PZ sure does think a lot of himself. He has even started to believe that he has the power to take away or reshape the faith of other peoples world views. He once made a bold statement that I disagreed with. When I asked him a simple and reasonable question which was, (can you provide evidence)? I was answered with childish name calling and was told to perform certain sexual acts on myself. This seems to be his schtick.
you realize all these interviews were ambushes and they took literally seconds out of hours of footage? right?... notice p z looks kinda tired(his glasses are off, his eyes are slightly glazed over).. like he has spent the last hour explaining his views to ben stein while ben sat there with his fingers plugged snuggly in thier ears.
and top commenter davegrossmansolobass, i think you have a problem with people who knit! :P knitting has never caused mass genocide like hitlers roman catholicism.
When an attempt is made to explain morality in light of atheism, you may never actually come to a meaningful conclusion. For example, if person tries to show that murder is wrong, any attempt to show that it is wrong really boils down to the person making a moral judgment predicated upon his/her own personal preference when in fact there is no way to establish that moral judgment in a meaningful way. I just find that atheism leads to mental confusion because it lacks explanatory power. Not only
I don't see the lack of absolute morality as a problem really. When it comes to a real world application of it, such as in law, we just depend on the morality of individuals, which is subjective. You don't need an objective moral standard in order for a society to deem something as morally wrong.
in the moral realm of things but in basically in any case where someone is trying to make sense of reality and the universe. It always leads to absurd dilemmas if you get me.
My point is: Why would atheism lead to "absurd dilemmas" when "trying to make sense of reality"? It does not TRY to make sense of things. It's just a viewpoint. It's a REJECTION of theistic viewpoints...which do TRY to make sense of things by baseless assertions. Which aren't really explanations at all. So what's more right: Making a claim that you know things when you really don't?...or just saying that you don't know?
Ok. When you reject theism as irrational, you then must rebuild and form your thought construct in the absence of any premise of a creator existing. At least if you are a person who tries to make sense of things. It is not as if you can trivialize the unbelief in the existence of a creator. The implications are massive, so massive in fact there is nothing that comes close. Not only in the way that you live and conduct yourself but your outlook on things in general.
"So what's more right: Making a claim that you know things when you really don't?....."
Believers are not absolutely certain of the existence of God... No one can claim that they know for certain but just saying you don't know is chicken, you either become convinced that God exists or that he doesn't. There is a reason that people call agnostics "atheists without guts." You also assume that theism is irrational and baseless which I think is wrong and immodest.
I find PZ Myers' opinion on this matter extremely offensive. How dare he compare religion to knitting?
I know a lot of people who are knitters and to compare their craft to religion is to denegrate the rich history and tradition of the knitting arts. Shame on you!
As a practitioner of needle point, I fear his hate mongering will be applied to my craft after he has destroyed the credibility of the tightly woven knitting community. All this kind of hate speech needs is to pull at the loose threads of the fabric of our community to see the whole thing unravel.
PZ should stick to biology and making fools of creationists. A pox upon his house (and moths attacking his tweeds) should he continue this rampant assault upon the woven arts.
I love how atheist use words like "just because the evidence isn't there" . . . geee, just because there is a lck of evidence for God doesn't mean He doesn't exist. and one word to Jamoond who I am speaking of, harsh words kill your argument, and he may have made the movie, but the scholars and scientists are still there.
Not even a single published result conducted by ID supporters so far all these years.
If you are too lazy to support your own hypothesis scientifically, and if you don't respect the very scientific method every scientist employ, then why do ID supporters even deserve to be regarded with respect in scientific arena.
hmmm... maybe because they're at least using scientific process to reach their conclusions instead of using conclusions to manipulate the "science". modern "science" goes out of it's way to destroy any likelihood of God. it's refreshing to see so many honest scientists finally coming forward to admit where their research has taken them. the fact that any of them that do are instantly demonized and slandered by those who don't want to hear the truth proves the point even more clearly.
They never used scientific process to reach their conclusion. There method is: "god read Bible", and evidence is: "God says so". If you don't like the fact that science questions the existence of God, then find an isolated island and live there by yourself. Apparently, people don't appreciate what the science has accomplished in such a short amount of time when religion has yet to accomplish anything over the thousands of years.
Religious thinkers helped science to be what it is today. You are taking that for granted. Whether it was the Egyptians, Israelites, Chinese, and so on. All that is different is technology, We arre no smarter than we used to be, actually, we are less wise. Technology outstanding, wisdom, not so much. The virtue is fading. But even though I am a Christian the one thing I have to give atheism is that they aren't neutral. Because we all know there is not such thing as neutrality. Everyone chooses.
Actually, religious thinkers have consistent record of bastardizing what science has achieved. In fact, the gap made by dark ages between where Romans left off and where modern society took off from Renaissance is so drastic. Scientists were burned alive for saying that the earth goes around the sun. Religious people protested against vaccination that saved so many people's lives when it came out. There are so many crimes against intelligence and reason committed by those who follow the Bible.
"modern "science" goes out of it's way to destroy any likelihood of God."
Bull. The original scientists who came up with evolution were all theists. They reached the inevitable conclusion based on the evidence. Simply being ignorant of what evolution is, how biology works, etc, is not evidence. ID is a copout and by definition cannot be science. Science is testable, god isn't. Don't like that? Well go back to your church and cry then, because science doesn't care.
They just discovered how complex the cell really is. Science changes all of the time, you still have to have faith in even "it". One day apples are good, the next, terminal cancer. It sways too. Some have become atheist, some theists and so on. That makes no difference.
It's a film that relies 100% on logical fallacy. Somehow free speech also implies that you have the freedom to call any idea science, and that's not true, because science has a rigid definition. Science needs to be testable. ID is not. Evolution has been corroborated, that's why it's called a theory. A theory is a collection of laws and facts used to describe a natural phenomenon.
The reason ID'ers have been thrown out is the same reason you throw out surgeons that don't believe in sanitation.
The movie was destroyed by those who have clear understanding of science and scientific method. The movie itself was created by Bible humping fanatic who goes out making movies about subject matter that they clearly have no understanding of. Recent interview with the producers of the movie clearly shows that they do not even have a slightest understanding of science. That's all there is to it.
Is a wrong afirmation saying that if creation is made by an intelligent design, science will die. We need Science for solving all the problems and securing our future even if God is there or not. It is also wrong to misuse science as a excuse for denying God. If you want to deny God, don't be coward by hiding behind science. Believing or not in God is a personal issue. Finally, evolution is true if you add faith on it.
We're not "hiding" behind anything. We just don't teach religion in the science classroom, because it's not science. It'd be like trying to teach ceramics in the music classroom, or pig latin in spanish class. Science isn't afraid of god, but until you can come up with an experiment that provides both the possibility of refuting and disproving gods, along with the possibility of corroborating gods, it won't be science. Evolution doesn't require faith. Just evidence.
"But show me evidence for evolution? There's no evidence. "
What a very blind and incorrect assertion. "there's no evidence" Evolution predicts many testable things. It predicts you to find a fossil record with transitional forms throughout, and that's what we find. It expects the genome diversity to correspond to that same record. It does. Ring species seen in the wild today confirm speciation. And of course, evolution has been witnessed in the lab. ID doesn't even have a testable hypothesis.
Wrong! We do NOT find a transitional fossil record. In fact we find exactly the opposite. We find every type of creature all at once in the record. Human, dinosaur, mammal, fish, bird: ALL OF IT! In fact, we even find creatures from the bottom of the ocean ABOVE land creatures (including mammals and humans).
Also, the only evolution witnessed in the lab is reversible microevolution, which is not caused by a genetic mutation. There is no evidence for macroevolution whatsoever.
"Also, the only evolution witnessed in the lab is reversible microevolution"
No, it's not even slightly "reversible" We create multiple species out of a single original species, and there is no way of making them breed again. It's impossible. This is evolution. We know mutation occurs, we know mutations are chosen for, and we know that after a point, too many mutational differences will cause the animals to speciate. It's scientific fact. Your ID is nothing but religious tripe.
yes, it is completely reversible. by that i mean that a species will change based on changes in their environment, and they can change back when the environment changes. For a prime example the Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos islands adapted when the environment changed. A few years later the environment changed again and the finches reverted back. These were not genetic mutations but controlled changes within the gene that adjust to environment. The basic genetic structure does not change.
What a load of fucking bullshit. Darwin's Finches are still actively being researched and found none of what you just described.
[quote]The basic genetic structure does not change.[/quote]
I seriously doubt that you even have a basic high school level understanding of biology, or science for that matter. What we have here is a completely ignorant, uneducated middle aged man trying to argue against the theory he doesn't understand coming up with bullshit facts.
Actually most creationists are dumb enough even to not believe in "microevolution" Define it for us all, and we can debate. Choose what level you believe to be macro. The point is, it's arbitrary, and all levels of evolution are not only possible but necessary, unless a mechanism for perfecting the passing down of DNA unaltered and unmutated could occur. Religious thinkers only contributed through the science they did. Creationism isn't science, by definition. God, likewise.
"Choose what level you believe to be macro. The point is, it's arbitrary" The definition of species may also be considered arbitrary or nebulous at best. observed speciation does not therefore buttress evolution.
"yes, it is completely reversible... "A few years later the environment changed again and the finches reverted back." -bhaywa
Clearly you've never even heard of darwin's finches nor their implications, as environment changing making finches "change back" never happened. And in all cases, it is mutation causing the change. There's no other thing that could affect morphology. "The basic genetic structure does not change." You have magical dna that doesn't change? Get educated, dude.
What a retarded, uneducated, ignorant dumbass. Just because you are too uneducated, ignorant, and dumb to look into mountains of irrefutable evidence collected over 150 years of research in multiple disciplines of biology, it does not mean that evidence is not there.
In fact we found so many transitional fossil that paleontologists have difficulty distinguishing different taxonomic classes.
evolution doesn't require faith??? how absurd a statement. from the evidence I have observed with my own eyes it would take a lot more faith for me to believe that even one living cell, which is hundreds of times more complex than anything we've yet "designed" and built ourselves, could have happened by pure chance, than to believe that someone (not even God mind you) created it. ID doesn't preach a god, it suggests the possibility that we're designed, not (impossibly) random chance.
Evolution does NOT require faith. I do not need to believe in DNA nor in the fossil record, I can pick them up myself. Faith is by definition belief without evidence. Evolution has copious evidence up to and including actual witnessed speciation in the lab. Gut feelings are not physical evidence. Testable theories like evolution do have evidence. When was the last time you looked at a fossil, bhaywa? I've collected the transitional fossils, you fool. Nearly every fossil is transitional.
what bunk! you're right on one thing though. faith is belief without evidence (or even in the face of it). which proves my point for anyone willing to examine all of the evidence with an open mind. the theory of evolution is completely destroyed by a close and careful examination of the evidence. and the more i examine the evidence the more thoroughly convinced i am that God exists. my friend, you are the fool. show me ANY proof of transitional fossils. do you still think a pigs tooth is?
So Expelled only wants to show a 35 second clip. Why not more context and discussion?
As Stein explained:
"In my experience, people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism. So that tells me the [IDiots] are afraid. They're hiding something."
I'd go further than Mr. Meyers here. Ultimately, religion should be rejected and humanity should concentrate on more productive pursuits, even "on the weekend for fun".
One can only wonder how far we would have come as a species by now if all the time and money that has been put into religion was put into scientific, artistic, musical, or any other productive pursuit. Not to mention how far science on its own could have come if it had not been repressed so long by the church.
I think that humans can realize a utopian future without religion. Common sense, reason and rationality can lead to a world where there is a minimum of suffering.
Oh damn. There's more to this clip of PZ. Basically, he's right though. The only truth and rationality in Expelled comes from the scientists they interview. Kinda ironic, if not totally hilarious.
breakfastisready : The only thing that is funny is that you believe Jesus is magic and that you piss off his father every time you think of the offspring of Adam's rib in the shower.
I'm so glad that Ben Stein is out there setting the record straight about the holocaust. Hopefully the sequel will be about the Saganists who have infiltrated Big Science and are pushing out the biblical theories that the sun revolves around the earth, which is flat and doesn't move.
RELIGION
"We are not going to take it away from them"
PZ sure does think a lot of himself. He has even started to believe that he has the power to take away or reshape the faith of other peoples world views. He once made a bold statement that I disagreed with. When I asked him a simple and reasonable question which was, (can you provide evidence)? I was answered with childish name calling and was told to perform certain sexual acts on myself. This seems to be his schtick.
benthemiester 4 days ago
you realize all these interviews were ambushes and they took literally seconds out of hours of footage? right?... notice p z looks kinda tired(his glasses are off, his eyes are slightly glazed over).. like he has spent the last hour explaining his views to ben stein while ben sat there with his fingers plugged snuggly in thier ears.
and top commenter davegrossmansolobass, i think you have a problem with people who knit! :P knitting has never caused mass genocide like hitlers roman catholicism.
the88mph 3 months ago
What an ignorant arrogant piece of crap.
glendaweil 8 months ago
What a pompous, arrogant prune-head
fashklash 1 year ago
What a jerk. His blog Pharyngula shows that. Atheism really is the death of anything that is rational, it blows its own brains out.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
'Atheism really is the death of anything that is rational, it blows its own brains out' What's irrational about atheism?
firthio2 2 years ago
It self-destructs when trying to explain morality, and it tries to account for the information that this universe contains with folly explanations.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
What do you mean? How does atheism try to explain morality? What information are you referring to?
firthio2 2 years ago
When an attempt is made to explain morality in light of atheism, you may never actually come to a meaningful conclusion. For example, if person tries to show that murder is wrong, any attempt to show that it is wrong really boils down to the person making a moral judgment predicated upon his/her own personal preference when in fact there is no way to establish that moral judgment in a meaningful way. I just find that atheism leads to mental confusion because it lacks explanatory power. Not only
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
I don't see the lack of absolute morality as a problem really. When it comes to a real world application of it, such as in law, we just depend on the morality of individuals, which is subjective. You don't need an objective moral standard in order for a society to deem something as morally wrong.
firthio2 2 years ago
in the moral realm of things but in basically in any case where someone is trying to make sense of reality and the universe. It always leads to absurd dilemmas if you get me.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Vanmeter: No..we don't get you. Atheism says nothing of morality. It simply says that there is no evidence concerning any deities.
Masher88 2 years ago
I'm talking about when one is trying to make sense of morality in the light of atheism. Your post is just stating nothing.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Vanmeter:
My point is: Why would atheism lead to "absurd dilemmas" when "trying to make sense of reality"? It does not TRY to make sense of things. It's just a viewpoint. It's a REJECTION of theistic viewpoints...which do TRY to make sense of things by baseless assertions. Which aren't really explanations at all. So what's more right: Making a claim that you know things when you really don't?...or just saying that you don't know?
Masher88 2 years ago
Ok. When you reject theism as irrational, you then must rebuild and form your thought construct in the absence of any premise of a creator existing. At least if you are a person who tries to make sense of things. It is not as if you can trivialize the unbelief in the existence of a creator. The implications are massive, so massive in fact there is nothing that comes close. Not only in the way that you live and conduct yourself but your outlook on things in general.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
"So what's more right: Making a claim that you know things when you really don't?....."
Believers are not absolutely certain of the existence of God... No one can claim that they know for certain but just saying you don't know is chicken, you either become convinced that God exists or that he doesn't. There is a reason that people call agnostics "atheists without guts." You also assume that theism is irrational and baseless which I think is wrong and immodest.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Vanmeter:
"When you reject theism as irrational, you then must rebuild and form your thought construct in the absence of any premise of a creator existing."
-Now you're getting it!!!
"You also assume that theism is irrational and baseless..."
-And there you have it, folks...Bingo!!!!
Masher88 2 years ago
Congrats on stating absolutely nothing!... Good for you.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Thanks...I try.
Masher88 2 years ago
Is there any evidence for god? And don't show those "tiz iz 2 complex" arguments.
In advance:
"Where did space come from?"
Space is lack of anything. It has 0 kelvin temperature. You're asking where did nothing come. Let me answer: 0 + 0 = 0
(nothing is not needed to create nothing)
"Where did the matter come?"
Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot be destroyer nor created so it shows it always existed.
okkima 3 years ago
I find PZ Myers' opinion on this matter extremely offensive. How dare he compare religion to knitting?
I know a lot of people who are knitters and to compare their craft to religion is to denegrate the rich history and tradition of the knitting arts. Shame on you!
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 15
As a practitioner of needle point, I fear his hate mongering will be applied to my craft after he has destroyed the credibility of the tightly woven knitting community. All this kind of hate speech needs is to pull at the loose threads of the fabric of our community to see the whole thing unravel.
PZ should stick to biology and making fools of creationists. A pox upon his house (and moths attacking his tweeds) should he continue this rampant assault upon the woven arts.
Revyloution 3 years ago 4
"they just discovered how complex the cell is"
Like what, in the past 50 years perhaps? But not just now, like this year. Get it straight.
By definition, science does not test matters of faith. By definition, one cannot have faith in science. There is no such thing as faith in science.
Faith: Belief without evidence
Science: Testing all ideas and basing knowledge on the evidence
It's basic stuff. Stuff of which all creationists, including ben stein, have no apparent understanding.
pulsedet 3 years ago
I love how atheist use words like "just because the evidence isn't there" . . . geee, just because there is a lck of evidence for God doesn't mean He doesn't exist. and one word to Jamoond who I am speaking of, harsh words kill your argument, and he may have made the movie, but the scholars and scientists are still there.
gamblinnreno 3 years ago
science =/= opinion based on baseless assumption
ID = opinion based on baseless assumption
Not even a single published result conducted by ID supporters so far all these years.
If you are too lazy to support your own hypothesis scientifically, and if you don't respect the very scientific method every scientist employ, then why do ID supporters even deserve to be regarded with respect in scientific arena.
JaMoond 3 years ago 3
hmmm... maybe because they're at least using scientific process to reach their conclusions instead of using conclusions to manipulate the "science". modern "science" goes out of it's way to destroy any likelihood of God. it's refreshing to see so many honest scientists finally coming forward to admit where their research has taken them. the fact that any of them that do are instantly demonized and slandered by those who don't want to hear the truth proves the point even more clearly.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
They never used scientific process to reach their conclusion. There method is: "god read Bible", and evidence is: "God says so". If you don't like the fact that science questions the existence of God, then find an isolated island and live there by yourself. Apparently, people don't appreciate what the science has accomplished in such a short amount of time when religion has yet to accomplish anything over the thousands of years.
JaMoond 3 years ago
Religious thinkers helped science to be what it is today. You are taking that for granted. Whether it was the Egyptians, Israelites, Chinese, and so on. All that is different is technology, We arre no smarter than we used to be, actually, we are less wise. Technology outstanding, wisdom, not so much. The virtue is fading. But even though I am a Christian the one thing I have to give atheism is that they aren't neutral. Because we all know there is not such thing as neutrality. Everyone chooses.
gamblinnreno 3 years ago
Actually, religious thinkers have consistent record of bastardizing what science has achieved. In fact, the gap made by dark ages between where Romans left off and where modern society took off from Renaissance is so drastic. Scientists were burned alive for saying that the earth goes around the sun. Religious people protested against vaccination that saved so many people's lives when it came out. There are so many crimes against intelligence and reason committed by those who follow the Bible.
JaMoond 3 years ago
"modern "science" goes out of it's way to destroy any likelihood of God."
Bull. The original scientists who came up with evolution were all theists. They reached the inevitable conclusion based on the evidence. Simply being ignorant of what evolution is, how biology works, etc, is not evidence. ID is a copout and by definition cannot be science. Science is testable, god isn't. Don't like that? Well go back to your church and cry then, because science doesn't care.
pulsedet 3 years ago
They just discovered how complex the cell really is. Science changes all of the time, you still have to have faith in even "it". One day apples are good, the next, terminal cancer. It sways too. Some have become atheist, some theists and so on. That makes no difference.
gamblinnreno 3 years ago
It's a film that relies 100% on logical fallacy. Somehow free speech also implies that you have the freedom to call any idea science, and that's not true, because science has a rigid definition. Science needs to be testable. ID is not. Evolution has been corroborated, that's why it's called a theory. A theory is a collection of laws and facts used to describe a natural phenomenon.
The reason ID'ers have been thrown out is the same reason you throw out surgeons that don't believe in sanitation.
yorgias 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Going to see it tommorrow night!
I've heard good things about it.
breakfastisready 3 years ago
What are you talking about? This movie was destroyed by reviewers.
jbooth002 3 years ago 3
He means, jbooth002, that Limbaugh and Robertson liked it.
Ravenspeech7 3 years ago
the movie was destroyed by people who don't want to hear what it has to say. but that's typically the way it is, isn't it.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
The movie was destroyed by those who have clear understanding of science and scientific method. The movie itself was created by Bible humping fanatic who goes out making movies about subject matter that they clearly have no understanding of. Recent interview with the producers of the movie clearly shows that they do not even have a slightest understanding of science. That's all there is to it.
JaMoond 3 years ago
Is a wrong afirmation saying that if creation is made by an intelligent design, science will die. We need Science for solving all the problems and securing our future even if God is there or not. It is also wrong to misuse science as a excuse for denying God. If you want to deny God, don't be coward by hiding behind science. Believing or not in God is a personal issue. Finally, evolution is true if you add faith on it.
irocivan 3 years ago
We're not "hiding" behind anything. We just don't teach religion in the science classroom, because it's not science. It'd be like trying to teach ceramics in the music classroom, or pig latin in spanish class. Science isn't afraid of god, but until you can come up with an experiment that provides both the possibility of refuting and disproving gods, along with the possibility of corroborating gods, it won't be science. Evolution doesn't require faith. Just evidence.
yorgias 3 years ago
But show me evidence for evolution? There's no evidence. All of the "discoveries" have been disproved.
erinellerbrock 3 years ago
"But show me evidence for evolution? There's no evidence. "
What a very blind and incorrect assertion. "there's no evidence" Evolution predicts many testable things. It predicts you to find a fossil record with transitional forms throughout, and that's what we find. It expects the genome diversity to correspond to that same record. It does. Ring species seen in the wild today confirm speciation. And of course, evolution has been witnessed in the lab. ID doesn't even have a testable hypothesis.
pulsedet 3 years ago
Wrong! We do NOT find a transitional fossil record. In fact we find exactly the opposite. We find every type of creature all at once in the record. Human, dinosaur, mammal, fish, bird: ALL OF IT! In fact, we even find creatures from the bottom of the ocean ABOVE land creatures (including mammals and humans).
Also, the only evolution witnessed in the lab is reversible microevolution, which is not caused by a genetic mutation. There is no evidence for macroevolution whatsoever.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"Also, the only evolution witnessed in the lab is reversible microevolution"
No, it's not even slightly "reversible" We create multiple species out of a single original species, and there is no way of making them breed again. It's impossible. This is evolution. We know mutation occurs, we know mutations are chosen for, and we know that after a point, too many mutational differences will cause the animals to speciate. It's scientific fact. Your ID is nothing but religious tripe.
pulsedet 3 years ago 2
yes, it is completely reversible. by that i mean that a species will change based on changes in their environment, and they can change back when the environment changes. For a prime example the Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos islands adapted when the environment changed. A few years later the environment changed again and the finches reverted back. These were not genetic mutations but controlled changes within the gene that adjust to environment. The basic genetic structure does not change.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
What a load of fucking bullshit. Darwin's Finches are still actively being researched and found none of what you just described.
[quote]The basic genetic structure does not change.[/quote]
I seriously doubt that you even have a basic high school level understanding of biology, or science for that matter. What we have here is a completely ignorant, uneducated middle aged man trying to argue against the theory he doesn't understand coming up with bullshit facts.
JaMoond 3 years ago
The finches are micro evolution, nobody argues that. We should be talking about Macroevolution. That is where we all differ.
gamblinnreno 3 years ago
Actually most creationists are dumb enough even to not believe in "microevolution" Define it for us all, and we can debate. Choose what level you believe to be macro. The point is, it's arbitrary, and all levels of evolution are not only possible but necessary, unless a mechanism for perfecting the passing down of DNA unaltered and unmutated could occur. Religious thinkers only contributed through the science they did. Creationism isn't science, by definition. God, likewise.
pulsedet 3 years ago
"Choose what level you believe to be macro. The point is, it's arbitrary" The definition of species may also be considered arbitrary or nebulous at best. observed speciation does not therefore buttress evolution.
christianbrecht 3 years ago 2
"yes, it is completely reversible... "A few years later the environment changed again and the finches reverted back." -bhaywa
Clearly you've never even heard of darwin's finches nor their implications, as environment changing making finches "change back" never happened. And in all cases, it is mutation causing the change. There's no other thing that could affect morphology. "The basic genetic structure does not change." You have magical dna that doesn't change? Get educated, dude.
pulsedet 3 years ago
What a retarded, uneducated, ignorant dumbass. Just because you are too uneducated, ignorant, and dumb to look into mountains of irrefutable evidence collected over 150 years of research in multiple disciplines of biology, it does not mean that evidence is not there.
In fact we found so many transitional fossil that paleontologists have difficulty distinguishing different taxonomic classes.
JaMoond 3 years ago
evolution doesn't require faith??? how absurd a statement. from the evidence I have observed with my own eyes it would take a lot more faith for me to believe that even one living cell, which is hundreds of times more complex than anything we've yet "designed" and built ourselves, could have happened by pure chance, than to believe that someone (not even God mind you) created it. ID doesn't preach a god, it suggests the possibility that we're designed, not (impossibly) random chance.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
Evolution does NOT require faith. I do not need to believe in DNA nor in the fossil record, I can pick them up myself. Faith is by definition belief without evidence. Evolution has copious evidence up to and including actual witnessed speciation in the lab. Gut feelings are not physical evidence. Testable theories like evolution do have evidence. When was the last time you looked at a fossil, bhaywa? I've collected the transitional fossils, you fool. Nearly every fossil is transitional.
pulsedet 3 years ago
what bunk! you're right on one thing though. faith is belief without evidence (or even in the face of it). which proves my point for anyone willing to examine all of the evidence with an open mind. the theory of evolution is completely destroyed by a close and careful examination of the evidence. and the more i examine the evidence the more thoroughly convinced i am that God exists. my friend, you are the fool. show me ANY proof of transitional fossils. do you still think a pigs tooth is?
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"and the more i examine the evidence the more thoroughly convinced i am that God exists"
Please expand on this "evidence" that you have reviewed.
If you would like some journal articles on transitional fossils, I would be glad to help you get started. There are many to choose from.
jbooth002 3 years ago
So Expelled only wants to show a 35 second clip. Why not more context and discussion?
As Stein explained:
"In my experience, people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism. So that tells me the [IDiots] are afraid. They're hiding something."
What are the IDiots hiding?
g12er 3 years ago
I'd go further than Mr. Meyers here. Ultimately, religion should be rejected and humanity should concentrate on more productive pursuits, even "on the weekend for fun".
crumbinator 3 years ago 4
One can only wonder how far we would have come as a species by now if all the time and money that has been put into religion was put into scientific, artistic, musical, or any other productive pursuit. Not to mention how far science on its own could have come if it had not been repressed so long by the church.
I think that humans can realize a utopian future without religion. Common sense, reason and rationality can lead to a world where there is a minimum of suffering.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 3
Oh damn. There's more to this clip of PZ. Basically, he's right though. The only truth and rationality in Expelled comes from the scientists they interview. Kinda ironic, if not totally hilarious.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
okay that was mean't to be funny right?
the scary thing is that some people believe what he is saying..... :)
Plus - I love how people who quote biblical concepts about the world/universe obviously never read it, and will say they don't believe it anyway.....
hilarious
breakfastisready 3 years ago
breakfastisready : The only thing that is funny is that you believe Jesus is magic and that you piss off his father every time you think of the offspring of Adam's rib in the shower.
hallelujaallahuakbar 3 years ago 3
you must be SO fun to hang out with..... :)
breakfastisready 3 years ago
I'm so glad that Ben Stein is out there setting the record straight about the holocaust. Hopefully the sequel will be about the Saganists who have infiltrated Big Science and are pushing out the biblical theories that the sun revolves around the earth, which is flat and doesn't move.
arlopickens 3 years ago 9
go peez! the ominous music doesn't take away from your awesomeness
rhyslings 3 years ago 3