That's the same frustration I feel trying to talk to an atheist now a days. but, all the idiot priest had to do was to hold one cow up close and the other back away from him and he would see the cow up close as larger, then bring it back next to the other one and explain why it looks different from different distances. That's what I do with my Sunday School class.
You want to know what is messed up. I am a Christian and I accept evolution as a fact, but I believe that something had to start it all. It only makes sense to me that you make a stick of dynamite, ignite the fuse, run like hell and boom. It's just to me something had to light the fuse for evolution to take place. Without a chicken there can be no egg.
@jeffgossel How about starting with, Where did the Universe come from? The Big Bang? What "happened" before the Big Bang? See Wikipedia on: "Time"; "Arrow of Time"; "Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems"; "Gravitational singularity"; and finish with "Infinity". If we can theorize a universe of size 0 but of infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time, or multiverses then what's so hard about accepting the possibility of an infinite being that exists outside this universe?
@engellion Because we dont know anything about it. We dont know if anything exists outside this universe. We dont even know if there's an "outside". There is no good reason to form any belief about something we don't know. Even if there is an outside or other universes with life in some form, it's no garantee that they take care of us or even know of us. But we don't really know what kind of thing we are in. It's mind boggling to think of what this is but we need to find the answers, not assert
@smcneal057 "I am a Christian and I accept evolution as a fact, but I believe that something had to start it all."
Of course something had to start the process. The question non believers ask is why do believers assert that it was started by a benevolent intelligence? There is 0 evidence to support such a belief.
Ask yourself why when it comes to understanding nature, not 1 mystery we have ever solved turned out to be God Did It. Not 1.
@hawklord2001 exactly! SMCNEAL do you know what a planck length is? Your almost there buddy. Good job with accepting evolution. Now you just need to make a move from biology to astrophysics and learn about quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principles, and how sub atomic particles, CAN and do, in fact, come from nothing. We have a wonderful explanation for the origins of the universe, and some ideas regarding the start of the process that don't need a god of which has NO explanation
@Johnf85 You do know that you're jumping to conclusions in the same manner of a religious mindset, by not acknowledging that there's a difference between something APPEARING to pop up from nothing or nowhere, and actually being proven to be the case that "empty space" is spontaneously generating particles?
@hawklord2001 exactly! SMCNEAL do you know what a planck length is? Your almost there buddy. Good job with accepting evolution. Now you just need to make a move from biology to astrophysics and learn about quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principles, and how sub atomic particles, CAN and do, in fact, come from nothing. We have a wonderful explanation for the origins of the universe, and some ideas regarding the start of the process that don't need a god of which has NO explanation
@hawklord2001 Well, since telling whether God did it or not can't be determined by a scientific laboratory test, it depends on what your preconceived thoughts on how that mystery came about as to whether or not you conclude whether God did it or not. What gives Christians the faith that a benevolent intelligence started and completed it all is the Bible's accuracy in prophecy, historical accounts when it can be verified, as well as acheological verifications. No other religious book matches it.
@AndyG792 The Bible has loads of inaccuracies in terms of prophecy, historical accounts, and archeological evidence. A quick Google search on 'Inaccuracies in the Bible' will illuminate you.
@TheGeneralCritic ya and a quick google search of land sharks are real will also give you some rock solid facts why don't you explain some "inaccuracies"?
@AndyG792 The Bible says to kill witches. We know that there's no such thing.
Genesis says that Earth was created first, then the stars. We can see light from stars 13.2 billion light-years away. That light left those stars 13.2 billion years ago. The Earth is "only" about 4.5 billion years old.
Genesis says that all land animals (which would including people and dinosaurs) were created on the same day. Large dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
@ndrthrdr1 Well, not the kind you see on TV but the Israelites were to be pure as an example to the world as to who God is. That is why they were to kill them. It doesn't mean we need to go around killing people dabling in the occult, we need to witness to them. I'm surprised that you would bring up the starlight problem when the Big Bang has a much larger light travel problem with the Horizon problem. See Dr. Russel Humphries and Jason Lisle for star light travel. It even takes care of the Ho
@ndrthrdr1 Humhries and lisle both have working models that use Einstein's theory of relativity. It even takes care of the Big Bng's :Horizon problem. the last verse of Revelation says that there will be light and there will be no need for the sun's light. Just like in the beginning when God said let there be light and the sun had not been created yet. There is no way of measuring the age of the earth. There is evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time drawings, petroglyphs, ca
@AndyG792 "There is evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time drawings, petroglyphs, ca"
Um... sorry but Sabre Tooth tigers, Woolly Mammoths, Buffalo, etc (all of which the drawings actually depict) do not count as dinosaurs. You need to learn the difference between what existed 10,000 years ago and what existed 65,000,000 years ago.
@ndrthrdr1 Well, actually, there are of course such things as witches. There have been for quite some time (hundreds; thousands of years).
They may not conjure true "spells" and have dealings with the Devil, no, but there are certainly witches.
What these "witches" do in the way of spiritism; the Christians and their Bible do not approve of, so the scriptures demand that they be put to death.
@SeedsOfHatred That might be a bit of a scripture fail- King James bible changes the word poisoner to witch. So the bible itself doesn't condemn witches with hooked noses, brooms and magic spells- but rather people who make poisons from herbs.
Just because there's no evidence does not make God nonexistent or the idea false. You didn't disprove the Earth was Flat because there's no evidence for the Flatness of the Earth; instead, it is because people proved the Earth was spherical. Likewise, you need to put forth an idea and prove that such an idea negates the existence of God. It is obvious that Science cannot replace God; it can't determine moral values, for example. (Or else there wouldn't be murders.)
@Ioannesmartialis "Just because there's no evidence does not make God nonexistent or the idea false.'
Agreed, that being the case, ANYTHING you say about or ascribe to God is 100% speculation and for some, wishful thinking. The natural world is all we can address. There is no reason to believe that the supernatural exists until such time as we demonstrate it in some way.
@hawklord2001 My position is not that GOD does not exist, my position is IF God does exist, either we have some way to demonstrate that he manifests some way in reality indicating that he does in fact exist or we don’t.
If we don’t , then his existence is indistinguishable from his nonexistence and it’s a moot point. Until we have evidence then we have NO GOOD REASO to believe it. That's where faith steps in.
@hawklord2001 In short, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove "There's -no- God." Being can only arise from being, not from non-being. Non-being has no properties, no potentialities, and no powers. When something begins to exist, there must be some other being that caused it to exist. If the Universe began to exist and came to being, there must be a transcendent Cause which would explain why the Universe came to existence.
@Ioannesmartialis "When something begins to exist, there must be some other being that caused it to exist. If the Universe began to exist and came to being, there must be a transcendent Cause which would explain why the Universe came to existence."
I won't even go here because people more eloquent than I have debunked this and you probably know it.
@smcneal057 But the bible is the basis of your belief in christianity and because of evolution we know it says wildly inncorrect things right in the beginning that hurt its credability. What if i was shown a book where the first chapter says "World War II was fought between England and France the Russians were the first to land on the moon"...and later someone is using that book in an explanation of why Stonehenge was built, I would reason the explanantion to be pretty much worthless
Notice what you said the basis of belief not fact. I look at my faith from a different angle, and don't take everything literal. G-d has given us logic as well to use.
@Jonstern1983 Quote mining???...Surely you're not serious. Where have I quoted Dr Mallet out of context? We were discussing the definition of 'species' & 'speciation'. I maintained there is considerable debate in the biological community on the definition of species. I gave quotes from evolutionary biologist authors (talkorigins and Dr Mallet) to verify the debate exists. Where is the problem? (BTW, got the article (though different to the one I referenced). Thanks. Have sent you an email.)
I remained silent because you dismissed out of hand one of the ones I had in mind. This one was one I felt the most impressed with, but you said basically that changing into a new species isn't speciation (which is ridiculous), so I figured that you would not be impressed with any evidence that is available at this moment.
@Jonstern1983 Let me clarify - the definition of 'species' is "a matter of considerable debate in the biological community." (as I quoted) Biological Species Concept (BSC) is one definition among up to eight others. Under BSC the fruit flies speciated. Under others, it would be debatable. BSC "has never been taken on its own as good evidence of separate species, including even Dobzhansky’s own studies of sibling Drosophila [fruit fly] species." James Mallet, Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
Answer @kubush's question. Some butterflies (eg Monarch) evolved (or designed) to be bright to send a warning that they are poisonous (and predators leave alone). Other non-poisonous species mimic and pred doesn't know the diff and leaves alone. This is deception and in the case of intelligent design (ID) god must be a deceiver. This can't happen so evolution gets another point score.
@kubush: re abiogenesis - as I said, that is "the cow far away". Yes, I understand your point - evolution is a hypothesis about how life has developed since it first appeared. I won't mix it with abiogenesis. But am glad you aknowledge that how life commenced is a complex process. A self-replicating, re-generating, organism is a marvel of science. Exactly how it started...well...right now that is more of a philosophical question rather than science, as neither of us were there to observe it.
@kubush: re: Information lost - by that I should have said, I have read that with genetic mutations (changes to the DNA stucture) observations confirm overwhelmingly that there is a net loss of information, not a net gain. Corrective measures would require altering the DNA chain, so the "good" mutation does not destroy an functionality of the previous state. Evolution allows too much to Natural Selection to be probable.
Microevolution no matter how gradual or small the increments in change are, in transmitting that change you always lose some amount of information (see on entropy and "information theory"). To allow for this fact some kind of mechanism needs to be put in place that allows for the losses, and "guesses" reliably the missing bits required to reproduce the changed message. Furthermore, macroevolution requires additional "new information" (extra DNA) for a more complex order of species. From where?
@engellion You assume that the information is lost without proof. There is more evidence for evolution than for information theory yet you blindly accept the latter and reject the former. Interesting. Not to say that information theory is wrong; more likely than not, you just don't understand it's application. From where? That is your question? With all your pseudo-intellectual rhetoric, you ask such an ignorant question?
'abiogenesis' is like the cow far away. I was reading about the theory of universal common decent. Evolutionist's accept as axiomatic (evident without proof or argument) that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. Where did that lifeform come from? Sadly, evolutionists just shake their head like Dougal, and keep looking at the toy cow - wondering what Ted's getting at. Evolution - a theory of origins but no answers.
@engellion Evolution describes how life evolved after it was already present. Don't mix it with abiogenesis, which is a model that attempts to answer your question. Life came from chemical processes. Simple. Exactly how it happened, well that is a little more complex.
@engellion "Evolutionist's accept as axiomatic (evident without proof or argument) that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." Genetic evidence. Fossil evidence. Structural evidence. Your claim fails.
"Where did that lifeform come from?" Space. Hydrothermal vents. Atmospheric reactions. Primordial soup. Take your pick.
"a theory of origins but no answers." It answers EXACTLY what it sets out to answer: the DIVERSITY OF LIFE. You fail.
@onijester56 "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Talk Origins Archive. Go argue with Evolutionist Dr Theobold - that was his statment, not mine. There is still no confirmed theory to explain Abiogenesis - hence "take your pick". BTW, 'you fail' is emotive language - use it with caution.
Wow, did you seriously bash creationists for failing to grasp a "basic" matter? Here's a basic matter for you: TED ISN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION, he's discussing the difference in the size of the toy cows to how small the ones far away look.
I thought someone of superior logic, like the uploader, would grasp the basic humor. Apparently it went right over the head of him or her and other "logical" folks. RIP Humor.
Wait.....some creationists DO believe in evolution. They just can't take genesis one and two so literal. And some atheists simply refuse to beleive that we came from other creatures.
I know! It's so hard to explain abiogenesis! So what if we've "never observed it"! Creationists wants facts and reasons and not "just so" stories! VERY frustrating indeed!
@KlaxonCow The problem with 48 million non fatal changes, is that the law of Entropy necessitates that the change be locked into place else the 'good' change (higher state) risks changing to a ‘bad state’ just as equally on the next iteration (mutation). If randomness is the key driver for our "current state" of being, what prevents us from just as randomly decreasing (or degenerating) from our current state to a lesser state. In other words, what locks the change into place?...
@kubush SELECTION implies choice - a discriminating between what is good and what is not good under the given conditions. If leaving the discrimination to natural forces (ie environmental factors) these themselves are subject to randomness--a random natural Selection is just as probable to un-lock the change as to lock it, given enough iterations of all factors (including changes to the environment). That is of course unless she is playing with loaded dice ;-) (If she is, who loaded the dice?:)
@engellion The term "selection" in this case does not imply choice at all. You do understand what natural selection is, don't you? The environment is stable enough to have allowed organisms to adapt and evolve. Slow and small changes to that environment are the driving force behind it. If a change is sudden and/or fast, species are very likely to become extinct. FYI, selection is the opposite of chance. She?
@kubush 'She' is nature. Yes, I understand natural selection, that it is a theory--and one of a number (eg speciation, sexual selection, genetic drift, neutral evolution) that are put forward as driving mechanisms in macroevolutionary adaptations. The reality is every theory is dependent on the mechanism they describe as being a constant. But the law of entropy dictates that they are not...unless we load the dice. ie lock the constant itself in place, good changes will not survive.
@engellion Speciation isn't a mechanism, it is the process "by which new biological species arise". Sexual selection is a type of natural selection. Neutral evolution's mechanism is genetic drift. What does entropy have to do with it? You're talking nonsense. Butterflies have variations of colors within their genes, those that use colors that help them blend in with their environment are more likely to survive and pass those genes on. Why is that hard to understand?
@kubush On mechanisms I read: "Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation." Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent."
@kubush fe: Butterflies - Thanks for the explanation of Butterfles. That really helps me to see your argument. From what your saying here, I must assume butterlfies with a contrasting colour to their surrounds will be easy prey for their predators. As butterflies and their predators still exist in the same environment today, why are there so many butterflies of bright and contrasting colours? Surely, these would be the most probable to become extinct, based on Natural Selection.
@kubush Whether the environment is Black and White or full HD 32bit colour, is not the point. What is a "change" in the environment that would be a precusor to a butterfly of one colour not surviving that change?
@engellion It could be the increase of a certain flowering plant, or it could be simply that certain markings were found more desirable by mates. It could also be that certain colors were found to be less desirable to predators. Each of these things is far more likely, than all of the evidence (fossil, genetic, etc.) that leads people to accept the theory of evolution as fact (proportionality more biologists accept evolution than historians accept the Holocaust), turning out to be wrong.
@Jonstern1983 In reality, all those "could be" scenarios boil down to the genetic code. Any given gene pool will adapt within the bounds of those genes to environmental factors over time. I have no argument with micro-evolution. Butterflies will always evolve into butterflies with changes in colour dictated by the gene pool. This is experimentally verifiable. On the other hand, Macro-evolution is not confirmed as a fact. Hence, the biological scientists who reject it as a viable theory.
@engellion The whole micro/macro-evolution thing is ridiculous. It is exactly like saying that a man can walk 10 miles, but there is no way that he can walk 100.
@Jonstern1983 No. That is nothing like macro-evolution. A better analogy would be saying, "Because as man can walk 10 miles, there must be a way he can FLY 10 miles by natural development" That is macro-evolution and that is what is ridiculous.
@engellion Wow, just wow. So what you're saying is, minor changes over long stretches of time causing major changes is the same as major chances happening instantaneously? You are just flat out wrong.
@Jonstern1983 I said no such thing. I suggest you check your definintion of macroevolution. If we stick to the gene pool of each species then all changes within the species are experimentally verifiable. Go beyond that, and you're dealing with a huge amount of unknowns, assumptions and precursory factors to get anywhere reasonable for the theory of macro-evoultion to be viable. Hence, those biologists who reject it.
@engellion You do realize that the biologist who reject it make up less than .02 percent of biologists in general, and have never had a peer reviewed paper published which gives an argument to disprove evolution. We have witnessed especiation (the changing from one species to another), and we have transitional forms between classes such as archaeopteryx, and tiktaalik. There is also the genetic evidence that links us to every living thing. Evolution has evidence behind it. Creation doesn't.
@Jonstern1983 "Witnessed especiation"!!!??? Where and when? - please provide Journal, Vol# and page# of peer reviewed articles. I would be extremely interested, as I'm sure would the many biological scientists who reject macro-evolution. Fruit-flies giving rise to different variety Fruit-flies that don't interbreed with parent populations is aobut the only kind of literature advocated for speciation. That kind of stuff is so long away from proving a macro-evolutionary event it's ridiculous.
@engellion You do not know what the definition of a species, do you? A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable offspring, though it gets less clear with asexual beings. Stop moving the goal posts. You say creation is immutable, then you say things can't change to different species, then you say by species you meant genus. Once the animal or plant has changed from one genus to another you'll probably say family. The only difference is time.
@Jonstern1983 You do know what you're talking about don't you? You set the goal posts - "especiation"- declared it has been witnessed (without one reference), and then use that to argue for macro-evolution. Check on "speciation"? Biology is divided on definition - Google "faq-speciation" (talkorigins). A community that is isolated genetically from a community it used to be able to breed with is one definition of "speciation". Fruit fly experiments were used to support "speciation" as defined.
@engellion You make no sense. It took X number of generations to get to the point where the fruit flies couldn't interbreed. Considering there are so many species of fruit flies already it will take many many subsequent generations for a fruit fly to evolve into some new genus. We have not been studying evolution long enough for such radical changes to occur. Basically what you're saying is a collection of seconds will never equal an hour because a second is a second.
@Jonstern1983 So your argument s resting on the fact that "we haven't studied it long enough." That sounds like a faith position then - that many, many, many, micro-evolutionary changes are responsible for macro-evolutionary changes, though we've never observed such radical (macro) changes happenning. If it hasn't been observed, then the jury is still out and the theory rests on faith.
@engellion So you choose to ignore the fossil and genetic evidence. Make the false claim that there is a serious debate among biologists as to whether or not evolution occurs on a massive scale, and what the correct definition of species is. It sounds to me like you are pleading for willful ignorance rather than trying to take the time necessary to study the evidence.
@Jonstern1983 Please don't twist what I have said. I stated there are biologists who reject macro-evolution as a viable theory for the reasons given (though these are not the only reasons). You produced the figure 0.02% that verifies this. I have never given a definition of "species". I referred to the "speciaition" article on talkorigins (evolution defense site)--"what constitutes a species", "This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community." Author's words, not mine.
@engellion My percentage was off, it is actually more like .1 percent. I would send the link, but I keep getting an error message. I apologize for my misinformation. And that doesn't change the fact that they have produced no peer reviewed papers on the topic. You also did flat out ignore the fossil and genetic evidence, so I am not twisting your words, only using your own silence against you.
@Jonstern1983 Because I am silent, you use that against me? I could take your silence in not providing a peer reviewed article where "we have witnessed especiation" against you. But I could also assume there were other points in my comment you preferred to answer for the sake of time and space. To be honest, 500 characters / post here is limiting. Happy to discuss the fossil evidence - but then we get into paleontology and probably geology. Name a discussion board and I'll meet you there :-)
yes genetically we are approximately 96-98% similair to apes. what you do not hear is that that is over 48,000,000 nucleotides different still and when you change even a single codon (3 nucleotides) it almost always causes mutation and death.. are you telling me it changed 48 million times without one error? Impossible. jelly fish are about 95% water and a watermelon is about 92%. maybe they evolved? evolutionists are professionals at taking small evidence and twisting it to fit their opinion.
There was error on a gargantuan scale, spanning an immense period.
And, yes, every single one of those changes carries a perfectly significant chance of death.
But it's not that it changed 48 million times without error.
It's changed vastly more than 48 million times and there was error causing death all the time - it's just that 48 million times, this change didn't cause any harm or death.
And, by its survival, that's what remains in our DNA.
LOL! You could also title your video "Explaining When Life Begins To A Pro-Choicer" and it would have the same comic appeal. Another good one might be "Explaining To An Eagles Fan How Many Super Bowls They've Won Compared To The Rest Of The NFC East". That's kind of a long one though.
Hmph. I grasp more than just the fundamental basics of science and can readily believe in creation. But clearly, you're much more intelligent than everybody else so you can decide how things really are. Way to ruin a funny clip.
@NakamaShadows It'd kind of ruin the joke. Just try to make sense of it, try to associate the words properly. Hint: imagine as if you were looking through Dougal's eyes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This isn't about evolution! So everybody please stop arguing. Dougal simply didn't understand that when big things are far away they look small. What does that have to do with evolution?! It's just Dougal being the adorable eejit that he is!
yes, the actual sketch has nothing to do with evolution. but. trying to explain evolution to a creationist is awfully similar to whats happening in the video. that is why it was uploaded with that title.
try not thinking of it as a direct metaphor about evolution vs creation and more like a metaphor for explaining evolution to a creationist like the title of the vid implies
I realize now why you can't explain the metaphor. It's because it's not meant to be a metaphor about Creationism vs Evolution. It just doesn't work.
You seem like an intelligent person and it's been nice talking with you but you'll have to come up with something more concrete if you want to keep this conversation going.
explaining evolution to a creationist is like the man in the vid trying to explain perspective to the other man.
to those of us who have a decent understanding of evolution, its incredibly simple and obvious (like the idea of perspective the man was trying to explain). and you think "this is so simple, if i just explain it a little it'll be obvious, even to a complete idiot" but, even after you try your best to explain it in the easiest ways possible. they still just don't get it at all.
Okay now I understand wht you are thinking but I must say "that's a bit of a stretch".
Also I don't think that would be a metaphor, I think what you're talking about would be more like an analogy.
You're starting to sound like a Christian interpreting the book of Revelation. Anything can mean whtever you want it to, even if it doesn't make sense. I don't think the writers intended to make any kind of statement about Creationism vs Evolution, it just doesn't fit. You're over analyzing.
i know the writers didn't intend for this analogy, but the person who uploaded the video with the title "Explaining evolution to a creationist" obviously did. and its obviously exaggerated, thats part of what makes it funny and part of why it should instantly be recognized as a joke. this wasn't meant to be a serious evaluation of the process of explaining evolution, it was meant to be a joke.
@hakesho well i myself have actually been trying to explain evolution to my mother (who is very christian, so am i), i get right down into the details starting with DNA, molecules, the process which the earth had formed, all that jazz.
only recently iv had a breakthrough, where she had this glimpse in her eye and she said "you know....that makes sense".
I think I might know what the problem is here. Have you seen this episode of Father Ted? In the episode they show the far away cows and I think this makes the joke more clear.
The idea is that when explaining evolution to a creationist, a creationist will see something complex and say, "I cannot possibly imagine your answer to explain the phenomena, so I will cop out with the God answer". It is defined as argument from ignorance.
Obviously the priest is trying to explain why the cow dolls look the same size as the cows outside. The young man refuses to observe the cows from outside his viewpoint.
You can glean very deep meanings by assigning metaphors here.
@snoman99991 not all creationists think like that (although a good amount do)
i for one (a christian) believe in evolution, i do not use just use god as a way to answer everything and leave it be, i instead use it to raise more questions, which i look for answers of.
the only difference between my belief in evolution and another persons is that i believe god directed it to be the way it is.
i would go into much more detail, but youtube wont let me.....
At the end of the day, the only thing my argumentation can reveal, is that a god is not necessary. I cannot with reasoning tell you that a god is impossible and could not be the guiding hand. And so that's where we would leave things be. I can feel more than comfortable if you're willing to accept science as valid, and I can be comfortable accepting that I can't make an absolute in argumentation.
@snoman99991 yes that is fine, and im glad that you said it isnt impossible, because such a word shouldnt exist in our kind of world, whether it be godless or otherwise.
both sides are at fault for causing conflict between each other, on my side we have those who are closed minded and do not wish to hear something other than what they were taught at birth, or something that could possibly change their beliefs, the same thing on the other side.
i'm just clarifying, you dont have to be so patronizing. im always willing to hear the other side with an open mind just as long as you can keep your "lol"s to yourself.
Nooooo, its from 'Father Ted'. I don't know if its a popular enough show for you to be able to watch it easily online but I cant recommend it highly enough... if you like Blackadder you'll definitely like this show.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is how i feel like when explaining my religious beliefs to some non-religious people, but the title given to the clip can indeed be apt at times.
most atheists understand the religious beliefs of others (most of them are not exactly hard to understand, jesus virgin birth, man and yet god etc etc not hard to get) we mostly just don't understand WHY you believe these things.
Firstly, thank you for commenting, rather than simply giving my comment a 'thumbs down'.
Yes, most do have some understanding, hence use the word some, but a fair few that i've met sadly, at least appear, to have a rather misguided view of religion, logic, science etc, often given to them by Dawkins, Hitchens and others. That is the bit that gets to me, then, attempts to explain are met with derision... hence my comment. In fact, it's worse than Ted's situation really.
no, you seem to be missunderstanding. we understand the beliefs just fine. we deride you and others because it's silly for a rational individual to hold these obviously silly beliefs. you have the RIGHT to them, don't get me wrong. but derision is all they deserve. (i respect your rights, not your religion).
To claim that ALL atheists (or whatever they call themselves these days) understand such beliefs is a bold statement. There are enough comments on videos here and books written and so on to give ample evidence that some properly understand theistic belief as much as some theists understand evolution and whatnot.
The definition of 'obviously silly belief' that you are using seems similar to that of the aforementioned retired ethologist, one of those who appears to lack understanding...
sorry using a general we o indicate 'most of' not 'all off'. your right. some don't know squat. so what? does it really take all that much to see that 'magic man done it' is a pretty lame answer?
the theist position is that there is a magic man, where and what they say magic man does is pretty immaterial. it's still the claim. it's silly. provide EVIDENCE for the claim and we can talk. until then it's possible but not probable.
Actually, whether you call Him a "magic man" or not is pretty 'material' (always liked that), as it is an example of something called poisoning the well, as you should be well aware.
Also, knowledge coming in more forms than scientific or historical evidence should also not be a new idea to you, but, on the evidence so far, it may well be.
no, thats not poisoning the well. your claim really is that someone who is magic created the universe. thats the LEAST of the claims, anything else gets even more 'magic man' about it.
no, knowledge is different from inquiry. science says nothing about the worth of modern art.
but if your asking about the EXISTENCE of something, then yes, science has a few things to say.
science is but one TYPE of inquiry. nothing more....it just happens to be a very good inquiry method at finding out if something exists or not thats all.
let me ask you, what type of 'knowledge' do you think can show you god, or even indicate god, and in what way is it useful.
very well, lets play the game your way. in what way am i misrepresenting your position? how is god not a 'magic man'. keep in mind 'let there be light' is an incantation.
how does your different kind of 'knowledge' tell you that god exists? how accurate is this 'knowledge' system? how do you know what types of things it can help you discover?
For the most part I have a strict policy of tolerating other people's beliefs and opinions, but Creationists are just wrong. Simple as that. Wrong. There is no argument they can make for their cause that Evolutionism cannot cut down. I cannot help but wonder how anyone could accept creationism as fact.
Religion and science are most similar in that... he who understands the least, believes the most.
So if you understand "the big bang and evolution" or "god and creation", there's no need for belief or debate.
If however, you simply believe in one or the other, there's little chance you'll ever understand it, even if true, then waste your time trying to confirm that belief through preaching instead of research.
If I can make the world believe that unicorns exist, will it become a fact?
i belive in the whole evolution. its very true, i understand it, taht person who went on about americans and europeans is a eejit. but despite the whole believeing in evolution, i also believe in god, as it doesnt prove he doesnt exist. so pl who say god doesnt exist because evolution happened, are stupid
Cows are satans messengers. It's obvious.
breaneainn 2 months ago
That's the same frustration I feel trying to talk to an atheist now a days. but, all the idiot priest had to do was to hold one cow up close and the other back away from him and he would see the cow up close as larger, then bring it back next to the other one and explain why it looks different from different distances. That's what I do with my Sunday School class.
AndyG792 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible says we should burn witches. WITCHES???
You can't reason with someone who's too dimwitted to realize that the Bible is just nonsense.
dimefeet 4 months ago
I love this show
SuperMrAtheist 5 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist
Eledyles did NOT evolve from Crocofants.
And the monkeyZ... funny thing
xDxDxD :P
kleenex3000 1 month ago
What's funnier, the dumb priest who doesn't get it or the crazy priest that expects different results from doing the same thing?
aldebarankanon 5 months ago 9
hahahha I love Father Ted. Nothing better than British Humour (and I'm Australian so that says something lol).
MrSCOTCHscotchSCOTCH 7 months ago
@MrSCOTCHscotchSCOTCH : apart from that it is an Irish comedy :)
romino29 7 months ago
@romino29 haha yeah I guess, it's off the BBC so that's British enough for me :) lol
MrSCOTCHscotchSCOTCH 7 months ago
@MrSCOTCHscotchSCOTCH IT'S IRISH OT BRITISH!!!
PhilosophyComa 5 months ago
@PhilosophyComa lol like I already said, I know they're Irish. Nothing like UK comedy (happy?) :).
MrSCOTCHscotchSCOTCH 5 months ago
You want to know what is messed up. I am a Christian and I accept evolution as a fact, but I believe that something had to start it all. It only makes sense to me that you make a stick of dynamite, ignite the fuse, run like hell and boom. It's just to me something had to light the fuse for evolution to take place. Without a chicken there can be no egg.
smcneal057 8 months ago
@smcneal057 But how can there be a chicken without an egg?
i.e. Where did god come from?
jeffgossel 7 months ago
@jeffgossel How about starting with, Where did the Universe come from? The Big Bang? What "happened" before the Big Bang? See Wikipedia on: "Time"; "Arrow of Time"; "Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems"; "Gravitational singularity"; and finish with "Infinity". If we can theorize a universe of size 0 but of infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time, or multiverses then what's so hard about accepting the possibility of an infinite being that exists outside this universe?
engellion 7 months ago
@engellion Because we dont know anything about it. We dont know if anything exists outside this universe. We dont even know if there's an "outside". There is no good reason to form any belief about something we don't know. Even if there is an outside or other universes with life in some form, it's no garantee that they take care of us or even know of us. But we don't really know what kind of thing we are in. It's mind boggling to think of what this is but we need to find the answers, not assert
SensualLeopardDesign 6 months ago
@smcneal057 "I am a Christian and I accept evolution as a fact, but I believe that something had to start it all."
Of course something had to start the process. The question non believers ask is why do believers assert that it was started by a benevolent intelligence? There is 0 evidence to support such a belief.
Ask yourself why when it comes to understanding nature, not 1 mystery we have ever solved turned out to be God Did It. Not 1.
hawklord2001 5 months ago 41
@hawklord2001 exactly! SMCNEAL do you know what a planck length is? Your almost there buddy. Good job with accepting evolution. Now you just need to make a move from biology to astrophysics and learn about quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principles, and how sub atomic particles, CAN and do, in fact, come from nothing. We have a wonderful explanation for the origins of the universe, and some ideas regarding the start of the process that don't need a god of which has NO explanation
Johnf85 4 months ago
@Johnf85 You do know that you're jumping to conclusions in the same manner of a religious mindset, by not acknowledging that there's a difference between something APPEARING to pop up from nothing or nowhere, and actually being proven to be the case that "empty space" is spontaneously generating particles?
Furoar 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hawklord2001 exactly! SMCNEAL do you know what a planck length is? Your almost there buddy. Good job with accepting evolution. Now you just need to make a move from biology to astrophysics and learn about quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principles, and how sub atomic particles, CAN and do, in fact, come from nothing. We have a wonderful explanation for the origins of the universe, and some ideas regarding the start of the process that don't need a god of which has NO explanation
Johnf85 4 months ago
@hawklord2001 Well, since telling whether God did it or not can't be determined by a scientific laboratory test, it depends on what your preconceived thoughts on how that mystery came about as to whether or not you conclude whether God did it or not. What gives Christians the faith that a benevolent intelligence started and completed it all is the Bible's accuracy in prophecy, historical accounts when it can be verified, as well as acheological verifications. No other religious book matches it.
AndyG792 2 months ago
@AndyG792 The Bible has loads of inaccuracies in terms of prophecy, historical accounts, and archeological evidence. A quick Google search on 'Inaccuracies in the Bible' will illuminate you.
TheGeneralCritic 2 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic ya and a quick google search of land sharks are real will also give you some rock solid facts why don't you explain some "inaccuracies"?
demonhampster14 2 months ago
@AndyG792 The Bible says to kill witches. We know that there's no such thing.
Genesis says that Earth was created first, then the stars. We can see light from stars 13.2 billion light-years away. That light left those stars 13.2 billion years ago. The Earth is "only" about 4.5 billion years old.
Genesis says that all land animals (which would including people and dinosaurs) were created on the same day. Large dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
The Bible is provably inaccurate.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Well, not the kind you see on TV but the Israelites were to be pure as an example to the world as to who God is. That is why they were to kill them. It doesn't mean we need to go around killing people dabling in the occult, we need to witness to them. I'm surprised that you would bring up the starlight problem when the Big Bang has a much larger light travel problem with the Horizon problem. See Dr. Russel Humphries and Jason Lisle for star light travel. It even takes care of the Ho
AndyG792 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Humhries and lisle both have working models that use Einstein's theory of relativity. It even takes care of the Big Bng's :Horizon problem. the last verse of Revelation says that there will be light and there will be no need for the sun's light. Just like in the beginning when God said let there be light and the sun had not been created yet. There is no way of measuring the age of the earth. There is evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time drawings, petroglyphs, ca
AndyG792 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndyG792 "There is evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time drawings, petroglyphs, ca"
Um... sorry but Sabre Tooth tigers, Woolly Mammoths, Buffalo, etc (all of which the drawings actually depict) do not count as dinosaurs. You need to learn the difference between what existed 10,000 years ago and what existed 65,000,000 years ago.
Inclousid 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1 Well, actually, there are of course such things as witches. There have been for quite some time (hundreds; thousands of years).
They may not conjure true "spells" and have dealings with the Devil, no, but there are certainly witches.
What these "witches" do in the way of spiritism; the Christians and their Bible do not approve of, so the scriptures demand that they be put to death.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred That might be a bit of a scripture fail- King James bible changes the word poisoner to witch. So the bible itself doesn't condemn witches with hooked noses, brooms and magic spells- but rather people who make poisons from herbs.
kidspirationtutorial 4 weeks ago
@hawklord2001
Just because there's no evidence does not make God nonexistent or the idea false. You didn't disprove the Earth was Flat because there's no evidence for the Flatness of the Earth; instead, it is because people proved the Earth was spherical. Likewise, you need to put forth an idea and prove that such an idea negates the existence of God. It is obvious that Science cannot replace God; it can't determine moral values, for example. (Or else there wouldn't be murders.)
Ioannesmartialis 3 weeks ago
@Ioannesmartialis "Just because there's no evidence does not make God nonexistent or the idea false.'
Agreed, that being the case, ANYTHING you say about or ascribe to God is 100% speculation and for some, wishful thinking. The natural world is all we can address. There is no reason to believe that the supernatural exists until such time as we demonstrate it in some way.
hawklord2001 3 weeks ago
@hawklord2001 My position is not that GOD does not exist, my position is IF God does exist, either we have some way to demonstrate that he manifests some way in reality indicating that he does in fact exist or we don’t.
If we don’t , then his existence is indistinguishable from his nonexistence and it’s a moot point. Until we have evidence then we have NO GOOD REASO to believe it. That's where faith steps in.
hawklord2001 3 weeks ago
@Ioannesmartialis "It is obvious that Science cannot replace God; it can't determine moral values, for example."
I understand this to mean that you assert that God is the Moral Law giver?
Are Gods commands good because he says so or because they are intrinsically good?
If Gods nature is such that he can only command what is good. Where did God get his nature from?
hawklord2001 3 weeks ago
@hawklord2001 In short, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove "There's -no- God." Being can only arise from being, not from non-being. Non-being has no properties, no potentialities, and no powers. When something begins to exist, there must be some other being that caused it to exist. If the Universe began to exist and came to being, there must be a transcendent Cause which would explain why the Universe came to existence.
Ioannesmartialis 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ioannesmartialis "When something begins to exist, there must be some other being that caused it to exist. If the Universe began to exist and came to being, there must be a transcendent Cause which would explain why the Universe came to existence."
I won't even go here because people more eloquent than I have debunked this and you probably know it.
hawklord2001 3 weeks ago
@smcneal057 But the bible is the basis of your belief in christianity and because of evolution we know it says wildly inncorrect things right in the beginning that hurt its credability. What if i was shown a book where the first chapter says "World War II was fought between England and France the Russians were the first to land on the moon"...and later someone is using that book in an explanation of why Stonehenge was built, I would reason the explanantion to be pretty much worthless
superhumane504 5 months ago
@superhumane504
Notice what you said the basis of belief not fact. I look at my faith from a different angle, and don't take everything literal. G-d has given us logic as well to use.
smcneal057 5 months ago
You do realize that quote mining is an awful habit to get into, right?
Read the article I'm about to send you, and try to tell me that Doctor Mallet, was not taken out of context.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 Quote mining???...Surely you're not serious. Where have I quoted Dr Mallet out of context? We were discussing the definition of 'species' & 'speciation'. I maintained there is considerable debate in the biological community on the definition of species. I gave quotes from evolutionary biologist authors (talkorigins and Dr Mallet) to verify the debate exists. Where is the problem? (BTW, got the article (though different to the one I referenced). Thanks. Have sent you an email.)
engellion 9 months ago
I remained silent because you dismissed out of hand one of the ones I had in mind. This one was one I felt the most impressed with, but you said basically that changing into a new species isn't speciation (which is ridiculous), so I figured that you would not be impressed with any evidence that is available at this moment.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 Let me clarify - the definition of 'species' is "a matter of considerable debate in the biological community." (as I quoted) Biological Species Concept (BSC) is one definition among up to eight others. Under BSC the fruit flies speciated. Under others, it would be debatable. BSC "has never been taken on its own as good evidence of separate species, including even Dobzhansky’s own studies of sibling Drosophila [fruit fly] species." James Mallet, Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
engellion 9 months ago
What show is this from?
7thDayAtheist 9 months ago
@7thDayAtheist Father Ted. The best show that was never on the BBC!
ZachValkyrie 9 months ago
Wooow ....some serious comments , I think we should all get a lovely cop of tea !!!!!
magnvsmarcvs 9 months ago
Answer @kubush's question. Some butterflies (eg Monarch) evolved (or designed) to be bright to send a warning that they are poisonous (and predators leave alone). Other non-poisonous species mimic and pred doesn't know the diff and leaves alone. This is deception and in the case of intelligent design (ID) god must be a deceiver. This can't happen so evolution gets another point score.
Justwantahover 9 months ago
This scene is one of the Top 100 most memorable moments in British television which is really rather remarkable.
bythefault 10 months ago
@kubush: re abiogenesis - as I said, that is "the cow far away". Yes, I understand your point - evolution is a hypothesis about how life has developed since it first appeared. I won't mix it with abiogenesis. But am glad you aknowledge that how life commenced is a complex process. A self-replicating, re-generating, organism is a marvel of science. Exactly how it started...well...right now that is more of a philosophical question rather than science, as neither of us were there to observe it.
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion Philosophical? Not really. It is a question for science, and scientists are working on it. Let's leave it at that.
kubush 10 months ago
@kubush I'll await with bated breath
engellion 10 months ago
@kubush: re: Information lost - by that I should have said, I have read that with genetic mutations (changes to the DNA stucture) observations confirm overwhelmingly that there is a net loss of information, not a net gain. Corrective measures would require altering the DNA chain, so the "good" mutation does not destroy an functionality of the previous state. Evolution allows too much to Natural Selection to be probable.
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion It has been very well documented that genes can and do gain "information".
kubush 10 months ago
@engellion "there is a net loss of information, not a net gain"
First, what is meant by 'information'? Is it a specific base-pair, codon, protien, signal or function?
Second, a 'net loss' does not necessitate that there are no 'gains'.
"Evolution allows too much to Natural Selection to be probable."
First, evolution is literally THE CHANGE OF A SPECIES OVER TIME.
Second, the full term is "evolution through natural selection acting on mutations". Ergo your comment is a non sequitur.
onijester56 9 months ago
Microevolution no matter how gradual or small the increments in change are, in transmitting that change you always lose some amount of information (see on entropy and "information theory"). To allow for this fact some kind of mechanism needs to be put in place that allows for the losses, and "guesses" reliably the missing bits required to reproduce the changed message. Furthermore, macroevolution requires additional "new information" (extra DNA) for a more complex order of species. From where?
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion You assume that the information is lost without proof. There is more evidence for evolution than for information theory yet you blindly accept the latter and reject the former. Interesting. Not to say that information theory is wrong; more likely than not, you just don't understand it's application. From where? That is your question? With all your pseudo-intellectual rhetoric, you ask such an ignorant question?
kubush 10 months ago
'abiogenesis' is like the cow far away. I was reading about the theory of universal common decent. Evolutionist's accept as axiomatic (evident without proof or argument) that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. Where did that lifeform come from? Sadly, evolutionists just shake their head like Dougal, and keep looking at the toy cow - wondering what Ted's getting at. Evolution - a theory of origins but no answers.
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion Evolution describes how life evolved after it was already present. Don't mix it with abiogenesis, which is a model that attempts to answer your question. Life came from chemical processes. Simple. Exactly how it happened, well that is a little more complex.
kubush 10 months ago
@engellion "Evolutionist's accept as axiomatic (evident without proof or argument) that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." Genetic evidence. Fossil evidence. Structural evidence. Your claim fails.
"Where did that lifeform come from?" Space. Hydrothermal vents. Atmospheric reactions. Primordial soup. Take your pick.
"a theory of origins but no answers." It answers EXACTLY what it sets out to answer: the DIVERSITY OF LIFE. You fail.
onijester56 9 months ago
@onijester56 "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Talk Origins Archive. Go argue with Evolutionist Dr Theobold - that was his statment, not mine. There is still no confirmed theory to explain Abiogenesis - hence "take your pick". BTW, 'you fail' is emotive language - use it with caution.
engellion 9 months ago
Wow, did you seriously bash creationists for failing to grasp a "basic" matter? Here's a basic matter for you: TED ISN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION, he's discussing the difference in the size of the toy cows to how small the ones far away look.
I thought someone of superior logic, like the uploader, would grasp the basic humor. Apparently it went right over the head of him or her and other "logical" folks. RIP Humor.
mothglitter 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mothglitter Did you even bother reading his description?
kubush 10 months ago
Wait.....some creationists DO believe in evolution. They just can't take genesis one and two so literal. And some atheists simply refuse to beleive that we came from other creatures.
compsciguy 11 months ago
I know! It's so hard to explain abiogenesis! So what if we've "never observed it"! Creationists wants facts and reasons and not "just so" stories! VERY frustrating indeed!
tornsuture 11 months ago
@KlaxonCow The problem with 48 million non fatal changes, is that the law of Entropy necessitates that the change be locked into place else the 'good' change (higher state) risks changing to a ‘bad state’ just as equally on the next iteration (mutation). If randomness is the key driver for our "current state" of being, what prevents us from just as randomly decreasing (or degenerating) from our current state to a lesser state. In other words, what locks the change into place?...
engellion 11 months ago
@engellion "what locks the change into place?" NATURAL SELECTION
kubush 10 months ago
@kubush SELECTION implies choice - a discriminating between what is good and what is not good under the given conditions. If leaving the discrimination to natural forces (ie environmental factors) these themselves are subject to randomness--a random natural Selection is just as probable to un-lock the change as to lock it, given enough iterations of all factors (including changes to the environment). That is of course unless she is playing with loaded dice ;-) (If she is, who loaded the dice?:)
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion The term "selection" in this case does not imply choice at all. You do understand what natural selection is, don't you? The environment is stable enough to have allowed organisms to adapt and evolve. Slow and small changes to that environment are the driving force behind it. If a change is sudden and/or fast, species are very likely to become extinct. FYI, selection is the opposite of chance. She?
kubush 10 months ago
@kubush 'She' is nature. Yes, I understand natural selection, that it is a theory--and one of a number (eg speciation, sexual selection, genetic drift, neutral evolution) that are put forward as driving mechanisms in macroevolutionary adaptations. The reality is every theory is dependent on the mechanism they describe as being a constant. But the law of entropy dictates that they are not...unless we load the dice. ie lock the constant itself in place, good changes will not survive.
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion Speciation isn't a mechanism, it is the process "by which new biological species arise". Sexual selection is a type of natural selection. Neutral evolution's mechanism is genetic drift. What does entropy have to do with it? You're talking nonsense. Butterflies have variations of colors within their genes, those that use colors that help them blend in with their environment are more likely to survive and pass those genes on. Why is that hard to understand?
kubush 10 months ago
@kubush On mechanisms I read: "Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation." Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent."
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion My point still stands.
kubush 10 months ago
@kubush fe: Butterflies - Thanks for the explanation of Butterfles. That really helps me to see your argument. From what your saying here, I must assume butterlfies with a contrasting colour to their surrounds will be easy prey for their predators. As butterflies and their predators still exist in the same environment today, why are there so many butterflies of bright and contrasting colours? Surely, these would be the most probable to become extinct, based on Natural Selection.
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion The environment of butterflies is colorful if you look at the flora which they feed off of, not to mention it helps them find mates.
kubush 10 months ago
@kubush Whether the environment is Black and White or full HD 32bit colour, is not the point. What is a "change" in the environment that would be a precusor to a butterfly of one colour not surviving that change?
engellion 10 months ago
@engellion It could be the increase of a certain flowering plant, or it could be simply that certain markings were found more desirable by mates. It could also be that certain colors were found to be less desirable to predators. Each of these things is far more likely, than all of the evidence (fossil, genetic, etc.) that leads people to accept the theory of evolution as fact (proportionality more biologists accept evolution than historians accept the Holocaust), turning out to be wrong.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 In reality, all those "could be" scenarios boil down to the genetic code. Any given gene pool will adapt within the bounds of those genes to environmental factors over time. I have no argument with micro-evolution. Butterflies will always evolve into butterflies with changes in colour dictated by the gene pool. This is experimentally verifiable. On the other hand, Macro-evolution is not confirmed as a fact. Hence, the biological scientists who reject it as a viable theory.
engellion 9 months ago
@engellion The whole micro/macro-evolution thing is ridiculous. It is exactly like saying that a man can walk 10 miles, but there is no way that he can walk 100.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 No. That is nothing like macro-evolution. A better analogy would be saying, "Because as man can walk 10 miles, there must be a way he can FLY 10 miles by natural development" That is macro-evolution and that is what is ridiculous.
engellion 9 months ago
@engellion Wow, just wow. So what you're saying is, minor changes over long stretches of time causing major changes is the same as major chances happening instantaneously? You are just flat out wrong.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 I said no such thing. I suggest you check your definintion of macroevolution. If we stick to the gene pool of each species then all changes within the species are experimentally verifiable. Go beyond that, and you're dealing with a huge amount of unknowns, assumptions and precursory factors to get anywhere reasonable for the theory of macro-evoultion to be viable. Hence, those biologists who reject it.
engellion 9 months ago
@engellion You do realize that the biologist who reject it make up less than .02 percent of biologists in general, and have never had a peer reviewed paper published which gives an argument to disprove evolution. We have witnessed especiation (the changing from one species to another), and we have transitional forms between classes such as archaeopteryx, and tiktaalik. There is also the genetic evidence that links us to every living thing. Evolution has evidence behind it. Creation doesn't.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 "Witnessed especiation"!!!??? Where and when? - please provide Journal, Vol# and page# of peer reviewed articles. I would be extremely interested, as I'm sure would the many biological scientists who reject macro-evolution. Fruit-flies giving rise to different variety Fruit-flies that don't interbreed with parent populations is aobut the only kind of literature advocated for speciation. That kind of stuff is so long away from proving a macro-evolutionary event it's ridiculous.
engellion 9 months ago
@engellion You do not know what the definition of a species, do you? A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable offspring, though it gets less clear with asexual beings. Stop moving the goal posts. You say creation is immutable, then you say things can't change to different species, then you say by species you meant genus. Once the animal or plant has changed from one genus to another you'll probably say family. The only difference is time.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
Comment removed
engellion 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 You do know what you're talking about don't you? You set the goal posts - "especiation"- declared it has been witnessed (without one reference), and then use that to argue for macro-evolution. Check on "speciation"? Biology is divided on definition - Google "faq-speciation" (talkorigins). A community that is isolated genetically from a community it used to be able to breed with is one definition of "speciation". Fruit fly experiments were used to support "speciation" as defined.
engellion 9 months ago
@engellion You make no sense. It took X number of generations to get to the point where the fruit flies couldn't interbreed. Considering there are so many species of fruit flies already it will take many many subsequent generations for a fruit fly to evolve into some new genus. We have not been studying evolution long enough for such radical changes to occur. Basically what you're saying is a collection of seconds will never equal an hour because a second is a second.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 So your argument s resting on the fact that "we haven't studied it long enough." That sounds like a faith position then - that many, many, many, micro-evolutionary changes are responsible for macro-evolutionary changes, though we've never observed such radical (macro) changes happenning. If it hasn't been observed, then the jury is still out and the theory rests on faith.
engellion 9 months ago
@engellion So you choose to ignore the fossil and genetic evidence. Make the false claim that there is a serious debate among biologists as to whether or not evolution occurs on a massive scale, and what the correct definition of species is. It sounds to me like you are pleading for willful ignorance rather than trying to take the time necessary to study the evidence.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 Please don't twist what I have said. I stated there are biologists who reject macro-evolution as a viable theory for the reasons given (though these are not the only reasons). You produced the figure 0.02% that verifies this. I have never given a definition of "species". I referred to the "speciaition" article on talkorigins (evolution defense site)--"what constitutes a species", "This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community." Author's words, not mine.
engellion 9 months ago
@engellion My percentage was off, it is actually more like .1 percent. I would send the link, but I keep getting an error message. I apologize for my misinformation. And that doesn't change the fact that they have produced no peer reviewed papers on the topic. You also did flat out ignore the fossil and genetic evidence, so I am not twisting your words, only using your own silence against you.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 Because I am silent, you use that against me? I could take your silence in not providing a peer reviewed article where "we have witnessed especiation" against you. But I could also assume there were other points in my comment you preferred to answer for the sake of time and space. To be honest, 500 characters / post here is limiting. Happy to discuss the fossil evidence - but then we get into paleontology and probably geology. Name a discussion board and I'll meet you there :-)
engellion 9 months ago
Comment removed
engellion 9 months ago
yes genetically we are approximately 96-98% similair to apes. what you do not hear is that that is over 48,000,000 nucleotides different still and when you change even a single codon (3 nucleotides) it almost always causes mutation and death.. are you telling me it changed 48 million times without one error? Impossible. jelly fish are about 95% water and a watermelon is about 92%. maybe they evolved? evolutionists are professionals at taking small evidence and twisting it to fit their opinion.
mikem422 1 year ago
@mikem422 No, no. There was certainly error.
There was error on a gargantuan scale, spanning an immense period.
And, yes, every single one of those changes carries a perfectly significant chance of death.
But it's not that it changed 48 million times without error.
It's changed vastly more than 48 million times and there was error causing death all the time - it's just that 48 million times, this change didn't cause any harm or death.
And, by its survival, that's what remains in our DNA.
KlaxonCow 1 year ago
@mikem422 you are an idiot!
MrDasmaster 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL! You could also title your video "Explaining When Life Begins To A Pro-Choicer" and it would have the same comic appeal. Another good one might be "Explaining To An Eagles Fan How Many Super Bowls They've Won Compared To The Rest Of The NFC East". That's kind of a long one though.
thegorn68 1 year ago
Hmph. I grasp more than just the fundamental basics of science and can readily believe in creation. But clearly, you're much more intelligent than everybody else so you can decide how things really are. Way to ruin a funny clip.
pyrosifier 1 year ago
@pyrosifier "I grasp more than just the fundamental basics of science and can readily believe in creation."
nope.avi
hakesho 1 year ago
*ding*
Ah, after watching about 20 times I finally got it!
SpotxSpot 1 year ago
@SpotxSpot Can you explain it to me?
NakamaShadows 1 year ago
@NakamaShadows It'd kind of ruin the joke. Just try to make sense of it, try to associate the words properly. Hint: imagine as if you were looking through Dougal's eyes.
SpotxSpot 1 year ago
Ya, this pretty much sums it up.
freethinker923 1 year ago
Small...Far away! This is such a funny show! Thankfully I have every episode!
cuteycindyhoney 1 year ago
I loooove Dougal
TheWonderfulWombat 1 year ago
HAHA the look on the guy's face is priceless
alexicoff 1 year ago
smalll
far-awayy
:D
tridentsplashxx 1 year ago
Nice!
spiffythealien 1 year ago
xDD
Ozzy0sbourne 2 years ago
XD Dougal is so stupid! I love this show but it's not on where I live anymore :(
CanadiaNecro1 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This isn't about evolution! So everybody please stop arguing. Dougal simply didn't understand that when big things are far away they look small. What does that have to do with evolution?! It's just Dougal being the adorable eejit that he is!
CarmelitaLeFink 2 years ago
yes, the actual sketch has nothing to do with evolution. but. trying to explain evolution to a creationist is awfully similar to whats happening in the video. that is why it was uploaded with that title.
hakesho 2 years ago
It's called an analogy!!!!
richd506 1 year ago
This scene has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism vs evolution.
WTF?
sbringe 2 years ago
please tell me you're joking
hakesho 2 years ago
Sorry but I'm not joking. This scene is about perspective.
Creationism vs Evolution, ha ha ha ha!
Please tell me you're joking or explain how this scene relates to Creationism vs Evolution.
sbringe 2 years ago
its a metaphor... think about it and see if you can get the rest yourself.
hakesho 2 years ago
I don't see it. I must be a bit like Dougal.
The near ones are created by people, and the far away ones evolved? It just doesn't make any sense as a metaphor for Creationisim vs Evolution.
I think it's simply that the near ones look as if they are the same size as the far away ones. And the joke is that Dougal can't grasp that concept.
sbringe 2 years ago
try not thinking of it as a direct metaphor about evolution vs creation and more like a metaphor for explaining evolution to a creationist like the title of the vid implies
hakesho 2 years ago
Sorry, you're a little bit too far out there.
I realize now why you can't explain the metaphor. It's because it's not meant to be a metaphor about Creationism vs Evolution. It just doesn't work.
You seem like an intelligent person and it's been nice talking with you but you'll have to come up with something more concrete if you want to keep this conversation going.
sbringe 2 years ago
explaining evolution to a creationist is like the man in the vid trying to explain perspective to the other man.
to those of us who have a decent understanding of evolution, its incredibly simple and obvious (like the idea of perspective the man was trying to explain). and you think "this is so simple, if i just explain it a little it'll be obvious, even to a complete idiot" but, even after you try your best to explain it in the easiest ways possible. they still just don't get it at all.
hakesho 2 years ago
Okay now I understand wht you are thinking but I must say "that's a bit of a stretch".
Also I don't think that would be a metaphor, I think what you're talking about would be more like an analogy.
You're starting to sound like a Christian interpreting the book of Revelation. Anything can mean whtever you want it to, even if it doesn't make sense. I don't think the writers intended to make any kind of statement about Creationism vs Evolution, it just doesn't fit. You're over analyzing.
sbringe 2 years ago
i know the writers didn't intend for this analogy, but the person who uploaded the video with the title "Explaining evolution to a creationist" obviously did. and its obviously exaggerated, thats part of what makes it funny and part of why it should instantly be recognized as a joke. this wasn't meant to be a serious evaluation of the process of explaining evolution, it was meant to be a joke.
hakesho 2 years ago 15
Okay, I can buy that.
I still think it's a bit bizarre but you must be right as it's the only reasonable explanation for the title.
sbringe 2 years ago
@hakesho well i myself have actually been trying to explain evolution to my mother (who is very christian, so am i), i get right down into the details starting with DNA, molecules, the process which the earth had formed, all that jazz.
only recently iv had a breakthrough, where she had this glimpse in her eye and she said "you know....that makes sense".
Dread556 1 year ago
@sbringe: Obvious Poe is obvious.
progressthruscience 2 years ago
I think I might know what the problem is here. Have you seen this episode of Father Ted? In the episode they show the far away cows and I think this makes the joke more clear.
sbringe 2 years ago
The idea is that when explaining evolution to a creationist, a creationist will see something complex and say, "I cannot possibly imagine your answer to explain the phenomena, so I will cop out with the God answer". It is defined as argument from ignorance.
Obviously the priest is trying to explain why the cow dolls look the same size as the cows outside. The young man refuses to observe the cows from outside his viewpoint.
You can glean very deep meanings by assigning metaphors here.
snoman99991 2 years ago 64
@snoman99991 not all creationists think like that (although a good amount do)
i for one (a christian) believe in evolution, i do not use just use god as a way to answer everything and leave it be, i instead use it to raise more questions, which i look for answers of.
the only difference between my belief in evolution and another persons is that i believe god directed it to be the way it is.
i would go into much more detail, but youtube wont let me.....
Dread556 1 year ago
@Dread556
At the end of the day, the only thing my argumentation can reveal, is that a god is not necessary. I cannot with reasoning tell you that a god is impossible and could not be the guiding hand. And so that's where we would leave things be. I can feel more than comfortable if you're willing to accept science as valid, and I can be comfortable accepting that I can't make an absolute in argumentation.
snoman99991 1 year ago 5
@snoman99991 yes that is fine, and im glad that you said it isnt impossible, because such a word shouldnt exist in our kind of world, whether it be godless or otherwise.
both sides are at fault for causing conflict between each other, on my side we have those who are closed minded and do not wish to hear something other than what they were taught at birth, or something that could possibly change their beliefs, the same thing on the other side.
we just need to nod our heads and walk away.
Dread556 1 year ago
ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
sameer137 2 years ago
Backwards again, the guy talking is religious, He is talking about creationism to a kid.
gregrutz 2 years ago
creationsists beleive in micro evolution they just dont beleive in macro evolution
camelotgeorge33 2 years ago
Which is evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
lol, macro evolution is nothing more than lots of micro evolution. It's impossible to believe in only one.
Dauntless07 2 years ago 3
i'm just clarifying, you dont have to be so patronizing. im always willing to hear the other side with an open mind just as long as you can keep your "lol"s to yourself.
camelotgeorge33 2 years ago
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same fucking thing. Mutations that are naturally selected.
In a short time, you see small changes. In a long time, you see big changes.
It's sort of like the small cow, micro-evolution, vs the cow outside, that's just far away.
luminaeus 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
lol, i agree.
skbfamiliar 2 years ago
LMAO. do you get the same headaches too?
320iguy 2 years ago
Easy 5 stars
atrumira 2 years ago
So... if that's the quality of priests these days, that explains Creationists!
Kieranfoy 2 years ago 3
What show is this from? Black Adder?
bio2020 2 years ago
Nooooo, its from 'Father Ted'. I don't know if its a popular enough show for you to be able to watch it easily online but I cant recommend it highly enough... if you like Blackadder you'll definitely like this show.
haveguitarwilltravel 2 years ago
Perfect. Just perfect.
myteethareshiny 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is how i feel like when explaining my religious beliefs to some non-religious people, but the title given to the clip can indeed be apt at times.
mattpickman 3 years ago
most atheists understand the religious beliefs of others (most of them are not exactly hard to understand, jesus virgin birth, man and yet god etc etc not hard to get) we mostly just don't understand WHY you believe these things.
addmoreice 2 years ago
Firstly, thank you for commenting, rather than simply giving my comment a 'thumbs down'.
Yes, most do have some understanding, hence use the word some, but a fair few that i've met sadly, at least appear, to have a rather misguided view of religion, logic, science etc, often given to them by Dawkins, Hitchens and others. That is the bit that gets to me, then, attempts to explain are met with derision... hence my comment. In fact, it's worse than Ted's situation really.
mattpickman 2 years ago
no, you seem to be missunderstanding. we understand the beliefs just fine. we deride you and others because it's silly for a rational individual to hold these obviously silly beliefs. you have the RIGHT to them, don't get me wrong. but derision is all they deserve. (i respect your rights, not your religion).
addmoreice 2 years ago
To claim that ALL atheists (or whatever they call themselves these days) understand such beliefs is a bold statement. There are enough comments on videos here and books written and so on to give ample evidence that some properly understand theistic belief as much as some theists understand evolution and whatnot.
The definition of 'obviously silly belief' that you are using seems similar to that of the aforementioned retired ethologist, one of those who appears to lack understanding...
mattpickman 2 years ago
sorry using a general we o indicate 'most of' not 'all off'. your right. some don't know squat. so what? does it really take all that much to see that 'magic man done it' is a pretty lame answer?
the theist position is that there is a magic man, where and what they say magic man does is pretty immaterial. it's still the claim. it's silly. provide EVIDENCE for the claim and we can talk. until then it's possible but not probable.
addmoreice 2 years ago
Actually, whether you call Him a "magic man" or not is pretty 'material' (always liked that), as it is an example of something called poisoning the well, as you should be well aware.
Also, knowledge coming in more forms than scientific or historical evidence should also not be a new idea to you, but, on the evidence so far, it may well be.
mattpickman 2 years ago
no, thats not poisoning the well. your claim really is that someone who is magic created the universe. thats the LEAST of the claims, anything else gets even more 'magic man' about it.
no, knowledge is different from inquiry. science says nothing about the worth of modern art.
but if your asking about the EXISTENCE of something, then yes, science has a few things to say.
science: 'here is the evidence, here is my idea'
religion: 'here is my idea, what is the evidence'
addmoreice 2 years ago
science is but one TYPE of inquiry. nothing more....it just happens to be a very good inquiry method at finding out if something exists or not thats all.
let me ask you, what type of 'knowledge' do you think can show you god, or even indicate god, and in what way is it useful.
addmoreice 2 years ago
Look up 'poisoning the well', you'll find similar examples, i assure you. Your use of the phrase 'magic man' is the very definition of the fallacy.
Knowledge is indeed different from inquiry.
Science does indeed say some things and not others.
And yes, that pair of definitions is frequently used.
mattpickman 2 years ago
very well, lets play the game your way. in what way am i misrepresenting your position? how is god not a 'magic man'. keep in mind 'let there be light' is an incantation.
how does your different kind of 'knowledge' tell you that god exists? how accurate is this 'knowledge' system? how do you know what types of things it can help you discover?
addmoreice 2 years ago
if the beleif is based of faith
then just that shows the idiocy
since faith initself is absolute ignorance.
literally
finnsia 2 years ago 2
fucking nerdy cunts stop complaining this is genious!
seankinsellasean 3 years ago
Ha ha! Yes! Exactly how I feel!
For the most part I have a strict policy of tolerating other people's beliefs and opinions, but Creationists are just wrong. Simple as that. Wrong. There is no argument they can make for their cause that Evolutionism cannot cut down. I cannot help but wonder how anyone could accept creationism as fact.
Thrallken 3 years ago 6
wow you are pretty darn tolerant
lardmonk 2 years ago
Actually I am. Challenge me to any other battle of opinion and I would let the other keep their views. But creationism just bugs me.
ThisMortalCoil64 2 years ago
"Evolutionism"
it's evolution. no ism.
addmoreice 2 years ago
lmao dougal is so funny
proberthull24 3 years ago
Religion and science are most similar in that... he who understands the least, believes the most.
So if you understand "the big bang and evolution" or "god and creation", there's no need for belief or debate.
If however, you simply believe in one or the other, there's little chance you'll ever understand it, even if true, then waste your time trying to confirm that belief through preaching instead of research.
If I can make the world believe that unicorns exist, will it become a fact?
waysworth 3 years ago
@waysworth
That would be an ecumenical matter.
rusty11111 3 years ago 6
exactly!
think I'll watch that episode again.
love this series.
waysworth 3 years ago
So true, and the "Oh forget it" at the end, how I know that feeling.
Which is why I will only discuss god if you bring him along - in person. i.e. I don't want to know what the voices in your head says.
Best of luck banging your head against the walls of other people's padded cells. ;)
CobblyWorlds 3 years ago
i belive in the whole evolution. its very true, i understand it, taht person who went on about americans and europeans is a eejit. but despite the whole believeing in evolution, i also believe in god, as it doesnt prove he doesnt exist. so pl who say god doesnt exist because evolution happened, are stupid
jamesscully49 3 years ago 2
Just a quick question: is is possible not to love Dougal?
p.s. r.o.p. Father Ted....
estragon102 3 years ago 3
If evolution were true, why are there still apes...
etone08 3 years ago
"If evolution were true, why are there still apes..."
If Americans are the descendants of Europeans, why are there still Europeans?
When you figure that out, apply the same answer to your question.
Xorinite 3 years ago 5
What a chump you are!!