Lol the second speaker say that evolution can be disprof hey dude talk to Kenth Hoving he will disprove it for you.... Also if you want to make 250 k just prove him evolution and he will pay you lol which not have yeat because there is no evidence of evolution.
@ScientificBob Your write Masons pot him there he was killing there belives and they dont like that. However you can watch his videos they can answer any questions you got...Not only you can watch some of his debates on how he debated some of this people that you seen and litteraly none of them give someting solide like he does...
@yuri1s Have you ever bothered to pick up a real science book? I'm always left speechless when people tell me with a straight face that Dr Dino is the way to go...
Get real. The guy is a liar and a fraud. And an incredibly ignorant idiot.
@ScientificBob I whent to High School were i read and studied a religione/evolution in Science class still not sure why they mix that....But i read all the science books youver read..
Go read "the greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins, which is meant for people like you who are completely oblivious to the evidence for evolution.
ps: how the fuck did you manage to finish high school with that kind of english?
@ScientificBob No you dont get it bro I need fact i have a religion and that is God did all, you have your religion dirt and milliones of year, you claim that its science which is crap, but any way i need facts because i talk to lots of evolutionist and none got them they always sat that other got them but they dont have them..GIVE ME FACTS THAT IT HAPPEND AND HOW LIFE HAPPEND???????????I NEED FACTS.......... not religion i got my own religione bro.
@yuri1s "i need facts " Read the book The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins, just like I told you. It's full of facts. It's nothing BUT facts. It's a collection of some of the best evidence for evolution. Refusing to look at the facts and then claiming there are no facts is brutally dishonest and stupid.
This is a field that's been tested and studied for the past 150 years. There are OVER 200.000 publications on the topic. And you expect it here in 500char posts? Come on...
@yuri1s Ow and ps: evolution only explains what happened to life once it was here. It doesn't explain how that first life got here nore does it attempt to.
As far as evolution theory is concerned, it's even perfectly fine to state that your deity of choice planted the first self-replicating organic molecule on this planet. Evolution STARTS with life. You can't evolve what doesn't exist. The theory for the ORIGINS of life is called Abiogenesis, not evolution.
@yuri1s Well, it turns out that his entire construct of his church, dvd's, seminares, books etc were actually one huge plot to make a load of cash without paying taxes.
He became a millionaire on the backs of gullible people such as yourself. You didn't give him any money I hope?
Sometimes, I wonder if he really even believes all the bullshit he spreads...
ph.d person says that facts in Science is not imp. but theory is....Hey ph.d person look at the dictionary and tell me the definition of Science word? "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. " thats dictionary diffinition...Just listen what she says in 2:25 to 2:42 She sat facts don't explaine anything. I would like here to go to a judge and sat that Theory, but not facts.
And they don't. Facts need an explanation. Facts don't explain themselves.
"I would like here to go to a judge and sat that Theory, but not facts."
When before a judge you try to convince him of your HYPOTHESIS/THEORY that the convicted is guilty of a certain crime. And you use the facts to support said theory.
SImple facts are something like: the sun is a yellow star, the specific optical rotation of lactose is between +54.1 and +55.9. It does not explain anything.
A theory explains how gravity works or how gasses behave under certain circumstances.
Facts are not faulty, just not really a big deal. Theories are a big deal, they describe processes in nature.
Say what you will about your opinions on science but the second scientist said it himself that he cant 100 percent guarantee it as truth...but that is very important because if you look at people who claim to have answers about origin of life it is not backed by anything substantial. some one agian tell me why empirical evidence is wrong or "evil" lol...
which came first, chicken or the egg? or perhaps seafoods became man. where did white man came from? what kind of monkey would that be? how about asians? scientist did not find any asian looking monkey. adam is the first test tube baby.
@rabisrabis 1: Egg 2: White man came around when the first humans spread from Africa to all around the world and some went into Europe and eventually evolved into White people. 3: Everyone came from the same monkey, it was AFTER they were already human that the races started evolving. 4: Asains came around the same way as White people just from the branch of people who went to Asia, not Europe. 5: Again, They evolved AFTER they became human. 6: They still need a sperm and egg to make those....
Maybe Creationists and Evolutionists should work together and make a time machine so that they can go in the past, find out how the heck life started, and STOP ARGUING FOR ONE GOSH DARNED SECOND!
@trextoter who said this? Science and atheism are quite differant. Science is the attempt to understand the world around us, where atheism is just an anatheistic religion. I'm not for creationism or against atheism or anything like that, I just like to clear up confusion.
@Drakebro101 atheism is not a religion. 'Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to truths and values' (wikipedia) - i.e. religion is more than just a single belief. Atheism, on the other hand, is simply the belief that there is no divine power. People may draw cultural, or ethical significances from this, but these links are in no way inherent to atheism, as they are in religions.
The comment arguers are funny on these science videos. They're doing the exact same thing as other comment arguers, they're just using better vocabulary.
Evolution is a fact. Scientists have tons of evidence to support it. However, many religious ones and especially creationists most likely would yell out about it. Who knows, the world could turn into a chaos.
But don't worry, I estimate that if we don't destroy ourselves and venture to extra-solar stars one day, we will find other life and prove evolution is, indeed, an fact.
@ReplyToDawkins Absolutley, what is CHANCE? Evolution has NOTHING to do with CHANCE. The word SELECTION is the polar opposite of CHANCE, thus natural selection is not chance, nor is evolution.
@noamees I will OWN you in a debate on The Theory of Evolution, any time, any place. EVERYTHING happens because of time. Evolution ALLOWS survival, NOT DEATH. Yet, of course EVERYTHING dies. Your argument is nonsense. Chance has nothing to do with evolution. LEARN TO READ and maybe you will realize what I said. Natural Selection is the polar opposite of chance. Selection and chance are completely and absolutely opposite. If you think that "chance" is involved, you need to read.
Death is an very important factor in evolution. And death happens mostly by chance. If one generation dies, then another will surface, with 'new' evolutionary traits.
You need to be more open-minded. You're arrogant, selfish and think you can take on the whole world. With this way of thinking you're getting nowhere.
@noamees I'm not arrogant at all, I simply know what I'm talking about. I've debated Eric Hovind. I've watched ALL debates on youtube concerning evolution. I've read Ken Miller's books. I've read anything I could find to teach myself more. I even watch "The Discovery Institute" claims, to see what fools will come up with next. I'm not against YOU, you seem to know what you are talking about. I'm not exactly sure how we got off on the wrong foot... I'm FOR evolution and teaching what is right
Can't you still grasp the basic concept? A group of deers do not live 'systematically'. They don't come to this world, reproduce and live happily ever after by dying to natural causes. This very group of deers might be gunned down by a hunter. A car might run over them. A wild beast might feast on their flesh.
It's quite exhilarating to me that you've studied the evolution theory so in-depth. But alas, I, too, have studied evolution, but I still see the world in a completely different way than you.
And to be quite frank, I don't think we ever got off the wrong foot. This is what a debate is called. An exchange of thoughts, ideas. It was a pleasure and it's elevating to find so many different characters in our dear planet Earth.
@noamees Okay, then let us not finish here. I disagree completely that it matter "how we see the world". It's irrelevant. You see, facts are facts despite a "world view". This is a common creationist tactic, stating that one's opinion matters in this debate. If we were debating how hot the sun was and you had a different opinion on the sun than I did, does that change the temperature of the sun? NO! Same with evolution. It is what it is despite your objections.
@noamees Finally, again, EVERYTHING happens "by chance".. please define "by chance" for me. If they aren't dying by chance then how are they dying? I disagree that animals die by chance. The have a very systematic life and death process, and MOST live this out; sure there are some random odd deaths, but even these can be factored in. You should focus more on the reproduction aspect instead of death, the species doesn't have to DIE in order for the next generation to live.
By chance do species undergo natural selection, speciation. Again, by chance they adapt to new environments, their genes migrate, mutate, drift. And finally, by chance they evolve.
@noamees This isn't chance though. They don't "by chance" change according to their enviornment. This is semantics and nothing more. WHAT IS CHANCE? That's what we are debating, not evolution. I would argue that by your definition, EVERYTHING is chance. My mind tells me that In a chaotic universe only systematic changes are not chance. Being able to PREDICT these changes with math would be impossible if it were all by chance, yet this is done every day. Look up PHYLOGENY.
A common creationist tactic? I just explained my side of the argument step by step, as basically and simple-mindedly as possible, and you still don't understand.
@noamees Please respond. Did you look up Phylogeny? Do you even know what it is? I said it was a creationist tactic to bring up "chance", because it is! Creationists commonly say that the mathematical odds of evolution occuring are almost nothing. They fail to mention that the odds of ANYTHING happening in a chaotic universe are almost nothing! This mathematical argument is nonsense... as all creationist arguments are, a red flag should go because this could answer ANYTHING!
Ahh.. Quite sad that your mind is so limited and can never understand things more.. deeply. There's no point in debating you as you'll never accept any thoughts/ideas which may be used by creationists.
@noamees Did you look it up? no.. you didn't. You are close minded not me. I am willing to consider anything you have to say, but if it is ridiculous I'll tell you. MOST animals do not die "by chance" as you defined it.. "being shot by a deer" etc. MOST die systematically, at an average age from an average cause. There is no chance here, maybe the chance of getting shot!
Creationsists are known for their ridiculous arguments that can answer anything. Please answer my questions!
@noamees Trust me, I shut creationists down all the time. You still haven't looked up Phylogeny. Also, you are correct that people die in an array of ways... and still we adapt similarly. Animals however commonly die the same way, especially prey animals. What is chance? please explain the difference between something that is chance vs. something that is not. Everything is chance... right? Bringing up a comet destroying us shows means nothing. MOST humans still die by a common means.
Please, think about this more deeply. Close your eyes and just think about the endless possibilities of how we could die. A car might run over us tomorrow, we might get shot by a rambling madman, a plane could crash into us! And even more drastically, a meteorite/comet could simply one day bash into us and completely end all human life on Earth.
In conclusion; evolution happens because of time and death. The latter mostly happens because of chance.
That's it, if you still don't understand my point of view, then your case is hopeless. I will try to no longer reply to you (unless you really manage to convince me somehow. ;p).
@noamees Stating that evolution happens because of death is negative. Evolution happens because of LIFE. The species that adapt and reproduce, survive. Your point of view is to be negative about a positive thing.
I'm sorry to say this, but you're an fanatic. You no longer follow the 'real atheists creed' (P.E.A.R.L as Thunderf00t put it - Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic). You deny any physical evidence (and theories) which may support the creationist side or may not suit you in the case. This means that you no longer use reasoned logic.
And, as sad as it is, you most likely think my text to be "utter bullcrap" because you want it to be that.
@noamees There is no evidence that supports the creationist side. Please show me some, I'd be more than happy to look at it. Also, I've researched creation more than you could ever imagine. I've listened to Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Ken Hamm, Michael Behe, and many many others. I am VERY open minded, and have looked at every aspect of this conversation I can find. Honestly, if you have something new to say about creation, I'm game. Let me know, I won't just insult it either, I'll explain.
@ScholarlyGentleman81 it is interesting that people use, the "be open minded" slogan, when it comes to things that are supernatural, or theistic that have no proof to back them up.
Science thrives on open mindedness and it is science, a field that is self-scrutinizing, that allows us to gain further knowledge of the world through testing and evidence.
It is interesting when people comment on topics they've got no knowledge of. Please delve deeper into our conversation with 'Gentleman81' before making remarks.
@noamees ccheng knows quite well what I mean. Evolution is what it is, you can cry about all you want.. It has been proven in court! The Dover trial! Look up Ken Miller, let's hear you argue with his points... You can't. It's okay to be wrong..
Furthermore, I'd like to ask you what would the "truth" be in this case. Would it be the opinion of many great minds who think alike? Possibly. But I think that everyone creates their own "truth", or at least a version of it. Ask your friends how they think that evolution happened and I'm sure each one of them will come up with a different version.
And that's why we have debates. Each side shows evidence and theories of their statement and argues the other sides statements
@noamees THIS is the heart of our debate, TRUTH is NOT an opinion, it never has been. We should never have to debate truth, it simply is what it is. Facts simply are. For example, we could argue all day that the earth is flat or round, it will remain round, so regardless of our "views" the truth remains. Now, we may argue about what the truth is, but it bears no relevance on what it actually is. The truth is the truth, not a viewpoint.
By the page of information I mean all the posts I have made. *zing*
If you call explaining the basic meanings of my posts, which your mind couldn't grasp (and still can't, it seems), whining.. then I seriously recommend you to visit a psychiatrist.
In conclusion, I'm not entirely sure what to make out of your characteristics. I'm sure if I'd bring someone who specializes in psychiatry, we would be able to make more sense out of you.
@noamees I'm still waiting for your evidence for creationism.. or against Phylogeny. You see, you simply don't know much about evolution... it's okay though people like you have already lost in schools, courtrooms, and science... there is no dispute.. any more than there is a dispute that we landed on the moon.
@noamees If you're so intelligent, please explain to me why Phylogeny is an invalid science. Phylogeny allows us to make mathematical predictions in evolution, these predictions are a BILLION dollar industry. Denying that this even exists is beyond absurd. Please reply with something sensible, not how smart you think you are.
Now there's only one thing left - to hope that some, at least some bits of this page of information, reached your tiny, closed mind which can't comprehend others thoughts. If you even accept such a 'bizarre thought', as only you may have intelligent thoughts, right? ...
@noamees What page of information? You whining about being an atheist and STILL not understanding evolution correctly? I'm confused. Why do you back creationist arguments then? Why do you not educate yourself? Why not simply look up what I've said and then maturely respond?
@noamees I never said anything close to what you've claimed. Since you want to talk shit instead of discussing why evolution IS NOT completely random (which is clearly true based on ALL of the facts) I hope your dog dies. You got schooled, you have no logical response but to cry about it. You CANNOT explain to me why Phylogeny can exist if evolution IS completely random. Phylogeny, by the way, uses mathematical formulas to predict what evolution will do next, it's quite successful.
However, debate doesn't always work. In some cases, the opposing side might not take the other sides arguments seriously. In fact, sometimes, the arguments are completely ignored.
@noamees Agreed, you've lost, so walk away. The facts speak for themselves. No matter how much you babble on about how evolution is "chance".. it's not. Regardless of how emotionally attached you get to it.. it's still not, and never will be. You STILL haven't looked up Phylogeny, which tells me you don't want to know the truth. Phylogenies wouldn't be possible if evolution were completely random.
If you think you follow the atheists creed of P.E.A.R.L, then you should realize that there's no point for this debate. All you need to do is to swallow that huge ego/dumb pride up.
If you think that the word "selection" in the theory of "Natural Selection" actually means 'selecting' then you need to develop a bigger brain.. or a more broad mindset.
Also, can't wait for your new post. Probably full with capital letters - a childs rage.
@noamees LOL I use caps to emphasize. First, Natural Selection ABSOLUTELY (yes I used caps) selects in a reproductive sense. Animals that reproduce more because of successful reproduction SURVIVE! This is NOT chance, there is no chance in evolutionary theory; it's simply about small changes over long periods of time. These changes may be random to an extent, but the ones that survive are not. They are "Naturally Selected" because of their ability to survive and reproduce. Thus, no chance.
You obviously missed the whole concept of Natural Selection. Or you simply can't grasp it.
Natural Selection is the process by which certain heritable traits, those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce, become more common in a population over successive generations. (Source: Wikipedia)
@noamees LOL I know what Natural Selection is. I just summed it up before reading your next comment. My point is, it is NOT random, or by "chance". I guess it depends on how philosophically far you want to take "chance". I mean, I guess everything is chance if you want to go that far. If changes were completely random phylogenies would be IMPOSSIBLE. Phylogenies currently make hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars per year, I think they work; thus again, NO CHANCE involved.
Nothing comes from nothing. It's actually pretty amazing if you realize that all the molecules or parts of molecules for all life on Earth (or the solar system) were already there when our sun and the enormous clouds of gas and dust took shape billions of years ago.
The process of scientific study of the origin of the universe has alsways been about pushing backwards along the time scale. The best current theories are within fractions of a second of the Big Bang event.
@fiiilll Tell me how Psalms or Proverbs can be fantasy? What book is writen later then 217 AD? It is true the Catholic church hid the truth for centurys but as we see of the dead sea scrolls te bible was not affected.
how come the bible was not affected if there are old scrolls left out of it?what was the criterion to do this rather than manipulation?still,the catholic bible has more books than the evangelical,which explains that convenience is the rule concerning scriptures.anything against modern morals is considered out of context,but psalms and proverbs,that have some few decent advices,are taken as examples of how "insightfull" the bible is,but levicticus and deuteronomium are just "taken out of context"
3. 3 Worldviews on origin whereof Hindus with constant cycles of reincarnation are not very caring for science.
The other 1 is creation and the oldest and most widespread.
The last is evolution with origin in Greece.
Ignoring the origin of our live documented from a 6000 years old has serious consequences. Because if your believe and faith doesnt include the whole bible; (Genesis teaches us the origin of our mistakes our debt.) Its impossible to repent without that knowledge.
@fiiilll Reasons why to care. its the opinion of a lot of people and knowing how people think and do is important, were not alone in this world. Mythology can be aplied to any story with a god if used in the widest possible meaning. So storys aboutesar Pharao the Japanese emperor, etc will be mythology yet real. The bible in respects is not clasified as mythology in normal meaning.
@Eskon2 yep,you're right,the bilble is not mythlogy,its just a classical exemple of a circular argument if you take as being the word of god.if you recognize it's not god's word then it becomes an important literature book,which is very nice and it's what this interesting book deserves,insted of being just falacy in the mouth of believers like you.
@fiiilll The bible is a collection of books. You can study commentaries apocrive books languistics events who took place. And now and then scientific things ahead of their time 3500 years. Prophecies most of them pointing to Christ. Without fallacy or lie its truth.
believing in something because it tells so,eventhought the fantasy stories that it tells were written centuries after jesus,is a fallacy and there's nothing you can do about that.well,you can go study fallacies...and to believe that a book that came to us through the intervention of the official religion of the roman empire and has passed through all this time is true is either innocence os stupidity,therefore i rest my case,there's no point in waste more time with someone who refuses to see.
@fiiilll As you use to speak of Jesus frequently, it might be wise to know who your talking about. And its the basis for a whole lot of people. In Religion tradion and ideas. As you said you have doctorates in history and philosophy it really suprises me, your why would i care attitude.
it's very likely that if i had doctorates in history and philosophy i wouldn't waste my time with this,but since i was a believer and now i'm not i have this innocent hope that people can unfold their eyes
@Eskon2 and yes,romans were right,christians are atheists in relation to other gods,or do you believe in zeus?thor?baal?shiva?atheists just go one step further,and we are not agnostics in relation to god(s) because we would have to be agnostic in relation to every single thing that can't be disproved,simply because proving a negative is impossible.atheists have only one thing in common:not believing in god,but i can be everything else,like pro/anti religion,pro/anti darwin /evolution and so on
wtf..."The world a-theism means 'anti-god'",I suggest you study etymology before embarrassing yourself like this...I can help you:the "a" means "lack of".Now,can you tell the difference between "amoral" and "imoral"?
is that a serious argument or are you making a joke?oh,i'm sory,it can't be serious...but let's play:are we born believing?so what comes first:not believing or believing?
tell me what are the laws or dogmas that anti theists have to follow.what are the others common intrinsic characteristics between anti theists besides being against theis?before putting anti theism in the cathegory of religion try to give valid answers to those questions.
Laws or dogmas are very strong in the abrahamic religions, and differ from person to person. The truth is that we dont have to follow these but Jesus. Dogmas are merely eplanatory and laws are to put you at guilt not at salvation. Believing or trusting is very common among humans. from biblical vieuw a god is about anything you find important and pay attention too. Profets Allah and Dawkins. Books Quaran and origin of species. Also,
@Eskon2 so,if you don't accept jesus as your only savior what happens to you?you just said that you have to follow jesus,his words are in the bible,and the answer to my question there is hell fire...every religion has to have punishment,so where's the punishment in atheism?where are the words that we MUST follow?what is the consequence of ignoring the origin of species,besides stupidity and ignorance about reality?and don't try to mix the metaphorical and literal meanings of "prophet",
2 If you dont accept you deny. And that means you deny God and your own life.
The punishment in atheism. If you are the weakest you wont be selected.
But religions differ Sikhism is a nice example of that.
The words atheist follow is that of the current leading professors and gurus like Dawkins.
Note these people have often a origin in Christianity, by growing up and even being the son of a minister or in education to become one: Charles Darwin, Kant and Freud.
Wow,you just refuse to understand.Natural Selection has NOTHING to do with atheism,it has NO IMPLICATIONS in human society,it is "just" the greatest explanation about how live evolved and is yet to be proven wrong,and evidences keep confirming it.
Atheists DON"T have to even listen to R.Dawkins,C.Hitchens,S.Harris or anyone,in fact they can completely DISAGREE and IGNORE them,it won't change the fact that they don't believe in god.Being an ex-believer is just a natural consequence,I'm one.
@Eskon2 natural selection = how NATURE works,not human society,jesus christ!
If you've never known about natural selection taking place you just don't know/refuse to understand how nature works,go see discovery channel or natgeo,it's a good start.
And the origin of my lack of belief is the fact that,althought i grew up as a christian and read the bible a couple of times i never refused to ignore logic and reason.
evolution is still just a theory and theories means things that are not still proven yet and thanks so much for gregruts who does not know his side well
Vivid means very clear.
Now do you guys a have a much more vivid explanation than creation it's very vivid explanation than evolution and more vivid than the big bang.
Evolution is the pseudo-scientific religion based on blind faith in the ELECTRICAL MAGICAL MYSTICAL MYSTERY PRIMO SOUP. It's the belief that a gnat can fart an elephant. It's the belief that all this happened out of nothing for no fukking reason whatsoever & without any design. And that same gnat can fart out a coke machine while being sentient of the idea that he needs stereoscopic vision, stereophonic buzz detectors, & multiple legs and wings. BTW The coke machine has no design whatsoever.
Sure, because it shows why religion is the beginning of life. Because by today live can only produce live. Abiogenesis and Big Bang are utherly unscientific.
@FirstFreedomFighter LOL you know NOTHING about evolution, just like everyone I've ever spoken with who denies it. Then you touch on abiogenesis, the beginnings of life, again; nothing to do with evolution. You truly show your ignorance in this message. You need to READ. Oh, and for the record people like you have LOST in schools, courtrooms, and science.
He did. Sciense can never obtain truth. Some theorys are proven false flogistonetheory. A theory means the best modelfor predictions until a better on shows up.
Well my concern as creationist is that the theory of evolution is a problem. It is a historic science, and seems to have no ties to reality. Evolution for example basicly means change. You have evolution in fields and seize what makes it an theory you can interpret how you want it.
Wrong question. It can be both. Creation and evolution are both historic sciences. Modern science has one problem naturalism. Atheism as a religion influecnces modern science a lot. Modern science fits in the bible, its the vieuw of evolutionists that disagrees with us.
Tssk. scienceisnt just he evolution theory. Certainly things like microvolution etc work. Its the interpretation that is flawed. Atheism is a sort of religion.
Atheism is not a religion, it has no unchanging scriptures, no supernatural creator to worship, involves no superstition etc. That´s like saying "your non belief in Fairies is like a Religion!" How can a NON BELIEF be a religion?...Your hobby is "non stamp collecting". Moron.
Bias does not affect science, that goes against science. When you attack evolution, you are actaully attacking the scientific method itself. 99.99% of the scientific community isn´t being "bias".
Furthermore in my clasification of atheism isnt that worse.
Some people tought of christianity as atheism.
Nowadays budhists are seen as atheist. If you dont understand my clasification system its your problem. A religion has leaders/phrophets Charles Darwin etc. a religion has worship > science. In my definition problem lies with defining budhis as religion and atheism. I clasified it as a branch of atheism with own worship and leaders.
Concerning the relevant fields of science (e.i. genetics, biology etc) only 0.15% of scientists believe in Creationism, and that´s just the U.S, which has way more Creationists than Europe. So Creationists are pretty out-numbered in science.
"A religion has leaders/phrophets Charles Darwin etc"
WTF?But now you´re talking about evolution! Before you were saying Atheism is a religion. There are many Christians who believe in evolution,does that mean they worship Jesus and Darwin?!
(Cont...) Does that mean Christians who believe in evolution have two religions?!
Saying Atheism is a religion because we praise Darwin is like saying the belief in relativity is a religion because we praise Einstein, or saying Heliocentrism is a religion because we praise Copernicus.
Many people praise the rich and famous the bible conciders them so. The theory of relativation is accepted as a fact we know of Einstein but praising him not. We have to be very careful. the pope for example is such a danger, he decides who enters heaven a mortal, people praise him.
Relativity IS a theory. Heliocentricity is a theory, germ theory is a theory, but you believe all of them presumably.
You say Christians who accept evolution are not "real" Christians. This is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Believing in Genesis literally has nothing to do with being a "true Christian".
"You can not serve two masters"
Evolution is not a "master", it´s a scientific theory, just like relativity.
As you take Christian literaly as follower of christ. Then you have to literaly believe in Genesis. For Moses and the preofets are enough. Without genesis there is no need for Christ.
Well evolution classes with the bible there multiple soft theorys hence with their massive problems.
If you think you have evidence against evolution, you should write up a paper containing all of this amazing evidence and turn biology, palaeontology, genetics and many other fields of science on their heads and change what´s taught in science class. Or you could just accept that your belief in Creationism is based on zero evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There are already many books on this tpic, and i dont realy like to copycat. If i find something new i certainly will but the problem of this paradigm is that you need to believe it else you got a very big problem. But for starters wonder about this. If humans are clasified as homo and apes as pithicus then what is the common ancestor? 2nd what createt the layers of the world and are they worldwide or not?
I doesn´t matter how many books are written about the topic. It´s one thing to write a book that criticizes evolution, any idiot can do that (basd on a lack of understanding of evolution) but it´s another thing to publish criticisms and then pass peer-review and have your theories accepted. So far nobody has disproven evolution, although many have tried and failed. If it was disproven we wouldn´t have it taught in schools.
There is no conspiracy in science to "hide the truth".
There are some huge problems with your reasoning. The peer revieuw is lately heavily critisized in the dutch newspapers. One point is that because the majority believes in evolution they wont pass any critic at all. In the beginning paradigms can be teached at schools and later be disproven like the flogistontheory. There are resons to hide the truth and teach evolution because its the basis for atheism etc.
Christians who are followers of Christ can not serve evolution as well. You can not serve two masters. Because they caant follow christ, their namechristians not real christians. a christian is seen a a sole god worshipper serving 2 gods makes him someting else.
god is not God obviously. a god is something you think of important. There many ways to become atheist so your personal idea of what is important makes it actualy.
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. The faith in God is replaced by faith in humans who then will be seen more godlike. Like Soccer and Popmusic.
Philippians 3:19 The difference in vieuws on what a god is. According to scripture anything you deem important, in this case an example of the stomach.
Lol the second speaker say that evolution can be disprof hey dude talk to Kenth Hoving he will disprove it for you.... Also if you want to make 250 k just prove him evolution and he will pay you lol which not have yeat because there is no evidence of evolution.
yuri1s 6 months ago
@yuri1s You can't talk to Kent Hovind because he is in jail. He's a convicted fraud you know?
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob Your write Masons pot him there he was killing there belives and they dont like that. However you can watch his videos they can answer any questions you got...Not only you can watch some of his debates on how he debated some of this people that you seen and litteraly none of them give someting solide like he does...
yuri1s 6 months ago
@yuri1s Have you ever bothered to pick up a real science book? I'm always left speechless when people tell me with a straight face that Dr Dino is the way to go...
Get real. The guy is a liar and a fraud. And an incredibly ignorant idiot.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob I whent to High School were i read and studied a religione/evolution in Science class still not sure why they mix that....But i read all the science books youver read..
yuri1s 6 months ago
@yuri1s No, you didn't.
Go read "the greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins, which is meant for people like you who are completely oblivious to the evidence for evolution.
ps: how the fuck did you manage to finish high school with that kind of english?
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob No you dont get it bro I need fact i have a religion and that is God did all, you have your religion dirt and milliones of year, you claim that its science which is crap, but any way i need facts because i talk to lots of evolutionist and none got them they always sat that other got them but they dont have them..GIVE ME FACTS THAT IT HAPPEND AND HOW LIFE HAPPEND???????????I NEED FACTS.......... not religion i got my own religione bro.
yuri1s 6 months ago
Comment removed
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@yuri1s "i need facts " Read the book The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins, just like I told you. It's full of facts. It's nothing BUT facts. It's a collection of some of the best evidence for evolution. Refusing to look at the facts and then claiming there are no facts is brutally dishonest and stupid.
This is a field that's been tested and studied for the past 150 years. There are OVER 200.000 publications on the topic. And you expect it here in 500char posts? Come on...
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@yuri1s Ow and ps: evolution only explains what happened to life once it was here. It doesn't explain how that first life got here nore does it attempt to.
As far as evolution theory is concerned, it's even perfectly fine to state that your deity of choice planted the first self-replicating organic molecule on this planet. Evolution STARTS with life. You can't evolve what doesn't exist. The theory for the ORIGINS of life is called Abiogenesis, not evolution.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob and also what fraud was he convicted in???????
yuri1s 6 months ago
@yuri1s Well, it turns out that his entire construct of his church, dvd's, seminares, books etc were actually one huge plot to make a load of cash without paying taxes.
He became a millionaire on the backs of gullible people such as yourself. You didn't give him any money I hope?
Sometimes, I wonder if he really even believes all the bullshit he spreads...
ScientificBob 6 months ago
ph.d person says that facts in Science is not imp. but theory is....Hey ph.d person look at the dictionary and tell me the definition of Science word? "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. " thats dictionary diffinition...Just listen what she says in 2:25 to 2:42 She sat facts don't explaine anything. I would like here to go to a judge and sat that Theory, but not facts.
yuri1s 6 months ago
@yuri1s "She sat facts don't explaine anything"
And they don't. Facts need an explanation. Facts don't explain themselves.
"I would like here to go to a judge and sat that Theory, but not facts."
When before a judge you try to convince him of your HYPOTHESIS/THEORY that the convicted is guilty of a certain crime. And you use the facts to support said theory.
Read a fucking science book will ya?
ScientificBob 6 months ago
I hope the people who use the argument that "evolution is just a theory" also doubt the theory of gravity and simply float away out of this world.
Baal1985 9 months ago
@IlC4RL0SI
SImple facts are something like: the sun is a yellow star, the specific optical rotation of lactose is between +54.1 and +55.9. It does not explain anything.
A theory explains how gravity works or how gasses behave under certain circumstances.
Facts are not faulty, just not really a big deal. Theories are a big deal, they describe processes in nature.
@MochizMuM
Science can not claim to know the truth, they just try to find it and then they still don't know if it is true or not.
renevanderkaap 9 months ago
it's all very simple... science changes and adjusts its views based on what it observes... religions denies observation to preserve faith.
I don't here creationists denying the thoery of GRAVITY!!!!!!!
bartvk1971 11 months ago
these idiot scientist claim fact is more faulty than theory then a theory is pretty much useless
IlC4RL0SIl 11 months ago
Theories have gaps facts don't. what bullshit lol!!
IlC4RL0SIl 11 months ago
Say what you will about your opinions on science but the second scientist said it himself that he cant 100 percent guarantee it as truth...but that is very important because if you look at people who claim to have answers about origin of life it is not backed by anything substantial. some one agian tell me why empirical evidence is wrong or "evil" lol...
MochizMuM 1 year ago
which came first, chicken or the egg? or perhaps seafoods became man. where did white man came from? what kind of monkey would that be? how about asians? scientist did not find any asian looking monkey. adam is the first test tube baby.
rabisrabis 1 year ago
@rabisrabis 1: Egg 2: White man came around when the first humans spread from Africa to all around the world and some went into Europe and eventually evolved into White people. 3: Everyone came from the same monkey, it was AFTER they were already human that the races started evolving. 4: Asains came around the same way as White people just from the branch of people who went to Asia, not Europe. 5: Again, They evolved AFTER they became human. 6: They still need a sperm and egg to make those....
Drakebro101 1 year ago
Maybe Creationists and Evolutionists should work together and make a time machine so that they can go in the past, find out how the heck life started, and STOP ARGUING FOR ONE GOSH DARNED SECOND!
Crazyhaired911 1 year ago
@trextoter who said this? Science and atheism are quite differant. Science is the attempt to understand the world around us, where atheism is just an anatheistic religion. I'm not for creationism or against atheism or anything like that, I just like to clear up confusion.
Drakebro101 1 year ago
@Drakebro101 atheism is not a religion. 'Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to truths and values' (wikipedia) - i.e. religion is more than just a single belief. Atheism, on the other hand, is simply the belief that there is no divine power. People may draw cultural, or ethical significances from this, but these links are in no way inherent to atheism, as they are in religions.
tiswas666 1 year ago
The comment arguers are funny on these science videos. They're doing the exact same thing as other comment arguers, they're just using better vocabulary.
Drakebro101 1 year ago
She simply employs 'science' as an euphemism for atheism. Old trick.
trextoter 1 year ago
Evolution is a fact. Scientists have tons of evidence to support it. However, many religious ones and especially creationists most likely would yell out about it. Who knows, the world could turn into a chaos.
But don't worry, I estimate that if we don't destroy ourselves and venture to extra-solar stars one day, we will find other life and prove evolution is, indeed, an fact.
noamees 1 year ago
Ay, Ms scott you could go eat a dick.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
Can a protein form by chance?
ReplyToDawkins 1 year ago
@ReplyToDawkins strawman argument incoming?
ccheng21 1 year ago 7
@ccheng21 Keep on denying the truth.
jshjamaar 1 year ago
@ReplyToDawkins fuck no.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@ReplyToDawkins Absolutley, what is CHANCE? Evolution has NOTHING to do with CHANCE. The word SELECTION is the polar opposite of CHANCE, thus natural selection is not chance, nor is evolution.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Evolution happens because of time and death. The latter is mostly by chance. Please think more open-mindedly before debating.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees I will OWN you in a debate on The Theory of Evolution, any time, any place. EVERYTHING happens because of time. Evolution ALLOWS survival, NOT DEATH. Yet, of course EVERYTHING dies. Your argument is nonsense. Chance has nothing to do with evolution. LEARN TO READ and maybe you will realize what I said. Natural Selection is the polar opposite of chance. Selection and chance are completely and absolutely opposite. If you think that "chance" is involved, you need to read.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
I'd rather not debate an egomaniac.
Death is an very important factor in evolution. And death happens mostly by chance. If one generation dies, then another will surface, with 'new' evolutionary traits.
You need to be more open-minded. You're arrogant, selfish and think you can take on the whole world. With this way of thinking you're getting nowhere.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees I'm not arrogant at all, I simply know what I'm talking about. I've debated Eric Hovind. I've watched ALL debates on youtube concerning evolution. I've read Ken Miller's books. I've read anything I could find to teach myself more. I even watch "The Discovery Institute" claims, to see what fools will come up with next. I'm not against YOU, you seem to know what you are talking about. I'm not exactly sure how we got off on the wrong foot... I'm FOR evolution and teaching what is right
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Can't you still grasp the basic concept? A group of deers do not live 'systematically'. They don't come to this world, reproduce and live happily ever after by dying to natural causes. This very group of deers might be gunned down by a hunter. A car might run over them. A wild beast might feast on their flesh.
By chance do they die. And evolve.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
It's quite exhilarating to me that you've studied the evolution theory so in-depth. But alas, I, too, have studied evolution, but I still see the world in a completely different way than you.
And to be quite frank, I don't think we ever got off the wrong foot. This is what a debate is called. An exchange of thoughts, ideas. It was a pleasure and it's elevating to find so many different characters in our dear planet Earth.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees Okay, then let us not finish here. I disagree completely that it matter "how we see the world". It's irrelevant. You see, facts are facts despite a "world view". This is a common creationist tactic, stating that one's opinion matters in this debate. If we were debating how hot the sun was and you had a different opinion on the sun than I did, does that change the temperature of the sun? NO! Same with evolution. It is what it is despite your objections.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@noamees Finally, again, EVERYTHING happens "by chance".. please define "by chance" for me. If they aren't dying by chance then how are they dying? I disagree that animals die by chance. The have a very systematic life and death process, and MOST live this out; sure there are some random odd deaths, but even these can be factored in. You should focus more on the reproduction aspect instead of death, the species doesn't have to DIE in order for the next generation to live.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
By chance do species undergo natural selection, speciation. Again, by chance they adapt to new environments, their genes migrate, mutate, drift. And finally, by chance they evolve.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees This isn't chance though. They don't "by chance" change according to their enviornment. This is semantics and nothing more. WHAT IS CHANCE? That's what we are debating, not evolution. I would argue that by your definition, EVERYTHING is chance. My mind tells me that In a chaotic universe only systematic changes are not chance. Being able to PREDICT these changes with math would be impossible if it were all by chance, yet this is done every day. Look up PHYLOGENY.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
A common creationist tactic? I just explained my side of the argument step by step, as basically and simple-mindedly as possible, and you still don't understand.
How is this so hard to grasp?
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees Please respond. Did you look up Phylogeny? Do you even know what it is? I said it was a creationist tactic to bring up "chance", because it is! Creationists commonly say that the mathematical odds of evolution occuring are almost nothing. They fail to mention that the odds of ANYTHING happening in a chaotic universe are almost nothing! This mathematical argument is nonsense... as all creationist arguments are, a red flag should go because this could answer ANYTHING!
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Ahh.. Quite sad that your mind is so limited and can never understand things more.. deeply. There's no point in debating you as you'll never accept any thoughts/ideas which may be used by creationists.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees Did you look it up? no.. you didn't. You are close minded not me. I am willing to consider anything you have to say, but if it is ridiculous I'll tell you. MOST animals do not die "by chance" as you defined it.. "being shot by a deer" etc. MOST die systematically, at an average age from an average cause. There is no chance here, maybe the chance of getting shot!
Creationsists are known for their ridiculous arguments that can answer anything. Please answer my questions!
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
You're so obsessed with your "creationist" thing that you completely ignore anything that a creationist may use against you.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Let me put it this way: explaining my argument to you is like explaining that planet Earth is older than 10 thousand years to a creationist.
They will never ever accept that fact. Instead, they'll completely ignore the statement and go on babbling about their madness and disdain.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees Trust me, I shut creationists down all the time. You still haven't looked up Phylogeny. Also, you are correct that people die in an array of ways... and still we adapt similarly. Animals however commonly die the same way, especially prey animals. What is chance? please explain the difference between something that is chance vs. something that is not. Everything is chance... right? Bringing up a comet destroying us shows means nothing. MOST humans still die by a common means.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
You keep on saying that my statement is simple-minded and arrogant. But you fail to realize that yours isn't any better.
You say that most living things live systematically. You're right. We are born, we live, we die. But don't you see how simple-minded that is?
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Please, think about this more deeply. Close your eyes and just think about the endless possibilities of how we could die. A car might run over us tomorrow, we might get shot by a rambling madman, a plane could crash into us! And even more drastically, a meteorite/comet could simply one day bash into us and completely end all human life on Earth.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
In conclusion; evolution happens because of time and death. The latter mostly happens because of chance.
That's it, if you still don't understand my point of view, then your case is hopeless. I will try to no longer reply to you (unless you really manage to convince me somehow. ;p).
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees Stating that evolution happens because of death is negative. Evolution happens because of LIFE. The species that adapt and reproduce, survive. Your point of view is to be negative about a positive thing.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
I'm sorry to say this, but you're an fanatic. You no longer follow the 'real atheists creed' (P.E.A.R.L as Thunderf00t put it - Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic). You deny any physical evidence (and theories) which may support the creationist side or may not suit you in the case. This means that you no longer use reasoned logic.
And, as sad as it is, you most likely think my text to be "utter bullcrap" because you want it to be that.
You will never accept the truth.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees There is no evidence that supports the creationist side. Please show me some, I'd be more than happy to look at it. Also, I've researched creation more than you could ever imagine. I've listened to Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Ken Hamm, Michael Behe, and many many others. I am VERY open minded, and have looked at every aspect of this conversation I can find. Honestly, if you have something new to say about creation, I'm game. Let me know, I won't just insult it either, I'll explain.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81 it is interesting that people use, the "be open minded" slogan, when it comes to things that are supernatural, or theistic that have no proof to back them up.
Science thrives on open mindedness and it is science, a field that is self-scrutinizing, that allows us to gain further knowledge of the world through testing and evidence.
ccheng21 1 year ago
@ccheng21 agreed, and well said.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ccheng21
It is interesting when people comment on topics they've got no knowledge of. Please delve deeper into our conversation with 'Gentleman81' before making remarks.
Thank you.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees ccheng knows quite well what I mean. Evolution is what it is, you can cry about all you want.. It has been proven in court! The Dover trial! Look up Ken Miller, let's hear you argue with his points... You can't. It's okay to be wrong..
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Furthermore, I'd like to ask you what would the "truth" be in this case. Would it be the opinion of many great minds who think alike? Possibly. But I think that everyone creates their own "truth", or at least a version of it. Ask your friends how they think that evolution happened and I'm sure each one of them will come up with a different version.
And that's why we have debates. Each side shows evidence and theories of their statement and argues the other sides statements
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees THIS is the heart of our debate, TRUTH is NOT an opinion, it never has been. We should never have to debate truth, it simply is what it is. Facts simply are. For example, we could argue all day that the earth is flat or round, it will remain round, so regardless of our "views" the truth remains. Now, we may argue about what the truth is, but it bears no relevance on what it actually is. The truth is the truth, not a viewpoint.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Uber massive facepalm at your posts. For the sake of all living things on this planet..
Let me rephrase myself. You can't show something to a blind. You can't show a color to a colorblind.
... You can't bring your point across to ignorant, egomaniacal brick walls.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees btw, "a blind." is VERY incorrect. it's a BLIND MAN or WOMAN. Blind is an adjective.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
I have never *ever* facepalmed this hard in my life. Seriously.
I sense that you haven't paid attention in your literature classes, as you cannot understand my text.. at all.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
By the page of information I mean all the posts I have made. *zing*
If you call explaining the basic meanings of my posts, which your mind couldn't grasp (and still can't, it seems), whining.. then I seriously recommend you to visit a psychiatrist.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Thank you for enlightening me on the 'blind' word. English isn't my native language, obviously.
By the way, you start a sentence with a capital letter. Just mentioning.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
In conclusion, I'm not entirely sure what to make out of your characteristics. I'm sure if I'd bring someone who specializes in psychiatry, we would be able to make more sense out of you.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees You have yet to disprove evolution, provide evidence for creation or evidence against Phylogeny.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
... are you serious? There's two options now.. Either you're a complete idiot or you're calling shenanigans..
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees I'm still waiting for your evidence for creationism.. or against Phylogeny. You see, you simply don't know much about evolution... it's okay though people like you have already lost in schools, courtrooms, and science... there is no dispute.. any more than there is a dispute that we landed on the moon.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago 4
@ScholarlyGentleman81
How low can one go? Start directly launching personal assaults on others in order to remain at the top of the chain?
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I was one of the best students in my class according to the exam results.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees If you're so intelligent, please explain to me why Phylogeny is an invalid science. Phylogeny allows us to make mathematical predictions in evolution, these predictions are a BILLION dollar industry. Denying that this even exists is beyond absurd. Please reply with something sensible, not how smart you think you are.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Please read my posts from the start up. I've never said Phylogeny is invalid or wrong.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
And obviously you still haven't understood my posts. Well done. I guess you simply lack the natural intelligence for it.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81 OMG just look watch a couple of William Lane Craig vids dude.
Wait no longer please!
Zayin1993 7 months ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Do I really have to put it into layman's terms for you? What is so difficult to understand here?
I'm an atheist. That means I oppose the the religious ways.
I'm an anti-creationist. That means I know what is logical and reasoned and what is utter bullcrap.
I'm an individual.
noamees 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Now there's only one thing left - to hope that some, at least some bits of this page of information, reached your tiny, closed mind which can't comprehend others thoughts. If you even accept such a 'bizarre thought', as only you may have intelligent thoughts, right? ...
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees What page of information? You whining about being an atheist and STILL not understanding evolution correctly? I'm confused. Why do you back creationist arguments then? Why do you not educate yourself? Why not simply look up what I've said and then maturely respond?
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
Of course I forgot the most important part. Your new post which dictates that you're right.
Good luck.. you'll need it.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees I never said anything close to what you've claimed. Since you want to talk shit instead of discussing why evolution IS NOT completely random (which is clearly true based on ALL of the facts) I hope your dog dies. You got schooled, you have no logical response but to cry about it. You CANNOT explain to me why Phylogeny can exist if evolution IS completely random. Phylogeny, by the way, uses mathematical formulas to predict what evolution will do next, it's quite successful.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
However, debate doesn't always work. In some cases, the opposing side might not take the other sides arguments seriously. In fact, sometimes, the arguments are completely ignored.
This is the case right now.
There's no point of advancing our debate.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees Agreed, you've lost, so walk away. The facts speak for themselves. No matter how much you babble on about how evolution is "chance".. it's not. Regardless of how emotionally attached you get to it.. it's still not, and never will be. You STILL haven't looked up Phylogeny, which tells me you don't want to know the truth. Phylogenies wouldn't be possible if evolution were completely random.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
If you think you follow the atheists creed of P.E.A.R.L, then you should realize that there's no point for this debate. All you need to do is to swallow that huge ego/dumb pride up.
Good luck.
noamees 1 year ago
If you think that the word "selection" in the theory of "Natural Selection" actually means 'selecting' then you need to develop a bigger brain.. or a more broad mindset.
Also, can't wait for your new post. Probably full with capital letters - a childs rage.
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees LOL I use caps to emphasize. First, Natural Selection ABSOLUTELY (yes I used caps) selects in a reproductive sense. Animals that reproduce more because of successful reproduction SURVIVE! This is NOT chance, there is no chance in evolutionary theory; it's simply about small changes over long periods of time. These changes may be random to an extent, but the ones that survive are not. They are "Naturally Selected" because of their ability to survive and reproduce. Thus, no chance.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ReplyToDawkins Chance is NONSENSE, SELECTION is the exact opposite of CHANCE, NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT CHANCE!
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
@ScholarlyGentleman81
You obviously missed the whole concept of Natural Selection. Or you simply can't grasp it.
Natural Selection is the process by which certain heritable traits, those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce, become more common in a population over successive generations. (Source: Wikipedia)
noamees 1 year ago
@noamees LOL I know what Natural Selection is. I just summed it up before reading your next comment. My point is, it is NOT random, or by "chance". I guess it depends on how philosophically far you want to take "chance". I mean, I guess everything is chance if you want to go that far. If changes were completely random phylogenies would be IMPOSSIBLE. Phylogenies currently make hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars per year, I think they work; thus again, NO CHANCE involved.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
how can everything come from nothing?
harojamesninja 1 year ago
@harojamesninja
Nothing comes from nothing. It's actually pretty amazing if you realize that all the molecules or parts of molecules for all life on Earth (or the solar system) were already there when our sun and the enormous clouds of gas and dust took shape billions of years ago.
The process of scientific study of the origin of the universe has alsways been about pushing backwards along the time scale. The best current theories are within fractions of a second of the Big Bang event.
AnsaMafan 1 year ago
@harojamesninja Good point, you owned religion in one statement.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
Comment removed
fiiilll 1 year ago
@fiiilll Tell me how Psalms or Proverbs can be fantasy? What book is writen later then 217 AD? It is true the Catholic church hid the truth for centurys but as we see of the dead sea scrolls te bible was not affected.
Eskon2 1 year ago
how come the bible was not affected if there are old scrolls left out of it?what was the criterion to do this rather than manipulation?still,the catholic bible has more books than the evangelical,which explains that convenience is the rule concerning scriptures.anything against modern morals is considered out of context,but psalms and proverbs,that have some few decent advices,are taken as examples of how "insightfull" the bible is,but levicticus and deuteronomium are just "taken out of context"
fiiilll 1 year ago
Comment removed
fiiilll 1 year ago
3. 3 Worldviews on origin whereof Hindus with constant cycles of reincarnation are not very caring for science.
The other 1 is creation and the oldest and most widespread.
The last is evolution with origin in Greece.
Ignoring the origin of our live documented from a 6000 years old has serious consequences. Because if your believe and faith doesnt include the whole bible; (Genesis teaches us the origin of our mistakes our debt.) Its impossible to repent without that knowledge.
Eskon2 2 years ago
lol,like we should give a damn about repentance for something that a mythology's book character did...
fiiilll 1 year ago
@fiiilll Reasons why to care. its the opinion of a lot of people and knowing how people think and do is important, were not alone in this world. Mythology can be aplied to any story with a god if used in the widest possible meaning. So storys aboutesar Pharao the Japanese emperor, etc will be mythology yet real. The bible in respects is not clasified as mythology in normal meaning.
Eskon2 1 year ago
@Eskon2 yep,you're right,the bilble is not mythlogy,its just a classical exemple of a circular argument if you take as being the word of god.if you recognize it's not god's word then it becomes an important literature book,which is very nice and it's what this interesting book deserves,insted of being just falacy in the mouth of believers like you.
fiiilll 1 year ago
@fiiilll The bible is a collection of books. You can study commentaries apocrive books languistics events who took place. And now and then scientific things ahead of their time 3500 years. Prophecies most of them pointing to Christ. Without fallacy or lie its truth.
Eskon2 1 year ago
believing in something because it tells so,eventhought the fantasy stories that it tells were written centuries after jesus,is a fallacy and there's nothing you can do about that.well,you can go study fallacies...and to believe that a book that came to us through the intervention of the official religion of the roman empire and has passed through all this time is true is either innocence os stupidity,therefore i rest my case,there's no point in waste more time with someone who refuses to see.
fiiilll 1 year ago
@fiiilll As you use to speak of Jesus frequently, it might be wise to know who your talking about. And its the basis for a whole lot of people. In Religion tradion and ideas. As you said you have doctorates in history and philosophy it really suprises me, your why would i care attitude.
Eskon2 1 year ago
it's very likely that if i had doctorates in history and philosophy i wouldn't waste my time with this,but since i was a believer and now i'm not i have this innocent hope that people can unfold their eyes
fiiilll 1 year ago
Sorry mixed you up with someone else. As a bible reader i know that the gold needs purification the weeds need to be shifted from the grain.
Eskon2 1 year ago
that's why you're here,you know your place
fiiilll 1 year ago
Atheism itself isnt giving any laws but,
It has surrogates different from each other to fill it up as christians have diffirent vieuws.
Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Kapitalism and Facism.
Note Any slight bit of doubt will make you an agnostic person.
Budhism is seen as a form of atheism.
christians were concidered atheist by the first Romans.
Eskon2 2 years ago
@Eskon2 and yes,romans were right,christians are atheists in relation to other gods,or do you believe in zeus?thor?baal?shiva?atheists just go one step further,and we are not agnostics in relation to god(s) because we would have to be agnostic in relation to every single thing that can't be disproved,simply because proving a negative is impossible.atheists have only one thing in common:not believing in god,but i can be everything else,like pro/anti religion,pro/anti darwin /evolution and so on
fiiilll 2 years ago
wtf..."The world a-theism means 'anti-god'",I suggest you study etymology before embarrassing yourself like this...I can help you:the "a" means "lack of".Now,can you tell the difference between "amoral" and "imoral"?
good studies...
fiiilll 2 years ago
if atheism is a religion,not smoking is an habit and so on...
fiiilll 2 years ago
The problem is that theism is older then atheism and not smoking was older.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Comment removed
fiiilll 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is that a serious argument or are you making a joke?oh,i'm sory,it can't be serious...but let's play:are we born believing?so what comes first:not believing or believing?
LOL
fiiilll 2 years ago
Exactly. Saying atheism is a religion is no different than saying not believing in unicorns/ghosts/Santa/free lunch is a religion.
acqtrekker 2 years ago
Anti theism opposite theism is religion. You cant say that from aunicorn a ghost anti Santa and antilunch for free.
Eskon2 2 years ago
tell me what are the laws or dogmas that anti theists have to follow.what are the others common intrinsic characteristics between anti theists besides being against theis?before putting anti theism in the cathegory of religion try to give valid answers to those questions.
good luck with that...
fiiilll 2 years ago
Laws or dogmas are very strong in the abrahamic religions, and differ from person to person. The truth is that we dont have to follow these but Jesus. Dogmas are merely eplanatory and laws are to put you at guilt not at salvation. Believing or trusting is very common among humans. from biblical vieuw a god is about anything you find important and pay attention too. Profets Allah and Dawkins. Books Quaran and origin of species. Also,
Eskon2 2 years ago
@Eskon2 so,if you don't accept jesus as your only savior what happens to you?you just said that you have to follow jesus,his words are in the bible,and the answer to my question there is hell fire...every religion has to have punishment,so where's the punishment in atheism?where are the words that we MUST follow?what is the consequence of ignoring the origin of species,besides stupidity and ignorance about reality?and don't try to mix the metaphorical and literal meanings of "prophet",
fiiilll 2 years ago
2 If you dont accept you deny. And that means you deny God and your own life.
The punishment in atheism. If you are the weakest you wont be selected.
But religions differ Sikhism is a nice example of that.
The words atheist follow is that of the current leading professors and gurus like Dawkins.
Note these people have often a origin in Christianity, by growing up and even being the son of a minister or in education to become one: Charles Darwin, Kant and Freud.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Wow,you just refuse to understand.Natural Selection has NOTHING to do with atheism,it has NO IMPLICATIONS in human society,it is "just" the greatest explanation about how live evolved and is yet to be proven wrong,and evidences keep confirming it.
Atheists DON"T have to even listen to R.Dawkins,C.Hitchens,S.Harris or anyone,in fact they can completely DISAGREE and IGNORE them,it won't change the fact that they don't believe in god.Being an ex-believer is just a natural consequence,I'm one.
fiiilll 1 year ago
@fiiilll Why does N S t havent got any relation with atheism?
Natural selection or survival of the fittest is ancient. and ive not seen any statistics showing a fitter overcomming the less fit anywhere.
Someone has to teach you it might be your self and it might be someone else. Your lack of believe in God has an origin.
Eskon2 1 year ago
@Eskon2 natural selection = how NATURE works,not human society,jesus christ!
If you've never known about natural selection taking place you just don't know/refuse to understand how nature works,go see discovery channel or natgeo,it's a good start.
And the origin of my lack of belief is the fact that,althought i grew up as a christian and read the bible a couple of times i never refused to ignore logic and reason.
fiiilll 1 year ago
omg thank you old woman for explaining this.
TheCollegeKnight 2 years ago
evolution is still just a theory and theories means things that are not still proven yet and thanks so much for gregruts who does not know his side well
Vivid means very clear.
Now do you guys a have a much more vivid explanation than creation it's very vivid explanation than evolution and more vivid than the big bang.
kidasterorig111 2 years ago
evolution will always be a theory,
you can change a theory any time,
it only get better
Sorry you flunked science class.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
You're an idiot who obviously didn't go to science class and didn't watch the video.
DbzmasterdbzNecross 2 years ago
false! in scientific language, a hypothesis is something that is still not proven. a theory is scientific fact.
MrAmericanMe 2 years ago
Look up flogistontheory. A theory is the best present explanation of what you can percept. That could mean it isnt right.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Evolution is the pseudo-scientific religion based on blind faith in the ELECTRICAL MAGICAL MYSTICAL MYSTERY PRIMO SOUP. It's the belief that a gnat can fart an elephant. It's the belief that all this happened out of nothing for no fukking reason whatsoever & without any design. And that same gnat can fart out a coke machine while being sentient of the idea that he needs stereoscopic vision, stereophonic buzz detectors, & multiple legs and wings. BTW The coke machine has no design whatsoever.
FirstFreedomFighter 2 years ago
and all life on the planet *poofing* into existence in 6 days makes perfect sense eh?
ccheng21 2 years ago
Sure, because it shows why religion is the beginning of life. Because by today live can only produce live. Abiogenesis and Big Bang are utherly unscientific.
Eskon2 2 years ago
@FirstFreedomFighter LOL you know NOTHING about evolution, just like everyone I've ever spoken with who denies it. Then you touch on abiogenesis, the beginnings of life, again; nothing to do with evolution. You truly show your ignorance in this message. You need to READ. Oh, and for the record people like you have LOST in schools, courtrooms, and science.
ScholarlyGentleman81 1 year ago
OMG some people are so fucking stupid and ignorant A THEORY IS THE HIGHEST POINT OF PROOF
HoribiFuckis 2 years ago
Theory means scientist are not still sure of it
kidasterorig111 2 years ago
You didn't watch the video did you?
gregrutz 2 years ago
He did. Sciense can never obtain truth. Some theorys are proven false flogistonetheory. A theory means the best modelfor predictions until a better on shows up.
Eskon2 2 years ago
I am glad you know how science works.
The Therory of Evolution has been improved over the last 150 years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Well my concern as creationist is that the theory of evolution is a problem. It is a historic science, and seems to have no ties to reality. Evolution for example basicly means change. You have evolution in fields and seize what makes it an theory you can interpret how you want it.
Eskon2 2 years ago
"Historic science"
Who has the 2000 year old book,
creationist or biologist?
"interpret how you want it"
Who seizes what fits their beliefs and their religon and only looks at facts that fit the bible.
Modern science doesn't fit your old book, your problem.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Wrong question. It can be both. Creation and evolution are both historic sciences. Modern science has one problem naturalism. Atheism as a religion influecnces modern science a lot. Modern science fits in the bible, its the vieuw of evolutionists that disagrees with us.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Eskon2 you are full of shit.
Evolution IS modern science.
Atheism does not affect science any more than religion does.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Tssk. scienceisnt just he evolution theory. Certainly things like microvolution etc work. Its the interpretation that is flawed. Atheism is a sort of religion.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution.
Micro evolution is evolution over a short period of time. It is now supported by creationist only because they can't get all the animals on the Ark.
Evolution means there was no ark or Adam and Eve.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Without the theory of evolution there would be no way for them they were right. So basicly macroevolution goes against recorded history.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Atheism is not a religion, it has no unchanging scriptures, no supernatural creator to worship, involves no superstition etc. That´s like saying "your non belief in Fairies is like a Religion!" How can a NON BELIEF be a religion?...Your hobby is "non stamp collecting". Moron.
Bias does not affect science, that goes against science. When you attack evolution, you are actaully attacking the scientific method itself. 99.99% of the scientific community isn´t being "bias".
cornflakeclusters 2 years ago
Your just making up 99.99% now.
Furthermore in my clasification of atheism isnt that worse.
Some people tought of christianity as atheism.
Nowadays budhists are seen as atheist. If you dont understand my clasification system its your problem. A religion has leaders/phrophets Charles Darwin etc. a religion has worship > science. In my definition problem lies with defining budhis as religion and atheism. I clasified it as a branch of atheism with own worship and leaders.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Concerning the relevant fields of science (e.i. genetics, biology etc) only 0.15% of scientists believe in Creationism, and that´s just the U.S, which has way more Creationists than Europe. So Creationists are pretty out-numbered in science.
"A religion has leaders/phrophets Charles Darwin etc"
WTF?But now you´re talking about evolution! Before you were saying Atheism is a religion. There are many Christians who believe in evolution,does that mean they worship Jesus and Darwin?!
(Cont...)
cornflakeclusters 2 years ago
(Cont...) Does that mean Christians who believe in evolution have two religions?!
Saying Atheism is a religion because we praise Darwin is like saying the belief in relativity is a religion because we praise Einstein, or saying Heliocentrism is a religion because we praise Copernicus.
Your argument is so flawed.
cornflakeclusters 2 years ago
Many people praise the rich and famous the bible conciders them so. The theory of relativation is accepted as a fact we know of Einstein but praising him not. We have to be very careful. the pope for example is such a danger, he decides who enters heaven a mortal, people praise him.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Relativity IS a theory. Heliocentricity is a theory, germ theory is a theory, but you believe all of them presumably.
You say Christians who accept evolution are not "real" Christians. This is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Believing in Genesis literally has nothing to do with being a "true Christian".
"You can not serve two masters"
Evolution is not a "master", it´s a scientific theory, just like relativity.
cornflakeclusters 2 years ago
Flogistontheory is also a theory.
As you take Christian literaly as follower of christ. Then you have to literaly believe in Genesis. For Moses and the preofets are enough. Without genesis there is no need for Christ.
Well evolution classes with the bible there multiple soft theorys hence with their massive problems.
Eskon2 2 years ago
If you think you have evidence against evolution, you should write up a paper containing all of this amazing evidence and turn biology, palaeontology, genetics and many other fields of science on their heads and change what´s taught in science class. Or you could just accept that your belief in Creationism is based on zero evidence.
cornflakeclusters 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are already many books on this tpic, and i dont realy like to copycat. If i find something new i certainly will but the problem of this paradigm is that you need to believe it else you got a very big problem. But for starters wonder about this. If humans are clasified as homo and apes as pithicus then what is the common ancestor? 2nd what createt the layers of the world and are they worldwide or not?
Eskon2 2 years ago
I doesn´t matter how many books are written about the topic. It´s one thing to write a book that criticizes evolution, any idiot can do that (basd on a lack of understanding of evolution) but it´s another thing to publish criticisms and then pass peer-review and have your theories accepted. So far nobody has disproven evolution, although many have tried and failed. If it was disproven we wouldn´t have it taught in schools.
There is no conspiracy in science to "hide the truth".
cornflakeclusters 2 years ago
There are some huge problems with your reasoning. The peer revieuw is lately heavily critisized in the dutch newspapers. One point is that because the majority believes in evolution they wont pass any critic at all. In the beginning paradigms can be teached at schools and later be disproven like the flogistontheory. There are resons to hide the truth and teach evolution because its the basis for atheism etc.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Source of this figure?
Evolution and atheism have a relationship.
Christians who are followers of Christ can not serve evolution as well. You can not serve two masters. Because they caant follow christ, their namechristians not real christians. a christian is seen a a sole god worshipper serving 2 gods makes him someting else.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Atheism isn't a religion. There is no god to worship.
WecksyRex 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The god is called knowledge/ freedom/ science.
Eskon2 2 years ago
That's not a God, you dolt
WecksyRex 2 years ago 4
god is not God obviously. a god is something you think of important. There many ways to become atheist so your personal idea of what is important makes it actualy.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Atheism, by definition, is the lack of religion. You can't make up your own definition for words.
WecksyRex 2 years ago
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. The faith in God is replaced by faith in humans who then will be seen more godlike. Like Soccer and Popmusic.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Philippians 3:19 The difference in vieuws on what a god is. According to scripture anything you deem important, in this case an example of the stomach.
Eskon2 2 years ago