Using computer programs to refute evolution...right. Computers even have trouble calculating the 3-body problem - we always have to make great approximations. So trying to calculate few hundred millions worth of calculations on millions or billions of molecules.. Not gonna happen.
Still - I've seen some simple algorithms that show simple 2D lifeforms evolve quite nicely to their environment. Perhaps he just did not try hard enough when he was writing his software, or I missed his point..
Evolutionism demands a disconnection from reality. Its purpose is to numb, anesthetize, beleaguer & tranquilize. Logic, experience, morality, altruism can find no home, nor niche, in this inhuman, eugenics-based orthodoxy that purports a science (a knowledge) of an antiquity that realistically could not be. An antiquity populated by mutants in transition; weakened by their impossible plight of digits/appendages & internal organs irreconcilably at odds with the water, land & climate.
@procommenter I have never seen more of a jumble of wikipedia hyperlinks in one comment! Congrats! Somewhere amidst your utter disconnection between words and concepts/logic, and your half-baked conspiracy agenda, you actually think what you wrote here made sense.
May I suggest that you have never ever read or understood any science whatsoever? May I also suggest you make an effort to -- just for your own reputation, of course.
You are the PERFECT candidate for a Reverse Turing Test...
@procommenter Notoriously inaccurate for measuring what exactly? Hmmm...What do we use radiocarbon dating for:
An online dating service for carbon atoms to find partners, without whose union we couldn't have organic chemistry? Of course, where does hydrogen fit in there...Separate dating service? Setting one up could be a big business success for you!! Go for it!!
Seriously though, you are a wikipedia sound bite/hyperlink monger and you don't ever seem to worry about understanding anything.
it is difficult to construct an algorithm for theory of evolution because there is no way of telling when and how an abnormality will occur, at least not in our present day of thinking. to cook up mathematical equations that explain the production of life and its functions for species is remotely possible even if we combined all the calculating power of supercomputers in the world, which is needed in the first place before evolution. can math truly explain how non-living things can yield life?
@SEEANDPEA We actually do have math which deals with this directly; called Genetic Algorithms they have been enormously successful in everything from solving math problems (Steiner's Problem) to complex problems in industry that have resulted in patents. Many of these solutions are hit upon rather quickly, and would have taken longer by supercomputer number-crunching methods. So, if I have understood the content of your comment, you need to update your education in math a lot.
GA indeed is the solution. Has it explained under what conditions and around what time did human species become humans, that is with 23 pairs of chromosomes? (in a way, I know what happened, but suppose I am inclined to know how did it happen, what made it happen, and was it bound to happen?) I've tested a couple of the GA programs in the past, but it didn't give me a good picture. Maybe Dr. Berlinski may have had a good insight.
Same KIND? Yes! Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods. And all tetrapods are still vertebrates. You can't outgrow you ancestry.
@gregrutz We where never apes!, its bullshit!, DNA is irrelevant in this way, that just proves that common designer is more logical and makes far more sense!, just as a architect builds houses with similaritys God made all life with DNA similaritys, no evidence for ape to man has ever been found!.
@SEEANDPEA And you are scientifically dismissing creationism on the grounds of "because I said so", not from any scientific basis. Here's a thought: Follow where the evidence leads, instead of locking into fundamentalist evolutionary presuppositions and blindly following the faith-based tendentious "evidence" of evolution.
I'm to be featured in Daytona Beach's "News-Journal" in September 2011 as a local author. I wrote a 96-page book entitled "Along the Far Climb Down" that's for sale at the notorious Polyester Books: 330 Brunswick St., Fitzroy (a suburb of Melbourne), Victoria, Australia. It's on page 1 of their web site. Type "Along the Far Climb Down" into Google's image file and you'll be nearly there.
It's good that Berlinski, and the Discovery institute in general, keep sectarian questions out of it, and just concentrate on the scientific and broadly metaphysical questions. Sick of people saying how you have to reject neo-darwinism or you'll be judged in comments on this kind of video. That really *is* a bad argument-- even if it were true.
I wonder why darwin skeptics are often right-wing. I'm not hostile to conservatives, but neither do I relate to them much. I wonder what the link is.
1. Mutations do not improve or degrade DNA information. They change it. Whether or not it is an "improvement" or "degradation" - that evaluation is left to the environment, through the process called Natural Selection.
2. Survival of fittest is a misnomer - its really the increased presence of genes favored by environment.
3. 4 - what is the problem exactly?
5 - what does that have to do with Evolution? (I suspect this is your core objection). Please elaborate.
@vdizhoor Survival of the fittest is a tautology - the fittest is the animal that produces the most offspring, so the animal that produces the most offspring is the animal that produces the most offspring.
Assuming you argue against it. OK, but this is a simplification, a soundbite. There is also "decent through modification and natural selection", which isn't a tautology. Or "whatever happens, happens", which is a tautology. These are just educational simplifications. The origin of species and subsequent works by numerous scientists in various fields combine into the Theory of Evolution. Its many publications, not just the tautology you refer to.
@vdizhoor Agree it's a simplification. But the whole theory is under attack and many scientists have come out and said that the theory is not backed up by the facts. What I see and hear as an observer is the passion of the proponents of evolution - the absolute hatred of the notion of an intelligent designer who might make demands on our freedom. 'I will not serve'.
The peer reviewed research actually confirms the theory. Its one of the most supported scientific theories to date. Intelligent design isn't a theory, its a philosophy that any individual is free to hold to. Personal views are exempt from science (e.g. Newton's Gravity became science, while his affinity for alchemy remained personal). The heated debates you refer to are in the public arena. Its venting for the likes of you and me. The opposition is to treating ID as science.
I think that Berlinski thinks of Science as Mathematics. That unless the explanation can be totally described by a formula, Unless we can fit a curve and describe the residual, the explanation is unsatisfactory.
Trouble is, theories describing complex interdependent systems are not described by equations. Digging through the Fossil record is like Archeology. Does David doubt the existence of Paleolithic people because we haven't dug every one of them up?
That is ridiculous and you know it. But you want to dance - fine. Proof is for theorEMS, not theorIES. There is Math and then there is Science. Theories are not proven. They are accepted based on how well they FIT empirical observations. Science is the study of nature, not logic. Not every animal leaves a fossil. The vast majority do not. Thus, "gaps" in the fossil record are expected. There is enough of it to validate Evolution. What new data reveals is HOW it progressed, not IF.
Imagine a machine gun lying on a beach surrounded by bunch of shell casings and a corpse with a bullet in it. The bullet in the body and matches it to the gun. Question: how important is it that other bullets are not found? It IS reasonable to assume they are in the ocean somewhere, but should we assume a mysterious group of accomplices for each casings with unaccounted bullets? There is no mathematical proof they all came from the same gun, but it is beyond reasonable doubt.
You are assuming a level of evidence for the theory of evolution that does not exist.
The theoretical gun has a rifling pattern that can be checked against the shells. If the pattern does not match, the bullets came from a different gun. Evolution does not have such a test available.
If it will make it easy for you, I do believe in God, but do not think that His existence can be proven scientifically. There is no repeatable, falsifiable test.
Evolution has the same problem. I do not claim that the lack of a test in and of itself disproves evolution; that would be fallacious. But the lack of a test demolishes any claim to being a core scientific principle.
OK, good. It does matter. God is not a theory. It isn't a matter of evidence, its a matter of perspective. Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory. It does not claim that as a consequence of evolution there ought to be an exhaustive fossil record - just that whatever record exists would be consistent with it. This is an observable case.
Evolution is not opposing God - only someone's literal reading of the Bible.
C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th Century, believed in evolution. It is not a salvation issue.
But I do believe that there is evidence for God and Christ, just not a scientific test. There is no scientific test for the existence of Julius Caesar, but I accept the evidence of his existence as well.
Yes, there are still questions about how the process occurs (perhaps in more ways than one). That doesn't invalidate the principle. I mean physics hasn't yet tied Gravity and Quantum Mechanics either, and is in the midst of various attempts. That does not invalidate Theory of Gravity.
On what grounds do you find the Evolution of Natural Selection so inadequate that you would dismiss it entirely? Are there any other long standing theories that you also dismiss? If so - which?
I completely agree that inability to explain all aspects of a process does not disprove the process. My only beef is with evolution. I accept that earth is old.
My objections:
-information degrades with replication, it does not improve or become more complex (DNA)
-survival of the fittest is essentially a tautology
-multi-celled organisms; bacteria are the most elegant form of life; they mutate, but remain single celled
wow.. its crazy lol for the past 2 weeks iv been debating this topic with my youth group.. "evolution, it is not a salvation issue".. i too agree with you, but theres something that must be said.. for a man to accept evolution but also claims he has the Spirit of Jesus in his heart, i must say it beggs the question if he is truly saved or not, although i or anyone else obvs cant tell for sure, but you just assume he is, since the person is sincere and if hes evangelical or not!
but yea it was weird seeing a comment like yours on this page, because i was honestly just thinking of arguments to use for "yes a person can be truly saved even though he accepts evolution".. and then i see your comment and well i had to write something lol.. but yea even though i believe a person can be truly saved, i do think the person that would interpret the Genesis account as some time of evolution occurring, is either ignorant or trying to make up his own story to fit
his/her views, because its very clear how it says God made everything, it mentions nothing about 'evolution' so why would one take that stand.. it totally contradicts Genesis.. but I believe God wont judge us on our interpretation and ignorance, he will judge us on if we accepted his son Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savor.. (if i offended you at all my friend, believe me it wasn't my intention, its just the way i feel and believe, i dont mean to be rude)
in response to your second sentence about Jesus and the evidence for him.. i again agree with that, statistics alone show that the majority of scholars (75%) and nearly every historian who investigates the historicity of Jesus come to agreement with 3 facts:
- his death on a cross
- his empty tomb
- his appearances to Paul, the disciples and 500 men and women
this is what men and women who spend there lives almost trying to figure out, and after viewing all they have they call
"If what you say is true, why isn't everyone Christian?" - thats like saying if we can imagine peace on earth, why are there wars? Psalm 14.1 : "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God" if what i say is true, which it is! ill be happy to prove you wrong if you'd like, do you really think people would become Christians? NO, would you like to see the quotes from hundreds of atheists who say "Even if the existence of god can be proven, i will still reject him" ? (cont)
@gregrutz Hahaha, only a moron believes in evolution, its a joke!, evolution is simply assumption by similarity!, not science, just human opinion!, sorry yu fail!.
"we killed Jesus, why did that make his father happy" - wow lol.. well its obvs you know nothing about Christianity to even mention it, but i guess ill waste my time explaining.. show me in scripture where it says God was happy from the Crucifixion.. God was sad, hurt and upset.. not happy!
(empty tomb proves the body was stolen) - actually your wrong.. nobody had the intention to steal his body, neither can one, two or three men move the boulder blocking the way! (cont)
(they say a dead man walk and christianity was not an instant success) like i said in my above comment, people are stupid!.. just look at Islam for example, they dont believe Jesus was Crucified, they deny that to the bone... for it goes against what it says in the quran..
but the thing is, 90% of scholars and 99% of historians who investigate the historicity of Jesus Christ, are in agreement of His death on a cross, and they call it a FACT in history!.. (cont)
@gregrutz WRONG!, scientists know there was a flood!, look at the evidence!, over 75% of earth is water!, the remaining land is 85% sediment!, that can only mean at some stage, the earth was covered in water!, duuh!.
in some areas the amount of fossils are huge, way to be for the current environment to sustain them, thats becasue the pre flood world was very different, more land, more pressure in the atmosphere, things where bigger, they have the evidence, your just ignoring it!.
@85Aheadstix Bible packing Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented and showed it was Billions of years old.
so what happens to a muslim, or even atheist sometimes when being told that Jesus died on a cross, they deny it and say no it never happened... well okkk lol too bad its a FACT!
and the third fact is, that the 11 disciples and Paul, witnessed Jesus 3 days after his death.. and these people werent all in the same room, they experienced Him in separate places all at the same time!.. maybe they were delusional.. ahah 12 people, being delusional at the same time lol thats a joke right
You say its a red herring - it isn't. You need to ask yourself (as does each of us) what is it that you believe in, and what you put your faith in.
Do you feel obliged to hold on to the literal meaning of Genesis, for abandoning it is somehow synonymous with loosing faith, and possibly salvation? If you fear, its a formidable obstacle. Learn to let go. You will see.
Even though you don't accept Evolution, could you please describe it? (As you understand what it proposes)
There are two schools of thought in evolution: Darwinian and punctuated equilibrium. Some believe that there has been slow change over time resulting in speciation. Others think that evolution moves in fits and starts.
The basic idea is that mutations of some type occur, most of them bad, some of them good. The good ones lead to improved competition for scarce resources and reproduction, as well as survival in the environment. Those that are inferior go extinct.
Well, it isn't so much that inferior go extinct, (it isn't superior/inferior thing) its that traits more adapted to the environment tend to propagate through a genome of a species (those individuals that are slightly more successful in life, tend to leave more offspring in the next generation). If this is so, there ought to be a mechanism for mutation (found in biology), environment variation in the past (found in geology), ancestral "tree of life" (found in paleontology).
@dragknuckle There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
@SEEANDPEA The theory of phlogiston also lasted a long time. People believed in it despite the evidence, then it was modified, eventually just a footnote in bad science history. Which is where the bad philosophy of evolution belongs.
So if I say that the carbon series is so precise that it could only have been created by an intelligent designer, therefore I have proven Intelligent Design, would you accept that?
My point is that the reason you cannot prove God is the same reason you cannot prove evolution. There is no argument that you can give me for evolution that you would not completely reject if it were used as an argument for God.
To say that the genetic code has certain qualities, therefore it must have evolved is no different than saying the universe has certain qualities, therefore it must have been designed. I has evidentiary weight, to be sure, but it cannot be conclusive proof.
@dragknuckle Your point proves you don't know the difference between science and religion. You can't prove there is a god because he is supernature, No evidence. Science tries to explain the facts, theories explain the facts. It is a fact that dinosaurs had feathers. It is a fact that the big dinosaurs died off. Most things have died off, it is recorded in the fossil record. In the Cambrian Periond the were only small marine creatures. A Fact. Can you explain this facts?
@ruthamyallan1 Yes, the Flying Spagetti Monster Exists, that has already been established in this thread. What does she have to do with the fossils record?
As to the lack of large creatures in the Cambrian Period, perhaps they did not fossilize. Isn't that how you explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?
@dragknuckle The Cambrian was when fossils became common because of the evolution of shells and backbones. Species that possess transitional features: Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Tiktaalik, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
@vdizhoor Why do we use statistics in the sciences to determine correlation in quantitative data then? You are reachin into the dark for an answer you like better than the perfectly viable one you were just given. Point here being, how does a cow even begin to adapt to water? There is no point for this adaptation to begin. And so called palieolithic people have all been classified to be our same species!?
@BackwoodsBoy30 evolution never occurs, it is always there. It guides species to become better through generations, cheetas faster, people kinder, smarter. it is life figuiring itself out. Always constrained, always free. It took selfish creatures (us) and Patiently guides them toward compassion and love. It is unhindered by a corruptible Ego. Design is not Intelligent. Design Is Beautiful.
What kind of man was Ronald Reagan? HERO OR DEGENERATE? [Fr. the Internet: The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on Mar. 16, 1968 of 347–504 unarmed citizens in S. Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children (including babies) and elderly people. Many of the victims were beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated.] Pres. Reagan pardoned Lt. Calley who carried out the massacre. How low can you go?
There simply is no evidence for evolution while at the same time there is amountains of evidence for creation. Evolutionism is a concept largely formed in the 19th century at a time when science was in it's infancy. What we have learned since then, in fact everything we have learned since then, has discredited it and proven creation. Evolutionism is dying out too. It is currently the biggest source of brunts on college campuses.
If you believe in Jesus because you think the gospels are HISOTIRC - is that the same as believing in Jesus? Unless you read the texts of the Old Testament (like Genesis, Job, etc. - which are written by anonymous geniuses) as parables (method used by Jesus) you will NOT understand them, instead being lead by those who are consumed by fear and vanity and fail to see that the Bible is an EXPRESSION of God, not an EXPLANATION (which is impossible).
@JusJuiceIt I'm just saying that if you are biologist you propably see the whole picture, rather than just small part of whole process, like these creationists usually like to see.
@majereJ I know evolutionary biologists that agree evolution is bullshit, they have no where near enough evidence to prove a thing, even your precious Cambrian explosion contradicts the evolutionary theory, yet we never hear that, as it puts yet another hole in theory "fact".
To get a bigger picture of physics you have to take a "particles point of view" for the same reason you have to look at the mechanism of Evolution at the molecular level.
There simply is no evidence for creationism while at the same time there is mountains of evidence for evolution. Creationism is a concept largely formed in the 19th century at a time when science was in it's infancy. What we have learned since then, in fact everything we have learned since then, has discredited it and proven evolution. Creationism is dying out too. It is currently the biggest source of brunts on the interwebs.
The Bible is not a physics text. It was written for a completely different purpose. You may as well reject Mozart's G major Violin Concerto because it is useless as a soup recipe.
I wish all so called intellectuals could be this honest. Just say it as it is. Of course you would get hated for that but who cares. Speak the truth quietly and clearly.
@shayneby Because they would be exposed, intellectuals just talk in circles hoping one can't figure out the Bullshit they spew. Berlinski just speaks honest truth.
@mankind2112 "Berlinski just speaks honest truth."
.
The mass of factual and interpretive errors and deceptions he offers in this interview alone is astounding. In an earlier segment he lies about von Neumann's opinion of Darwin, claiming that he "hooted" with derision. Berlinski's source? "I got my information about Von Neumann from the horse's mouth, **the horse one step removed from the horse himself**."
.
What's that David? Someone told you a story and you repeat it as gospel? What a crock!
First off, we know dogs used to be wolves cause we have found intermediate fossils, and there were no dogs before their were humans. Where do you think they came from? Sprung out of holes in the ground?
Second off, we cant simulate darwininan bilogy because we would have to simulate trillions of samples of dna in every cell of every organism.Then we would have to realistically simulate their entire environment. But we have done simple darwinian simulations that have yielded astounding results
Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he's more concerned with what we don't know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn't there and seeks out the things that can't be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage.
.. Idiot??... ha ha ha you must be kidding... yr statement is a crock of -S#*T-..you seriously need to open up some more books to read...this gentleman is very smart...i don't agree with his views on evolution either...but using adjectives like....annoying,idiot,stupid.....just shows how immature u are ...oh by the way ridicule is NOT an argument! ....maybe get out more...cancun,tahiti,cayman...a little sun is good for ya..kick back..fly a kite..go for a swim..
Then why doesn't HE open some books, let's say, on evolution? He doesn't know the first thing about it, but he still thinks he can form an opinion about it. That's why he is an idiot. He gets smacked around by scientists all the time and deserves all the ridicule he can get.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ...i'm pretty sure he knows a few things about evo. ....ridicule is not an argument...scientists can say whatever they want.....probably more than half of them are f^%king weirdos anyway.....these are all just opinions,,,i'll add
@MomoTheBellyDancer .."probably more than half of them are f^%king weirdos anyway"
.....ad hominem or not ....those kids should get out into the sun more often!!.....Only if they can back it up with evidence....evidence or not ....they can still say what they want!...especially if it's a little private interview,like up top
@gregrutz No, Relativity did not replace the laws of motion. If anything, they were augmented by Relativity (but note, we don't call it a Law of Relativity).
The problem with the notion of transitional fossils is that there is no direct parent to descendant correlation. You can't just point to similar fossils and say this came from that because that's not a scientific statement based on observation brought on through hypothesis and experimentation.
@gregrutz Understand that I'm not saying that transitional fossils are absolutely no evidence for evolution. What I'm saying is that it can't be proven. If one species transitioned into another, we don't know how or why. At the moment it can't be proven in a laboratory that one species transitions into another. Birds remain birds and cats remain cats, in spite of the "microevolutions" brought on by breeding. It is important to understand this distinction.
@MikeTMerciless watch>> Facts Of Evolution - (Chapter 3 of 6) To see all the speciation they have documented in the lab. . Same KIND? Yes! Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods. > one thing does not turn into another, you can't out grow your ancestory.
@MikeTMerciless Relativity replaced Newton's theory of GRAVITY. The fossil racord does show one thing evolveing into another thing. Ambulocetus is a transitional fossil, land animal to whale There are 6 more between it and today. -Dalanistes -Rodhocetus -Takracetus -Gaviocetus -Dorudon -Basilosaurus -Modern whale How many 'missing links' do you need to open you eyes?
Is this 'scientist' incredibly stupid or, plainly incredibly dishonest and being paid for his dishonesty.
Frustrating video, frustrating people. How this 'pseudo scientific' moron got his doctorate ? He suppose to be a mathematician. A man with the mathematical, logical thinking.
What we see in here, is a deluded moron talking bullshit about the scientific field he has no idea about.
With all my heart, with my brain on fire - fuck that retard!
@gregrutz You've completely missed the point he was making. Did you even hear him mention general relativity? Try to listen and understand first before making preposterous childish statements like "math teachers know nothing about fossils".
@echoesintoeternity The point is, evolution says Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods. Do you have four limbs? > the point is, Mr. Butinski is paid by the Discovery Inst. to make people believe there is a controversy, cast dought on evolution, a proven process.
Obviously, this extremely dishonest and deluded moron knows nothing about the fossils, theory of evolution and, on the top of it - he's on the payroll of The Discovery Institute.
Just because he is enough morally depraved to go on publicly and state the issues he has no fucking idea about.
This guy is an idiot. Physics describes gravity using point masses. Masses you can represent as a point mass. How the hell do you simplify the evolutionary landscape with millions of interacting variables to a point mass? You would need a quantum computer and somebody who could program it. Or you could just look at the evidence of transitional fossils sorted by time and strata. This guy, he's not too bright. And he's dishonest. He's a used car salesman. It's what he doesn't tell you that counts.
why does he refer to maths and physics to try and find flaws in biology that's like referring to plumbing and mechanics to find flaws in roofing there's thousands of examples natural selection can account for complexity
rmir2 you are right on point.... in cell culturing... look to l. bacillus or any bug and its doubling in vitro... we have billions of life experiences of PD's and these things don't change... dna mutation could not account for morph. changes anyway..as morphology does not seem to be controlled in the dna... we have no idea where morphology is generated from....huge problem...huge.. nothing like darwinism (textbook) has occured...there is just no evidence of these changes.
Third, I fail to see the logic behind "random" variation. Logic tell me that variation is possible only within the frames set by parents genetics. After all, a child reflecs 50% fathers and 50% mothers gens. Even in the case of strong outside influence like, say, radioactivity (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tjernobol) it did not alter substationally the species - humans remained humans (also in the next generations). We still lack the proff, that one species actually has changed into another. And why.
First, all proven changes are within one species and could be regarded as adaption to the changing environment. They might be "programmed" in the geens from the beginning.
Second, "trasitional forms" turns out not to be so when carefully studied. An example: neandethal man was considered "the missing link" between apes and humans. Now we know that this is not the case. Your example is based on the assumption, that one follow the other - not on any real proof. You might be right, but might not.
I like how this guys ego is higher than gods.
sydtocreation 2 months ago in playlist Dr. David Berlinski
Using computer programs to refute evolution...right. Computers even have trouble calculating the 3-body problem - we always have to make great approximations. So trying to calculate few hundred millions worth of calculations on millions or billions of molecules.. Not gonna happen.
Still - I've seen some simple algorithms that show simple 2D lifeforms evolve quite nicely to their environment. Perhaps he just did not try hard enough when he was writing his software, or I missed his point..
ttcmp0 4 months ago
Radiocarbon dating is notoriously inaccurate.
procommenter 6 months ago
Evolutionism demands a disconnection from reality. Its purpose is to numb, anesthetize, beleaguer & tranquilize. Logic, experience, morality, altruism can find no home, nor niche, in this inhuman, eugenics-based orthodoxy that purports a science (a knowledge) of an antiquity that realistically could not be. An antiquity populated by mutants in transition; weakened by their impossible plight of digits/appendages & internal organs irreconcilably at odds with the water, land & climate.
procommenter 6 months ago
@procommenter I have never seen more of a jumble of wikipedia hyperlinks in one comment! Congrats! Somewhere amidst your utter disconnection between words and concepts/logic, and your half-baked conspiracy agenda, you actually think what you wrote here made sense.
May I suggest that you have never ever read or understood any science whatsoever? May I also suggest you make an effort to -- just for your own reputation, of course.
You are the PERFECT candidate for a Reverse Turing Test...
Ahabite 5 months ago in playlist Dr. David Berlinski
@procommenter Notoriously inaccurate for measuring what exactly? Hmmm...What do we use radiocarbon dating for:
An online dating service for carbon atoms to find partners, without whose union we couldn't have organic chemistry? Of course, where does hydrogen fit in there...Separate dating service? Setting one up could be a big business success for you!! Go for it!!
Seriously though, you are a wikipedia sound bite/hyperlink monger and you don't ever seem to worry about understanding anything.
Ahabite 5 months ago in playlist Dr. David Berlinski
@Ahabite : You have the Web, use it.
procommenter 5 months ago
nothing can explain how non living things can yield life because it is impossible
blaq7427 6 months ago
it is difficult to construct an algorithm for theory of evolution because there is no way of telling when and how an abnormality will occur, at least not in our present day of thinking. to cook up mathematical equations that explain the production of life and its functions for species is remotely possible even if we combined all the calculating power of supercomputers in the world, which is needed in the first place before evolution. can math truly explain how non-living things can yield life?
SEEANDPEA 7 months ago
@SEEANDPEA We actually do have math which deals with this directly; called Genetic Algorithms they have been enormously successful in everything from solving math problems (Steiner's Problem) to complex problems in industry that have resulted in patents. Many of these solutions are hit upon rather quickly, and would have taken longer by supercomputer number-crunching methods. So, if I have understood the content of your comment, you need to update your education in math a lot.
Ahabite 5 months ago in playlist Dr. David Berlinski
Comment removed
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
@Ahabite
GA indeed is the solution. Has it explained under what conditions and around what time did human species become humans, that is with 23 pairs of chromosomes? (in a way, I know what happened, but suppose I am inclined to know how did it happen, what made it happen, and was it bound to happen?) I've tested a couple of the GA programs in the past, but it didn't give me a good picture. Maybe Dr. Berlinski may have had a good insight.
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
Dave is a rock star ! ! ...keep up the good work !
lunabirdie 8 months ago
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz We where never apes!, its bullshit!, DNA is irrelevant in this way, that just proves that common designer is more logical and makes far more sense!, just as a architect builds houses with similaritys God made all life with DNA similaritys, no evidence for ape to man has ever been found!.
85Aheadstix 8 months ago
@85Aheadstix We are classified as 'Great Apes'' today. We are still Apes. Just like we are still mammals.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@85Aheadstix
creationist theory is more like a supposition and just a mere supposition...
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
@SEEANDPEA And you are scientifically dismissing creationism on the grounds of "because I said so", not from any scientific basis. Here's a thought: Follow where the evidence leads, instead of locking into fundamentalist evolutionary presuppositions and blindly following the faith-based tendentious "evidence" of evolution.
PiltdownSuperman 3 months ago in playlist David Berlinski, Questions Darwinists Can't Answer
watch on youtube einstein's idiots
76reliant 10 months ago
Berlinski is a conservative with an agenda. He is a fellow at the Discovery Institue, who's agenda is the political "Wedge Strategy".
He coached Ann Coulter for her anti-science book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism".
odinata 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm to be featured in Daytona Beach's "News-Journal" in September 2011 as a local author. I wrote a 96-page book entitled "Along the Far Climb Down" that's for sale at the notorious Polyester Books: 330 Brunswick St., Fitzroy (a suburb of Melbourne), Victoria, Australia. It's on page 1 of their web site. Type "Along the Far Climb Down" into Google's image file and you'll be nearly there.
LovingKimiKatkar 1 year ago
It's good that Berlinski, and the Discovery institute in general, keep sectarian questions out of it, and just concentrate on the scientific and broadly metaphysical questions. Sick of people saying how you have to reject neo-darwinism or you'll be judged in comments on this kind of video. That really *is* a bad argument-- even if it were true.
I wonder why darwin skeptics are often right-wing. I'm not hostile to conservatives, but neither do I relate to them much. I wonder what the link is.
gerontodon 1 year ago
OK, regarding those items:
1. Mutations do not improve or degrade DNA information. They change it. Whether or not it is an "improvement" or "degradation" - that evaluation is left to the environment, through the process called Natural Selection.
2. Survival of fittest is a misnomer - its really the increased presence of genes favored by environment.
3. 4 - what is the problem exactly?
5 - what does that have to do with Evolution? (I suspect this is your core objection). Please elaborate.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor Survival of the fittest is a tautology - the fittest is the animal that produces the most offspring, so the animal that produces the most offspring is the animal that produces the most offspring.
ruthamyallan1 8 months ago
@ruthamyallan1
Assuming you argue against it. OK, but this is a simplification, a soundbite. There is also "decent through modification and natural selection", which isn't a tautology. Or "whatever happens, happens", which is a tautology. These are just educational simplifications. The origin of species and subsequent works by numerous scientists in various fields combine into the Theory of Evolution. Its many publications, not just the tautology you refer to.
vdizhoor 8 months ago
@vdizhoor Agree it's a simplification. But the whole theory is under attack and many scientists have come out and said that the theory is not backed up by the facts. What I see and hear as an observer is the passion of the proponents of evolution - the absolute hatred of the notion of an intelligent designer who might make demands on our freedom. 'I will not serve'.
ruthamyallan1 8 months ago
@ruthamyallan1
The peer reviewed research actually confirms the theory. Its one of the most supported scientific theories to date. Intelligent design isn't a theory, its a philosophy that any individual is free to hold to. Personal views are exempt from science (e.g. Newton's Gravity became science, while his affinity for alchemy remained personal). The heated debates you refer to are in the public arena. Its venting for the likes of you and me. The opposition is to treating ID as science.
vdizhoor 8 months ago
@ruthamyallan1
I wonder if what your stated is entirely true about "survival of the fittest."
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
I think that Berlinski thinks of Science as Mathematics. That unless the explanation can be totally described by a formula, Unless we can fit a curve and describe the residual, the explanation is unsatisfactory.
Trouble is, theories describing complex interdependent systems are not described by equations. Digging through the Fossil record is like Archeology. Does David doubt the existence of Paleolithic people because we haven't dug every one of them up?
His argument is pure rhetoric.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor
So your theory must be true because it is too complex to be proven?
dragknuckle 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
That is ridiculous and you know it. But you want to dance - fine. Proof is for theorEMS, not theorIES. There is Math and then there is Science. Theories are not proven. They are accepted based on how well they FIT empirical observations. Science is the study of nature, not logic. Not every animal leaves a fossil. The vast majority do not. Thus, "gaps" in the fossil record are expected. There is enough of it to validate Evolution. What new data reveals is HOW it progressed, not IF.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
Imagine a machine gun lying on a beach surrounded by bunch of shell casings and a corpse with a bullet in it. The bullet in the body and matches it to the gun. Question: how important is it that other bullets are not found? It IS reasonable to assume they are in the ocean somewhere, but should we assume a mysterious group of accomplices for each casings with unaccounted bullets? There is no mathematical proof they all came from the same gun, but it is beyond reasonable doubt.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor
You are assuming a level of evidence for the theory of evolution that does not exist.
The theoretical gun has a rifling pattern that can be checked against the shells. If the pattern does not match, the bullets came from a different gun. Evolution does not have such a test available.
dragknuckle 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
Do you believe in God? If so, how?
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor
Red herring. The topic is evolution.
If it will make it easy for you, I do believe in God, but do not think that His existence can be proven scientifically. There is no repeatable, falsifiable test.
Evolution has the same problem. I do not claim that the lack of a test in and of itself disproves evolution; that would be fallacious. But the lack of a test demolishes any claim to being a core scientific principle.
The evidence is circumstantial and subjective.
dragknuckle 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
OK, good. It does matter. God is not a theory. It isn't a matter of evidence, its a matter of perspective. Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory. It does not claim that as a consequence of evolution there ought to be an exhaustive fossil record - just that whatever record exists would be consistent with it. This is an observable case.
Evolution is not opposing God - only someone's literal reading of the Bible.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor
C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th Century, believed in evolution. It is not a salvation issue.
But I do believe that there is evidence for God and Christ, just not a scientific test. There is no scientific test for the existence of Julius Caesar, but I accept the evidence of his existence as well.
dragknuckle 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
Yes, there are still questions about how the process occurs (perhaps in more ways than one). That doesn't invalidate the principle. I mean physics hasn't yet tied Gravity and Quantum Mechanics either, and is in the midst of various attempts. That does not invalidate Theory of Gravity.
On what grounds do you find the Evolution of Natural Selection so inadequate that you would dismiss it entirely? Are there any other long standing theories that you also dismiss? If so - which?
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor
I completely agree that inability to explain all aspects of a process does not disprove the process. My only beef is with evolution. I accept that earth is old.
My objections:
-information degrades with replication, it does not improve or become more complex (DNA)
-survival of the fittest is essentially a tautology
-multi-celled organisms; bacteria are the most elegant form of life; they mutate, but remain single celled
-duality of genders
-self-awareness/hunger for meaning
dragknuckle 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
wow.. its crazy lol for the past 2 weeks iv been debating this topic with my youth group.. "evolution, it is not a salvation issue".. i too agree with you, but theres something that must be said.. for a man to accept evolution but also claims he has the Spirit of Jesus in his heart, i must say it beggs the question if he is truly saved or not, although i or anyone else obvs cant tell for sure, but you just assume he is, since the person is sincere and if hes evangelical or not!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
but yea it was weird seeing a comment like yours on this page, because i was honestly just thinking of arguments to use for "yes a person can be truly saved even though he accepts evolution".. and then i see your comment and well i had to write something lol.. but yea even though i believe a person can be truly saved, i do think the person that would interpret the Genesis account as some time of evolution occurring, is either ignorant or trying to make up his own story to fit
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
his/her views, because its very clear how it says God made everything, it mentions nothing about 'evolution' so why would one take that stand.. it totally contradicts Genesis.. but I believe God wont judge us on our interpretation and ignorance, he will judge us on if we accepted his son Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savor.. (if i offended you at all my friend, believe me it wasn't my intention, its just the way i feel and believe, i dont mean to be rude)
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
in response to your second sentence about Jesus and the evidence for him.. i again agree with that, statistics alone show that the majority of scholars (75%) and nearly every historian who investigates the historicity of Jesus come to agreement with 3 facts:
- his death on a cross
- his empty tomb
- his appearances to Paul, the disciples and 500 men and women
this is what men and women who spend there lives almost trying to figure out, and after viewing all they have they call
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt If what you say is true, why isn't everyone Christian?
- we killed Jesus, why did that make his Father happy.
-empty tomb proves the body was stolen.\
-they say a dead man walk? and Christianity was not an instant success?!?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz
"If what you say is true, why isn't everyone Christian?" - thats like saying if we can imagine peace on earth, why are there wars? Psalm 14.1 : "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God" if what i say is true, which it is! ill be happy to prove you wrong if you'd like, do you really think people would become Christians? NO, would you like to see the quotes from hundreds of atheists who say "Even if the existence of god can be proven, i will still reject him" ? (cont)
JusJuiceIt 10 months ago
@JusJuiceIt "Even if the existence of god can be proven, i will still reject him"
No, atheists say there is no evidence for god.
What evidence would prove evolution to you?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz
wow i clearly wasted my time lol.. good day!
JusJuiceIt 10 months ago
@JusJuiceIt Nothing will prove evolution to you, Then you are the one that is brainwashed and closed minded. I am wasting my time.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz Hahaha, only a moron believes in evolution, its a joke!, evolution is simply assumption by similarity!, not science, just human opinion!, sorry yu fail!.
An evolutionary biologist told me that!.
85Aheadstix 8 months ago
@gregrutz
"we killed Jesus, why did that make his father happy" - wow lol.. well its obvs you know nothing about Christianity to even mention it, but i guess ill waste my time explaining.. show me in scripture where it says God was happy from the Crucifixion.. God was sad, hurt and upset.. not happy!
(empty tomb proves the body was stolen) - actually your wrong.. nobody had the intention to steal his body, neither can one, two or three men move the boulder blocking the way! (cont)
JusJuiceIt 10 months ago
@JusJuiceIt If no one stole the body why was the tomb empty?
3 men can't move the stone but a dead guy can? That does not make sense.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz
(they say a dead man walk and christianity was not an instant success) like i said in my above comment, people are stupid!.. just look at Islam for example, they dont believe Jesus was Crucified, they deny that to the bone... for it goes against what it says in the quran..
but the thing is, 90% of scholars and 99% of historians who investigate the historicity of Jesus Christ, are in agreement of His death on a cross, and they call it a FACT in history!.. (cont)
JusJuiceIt 10 months ago
@JusJuiceIt No, muslims respect Jesus and think he was a great prophet. The just don't think he was another god.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@JusJuiceIt The bible is not proof of anything, it is wrong about a flood, why would it be right about god?
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz WRONG!, scientists know there was a flood!, look at the evidence!, over 75% of earth is water!, the remaining land is 85% sediment!, that can only mean at some stage, the earth was covered in water!, duuh!.
in some areas the amount of fossils are huge, way to be for the current environment to sustain them, thats becasue the pre flood world was very different, more land, more pressure in the atmosphere, things where bigger, they have the evidence, your just ignoring it!.
85Aheadstix 8 months ago
@85Aheadstix Bible packing Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented and showed it was Billions of years old.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
so what happens to a muslim, or even atheist sometimes when being told that Jesus died on a cross, they deny it and say no it never happened... well okkk lol too bad its a FACT!
and the third fact is, that the 11 disciples and Paul, witnessed Jesus 3 days after his death.. and these people werent all in the same room, they experienced Him in separate places all at the same time!.. maybe they were delusional.. ahah 12 people, being delusional at the same time lol thats a joke right
JusJuiceIt 10 months ago
@dragknuckle
the three things i mentioned as fact!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
You say its a red herring - it isn't. You need to ask yourself (as does each of us) what is it that you believe in, and what you put your faith in.
Do you feel obliged to hold on to the literal meaning of Genesis, for abandoning it is somehow synonymous with loosing faith, and possibly salvation? If you fear, its a formidable obstacle. Learn to let go. You will see.
Even though you don't accept Evolution, could you please describe it? (As you understand what it proposes)
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor
There are two schools of thought in evolution: Darwinian and punctuated equilibrium. Some believe that there has been slow change over time resulting in speciation. Others think that evolution moves in fits and starts.
The basic idea is that mutations of some type occur, most of them bad, some of them good. The good ones lead to improved competition for scarce resources and reproduction, as well as survival in the environment. Those that are inferior go extinct.
dragknuckle 1 year ago
@dragknuckle
Well, it isn't so much that inferior go extinct, (it isn't superior/inferior thing) its that traits more adapted to the environment tend to propagate through a genome of a species (those individuals that are slightly more successful in life, tend to leave more offspring in the next generation). If this is so, there ought to be a mechanism for mutation (found in biology), environment variation in the past (found in geology), ancestral "tree of life" (found in paleontology).
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@dragknuckle There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@dragknuckle
But the fact that Theory of Evolution has withstood time to this date says something about it.
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
@SEEANDPEA
That is a political argument, not a scientific one.
dragknuckle 5 months ago
@SEEANDPEA The theory of phlogiston also lasted a long time. People believed in it despite the evidence, then it was modified, eventually just a footnote in bad science history. Which is where the bad philosophy of evolution belongs.
PiltdownSuperman 3 months ago in playlist David Berlinski, Questions Darwinists Can't Answer
@dragknuckle ''You are assuming a level of evidence for the theory of evolution that does not exist.''
.
Yes, it does, you didn't look very hard.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@dragknuckle You are ignorant of the level of evidence for the theory of evolution that does exist.
DNA has a pattern and so do it's markers [ERVs] That pattern would only be there if evolution was true. Test over. Evolution proven.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
So if I say that the carbon series is so precise that it could only have been created by an intelligent designer, therefore I have proven Intelligent Design, would you accept that?
dragknuckle 8 months ago
@dragknuckle An Intelligent Designer, you mean like the Flying Spagetti Monster?
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
How does that comment further the debate?
dragknuckle 8 months ago
@dragknuckle The debate is about evolution, something accepted 150 years ago. You can't prove god, men have been trying for 10,000 years.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
My point is that the reason you cannot prove God is the same reason you cannot prove evolution. There is no argument that you can give me for evolution that you would not completely reject if it were used as an argument for God.
To say that the genetic code has certain qualities, therefore it must have evolved is no different than saying the universe has certain qualities, therefore it must have been designed. I has evidentiary weight, to be sure, but it cannot be conclusive proof.
dragknuckle 8 months ago
@dragknuckle Your point proves you don't know the difference between science and religion. You can't prove there is a god because he is supernature, No evidence. Science tries to explain the facts, theories explain the facts. It is a fact that dinosaurs had feathers. It is a fact that the big dinosaurs died off. Most things have died off, it is recorded in the fossil record. In the Cambrian Periond the were only small marine creatures. A Fact. Can you explain this facts?
Flood, Nope.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz God is The Fact.
ruthamyallan1 8 months ago
@ruthamyallan1 Yes, the Flying Spagetti Monster Exists, that has already been established in this thread. What does she have to do with the fossils record?
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz Olease do not bring the mucoid demon that Richard Dawkins invokes into the argument.
ruthamyallan1 8 months ago
@ruthamyallan1 yes, I hate Dawkins, he lets sheeple turn the debate into 'atheistic evolution vs. god'.
Really, it is just another fact that scientists have discovered that proves the bible wrong, Again.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@dragknuckle No, evolution has been proven. It just seems complex to slow people.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
Why the constant personal attacks?
As to the lack of large creatures in the Cambrian Period, perhaps they did not fossilize. Isn't that how you explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?
dragknuckle 8 months ago
@dragknuckle The Cambrian was when fossils became common because of the evolution of shells and backbones. Species that possess transitional features: Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Tiktaalik, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
gregrutz 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz
SO you are denying the existence of huge gaps in the fossil record?
dragknuckle 8 months ago
@vdizhoor Why do we use statistics in the sciences to determine correlation in quantitative data.
BackwoodsBoy30 7 months ago
@vdizhoor Why do we use statistics in the sciences to determine correlation in quantitative data then? You are reachin into the dark for an answer you like better than the perfectly viable one you were just given. Point here being, how does a cow even begin to adapt to water? There is no point for this adaptation to begin. And so called palieolithic people have all been classified to be our same species!?
BackwoodsBoy30 7 months ago
@BackwoodsBoy30 Why don't you answer an actual question you pose, instead of just making them rhetorical?
Name one methodology in biology which makes use of stats and PROVE you understand it.
What the hell does a cow have to do with water? Or rather, what's YOUR point?
Perhaps you need to learn to think in a non-Teleological manner-- but I warn you, it's really really hard and will lead to frown wrinkles.
If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously, why the big kids laugh, reread. :)
Ahabite 5 months ago
@BackwoodsBoy30 evolution never occurs, it is always there. It guides species to become better through generations, cheetas faster, people kinder, smarter. it is life figuiring itself out. Always constrained, always free. It took selfish creatures (us) and Patiently guides them toward compassion and love. It is unhindered by a corruptible Ego. Design is not Intelligent. Design Is Beautiful.
vdizhoor 5 months ago
@vdizhoor
There is a saying and I think it to be true that math is an exact science.
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
What kind of man was Ronald Reagan? HERO OR DEGENERATE? [Fr. the Internet: The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on Mar. 16, 1968 of 347–504 unarmed citizens in S. Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children (including babies) and elderly people. Many of the victims were beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated.] Pres. Reagan pardoned Lt. Calley who carried out the massacre. How low can you go?
ScientificalnessUSA 1 year ago
Old gregrutz still at it... good luck buddy, i miss our old, pointless, engages.
KiwiChristian 1 year ago
There simply is no evidence for evolution while at the same time there is amountains of evidence for creation. Evolutionism is a concept largely formed in the 19th century at a time when science was in it's infancy. What we have learned since then, in fact everything we have learned since then, has discredited it and proven creation. Evolutionism is dying out too. It is currently the biggest source of brunts on college campuses.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree The scientific community disagrees with you.
lefayad1991 1 year ago
Comment removed
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago 21
@JusJuiceIt
If you believe in Jesus because you think the gospels are HISOTIRC - is that the same as believing in Jesus? Unless you read the texts of the Old Testament (like Genesis, Job, etc. - which are written by anonymous geniuses) as parables (method used by Jesus) you will NOT understand them, instead being lead by those who are consumed by fear and vanity and fail to see that the Bible is an EXPRESSION of God, not an EXPLANATION (which is impossible).
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt I'm pretty sure those scientist aren't biologists?
majereJ 1 year ago
@majereJ
lol since when do you have to be a biologist to understand evolution?
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt I'm just saying that if you are biologist you propably see the whole picture, rather than just small part of whole process, like these creationists usually like to see.
majereJ 1 year ago 2
@majereJ
Michael Behe is a molecular biologist and agrees with Berlinski, FYI.
XForceBowhunter 11 months ago
@majereJ I know evolutionary biologists that agree evolution is bullshit, they have no where near enough evidence to prove a thing, even your precious Cambrian explosion contradicts the evolutionary theory, yet we never hear that, as it puts yet another hole in theory "fact".
85Aheadstix 8 months ago
@85Aheadstix How do the Cambrian Period small marine creatures of 530 Million years ago prove you 'creation story' and evolution wrong?
gregrutz 8 months ago
@majereJ
To get a bigger picture of physics you have to take a "particles point of view" for the same reason you have to look at the mechanism of Evolution at the molecular level.
logicCplusplus 7 months ago
@JusJuiceIt Most scientists accept God.
99.98% of scientists accept the theory of evolution.
gregrutz 10 months ago
There simply is no evidence for creationism while at the same time there is mountains of evidence for evolution. Creationism is a concept largely formed in the 19th century at a time when science was in it's infancy. What we have learned since then, in fact everything we have learned since then, has discredited it and proven evolution. Creationism is dying out too. It is currently the biggest source of brunts on the interwebs.
nephilimfail1 1 year ago
@nephilimfail1 It's a 19th century out-of-date hoax by a witchcraft practitioner.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius That is why evolution is taught as fact in schools.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No it's not. It's taught because the atheists want it taught.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius It's all an atheist plot, run away and pray ! LOL
You should be more worried about the Muslims.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No, YOU should worry about the Muslims. They behead queers and atheists.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
LOl... you are so sick in the head....
yeah...the atheists are going to get you madmax! wear your tin foil hat at all times! LOLOLOLOLLOLOL
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius They behead queers and atheists and Christians, I am none of those. IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz they behead IDiots too asshole. I like the way you sign your work as IDiot. HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius lol, ur mom must think you are just adorable, i know i do!
rolexxx11 1 year ago
@rolexxx11 Your mom says you're a wanker.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@NephilimFree >> IF bull shit was electricity, you would be a powerhouse.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
Am how would you know that, what Colleges did you get your degree from?
San Francisco escort for Bible studies?
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
I write computer software, for realistic physics simulations.
If you play Google sketchup, all of the sketchy simulations are runned using my public domain physics engine.
So far I have very good results with Newtonian Physics, but I like to see what equations I can use to make an awesome Creationist physic simulator.
Maybe David Berlinsky, William Dembsky, Dr Michel Behe, or maybe you
or Ray Comfort can point the equations of Crationist physics in the bible.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio
The Bible is not a physics text. It was written for a completely different purpose. You may as well reject Mozart's G major Violin Concerto because it is useless as a soup recipe.
dragknuckle 1 year ago
According to evolution>
Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why humans are still apes.
And all apes are still monkeys.
And all monkeys are still primates.
And all primates are still mammals.
And all mammals are still tetrapods.
Do you have 4 limbs? Are you a mammal?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz apes are NOT monkeys
jahenx94 1 year ago
@jahenx94 WATCH Turns out we DID come from monkeys! by AronRa
gregrutz 1 year ago
The best!
R2FUK 1 year ago
What an idiot
nicholastwirth 1 year ago
@MrMegatruth You should source quotes you've lifted from others.
drmarkjmillan 1 year ago
@drmarkjmillan
my bad, i did not realize you were the source police, i got that from wikipedia.
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
I wish all so called intellectuals could be this honest. Just say it as it is. Of course you would get hated for that but who cares. Speak the truth quietly and clearly.
Way to go.
shayneby 1 year ago 18
@shayneby Because they would be exposed, intellectuals just talk in circles hoping one can't figure out the Bullshit they spew. Berlinski just speaks honest truth.
mankind2112 1 year ago
@mankind2112 "Berlinski just speaks honest truth."
.
The mass of factual and interpretive errors and deceptions he offers in this interview alone is astounding. In an earlier segment he lies about von Neumann's opinion of Darwin, claiming that he "hooted" with derision. Berlinski's source? "I got my information about Von Neumann from the horse's mouth, **the horse one step removed from the horse himself**."
.
What's that David? Someone told you a story and you repeat it as gospel? What a crock!
Noisegator 1 year ago
@mankind2112 Evolution is based on facts. Mr. Butinsk is paid by the Discovery Institute to just talk in circles, hoping to bullshit people.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@shayneby Mr. Butinski is not a scientist, he is paid by the Discovery Institute to make up crap.
He adds nothing to science. When ask how it happens he says he doesn't know.
gregrutz 8 months ago
First off, we know dogs used to be wolves cause we have found intermediate fossils, and there were no dogs before their were humans. Where do you think they came from? Sprung out of holes in the ground?
Second off, we cant simulate darwininan bilogy because we would have to simulate trillions of samples of dna in every cell of every organism.Then we would have to realistically simulate their entire environment. But we have done simple darwinian simulations that have yielded astounding results
freeofavia 1 year ago
@freeofavia **there
Squish888 1 year ago
Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he's more concerned with what we don't know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn't there and seeks out the things that can't be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage.
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
@MrMegatruth I agree, but I also think he's loads of fun to listen to.
Berlinski would have made a legendary trial lawyer, in another life.
LexPhilogus 1 year ago
one is physics the other is biology
two different fields
this guy is just a media whore, he never comes out and says what exactly he believes
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
"We can't make much sense of the fossil record."
No, Berlinksi: YOU can't make much sense of it. The specialists have little difficulty with it.
Man, this man is so annoyingly stupid. How can anybody take this idiot seriously?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
.. Idiot??... ha ha ha you must be kidding... yr statement is a crock of -S#*T-..you seriously need to open up some more books to read...this gentleman is very smart...i don't agree with his views on evolution either...but using adjectives like....annoying,idiot,stupid.....just shows how immature u are ...oh by the way ridicule is NOT an argument! ....maybe get out more...cancun,tahiti,cayman...a little sun is good for ya..kick back..fly a kite..go for a swim..
lunabirdie 1 year ago
@lunabirdie
".this gentleman is very smart"
Then why doesn't HE open some books, let's say, on evolution? He doesn't know the first thing about it, but he still thinks he can form an opinion about it. That's why he is an idiot. He gets smacked around by scientists all the time and deserves all the ridicule he can get.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ...i'm pretty sure he knows a few things about evo. ....ridicule is not an argument...scientists can say whatever they want.....probably more than half of them are f^%king weirdos anyway.....these are all just opinions,,,i'll add
lunabirdie 1 year ago
@lunabirdie
".i'm pretty sure he knows a few things about evo"
Like what? He sure doesn't show it.
"scientists can say whatever they want"
Only if they can back it up with evidence.
"probably more than half of them are f^%king weirdos anyway"
Ah, ad hominem attacks. How quaint.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer .."probably more than half of them are f^%king weirdos anyway"
.....ad hominem or not ....those kids should get out into the sun more often!!.....Only if they can back it up with evidence....evidence or not ....they can still say what they want!...especially if it's a little private interview,like up top
lunabirdie 1 year ago
@lunabirdie
"those kids should get out into the sun more often!!"
A trained scientists with a Ph. D. is very unlikely to be a kid. And sitting in the sun too much is not that healthy, you know.
"they can still say what they want!"
Sure, but without evidence they will be booed away or be ridiculed... just like what happens to Berlinski and friends.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Newton was wrong, Einstein's theory of relitivity replaced it.
Wrong about Physics, wrong about Darwin.
We can see evolution in the fossil racord, they found the transitional fossils.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No, Relativity did not replace the laws of motion. If anything, they were augmented by Relativity (but note, we don't call it a Law of Relativity).
The problem with the notion of transitional fossils is that there is no direct parent to descendant correlation. You can't just point to similar fossils and say this came from that because that's not a scientific statement based on observation brought on through hypothesis and experimentation.
MikeTMerciless 1 year ago
@gregrutz Understand that I'm not saying that transitional fossils are absolutely no evidence for evolution. What I'm saying is that it can't be proven. If one species transitioned into another, we don't know how or why. At the moment it can't be proven in a laboratory that one species transitions into another. Birds remain birds and cats remain cats, in spite of the "microevolutions" brought on by breeding. It is important to understand this distinction.
MikeTMerciless 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MikeTMerciless
"Law of Relativity"
Of course not. It's a theory, which in science has a much higher standing than a law.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer It does?
MikeTMerciless 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeTMerciless
"It does? "
Yes. A scientific law is merely a repeatedly verified fact. Theories tie facts together and are used to make predictions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
He's talking utter bullshit. Every point he made can be refuted.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
What point?
He didn't make any.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
Is this 'scientist' incredibly stupid or, plainly incredibly dishonest and being paid for his dishonesty.
Frustrating video, frustrating people. How this 'pseudo scientific' moron got his doctorate ? He suppose to be a mathematician. A man with the mathematical, logical thinking.
What we see in here, is a deluded moron talking bullshit about the scientific field he has no idea about.
With all my heart, with my brain on fire - fuck that retard!
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
Math teachers know nothing about fossils, or evolution.
Planets are not attracted to each other, it is an effect of warped space-time, try to keep up with science.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You've completely missed the point he was making. Did you even hear him mention general relativity? Try to listen and understand first before making preposterous childish statements like "math teachers know nothing about fossils".
echoesintoeternity 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
this is painfull tripe... speciatino says that a fish diverged eventually into us...it just isnt obserable
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@echoesintoeternity
Obviously, this extremely dishonest and deluded moron knows nothing about the fossils, theory of evolution and, on the top of it - he's on the payroll of The Discovery Institute.
Just because he is enough morally depraved to go on publicly and state the issues he has no fucking idea about.
'Doctor' ? Fuck that 'doctor'.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MrJurekGG When you can't refute, you disparage.
MikeTMerciless 1 year ago
@MikeTMerciless
Exactly. Right on the nose.
THX, pal.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MikeTMerciless Science can refute everything he says.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Presuming of course that "science" is on your side.
MikeTMerciless 1 year ago
This guy is an idiot. Physics describes gravity using point masses. Masses you can represent as a point mass. How the hell do you simplify the evolutionary landscape with millions of interacting variables to a point mass? You would need a quantum computer and somebody who could program it. Or you could just look at the evidence of transitional fossils sorted by time and strata. This guy, he's not too bright. And he's dishonest. He's a used car salesman. It's what he doesn't tell you that counts.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66
' He's a used car salesman "
Worse than that ( if it's possibel ?).
He's on the payroll of he Discovery Institute. Now, that's the bottom of a human decency.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
why does he refer to maths and physics to try and find flaws in biology that's like referring to plumbing and mechanics to find flaws in roofing there's thousands of examples natural selection can account for complexity
sciencematters1 1 year ago
Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why we are still apes.
And all apes are still primates.
And all primates are still mammals.
And all mammals are still tetrapods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
rmir2 you are right on point.... in cell culturing... look to l. bacillus or any bug and its doubling in vitro... we have billions of life experiences of PD's and these things don't change... dna mutation could not account for morph. changes anyway..as morphology does not seem to be controlled in the dna... we have no idea where morphology is generated from....huge problem...huge.. nothing like darwinism (textbook) has occured...there is just no evidence of these changes.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago 2
Third, I fail to see the logic behind "random" variation. Logic tell me that variation is possible only within the frames set by parents genetics. After all, a child reflecs 50% fathers and 50% mothers gens. Even in the case of strong outside influence like, say, radioactivity (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tjernobol) it did not alter substationally the species - humans remained humans (also in the next generations). We still lack the proff, that one species actually has changed into another. And why.
rmir2 1 year ago
First, all proven changes are within one species and could be regarded as adaption to the changing environment. They might be "programmed" in the geens from the beginning.
Second, "trasitional forms" turns out not to be so when carefully studied. An example: neandethal man was considered "the missing link" between apes and humans. Now we know that this is not the case. Your example is based on the assumption, that one follow the other - not on any real proof. You might be right, but might not.
rmir2 1 year ago
@rmir2 We are only 5-10% Neanderthal, they were a different kind of human that we interbreed with. They were not our ancestor.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@rmir2
"Second, "trasitional forms" turns out not to be so when carefully studied. "
That's a lie. But that's all creationists have: lies.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dogs make dogs.
Same Kind? YES! That is why; all humans are still apes,
and all apes are still monkeys,
and all monkeys are still primates,
and all primates are still mammals.
and all mammals are still tetrapods
gregrutz 1 year ago