Funny how some yahoo using copy-and-pasted, heavily biased information from a particularly staunch, woefully misinformed source of opposition toward scientific fact (carm, AnswersInGenesis, et cetera) is always ready to spew the same sickeningly incorrect filth.
As of recent, humanity has been winning its cultural battle against superstitious ignorance. Defend antiquated, horrendous morals and unverifiable authenticity all you want -- it won't prevail forever.
Why does everybody say that you either believe in creationism or evolution, why can't you believe in both? My opinion is that their is a god, a god that created evolution.
@Iliketrains365 A very large amount of people believe that, it's just in America where a lot of people tend to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, which doesn't support evolution. The Catholic church actually accepts evolution.
@Iliketrains365 well the issue is scripture. People who believe in say the Bible think the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that everything was created in its current state. By accepting evolution as fact and not ignoring evidence, they say that the Bible is wrong in the story of creation, so why would it be correct in the rest?
It's fine to believe in a creator and accept evolution as fact but when it comes to scripture, there's always an issue so people ignore it :s
The beauty of science is that it is never fearful of admitting it may have been wrong. In fact it encourages and hungers for this continual revision, it is it's charter. This humility has served to validate it's existence. It's constituents are truth zealots, not spilling blood in an attempt to avoid alienating those who discover truth through words from outside lips. They spread no paranoid propaganda birthed from the ignorant rantings of dogma, our planets deadliest disease
I'm Carl Sagan. Just how old is our planet? Scientists believe it's four b HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD. Scientists have determined that the universe was cerated by a s GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD ig bang. If you look at the bones of a JESUS aurus rex, it's clear, by the use of carbon dating tha MOUNT'N DEW IS THE BEST SODA EVER MADE.
1:57: "...without serious contemplation by the crabs"; 5:40: "...evolve on slow stages on their own from... grandfather clocks." You have to appreciate Carl Sagan's sense of humor.
You're smart! I was thinking the same way. HOWEVER, I think Carl's well aware of the technical distinctions in vocabulary. I think Carl was giving a comprehensible explanation for the sake of the layperson audience. In other words, he knows the viewing audience is overwhelmingly non-scientist. I STRONGLY suspect this because people say I'm an excellent communicator - and when I'm explaining otherwise highly technical concepts, I often over-simplify for the sake of communication.
@therealfriday13th or both would be heaven one with the great scientist other one without, hmm... both are not scary at all if you think about it, but both does not exist either.
Heads up guys there is a planned "Cosmos" sequel set for a 2013 release. It will be produced by Ann Dryuan (Sagan's widow) and Seth Mcfarlene and be hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson
I want everyone to discover Carl Sagan.. I only just learned about him these past few years (after saying 'Hey, I remember him from my childhood!'). He's an incredible person with a gift for explaining things in a perfect way/
Sometimes I think that YouTube hires out people to make silly anti-evolution, anti-science comments just to keep these threads going. Call me a rose-spectacled
optimist but there can't be THAT many ignorant idiots in the world...can there?
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
I'm assuming you don't know how DNA was formed. The forming of DNA itself took quite a while and started off as no more than a basic organic compound that was formed in the primitive stages of the earth. Chemical experiments done can form these building blocks in DNA, and the conditions to create those were common in primitive earth due to the high amounts of energy because of the lack of an ozone layer. These building blocks formed together by chem. reactions and the DNA was formed.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived if their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 I have yet to see any creationist define the word "kind" Please define it.
Second, evolution does not say that humans evolved from worms, in the same way it says humans did not evolve from monkeys. Because monkeys and worms are MODERN creatures. Evolution does not happen from modern creature to modern creature. It happens between ancient precursors and modern creatures. Monkey species and the human species used to be one species. Modern monkeys are our cousins, not our ancestors.
Adaptation of lifeforms are the key to evolution. We don't see an apple tree growing in the deserts. We don't see snakes with wings to fly. They may have evolved thru time but have disappeared because they cannot adapt. Those that can adapt remained. If human are not what we are now, we may have adapted to live on stars, anywhere in the space. The complexity of human is not by a snap of the finger but rather through adaptations. Just like the plants, they grow on environmental adaptations.
@onebaud things may appear as paradoxes when two things are mistaken as one, such as spiritualism and religion, because they can (but don't have to) exist in the same space/time/dimensional point.
What year is this? We are at the point where truth doesn't seem to matter-
People seem to revel in their lack of knowledge. We had better figure out why they refuse to accept facts or we are likely to- de-evolve. They attack learning and "city folk" like in the middle ages......
Age of complex animals and Land Plants: 500 Million Years
Age of the human species: 200,000 Years
Conclusion: it took 3 billion years for life to get out of the water, Evolution is a long long journey, and a fact. Fossils, Geologie and recently Genetics proves it!
Unfortunately, evolution is just a theory, a bloody good theory in my opinion, but a theory none the less. Religion, however, does not represent an alternative theory!
@danielderbyshire Unforunate?? Just a theory?? A theory is the ultimate goal in science! A scientific theory (not 'theory' as in the colloquialism) is backed by observable, testable, peer reviewed evidence...etc,etc, blah blah.
@Philosopher857 Heh. I've had creationist nutjobs argue to me that the fossils we have dug up from ages passed have been deliberately put there by supernatural forces to deceive us. Thus far, I haven't seen a single comment or gesture from you that would suggest you're in any way different from said nutjobs, so I'm going to put 2 and 2 together.
Considering that you just hinted you indeed believe the Earth to be 6000 years old, my assessment of your mental stability seems to have been spot on.
@Philosopher857 As an aside, one thing which baffles me about you fruitcakes is the manner in which you exclusively sinlge out biology for these kinds of disinformation campaigns. The geological discovery that this Earth is nearly 6 billion years of age, and not 6000 as the bible claims, is every bit as devastating to this book its pretenses as some source of objective truth. And yet, you never target geology in the way you do biology.
It really illustrates a certain disconnect from reality.
@Philosopher857 Heheh. I'd say you're either with the Templeton Foundation or the Discovery Institute, or someone who is in need of an experienced psychiatrist.
The Foundation/Institute remark stems from how practiced you are in ignoring arguments regarding the sheer accuracy of Darwin's thesis, the fossil records and modern DNA comparisons while circling straight back to repeating your original statements. The psychiatrist remark stems from your closing sentence about how "aliens did it".
@Philosopher857 Anything from the studies originally made by Charles Darwin to the fossil record to modern-day comparisons of genetic sets verify evolution as a fact.
As for your comment it canot be observed directly--neither can you observe aging directly by looking at yourself in a mirror. Compare pictures from several different years, however, and a gradual change in your features becomes readily apparent. So, too, when comparing members of the same species over large expanses of time.
@Philosopher857 It's ok, I fully understand your point, but you will never observe Macroevolution in your lifetime because. 1. Evolution is very, very slow 2. we have very short lives average life expectancy for us is 75 years. You will not observe phenotype (seen observed) changes only genotype (DNA/RNA/mDNA) changes. Evidence point to fossil bones of blue whales once had legs and walked on land, they have a link with the Manatees, Hippopotamus & Dolphins. It's alot of research so read on mDNA.
@Philosopher857 O.K. let me explain in other terms. from Ancestors tale, if you have hot water at 100 degrees Celsius what is the temp that separates it from hot to cold, 0 Deg Celsius. It's difficult to establish an Integer on the Hot/cold cut-off point. Every degree drop is micro and when it reach 0 it's Macro. That's all! Another tool that was used to connect all living things on the planet is called Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) this shows the mother/child link in all species on the Earth.
@Philosopher857 If you read Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins, it will very much explain the Micro v.s. Macro Evolution that you doubt. Remember Macroevolution came from Microevolution, it takes billions of years for the beauty and diversity of Flora and fauna. That is what Mr. Sagan is trying to say, if artificial selection can produce results in few thousand years, imagine what billions of years can give. Reasons people don't believe it because 1. Evolution is very slow 2. We die quickly!
@Sonyoooo3 maybe, but really, how much sense does that make. "And God put angry samurai faces on all of the crabs on the land, so they may live happily ever after!"... I won't buy it, personally. He just explained why the shell forms a human face-like shape and how it continues, and why there is no true purpose and how indifferent the universe/ecosystem is, you don't necessarily need to have a god for things to happen, that's silly. Of course, there might just be one, or two, or a thousand.
@StOnion Every creature gives the angry faces. There is logic of when seing this emage it somehow reflects and show that all creature within them had the same and different angry samurai faces and for the creature that understand this emage might save theyre life one day.
it just fucking baffles me that people will deny evolution, that has mountains of evidence to support it and replace it with 2000 year old creation theory written by a bunch of superstitious goat-herders that didn't know jack shit about science.
@hempartist420 replace? hm. well, the creation "theory" has been around longer than the evolution concept. OH and that evidence that you say supports it really actually supports creation. Do ou really think all the beauty in the world happened by chance? every single complicated thing in this world-random?
@madjack141 lol, what a jumble of incomplete thoughts you've managed to join together, you said,
"the creation theory has been around longer than the evolution concept",
-really Sherlock? you mean just like the flat earth theory was around before the round earth theory? like the spitting on a wound theory was around before germ theory? shall I go on?
"Do ou really think all the beauty in the world happened by chance?"
who said it happened by chance? do research please...
@hempartist420 "evolution is a fact, not a theory. it really happened!" when the first creationist understands the difference between a scientific theory and hypothesis, mankind will be saved. his intellectual powers will give him advantages over dumbasses and he will have many, many smart children. unfortunately religious people have more children... like mel gibson. he has more children than the alien-queen.
@UberTankred that#s why the us will be fucked within the next five years. the country will turn into a somalian-style shithole and my sons will go there for sex-vacations with underage prostitutes. all that thanks to the republican party thank you, republicans!!! :DDD
@hempartist420 what is flawed is the theory of HOW evolution happened. fossil records prove natural selection is not the primal driver of evolution, because fossil records show evolution to be not slow changes, but sudden bursts of change. darwin admitted this was a flaw in his theory. but back in his day, there were not enough fossils gathered to observe this. To many people overlook the fact the fossil records do NOT support natural selection.
That does not contradict natural selection. What it does is contradict the notion that evolution is an entirely gradualistic process. It is not: since Darwin first proposed his model, we have learned a lot about population dynamics and population genetics. How evolutionarily stable strategies switch between stable plateaux is one of the things we learned.
@Bullpuma no fossil records do NOT refute natural selection, when you say "sudden bursts of change" you mean sudden bursts of change over MILLIONS of years, and we are incredibly lucky to get any fossils at all, just because there are "gaps" in the fossil record doesn't mean there weren't transitional species. And your right about Darwin not having enough fossils to observe this, and the fossil has proven to support darwin, not refute him... natural selection is observed daily anyway.
@hempartist420 There is also The Fibonacci Sequence that appears so often in nature, both in living, and inanimate objects. These such as the spiral of a galaxy and bones in a human arm. Such synchronicity has no survival or reproductive value. Yet it appears everywhere.
As the fine structure constant, or the charge of an electron, or the rest mass of a tau neutrino. These are simply fundamental constants, patterns produced by natural behaviour.
@Bullpuma Cont.) I don't understand your point about the Fibonacci Sequence, The Fibonacci sequence is a pattern in nature, and just because something doesn't have any survival or reproductive value doesn't meant that it can't be perpetuated in nature. You need to explain how the Fibonacci sequence in any way conflicts with natural selection... or evolution for that matter
I always questioned the stupidity of the bible, believers and God since I was 10yo. Carl Sagan was an even greater influence than people looking absolutely moronic trying to defend religion and God's existence
@tpstrat14 hello, I will have more decorum in addressing your plight. Lay-people use the word 'Theory lossely'. Definition. A theory consist a set of basic priniciples from which many predictions can be deduced. The basic principles involved in the theory are often widely accepted by scientists working in the field.
Because many lay-people say oh! it's just a 'theory' that it has no crediblity. And personally I think the word theory shall be dropped entirely as it has gained astounding support.
@hexidecimalAFF0 Actually evoltution hasn't yet been prooven. See Charles Darwin's Origan of the Species. He states "My 'theory' does not explain the evolution of man." As suprising as it may seem,Darwin was religous. His theory of evolution has been manipualted over the years to the point that the modern interpretation of his book is nothing like what he stated to begin with. Read it, you may be suprised.
@DiligentEthics you have to understand that Mr. Darwin really studied more on diversity of plants & animals in his travel, and I know he was religious, but so was Galileo & Copernicus, but they had a solid ground, remember as time goes by more things are discovered and Darwin himself will approve. And to enlightening you, Richard Dawkins Ancestors Tale shows how they trace back all of humanity using Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) which is very effective. Science is self correcting Evolution is a fact.
@hexidecimalAFF0 I understand your point and I agree, but let me add, this will never end - the arguement between science and religion. You can find magnitudes of information supporting science and equally many points suppporting religion, maybe not for zues but for christianity yes. It all depends on what you believe. Many years ago people believed the world was flat. What will we believe tomorrow. My point isn't to stop searching for answers, but simply realize that anything is possible.
@DiligentEthics Ah well I can mutually agree with you on that. But still you seems to hold onto some reservations on evolution. But tell me, are you deeply concerned that evolution will put humanity from the center of the universe like what the heliocentric model of the universe did? It shouldn't do that I hope, and I will never stop looking for answers. The word Sciences is, 'to know'. But I will assure you, science is making groundbreaking discoveries. So my good friend, happy researching!
@hexidecimalAFF0 I don't quite understand you're question. In my opinion we are obviously not the center of the universe, but anyway, happy researching. It seems we can't just accept things as theories, you and I, or maybe we need to know as much as possible so that we can be the supplier of truth rather than the babbling opinion forcer we dispise. Either way, thats the best way to go about things I think - read and learn as much as possible. Good luck to you!
@DiligentEthics Hi again. The word theory is what keeps evolution from being accepted. Laypersons & scientist use the word differently. Definition: "theory consist basic principles which many predictions can be deduced, basic principles in a theory are often widely accepted by scientist working in the field". I understand that things can change & I will change to the paradigm shift. But over & over evolution has gotten stronger using mDNA (mitochondrial) Theory > Hypothesis. Regards mate!
@hexidecimalAFF0 I'm afraid you're quite wrong. Ancient art depicts "dragons" or dinosaurs throughout all of their art. The ubiquity of it can't be argued against. Moreover, we have unfossilized dinosaur bones and fossilized human bones. Mary Schweitzer found an unfossilized T-Rex bone and said it smelled like a cadaver. According to reputable testimonies, there may be extant living dinosaurs in the Amazon, Congo, Papua New Guniea and Australian outback.
@lomertamahon1 Greetings! I'm a bit confused on what i'm wrong on, if evolution's a fact. I looked on Ms. Schweitzer, she helped made the bird-dinosaur connection which I know & Dr. Sagan said himself. It seems you're vouching for a young Earth as you mentioned unfossilized T-Rex & fossilized humans. Creationist cited her work for a young Earth but fossilization takes millions of yrs, I guess she's a Christian, they believed her! Mitochondrial DNA is the method for tracing evolutionary process.
@hexidecimalAFF0 Many prominent Orthodox Christians are evolutionists, such as B B Warfield, C S Lewis, Edard John Carnell, Teilard De Chardin and so on. However, not as a matter of theology, but of science, I find it a very absurd viewpoint. Fossilization has been shown to occur over a matter of a few hundred years, not millions of years. I think its bad science. There is no evidence to support it.
@lomertamahon1 Ok cool about the Orthodox Christians but, nevertheless, fossils are the icing on the cake, but it's mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) that links all of our ancestors together, & other method is called radiocarbon dating, with using half lives of the elements, with uranium having a half life of 4.5 billion years, age of the Earth, so it's not bad science i'll call it. Then there's cosmic evolution which take a long time. Fossils are great but there's other methods out there to use. Thanks.
@hexidecimalAFF0 The reason I mentioned how many prominent Christians believe in evolution is to show that, should you give your life to Jesus Christ for your salvation, you don't have to let evolution be a stumbling block. Unfortunately, many Christians harp on that topic too much. I use to. Not any more until I got more theologically mature. The medievals had a saying, a man who has himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client. You want Jesus Christ to redeem you before the Father.
@lomertamahon1 but there's one major problem, not all 6 billion of us are Christians or religious. That is your personal preference for salvation which doesn't apply to everyone. And pronouncements of authority doesn't matter to science. Before, many Christian reject evolution & now they do, science did not care about them, it works independently from religion. Just because prominent Christians believe in evolution you turn to Christ, other religions believe in evolution also, it's not valid.
@hexidecimalAFF0 That's not my point. Jesus Christ, unlike other religious leaders, was prophecied of for over a thousand years, and rose from the dead to prove His claims. The Gospels represent testimony. Great legal scholars became Christian after examining the veracity of the Gospel testimony. The miracle of life coming from a rock demands far greater faith than a guy rising from the dead.
@lomertamahon1 just to let you know, Christianity is nothing special, there were more older Egyptian religions before, all religion is a re-hearse of more older ones, Christianity from old Egypt, Islam from Christianity, the bible writers try to make sense of the universe, even today we're a million times better off than them and not everything is known, but to listen to them over 2000 yrs ago. I wish a time machine could bring them here and see how far science reached. they'll be blown-away.
@hexidecimalAFF0 There is certainly great wisdom amongst other religions, but Jesus Christ wiped away all of the fog. Jesus taught that all of the commandments reduce to love, love God with your heart soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. If people had that kind of love, there would be no murder, lying, cheating and so on. I have yet to hear any of the other religions emphasize love as a fundamental principle.
@lomertamahon1 wow! you deviated from the video subject to this but i'll respond. Jainism, that religion is so loving that they belief even insects/vermin have souls & must be respected/never killed. Christianity or religion does not have a monopoly on morality. I respect humanity as a whole, remember our morals come from within us, whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, all humans have the propensity for love, it is better to be good it is called reciprocal altruism.
@hexidecimalAFF0 I deviated from the video subject because I was responding to your comment to me. Spear me the sophistry. Nevertheless, you show yourself quite ignorant of ancient religions. You're importing Christian morality and Christian concepts into your reading of ancient pagan religions.
@lomertamahon1 That is exactly what religion is, they take certain concepts from older ones to suit their pious needs. The same Christianity morals you talk about; love, affection be faithful to your fellow man, sharing, caring, gratefulness are not mutually exclusive to Christianity. Where I live we have multiple religions and the same basic characteristics of morality you describe is the same I see in all people. Carl Sagan has a video on ancient religions, you can look for than also.
@madjack141 I have heard this story time and time again, and let me tell you, "It is not true" Christan scholars (Noblewoman, Lady Hope) made up a death bed conversion to god for Darwin and ever since, we have to deal with this myth over, & over & over, again & again & again... And even if it bears 0.00000001% truth, there are many new sciences and technology and people to back-it up, research and development for many years to show and even more work to be done. So keep on believing the myth!
@hexidecimalAFF0 quantum physics defies all known science, and the exception to everything we know. natural selection cannot explain why everyone can discern emotion from music. what survival value would such knowledge be? fossil records oppose natural selection, yet evolution can still happen, just not in the way darwin described. evolution and creationism appear to contrast, because the idea of what these concepts are, is not complete.
That's nonsense. That's the same as saying that relativity theory defies all known science. Both *ARE* science, scientific explanatory models for observed phenomena.
« natural selection cannot explain why everyone can discern emotion from music »
What!? Listen, even if those two subjects are related, there not being an answer to some question does not mean that whatever new-age-hippie-quantum-mysticism-bullshit you came up with becomes any more plausible as an answer, nincompoop.
@Bullpuma I love Quantum physics, but classical science still stands, just like Newtonian physics it didn't crash with relativity, it was only supplemented to explain the micro-world. With emotion & music, you're getting into philosophy which even I myself don't understand why we don't discern it. Fossils are a bonus, but not a must, ice cores, radio-carbon dating, adaptation are just a few methods. We have no excuse to give up just because things look supernatural and shows quantum weirdness.
@hexidecimalAFF0 but how it happened is in question. natural selection has major flaws involving fossil records, so if evolution is going from one species to another, then it was not gradual, but in quick spurts. Or maybe species didn't evolve into other species, but all species evolve. Or there are many contributing factors to evolution. there is no way that natural selection is the prime driver of evolution.
It hit me all at once when he said "Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. It REALLY happened". He's standing there, mysteriously. And since God doesn't exist, he must have appeared somehow, so therefore evolution is really the only way in an atheist's mind. But no matter how sophisticated a proof for evolution you want to throw out there, it will always be backed by an overarching assumption of evolution. It is circular reasoning at its best and it is really quite hilarious!
@tpstrat14 Carl Sagen never said anything about there being no God. You are confused. What circular reasoning!!Yeah, okay; The people who have immersed themselves in the most reasoned and logical methodology ever known to man kind are using "circular reasoning." ARE YOU INSANE, OR JUST STUPID! Science is based on logic and reasoning! You think tens of thousands of the smartest people who have ever lived got it wrong, and you SOMEHOW understand it better. That is too pitiful to be hilarious!
@tpstrat14 Except that there are literally thousands of pieces of tangible evidence that you can see for yourself which proves that evolution is FACT. Yet you'd rather believe in a book written by ignorant, superstitious men. Most of them were uneducated and illiterate. Whats your excuse?
@VarykGerai Every proof for evolution has evolution as ITS proof. In other words, since we did in fact evolve, evolution is fact. Do you really not see this circular reasoning in the theory??
@tpstrat14 "In other words, since we did in fact evolve, evolution is fact" thats not circular reasoning, thats not reasoning, infact thats not even a coherent sentence. "we did in fact evolve" and "evolution is fact" phrases mean exactly the same, that is - the process of evolution occured, and neither of these are used to demonstrate others validity, thats just your retarded understanding of it.
@tpstrat14 youre braind dead mate. Evolution is fact because it can be demonstrated in a lab, predictions can be done, the mechanism that drives evolution is used in breeding. it has been observed in nature ffs!
@jordaniothefourth I hope that for you too! Life is tough. But evolution sure as hell doesn't "click" anything into place. I'm sorry you have been brainwashed by science. Your finite mind isn't the only vessel of truth. I hope you figure that out sooner than later.
@jordaniothefourth Read about Mary Schweitzer's discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones and tell me if you're still 100% sure that those dinosaur bones are 65 million years old. The MAXIMUM decomposition time they gave to soft tissue in bones was 100,000 years UNTIL they found soft tissue in them. 5 years ago. Now they must rethink bone decay in order to persist in their delusions.
@jordaniothefourth My point being this: your statement is 100% true. The only truth is that which can be proven. There is not a single shred of proof for evolution in any scientific field. NOT ONE. So why do we still believe in such religion?!?!
Evolution still does not answer how a transitional form, let's say from a lizard to a bird survives the period of time where it is neither good at running or flying.
If it's successful enough to survive as a transitional form, then it wouldn't need to evolve.
Evolution a fact? Still looking for the kind of proof I'm expected to provide in hard sciences to move from theory to fact. All I find is conjecture, leaps of imagination and hypothesis that require as much faith as intelligent design.
@swdw973 A few things: Evolution is a byproduct of survival, not the other way round as you suggest.
You're using the vernacular definition of theory instead of the scientific definition. There's a huge amount of factual evidence that's disqualified every other theory except for evolution. Because of this, evolution is the only theory that explains all the facts as currently in evidence.
Mutation, selection, speciation, all observed and documented in the wild and in the lab. Facts make theories
@swdw973 Ever heard of enviromental changes? If enviroment where okish flyign and okish running is survivable changes to where you either need to run fast or fly good, creatures that fly good or run fast will branch out, because doing both decently not enough to compete with the other 2. You failed at understanding mechanism of natural selection yet you dare arguing about it.
@DonHamburger communications for Genetic Savings and Clone, in Sausalito, California, they clone cats! and when they clone one the fur is never the same! look it up!
@franktastikart Your genetics are certainly the major player in the phenotypes you posses, but don't think they are the only factors! Just because you HAVE certain genes, doesn't mean they are switched on! Also, hormonal changes during the gestation period, and also hormonal changes during life play an important role.
@DonHamburger hay dumb ass! did you look it up yet! the DNA of Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body, something that human twins do not have all the time! look it up! and when they make a clone of a cat/dog. the fur is never the same as the original copy. look that up to!
@DonHamburger the DNA of Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body, look it up!
@DonHamburger the DNA of Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body, look it up!
There is one true record One they all appall In the beginning, God eternal Created all What a record! Of true beginnings, 'til the end Logic, reason, faith Find cause to comprehend They believe still, their fairy tale Of a Godless accident But "Once upon" and "Happily ever" Are really just pretend
he was so sexy
candys1 4 days ago
Funny how some yahoo using copy-and-pasted, heavily biased information from a particularly staunch, woefully misinformed source of opposition toward scientific fact (carm, AnswersInGenesis, et cetera) is always ready to spew the same sickeningly incorrect filth.
As of recent, humanity has been winning its cultural battle against superstitious ignorance. Defend antiquated, horrendous morals and unverifiable authenticity all you want -- it won't prevail forever.
Or, we'll just destroy ourselves.
Elena9525 1 month ago
Why does everybody say that you either believe in creationism or evolution, why can't you believe in both? My opinion is that their is a god, a god that created evolution.
Iliketrains365 1 month ago
@Iliketrains365 A very large amount of people believe that, it's just in America where a lot of people tend to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, which doesn't support evolution. The Catholic church actually accepts evolution.
Ostrasize 1 month ago
@Iliketrains365 well the issue is scripture. People who believe in say the Bible think the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that everything was created in its current state. By accepting evolution as fact and not ignoring evidence, they say that the Bible is wrong in the story of creation, so why would it be correct in the rest?
It's fine to believe in a creator and accept evolution as fact but when it comes to scripture, there's always an issue so people ignore it :s
SpazzK 1 month ago
@Iliketrains365 And your evidence for such a belief?
MysteryDrive 1 month ago
12 creationists downrated this
GrenadeCatcher 1 month ago
What a complete load of shit
Quindal 1 month ago
@Quindal
Have we another thoroughly brainwashed religious nut here?
vancouvermild 2 weeks ago
@vancouvermild Need you ask? Lol
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@vancouvermild I wouldn't call you a nut, but definitely religious.
Quindal 2 weeks ago
this video made me happy... then i scrolled down to the comments...
zazismrx 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The beauty of science is that it is never fearful of admitting it may have been wrong. In fact it encourages and hungers for this continual revision, it is it's charter. This humility has served to validate it's existence. It's constituents are truth zealots, not spilling blood in an attempt to avoid alienating those who discover truth through words from outside lips. They spread no paranoid propaganda birthed from the ignorant rantings of dogma, our planets deadliest disease
saganemc2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm Carl Sagan. Just how old is our planet? Scientists believe it's four b HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD. Scientists have determined that the universe was cerated by a s GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD ig bang. If you look at the bones of a JESUS aurus rex, it's clear, by the use of carbon dating tha MOUNT'N DEW IS THE BEST SODA EVER MADE.
caporalchef4 2 months ago
1:57: "...without serious contemplation by the crabs"; 5:40: "...evolve on slow stages on their own from... grandfather clocks." You have to appreciate Carl Sagan's sense of humor.
jedirambo 2 months ago
That crabs shell look just more symetric than a human
UtINN 3 months ago
@UtINN It is found in Honshu, a japanese island.
paddymoep 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate 1
Praise belongs to God, the Lord of all Being, 2
the All-merciful, the All-compassionate, 3
the Master of the Day of Doom. 4
Thee only we serve; to Thee alone we pray for succour. 5
Guide us in the straight path, 6
the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those against whom Thou art wrathful, nor of those who are astray. 7
for more information type this in google "thedeenshow"
akeello 3 months ago
the only thing i disagree with him in this video is where he says "evolution isnt a theory, but a fact" evolution is a theory, and a fact.
420simpson 3 months ago
@420simpson
You're smart! I was thinking the same way. HOWEVER, I think Carl's well aware of the technical distinctions in vocabulary. I think Carl was giving a comprehensible explanation for the sake of the layperson audience. In other words, he knows the viewing audience is overwhelmingly non-scientist. I STRONGLY suspect this because people say I'm an excellent communicator - and when I'm explaining otherwise highly technical concepts, I often over-simplify for the sake of communication.
vancouvermild 3 months ago
omg i want to go to hell to visit all non believers, lots of great scientist and philosophers.
hell would be heaven :P
extreem573 3 months ago 4
@extreem573 Now that's a scary thought, isn't it? So's is its corrolary: Heaven would be hell.
therealfriday13th 3 months ago
@therealfriday13th or both would be heaven one with the great scientist other one without, hmm... both are not scary at all if you think about it, but both does not exist either.
extreem573 3 months ago
Heads up guys there is a planned "Cosmos" sequel set for a 2013 release. It will be produced by Ann Dryuan (Sagan's widow) and Seth Mcfarlene and be hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson
misinglink15 4 months ago 20
I want everyone to discover Carl Sagan.. I only just learned about him these past few years (after saying 'Hey, I remember him from my childhood!'). He's an incredible person with a gift for explaining things in a perfect way/
thisisonlyatest1 4 months ago
Comment removed
danielderbyshire 4 months ago
@CthuluHasChannel hahaha
danielderbyshire 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sometimes I think that YouTube hires out people to make silly anti-evolution, anti-science comments just to keep these threads going. Call me a rose-spectacled
optimist but there can't be THAT many ignorant idiots in the world...can there?
throbgrist 4 months ago
Comment removed
throbgrist 4 months ago
I haven't seen one comment that is against evolution on this video. Right on.
Circa9993 4 months ago
@Circa9993 That's because Satan made it so to fool true believers in the One, Jesus Christ our savior! Repent and be saved you pitiful blasphemer!
HubbellKent 4 months ago
@HubbellKent kill yourself as soon as possible.
Circa9993 4 months ago
@Circa9993 Why would I do that? Suicide is a filthy sin!
HubbellKent 4 months ago
Well like Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Rockyzach88 4 months ago
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 DNA is indeed information but it is NOT human information.Thus you can't assume that someone HAD to place it there.
Stevoukos 5 months ago
@Mogley52
I'm assuming you don't know how DNA was formed. The forming of DNA itself took quite a while and started off as no more than a basic organic compound that was formed in the primitive stages of the earth. Chemical experiments done can form these building blocks in DNA, and the conditions to create those were common in primitive earth due to the high amounts of energy because of the lack of an ozone layer. These building blocks formed together by chem. reactions and the DNA was formed.
ItsBarryBurton 4 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived if their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 I have yet to see any creationist define the word "kind" Please define it.
Second, evolution does not say that humans evolved from worms, in the same way it says humans did not evolve from monkeys. Because monkeys and worms are MODERN creatures. Evolution does not happen from modern creature to modern creature. It happens between ancient precursors and modern creatures. Monkey species and the human species used to be one species. Modern monkeys are our cousins, not our ancestors.
multicaal2 4 months ago
Did you ever notice Carl Sagan looks similar to the former politician and whore master John Edwards?
metalsusa1 5 months ago
@metalsusa1 Not really. If anything, John Edwards looks like John Ritter.
ZiMZiLLA 5 months ago
I can imagine a christian trying to cover their ears right now
3dimensionalJoe 6 months ago
@3dimensionalJoe yeah and then they flame the comments -_-
why don't they just ignore it?
calleohr 4 months ago
When people try to discount evolution, I think they really fail to grasp how long a few billion years is.
GiraffeColin 6 months ago
@GiraffeColin That's because to them it's thousands of years just like the bible says.
metalsusa1 5 months ago
Thumbs up for the CRAB SAMURAI #LOL
MrParombo 6 months ago
Adaptation of lifeforms are the key to evolution. We don't see an apple tree growing in the deserts. We don't see snakes with wings to fly. They may have evolved thru time but have disappeared because they cannot adapt. Those that can adapt remained. If human are not what we are now, we may have adapted to live on stars, anywhere in the space. The complexity of human is not by a snap of the finger but rather through adaptations. Just like the plants, they grow on environmental adaptations.
number99my 6 months ago
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THESE 9 PEOPLE DISLIKED THIS??? OBVIOUSLY GINGERS...they have no souls...
batka6255 6 months ago
@Bill1275w "Oogah boogah Jeebus" Haha, that made me laugh so freaking hard.
MrARandomPerson 7 months ago
Religious thinker = Oxymoron Religious Scholar = Oxymoron Religious believer = Moron.
onebaud 7 months ago
@onebaud things may appear as paradoxes when two things are mistaken as one, such as spiritualism and religion, because they can (but don't have to) exist in the same space/time/dimensional point.
Bullpuma 6 months ago
Carl Sagans voice pisses me off lol
maxwellpassion 7 months ago
@maxwellpassion agreed. its "H"umans, not oomans. Sounds like he should be talking to miss piggy.
Thebustermann 6 months ago
i love listening to him say "humans".... youuuumans....
sagan!
justinoakley999 7 months ago
it seems that you guys worship carl sagan....
madjack141 7 months ago
@CthuluHasChannel ok. I'm waiting. oh, and, GOD BLESS YOU!!!!!!
madjack141 7 months ago
Ahhh enjoy the calmness of reason
Pesles 7 months ago
@CthuluHasChannel
I think we can strike the sapiens part.
Quintinohthree 7 months ago
What year is this? We are at the point where truth doesn't seem to matter-
People seem to revel in their lack of knowledge. We had better figure out why they refuse to accept facts or we are likely to- de-evolve. They attack learning and "city folk" like in the middle ages......
troybirch 8 months ago
Age of earth: 4.5 Billion Years
Age of 1st unicellular Life: 3.5 Billion Years
Age of multicellular Life: 1 billion Years
Age of complex animals and Land Plants: 500 Million Years
Age of the human species: 200,000 Years
Conclusion: it took 3 billion years for life to get out of the water, Evolution is a long long journey, and a fact. Fossils, Geologie and recently Genetics proves it!
samirforce29 8 months ago 44
@samirforce29
You may not hesitate to add that it takes 32 years to count out loud to 1 billion.
chibraxial 6 months ago
@samirforce29
do you think evolution is powerful enough to form a space going creature? that could travel from planet to planet.
DataSe7en 4 months ago
Unfortunately, evolution is just a theory, a bloody good theory in my opinion, but a theory none the less. Religion, however, does not represent an alternative theory!
danielderbyshire 8 months ago
@danielderbyshire Unforunate?? Just a theory?? A theory is the ultimate goal in science! A scientific theory (not 'theory' as in the colloquialism) is backed by observable, testable, peer reviewed evidence...etc,etc, blah blah.
iainreekiecouk 7 months ago
@Philosopher857 Heh. I've had creationist nutjobs argue to me that the fossils we have dug up from ages passed have been deliberately put there by supernatural forces to deceive us. Thus far, I haven't seen a single comment or gesture from you that would suggest you're in any way different from said nutjobs, so I'm going to put 2 and 2 together.
Considering that you just hinted you indeed believe the Earth to be 6000 years old, my assessment of your mental stability seems to have been spot on.
GluttonForSex 8 months ago
@GluttonForSex LOL, that's hilarious and I agree. Good job dude.
spareaxe 7 months ago
I read the Conservapedia article on Carl Sagan. They portray him as a deluded atheist pot head. It deeply saddened me.
Diemedes 8 months ago
@Philosopher857 As an aside, one thing which baffles me about you fruitcakes is the manner in which you exclusively sinlge out biology for these kinds of disinformation campaigns. The geological discovery that this Earth is nearly 6 billion years of age, and not 6000 as the bible claims, is every bit as devastating to this book its pretenses as some source of objective truth. And yet, you never target geology in the way you do biology.
It really illustrates a certain disconnect from reality.
GluttonForSex 8 months ago
@Philosopher857 Heheh. I'd say you're either with the Templeton Foundation or the Discovery Institute, or someone who is in need of an experienced psychiatrist.
The Foundation/Institute remark stems from how practiced you are in ignoring arguments regarding the sheer accuracy of Darwin's thesis, the fossil records and modern DNA comparisons while circling straight back to repeating your original statements. The psychiatrist remark stems from your closing sentence about how "aliens did it".
GluttonForSex 8 months ago
@Philosopher857 Anything from the studies originally made by Charles Darwin to the fossil record to modern-day comparisons of genetic sets verify evolution as a fact.
As for your comment it canot be observed directly--neither can you observe aging directly by looking at yourself in a mirror. Compare pictures from several different years, however, and a gradual change in your features becomes readily apparent. So, too, when comparing members of the same species over large expanses of time.
GluttonForSex 8 months ago
@Philosopher857 It's ok, I fully understand your point, but you will never observe Macroevolution in your lifetime because. 1. Evolution is very, very slow 2. we have very short lives average life expectancy for us is 75 years. You will not observe phenotype (seen observed) changes only genotype (DNA/RNA/mDNA) changes. Evidence point to fossil bones of blue whales once had legs and walked on land, they have a link with the Manatees, Hippopotamus & Dolphins. It's alot of research so read on mDNA.
hexidecimalAFF0 8 months ago
@Philosopher857 O.K. let me explain in other terms. from Ancestors tale, if you have hot water at 100 degrees Celsius what is the temp that separates it from hot to cold, 0 Deg Celsius. It's difficult to establish an Integer on the Hot/cold cut-off point. Every degree drop is micro and when it reach 0 it's Macro. That's all! Another tool that was used to connect all living things on the planet is called Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) this shows the mother/child link in all species on the Earth.
hexidecimalAFF0 8 months ago
@Philosopher857 If you read Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins, it will very much explain the Micro v.s. Macro Evolution that you doubt. Remember Macroevolution came from Microevolution, it takes billions of years for the beauty and diversity of Flora and fauna. That is what Mr. Sagan is trying to say, if artificial selection can produce results in few thousand years, imagine what billions of years can give. Reasons people don't believe it because 1. Evolution is very slow 2. We die quickly!
hexidecimalAFF0 8 months ago
My intellect gets an orgasm by listening to sagan.
Ryalnotch 9 months ago
Comment removed
musicnottee 9 months ago
evolution for dumies in other words
VarykGerai 10 months ago
Comment removed
Sonyoooo3 10 months ago
Comment removed
Sonyoooo3 10 months ago
@Sonyoooo3 maybe, but really, how much sense does that make. "And God put angry samurai faces on all of the crabs on the land, so they may live happily ever after!"... I won't buy it, personally. He just explained why the shell forms a human face-like shape and how it continues, and why there is no true purpose and how indifferent the universe/ecosystem is, you don't necessarily need to have a god for things to happen, that's silly. Of course, there might just be one, or two, or a thousand.
StOnion 10 months ago
Comment removed
Sonyoooo3 10 months ago
Comment removed
Sonyoooo3 10 months ago
Comment removed
Sonyoooo3 10 months ago
@StOnion Every creature gives the angry faces. There is logic of when seing this emage it somehow reflects and show that all creature within them had the same and different angry samurai faces and for the creature that understand this emage might save theyre life one day.
Sonyoooo3 10 months ago
Carl ain't dead. He just went home.
paramedicguyER 10 months ago
heike crab
MrWaltThizzney 10 months ago
i got lost in his words and then the video ended unexpectedly... that upset me very much :(
marcarmstrong88 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How much fun is this making video's .. When you have time come visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How much fun is this making video's .. When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 10 months ago
it just fucking baffles me that people will deny evolution, that has mountains of evidence to support it and replace it with 2000 year old creation theory written by a bunch of superstitious goat-herders that didn't know jack shit about science.
hempartist420 10 months ago 14
@hempartist420 replace? hm. well, the creation "theory" has been around longer than the evolution concept. OH and that evidence that you say supports it really actually supports creation. Do ou really think all the beauty in the world happened by chance? every single complicated thing in this world-random?
madjack141 7 months ago
@madjack141 lol, what a jumble of incomplete thoughts you've managed to join together, you said,
"the creation theory has been around longer than the evolution concept",
-really Sherlock? you mean just like the flat earth theory was around before the round earth theory? like the spitting on a wound theory was around before germ theory? shall I go on?
"Do ou really think all the beauty in the world happened by chance?"
who said it happened by chance? do research please...
hempartist420 7 months ago 44
This has been flagged as spam show
@hempartist420 i wonder if god is like water. god cannot be singular or plural. god is simply god.
the same way water is not "waters" or "a water". water is simply water. evolution may happen through other ways other than natural selection theory.
Bullpuma 6 months ago
@hempartist420 "evolution is a fact, not a theory. it really happened!" when the first creationist understands the difference between a scientific theory and hypothesis, mankind will be saved. his intellectual powers will give him advantages over dumbasses and he will have many, many smart children. unfortunately religious people have more children... like mel gibson. he has more children than the alien-queen.
UberTankred 6 months ago
@UberTankred yes, sadly the dumbest among us usually procreate excessively, if there is a god, he sure hates people with braincells...
hempartist420 6 months ago
@UberTankred that#s why the us will be fucked within the next five years. the country will turn into a somalian-style shithole and my sons will go there for sex-vacations with underage prostitutes. all that thanks to the republican party thank you, republicans!!! :DDD
UberTankred 6 months ago
@hempartist420 what is flawed is the theory of HOW evolution happened. fossil records prove natural selection is not the primal driver of evolution, because fossil records show evolution to be not slow changes, but sudden bursts of change. darwin admitted this was a flaw in his theory. but back in his day, there were not enough fossils gathered to observe this. To many people overlook the fact the fossil records do NOT support natural selection.
Bullpuma 6 months ago
« but sudden bursts of change »
That does not contradict natural selection. What it does is contradict the notion that evolution is an entirely gradualistic process. It is not: since Darwin first proposed his model, we have learned a lot about population dynamics and population genetics. How evolutionarily stable strategies switch between stable plateaux is one of the things we learned.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@Bullpuma no fossil records do NOT refute natural selection, when you say "sudden bursts of change" you mean sudden bursts of change over MILLIONS of years, and we are incredibly lucky to get any fossils at all, just because there are "gaps" in the fossil record doesn't mean there weren't transitional species. And your right about Darwin not having enough fossils to observe this, and the fossil has proven to support darwin, not refute him... natural selection is observed daily anyway.
hempartist420 6 months ago
@hempartist420 There is also The Fibonacci Sequence that appears so often in nature, both in living, and inanimate objects. These such as the spiral of a galaxy and bones in a human arm. Such synchronicity has no survival or reproductive value. Yet it appears everywhere.
Bullpuma 6 months ago
« Yet it appears everywhere »
As the fine structure constant, or the charge of an electron, or the rest mass of a tau neutrino. These are simply fundamental constants, patterns produced by natural behaviour.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@Bullpuma Cont.) I don't understand your point about the Fibonacci Sequence, The Fibonacci sequence is a pattern in nature, and just because something doesn't have any survival or reproductive value doesn't meant that it can't be perpetuated in nature. You need to explain how the Fibonacci sequence in any way conflicts with natural selection... or evolution for that matter
hempartist420 6 months ago
I wish I was that dandelion.
creasonbryan 11 months ago
I always questioned the stupidity of the bible, believers and God since I was 10yo. Carl Sagan was an even greater influence than people looking absolutely moronic trying to defend religion and God's existence
jimo1150 11 months ago
now i know why i get crabby!Where do crabs catch the train from?The cruststation
ziglag3333 11 months ago
Evolution is a fact, not a theory, it really did happen... Sagan For the Win!!!
hexidecimalAFF0 11 months ago 42
@hexidecimalAFF0 hexidecimal for the loss! Too bad you don't have a brain enough to see that evolution is theory AT BEST.
tpstrat14 10 months ago
@tpstrat14 hello, I will have more decorum in addressing your plight. Lay-people use the word 'Theory lossely'. Definition. A theory consist a set of basic priniciples from which many predictions can be deduced. The basic principles involved in the theory are often widely accepted by scientists working in the field.
Because many lay-people say oh! it's just a 'theory' that it has no crediblity. And personally I think the word theory shall be dropped entirely as it has gained astounding support.
hexidecimalAFF0 10 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 Actually evoltution hasn't yet been prooven. See Charles Darwin's Origan of the Species. He states "My 'theory' does not explain the evolution of man." As suprising as it may seem,Darwin was religous. His theory of evolution has been manipualted over the years to the point that the modern interpretation of his book is nothing like what he stated to begin with. Read it, you may be suprised.
DiligentEthics 9 months ago
@DiligentEthics you have to understand that Mr. Darwin really studied more on diversity of plants & animals in his travel, and I know he was religious, but so was Galileo & Copernicus, but they had a solid ground, remember as time goes by more things are discovered and Darwin himself will approve. And to enlightening you, Richard Dawkins Ancestors Tale shows how they trace back all of humanity using Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) which is very effective. Science is self correcting Evolution is a fact.
hexidecimalAFF0 9 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 I understand your point and I agree, but let me add, this will never end - the arguement between science and religion. You can find magnitudes of information supporting science and equally many points suppporting religion, maybe not for zues but for christianity yes. It all depends on what you believe. Many years ago people believed the world was flat. What will we believe tomorrow. My point isn't to stop searching for answers, but simply realize that anything is possible.
DiligentEthics 9 months ago
@DiligentEthics Ah well I can mutually agree with you on that. But still you seems to hold onto some reservations on evolution. But tell me, are you deeply concerned that evolution will put humanity from the center of the universe like what the heliocentric model of the universe did? It shouldn't do that I hope, and I will never stop looking for answers. The word Sciences is, 'to know'. But I will assure you, science is making groundbreaking discoveries. So my good friend, happy researching!
hexidecimalAFF0 9 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 I don't quite understand you're question. In my opinion we are obviously not the center of the universe, but anyway, happy researching. It seems we can't just accept things as theories, you and I, or maybe we need to know as much as possible so that we can be the supplier of truth rather than the babbling opinion forcer we dispise. Either way, thats the best way to go about things I think - read and learn as much as possible. Good luck to you!
DiligentEthics 9 months ago
@DiligentEthics Hi again. The word theory is what keeps evolution from being accepted. Laypersons & scientist use the word differently. Definition: "theory consist basic principles which many predictions can be deduced, basic principles in a theory are often widely accepted by scientist working in the field". I understand that things can change & I will change to the paradigm shift. But over & over evolution has gotten stronger using mDNA (mitochondrial) Theory > Hypothesis. Regards mate!
hexidecimalAFF0 9 months ago
@DiligentEthics Darwin wrote that in 1859.
wideheadofknowledge 9 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 I'm afraid you're quite wrong. Ancient art depicts "dragons" or dinosaurs throughout all of their art. The ubiquity of it can't be argued against. Moreover, we have unfossilized dinosaur bones and fossilized human bones. Mary Schweitzer found an unfossilized T-Rex bone and said it smelled like a cadaver. According to reputable testimonies, there may be extant living dinosaurs in the Amazon, Congo, Papua New Guniea and Australian outback.
lomertamahon1 9 months ago
@lomertamahon1 Greetings! I'm a bit confused on what i'm wrong on, if evolution's a fact. I looked on Ms. Schweitzer, she helped made the bird-dinosaur connection which I know & Dr. Sagan said himself. It seems you're vouching for a young Earth as you mentioned unfossilized T-Rex & fossilized humans. Creationist cited her work for a young Earth but fossilization takes millions of yrs, I guess she's a Christian, they believed her! Mitochondrial DNA is the method for tracing evolutionary process.
hexidecimalAFF0 9 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 Many prominent Orthodox Christians are evolutionists, such as B B Warfield, C S Lewis, Edard John Carnell, Teilard De Chardin and so on. However, not as a matter of theology, but of science, I find it a very absurd viewpoint. Fossilization has been shown to occur over a matter of a few hundred years, not millions of years. I think its bad science. There is no evidence to support it.
lomertamahon1 9 months ago
@lomertamahon1 Ok cool about the Orthodox Christians but, nevertheless, fossils are the icing on the cake, but it's mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) that links all of our ancestors together, & other method is called radiocarbon dating, with using half lives of the elements, with uranium having a half life of 4.5 billion years, age of the Earth, so it's not bad science i'll call it. Then there's cosmic evolution which take a long time. Fossils are great but there's other methods out there to use. Thanks.
hexidecimalAFF0 9 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 The reason I mentioned how many prominent Christians believe in evolution is to show that, should you give your life to Jesus Christ for your salvation, you don't have to let evolution be a stumbling block. Unfortunately, many Christians harp on that topic too much. I use to. Not any more until I got more theologically mature. The medievals had a saying, a man who has himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client. You want Jesus Christ to redeem you before the Father.
lomertamahon1 9 months ago
@lomertamahon1 but there's one major problem, not all 6 billion of us are Christians or religious. That is your personal preference for salvation which doesn't apply to everyone. And pronouncements of authority doesn't matter to science. Before, many Christian reject evolution & now they do, science did not care about them, it works independently from religion. Just because prominent Christians believe in evolution you turn to Christ, other religions believe in evolution also, it's not valid.
hexidecimalAFF0 9 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 That's not my point. Jesus Christ, unlike other religious leaders, was prophecied of for over a thousand years, and rose from the dead to prove His claims. The Gospels represent testimony. Great legal scholars became Christian after examining the veracity of the Gospel testimony. The miracle of life coming from a rock demands far greater faith than a guy rising from the dead.
lomertamahon1 9 months ago
@lomertamahon1 just to let you know, Christianity is nothing special, there were more older Egyptian religions before, all religion is a re-hearse of more older ones, Christianity from old Egypt, Islam from Christianity, the bible writers try to make sense of the universe, even today we're a million times better off than them and not everything is known, but to listen to them over 2000 yrs ago. I wish a time machine could bring them here and see how far science reached. they'll be blown-away.
hexidecimalAFF0 9 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 There is certainly great wisdom amongst other religions, but Jesus Christ wiped away all of the fog. Jesus taught that all of the commandments reduce to love, love God with your heart soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. If people had that kind of love, there would be no murder, lying, cheating and so on. I have yet to hear any of the other religions emphasize love as a fundamental principle.
lomertamahon1 8 months ago
@lomertamahon1 wow! you deviated from the video subject to this but i'll respond. Jainism, that religion is so loving that they belief even insects/vermin have souls & must be respected/never killed. Christianity or religion does not have a monopoly on morality. I respect humanity as a whole, remember our morals come from within us, whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, all humans have the propensity for love, it is better to be good it is called reciprocal altruism.
hexidecimalAFF0 8 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 I deviated from the video subject because I was responding to your comment to me. Spear me the sophistry. Nevertheless, you show yourself quite ignorant of ancient religions. You're importing Christian morality and Christian concepts into your reading of ancient pagan religions.
lomertamahon1 8 months ago
@lomertamahon1 That is exactly what religion is, they take certain concepts from older ones to suit their pious needs. The same Christianity morals you talk about; love, affection be faithful to your fellow man, sharing, caring, gratefulness are not mutually exclusive to Christianity. Where I live we have multiple religions and the same basic characteristics of morality you describe is the same I see in all people. Carl Sagan has a video on ancient religions, you can look for than also.
hexidecimalAFF0 8 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 let me tell you soemthing...did you know even darwin himself didnt believe in his own theory?
madjack141 7 months ago
@madjack141 I have heard this story time and time again, and let me tell you, "It is not true" Christan scholars (Noblewoman, Lady Hope) made up a death bed conversion to god for Darwin and ever since, we have to deal with this myth over, & over & over, again & again & again... And even if it bears 0.00000001% truth, there are many new sciences and technology and people to back-it up, research and development for many years to show and even more work to be done. So keep on believing the myth!
hexidecimalAFF0 7 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 quantum physics defies all known science, and the exception to everything we know. natural selection cannot explain why everyone can discern emotion from music. what survival value would such knowledge be? fossil records oppose natural selection, yet evolution can still happen, just not in the way darwin described. evolution and creationism appear to contrast, because the idea of what these concepts are, is not complete.
Bullpuma 6 months ago
« quantum physics defies all known science »
That's nonsense. That's the same as saying that relativity theory defies all known science. Both *ARE* science, scientific explanatory models for observed phenomena.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« natural selection cannot explain why everyone can discern emotion from music »
What!? Listen, even if those two subjects are related, there not being an answer to some question does not mean that whatever new-age-hippie-quantum-mysticism-bullshit you came up with becomes any more plausible as an answer, nincompoop.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@Bullpuma I love Quantum physics, but classical science still stands, just like Newtonian physics it didn't crash with relativity, it was only supplemented to explain the micro-world. With emotion & music, you're getting into philosophy which even I myself don't understand why we don't discern it. Fossils are a bonus, but not a must, ice cores, radio-carbon dating, adaptation are just a few methods. We have no excuse to give up just because things look supernatural and shows quantum weirdness.
hexidecimalAFF0 6 months ago
@hexidecimalAFF0 but how it happened is in question. natural selection has major flaws involving fossil records, so if evolution is going from one species to another, then it was not gradual, but in quick spurts. Or maybe species didn't evolve into other species, but all species evolve. Or there are many contributing factors to evolution. there is no way that natural selection is the prime driver of evolution.
Bullpuma 6 months ago
It hit me all at once when he said "Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. It REALLY happened". He's standing there, mysteriously. And since God doesn't exist, he must have appeared somehow, so therefore evolution is really the only way in an atheist's mind. But no matter how sophisticated a proof for evolution you want to throw out there, it will always be backed by an overarching assumption of evolution. It is circular reasoning at its best and it is really quite hilarious!
tpstrat14 11 months ago
@tpstrat14 Carl Sagen never said anything about there being no God. You are confused. What circular reasoning!!Yeah, okay; The people who have immersed themselves in the most reasoned and logical methodology ever known to man kind are using "circular reasoning." ARE YOU INSANE, OR JUST STUPID! Science is based on logic and reasoning! You think tens of thousands of the smartest people who have ever lived got it wrong, and you SOMEHOW understand it better. That is too pitiful to be hilarious!
chedillychedilly1 11 months ago
@tpstrat14 Except that there are literally thousands of pieces of tangible evidence that you can see for yourself which proves that evolution is FACT. Yet you'd rather believe in a book written by ignorant, superstitious men. Most of them were uneducated and illiterate. Whats your excuse?
MrTruthAddict 11 months ago 3
@tpstrat14 please, demonstrate where this "circular reasoning" in evolution is.
VarykGerai 10 months ago
@VarykGerai Every proof for evolution has evolution as ITS proof. In other words, since we did in fact evolve, evolution is fact. Do you really not see this circular reasoning in the theory??
tpstrat14 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tpstrat14 "In other words, since we did in fact evolve, evolution is fact" thats not circular reasoning, thats not reasoning, infact thats not even a coherent sentence. "we did in fact evolve" and "evolution is fact" phrases mean exactly the same, that is - the process of evolution occured, and neither of these are used to demonstrate others validity, thats just your retarded understanding of it.
VarykGerai 10 months ago
@tpstrat14 youre braind dead mate. Evolution is fact because it can be demonstrated in a lab, predictions can be done, the mechanism that drives evolution is used in breeding. it has been observed in nature ffs!
VarykGerai 10 months ago
@tpstrat14
I think you need to watch this video again, you don't seem to understand this concept very well.
I hope everything clicks into place for you, good luck!
jordaniothefourth 10 months ago
@jordaniothefourth I hope that for you too! Life is tough. But evolution sure as hell doesn't "click" anything into place. I'm sorry you have been brainwashed by science. Your finite mind isn't the only vessel of truth. I hope you figure that out sooner than later.
tpstrat14 10 months ago
@tpstrat14
I never said my mind was the only vessel of truth.
The only truth that we know is that which can be proved.
Try replacing your words "evolution" and "science" with "blind faith" and "Christianity." Which version makes more sense, mine or yours?
jordaniothefourth 10 months ago
@jordaniothefourth Read about Mary Schweitzer's discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones and tell me if you're still 100% sure that those dinosaur bones are 65 million years old. The MAXIMUM decomposition time they gave to soft tissue in bones was 100,000 years UNTIL they found soft tissue in them. 5 years ago. Now they must rethink bone decay in order to persist in their delusions.
tpstrat14 9 months ago
@jordaniothefourth My point being this: your statement is 100% true. The only truth is that which can be proven. There is not a single shred of proof for evolution in any scientific field. NOT ONE. So why do we still believe in such religion?!?!
tpstrat14 9 months ago
@tpstrat14 No proof for evolution? Please learn some Key Stage 3 biology before making comments like that...
NerdyIncorporated 9 months ago
ANA RAK!
666cccccc 11 months ago
The thing I like most about Carl Sagan is that he states all of his positions without pointing fingers.
XM8rifle 11 months ago
Evolution still does not answer how a transitional form, let's say from a lizard to a bird survives the period of time where it is neither good at running or flying.
If it's successful enough to survive as a transitional form, then it wouldn't need to evolve.
Evolution a fact? Still looking for the kind of proof I'm expected to provide in hard sciences to move from theory to fact. All I find is conjecture, leaps of imagination and hypothesis that require as much faith as intelligent design.
swdw973 1 year ago
@swdw973 A few things: Evolution is a byproduct of survival, not the other way round as you suggest.
You're using the vernacular definition of theory instead of the scientific definition. There's a huge amount of factual evidence that's disqualified every other theory except for evolution. Because of this, evolution is the only theory that explains all the facts as currently in evidence.
Mutation, selection, speciation, all observed and documented in the wild and in the lab. Facts make theories
Crioca 1 year ago
@swdw973 Ever heard of enviromental changes? If enviroment where okish flyign and okish running is survivable changes to where you either need to run fast or fly good, creatures that fly good or run fast will branch out, because doing both decently not enough to compete with the other 2. You failed at understanding mechanism of natural selection yet you dare arguing about it.
VarykGerai 10 months ago
There are still a lot of laws that govern inheritance (and Biology for that matter) that we do not yet understand. We can only keep trying.
UltraDroog 1 year ago
I could listen to his voice all day. It's like music that makes you smarter.
wickedpissa25 1 year ago 41
@DonHamburger communications for Genetic Savings and Clone, in Sausalito, California, they clone cats! and when they clone one the fur is never the same! look it up!
franktastikart 1 year ago
@franktastikart Your genetics are certainly the major player in the phenotypes you posses, but don't think they are the only factors! Just because you HAVE certain genes, doesn't mean they are switched on! Also, hormonal changes during the gestation period, and also hormonal changes during life play an important role.
Ozzah 11 months ago
@Ozzah if your referring to the cats and there coloring/spots, then you are partly right. the main thing behind it is the RNA.
franktastikart 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonHamburger hay dumb ass! did you look it up yet! the DNA of Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body, something that human twins do not have all the time! look it up! and when they make a clone of a cat/dog. the fur is never the same as the original copy. look that up to!
franktastikart 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonHamburger the DNA of Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body, look it up!
franktastikart 1 year ago
@DonHamburger the DNA of Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body, look it up!
franktastikart 1 year ago
No homo, Carl Sagan is my Man crush. An honest to god hero of mine.
tokagekobushi 1 year ago
7 people have been lied to by Kirk Cameron
Okida22 1 year ago
Cal Shagan is legend
empv2 1 year ago
I really liked that he mentioned Wallace's role in the theory, if only briefly.
Shika235 1 year ago
@Shika235 yes, poor Wallace is often overlooked.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
This guy... this guy! THIS GUY! I LOVE HIM!
YetAnthony 1 year ago
"uhman"
ripsaw111 1 year ago
Can someone say what is the music playing at 6:00?
Thanks.
outonimi 1 year ago
"The more you look like a samurai, the better your chances of survival."
Good advice for life!
crocochicken 1 year ago
He sounds Like Agent Smith from The Matrix!!!! LMFAO
Jojocapri2 1 year ago
@Jojocapri2
no, agent smith sounds like carl and actually Hugo Weaving studied carl's voice for his role in the matrix.
flashoftruth 1 year ago
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago