Evolution Ep1: Darwin's Dangerous Idea (2/11)

[chieutim53]

I believe in only 1 thing: cause and effect. Evolution, amongst many other things, is a clear manifestation of this law.

[darkfur35]

Evolution is a big farce, I mean fart.

[faron27]

@AnointedShield thanks i believe in order to find the truth you have to keep looking for it!

Especially when it hasn't been found ;}

[faron27]

@AnointedShield the truth is out there somewhere! but I don't see how it disproves Creation (perhaps the classical theory of Creation) it's funny how old ideas die hard... I think it proves that the time line for human evolution is completely wrong and when you prove 1 part of a theory wrong you have to re-evaluate the theory!

[draunt7]

i dont understand how people can be so ignorant to not understand that the theory of evolution is easily compatible with anyones idea of god. Darwinism isnt an alternative to god its simply another scientific theory to be added to our archives, that is actually being supported whenever someone tries to prove it wrong

[makkreol]

Beautiful poem on life , isn't it? Is it made for the show or is it actually related to the events of Darwin's time?

Nursed by warm sunlight in primeval caves,

Organic life began beneath the waves.

Hence without parent with spontaneous birth,

Rise the first steps of animated Earth.

[faron27]

O.K. Darwinians please explain Gobekli Tepe, this site is over 15 thousand years old.

i can't wait to hear your answers :} how could primitive man quarry, carve and set 200 ton stones? EVOLUTION IS A LIE!

[shiftyden]

@faron27 And that the planet is only 6000 years old is not a lie?

[gregrutz]

@faron27 What does Evolution have to do with stone buildings?

It's like saying, '' We don't know how the Indians got to America so Noah's Flood is a lie''.

No wait, that part is true.

[faron27]

@gregrutz it has everything to do with it, during this time according to evolution humans were 1 step away from a monkey! yet they where able to quarry,carve and perfectly place 20 ton stone. and please don't bring religion in the conversation because you're barking up the wrong tree!

[gregrutz]

@faron27 Humans have not changed much in 15,000 years, evolution does not say we were ''1 step from monkeys' that long ago. You are barking up the wrong tree!

[faron27]

@gregrutz make your story if you like but don't make your own facts! Cro-Magnon so evolution has stated have been around for 120 thousand years, but were very primitive in nature only able to make bone,wood or stone tools and were hunter gathers at the time of the creation of Gobekli Tepe! dude seriously truth has been held back! humans did not evolve we have always been this way!

[gregrutz]

@faron27 The Cro-Magnon (pronounced /kroʊˈmæɡnən/, French [kʁomaɲɔ̃]) were the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) of the European Upper Paleolithic in Europe. The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiometrically dated to 35,000 years before present.

WIKIPEDIA

It look like your facts are wrong.

[faron27]

@gregrutz wikipedia can be re written mr. magoo and the facts are what they are and if evolution was true humans would not have been able to build any of the thousands of monolithic, megalithic sites.

i think you should stay off wiki anything!

[gregrutz]

@faron27 WHY? Why if evolution was true, man can't build?  Where is the connection?

[faron27]

@gregrutz we would need a super crane for 1, a laser or diamond cutting tool to cut the stone, then you would need a compass/computer for the alignment oh and yes you will need iron and steel tools to carve the stone! according to evolutions time frame humans were not able to do these things.

you do know that the so called evolution of man had a time frame for each evolution man was supposed to go through.

[MrStigmatis]

Saw the movie preview of this on PBS's site. Then I realized, YOUTUBE!!! lol

[Ricardius1710]

Awesome! 

[celticschampions]

thanks man really saved me with this video

[blazereef]

i would like to drink some tea with darwin, dont know why, it seems suitable :D

[Venaloid]

I don't think he was a full-out atheist just as he came home, this seems somewhat biased.

[wowamonn]

Thanks for the videos.

[jacksawild]

If God were alive today he'd be subject to some pretty heavy UN sanctions and possible military action. We have outgrown this dated concept, the entity your books describe is petty, jealous, violent and a murderous thug. He's a racist and he demands subservience from those who are less powerful than he. I have no room for that thing, if it is real he will have to destroy me to stop me destroying him. He shouldn't have made us intelligent, we demand answers. He is not above the law.

[AppleSouffle]

Jacksawild, I learned this from my political science teacher. We live in a pluralistic society. That means there are people who believe in pretty much everything. There are many religious denominations, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, Pagans, Wiccans atheists.

You have one viewpoint on religion; there are many others. Your viewpoint is no more or less valid than another.

If you don't believe in a God or gods, why are you putting so much energy into trashing him or they?

[jacksawild]

@AppleSouffle Your political science teacher is perpetuating a fallacy. To think that all ideas deserve equal merit and consideration is clearly absurd. There are ideas which are worth pursuing and there are those which are not. Religion deserves to die.

[Paulwhoisvegan]

Blame the black people!

[Acmd7]

4. In Bible, we find two (2) candidates to be called GOD, but atheists are arguing just

with ONE,not with other pretendent.

5. Mostly atheist, are against God's morality and justice

but never refer the same to other candidate: satan.

6. Bible maintans evolution after creation, earth have billions of years etc.

Atheism is a dead concept.

[mightyafrowhitey]

@Acmd7 more and more people are rejecting religion every year. how can it be a dead concept. the bible is a pretty sorry bedrock for a concept of morality. I consider many things in the bible, especially those done by yaweh as very immoral. atheists don't worry much about satan because not many people worship him, and even most satanists don't really think he exists. billions of years? I thought god made allt he animals in one day...

[bustermk2]

@Acmd7

Atheism is dead !!!

Just because you are deluded enough to believe in that book of fairytails don't make the mistake of thinking that all of us are that gullible.

As science advances then religion retreats ... that is why christians are so frightened by the concept of evolution.

By the way ... atheists don't believe in Satan either.

[sinusbradycardia]

@bustermk2 My grandmother thought atheists believed in satan, I had to educate her that atheists don't believe god or satan, again education. She is from west virginia and dropped out of school in the 8th grade or was forced to work household chores for her uncles. She lived with grandmother because her preacher step father beat her because she refuse him sex and fought back when he tried to rape her. He beat her in the back of the head and damaged her occipital lobe and messed up her sight.

[Charlesperalo]

@bustermk2 We are God there is no God and there is a God. It's us and that's it.

[MrSandykramer]

@bustermk2

The question is, :Does Satan believe in atheists?" You bet your life.

[assym2006]

@Acmd7 no

religion is in its death throws and hopefully will be dead by the end of the century and good riddance to such utter rubbish.

[Acmd7]

God exist! evidences:

1. In Bible we find a lot of prophecies which happened and are happening.

2. If anybody will follow what God asks (ex: praying), everybody will have whatever they (ask)

want (somebody can call it miracles).

3. Blasphemies: if anybody will do it, is puniched very soon and anybody is free to try it,

even right now!

[pelonisas]

bedrock of biology? the same idea that one cannot understand biology at all but in the light of evolution? That indeed is saying alot for an idea that contributes nothing to science but to slow it down by the idea that it is random.

[assym2006]

@pelonisas bloocks Darwin is right.

[pelonisas]

5:26 I must admit that when he says that "the person who can solve that riddle will take all the scientific prizes" they clearly portraying their bias.

[pelonisas]

2:05 could be a representation of what the captain thought in his day, but I should inform those that don't know that that is not an accurate representation of the views of creationists today. Adaptation, speciation, natural selection (quality control if you will in this case) are all consistant in a creationists world view.

[mightyafrowhitey]

@pelonisas haha dude what are you talking about. how can someone believe in natural selection and still be a creationist? seriously I want to know. that makes no sense to me. also, there's nothing random about natural selection, but since you say the theory is compatible with creationism I must ask you.

what then do you think evolution is???

[pelonisas]

@mightyafrowhitey In creaitonism natural selection works like a quality control, the difference being that in one (evo) mutations are able to improve the species in a one celled organism to man type change (not observed or observable) whereas in the other it only keeps the corruption of the genetic code by taking out most of the bad ones which has been observed.

[t3rr411]

@pelonisas God didn't do anything and i didn't know if your definition is something trolls would use to make a claim.

if you're for science, you are going to have to separate religion from science and keep it that way.

if you are a true creationist you are truly mistaken by hovind, ham and such other people.

[pelonisas]

@t3rr411 I guess your comments really don't require a response, but I would be curious as to your statement "God didn't do anything" how would your convince even yourself that you can know that as an absolute statement?

One thing I would like to say is that my belief in God now fuels my desire to understand science, there need be no seperation.

And yes I am a true creationist.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

"True" creationist?

I always had three questions:

One is: how can plants exist before the Sun is created? Why claim in one example, the planet was created before the star, while every other example proves otherwise?

If you're a christian, you must be the greatest sinner around, right?

I mean, Jesus died for your sins.

If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.

And the more you sin, the more you raise the worth of Jesus' sacrifice!

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 neither do I know how creation can happen within the confines of materialism and imperacism, you could either admit or deny that creation is a supernatural event and therefore might never be able to reach the ultimate limit to scientific inquiry (doesn't mean we can't try and for an example of some of the limits of science just consider that we still don't know what energy is although we can use it for a vast amount of things, also it does not have any moral implications).

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 Also your assersion that I must be the greatest sinner around is a nonsequitor (does not follow). He saved us from our sin in the same way that you would save someone that can't swim from drowning in the sea, you didn't do it so he could try again but so that he could try to avoid that situation from happening again.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

Then, Jesus failed. Accepting Jesus does nothing according to you.

Everybody is born a sinner according to christian doctrine. If sins that happened after he sacrificed himself are not forgiven (if the person saving the drowned saves the person before he goes into the water), then, the sacrifice itself is worthless.

It seems pretty logical he sacrificed himself for sins to come too.

If he did, then, the more you sin, the more his sacrifice has value.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 In the scenario he was pulled out of the water that he was drowning in, they are not automatically forgiven after his death and ressurection, he did sacrifice himself for sins to come but not WILLFUL sin. see Hebrews 10:26 , did I answer you comments thoroughly enough?

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

Nice Bible quote.

However, same chapter, 10:31, states you should not want to fall into the hands of God.

However, that DID answer my question.

So, as long as you don't know what a "sin" is, you can commit as many as you wish.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 10:31 is taking about his judgement (in context). I'm not sure what you see as contradictory unless you believe it's talking about God's mercy or you think it means "in anyway come into contact with him".

Ignorance is dealt with mercifully and I thank him for that, but be ware of willful ignorance, see Romans chapter 1 verses 18 and on.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

It says in many places in the Bible that you should not fear God in any way. Yet, you should fear his wrath.

John 1, verse 8 and 18. If god is love, and we shouldn't fear love, then why does it say there that we should fear God?

1 Chronicles 16:25 also states you can fear the other gods, but just fear Yahweh more.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 I'm afraid I don't see that anywhere, could you give me a referance to one or more verses? (for your first paragraph)



[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 john 1 verse 8 and 18? I can't find a connection there, but let me make a comment from Solomons writings: the fear of the Lord is the beggining of wisdom and then to a Epistlein the new Testament: perfect love casts out fear.

On first glance they would seem to contradict each other but we need to realize that the fear starts us on the right path and is subsequently removed when our relationship is strong enough that we would be as greived as he is by any sin.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

God is love, and you shouldn't fear love.

My bad for the reference.

1 John 4:8 and 4:18.

Another question I'm having trouble with about the Bible. You seem quite knowledgeable, AND respectful.

God's name, in many Old Testament verses, is referred to as elohim in it's original context (hebrew).

In hebrew, elohim is the plural form of eloha (a being in the sky).

In the beginning, "the gods" created the heavens and the earth.

Any logical explanation (it can't be a translation error)

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 I return the compliment, I like it. Your right it is Plural "Gods" although I never did look it up (wait, let me do that now) 430 אֱלֹהִים [’elohiym /el·o·heem/] n m p. Plural of 433; TWOT 93c; GK 466; 2606 occurrences; out of strongs concordance. The way I would try to understand it is to look all of what the Bible says about God and put the pieces together, in my case I've found that God is indeed somehow 3 persons in one being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (doesn't meanIunderstand)

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 (ran out of space) this doesn't mean I undertand it, that's just taking what the Bible says as a whole and piecing it together.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

I get you can still find an excuse for such a wording.

My first guess was about this, but since the Trinity was not mentioned in the Old testament, it makes little sense.

It just shows taking the Bible literally isn't a neccessary good thing to do.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 I'm afraid I don't follow you on the wording part.

The trinity, assuming the Bible is an integrated message from outside our time domain (as I believe it is) it does make sense, if you were correct that the 2 are separate , then I would undoubtedly have to agree with you.

Far as taking it literally, that, too, depends largely on context.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

So, the god that forgives every sin and the one that imposes bringing disobedient children in front of the village to stone them is one and the same.

Many christians believe the NT is a correction of the errors of the OT. If I were to believe the Bible is the word of God, then, that would be my stance. The two characters are much too different.

It does depend on context. So taking it literally all the time (which was what I meant) isn't neccesarily a good thing.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 1 Chronicles 16:26 explains the former verse the meaning being that the "gods"are percieved gods (ultimately having demonic origen but that is a whole other topic) not true Gods going on to say that YHWH (the one depicted in the Bible as the one and only creator, the only God ie. limitless in all his attributes) is the real among all the phonies.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

why then would "the gods" have created the heavens and the earth? Was this planet built by demons?

The term "elohim" is used in many ways, also when Yahweh says that he made man "one of us" when he made him to know good and evil. In Genesis 3:22

Something's missing here.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 yes the term is used in many ways, but really narrowed down in the context although even there you have a little variability for the most part it's interpretation is obvious.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

I would also like to refer you yo Psalm 82:1, where it is said that God resides as a judge among other gods.

So, either demons and God keep company in Heaven, the Devil wrote the Bible, or those other gods are mentioned as they are.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 I wouldn't neccesarily conclude that the scenario is in heaven. And by Gods you could even conclude that he is speaking about men, there is a referance in the Psalms talking about men being gods in the context of being judges. seemingly the logic runs something like: God is a judge, men are judges, so therefore men in some ways are like God.

so you got more options than you posted.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

Thanks. A quite intelligent response, however, making men "as gods" was the Devil's idea, was it not?

Your idea holds it's logic though, and that's all that counts for now.

However, if the Devil wrote the Bible, it would still make more logic that he stands among other "gods", and that man, the greatest sinner around, was created in "his image". It would also stand true for the coleric God of the OT that destroys all it hates and turns women to salt.

Even though I don't think so...

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 devils idea in a sense, take a look at Isaiah 14: 13-14 and look at what he says and compare that to what God says in Exudos 34: 6-7and contrast that. I will be the first to admit that there is much more to be said on the subject, but I believe (by study and what has been revealed to me) that the devil only wanted all power and worship and couldn't have cared for the rest, also I may want to point out that the NT teaches us that we must become Godly and it is in the other sense meant

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

Isaiah talks about Lucifer, the lightbearer. Not Satan. And there is nowhere in the Bible any mention the two are one and the same.

Lucifer was cast down into hell. Satan supposedly created it.

Exodus states that the children will pay for the sins of their fathers, saying he "does not clear the guilty"

Though your statement about "becoming godly" better not start by raining fire on your neighbor's slightly-dressed daughter.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 if you will grant me that the Bible is the word of God (if not I would have to establish that first, but if you want to discuss that allow me to finish this first) for now allow me this assumption then the figure that is presented in Isaiah will show up in other places would not defy any logic, hence there is the serpent in the garden of Eden, satan accusing Job, provoking David to count Israel (God using it for his own purpose)

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

I'll grant you this for the sake of argument.

I agree it would not defy logic. However, nowhere in the Bible does it state Lucifer and Satan are one and the same. This is my point. They are mentioned as separate entities.

Satan never was an angel at any point (at least, that fact is not specified). Lucifer is a fallen angel (hence his name, lightbringer).

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 allow me then to make an argument for that belief (does not mean it will convince you, but I will try to show a logical consistency)

1 the historic understanding of satan and lucifer is that he is one and the same.

2 how would you account for the origen of satan without this?

3 assuming( as most do) that the lucifer history happened before the fall, the serpent in Eden tempted Eve with the same thing he was enamored with.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

Lucifer was a god of knowledge and light among the greek and roman pantheon.

His only reference in the Bible is in Isaiah, and that's it. He can also be depicted as a normal man that wanted to change his situation and become a god.

Satan has many references in the hebraïc texts. In that sense, he is abrahamic-faith-related. His name means opponent, so he's the opponent to God himself.

Satan is also referred to as the ancient snake. Lucifer never is.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000. I'm kind of interested where you get the concept that satan made hell.

The idea that children will pay the sin of the Fathers is simply explained in the fact that those that live ungodly lives affect their children in such a way as to cause them to walk in an ungodly way. Exodus 34:7 as sighted before and Matthew would extend that to anyone we influence in an evil way.

The one about not clearing the guilty will require me to study it more thoroughly.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000. Your last paragraph here does deserve attention, raining fire and brimstone on people is not the mission off the followers of Christ, but to warn them of Gods Hatred of sin, and that there are such things as absolute truths, also that the same God that created is the one who will judge those that reject him and the salvation he provided and much more could be said, I'll leave it there.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 And if I may interject a thought here of the implications of "the devil wrote the Bible" I can't for the life of me think why in the world he would write something like that for, wouldn't he need a motive?

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

Perhaps he's not all-powerful, but worship gives him power?

There can be many explanations, but it is said prayer holds power... Maybe that expression comes from something like what I said above?

Again, Satan's will is to corrupt. That's his purpose. So writing this fulfills his purpose. As far as motives go, being created for trickery by the all-powerful master of the universe makes you a good trickster indeed.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 Unless you reject the Bible and its history there is no way possible that God is NOT all powerful. 2 nd paragraph you'll have to explain if you care for an answer.

Far as satans will or satan himself being created in the state they are now, well that is, first of all, unbiblical and second mere conjecture, to adopt that veiw you would indeed have to look for a different source for info on him.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

I was saying that perhaps God did not create an all-powerful servant. Not claiming that God himself isn't. It could be that Satan isn't all-powerful, and gathers power from the sins commited.

God created Satan knowing what he would do, yet he let him. We have to assume Satan corrupting people is a part of God's plan.

[pelonisas]

@Xgya2000 I also noticed your comment here: "that destroys all it hates" and thought I might put my understanding on that as well (because it's bothered me for a while) even though I don't claim to be able to explain it in detail I will say that "all he hates" is often something that (assuming a Biblical worldveiw) is a distortion of truth and history and thence his hatred for that, that's what I have seen in many instances.

[assym2006]

@t3rr411 they is no god.

science is the only truth.

[pelonisas]

@mightyafrowhitey To understand the creationist view of natural selection you have to consider the various things natural selection is capable of doing. In short, it can and does work as quality control: selecting the one that has the least amount of genetic damage in them and eliminating those that are highly damaged. If you would like to go more indepth send me a message.

[Xgya2000]

@pelonisas

I like your view.

If all creationists could react this way about the theory that has had medicine rocket-jump in the last decades, I think the world would be a better place.

[gamesbok]

@pelonisas Darwin and Fitzroy argued extensively, and eventually Darwin ate alone. Fitzroy was a fanatical creationist, but their major disagreement was over slavery. Fitzroy argued with most folk, and would often horse-whip opponents on the steps of their club. The Admiralty set him the task of establishing the Met Office, a thankless task, and he eventually cut his throat, like his uncle Castlereagh, another paranoid His hydrographic surveying was faultless.

[sarevor]

<3 God :D

[DStranger23]

why does the dangerous idea matter more today than ever?

[jmm1233]

lol , 2:23 like that little hint from pbs , as like a response to that creationist , lmao

[TheJamesnao]

People with too much mental and moral investment in religion cannot be swayed with reason and scientific evidence. Fossils and other PROVABLE materials are just a reason for religious fanatics and creationists to put their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA!!!". Using "GOD" as a answer to a biology question just shows how primitive and naive some of us can be...

[benhoshinji]

gods put all creatures on earth in perfect form..... FAILZ

[BeekersSqueakers]

Not to start a religious debate or anything, but 1:50 is one of the reasons I dislike religion. Why should we not be curious about God?

[Valmarith]

We should be so curious about gods that we study as many as we can learn about and compare them.

[Albakritube]

We should. and that is why God told us about everything about hemself. The only thing that we do not know about God is the way that God looks.

[pelonisas]

@BeekersSqueakers May I ask to what extent your knowledge of biblical anything you have?

[BeekersSqueakers]

To say that something as lowly and insignificant as a human being can know almost everything about something as infinite and awesome as God just drags the name of God through the mud.

[Albakritube]

He told us.

[Albakritube]

Be respectful when you talk about god, or please do not post any thing because I do not want to hear it.

[BeekersSqueakers]

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. I was just saying that in actuality we know very little about him.

[Albakritube]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. God told us about himself and also we know from his creation. We can see his mercy every time we breath, We can see his greatness after knowing that the universe is still expanding. When know his patient when people curse him & would still give them chances. We know his beauty from sunset. We know his perfection when from the sky. We know his knowledge by creating 10 million organisms. We know his anger, that after all of that some people do not believe in him.

[Velox415]

Uhm, free speech, and all that. Religion should never be held above skepticism or critique. When that happens, we will go back to the Dark Ages.

[DiabSoulBooker]

@Albakritube Fuck God. that disrespectful enough for you ? Any being capable of sitting by and watching hundreds of innocent people being buried alive under landslides of mud and rock is a wretched unforgivable being. Fuck him, and you are morally bankrupt and completely illogical if you can even for a second try and say he is perfect.

[Hrimpurstala]

1) If all is possible for God and

2) evolution is next to impossible

3) ...would it not be to the greater glory of God to create through such amazing and elegant means, so far beyond human imaginations,

[BeekersSqueakers]

This almost reminds me of Douglas Gasking's rebutal to the ontological argument.

1. Creation is an impressive feat

2. Merit is the product of quality and creator ability

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the feat

4. The most impressive disability is non-existance

5. A being that can create while not existing is the most impressive

6. Therefore God does not exist

[mightyafrowhitey]

@Albakritube *shakes head*

[pelonisas]

@BeekersSqueakers you might be interested to note that that is not a Biblical idea, those on the evolutionists side rarely have an accurate depiction of creationists veiws.

[bballdaniel]

thanks, im watching this for school its pretty helpful.

[KenMacMillan]

Muskets to the rabble!

[crazygeek777]

fuck muskets to the rabble KATANAS TO THE RABLE

[vvnindia]

enlightenment...woow...feel the moment and it will make you cry

[Hjernespreng]

This is awesome!

[325982668]

liam neeson isn't as AWESOME when he does the american accent

[FuzzyDuck]

Holy crap! I forgot Stephen Jay Gould and Daniel Dennett were in this!

[Christisms]

Of course! Stephen Jay Gould was the leading expert in the USA on evolutionary biology and Daniel C. Dennett wrote the book DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA on which this documentary film is based.

[oliesbw]

thank you for this..

[pjfort]

Awesome!

[thisiserk]

awesome man. loves it!

[Dalbert342]

kudos for downloading

[blackwolf1272]

Excellent!