). They just don't have the right to incorprate their religion into the government or teach it as "science" without a shred of proof.
By the way, you're being deliberately ignorant. No one will "lock you up" for ridiculing gays if want, and (unfortunately) the president is an avid christian.
Aren't christians the assholes who walk around with signs that "Gog Hates Fags" ?
atheistrage 1 year ago
A "trap question" is one where the obvious (and likely correct) answer to a question puts the individual in a difficult position trying to defend or respond to a pre-determined point. That does not apply here. There is only one answer to this question: "No, evolution is not a myth. It is good science. I misspoke earlier." And then she would be free from this. She chose wrong.
NationGoneUnder 1 year ago
Don't get me wrong, I think she should have answered the question. However, Blitzer's intention is no myth either. I would like to see more philosophical consistency from the "scientific community at large" regarding evolution. I never see anyone who declares it as fact really live by what they profess. For example, evolution is taught in schools as scientific fact, but bullying is outlawed. Only the strong survive, right?
AR485 1 year ago
@AR485 Kids bullying each other has nothing to do with the legitamacy of biological evolution. You're being deliberately ignorant.
atheistrage 1 year ago
@atheistrage Just asking what I think is a legitimate question, not provoking a personal attack. If evolution is true and we are being taught as such, why should we even have laws in society? At their core, laws are intended to control behavior of the strongest while protecting those who cannot protect themselves. A true evolutionist, in this case, our school systems, should not have rules to govern behavior and protect students while they are also teaching evolution as unavoidable truth.
AR485 1 year ago
@AR485 - I think you are confusing people who understand that evolution is a vital part of science education- and people who think "survival of the fittest" should still dominate our society today.
Evolution is the scientific explanation of how humans evolved from primitive life forms. What humans have done with our evolved intelligence does not change that. Evolutionists do not support a certain lifestyle- they support good science.
IamHolyShrink 1 year ago
@AR485 You're misinterpreting both evolution and law. The presence of law allows for everyone to benefit, not just the weak at the expense of the poor. Without law, it's a Hobbesian world (see Leviathan). The presence of law is in no way antithetical to evolution; rather, rule of law is an active contributor to human evolution. It is one component of what would be called an "evolutionarily stable strategy." See the work of Stephan Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins to learn more about this.
metube854 1 year ago
@AR485 Well, your argument (to me) seems rather frivolous. Evolution being true and chosing to have laws in society are completely irrelevant. We can't pick what facts science gives us, but no one is saying that we have to model our society on the harshest aspects of the natural world. Evolution is as "true" as it's going to get. The concept of a round earth is "just a therory". If you're suggesting that your confussion somehow justifies religion, then you're being deliberately ignorant.
atheistrage 1 year ago
@AR485 I think evolution is taught in school (as science) because there is an overwhelmimg amount of tangible evidence. A progressive fossiol record, DNA, etc. (I'm not a scientist).
Where as religion offers nothing of the sort. (except "faith"). Not to mention there is real evidence to debunk the biblical creation myths (if you take them literally).
If you have something better to offer (other than a silly fables), I'm sure science would be quite open to hearing it.
atheistrage 1 year ago
Did Wolf ask Coons if he believed creationism was a myth? It was a trap question, not a softball.
AR485 1 year ago
@AR485 It's a legitamte question (for any candidate) whether it's a politcal trap or not.
I like to know if the people running for office are stupid enough to take bibical myths like the talking snake, Noah'h magic arc, or "god" spontaneously making man out of dirt 6,000 years ago lterally.
I particularly want to know if they believe it should be taught to kids as science.
atheistrage 1 year ago
She blames the media for her troubles and suggests the liberal media is "picking on her". But the bottom line is that she chose to make her position public on these issues and now she has to answer for them. Certain views might work in small circles, but then flop on a larger stage.
sueells 1 year ago
@sueells Yeah, just like Palin.
atheistrage 1 year ago
I love Wolf Blitzers face the second he realizes she is struggling with this question. He's like "She can't seriously be confused about this..."
phillyduster 1 year ago