Why can't this show get political? In the US one of the parties is CLEARLY in bed with the fundies, and atheists who vote for the right-wing are completely morons anyway. Unless you're a billionaire, the right is going to A) fuck you up and B) give more power to the fundies. Plus right-wing atheists are a minority, why not just say fuck 'em? You can't work with right-wingers. Right-wingers want to steamroll over you, so you gotta kick them in the nuts, not compromise. They see that as weakness.
I had phased solids in my possession when I was Christian. Know what I did with those?! I gave them away like a careless idiot as if they were meaningless and thought that some supernatural nonsence was supposed to just happen in our world. Nobody believes me now, except my Mother, becuase it's against modern physics. (I sure diserve the insults to, now that I think about it.) See, mother saw the items before and after the phase happened! I should have kept those! DAM ME!
For a laymen, not accepting evolution has no impact on society. But when they try to tell other people that evolution is wrong, that's dangerous. Pushing your religious views on other people is always dangerous, period.
@SoViciousOh You said, "God: Created nature and everything encompassing nature".
That is SPECIFICALLY attributing something to a deity.
I'm just going by what YOU said.
In the minds of many religious people, science DOES shake their ridiculous faith because they believe that every word is true and any scientific finding to the contrary must be the work of the devil...until they get sick. Then they go to the doctor like the rest of us.
Reality (like, say, the fact of evolution and the fact of human-induced global warming) has the nasty habit of not going away if you don't believe in it. Creationists and global-warming deniers can deny the reality of these things, but that doesn't make them any less factual. Eventually, evolution and global warming will come around and bite them in the ass. Sadly, in the mean time these morons can cause very much harm.
If you're going to reject science, why don't we get rid of all the educated, trained fields? Doctors are already gone in this scenerio. Then we'd get rid of lawyers, polititians (hey, this isn't sounding too bad), accountants, buisnesspeople, historians, journalists, ...Let's see a world run by strictly those with no education or special training in any field. If science has it wrong, the rest probably do, too, following that logic.
I like the point the caller Julie makes. Creationists should be asked if there are any other major accepted scientific theories (gravity, relativity, heliocentric solar system, germ theory of illness, Mendelian inheritance to name a few) that they reject or is it just evolution.
concerning atheism is it not as though we have some alternative universe where we can observe a bunch of conscious beings dreaming up a god.There is only this reality and it so happens that while we have examples of individuals accepting the existence of things which most of us dispute none of us, i still say, have an example of individuals dreaming up Gods which have no basis in reality we only have the word and merely plausible arguments of atheists.So why would one reject God's existence ?
Because you like to believe it? Because it feels so warm?
The problem is, just like with peeing your pants, the warm feeling is not all that comes with the belief in God.
Most of the side effects are very negative. Reality shows that and history shows that. Stupidity drummed into people's heads because of their books proves that, intolerance hatred and violence prove that. Ignorance proves that.
@TheTruthgeneral maybe evidence for gods existance would settle the issue?! Because there is not just one religion, there are many, and they cannot all be correct, but they can all be wrong.
And unless you can provide real evidence, it is better to not believe.
evolution is a well supported assertion however i won't go around saying oh not agreeing with science is dangerous we are going to get aids cus we are going to deny it blah blah blah
@TheTruthgeneral Really? You think a willful denial of objectively demonstrated science is not dangerous? Treating the scientific reality of HIV and AIDS is somehow trivial ("blah blah blah") and treating it trivially or incorrectly won't cause people to get it? I think the fatal disease rates of Africa, and every other 3rd world shithole that is lacking in basic scientific understanding of pathogenic vectors, is pretty strong evidence to refute your dismissive attitude.
Actually they know everything that happened in the Big Bang from just a few millionths of a second after it began. And they're working on finding it all out with that huge LHC machine and so on:)
I posted DarkM video on Noahs ark on my FB. That PO'ed my cousin. A few days later I posted an article on an archeologist discovery of some nails that were used in a crucifixion. Now the archeologist in the article claimed they might be the very nails used on jesus. I thought that part was bs, h/e there is lil physical evidences on crucifixion, so I respect this as good find regardless. My cousin defriended me thinking that article was attacking xianity! She refriended me after reading it!
actually most religious people i know who reject evolution DON'T think its a scientific fact proven beyond reasonable doubt. they are just ignorance of science, they don't think they are actually rejecting science.
@shutmoonshyflower But they - are - rejecting science. Claiming that science is not science can be just as dangerous as discrediting or discarding science. Here we have scientific fact, and whether people try to refute by claiming it's not science, or by claiming that science is irrelevant, is quite irrelevant, isn't it?
@Pomme843 you're right, of course they are rejecting science, and i speak out violently against it, but they just don't think that they are. in their deluded minds they think they are not in conflict with science and some christians i know are actually biology majors...
"global warming and the science behind it" - right, scientific claims are never politicized and people are capable of 100% objectivity. Global warming (caused by our carbon footprints) is absolutely true. Because I'm skeptical of the global warming movement and all its' politics, I'm labeled "anti-scientific"? That's incredibly biased.
@TruthWarriorSheepDog Global Warming is a misnomer used to belittle the point. The correct term is global climate change.
I would also like to point out that while indeed the scientific claims have entered the political arena, both sides are guilty of politicizing their messages.
Unfortunately, if climate change is true, politicizing it may be the only means to slow its progression. The problem is, that now that it has stratified along factional lines in society, the struggle is emotional.
@moopism "If the claim is true..."? It's no longer up for debate. Scientific consenesus makes it clear - anthropogenic global climate change is happening. We don't "debte" gravity do we? No. Why not? B/c it's real. The only people denying it are the wealthy corporations and idiots fooled by them.
@BlameRepublicans I meant "if" only as a rhetorical neutrality because the point I was making was separate from that debate, and I did not wish to enter into it; others are defending global climate change quite well and I only wanted to point out that the term "global warming" is now nothing more than a polemic used by the deniers, while " anthropogenic global climate change " is more accurate AND ,so far, not being used as a political slur.
It wasn't ignorance of science (that people can get HIV in other ways than homosexual sex) that made people shoot at Ryan White's house. It was ignorance of the value of life. And the value of life can't be scientifically proven.
Of course it can. We are social creatures and the stability of our culture and the benefits it provides are all inherently based on the value each individual places on their life, with empathy acting to extend that to others, i.e., if I have value, another must have value as well.
This type of thing is easily demonstrated in many species of social animals, so to say it can't proven is just silly.
please change the title of this.... dear god, its as bad as people who say "evil is life without god" or some other crap. it isnt dangerous to not believe in the many truths that science has given us, but rather ignorant. i lived 14 years of my life not believing in evolution, and i lived just fine. Also, i'm glad i became a student of truth instead of a student of faith.
@perfectshot77 Atheist = not believing in God. The only people who see it as a different word are fundies who consider it a religion in line with evolution and the big bang theory, which it isn't. They should keep the word atheist so they can teach these tards what it really means.
@TheLeardMan Fundies should all be exempt from any usage of anything invented and or discovered through scientific means... When we look enough we find that science and religion do not go well together.
It must come down to either seeing and knowing that science is right or choosing to believe in sky daddy. Who's with me? let's start a petition! No science for believers which would in turn cause earlier death of idiots which would result in a multiplication in rate of the evolution of humanity.
@pokeshmon Dude, totally, then we would have easier lives, no arguing with idiots! I ♥ this idea! Also, we would decreas global warming, because we would all listen to science and start using wave power and what not! Nobel Prize!
@sol3a1 The occurence, global warming or a climate change is something that happens every thousands of years. This is a fact, just like evolution. The only controversy about global warming however is whether it is currently caused by humans or not - which isnt factual at all as of yet.
Yes, climate changes have scientifical evidence supporting them (climate changes in bronze age for example) and just like evolution, it is a fact.
@Flem1337 You're dead right! They've been trying to burn evolution ever since The Origin of Spieces in 1859. And if they could, they'd burn atheists too!
First theists tried to brainwash people into believing in a story book version of 'god' who answers prayers and passes judgment.
When that became ridiculous in light of advancing science, they switched the 'god' to a more scientific-sounding esoteric concept, complete with science lingo, in order to sound dignified and legitimate.
When scientific understanding advances even more the next step will inevitably be the total abandonment of 'god' altogether. Patience, my friends.
@rwasta7007 Something doesn't need to be a theory to be refuted. Infact, to be theory it needs to have been attempted to have been refuted by many people over a period of time. If it survives, then it becomes theory. Creationism fell down at the first hurdle, but people still cling on to it - hense it needs to be refuted at every turn.
@bary1234 I agree with this. However, doing so will not be an easy or pretty affair. Its like a barbed blade that's stuck in someone's back - removing it without killing the person (society) is very difficult.
@andromidius : Well fortunately atheism is rising so fast that problems with society in modern countries are getting easier to handle. There is less and less superstitious fools in modern countries every day,
I disagree..just because you don't accept a scientific fact you shouldn't agree with any..that to me is actually quite ridiculous. You don't believe in evolution so you therefore probably with also disregard science like aids research..that is ridiculous. You need to take into account that the research regarding evolution and dna is quite complex (so above some)and to disregard it poses no threath to your health..not believing aids research could lead to you getting aids..ridiculous arguement!
@SkinnyWmn69 Its the act of disregarding the scientific method. Its a slippery slope. If you deny Evolution, which is proven beyond doubt, then you should deny other things that are less well established and yet important to every day life. Cherry picking is not scientific.
@andromidius you still say if you deny a fact, then you should deny other facts...but people don't, so how can you make them. They still choose to accept the sciences they want to and not others..whether you think they should or not, they do, thats the point. I know evolution is a fact, but if I was so ignorant to think it wasn't a fact, that would have no effect on my life, but if I chose to ignore a medical fact like aids research, that could entirely effect my life. Thats the difference.
@SkinnyWmn69 Its still ignorance. And evolution has had an effect on your life. Its the reason you exist, for one thing. It also helps scientists design new technologies that benefit your life. There's no difference at all.
@andromidius you missed my point..fine,evolution has had an effect by being the reason for existence and helps scientist etc etc no disagreement there..but not accepting that FACT still changes nothing.not accepting facts like aids research could cause me, through ignorance, to get aids. Yes its ignorance, but you still cannot change those people. No matter the way YOU think it should be, people are still accepting scientific facts while rejecting evolution, and will continue w/o your approval.
@andromidius Unfortunately that isn't true. Evolution and theological science is different from practical science. to come up with better technologies scientists look at what they have and often the ones who make the biggest discoveries are the ones not confined what they think they know now about science (Einstein even did this with his relativity theory; dividing by 0 incident) . Both Atheists and Christians confine themselves with the current minuscule knowledge we have of science
@basketballdbomb41 That is the dangerous thing, science is getting ruined by biases on both sides, though more so by politics and money. The scientific hypothesis is being destroyed with scientists going into the study to try and find a certain outcome then disguise it by so easily manipulated numbers and hiding assumptions. It happens both ways but to look at science as truth is, quite disappointing
@basketballdbomb41 The thing is science has peer review. If a scientist skews the data and tries to mis-lead their peers or conducts a sub-par set of experiments any other scientist can and will try to do the same experiments and reveal the flaws or reject it as insuficient. Current findings should be taken with a pinch of salt but established science (such as evolution, gravity, germs, atoms, DNA, etc) should be considered fair and valid because it has had time to survive rigourous challenges.
@FortisConscius I'll just make myself clearer; Science is an ongoing process. The media has a habit of taking 'work in progress' and sensationalising it as as established fact. Just because an experiment was done for the first time and it _seems_ to indicate something doesn't mean that the scientist responsible or the over-excited media get to claim it as proof of anything until it's been investigated further and possible alternative explainations are considered and eliminated.
@TheAtheistExperience Waaaait... I know that guy's a dumbass, but you can't block these people simply on account of stupidity. if you do, you commit the same exact act of censorship as the creationists who block comments on their channels. We're supposed to be the ones who allow such discourse.
@thesideshowman212 I agree. There's no need to block them because anything they say can be easily refuted. Once they start getting really stupid and doing the fingers in the ears and saying "lalalalala", that's when you block them.
@Scarecrow545 Despite his claims to the contrary, no, he's never called the show. The hosts themselves have said, on their blog, that he's free to do so, however.
@splicedenergy I know he called an atheistic radio show in Florida, later claiming on his website, and here on YT, that it was the Atheist Experience. But unless it was very recently that he called TAE, I hadn't heard of him calling in, so yeah, I wouldn't mind a link to it.
@Avicaris My bad, I see one post he made he brought up thier webpage to AE and didn't think there was another atheist radio show. If you hadn't told me there was a differernce I'd still be thinking it was AE. Thinking back now, I should have questioned it. Audio without picture should have been my first clue
Shock pretty much makes his living on misinformation, intellectual dishonesty, and outright lies. It's no surprise he'd claim he "beat" TAE hosts despite never having been on the show before.
@Avicaris The mirrors of it said otherwise. Shocko is a narrsassistic, lying, fundie. I prefer VFX over neph or shock in a heartbeat. Amd prefer Shock over Neph. Neph is sooooo creepy, I'd be nervous if I had to be in the same room with him. Some dudes give off that vibe, and the chick instincts I have, I trust. Much different from being annoying jackass's
@splicedenergy Shock is a coward who hides from any criticism. At least Neph doesn't do that. Though he seems oblivious to being owned or made a fool out of, so he's not much better in that regard. Both would serve the world well by falling down a pit and dying.
@NocredRS you are a troll, i love how you guys now try to turn the tables and by saying the duder being rational is the troll, brilliant, in a dumb waste of time way,
The Overwhelming Majority of Scientific Organizations ACCEPT the Theory of Evolution as the BEST Explanation We have for the Continual Adaptation of Species over a Very long period of Time.
Present the Hypotheses & Scientific Organizations who have attempted to refute The Theory of Evolution Evolution & Let me review their Argument.
@NocredRS Please provide SCIENTIFIC References which Refute Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution has been continually tested thru the Scientific Peer Review Process & ACCEPTED as the BEST EXPLANATION We have for the Continual Adaptation of Species over a Very Long Period of Time.
You need to stop reading creationist web sites & Educate Yourself about SCIENCE !
Remove Your Head from Your ASS.
You've been in living in a State of Willful IGNORANCE !
I also think this label of "denialism" and "denier" is very cynically attached to people who question mainstream scientific theories to specifically invoke the connotations of holocaust denial, thus inferring a certain lack of morality on the part of an individual who has legitimate questions and misgivings about a given subject.
I am an atheist, i believe in evolution and I know many in the atheist community are averse to conspiracy "theory". I believe there is an active depopulation agenda being implemented, by people like the rockefellers (who own the pharmaceutical company that produce RZT which AIDS denialists claim is the cause of AIDS in HIV diagnosed patients). All i would say is study who is funding and who financially benefits from current scientific research and resulting conclusions and products.
There is a flip side to this argument that is just as dangerous.That is the blind, unreasoned belief in current scientific theories that actually are deliberately funded and propogated for political reasons, e.g, man made global warming, which is being challenged by 10's of thousands of scientists all over the world, with evidence in its favour being falsified and fabricated, and is promulgated for the purpose of introducing global carbon taxes. I encourage people to read UN's Agenda 21.
evolution can not be proved, bdw you can never prove by experience, that out of one kind of animal comes another. but that's not the problem. Because evolution goes back millions and millions of years, and of course nobody can prove it.
But the atheist-problem is worse. Because atheists believe in nothing and out of nothing the whole mass started with one point. So atheism is belief in the nothing-calf. if faith in the golden-calf is idolatry then faith in the nothing-calf also.
BIG BANG: At first matter was concentrated in one point and then it exploded.
1. Where did matter come from?
2. Why was there no gravity? If laws of nature work - all the matter of the universe in one point would create a black hole because of the immense gravity.
3. Matter explodes and - after the different parts of the matter are far enough away, then you switch on gravity ( or laws of nature).
Switching on and off l.o. nature when you like it is pseudo-science.
@binarysearc 1. Matter did not exist as we know it. It was fundamentally broken down into a sea of quarks and energy. The reason for the existence of the singularity (and our universe) is not something we can possibly find out. 2. The laws of physics break down at the Big Bang. You don't understand because you don't know the math. 3. Gravity did not exist until after the expansion, the four forces coalesced at the time. And are you saying no force can overcome gravity? The expansion was powerful
Well, thank you for your polite answer. But the problem is, that all human beings can only think within the categories time, matter, space and laws of nature. If we argue outside this categories, we cannot think it through and our arguments are not real any more. E.g. I can say “time started some time” or I can say “matter was produced by chance out of (nothing)???” at the BIG Bang” but this statements cannot be verified by human logic. We say our ideas, not more.
@binarysearch I'll have to disagree with you there. I know many examples where we can think and conceptualize beyond the dimensions and limits we live in. I can understand why you and many others fail to grasp the tangible side of theoretical physics. It is very complex and abstract. But the reality is, the math fits. And math is absolute and truly describes and controls our universe. You would have to be an expert in mathematics and physics to really see how the abstract is possible as reality.
@binarysearch so you supposedly understood that the big bang theory never says matter came from nothing, you just neglected to mention it? okay good. and i suppose explaining the matter was simply magicked into existence is the best explaination you got? then excuse me for calling bs. oh and that bit about gravity fading in and out, when an explosion occurs (like a man-made bomb) gravity is oerpowered by the kinetic energy of the explosion and the bits go flying. same for the big bang. also...
@binarysearch who's to say what was at the point of explosion before the explosion? the immense gravity would make for some great instability. oh and about the pseudo science bit, a being that is able to manipulate existence to the point of creating matter out of nothing at all is far more scientific and probable, i agree, get outta here with that!
@binarysearch and if you say the matter was creating from nothing by and omniscient and omnipotent being you are delusional and under the effects of years of brainwashing from similarly delusional peers and superiors. and it is ironic that when backed into a corner you throw to me "nobody knows the truth." if you don't know the truth, then stop preaching it. at least i can accept that we'll never truly know. i will, however, back up the idea supported by the most logic and evidence.
@Bobselete Well, your idea, that I was brainwashed by some sort of religious education is wrong, because I have myself searched for truth.
I admit, that there are many religous people who are brainwashed. On the other hand, there are also many students, that are brainwashed by atheistic ideas and evolution.
As we are responsible for our life, we must carefully prove alle evidence.
@binarysearch first of all, evolution has been proven, get over it, second of all, evolution has absolutely nothng to do with atheism, third, there is no evidence the atheists needs to provide, the defensive is on the theist. if you don't see that then you are successfully deluded. fourth, atheism isnt taught, its discovered. and your "i have myself searched for the truth" is BS. If you were the only person on the planet you would never have "discovered" god, god is taught to you.
Well, I am not an artist nor a painter, so I cannot speak about the techniques of painting. And an atheist or agnostic cannot speak about the theme: "how to know God".
You think that is a complete intellectual knowledge and at this point you are wrong. The truth starts not there, where you want to know the truth, but when you want to DO the truth. If you want to DO the will of God, then you have a chance to KNOW the truth, it's not the other way round.
@binarysearch the only reference you have of god's "personality" is the bible. anyone can read the bible, just like anyone can learn to paint and then talk about painting. also, an art critic doesnt need to be an artist, just like a religious critic doesnt have to be religious. i get my "knowledge" about god from the same place you do, i just know how to interpret the information better. i won't "do the will" of any being so hypocritical and immoral as the christian god. don't blind yourself.
Wow! That is EXACTLY like the Supreme Council of the Magical Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!
You, being an outsider, cannot know that they are real, and are the true creators of all. Only I and other insiders are privy to these magnificent TRUTHS!
They offer their love, but your arrogantly reject them, because you don't walk to be constrained in your life by having to act morally. Yes, it's because you are an immoral unbeliever - that's the only possible reason.
Big Bang theory doesn't claim the universe was created. It starts with the expansion, not creation, of the universe. It's a bit like evolution. That only explains how life evolved, not how it started.
There was no time and space before the expansion, no way of getting information from before time existed, and can (by Occham's razor) be excluded from the equation. So, science doesn't claim to know where everything came from.
@binarysearch - Whereas to say, no matter or energy was there, and a conjurer then spoke an incantation spell and it all appeared makes perfect sense?
@binarysearch - So you're going for the "Magic" soultion? Then why not replace the word "God" with "Flying spaghetti monster" and it seems just as plausible. I'm sorry, but you do not get to fill in the unknowns, with another unknown, as this raises more questions than it answers. The easy answer is not always the correct one.
And unless you personally insult me, I wont resort to foul language. Blasphemy maybe lol.
@binarysearch - However, as for "A direct evidence is in both cases not possible."
We have observed that the universe is constantly expanding at a uniform rate. Surely this go's against the idea that it was created in it's current state? And woohoo that rhymes :)
Then explain how it makes any sense whatsoever to reject (1) something smaller and simpler than a single proton existing without a cause, while simultaneously accepting that (2) something infinitely greater than the entire current universe and all of its amazingly complex life, could just exist without a cause!
You replace one mystery with an astronomically greater mystery. That does not solve anything, nor does it make progess, quite the opposite.
@binarysearch Wow this is stupid, why am I diving in? Cause I'm a masochist.
I'm really only responding to point three here. Do you know what the word 'velocity' means? If you said yes, then you have the tools to figure out how things can move apart while still in the presence of gravity.
BIG BANG is a nice idea, but it has many drawbacks.
a) matter exploded from one point. But if all the matter of the universe was concentrated in one point, there would exist a black hole - because of gravity - implosion instead of explosion
b) matter in the universe is not evenly distributed as you would expect after an explosion
c) galaxies are spiralling - not possible by an explosion
A helper theory (dark matter) to support B.B. is also nonsense.
a. The big bang does not claim that all of the matter present in the universe today was present at the big bang. The universe is expanding, and expansion - "falling outward" - releases energy. All in all, the universe is acquiring new positive (matter) and negative (gravity) energy all the time, in equal amounts. The total energy of the universe today is 0, and has been conserved throughout the billions of years our universe has existed.
b) We would not expect the matter of the universe to be distributed like what we see from an explosion.
1. The big bang was not an explosion. That right there makes your counter pretty stupid.
2. Gravity has been influencing the matter distribution of the universe, causing it clump and stream. Supercomputer models of the universe - taking expansion and gravity into ccount - have been made and they are quite consistent with what we find.
Sticking with classical physics, and object remain is uniform motion ... until an external force is exerted on it. Gravity works on matter, changing its state of motion, such as causing 'gas clouds' to collapse. Unless you have a perfectly balanced throughout, and perfectly motionless, cloud of gas, gravity will cause parts of the cloud to collapse at different rates; this imparts motion onto the aggregate, and can cause spin.
Evolutionary theory cannot be proven because it is a scientific theory ... dumbass. You might want to learn a little about science before trying to act like you are knowledgable about it.
"Kind" is a religious term and has no meaning in biology. Therefore, your claim is meaningless: you might as well have said, "evolution can never prove [sic] that out of one glaspernitzl of animal comes another."
science frees us from all lies...because science functions only on proven facts and requires evidence in order for anything to be validated!! that is y i love what u all do, u bring knowledge to the foolish!
I do not believe not accepting evolution is dangerous, unless the entire society didn't and missed out on scientific advances. Not believing in gravity isn't dangerous either, as long as you realize "something" will cause you to fall and die.
The leading cause of greenhouse gasses is decaying plant matter. People are only responsible for around 3% of all greenhouse gasses. I think we are responsible for more and I know a way to reduce the greenhouse gasses caused by decaying plant matter. Stop mowing your lawns. The cocksucker next door always has to wake me up cutting his lawn. Cant I sleep til 2 for, heavens gate. And he always has to have his grass shorter then mine. Like its a fuckin competition or some shit.
Somehow, the religios are all for science and they accept it, as long as it disregards and doesnt try to research our origins, yesss science can make computers and send people to the moon but it absolutly has no clue to how we became to be
I know a kid who says she wants to be a vet, but she could never become one because she is against vaccinations. (She's a preteen, I think.)
All the propaganda conspiracy theory bs I hear spouted by kids no older than 10.. it makes me angered and sad. They have no sense of critical thought, and all I can do is hope they get out of this narrow minded world of theirs once they age.
sir are you a moron or something. because I dont think i could have made this any more clear to you. You asking for something that evolution doesnt even say is possible.
If you believe that living creatures can, over time, become different species, then over even more time after so many changes cant they become different groups and even different classes and maybe even different phylums?
In order to still not believe in evolution you have to show that there is a stopping point to evolution. tell me at what point can a life form stop evolving??
"u need a check up from the neck up my friend. it's still a fly--MICRO evolution. NEXT"
I have just proved that a new species can be formed and we have observed it and you are telling me that I am crazy. If you agree that species can change and become new species then what happens if it does it again and again, is it not logical to think over that long of a time that it will become something so different as to be apart of different family maybe even become a different kingdom all together?
@thesparitan i don't agree a species becomes a new species. don't attribute that to me. I agree w/ natural selection, & MICRO evolution (a change w/in a species).
@filoIII micro evolution is macro, if you believe in one you have to believe in the other. what happens when a cat makes a slightly different cat and this happens again and again for thousands and millions of years.
@thesparitan micro-micro-micro-micro-micro-micro=cat -----we've never observed ANYTHING turn into another species. & we never will. cats produce cats. dogs produce dogs. viruses produce viruses. seems like there's a Book that said everything reproduces after their own kind. Oh Yeah-the Bible said that. you gotta watch that thing. it'll tear you to pieces.
@thesparitan Primula kewensis is a plant. so what. it'll always be a plant. you're saying Rhagoletis pomonella is a derivative of another fly? and that proves speciation? u need a check up from the neck up my friend. it's still a fly--MICRO evolution. NEXT!
@filoIII see you dont understand evolution. If a planet evolved into a animal it would not prove evolution in fact it would disprove evolution. You said that evolution cannot be observed I have proved that it can. evolution is the theory of the origin of species. I have proved that we can see species evolve.
@thesparitan i understand the theorytale of evolution just fine. you proved MICRO evolution. no one's argueing that. that's obvious. flies produce flies. that's a FAR cry from MACRO evolution--a dog and banana having a common ancestor. we've never seen macro, and never will. good luck w/ abiogenesis. i'll just refer you to Pasteur
@filoIII Pasteur only showed that life cant from spontaneous generation, and all scientist agree. but we are talking about evolution not aboigenesis lets stay on subject.
I just explained that to you. it would take too long to see a major evolutionary change like a bacteria becoming a banana. If you believe that species can change then cant they change so much over time that they become something so different as a ape is to a dolphin?
My mom's side of the family is fundamentalist and my Dad's side is moderate and non-religious. It gets interesting around the holidays.
DuykRuyk 1 month ago
Why can't this show get political? In the US one of the parties is CLEARLY in bed with the fundies, and atheists who vote for the right-wing are completely morons anyway. Unless you're a billionaire, the right is going to A) fuck you up and B) give more power to the fundies. Plus right-wing atheists are a minority, why not just say fuck 'em? You can't work with right-wingers. Right-wingers want to steamroll over you, so you gotta kick them in the nuts, not compromise. They see that as weakness.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
finland, FINLAND! my country ahhahahaahahhahahah ou jeee i cant believe. the odds were 0.75% atheist 60% aaaa jea
johauHAU 1 month ago
I had phased solids in my possession when I was Christian. Know what I did with those?! I gave them away like a careless idiot as if they were meaningless and thought that some supernatural nonsence was supposed to just happen in our world. Nobody believes me now, except my Mother, becuase it's against modern physics. (I sure diserve the insults to, now that I think about it.) See, mother saw the items before and after the phase happened! I should have kept those! DAM ME!
Amashkitotamoes 1 month ago
Comment removed
Amashkitotamoes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a laymen, not accepting evolution has no impact on society. But when they try to tell other people that evolution is wrong, that's dangerous. Pushing your religious views on other people is always dangerous, period.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@SoViciousOh You said, "God: Created nature and everything encompassing nature".
That is SPECIFICALLY attributing something to a deity.
I'm just going by what YOU said.
In the minds of many religious people, science DOES shake their ridiculous faith because they believe that every word is true and any scientific finding to the contrary must be the work of the devil...until they get sick. Then they go to the doctor like the rest of us.
There is NO PROOF for god. Period.
ciaochowbella 2 months ago 3
@SoViciousOh One BIG problem with your assertion......the god part.
You cannot prove god did ANYTHING. Everything you attribute to a deity can be explained through solely natural means without needing a god.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Look it up.
ciaochowbella 2 months ago
Reality (like, say, the fact of evolution and the fact of human-induced global warming) has the nasty habit of not going away if you don't believe in it. Creationists and global-warming deniers can deny the reality of these things, but that doesn't make them any less factual. Eventually, evolution and global warming will come around and bite them in the ass. Sadly, in the mean time these morons can cause very much harm.
mrs7195 3 months ago
It's not dangerous evolution is just a theory nothing more it's not that big of a deal
jaycash12345 3 months ago
@jaycash12345 LOL
maxergud 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Things change all the time...
A Caterpillar turns in to a Butterfly
A bean sprouts and grows. It becomes a plant.
A chick hatches from a chicken egg. It becomes a chicken.
A tadpole hatches from a tiny frog's egg. The tadpole becomes a frog.
The yellow mealworm is the larval stage of the darkling beetle.
An acorn sprouts and grows into a seedling. It becomes a huge oak tree.
Noooooo, things never change.
AussieTheOztralian 3 months ago
If you're going to reject science, why don't we get rid of all the educated, trained fields? Doctors are already gone in this scenerio. Then we'd get rid of lawyers, polititians (hey, this isn't sounding too bad), accountants, buisnesspeople, historians, journalists, ...Let's see a world run by strictly those with no education or special training in any field. If science has it wrong, the rest probably do, too, following that logic.
MsLilithJS 3 months ago
The woman on the right reminds me of Carl Sagan.
SPL4SHZ0N3 4 months ago
I like the point the caller Julie makes. Creationists should be asked if there are any other major accepted scientific theories (gravity, relativity, heliocentric solar system, germ theory of illness, Mendelian inheritance to name a few) that they reject or is it just evolution.
simpsonmark 5 months ago
Evolution is a FACT. Get over it!
jeremythehuman 5 months ago 2
concerning atheism is it not as though we have some alternative universe where we can observe a bunch of conscious beings dreaming up a god.There is only this reality and it so happens that while we have examples of individuals accepting the existence of things which most of us dispute none of us, i still say, have an example of individuals dreaming up Gods which have no basis in reality we only have the word and merely plausible arguments of atheists.So why would one reject God's existence ?
TheTruthgeneral 5 months ago
@TheTruthgeneral
Which god? And why are you only referencing one God.
Aren't multiple Gods possible? If not, why not?
You are the only one here who is stating the existence of something which cannot be proved to exist.
Uberlaser 5 months ago
@TheTruthgeneral
"So why would one reject God's existence ?"
The better question is.. why not?
Because you like to believe it? Because it feels so warm?
The problem is, just like with peeing your pants, the warm feeling is not all that comes with the belief in God.
Most of the side effects are very negative. Reality shows that and history shows that. Stupidity drummed into people's heads because of their books proves that, intolerance hatred and violence prove that. Ignorance proves that.
realbojay 5 months ago
@TheTruthgeneral maybe evidence for gods existance would settle the issue?! Because there is not just one religion, there are many, and they cannot all be correct, but they can all be wrong.
And unless you can provide real evidence, it is better to not believe.
MagnusNyborg 4 months ago
evolution is a well supported assertion however i won't go around saying oh not agreeing with science is dangerous we are going to get aids cus we are going to deny it blah blah blah
TheTruthgeneral 5 months ago
@TheTruthgeneral Really? You think a willful denial of objectively demonstrated science is not dangerous? Treating the scientific reality of HIV and AIDS is somehow trivial ("blah blah blah") and treating it trivially or incorrectly won't cause people to get it? I think the fatal disease rates of Africa, and every other 3rd world shithole that is lacking in basic scientific understanding of pathogenic vectors, is pretty strong evidence to refute your dismissive attitude.
You sir, are wrong.
rmcdaniel423 5 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 I applaud you sir.
Magicscottman 5 months ago
Keep that pinhead Perry in Texas where he belongs.
somethingdiffereable 6 months ago
Female atheists are sexy
DonJuanV8 6 months ago 2
Denial: It isn't just a river in the Bible. Haha
Deanbass77 6 months ago
Actually they know everything that happened in the Big Bang from just a few millionths of a second after it began. And they're working on finding it all out with that huge LHC machine and so on:)
winterstellar 6 months ago
I posted DarkM video on Noahs ark on my FB. That PO'ed my cousin. A few days later I posted an article on an archeologist discovery of some nails that were used in a crucifixion. Now the archeologist in the article claimed they might be the very nails used on jesus. I thought that part was bs, h/e there is lil physical evidences on crucifixion, so I respect this as good find regardless. My cousin defriended me thinking that article was attacking xianity! She refriended me after reading it!
Boudiga 6 months ago
Christianity - Secularism - Science = Islam.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans i hate Islam.
NumbuhOneHater 8 months ago
All religions suck equally
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
actually most religious people i know who reject evolution DON'T think its a scientific fact proven beyond reasonable doubt. they are just ignorance of science, they don't think they are actually rejecting science.
shutmoonshyflower 10 months ago
@shutmoonshyflower But they - are - rejecting science. Claiming that science is not science can be just as dangerous as discrediting or discarding science. Here we have scientific fact, and whether people try to refute by claiming it's not science, or by claiming that science is irrelevant, is quite irrelevant, isn't it?
Pomme843 9 months ago
@Pomme843 you're right, of course they are rejecting science, and i speak out violently against it, but they just don't think that they are. in their deluded minds they think they are not in conflict with science and some christians i know are actually biology majors...
shutmoonshyflower 9 months ago
"global warming and the science behind it" - right, scientific claims are never politicized and people are capable of 100% objectivity. Global warming (caused by our carbon footprints) is absolutely true. Because I'm skeptical of the global warming movement and all its' politics, I'm labeled "anti-scientific"? That's incredibly biased.
TruthWarriorSheepDog 10 months ago
@TruthWarriorSheepDog Global Warming is a misnomer used to belittle the point. The correct term is global climate change.
I would also like to point out that while indeed the scientific claims have entered the political arena, both sides are guilty of politicizing their messages.
Unfortunately, if climate change is true, politicizing it may be the only means to slow its progression. The problem is, that now that it has stratified along factional lines in society, the struggle is emotional.
moopism 10 months ago
@moopism "If the claim is true..."? It's no longer up for debate. Scientific consenesus makes it clear - anthropogenic global climate change is happening. We don't "debte" gravity do we? No. Why not? B/c it's real. The only people denying it are the wealthy corporations and idiots fooled by them.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans I meant "if" only as a rhetorical neutrality because the point I was making was separate from that debate, and I did not wish to enter into it; others are defending global climate change quite well and I only wanted to point out that the term "global warming" is now nothing more than a polemic used by the deniers, while " anthropogenic global climate change " is more accurate AND ,so far, not being used as a political slur.
I apologize if my point was too obtuse.
moopism 8 months ago
It wasn't ignorance of science (that people can get HIV in other ways than homosexual sex) that made people shoot at Ryan White's house. It was ignorance of the value of life. And the value of life can't be scientifically proven.
TruthWarriorSheepDog 10 months ago
@TruthWarriorSheepDog "And the value of life can't be scientifically proven."
Of course it can. We are social creatures and the stability of our culture and the benefits it provides are all inherently based on the value each individual places on their life, with empathy acting to extend that to others, i.e., if I have value, another must have value as well.
This type of thing is easily demonstrated in many species of social animals, so to say it can't proven is just silly.
moopism 10 months ago
please change the title of this.... dear god, its as bad as people who say "evil is life without god" or some other crap. it isnt dangerous to not believe in the many truths that science has given us, but rather ignorant. i lived 14 years of my life not believing in evolution, and i lived just fine. Also, i'm glad i became a student of truth instead of a student of faith.
1994SHOtime 11 months ago
LOL @ the caller!
virtualguitarist 11 months ago
Instead of a war on terrorism, we should have a war on religion.
dutchbb1979 11 months ago
@perfectshot77 Atheist = not believing in God. The only people who see it as a different word are fundies who consider it a religion in line with evolution and the big bang theory, which it isn't. They should keep the word atheist so they can teach these tards what it really means.
TheLeardMan 11 months ago 53
@TheLeardMan Fundies should all be exempt from any usage of anything invented and or discovered through scientific means... When we look enough we find that science and religion do not go well together.
It must come down to either seeing and knowing that science is right or choosing to believe in sky daddy. Who's with me? let's start a petition! No science for believers which would in turn cause earlier death of idiots which would result in a multiplication in rate of the evolution of humanity.
pokeshmon 6 months ago 2
@pokeshmon Dude, totally, then we would have easier lives, no arguing with idiots! I ♥ this idea! Also, we would decreas global warming, because we would all listen to science and start using wave power and what not! Nobel Prize!
EvilNaruto15 6 months ago
OMG, she de-friended her on facebook, I cant believe it. I thought every single friend that you had one facebook were really your friends, LOL:
gulbirk 1 year ago
@sol3a1 The occurence, global warming or a climate change is something that happens every thousands of years. This is a fact, just like evolution. The only controversy about global warming however is whether it is currently caused by humans or not - which isnt factual at all as of yet.
Yes, climate changes have scientifical evidence supporting them (climate changes in bronze age for example) and just like evolution, it is a fact.
joe80dmanizanerd 1 year ago
Religion will do the thing they do best. That is, burn everything that goes against their beliefs.
Flem1337 1 year ago 116
@Flem1337 You can also look at religion as a virus that infects human beings.
dadiddlydooda 11 months ago
@Flem1337 You're dead right! They've been trying to burn evolution ever since The Origin of Spieces in 1859. And if they could, they'd burn atheists too!
Lennon4ever1 4 months ago
First theists tried to brainwash people into believing in a story book version of 'god' who answers prayers and passes judgment.
When that became ridiculous in light of advancing science, they switched the 'god' to a more scientific-sounding esoteric concept, complete with science lingo, in order to sound dignified and legitimate.
When scientific understanding advances even more the next step will inevitably be the total abandonment of 'god' altogether. Patience, my friends.
ejdf870 1 year ago
@rwasta7007 Something doesn't need to be a theory to be refuted. Infact, to be theory it needs to have been attempted to have been refuted by many people over a period of time. If it survives, then it becomes theory. Creationism fell down at the first hurdle, but people still cling on to it - hense it needs to be refuted at every turn.
andromidius 1 year ago
Religion is useless garbage. Superstition has dragged us down for too long, its high time we got rid of it.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234 I agree with this. However, doing so will not be an easy or pretty affair. Its like a barbed blade that's stuck in someone's back - removing it without killing the person (society) is very difficult.
andromidius 1 year ago
@andromidius : Well fortunately atheism is rising so fast that problems with society in modern countries are getting easier to handle. There is less and less superstitious fools in modern countries every day,
bary1234 1 year ago
@Londron What? Unicorn don't exist? Then what the hell have I been riding on every time I do acid??
SkinnyWmn69 1 year ago
I disagree..just because you don't accept a scientific fact you shouldn't agree with any..that to me is actually quite ridiculous. You don't believe in evolution so you therefore probably with also disregard science like aids research..that is ridiculous. You need to take into account that the research regarding evolution and dna is quite complex (so above some)and to disregard it poses no threath to your health..not believing aids research could lead to you getting aids..ridiculous arguement!
SkinnyWmn69 1 year ago
@SkinnyWmn69 Its the act of disregarding the scientific method. Its a slippery slope. If you deny Evolution, which is proven beyond doubt, then you should deny other things that are less well established and yet important to every day life. Cherry picking is not scientific.
andromidius 1 year ago
@andromidius you still say if you deny a fact, then you should deny other facts...but people don't, so how can you make them. They still choose to accept the sciences they want to and not others..whether you think they should or not, they do, thats the point. I know evolution is a fact, but if I was so ignorant to think it wasn't a fact, that would have no effect on my life, but if I chose to ignore a medical fact like aids research, that could entirely effect my life. Thats the difference.
SkinnyWmn69 1 year ago
@SkinnyWmn69 Its still ignorance. And evolution has had an effect on your life. Its the reason you exist, for one thing. It also helps scientists design new technologies that benefit your life. There's no difference at all.
andromidius 1 year ago
@andromidius you missed my point..fine,evolution has had an effect by being the reason for existence and helps scientist etc etc no disagreement there..but not accepting that FACT still changes nothing.not accepting facts like aids research could cause me, through ignorance, to get aids. Yes its ignorance, but you still cannot change those people. No matter the way YOU think it should be, people are still accepting scientific facts while rejecting evolution, and will continue w/o your approval.
SkinnyWmn69 1 year ago
@andromidius Unfortunately that isn't true. Evolution and theological science is different from practical science. to come up with better technologies scientists look at what they have and often the ones who make the biggest discoveries are the ones not confined what they think they know now about science (Einstein even did this with his relativity theory; dividing by 0 incident) . Both Atheists and Christians confine themselves with the current minuscule knowledge we have of science
basketballdbomb41 1 year ago
@basketballdbomb41 That is the dangerous thing, science is getting ruined by biases on both sides, though more so by politics and money. The scientific hypothesis is being destroyed with scientists going into the study to try and find a certain outcome then disguise it by so easily manipulated numbers and hiding assumptions. It happens both ways but to look at science as truth is, quite disappointing
basketballdbomb41 1 year ago
@basketballdbomb41 The thing is science has peer review. If a scientist skews the data and tries to mis-lead their peers or conducts a sub-par set of experiments any other scientist can and will try to do the same experiments and reveal the flaws or reject it as insuficient. Current findings should be taken with a pinch of salt but established science (such as evolution, gravity, germs, atoms, DNA, etc) should be considered fair and valid because it has had time to survive rigourous challenges.
FortisConscius 11 months ago
@FortisConscius I'll just make myself clearer; Science is an ongoing process. The media has a habit of taking 'work in progress' and sensationalising it as as established fact. Just because an experiment was done for the first time and it _seems_ to indicate something doesn't mean that the scientist responsible or the over-excited media get to claim it as proof of anything until it's been investigated further and possible alternative explainations are considered and eliminated.
FortisConscius 11 months ago 2
@FortisConscius I love you. Your post made me so pleasant inside.
ryddelwearsahat 11 months ago
Why is it that every time I look at Tracie, I smile? =)
YetAnthony 1 year ago
effing creationists always trying to shit on science until they're sick. they soon stop bloody praying and look for their medical insurance cards
fourbabies1 1 year ago
@TheAtheistExperience Waaaait... I know that guy's a dumbass, but you can't block these people simply on account of stupidity. if you do, you commit the same exact act of censorship as the creationists who block comments on their channels. We're supposed to be the ones who allow such discourse.
thesideshowman212 1 year ago
@thesideshowman212 I agree. There's no need to block them because anything they say can be easily refuted. Once they start getting really stupid and doing the fingers in the ears and saying "lalalalala", that's when you block them.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
Has ShockOfGod ever called in to this show?
Scarecrow545 1 year ago
@Scarecrow545 Despite his claims to the contrary, no, he's never called the show. The hosts themselves have said, on their blog, that he's free to do so, however.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@Avicaris @Scarecrow545 Not true, he made a fool of himself. Shockofgod has called the atheist experiance. If anyone wants the link let me know.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy I know he called an atheistic radio show in Florida, later claiming on his website, and here on YT, that it was the Atheist Experience. But unless it was very recently that he called TAE, I hadn't heard of him calling in, so yeah, I wouldn't mind a link to it.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@Avicaris My bad, I see one post he made he brought up thier webpage to AE and didn't think there was another atheist radio show. If you hadn't told me there was a differernce I'd still be thinking it was AE. Thinking back now, I should have questioned it. Audio without picture should have been my first clue
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy No prob. =)
Shock pretty much makes his living on misinformation, intellectual dishonesty, and outright lies. It's no surprise he'd claim he "beat" TAE hosts despite never having been on the show before.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@Avicaris The mirrors of it said otherwise. Shocko is a narrsassistic, lying, fundie. I prefer VFX over neph or shock in a heartbeat. Amd prefer Shock over Neph. Neph is sooooo creepy, I'd be nervous if I had to be in the same room with him. Some dudes give off that vibe, and the chick instincts I have, I trust. Much different from being annoying jackass's
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy Shock is a coward who hides from any criticism. At least Neph doesn't do that. Though he seems oblivious to being owned or made a fool out of, so he's not much better in that regard. Both would serve the world well by falling down a pit and dying.
andromidius 1 year ago
@Scarecrow545 Yes, I'll give you the link if you want it
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@Londron Actually creationism is refuted by science :/
sanman312 1 year ago
where are their claims coming from?????
42lynchmob 1 year ago
@42lynchmob What claims?
bttrflykiss7701 1 year ago
@NocredRS
Oh, my bad for being well educated.
I realize that the religious frown upon intelligence, preferring to remain willfully ignorant instead.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@binarysearch
Yes, that's it, focus on my pointing out how stupid you are instead of on all of your errors and ignorance.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@NocredRS
Wrong, so wrong, dumbass.
Care to debate me on evolution in front of a live audience?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@ShacklesOfLife lololololol that was my friggen brother, im going to take those down now.... :D
truealaskanhero 1 year ago
@NocredRS Obvious troll is obvious.
Jermbot15 1 year ago
@NocredRS you are a troll, i love how you guys now try to turn the tables and by saying the duder being rational is the troll, brilliant, in a dumb waste of time way,
have a good week, and kill yourself k?
awfulnhead 1 year ago
@NocredRS That's All You have ?
I asked You to present Scientific Arguments which attempt to refute the Theory of Evolution.
So far You've provided NOTHING !
All You do is shoot Your Mouth Off like an ASS which continually defectes BULL SHIT !
You're an IDIOT who has nothing to offer !
Time for You to Enroll in Kindergarten & receive the Education You desperately need !
Don't bother Replying.
I've wasted enough time with You.
4Q ASS HOLE !!!
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@NocredRS Visit TALKORIGINS..ORG & Educate Yourself.
The Overwhelming Majority of Scientific Organizations ACCEPT the Theory of Evolution as the BEST Explanation We have for the Continual Adaptation of Species over a Very long period of Time.
Present the Hypotheses & Scientific Organizations who have attempted to refute The Theory of Evolution Evolution & Let me review their Argument.
Either PUT UP or SHUT UP & GO AWAY !
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@NocredRS I read The Origin of the Species & Other Writings about Evolution.
What Scientific writings have You read ?
Please provide the Scientific References which refute Evolution instead of spouting BULL SHIT !
What SCIENTIFIC References do You want me to "Look Up" ?
In addition to being a Brain Dead Cretin You're (NOT Your) an Illiterate Homophobe who needs to enroll in Kindergarten & Get an EDUCATION !
You're Genetically Deficient & a Result of what happens when Siblings Procreate !
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@NocredRS Just Answer My Question.
Can You Provide Scientific References which Refute the Theory of Evolution ?
Either Put Up OR Shut Up & Go Away !
Obviously You're a Brain Dead Moronic Cretin who regularly shoots her/his Mouth off & can't present ANY Evidence to support Your Argument !
You might as well keep Your Head Up Your Ass.
Maybe You will find Your Comatose Brain !
4Q
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@NocredRS Please provide SCIENTIFIC References which Refute Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution has been continually tested thru the Scientific Peer Review Process & ACCEPTED as the BEST EXPLANATION We have for the Continual Adaptation of Species over a Very Long Period of Time.
You need to stop reading creationist web sites & Educate Yourself about SCIENCE !
Remove Your Head from Your ASS.
You've been in living in a State of Willful IGNORANCE !
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@NocredRS You believe people who question the existence of a god should be deported & I believe You're an UNEDUCATED religious IDIOT !
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@truealaskanhero That must be the love Jesus was preaching about, right? :O
ShacklesOfLife 1 year ago
@truealaskanhero Educate creationists !
tranquility4all 1 year ago
I also think this label of "denialism" and "denier" is very cynically attached to people who question mainstream scientific theories to specifically invoke the connotations of holocaust denial, thus inferring a certain lack of morality on the part of an individual who has legitimate questions and misgivings about a given subject.
valetudo777 1 year ago
im sorry, i meant AZT, not RZT.
valetudo777 1 year ago
I am an atheist, i believe in evolution and I know many in the atheist community are averse to conspiracy "theory". I believe there is an active depopulation agenda being implemented, by people like the rockefellers (who own the pharmaceutical company that produce RZT which AIDS denialists claim is the cause of AIDS in HIV diagnosed patients). All i would say is study who is funding and who financially benefits from current scientific research and resulting conclusions and products.
valetudo777 1 year ago
There is a flip side to this argument that is just as dangerous.That is the blind, unreasoned belief in current scientific theories that actually are deliberately funded and propogated for political reasons, e.g, man made global warming, which is being challenged by 10's of thousands of scientists all over the world, with evidence in its favour being falsified and fabricated, and is promulgated for the purpose of introducing global carbon taxes. I encourage people to read UN's Agenda 21.
valetudo777 1 year ago
evolution can not be proved, bdw you can never prove by experience, that out of one kind of animal comes another. but that's not the problem. Because evolution goes back millions and millions of years, and of course nobody can prove it.
But the atheist-problem is worse. Because atheists believe in nothing and out of nothing the whole mass started with one point. So atheism is belief in the nothing-calf. if faith in the golden-calf is idolatry then faith in the nothing-calf also.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearch typical straw manning of atheism and big bang theory. try again.
Bobselete 1 year ago
@Bobselete
BIG BANG: At first matter was concentrated in one point and then it exploded.
1. Where did matter come from?
2. Why was there no gravity? If laws of nature work - all the matter of the universe in one point would create a black hole because of the immense gravity.
3. Matter explodes and - after the different parts of the matter are far enough away, then you switch on gravity ( or laws of nature).
Switching on and off l.o. nature when you like it is pseudo-science.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearc 1. Matter did not exist as we know it. It was fundamentally broken down into a sea of quarks and energy. The reason for the existence of the singularity (and our universe) is not something we can possibly find out. 2. The laws of physics break down at the Big Bang. You don't understand because you don't know the math. 3. Gravity did not exist until after the expansion, the four forces coalesced at the time. And are you saying no force can overcome gravity? The expansion was powerful
Clymaxx 1 year ago
@Clymaxx
Well, thank you for your polite answer. But the problem is, that all human beings can only think within the categories time, matter, space and laws of nature. If we argue outside this categories, we cannot think it through and our arguments are not real any more. E.g. I can say “time started some time” or I can say “matter was produced by chance out of (nothing)???” at the BIG Bang” but this statements cannot be verified by human logic. We say our ideas, not more.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearch I'll have to disagree with you there. I know many examples where we can think and conceptualize beyond the dimensions and limits we live in. I can understand why you and many others fail to grasp the tangible side of theoretical physics. It is very complex and abstract. But the reality is, the math fits. And math is absolute and truly describes and controls our universe. You would have to be an expert in mathematics and physics to really see how the abstract is possible as reality.
Clymaxx 1 year ago
@binarysearch so you supposedly understood that the big bang theory never says matter came from nothing, you just neglected to mention it? okay good. and i suppose explaining the matter was simply magicked into existence is the best explaination you got? then excuse me for calling bs. oh and that bit about gravity fading in and out, when an explosion occurs (like a man-made bomb) gravity is oerpowered by the kinetic energy of the explosion and the bits go flying. same for the big bang. also...
Bobselete 1 year ago
@binarysearch who's to say what was at the point of explosion before the explosion? the immense gravity would make for some great instability. oh and about the pseudo science bit, a being that is able to manipulate existence to the point of creating matter out of nothing at all is far more scientific and probable, i agree, get outta here with that!
Bobselete 1 year ago
@Bobselete
Well, if you say: matter was always there, it is a little bit of nonsense.
But if you say: By chance matter came from nothing, it is also nonsense.
so it's a little bit tricky that problem of the Big Bang.
and where comes the energy of the explosion?
of course you can say it comes from xxx.
But some time you should explain where comes xxx from?
Just to play with words is not enough.
There are certain ideas of course, but nobody knows the truth of them.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearch and if you say the matter was creating from nothing by and omniscient and omnipotent being you are delusional and under the effects of years of brainwashing from similarly delusional peers and superiors. and it is ironic that when backed into a corner you throw to me "nobody knows the truth." if you don't know the truth, then stop preaching it. at least i can accept that we'll never truly know. i will, however, back up the idea supported by the most logic and evidence.
Bobselete 1 year ago
@Bobselete Well, your idea, that I was brainwashed by some sort of religious education is wrong, because I have myself searched for truth.
I admit, that there are many religous people who are brainwashed. On the other hand, there are also many students, that are brainwashed by atheistic ideas and evolution.
As we are responsible for our life, we must carefully prove alle evidence.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearch first of all, evolution has been proven, get over it, second of all, evolution has absolutely nothng to do with atheism, third, there is no evidence the atheists needs to provide, the defensive is on the theist. if you don't see that then you are successfully deluded. fourth, atheism isnt taught, its discovered. and your "i have myself searched for the truth" is BS. If you were the only person on the planet you would never have "discovered" god, god is taught to you.
Bobselete 1 year ago
@Bobselete
Well, I am not an artist nor a painter, so I cannot speak about the techniques of painting. And an atheist or agnostic cannot speak about the theme: "how to know God".
You think that is a complete intellectual knowledge and at this point you are wrong. The truth starts not there, where you want to know the truth, but when you want to DO the truth. If you want to DO the will of God, then you have a chance to KNOW the truth, it's not the other way round.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearch the only reference you have of god's "personality" is the bible. anyone can read the bible, just like anyone can learn to paint and then talk about painting. also, an art critic doesnt need to be an artist, just like a religious critic doesnt have to be religious. i get my "knowledge" about god from the same place you do, i just know how to interpret the information better. i won't "do the will" of any being so hypocritical and immoral as the christian god. don't blind yourself.
Bobselete 1 year ago 42
@binarysearch
Wow! That is EXACTLY like the Supreme Council of the Magical Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!
You, being an outsider, cannot know that they are real, and are the true creators of all. Only I and other insiders are privy to these magnificent TRUTHS!
They offer their love, but your arrogantly reject them, because you don't walk to be constrained in your life by having to act morally. Yes, it's because you are an immoral unbeliever - that's the only possible reason.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@binarysearch
Big Bang theory doesn't claim the universe was created. It starts with the expansion, not creation, of the universe. It's a bit like evolution. That only explains how life evolved, not how it started.
There was no time and space before the expansion, no way of getting information from before time existed, and can (by Occham's razor) be excluded from the equation. So, science doesn't claim to know where everything came from.
Only religion does that - with zero evidence.
tdjdk 1 year ago
@binarysearch - Whereas to say, no matter or energy was there, and a conjurer then spoke an incantation spell and it all appeared makes perfect sense?
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
@Hardysamnin
According to my experience Atheists - if they lack arguments in a discussion - use either extremely foul language or blasphemy to win their arguments.
You have 2 alernatives:
a) matter/energy/time/laws of nature came into existence out of nothing by accident
b) An almighty God created these things.
You cannot rething both possibilities with your brain - but b) is in my opinion more probable. A direct evidence is in both cases not possible.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearch - So you're going for the "Magic" soultion? Then why not replace the word "God" with "Flying spaghetti monster" and it seems just as plausible. I'm sorry, but you do not get to fill in the unknowns, with another unknown, as this raises more questions than it answers. The easy answer is not always the correct one.
And unless you personally insult me, I wont resort to foul language. Blasphemy maybe lol.
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
@binarysearch - However, as for "A direct evidence is in both cases not possible."
We have observed that the universe is constantly expanding at a uniform rate. Surely this go's against the idea that it was created in it's current state? And woohoo that rhymes :)
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
@binarysearch
Your "alternative" is worse than the problem you are trying to solve!
Please explain how a being can exist without there being time, matter, energy, or space. Well, go ahead!
Then please explain how this impossible being could think without there being any time, matter, energy, or space. I'm waiting!
Oh, I've got more ...
DNAunion 1 year ago
@binarysearch
Then explain how it makes any sense whatsoever to reject (1) something smaller and simpler than a single proton existing without a cause, while simultaneously accepting that (2) something infinitely greater than the entire current universe and all of its amazingly complex life, could just exist without a cause!
You replace one mystery with an astronomically greater mystery. That does not solve anything, nor does it make progess, quite the opposite.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@binarysearch Wow this is stupid, why am I diving in? Cause I'm a masochist.
I'm really only responding to point three here. Do you know what the word 'velocity' means? If you said yes, then you have the tools to figure out how things can move apart while still in the presence of gravity.
Jermbot15 1 year ago
@Jermbot15
BIG BANG is a nice idea, but it has many drawbacks.
a) matter exploded from one point. But if all the matter of the universe was concentrated in one point, there would exist a black hole - because of gravity - implosion instead of explosion
b) matter in the universe is not evenly distributed as you would expect after an explosion
c) galaxies are spiralling - not possible by an explosion
A helper theory (dark matter) to support B.B. is also nonsense.
No dark matter was ever found.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearch A) The cause is still unknown. The facts that lead us to the big bang are irrefutable.
B) Matter is evenly distributed on the universal scale. We're just dealing with orders of magnitude you can not comprehend.
C) Spiraling galaxies are possible after an explosion, who told you they weren't?
D) Your opinions on dark matter mean nothing.
Jermbot15 1 year ago
@binarysearch
a. The big bang does not claim that all of the matter present in the universe today was present at the big bang. The universe is expanding, and expansion - "falling outward" - releases energy. All in all, the universe is acquiring new positive (matter) and negative (gravity) energy all the time, in equal amounts. The total energy of the universe today is 0, and has been conserved throughout the billions of years our universe has existed.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@binarysearch
b) We would not expect the matter of the universe to be distributed like what we see from an explosion.
1. The big bang was not an explosion. That right there makes your counter pretty stupid.
2. Gravity has been influencing the matter distribution of the universe, causing it clump and stream. Supercomputer models of the universe - taking expansion and gravity into ccount - have been made and they are quite consistent with what we find.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@binarysearch
c) Galaxies spiraling is not a problem at all.
Sticking with classical physics, and object remain is uniform motion ... until an external force is exerted on it. Gravity works on matter, changing its state of motion, such as causing 'gas clouds' to collapse. Unless you have a perfectly balanced throughout, and perfectly motionless, cloud of gas, gravity will cause parts of the cloud to collapse at different rates; this imparts motion onto the aggregate, and can cause spin.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@binarysearch
The evidence that dark matter exists continues to increase. You should distance your argument from the requirement that dark matter not exist.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion, you can meet Alice in "Dark matter wonderland".
I hope you have a good talk there.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@binarysearch
You can meet education in college, like I did.
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNAunion
Quote: "You can meet education in college, like I did. "
But the basic education starts not throwing "f-words" at others.
binarysearch 1 year ago
@DNAunion Education is my best friend. :-)
bttrflykiss7701 1 year ago
@binarysearch
Evolutionary theory cannot be proven because it is a scientific theory ... dumbass. You might want to learn a little about science before trying to act like you are knowledgable about it.
"Kind" is a religious term and has no meaning in biology. Therefore, your claim is meaningless: you might as well have said, "evolution can never prove [sic] that out of one glaspernitzl of animal comes another."
DNAunion 1 year ago
1:30 Finland! YESS
Secudead 1 year ago
science frees us from all lies...because science functions only on proven facts and requires evidence in order for anything to be validated!! that is y i love what u all do, u bring knowledge to the foolish!
24claudius 1 year ago
I do not believe not accepting evolution is dangerous, unless the entire society didn't and missed out on scientific advances. Not believing in gravity isn't dangerous either, as long as you realize "something" will cause you to fall and die.
baigandine 1 year ago
@baigandine
It's dangerous have no idea what intelligent people are talking about.
dudev 1 year ago
i like how the openings have evolved and now they're all news like :)
enicot 1 year ago
The interviewers looked thrilled. This is action packed.
SSBBify 1 year ago
The leading cause of greenhouse gasses is decaying plant matter. People are only responsible for around 3% of all greenhouse gasses. I think we are responsible for more and I know a way to reduce the greenhouse gasses caused by decaying plant matter. Stop mowing your lawns. The cocksucker next door always has to wake me up cutting his lawn. Cant I sleep til 2 for, heavens gate. And he always has to have his grass shorter then mine. Like its a fuckin competition or some shit.
db10001110101 1 year ago
Wow! That was refreshing....someone who actually agrees with you! LOL
Hereticbooks 1 year ago
Somehow, the religios are all for science and they accept it, as long as it disregards and doesnt try to research our origins, yesss science can make computers and send people to the moon but it absolutly has no clue to how we became to be
Trevor10 1 year ago
I know a kid who says she wants to be a vet, but she could never become one because she is against vaccinations. (She's a preteen, I think.)
All the propaganda conspiracy theory bs I hear spouted by kids no older than 10.. it makes me angered and sad. They have no sense of critical thought, and all I can do is hope they get out of this narrow minded world of theirs once they age.
pienipaha 1 year ago
there are not enough girl on girl episodes.
I like this one. Jen and Tracy are both really smart and really cute.
willzyx1980 1 year ago 2
@darwinistroark
dude i definitely exist, i evolved from chimps....sike
steptocheese 1 year ago
o and global warming is definitely not true
thats nothing to benefit the scientific community
that was a scam for money and hold on natural resources
steptocheese 1 year ago
evolution isn't a fact
steptocheese 1 year ago
@steptocheese you don't exist
DarwinistRoark 1 year ago
@steptocheese if your a moron
ilovetheview47 1 year ago
Undermining science education in America is undermining America.
kablamo9999 1 year ago
sir are you a moron or something. because I dont think i could have made this any more clear to you. You asking for something that evolution doesnt even say is possible.
thesparitan 1 year ago
If you believe that living creatures can, over time, become different species, then over even more time after so many changes cant they become different groups and even different classes and maybe even different phylums?
In order to still not believe in evolution you have to show that there is a stopping point to evolution. tell me at what point can a life form stop evolving??
thesparitan 1 year ago
"u need a check up from the neck up my friend. it's still a fly--MICRO evolution. NEXT"
I have just proved that a new species can be formed and we have observed it and you are telling me that I am crazy. If you agree that species can change and become new species then what happens if it does it again and again, is it not logical to think over that long of a time that it will become something so different as to be apart of different family maybe even become a different kingdom all together?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan i don't agree a species becomes a new species. don't attribute that to me. I agree w/ natural selection, & MICRO evolution (a change w/in a species).
filoIII 1 year ago
@filoIII micro evolution is macro, if you believe in one you have to believe in the other. what happens when a cat makes a slightly different cat and this happens again and again for thousands and millions of years.
micro-micro-micro-micro-micro-micro \ / macro
see its simple
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan micro-micro-micro-micro-micro-micro=cat -----we've never observed ANYTHING turn into another species. & we never will. cats produce cats. dogs produce dogs. viruses produce viruses. seems like there's a Book that said everything reproduces after their own kind. Oh Yeah-the Bible said that. you gotta watch that thing. it'll tear you to pieces.
filoIII 1 year ago
@filoIII thesparitan @ForumLight type in observed instances of speciation you will find
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)
Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)
and last but not leat, in fact my personal favorite
NYLON-EATING BACTERIA
you have been owned thank you very much for playing.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Primula kewensis is a plant. so what. it'll always be a plant. you're saying Rhagoletis pomonella is a derivative of another fly? and that proves speciation? u need a check up from the neck up my friend. it's still a fly--MICRO evolution. NEXT!
filoIII 1 year ago
@filoIII see you dont understand evolution. If a planet evolved into a animal it would not prove evolution in fact it would disprove evolution. You said that evolution cannot be observed I have proved that it can. evolution is the theory of the origin of species. I have proved that we can see species evolve.
there is your proof do you now believe?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan i understand the theorytale of evolution just fine. you proved MICRO evolution. no one's argueing that. that's obvious. flies produce flies. that's a FAR cry from MACRO evolution--a dog and banana having a common ancestor. we've never seen macro, and never will. good luck w/ abiogenesis. i'll just refer you to Pasteur
filoIII 1 year ago
@filoIII Pasteur only showed that life cant from spontaneous generation, and all scientist agree. but we are talking about evolution not aboigenesis lets stay on subject.
I just explained that to you. it would take too long to see a major evolutionary change like a bacteria becoming a banana. If you believe that species can change then cant they change so much over time that they become something so different as a ape is to a dolphin?
thesparitan 1 year ago