@tediju hmmmm, at time of writing there is 542 likes vs 146 dislikes. That makes it almost 80% in favour...does that qualify as "many dislikes"? Also, at what point did he give any indication that he was "campaigning" for anything? This is a well thought out examination/review of Expelled put up for educational purposes without the intention of making profit.
Guess what your argument is...yup, it's invalid bitch.
You are speaking about something that can not be proved. If it is as you say then why can we still not recreate life or prove evolution in the laboratory.
The fundamental point you are overlooking is how these things knew what to become. They do not appear to make millions of attempts in the hope they get it right, they know prior to materialisation what they are going to become. This information that dictates form shows intelligence and understanding of geometry and engineering principles.
then all teachers who talk about vestigial organs who teach that we have gills in our first months of life and use haekel's fake drawings and those who use fake fossils as examples (piltdown man, nebraska man, naeanderthal man, zinjantrophus, ramaphitecus) should be fired and banned from the scientific community. yet this stuff is still used as evidence for evolution
"yet this stuff is still used as evidence for evolution."
Name one school that uses Piltdown Man as evidence for evolution. Name one school that has used Piltdown Man as evidence for evolution in the last half-century.
...so you admit you were wrong to claim that they use it as evidence. Thank you. Now: can you list for me three current textbooks which cite Haeckel's drawings as proof of evolution? (No citing textbooks which include the drawings but point out that they were incorrect, which is what most of the textbooks Creationists list do!)
Ah, yes, that would be in their seminal evolutionary biology textbook, "Satanic Atheistic Communist Nazi Atheists Think That Your Grandmother Was A Rock And So It's Okay To Kill Everyone!"
Is this really the best religion has? All these people are willfully deceitful with no sense of their own hypocrisy in being dishonest to try and prove the existence of the ultimate good. And to think, science is only going to keep shoveling more & more evidence on the coffin of religion every year, every decade and every century until the end of man.
It's over you charlatans. Give up & join modern man to advance our place in existence, not retard it.
scientific aproech is the only method to find the reality. I completely agree with that. but I can not see any scientiic aproach in calling "intelligent design" bulls***. Plus Faulty assumption is an assumption that hasn't got solid logical and evident base.
if we agree on this, is "Evolution" not a faulty or lets say a questionable assumbtion?
Plus, I never understand why there is always a fear of challenging evolution theory?
@pejvaak Intelligent design is bullshit because it is not observable, testable, falsifiable, cannot make accurate predictions, etc. All of which are necessary for a scientific hypothesis to reach the level of a scientific theory.
Atheist liberal/progressives GOOD...libertarian/individualists who believe in god BAD. Sorry. I don't buy it. But you did convinced me that "Expelled" was sloppy at best. And it always saddens me when some folks on the right are intellectually dishonest. I expect that from the left.
Of course as long as you presume the Darvin's cliams is the one only reliable fact, any thing the opposes it, becomes non-sense and false information.
@pejvaak Its not that simple. Darwin was a naturallist who was influenced by other sicentists of his time leaning toward the understanding that the species form by way of environment. That's it. Evolution has since them expanded by about 12 specialized applications. But, the bottom line is that someone must come up with a theory that can be testable so that it can be predicted and applied. Creation or I.D. has not, otherwise, scientists are waiting.
@truvelocity So if I understand it right, all the inteligence that is obvious in the whole world of nature and also the inteligence in how our body works (and so many other examples)... is not enough to at least trig the question about Darvin being wrong?
@pejvaak Darwin came up with "How species change over time to fit the environment" - Since then, the overwhelming evidence that evolution is how this occurred is something to be appreciative about. However, in answer to your question directly, there are religious people who simply say that their deity created everything by method of evolution. So, I don't think you would have to give up your religious doctrine to accept evolution as some people are deviant in saying one or the other.
@truvelocity Well I am not an expert in this broad field but all I know is this human that has got mind, vertue, reason and has got an insent that pushes him toward perfection and by defualt is in favour of concepts like honesty, justice, selflessness,... can not be an inteligent animal or so called next generation of monekys.
@pejvaak Evolution does not say we came from monkeys and monkeys and even flesh eating fish will not eat their own kind. They are into self preservation due to genetics. Humans have a larger brain capacity to think introspectively and create moral views, depending on our culture. We understand suffixes and semantics. Animals that are very smart understand concepts in the now. Our brain has leaps of consciousness that serves our species. We are special.
@pejvaak //all the inteligence that is obvious in the whole world of nature//
Kinda like how it use to be "obvious" that the sun revolved around the earth, right? Common sense doesn't work in science. The human mind is known to be prone to make faulty assumptions. That's why all claims must follow the scientific method. In order to filter out the bullshit (intelligent design) from real science (evolution).
damn this shit is so retarded, the fact that this "debate" is even happening makes me loose a portion of respect for humans. And wtf is a dawinist? just a f*ing word to further seperate people from the facts and the actual argument.
Creation deals with origins. And it's perfectly scientific to claim life started from an intelligent source. Because all means of intelligence can be traced back to a mind. Abiogenesis is left open. If creation can't be used to explain it, then it is suppression .
@Gods0n1 No, it is unscientific because the hypothesis cannot be tested. The mechanisms within abiogenesis can be tested and validated or invalidated. ID has no mechanism. "Creation" cannot be used to explain anything because miracles are not an explanation - they are a statement of ignorance.
Atheism and science are not religions. They are the opposite of religion because they are not founded on belief and they do not promote a static idea about the world. Science observes and records what is. A scientific theory solely arises from a body of evidence. If there is no evidence, then there is no theory.
Creationism has no evidence, thus it cannot be a theory. Even the Discovery institute admits that there is no evidence for ID.
Over and over again, advocates of ID/ creationists have resorted to lies and deception to force their ideas, which they admittedly never put to the test, to be accepted as a proper scientific theory.
Fact is, until proven by scientific investigation an idea or hypothesis remains just that. It's not decided by some mysterious council of scientists if a hypothesis is worthy of being a theory. It's testable evidence and mountains of research that makes a hypothesis a theory.
goddamn it. Expelled is just another poorly made ID/Creationist/RELIGIOUS bullshit with absolutely nothing to sustain it but their own personal opinion. nothing real or backed up, just opinion. period. they have no idea on evolution, the science method (or they might, the reason for which they don't use it since they can't even pass a few steps: 1)observation 2)hypothesis 3)gather data 4)examine data 3)dose it fits? etc.) but they will never even pass step 3.
You swallow a camel, yet strain out a gnat; personally, I am an advocate of Intelligent Design...materialistic biological evolution of the type that is proposed by the so-called scientists who advocate it is impossible. And I don't like your treatment here because to me, it's really arrogant and loud. Obnoxious, even. Good luck with your engineering studies.
Darwin (1859) suggested that whales arose from bears, sketching a scenario in which selective pressures might cause bears to evolve into whales; embarrassed by criticism, he removed his hypothetical swimming bears from later editions of the Origin (Gould 1995).
Again, Darwin is not the be-all and end-all of evolution theory. You wouldn't say that modern medicine is nonsense because medicine was once based on humourism.
"none bigger than a wolf" does not mean "evolved from dogs", this is a size reference, nothing more, when people say there's a frog the size of a pea in Borneo, they're not suggesting that it evolved from a pea.
evolutionists are blind followers much like cult members. there is no way on earth one can describe the origin of species without knowing what the original life form was since that was the very first species. evolutionists simply assume that the fact that humans share genomes with animals means we have a common ancestor. but we also share genome with plants. why would natural selection allow plants that are eaten to still be abundant on the earth? it is a very flawed theory
@maaruz1979 Evolution is only about the diversification of life, not its orgin, you are missing the point here. Abiogenesis is the orign of life, and we do not yet know how it happened. Evolution is in biology, big bang in cosmology, and grvity and realativity are in physics, separate disciplines. We did nto come from rocks or dust and lightening, rocks don't have the proper organic molecules. Expelled is in favor of those who do not submitting their finds for peer review.
@11FreeSpirit it is pure folly to claim common descent of life if you don't know the exact nature of the first life form/s. if evolutionists don't know how life began, how can they claim they know for sure it was not intelligent design? this is an obvious contradiction.
you're a troll, you go from video to video, you never make your position fully clear, you purposely misunderstand the same point over and over and have it explained to you over and over, then you stop responding and find another video where you can start muddling of sciences all over again. What's the purpose?
@BabeReport don't get your panties in a bunch. my position is that evolution is a bogus theory. it simply does not make sense. just because you have been brainwashed for mind control does not mean some people can't see through it. it is very similar to religion in terms of blind faith in a magical story. except this time 'god' is in the form of 'natural selection'; that awesome force that decides what new species an already existing species will become
No, your position is that 'intelligent design' is the answer, you've hinted at it several times without having the balls to say that's what you represent. where does your irreducible complexity end, who designed the designer and who designed the designers designer? think about it for a minute...
@BabeReport open up your primitive minds...does a cell know that it is just a part of a system inside a larger organism? does the dna know that it is merely a part of a cell? is the cell the creator of the dna? is the human the creator of the cell? just accept that there are things that you don't know & snap out of the illusion that science has found all the answers
it has become apparent that you are of very low intelligence, I've been here before with your sort. you have the mind of a child, everything needs a purpose just to satisfy you; evolution has a 'goal'; what do cells 'know'?; rocks are jagged so the animals have a place to scratch themselves; lakes are still so that animals can have a swim without getting washed away... I don't claim to know everything, science doesn't claim to know everything, you've already been told this.
@BabeReport if i am of very low intelligence what does that make you? ding ding ding! plain stupid. again i ask you; does a cell believe it is created? does it have a consciousness? is it aware that it is merely a part of a larger biological system? are you sure of what exactly in the univeerse you are? true stupidity is not knowing but not even being aware that you don't know. you think you have it all figured out. that in itself is beyond "low intelligence"..it's clown territory
concentrate maaruz, try to remember the topic, I'm not interested in your stupid little sidetrack about whether indivdual cells are conscious and I have no idea where you're going with the whole palin/bristol thing. I told you, again, in the comment you just replied to, I don't "have it all figured out", you're a moron
@BabeReport i see you are unable to think outside of a pre-arranged box. let me put it like this; a sperm cell is "created" by a human. it has a life span & a goal. is that sperm cell aware of where it came from? if it knew, would it refer to the human who produced it as its "creator". is it possible that a human or an animal can be akin to cells in a larger organism? i know these& other concepts/ possibilits are too much for you to entertain. just worship darwin christ god of natural selection
@BabeReport calling people stupid or moron or some other similie indicating lack of intelligence is what i have observed as the comfort zone of people who think we are bacteria/ fish/ apes- a.k.a evolutionists; they consider themselves to have a superior intellect. much like the people created slavery, discrimination, war, etc. they have a divine, er. evolutionistic right to dismiss all other humans due to the teachings they received. plz don't revert back to the ways of your ape ancestors
@BabeReport sorry about the sarah palin quip..as a republican she probably claims to believe in "god" LOL. i was using it more in terms of her being an airhead. lets at least hope you don't think africa is a country. your mind is in a box. you can only see the false dichotomy of "creation vs. evolution" which has been created for you by the hidden forces that exist to dumb-down the population. congratulations- mission accomplished! babereport successfully dumbed down
well, hypocrite, let's just look at the facts, you go from video to video arguing against evolution in the most simplistic way, demanding to be taught about abiogenesis in less than 500 characters, I asked to make your position clear, you brought up intelligent design, not me. you were the first to start name calling too 'brainwashed', 'sheep' etc.
@BabeReport yes i'm limited by 500 characters. but it doesn't take much to realize that evolution is voodoo science. deluded folk who think they know exactly how it all went down billions of years ago. basing their lives on faith in a weird god called 'natural selection'. after lightning struck magic dust some creepy crawlies became fish which eventually became as big as elephants & whales. it is even more ridiculous than the creation stories told by religions.
you're not going to stir up any real debate about evolution theory by constantly referring to abiogenesis, this is about the sixth time I've told you, I've also seen others tell you.
EVOLUTION THEORY DOES NOT DEAL WITH ABIOGENESIS!
simply stating that it's ridiculous, voodoo, faith based, magic or a 'weird god' is NOT a valid argument against evolution theory, I told you that if you came up with a valid argument, I'd be happy to look into it, so far you have failed.
@BabeReport so u don't know what the original species was or how it originated; so what makes you absolutely positive it was not 'created' and THEN evolved? without knowledge of origins why are the vast majority of evolutionists opposed to a theory of intelligent design? that is really weird/ illogical/ unintelligent
I could claim that glass bananas grow under the surface of venus, you can't prove me wrong, that doesn't mean it's any more likely to be true. if I make the claim, the burden of proof is mine, what evidence do I have? this is the problem with intelligent design, there is no evidence which is why most people who understand evolution theory dismiss intelligent design just as most would dismiss my venusian bananas.
@BabeReport like you guys love to say; the evidence is everywhere. if one is willing to disregard their own biases & keep an objective frame of mind...i maintain that there is also no evidence of intra-species evolution nor for spontaneous/ chance occurence of life forms on earth...i will try to watch what u posted & critique in time
This is about the 8th time that I personally have told you "spontaneous/ chance occurence of life forms on earth" is abiogenesis, nothing to do with evolution theory. Intraspecies evolution is evolution within a species, and you can see it with your own eyes in many species, cats, dogs, cows, horses and on and on the list goes.
There is no evidence for creationism, "the evidence is everywhere" means nothing, put this evidence forward for peer review.
@BabeReport if abiogenesis is not related to evolution, then why are most evolutionists atheists? that would mean that most evolutionists oppose intelligent design...that suggests belief in chance occurence of life; i've never seen this intra-species evolution you speak of. it is hard for me to believe that some dog-looking thing coveted the ocean & eventually morphed into a whale..after originally being a fish in the first place & already living in water,i hate to break it 2 u it's fairy tales
well, most 'evolutionists' also 'believe' in abiogenesis for the same reason that most 'evolutionists' 'believe' in relativity, conservation of mass-energy, conservation of momentum, laws of thermodynamics etc.
EMPIRICAL DATA
The reason that most are atheists is simple, we know religious creation stories to be wrong, eg. we know that the sun was not created after the earth, this is a 'fairy tale'.
I suggest you look up the meaning of 'intraspecies' before responding again.
@BabeReport first let me say that the invalidity of religious myths is not a strong enough argument to dismiss intelligent design. it is merely a strong enough argument to dismiss religious myths, some of which i believe are allegorical in nature & should not be taken literally. so holy book stories being untrue may be a strike against religion, but it will not/ can not totally debunk intelligent design at this point in human 'evolution' :)
@BabeReport perhaps i should say "inter-species"; meaning that i am skeptical of common descent of all species...or that a fish became a dog that became a whale
@BabeReport" More recently, Van Valen (1966) and Szalay (1969) associated early whales with mesonychid condylarths (a now-extinct group of primitive carnivorous ungulates, none bigger than a wolf) on the basis of dental characters. More recent evidence confirms their assessment. Thus Flower was basically right.... "
@maaruz1979 "if abiogenesis is not related to evolution, then why are most evolutionists atheists? That makes no sense.
The two things are not related and have even less to do with why people might be atheists. Atheism/theism is about belief/or lack thereof in god - science is about studying the natural world.
The majority of the people who accept evolution are christians or believe in some version of god.
maaruz is american, according to a survey I saw, only 25% of north americans 'believe' in evolution, 2008 gallup poll showed 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists, so you're right, most 'evolutionists' in the US have some form of belief in the supernatural.
maaruz doesn't let silly things like facts bother him.
@BabeReport how do you know i'm 'american'? LOL i am not swayed by polls. if you polled someone in salem in the 16th century they believed in witches & if you polled most scientists at that time they believed life could spring up spontaneously in a closed jar
of course that could be yet another lie, who's to say.
I'm not at all surprised that you're 'not swayed by polls'. What 16th century scientist believed that 'life could spring up spontaneously in a closed jar'?
@BabeReport "It was once believed that mice could arise spontaneously from spilled wheat in barns, and that flies arose spontaneously out of rotting meat. Francesco Redi, and (later) Louis Pasteur, showed that living things come only from living parents - that life arises from life. They dealt a death-blow to those who thought life-forms could arise from lifeless matter."
@Korkzor you say "The majority of the people who accept evolution are christians or believe in some version of god". so the majority of evolutionists are also religionists and creationists??? now you are really spazzing out
"so the majority of evolutionists are also religionists and creationists??? now you are really spazzing out"
you're simple, having faith does not make you a religionist or a creationist, many people have a belief whilst still understanding that creation stories cannot possibly be the literal truth.
@BabeReport you are contradicting yourself; you say "having faith does not make you a creationist or a religionist"..faith is belief without proof- which you reject as unprovable- faith in what are you speaking of? but you are correct because it takes faith also to believe life sprang from spontaneous random non-controlled chemical & physical chance occurrence...& then went on to become millions of extremely complex organisms..."many people have a belief"..belief in what???
I'm not contradicting myself at all, you don't have to be a creationist or a religionist to have faith, you don't even have to be a religionist to follow a religion, once again, you're using words that you don't understand.
@maaruz1979 You need to taek comfort in not knowing things, because scientists do. We are learning, creationist zombies for example cannot take comfort in not knowing things, so they protect ther beliefs because it gvies them a false sense of "I know it all". Science is not about who did it, it is about how, it was done, you fail to see the false dilemma that crationist zombes make.
@McHughMan1117 are you regurgitating more crap that you heard/ read about? think for yourself...evolutioniost & darwinists & atheists have proven nothing; until they can duplicate life they are only going on theories...sorry to break it to you but you guys are religious nutcases just like the creationists; only your religion is evolution with darwin as god
@NWOshill they leaned very heavily on what was there before: " Dr Venter created the lifeform by synthesising a DNA code and injecting it into a single bacteria cell. The cell containing the man-made DNA then grew and divided, creating a hitherto unseen lifeform"..while this is impressive, it was an intelligent experiment & thesis & does not prove spontaneous appearance or evolution. it only proves that they still need life to create life
@maaruz1979 I wasn't offering it as proof of evolution just as proof of your ignorance. Creating a new lifeform would not be poof of evolution that was your misguided assumption not mine.
Scientists create a new organism, one that has never existed before and you say "it only prooves they still need to create life." you are an idiot.
@NWOshill if i am an idiot you are a lost sheep. scientists that you claim created a new organism had to study the genetic code for decades & then they had to transplant their CREATED DNA into an already existing natural bacteria cell. they have not created life- they merely mimicked the dna structure & used already existing life template. it took a lot of intelligence by them to attempt to do something which you claim is not intelligent. now who is the idiot?
@maaruz1979 Yes it does stand for new world order, but if you had thought a little more you would understand that the name is ironic and is in fact pointing fun at the people who believe in such nonsense. Once again, you suck.
@NWOshill so you are saying the new world order is "nonsense"? let me guess. you support the wars in iraq & afghanistan & you think the economic crisis was brought on by people who borrowed more than they could pay for a mortgage...and you are in the tea party movement; did i get it right? LOL
@NWOshill boring but i hit a nerve, yea? your voodoo science & pagan god darwin are in concern mode...your religion of darwinism will eventually be exposed. you and your new world order friends will be taken to task for this mind control they have unleashed on earth
@maaruz1979 Hit a nerve??? Wow just wow. You are truly bizarre. You could use some mind control cause yours doesn't seem to work properly. I give thanks that my brain does not operate the same way yours does. I pity you. This exchange is long since over. I will no longer respond to your asinine ramblings.
evolution is total nonsense. evolutionists always rush to bash religion whenever you question their theory, but religion aside; scientifically & logically the theory is shit. no complex functioning machine has ever come about by chance & then also improved its own self. no machine has ever done this and a single cell is infinitely more complex than any man-made machine or computer. evolution as the answer of the origin of species is voodoo science
@maaruz1979 I am just defended the facts from while you are just doing either straw man or ad hominem attacks. Science is not a religion, we accept evolution like we do relativity because it has the EVIDENCE, you are a creationist, just trying to protect your delicate little beleifs from REALITY!
@11FreeSpirit you are limited in your thinking due to your primitive nature. guys like you are completely excluding any other possibilities which does not fit into your idea of magical dust being struck by lightning, coming to life & then developing into millions of species..that at the core a human & a fish or an amoeba are exactly the same & have the same ancestor...i am not a creationist; i just recognize that evolution has serious flaws but they have their heads in the sand.
Faith by definition is "belief without having proof"...people that are atheist or have something against Christianity, want there to be no God because if there is a God they would have to answer for the things they do wrong in their daily life...and human nature does not want answer for the thing they might be doing wrong. So basicly Atheism is used to try to cover the guilt they have inside themselves.for things they do day to day
@mewesnate No, that's what theists do. If you don't think that there are any gods: God, Allah, Zeus, Thor or whatever, you would not feel guilt to a celestial dictator. Religion instills guilt over things we do wrong in our daily lives, everyone makes mistakes, that's human. Only theists think that a supernatural big brother is seeing everything we do and reading our thoughts and condemning our actions. Read Darrel Ray's book, that explains how this works.
@gerandomiseerd Not only that, it instills shame for things that the bible itself states that "we" did not do. That would be like you feeling shame because your great great great great...(cont...) uncle was a slave. Shame itself implies hates the sinner and not the sin.
Not too long ago, a creationist was telling me how he thinks a newborn baby is inherently evil. How can anyone in their right mind say a newborn baby is evil? From what I have seen, evil is taught, not inherited.
2 to 36 isn't 18 fold. This is a common mistake. Fold is to double, then double again, then double again, and again, thus 2x2=4, 4x4=16, 16x16=256, etc. It's actually just an increase of 16 times.
And please everyone when debating each other on this subject show some respect to each other. Because when you stoop to the point of name calling you lose all credibility in your argument. We're not enemies just people with different interpretations.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Just as in the 17th century Galileo was attached by his Roman Catholic faith because his advances in science contradicted what they taught in the matter, now science is being just as intolerant. You scientist should be a little more open minded, because although ID theorist can't prove a deity created the universe, yous certainly can't disprove it.
Science is not being intolerant to the ID theorists. Science is being intolerant of people who purposefully (or just ignorantly) misrepresent science.
I can say that I think magical, invisible pixies are what cause things to fall and are what we call gravity. I sure as hell can't prove that and you cannot disprove it but does that deserve to be in science? No
A scientific theory requires evidence. ID theorist's have no evidence, before their theories can be considered they need to come up with SOMETHING credible.
As of yet, creationism/ID is just an unfounded opinion.
Yeah, that's actually an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
The difference between Galileo and intelligent design theorists is that Galileo's model of the solar system actually fit the data at hand better than the ptolemeic model. In the case of intelligent design, the proposal does not fit the data. Indeed, there are many factors suggestive of evolution that intelligent design is incapable of explaining, as you'll see in later parts of this movie.
Everything around us represents progression and growth. A seed turns into a flower, embryo into a human, interstellar dust, gas, and debris eventually formed earth. Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm a historian not a scientist but I am certainly a man of faith. One thing history should teach all of us is tolerance.
I just don't understand why you can't believe in both. Many religious theologians believe that not all scriptures are to be taken literal. This is actually quite obvious in some stories because they describe some people to be unrealistically too old. So when they say earth was made in 7 days how do we really know how to interpret it. I don't object to the world being as old as the scientific community. Matter of fact I believe in evolution. I believe evolution is intelligent design.
The same name calling and abuse can also be attributed to christians, ID'ers, creationists....pretty much anybody and there are numerous examples on this website alone. I agree though, that it does nothing to further either cause.
When legitimate scientific arguments fail, the Darwinists and Atheists resort to name calling, maliciousness and nonsense! Intelligent Design is nothing more nor less than an option to explain the unexplainable - no different than any other possible explanation. It is also an option subscribed to be numerous atheists and agnostics, and is therefore not synonymous with 'religion'.
Additional info: The first professor, Sternberg and the writer of the paper that dodged the peer review process both belong to an organization that posits the dismantling of current scientific review processes. They want papers to only require one review instead of multiple and they are pretty loose on the qualifications required to review two.
to clarify my provious statement, I was merely saying that if something has happened before you (in context, I was reffering to 'us' as the human race) existed, than you cannot be sure that it happened. you can find clues, and even have a pretty well developed theory, but it can never ber a fact.
and I never said I know the unkowable. that'd be absurd, lol.
more accurately, I was reffering to the concept of the unknowable. Or: there are just some things we can never know.
you got pwned pretty badly there, i think you should just shut up and realize you don't have a valid point.
do you understand simple ideas like "investigation"? you know, when forensic evidence links a killer to a victim in the case of a murder that is committed weeks ago?
or maybe when a bear claw leaves a track and hunters find the print in the ground days later, and figure.. "oh well, shit there was a bear here."
it's kind of like that. good luck figuring it out.
hey, if you want to continue making your non-points, feel free. keep firing away those arguments of nothingness. you make 0 headway every time you decide to type something.
you highly underestimate the human race and our cunning abilities. (but you would use the same argument to illustrate why i'm so ill-informed)
I should get a job in one of those fundy churches that are run by the saps that Stein panders too. Then start teaching that all your biblical stuff is just rot. So when I get fired I can start complaining about my freedoms getting taken away
I disagree that the driving force of the cambrian was oxygen.
It was factor but we know that there was much fauna before then. There's the edicarian and vendian fauna which were very complex, many of the same forms seem in the cambrian
There's many factors. One of them I think is that the abrupt appearance is an illusion caused by our limited range of rocks that we can look for fossils in.
it's sad that the creationists have stooped to flat-out lying... i guess in their simple little minds they are saving souls, and that spreading absolute crap is purely justifiable if less people are going to hell... whatever, i'd rather burn then spend eternity with those bible nerds:P
Joe: "some speculation is better formed, but that's up to you to decide". Evidence for evolution is found in all areas of science. A library worth of books has been written on the subject. Religions evidence is a single book, and personal experience - both of which can be explained by science. And I don't follow your comment "We can only be even partially certain of what has happened AFTER our own existance" It makes no sense. Also, you spelled existence wrong.
Joe. You're "aware" of the evidence you say. Do you actually read and understand it? You said in an earlier post "science fails to percieve the idea of the unknowable", you seem to be claiming you know the unknowable. And if it's truly unknowable, what's the point of teaching it in school? How can you teach something if it's unknowable? Please share the evidence religion has produced. And what's the evidence proving anyway? How cab you major in biology if you don't understand what a theory is?
all of these videos are resting on the rock solid "fact" that Creationism is ignorant, and anyone who teaches this should be fired for spreading ignorance.
I really cannot believe this, you're rushing to the defence of the people who fired any ID advocates, claiming that they had good reasons to do so outside of ID reated incidents... Your justification is that they were spreading ignorance in the name of their religion; but that's just the issue: youre claiming anything ID related as ignorance
the fact that you are unwilling to even consider anything religeous as anything other than foolesness is your problem. don't push that problem on to others, especially not the youth of the nation.
Dont put words in my mouth. But there is such a thing called seperation of church and state. You want to teach religion to kids then teach them in church, dont bring it to the classroom. When scientists learned the earth was'nt the center of the universe the catholic church tried to silence those who taught it. Its basically the same thing with now, only with evolution.
I didn't put words in your mouth, I made an assumption. and assumption that I stand by.
"Separation of church and state" is not, nor has it ever been a law in any capacity. (It was the view of how things must be by Thomas Jefferson to a church.) The religion part of the 1st amendment is there to prevent the formation of a National Church, and to respect an individual's beliefs.
And who's trying to silence whom? From my PoV, it's the other way around.
/facepalm...you've just contradicted yourself... what you've essentially just said is "religion is rejected because it's WRONG!"
Nothing has been proven wrong, you've just LIED as well... ID is simply the hypothesis that the universe had a (omnipotent) creator. It is by no means an interpretation on Genesis, and in no way has that been proven either.
science is merely an interpretation of our world. Creationism is a different interpretation.
ok then, give me the evidence to back up ID? thats the problem, there isn't, and a 1700 year old book isn't evidence.
people have hypothesis on how the universe started, the big bang has alot of evidence to back it up but is by no means correct, but its the scientific method, not magic.
when it comes to life on earth we have a very good understanding and you'll find evolution is fact! we have more evidence for evolution than gravity. evolution happens, and has been for billions of years
Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. There isn't evidence for it, It's an interpretation of evidence. The evidence in question only points that characteristics withing a species can change, and it's been speculated that these changes lead to a change in species. Even if it were proven that species changed into other species, that would not disprove ID.
and no, the big bang is more magic than any religion. at 1 time there's nothing, and then... BANG! ...tada? yeah, that makes sence... >_>
why don't you read a science book, seriously! evolution is a fact. look up what the word theory means in scientific circles. there is mountains of evidence for it, thousands and thousands of transitional forms, and since we mapped the genome there is definite PROOF. plaease go read a book.
as for the big bang, it didn't eplode from nothing, please don't be ignorant. if your going to try debate something at least learn about it
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I have, and no, I'm not going to look for anything within scentific circles, because anything within science fails to percieve the idea of the unknowable. Evolution is NOT a fact, and it probably never will be (much like gravity). what you've provided is not evidence, but an interpretation of what frogs could be.
oh really? tell me, what DID it come from then, if not nothing? the universe is suppssedly 14 billion yrs old, what was there before then?
who said anything about NOT investigating?I'm just not going to go looking for answers in a place unwilling to consider all the options. and what did I say about insulting my intellegence? I'm a Biology major, prick. I'm ignorant of very little. Religion has proof as well, the problem is most people tend to simply dismiss it as crazy people halucinating, or something of that nature..
you're a biology major?? what at a kent hovind college!!! LOLOLOL
the fact that you don't know the simplist evolutionary evidence, if you truly were to study biology you would see the processes that allow and trigger evolution.
you how ever are to hung up with religion. it blinds you. you take a 1700 year old fairy tale as a literal interpretation.
until religion gets some facts to back up its murdering, immoral ways it will always horrible fairy tales
you're not making much intellectual progress by ridiculing me.
I am well aware of most of the eolutionary "evidence". In my oppinion, there is not enough of it to conclusively declare it as fact, nor will there ever be.
really, there's no point to continue this if you're just going to mindlessly insult anything I say...
Do you actually have a point, or are you just going continue the typical middle-school immature insult routine?
you are well aware of most of the evolutionary evidence but it is not conclusive??
you are obviously not well aware then. go and look and even if you aren't happy with the fossil evidence why not delve into genetics, after all, it is genetics that confirms evolution
yes. that's why it's still classified as theory, and not fact, reguardless of what you would preach
Fossil evidence shows if anything a major problem with evolution. There's just not enought of it. Since Evolution allegedlly took place over billions of years, there would need to be trillions of skeletons left behind, and way more transitional forms than there are.
What are there, like 3 skeletons of Australopithicus?
as for Genetics, that only proves the similarities of some creatures..
Gravity is only a theory, but objects are still attracted to each other based off their combined mass. Nuclear physics is only a theory, but tell that to Hiroshima. Disease is caused by microorganisms is only a theory, but I'm still planning to get my flu shot.
those are theories that only explain how things happen
Evolution is that, in that it goes into how organisms change, but it ALSO goes on to say that this has been going on for billions of years. We can only be even partially certain of what has happened AFTER our own existance. therefore, the entire theory of evolution can never be proven simply on the basis that any theory that predates our own existance is speculation.
some speculation is better formed, but that's up to you to decide
That's not what he said in the video. He pointed out that Sternberg fraudulently claimed to have had others peer review the paper when that was just a flat out lie and he could not name them. Like most Christians, he clearly feels anything is just if it's done to promote Jesus. Until religious scum get a glimpse of morality, the decent people in this world are going to ridicule their handicap at every opportunity. Few things are more sickening than hypocritical frauds.
I was more commenting on the lady teacher that was "dennied a renewal" than Sternberg..
and he fealt that his article woul never get peer reviewd, or if it were allowed to be thrown out there for the Scientific community, then they would tear it to shreads without giving it so much as an afterthought (which is what WOULD happen...)
and very nice, claiming to be a "decent person" while using vulgar language and clearly attacking another people for their beliefs. Way to represent.
You'd have no trouble calling someone who genuinely believed in the tooth fairy an idiot. But we know people made up both stories.
Furthermore, people who believe in the tooth fairy don't go around bashing gays, trying to influence the way science is taught, or how medicine uses human tissues, etc. So there's actually a cost associated with having idiots believe in god rather than, say, Santa. Let's make god as good as Santa by realized he's a useful invention, not a psychotic deity.
It's not opinion that people are denied marriage because religious scum must impose their will on others. As long as people commit crimes they'll be looked upon as criminals. Get used to it.
marriage is defined as one man, and one woman (at present.) Christians imposing their will has nothing to do with it. get used to it.
Christains genearally don't commit many crimes, I fail to see your point (mostly because you have none).
who are you to say what is and isn't scum? I say that it's trolls like you who go around hating on other people's religions who are scum, in fact, you're just blatantly attacking, I consider you worse than scum.
Christ's basic message is to give no thought to the morrow--to put your faith that god will provide the things you need. No Christian behaves as if they believe this. You're all no less concerned about your wealth as anyone else. It's just more proof that you're nothing but frauds. So you promulgate an ideology you yourselves don't actually believe.
I think the beatings should continue until your morality improves. I'm happy to be an annoyance to such morally bankrupt garbage.
I can't speak for ALL christians (and you CERTAINLY can't) but I can say with Absolute certainty that I don't worry about something as trivial as money. God's got me taken care of, I just don't worry about it. ;)
Yet again, you have no point.
and I bet you are happy being the ass to something most of the world holds dear. That's part of what makes you a disgusting individual.
It's either you believe in mutation or you believe in evolution you cannot believe in both. they are mutually exclusive concepts. I could go through an extensive proof behind that but no one here could grasp it.
buddy looks like the campaign is not working. 14 K views and quite many dislikes.
tediju 3 months ago
@tediju hmmmm, at time of writing there is 542 likes vs 146 dislikes. That makes it almost 80% in favour...does that qualify as "many dislikes"? Also, at what point did he give any indication that he was "campaigning" for anything? This is a well thought out examination/review of Expelled put up for educational purposes without the intention of making profit.
Guess what your argument is...yup, it's invalid bitch.
thoughtcriminal21 3 months ago in playlist More videos from djarm67
You are speaking about something that can not be proved. If it is as you say then why can we still not recreate life or prove evolution in the laboratory.
The fundamental point you are overlooking is how these things knew what to become. They do not appear to make millions of attempts in the hope they get it right, they know prior to materialisation what they are going to become. This information that dictates form shows intelligence and understanding of geometry and engineering principles.
TCupUK 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TCupUK //If it is as you say then why can we still not recreate life or prove evolution in the laboratory.//
Recreate life? that's abiogenesis, not evolution. As for observing Evolution in the lab, look up Lenski's E.Coli experiments.
Drgamedood 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TCupUK
"If it is as you say then why can we still not recreate life or prove evolution in the laboratory."
We can. J. Craig Venter's team HAS created life by most standards (a fully synthetic genome), and isn't far from a fully synthetic organism.
Further, evolution has been demonstrated in the lab repeatedly.
brpierce 4 months ago
then all teachers who talk about vestigial organs who teach that we have gills in our first months of life and use haekel's fake drawings and those who use fake fossils as examples (piltdown man, nebraska man, naeanderthal man, zinjantrophus, ramaphitecus) should be fired and banned from the scientific community. yet this stuff is still used as evidence for evolution
icsvortex665 4 months ago
@icsvortex665
"yet this stuff is still used as evidence for evolution."
Name one school that uses Piltdown Man as evidence for evolution. Name one school that has used Piltdown Man as evidence for evolution in the last half-century.
Please.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce fortunatly they pulled it out. but we still have stupid shit like vestigial organs haekel's drawings, archaeopteryx and other.
icsvortex665 4 months ago
@icsvortex665
...so you admit you were wrong to claim that they use it as evidence. Thank you. Now: can you list for me three current textbooks which cite Haeckel's drawings as proof of evolution? (No citing textbooks which include the drawings but point out that they were incorrect, which is what most of the textbooks Creationists list do!)
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce
> Name one school that uses Piltdown Man as evidence for evolution.
Patriot Bible University? :D
rkyeun 4 months ago
@rkyeun
Ah, yes, that would be in their seminal evolutionary biology textbook, "Satanic Atheistic Communist Nazi Atheists Think That Your Grandmother Was A Rock And So It's Okay To Kill Everyone!"
brpierce 4 months ago
Is this really the best religion has? All these people are willfully deceitful with no sense of their own hypocrisy in being dishonest to try and prove the existence of the ultimate good. And to think, science is only going to keep shoveling more & more evidence on the coffin of religion every year, every decade and every century until the end of man.
It's over you charlatans. Give up & join modern man to advance our place in existence, not retard it.
TheNarcMan 4 months ago
Plus i don't understand what goes wrong if people start to believe that there is a unique creator for the entire univers.
pejvaak 5 months ago
scientific aproech is the only method to find the reality. I completely agree with that. but I can not see any scientiic aproach in calling "intelligent design" bulls***. Plus Faulty assumption is an assumption that hasn't got solid logical and evident base.
if we agree on this, is "Evolution" not a faulty or lets say a questionable assumbtion?
Plus, I never understand why there is always a fear of challenging evolution theory?
pejvaak 5 months ago
@pejvaak Intelligent design is bullshit because it is not observable, testable, falsifiable, cannot make accurate predictions, etc. All of which are necessary for a scientific hypothesis to reach the level of a scientific theory.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
Atheist liberal/progressives GOOD...libertarian/individualists who believe in god BAD. Sorry. I don't buy it. But you did convinced me that "Expelled" was sloppy at best. And it always saddens me when some folks on the right are intellectually dishonest. I expect that from the left.
jscottupton 6 months ago
You want the fact on this? ?v=ew4dnKR-iCU&feature=channel_video_title
TheAmazingCreative 10 months ago
Of course as long as you presume the Darvin's cliams is the one only reliable fact, any thing the opposes it, becomes non-sense and false information.
pejvaak 11 months ago
@pejvaak Its not that simple. Darwin was a naturallist who was influenced by other sicentists of his time leaning toward the understanding that the species form by way of environment. That's it. Evolution has since them expanded by about 12 specialized applications. But, the bottom line is that someone must come up with a theory that can be testable so that it can be predicted and applied. Creation or I.D. has not, otherwise, scientists are waiting.
truvelocity 11 months ago
@truvelocity So if I understand it right, all the inteligence that is obvious in the whole world of nature and also the inteligence in how our body works (and so many other examples)... is not enough to at least trig the question about Darvin being wrong?
pejvaak 11 months ago
@pejvaak Darwin came up with "How species change over time to fit the environment" - Since then, the overwhelming evidence that evolution is how this occurred is something to be appreciative about. However, in answer to your question directly, there are religious people who simply say that their deity created everything by method of evolution. So, I don't think you would have to give up your religious doctrine to accept evolution as some people are deviant in saying one or the other.
truvelocity 11 months ago
@truvelocity Well I am not an expert in this broad field but all I know is this human that has got mind, vertue, reason and has got an insent that pushes him toward perfection and by defualt is in favour of concepts like honesty, justice, selflessness,... can not be an inteligent animal or so called next generation of monekys.
pejvaak 11 months ago
@pejvaak Evolution does not say we came from monkeys and monkeys and even flesh eating fish will not eat their own kind. They are into self preservation due to genetics. Humans have a larger brain capacity to think introspectively and create moral views, depending on our culture. We understand suffixes and semantics. Animals that are very smart understand concepts in the now. Our brain has leaps of consciousness that serves our species. We are special.
truvelocity 11 months ago
@pejvaak //all the inteligence that is obvious in the whole world of nature//
Kinda like how it use to be "obvious" that the sun revolved around the earth, right? Common sense doesn't work in science. The human mind is known to be prone to make faulty assumptions. That's why all claims must follow the scientific method. In order to filter out the bullshit (intelligent design) from real science (evolution).
Drgamedood 6 months ago
145 F**k-tards
asajdera3 1 year ago
damn this shit is so retarded, the fact that this "debate" is even happening makes me loose a portion of respect for humans. And wtf is a dawinist? just a f*ing word to further seperate people from the facts and the actual argument.
MrTheBunnyHunter 1 year ago
Creation deals with origins. And it's perfectly scientific to claim life started from an intelligent source. Because all means of intelligence can be traced back to a mind. Abiogenesis is left open. If creation can't be used to explain it, then it is suppression .
Gods0n1 1 year ago
@Gods0n1 No, it is unscientific because the hypothesis cannot be tested. The mechanisms within abiogenesis can be tested and validated or invalidated. ID has no mechanism. "Creation" cannot be used to explain anything because miracles are not an explanation - they are a statement of ignorance.
XtalQRP 8 months ago
How exactly does evolution tie in with aids diabetes and cancer?
Gods0n1 1 year ago
How exactly does evolution tie in with aids diabetes and cancer?
Gods0n1 1 year ago
Atheism and science are not religions. They are the opposite of religion because they are not founded on belief and they do not promote a static idea about the world. Science observes and records what is. A scientific theory solely arises from a body of evidence. If there is no evidence, then there is no theory.
Creationism has no evidence, thus it cannot be a theory. Even the Discovery institute admits that there is no evidence for ID.
eltorten 1 year ago
Over and over again, advocates of ID/ creationists have resorted to lies and deception to force their ideas, which they admittedly never put to the test, to be accepted as a proper scientific theory.
Fact is, until proven by scientific investigation an idea or hypothesis remains just that. It's not decided by some mysterious council of scientists if a hypothesis is worthy of being a theory. It's testable evidence and mountains of research that makes a hypothesis a theory.
eltorten 1 year ago
Creationism is the pinnacle of human stupidity. Religion just deserves ridicule and laughter.
bary1234 1 year ago
goddamn it. Expelled is just another poorly made ID/Creationist/RELIGIOUS bullshit with absolutely nothing to sustain it but their own personal opinion. nothing real or backed up, just opinion. period. they have no idea on evolution, the science method (or they might, the reason for which they don't use it since they can't even pass a few steps: 1)observation 2)hypothesis 3)gather data 4)examine data 3)dose it fits? etc.) but they will never even pass step 3.
Ryagful 1 year ago
You swallow a camel, yet strain out a gnat; personally, I am an advocate of Intelligent Design...materialistic biological evolution of the type that is proposed by the so-called scientists who advocate it is impossible. And I don't like your treatment here because to me, it's really arrogant and loud. Obnoxious, even. Good luck with your engineering studies.
sharlenemusiclover 1 year ago
@sharlenemusicloverkeep the blinkers on, they sit with you well.
kram83au 1 year ago
WHY AREn'T WE FUNDING YOU!?!?!
TheToxicRadio 1 year ago
Darwin (1859) suggested that whales arose from bears, sketching a scenario in which selective pressures might cause bears to evolve into whales; embarrassed by criticism, he removed his hypothetical swimming bears from later editions of the Origin (Gould 1995).
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
Again, Darwin is not the be-all and end-all of evolution theory. You wouldn't say that modern medicine is nonsense because medicine was once based on humourism.
"none bigger than a wolf" does not mean "evolved from dogs", this is a size reference, nothing more, when people say there's a frog the size of a pea in Borneo, they're not suggesting that it evolved from a pea.
BabeReport 1 year ago
evolutionists are blind followers much like cult members. there is no way on earth one can describe the origin of species without knowing what the original life form was since that was the very first species. evolutionists simply assume that the fact that humans share genomes with animals means we have a common ancestor. but we also share genome with plants. why would natural selection allow plants that are eaten to still be abundant on the earth? it is a very flawed theory
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 Evolution is only about the diversification of life, not its orgin, you are missing the point here. Abiogenesis is the orign of life, and we do not yet know how it happened. Evolution is in biology, big bang in cosmology, and grvity and realativity are in physics, separate disciplines. We did nto come from rocks or dust and lightening, rocks don't have the proper organic molecules. Expelled is in favor of those who do not submitting their finds for peer review.
11FreeSpirit 1 year ago
@11FreeSpirit it is pure folly to claim common descent of life if you don't know the exact nature of the first life form/s. if evolutionists don't know how life began, how can they claim they know for sure it was not intelligent design? this is an obvious contradiction.
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
you're a troll, you go from video to video, you never make your position fully clear, you purposely misunderstand the same point over and over and have it explained to you over and over, then you stop responding and find another video where you can start muddling of sciences all over again. What's the purpose?
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport don't get your panties in a bunch. my position is that evolution is a bogus theory. it simply does not make sense. just because you have been brainwashed for mind control does not mean some people can't see through it. it is very similar to religion in terms of blind faith in a magical story. except this time 'god' is in the form of 'natural selection'; that awesome force that decides what new species an already existing species will become
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
No, your position is that 'intelligent design' is the answer, you've hinted at it several times without having the balls to say that's what you represent. where does your irreducible complexity end, who designed the designer and who designed the designers designer? think about it for a minute...
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport open up your primitive minds...does a cell know that it is just a part of a system inside a larger organism? does the dna know that it is merely a part of a cell? is the cell the creator of the dna? is the human the creator of the cell? just accept that there are things that you don't know & snap out of the illusion that science has found all the answers
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
it has become apparent that you are of very low intelligence, I've been here before with your sort. you have the mind of a child, everything needs a purpose just to satisfy you; evolution has a 'goal'; what do cells 'know'?; rocks are jagged so the animals have a place to scratch themselves; lakes are still so that animals can have a swim without getting washed away... I don't claim to know everything, science doesn't claim to know everything, you've already been told this.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport if i am of very low intelligence what does that make you? ding ding ding! plain stupid. again i ask you; does a cell believe it is created? does it have a consciousness? is it aware that it is merely a part of a larger biological system? are you sure of what exactly in the univeerse you are? true stupidity is not knowing but not even being aware that you don't know. you think you have it all figured out. that in itself is beyond "low intelligence"..it's clown territory
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
concentrate maaruz, try to remember the topic, I'm not interested in your stupid little sidetrack about whether indivdual cells are conscious and I have no idea where you're going with the whole palin/bristol thing. I told you, again, in the comment you just replied to, I don't "have it all figured out", you're a moron
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport i see you are unable to think outside of a pre-arranged box. let me put it like this; a sperm cell is "created" by a human. it has a life span & a goal. is that sperm cell aware of where it came from? if it knew, would it refer to the human who produced it as its "creator". is it possible that a human or an animal can be akin to cells in a larger organism? i know these& other concepts/ possibilits are too much for you to entertain. just worship darwin christ god of natural selection
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@BabeReport calling people stupid or moron or some other similie indicating lack of intelligence is what i have observed as the comfort zone of people who think we are bacteria/ fish/ apes- a.k.a evolutionists; they consider themselves to have a superior intellect. much like the people created slavery, discrimination, war, etc. they have a divine, er. evolutionistic right to dismiss all other humans due to the teachings they received. plz don't revert back to the ways of your ape ancestors
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@BabeReport sorry about the sarah palin quip..as a republican she probably claims to believe in "god" LOL. i was using it more in terms of her being an airhead. lets at least hope you don't think africa is a country. your mind is in a box. you can only see the false dichotomy of "creation vs. evolution" which has been created for you by the hidden forces that exist to dumb-down the population. congratulations- mission accomplished! babereport successfully dumbed down
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
well, hypocrite, let's just look at the facts, you go from video to video arguing against evolution in the most simplistic way, demanding to be taught about abiogenesis in less than 500 characters, I asked to make your position clear, you brought up intelligent design, not me. you were the first to start name calling too 'brainwashed', 'sheep' etc.
YOU HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE REAL ARGUMENT
YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A TROLL
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport yes i'm limited by 500 characters. but it doesn't take much to realize that evolution is voodoo science. deluded folk who think they know exactly how it all went down billions of years ago. basing their lives on faith in a weird god called 'natural selection'. after lightning struck magic dust some creepy crawlies became fish which eventually became as big as elephants & whales. it is even more ridiculous than the creation stories told by religions.
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
FOCUS!
you're not going to stir up any real debate about evolution theory by constantly referring to abiogenesis, this is about the sixth time I've told you, I've also seen others tell you.
EVOLUTION THEORY DOES NOT DEAL WITH ABIOGENESIS!
simply stating that it's ridiculous, voodoo, faith based, magic or a 'weird god' is NOT a valid argument against evolution theory, I told you that if you came up with a valid argument, I'd be happy to look into it, so far you have failed.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport so u don't know what the original species was or how it originated; so what makes you absolutely positive it was not 'created' and THEN evolved? without knowledge of origins why are the vast majority of evolutionists opposed to a theory of intelligent design? that is really weird/ illogical/ unintelligent
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
I could claim that glass bananas grow under the surface of venus, you can't prove me wrong, that doesn't mean it's any more likely to be true. if I make the claim, the burden of proof is mine, what evidence do I have? this is the problem with intelligent design, there is no evidence which is why most people who understand evolution theory dismiss intelligent design just as most would dismiss my venusian bananas.
you need evidence to support your claims.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport like you guys love to say; the evidence is everywhere. if one is willing to disregard their own biases & keep an objective frame of mind...i maintain that there is also no evidence of intra-species evolution nor for spontaneous/ chance occurence of life forms on earth...i will try to watch what u posted & critique in time
maaruz1979 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maaruz1979
"i maintain that there is also no evidence of intra-species evolution"
But there is a lot of evidence, so you're wrong. VERY wrong. Plain and simple.
"spontaneous/ chance occurence of life forms"
Life is chemistry, and chemical reactions are not governed by chance.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
This is about the 8th time that I personally have told you "spontaneous/ chance occurence of life forms on earth" is abiogenesis, nothing to do with evolution theory. Intraspecies evolution is evolution within a species, and you can see it with your own eyes in many species, cats, dogs, cows, horses and on and on the list goes.
There is no evidence for creationism, "the evidence is everywhere" means nothing, put this evidence forward for peer review.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport if abiogenesis is not related to evolution, then why are most evolutionists atheists? that would mean that most evolutionists oppose intelligent design...that suggests belief in chance occurence of life; i've never seen this intra-species evolution you speak of. it is hard for me to believe that some dog-looking thing coveted the ocean & eventually morphed into a whale..after originally being a fish in the first place & already living in water,i hate to break it 2 u it's fairy tales
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
well, most 'evolutionists' also 'believe' in abiogenesis for the same reason that most 'evolutionists' 'believe' in relativity, conservation of mass-energy, conservation of momentum, laws of thermodynamics etc.
EMPIRICAL DATA
The reason that most are atheists is simple, we know religious creation stories to be wrong, eg. we know that the sun was not created after the earth, this is a 'fairy tale'.
I suggest you look up the meaning of 'intraspecies' before responding again.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport first let me say that the invalidity of religious myths is not a strong enough argument to dismiss intelligent design. it is merely a strong enough argument to dismiss religious myths, some of which i believe are allegorical in nature & should not be taken literally. so holy book stories being untrue may be a strike against religion, but it will not/ can not totally debunk intelligent design at this point in human 'evolution' :)
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
You asked "why are most evolutionists atheists?", which is the reason I answered that question.
So, having addressed that, what is your evidence for 'intelligent design'?
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport perhaps i should say "inter-species"; meaning that i am skeptical of common descent of all species...or that a fish became a dog that became a whale
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
I suspect you did mean 'inter', that being opposite in meaning to 'intra'
BabeReport 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
Can you point me towards the paper that says dogs became whales?
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport" More recently, Van Valen (1966) and Szalay (1969) associated early whales with mesonychid condylarths (a now-extinct group of primitive carnivorous ungulates, none bigger than a wolf) on the basis of dental characters. More recent evidence confirms their assessment. Thus Flower was basically right.... "
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 "if abiogenesis is not related to evolution, then why are most evolutionists atheists? That makes no sense.
The two things are not related and have even less to do with why people might be atheists. Atheism/theism is about belief/or lack thereof in god - science is about studying the natural world.
The majority of the people who accept evolution are christians or believe in some version of god.
You need to go through this series by Aronra;
/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY and discover the lies..
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor
maaruz is american, according to a survey I saw, only 25% of north americans 'believe' in evolution, 2008 gallup poll showed 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists, so you're right, most 'evolutionists' in the US have some form of belief in the supernatural.
maaruz doesn't let silly things like facts bother him.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport how do you know i'm 'american'? LOL i am not swayed by polls. if you polled someone in salem in the 16th century they believed in witches & if you polled most scientists at that time they believed life could spring up spontaneously in a closed jar
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
Your profile: Country: United States
of course that could be yet another lie, who's to say.
I'm not at all surprised that you're 'not swayed by polls'. What 16th century scientist believed that 'life could spring up spontaneously in a closed jar'?
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport "It was once believed that mice could arise spontaneously from spilled wheat in barns, and that flies arose spontaneously out of rotting meat. Francesco Redi, and (later) Louis Pasteur, showed that living things come only from living parents - that life arises from life. They dealt a death-blow to those who thought life-forms could arise from lifeless matter."
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
That wasn't the question.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@Korkzor you say "The majority of the people who accept evolution are christians or believe in some version of god". so the majority of evolutionists are also religionists and creationists??? now you are really spazzing out
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
"so the majority of evolutionists are also religionists and creationists??? now you are really spazzing out"
you're simple, having faith does not make you a religionist or a creationist, many people have a belief whilst still understanding that creation stories cannot possibly be the literal truth.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport you are contradicting yourself; you say "having faith does not make you a creationist or a religionist"..faith is belief without proof- which you reject as unprovable- faith in what are you speaking of? but you are correct because it takes faith also to believe life sprang from spontaneous random non-controlled chemical & physical chance occurrence...& then went on to become millions of extremely complex organisms..."many people have a belief"..belief in what???
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
I'm not contradicting myself at all, you don't have to be a creationist or a religionist to have faith, you don't even have to be a religionist to follow a religion, once again, you're using words that you don't understand.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
maaruz, this explains every point you have raised, please watch it and comment on that video.
watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
thanks
BabeReport 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 You need to taek comfort in not knowing things, because scientists do. We are learning, creationist zombies for example cannot take comfort in not knowing things, so they protect ther beliefs because it gvies them a false sense of "I know it all". Science is not about who did it, it is about how, it was done, you fail to see the false dilemma that crationist zombes make.
11FreeSpirit 1 year ago
@McHughMan1117 Boo hoo for them. lol
popebiscuit666 1 year ago
@McHughMan1117 are you regurgitating more crap that you heard/ read about? think for yourself...evolutioniost & darwinists & atheists have proven nothing; until they can duplicate life they are only going on theories...sorry to break it to you but you guys are religious nutcases just like the creationists; only your religion is evolution with darwin as god
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 "until they can duplicate life they are only going on theories"
The first synthetic life was created back in May this year.
NWOshill 1 year ago
@NWOshill they leaned very heavily on what was there before: " Dr Venter created the lifeform by synthesising a DNA code and injecting it into a single bacteria cell. The cell containing the man-made DNA then grew and divided, creating a hitherto unseen lifeform"..while this is impressive, it was an intelligent experiment & thesis & does not prove spontaneous appearance or evolution. it only proves that they still need life to create life
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 I wasn't offering it as proof of evolution just as proof of your ignorance. Creating a new lifeform would not be poof of evolution that was your misguided assumption not mine.
Scientists create a new organism, one that has never existed before and you say "it only prooves they still need to create life." you are an idiot.
NWOshill 1 year ago
@NWOshill if i am an idiot you are a lost sheep. scientists that you claim created a new organism had to study the genetic code for decades & then they had to transplant their CREATED DNA into an already existing natural bacteria cell. they have not created life- they merely mimicked the dna structure & used already existing life template. it took a lot of intelligence by them to attempt to do something which you claim is not intelligent. now who is the idiot?
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@NWOshill i guess the NWO in your moniker stands for New World Order? you must be a big fan of that; this explains everything LOL! baaa baaa
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 Yes it does stand for new world order, but if you had thought a little more you would understand that the name is ironic and is in fact pointing fun at the people who believe in such nonsense. Once again, you suck.
NWOshill 1 year ago
@NWOshill
you're in for some serious name-calling when he finds out what a shill is...
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport hey there babereport my little sarah palin...or is it bristol LOL
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@NWOshill so you are saying the new world order is "nonsense"? let me guess. you support the wars in iraq & afghanistan & you think the economic crisis was brought on by people who borrowed more than they could pay for a mortgage...and you are in the tea party movement; did i get it right? LOL
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 "did i get it right? LOL." No, not even close. Your just a boring troll.
NWOshill 1 year ago
@NWOshill boring but i hit a nerve, yea? your voodoo science & pagan god darwin are in concern mode...your religion of darwinism will eventually be exposed. you and your new world order friends will be taken to task for this mind control they have unleashed on earth
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 Hit a nerve??? Wow just wow. You are truly bizarre. You could use some mind control cause yours doesn't seem to work properly. I give thanks that my brain does not operate the same way yours does. I pity you. This exchange is long since over. I will no longer respond to your asinine ramblings.
NWOshill 1 year ago
@NWOshill i don't need your pity. big brother will reward you well...'god' go with you
maaruz1979 1 year ago
evolution is total nonsense. evolutionists always rush to bash religion whenever you question their theory, but religion aside; scientifically & logically the theory is shit. no complex functioning machine has ever come about by chance & then also improved its own self. no machine has ever done this and a single cell is infinitely more complex than any man-made machine or computer. evolution as the answer of the origin of species is voodoo science
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979 I am just defended the facts from while you are just doing either straw man or ad hominem attacks. Science is not a religion, we accept evolution like we do relativity because it has the EVIDENCE, you are a creationist, just trying to protect your delicate little beleifs from REALITY!
11FreeSpirit 1 year ago
@11FreeSpirit you are limited in your thinking due to your primitive nature. guys like you are completely excluding any other possibilities which does not fit into your idea of magical dust being struck by lightning, coming to life & then developing into millions of species..that at the core a human & a fish or an amoeba are exactly the same & have the same ancestor...i am not a creationist; i just recognize that evolution has serious flaws but they have their heads in the sand.
maaruz1979 1 year ago
why does it seem like your reading straight from wiki? O_O;
supermandefender 1 year ago
Hey, what's the update on that Dr. Guillermo that supposedly discovered planets? Did he find 'em or (probably) not?
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago
I accept can accept that...thank you for your rebuttle...and thank you for not coming off like you were offended by my comment.
mewesnate 1 year ago
Faith by definition is "belief without having proof"...people that are atheist or have something against Christianity, want there to be no God because if there is a God they would have to answer for the things they do wrong in their daily life...and human nature does not want answer for the thing they might be doing wrong. So basicly Atheism is used to try to cover the guilt they have inside themselves.for things they do day to day
mewesnate 1 year ago
@mewesnate No, that's what theists do. If you don't think that there are any gods: God, Allah, Zeus, Thor or whatever, you would not feel guilt to a celestial dictator. Religion instills guilt over things we do wrong in our daily lives, everyone makes mistakes, that's human. Only theists think that a supernatural big brother is seeing everything we do and reading our thoughts and condemning our actions. Read Darrel Ray's book, that explains how this works.
gerandomiseerd 1 year ago 4
@gerandomiseerd Not only that, it instills shame for things that the bible itself states that "we" did not do. That would be like you feeling shame because your great great great great...(cont...) uncle was a slave. Shame itself implies hates the sinner and not the sin.
Not too long ago, a creationist was telling me how he thinks a newborn baby is inherently evil. How can anyone in their right mind say a newborn baby is evil? From what I have seen, evil is taught, not inherited.
changingmyself 5 months ago
2 to 36 isn't 18 fold. This is a common mistake. Fold is to double, then double again, then double again, and again, thus 2x2=4, 4x4=16, 16x16=256, etc. It's actually just an increase of 16 times.
Etimos 1 year ago
I just want say it saddens me that a guy like Ben Stein, who projects himself to be so smart, can be onthe side of myth
sambricky 1 year ago
Amazingly thorough, well done! We need people like you to combat the rubbish.
kelarael 1 year ago
no wonder the swollen spots didn't go away, I forgot to shave the damn chicken's ass.
WisdomVendor 2 years ago
And please everyone when debating each other on this subject show some respect to each other. Because when you stoop to the point of name calling you lose all credibility in your argument. We're not enemies just people with different interpretations.
Red99man 2 years ago
You actually are respectable to everyone, wow.
G11EM2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just as in the 17th century Galileo was attached by his Roman Catholic faith because his advances in science contradicted what they taught in the matter, now science is being just as intolerant. You scientist should be a little more open minded, because although ID theorist can't prove a deity created the universe, yous certainly can't disprove it.
Red99man 2 years ago
Science is not being intolerant to the ID theorists. Science is being intolerant of people who purposefully (or just ignorantly) misrepresent science.
I can say that I think magical, invisible pixies are what cause things to fall and are what we call gravity. I sure as hell can't prove that and you cannot disprove it but does that deserve to be in science? No
fatmon 2 years ago 16
A scientific theory requires evidence. ID theorist's have no evidence, before their theories can be considered they need to come up with SOMETHING credible.
As of yet, creationism/ID is just an unfounded opinion.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago 20
Its not an issue of not being open-minded.. but of having a filter to take away the bullshit ;)
GronTheMighty 2 years ago 6
@Red99man
Yeah, that's actually an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
The difference between Galileo and intelligent design theorists is that Galileo's model of the solar system actually fit the data at hand better than the ptolemeic model. In the case of intelligent design, the proposal does not fit the data. Indeed, there are many factors suggestive of evolution that intelligent design is incapable of explaining, as you'll see in later parts of this movie.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
Everything around us represents progression and growth. A seed turns into a flower, embryo into a human, interstellar dust, gas, and debris eventually formed earth. Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm a historian not a scientist but I am certainly a man of faith. One thing history should teach all of us is tolerance.
Red99man 2 years ago
I just don't understand why you can't believe in both. Many religious theologians believe that not all scriptures are to be taken literal. This is actually quite obvious in some stories because they describe some people to be unrealistically too old. So when they say earth was made in 7 days how do we really know how to interpret it. I don't object to the world being as old as the scientific community. Matter of fact I believe in evolution. I believe evolution is intelligent design.
Red99man 2 years ago
So the creator of the universe used a process that would lead the creations to the conclusion that she/he didn't exist?
13shadowwolf 2 years ago 2
@cadwan
The same name calling and abuse can also be attributed to christians, ID'ers, creationists....pretty much anybody and there are numerous examples on this website alone. I agree though, that it does nothing to further either cause.
angryneighbour 2 years ago
When legitimate scientific arguments fail, the Darwinists and Atheists resort to name calling, maliciousness and nonsense! Intelligent Design is nothing more nor less than an option to explain the unexplainable - no different than any other possible explanation. It is also an option subscribed to be numerous atheists and agnostics, and is therefore not synonymous with 'religion'.
cadwan 2 years ago
Additional info: The first professor, Sternberg and the writer of the paper that dodged the peer review process both belong to an organization that posits the dismantling of current scientific review processes. They want papers to only require one review instead of multiple and they are pretty loose on the qualifications required to review two.
futureprimitive 2 years ago
@Macrochenia:
to clarify my provious statement, I was merely saying that if something has happened before you (in context, I was reffering to 'us' as the human race) existed, than you cannot be sure that it happened. you can find clues, and even have a pretty well developed theory, but it can never ber a fact.
and I never said I know the unkowable. that'd be absurd, lol.
more accurately, I was reffering to the concept of the unknowable. Or: there are just some things we can never know.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
you got pwned pretty badly there, i think you should just shut up and realize you don't have a valid point.
do you understand simple ideas like "investigation"? you know, when forensic evidence links a killer to a victim in the case of a murder that is committed weeks ago?
or maybe when a bear claw leaves a track and hunters find the print in the ground days later, and figure.. "oh well, shit there was a bear here."
it's kind of like that. good luck figuring it out.
visualkei72 2 years ago
sure, I guess if you say so, then it must be true. I got owned. >_>
I understand it completely. I also understand such premesis as global skepticism, as I'm sure you don't.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
hey, if you want to continue making your non-points, feel free. keep firing away those arguments of nothingness. you make 0 headway every time you decide to type something.
you highly underestimate the human race and our cunning abilities. (but you would use the same argument to illustrate why i'm so ill-informed)
visualkei72 2 years ago
again, if you say so, then it must be so. nothing I say makes any difference whatsoever, and everything you say is "cunning" and "well-informed".
sure, that's a rational PoV... xD
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
I should get a job in one of those fundy churches that are run by the saps that Stein panders too. Then start teaching that all your biblical stuff is just rot. So when I get fired I can start complaining about my freedoms getting taken away
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
lets do it
kendrawhisp 2 years ago
whenever we find rocks of the right age and type we see complex forms predating the Cambrian by 10's of millions of years.
The origin of animals themselves probably goes back 1.5 billion(probably slightly less though)
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
I disagree that the driving force of the cambrian was oxygen.
It was factor but we know that there was much fauna before then. There's the edicarian and vendian fauna which were very complex, many of the same forms seem in the cambrian
There's many factors. One of them I think is that the abrupt appearance is an illusion caused by our limited range of rocks that we can look for fossils in.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
it's sad that the creationists have stooped to flat-out lying... i guess in their simple little minds they are saving souls, and that spreading absolute crap is purely justifiable if less people are going to hell... whatever, i'd rather burn then spend eternity with those bible nerds:P
pringlewrangler 2 years ago
Ms. Crocker would liked to be spanked for a disciplinary session eh?
dirtyhyde8 2 years ago
Joe: "some speculation is better formed, but that's up to you to decide". Evidence for evolution is found in all areas of science. A library worth of books has been written on the subject. Religions evidence is a single book, and personal experience - both of which can be explained by science. And I don't follow your comment "We can only be even partially certain of what has happened AFTER our own existance" It makes no sense. Also, you spelled existence wrong.
MagnumDB 2 years ago
Joe. You're "aware" of the evidence you say. Do you actually read and understand it? You said in an earlier post "science fails to percieve the idea of the unknowable", you seem to be claiming you know the unknowable. And if it's truly unknowable, what's the point of teaching it in school? How can you teach something if it's unknowable? Please share the evidence religion has produced. And what's the evidence proving anyway? How cab you major in biology if you don't understand what a theory is?
MagnumDB 2 years ago
all of these videos are resting on the rock solid "fact" that Creationism is ignorant, and anyone who teaches this should be fired for spreading ignorance.
I really cannot believe this, you're rushing to the defence of the people who fired any ID advocates, claiming that they had good reasons to do so outside of ID reated incidents... Your justification is that they were spreading ignorance in the name of their religion; but that's just the issue: youre claiming anything ID related as ignorance
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
ID was refuted by the supreme court twice. It is religion, not science.
Zombie1990 2 years ago 2
the fact that you are unwilling to even consider anything religeous as anything other than foolesness is your problem. don't push that problem on to others, especially not the youth of the nation.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
Dont put words in my mouth. But there is such a thing called seperation of church and state. You want to teach religion to kids then teach them in church, dont bring it to the classroom. When scientists learned the earth was'nt the center of the universe the catholic church tried to silence those who taught it. Its basically the same thing with now, only with evolution.
Zombie1990 2 years ago
I didn't put words in your mouth, I made an assumption. and assumption that I stand by.
"Separation of church and state" is not, nor has it ever been a law in any capacity. (It was the view of how things must be by Thomas Jefferson to a church.) The religion part of the 1st amendment is there to prevent the formation of a National Church, and to respect an individual's beliefs.
And who's trying to silence whom? From my PoV, it's the other way around.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
no-one is rejecting it only because its religious!!
its being rejected because its wrong! its has been proven that ID is nothing but an interpretation of genisis
it is NOT SCIENCE!!! therefore should not be taught in science class
mambuduomally 2 years ago 4
it's crap like this that pisses me off...
/facepalm...you've just contradicted yourself... what you've essentially just said is "religion is rejected because it's WRONG!"
Nothing has been proven wrong, you've just LIED as well... ID is simply the hypothesis that the universe had a (omnipotent) creator. It is by no means an interpretation on Genesis, and in no way has that been proven either.
science is merely an interpretation of our world. Creationism is a different interpretation.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
ok then, give me the evidence to back up ID? thats the problem, there isn't, and a 1700 year old book isn't evidence.
people have hypothesis on how the universe started, the big bang has alot of evidence to back it up but is by no means correct, but its the scientific method, not magic.
when it comes to life on earth we have a very good understanding and you'll find evolution is fact! we have more evidence for evolution than gravity. evolution happens, and has been for billions of years
mambuduomally 2 years ago 2
Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. There isn't evidence for it, It's an interpretation of evidence. The evidence in question only points that characteristics withing a species can change, and it's been speculated that these changes lead to a change in species. Even if it were proven that species changed into other species, that would not disprove ID.
and no, the big bang is more magic than any religion. at 1 time there's nothing, and then... BANG! ...tada? yeah, that makes sence... >_>
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
why don't you read a science book, seriously! evolution is a fact. look up what the word theory means in scientific circles. there is mountains of evidence for it, thousands and thousands of transitional forms, and since we mapped the genome there is definite PROOF. plaease go read a book.
as for the big bang, it didn't eplode from nothing, please don't be ignorant. if your going to try debate something at least learn about it
mambuduomally 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have, and no, I'm not going to look for anything within scentific circles, because anything within science fails to percieve the idea of the unknowable. Evolution is NOT a fact, and it probably never will be (much like gravity). what you've provided is not evidence, but an interpretation of what frogs could be.
oh really? tell me, what DID it come from then, if not nothing? the universe is suppssedly 14 billion yrs old, what was there before then?
don't insult my intelegence.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
i don't know and i'm not going to claim to but rather than just say god did it without question i'd rather investigate, try and find the answers.
your refusal to look at science shows your complete ignorance. you believe something with no proof what so ever. you are willfully ignorant.
the evidence is there, you choose to ignore to keep up the false pretence that is your faith
mambuduomally 2 years ago 2
now you're just being rude.
"I don't know" -exactly.
who said anything about NOT investigating?I'm just not going to go looking for answers in a place unwilling to consider all the options. and what did I say about insulting my intellegence? I'm a Biology major, prick. I'm ignorant of very little. Religion has proof as well, the problem is most people tend to simply dismiss it as crazy people halucinating, or something of that nature..
false pretence? you KNOW it's a false pretence?
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
LOL
you're a biology major?? what at a kent hovind college!!! LOLOLOL
the fact that you don't know the simplist evolutionary evidence, if you truly were to study biology you would see the processes that allow and trigger evolution.
you how ever are to hung up with religion. it blinds you. you take a 1700 year old fairy tale as a literal interpretation.
until religion gets some facts to back up its murdering, immoral ways it will always horrible fairy tales
mambuduomally 2 years ago 2
you're not making much intellectual progress by ridiculing me.
I am well aware of most of the eolutionary "evidence". In my oppinion, there is not enough of it to conclusively declare it as fact, nor will there ever be.
really, there's no point to continue this if you're just going to mindlessly insult anything I say...
Do you actually have a point, or are you just going continue the typical middle-school immature insult routine?
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
you are well aware of most of the evolutionary evidence but it is not conclusive??
you are obviously not well aware then. go and look and even if you aren't happy with the fossil evidence why not delve into genetics, after all, it is genetics that confirms evolution
mambuduomally 2 years ago
yes. that's why it's still classified as theory, and not fact, reguardless of what you would preach
Fossil evidence shows if anything a major problem with evolution. There's just not enought of it. Since Evolution allegedlly took place over billions of years, there would need to be trillions of skeletons left behind, and way more transitional forms than there are.
What are there, like 3 skeletons of Australopithicus?
as for Genetics, that only proves the similarities of some creatures..
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
Gravity is only a theory, but objects are still attracted to each other based off their combined mass. Nuclear physics is only a theory, but tell that to Hiroshima. Disease is caused by microorganisms is only a theory, but I'm still planning to get my flu shot.
Macrochenia 2 years ago
those are theories that only explain how things happen
Evolution is that, in that it goes into how organisms change, but it ALSO goes on to say that this has been going on for billions of years. We can only be even partially certain of what has happened AFTER our own existance. therefore, the entire theory of evolution can never be proven simply on the basis that any theory that predates our own existance is speculation.
some speculation is better formed, but that's up to you to decide
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
still better than Creationism or ID anti-intellectual crap by about 10000 to 1
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
That's not what he said in the video. He pointed out that Sternberg fraudulently claimed to have had others peer review the paper when that was just a flat out lie and he could not name them. Like most Christians, he clearly feels anything is just if it's done to promote Jesus. Until religious scum get a glimpse of morality, the decent people in this world are going to ridicule their handicap at every opportunity. Few things are more sickening than hypocritical frauds.
ananiasacts 2 years ago 3
I was more commenting on the lady teacher that was "dennied a renewal" than Sternberg..
and he fealt that his article woul never get peer reviewd, or if it were allowed to be thrown out there for the Scientific community, then they would tear it to shreads without giving it so much as an afterthought (which is what WOULD happen...)
and very nice, claiming to be a "decent person" while using vulgar language and clearly attacking another people for their beliefs. Way to represent.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
You'd have no trouble calling someone who genuinely believed in the tooth fairy an idiot. But we know people made up both stories.
Furthermore, people who believe in the tooth fairy don't go around bashing gays, trying to influence the way science is taught, or how medicine uses human tissues, etc. So there's actually a cost associated with having idiots believe in god rather than, say, Santa. Let's make god as good as Santa by realized he's a useful invention, not a psychotic deity.
ananiasacts 2 years ago 3
If they want to believe in the tooth fairy, then I say let them blieve in the tooth fairy.
The WRONG thing to do is be a complete ass about it and call them idiotic for their silly beliefs.
and no, we do not by any means know that. Don't try to pawn off your oppinion as fact, troll.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
It's not opinion that people are denied marriage because religious scum must impose their will on others. As long as people commit crimes they'll be looked upon as criminals. Get used to it.
ananiasacts 2 years ago 3
marriage is defined as one man, and one woman (at present.) Christians imposing their will has nothing to do with it. get used to it.
Christains genearally don't commit many crimes, I fail to see your point (mostly because you have none).
who are you to say what is and isn't scum? I say that it's trolls like you who go around hating on other people's religions who are scum, in fact, you're just blatantly attacking, I consider you worse than scum.
Begone troll.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
Christ's basic message is to give no thought to the morrow--to put your faith that god will provide the things you need. No Christian behaves as if they believe this. You're all no less concerned about your wealth as anyone else. It's just more proof that you're nothing but frauds. So you promulgate an ideology you yourselves don't actually believe.
I think the beatings should continue until your morality improves. I'm happy to be an annoyance to such morally bankrupt garbage.
ananiasacts 2 years ago 3
that's your oppinion, and it's absolute garbage.
I can't speak for ALL christians (and you CERTAINLY can't) but I can say with Absolute certainty that I don't worry about something as trivial as money. God's got me taken care of, I just don't worry about it. ;)
Yet again, you have no point.
and I bet you are happy being the ass to something most of the world holds dear. That's part of what makes you a disgusting individual.
J0ECRAWF15H 2 years ago
It's either you believe in mutation or you believe in evolution you cannot believe in both. they are mutually exclusive concepts. I could go through an extensive proof behind that but no one here could grasp it.
iceman70028 2 years ago
Mutations accumulated over time = evolution.
Exactly how, if you'd be so kind, are they mutually exclusive concepts?!
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Magic. That's how.
johnd94 2 years ago
Evolution occurs through mutations...what do you mean they're mutually exclusive concepts? :)
Falloutmoon 2 years ago
Diabeetus.
AtheistChase 2 years ago