What would Darwin say to today's creationists?

[Douglas1102]

He would say,"Noooooo... please don't burn me!!!!!!!". And don't sodomize me either :-/

[Mogley52]

Darwin would have apologized for his scientific ignorance! Fossils that have been used to support human evolution, for example, have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human. Read my Internet article published in Pravda, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

[wizard970]

@Mogley52 There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution, in the past 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove the theorum. Please post the published (main stream scientific journal), peer reviewed (main stream scientific journal) paper that does.

[Drgamedood]

@Mogley52 Fuck you

[MouthOfTheUnknown]

@Mogley52 people such as yourself do not have the intelligence to be worthy of life. I would slaughter you.

[lesouder2222]

@Mogley52 I bet your article sucks. You spread misinformation.

[Rockster969]

@Mogley52 You sir, are a fucking idiot.

[winterstellar]

@Mogley52 Moron

[MrJohnnyrace]

Darwin would say, no Kirk, no crockaduck.

[userwl2850]

happy birthday mr darwin,,,, 202 today.

[CosmopolitanNo1]

Profound knowledge is sexy

Therefore Eugenie Scott is sexy!

[pedrom41]

(cont. #2)...an unbilievable stretching of the imagination beyond the braking point of sheer absurdity (Creationism), no matter how many times they'd have to insult reason. Shorn of this pretentious window-dressing, this exercise of religion amounts to no more than smuggling in by the backdoor the same garbage that has been kicked out from the front. And, of course, this involves a lot of dishonesty and zero support of verifiable experience or honest logic in what they're trying to foster.

[pedrom41]

Logic, reason, scientific research, and scientific applicable methods are the source of all our technological progress--not religion. It's clear that as science progresses, the "gaps" for the god are shrinking and this represents lost grounds for religion. But it's also clear they aren't about to give up the fight.There's 2500 years invested in the game of superstion--too much at stake to do just that. So they're trying to cover their shattering defeat with a lot of casuistry and...(cont.)

[PlanetBongoSan]

i love eugenie scott; measured, reasonable, incredibly informative, polite and humorous in every talk and interview i have seen her give. this lady is all class.

[ScepticalCynic]

I wish I could ask them why creationists try so hard to undermine education and proposing their theory. What are their ultimate goals? Why is it so important to them and why can they not accept that they have been disproven so many times even in Dover court and Dr. Miller even showed them that belief in god does neccessarily conflict with evolution.

So why do Creationists do that? What are their ultimate goals? Why do they think creationism would be of any benefit when it is proven it is not?

[JCLeSinge]

@ScepticalCynic: They want to get the "Biblical View" into the educational system. If they can conquer one area of science, they can take down others; first Evolution, then Geology, then Astronomy... eventually they'll be putting Bibles into math classes. The aim of this is to control the educational system, with a view to indoctrinating subsequent generations into Fundamentalist Christianity, and so turning America into their idea of a "Christian Country".

[gininginin]

@JCLeSinge

I think your interpretation of creationism is about right. I will just rephrase it and add some ideas:

They want to co-opt the educational system to bolster their own biblical views, meaning indoctrination. They see all fields of science (the scientific method itself) as dangerous to their views, which rely on accepting Scripture without questioning as an eternal, unchangeable truth. In short, they want to turn America into a Christian theocracy to gain control and support bigotry.

[bboyCrazyLegs]

@ScepticalCynic

Because these people can not make a distinction between their doctrine and deity. The Bible is their God in a certain sense. If the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, then nothing can be. Reasonable Christians go beyond that point and get informed by actual facts instead of 2000 year old story books.

[salaf83]

"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered." Charles Darwin

[bboyCrazyLegs]

@salaf83 thats a nice little quote mine you got there. You have any idea what the next line says? Or do you just want to misquote Darwin on this one? Be honest.

[rkyeun]

@salaf83

That is from

[Charles Darwin (ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.), p. 205.]

where it does not terminate with a period to note the end of a sentence, but with a semicolon, before continuing:

"; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory."

You have dropped a quote mine in MID-SENTENCE, and thus fail forever.

[rottenfungus]

I wish I could marry her! Love you Dr. Scott!

[QueenCrocuta]

Dr. Scott, fabolous as always.

[Answerquestions1]

Darwin was an honest man, there was a time where Lamarckism seemed more plausible than Darwinism, and Darwin admitted it. And was willing to drop his theory. So if he would have been alive today, we would most likely admit that his theory is no longer valid

[ScepticalCynic]

@Answerquestions1

Why do you think that evolution? From what I learned about genetics, fossil records, research on embryos, taxonomy etc. evolution is more valid than it ever was and seems to grow more valid every year.

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

[ScepticalCynic]

@Answerquestions1

Why do you think evolution is invalid nowadays? All the evidence from various fields like genetics, taxonomy, paleontolgy etc seem to confirm the theory of evolution on every turn.

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

[ShallowThoughts]

@Answerquestions1 It's not about plausibility, and it's not about the person who comes up with the theory. It's about what best matches available evidence. Quantum Physics stands strongly beside Newton's Laws. They match the evidence we have. Any good scientist would LOVE to overturn a scientific law but they can't just do it willy nilly.

[zippyman818]

Darwin would be enamoured of the pills at the Chemist, "Dude! The blue pills! Really!"

[Wrath0fKhan]

XXX Trinity at 32:16? I never would have thought Dr. Miller would have qualified. 0.o ;-)

Love your work, NatCen4ScienceEd! Thanks a lot for sharing all this valuable material! :-)

[AsbjoernBrain]

@vegantrexEX2218 This is funny, because when you misspelled "satan", it looked like you misspelled "santa". lol

[GeneralMontague]

@vegantrexEX2218 at first i was like o.O

but then i lol'd

[yellowlynx]

"What deathbed confession?"....LOL......!!!!!

[2010Jedimaster]

I love scientists, its time creationism etc was totally destroyed, its great to have people like thunderf00t, loztheatheist, aronra etc to help destroy the creation sites on YT. JM

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

@2010Jedimaster you mean channels right? And the last thing to do is to oppress them tho, the best way to get rid of these particular elements is Ridicule, since they usually do not understand WHY they get ridiculed and just how much people see through their paper thin arguments... they get angry, make more videos... do something illegal and are forced to stop for legal reasons in the end.

[2010Jedimaster]

@DoomsdayR3sistance yes, sorry channels, you mean like venomfangx? its great to have people on here that know evolution inside out, im always tapping into their wealth of science understanding to shut up/ridicule creationist dimwits. Thanks for your comment. JM

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

@2010Jedimaster VenomfangX is one example, tho Kent Hovind used stage rather then youtube, it was legal issues that shut him up to as he is serving time for tax-evasion fraud. There has been quite a few creationalists shut up by the law in the end... it seems those that believe in such things also believe they are justified the laws that apply to everybody... their arrogance usually is what catches them out... or a good skeptic (like how James Randi caught out Peter Popoff).

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

believe they are justified to break the laws that apply to everybody*

[Tobytrim]

If he was ABLE to talk to anyone today, I suspect it might be : "Bloody Hell! I'm alive - I wonder if this falsifies my theory?"

Then he would say to the the creationists: " So guys, tell me a bit more about this resurrection theory of yours"

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

@Tobytrim nah, Darwin would just have to question if he is truly fit to have survived that long ;). Also Falsifiability I am fairly sure is generally a much more modern thing to be understood within science, so I doubt he would use that term =P... unless he just had a conversation with Karl Popper.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

Even if Darwin had recanted his theory: so what? It still stands strong, even after 150 years of thorough testing.

[FreeeeS]

chromosomal difference can only mean down syndrome and many more lol

[GeneralMontague]

@FreeeeS lol good one. oh wait you're serious.

Let me laugh even harder

[PlayfulGibbon]

@FreeeeS I agree.

Ignorance is certainly at large in the world.

[sk8teh14]

I don't see how naturalists are this confident in their position - to the point where creationism is synonymous with stupidity. I am a creationist. I find it difficult to grasp how nonliving chemicals could ever form a conscious brain capable of observing - regardless of time and mutations. If you choose to believe this, be my guest. But I can't see why you would have a problem with my inability to accept such a claim.

[Destm157]

@sk8teh14 Abiogenesis: nonliving chemicals form simple structures that get more and more complex over time until they eventual form the first cells. This and certain environmental conditions allowed such events to occur. Try researching instead of assuming. I do not see a brain being formed mentioned anywhere in abiogenesis.

[sk8teh14]

@Destm157

I never said it did form via abiogenesis - but rather via naturalism (according to naturalists). I find it extremely unlikely that nonliving chemicals could form into anything that could eventually become a brain - regardless of time and mutations. Again, if you want to believe that, you may. But you disregarding my "awe" at the brain is analagous to a mathematician burying his head in numbers and not taking a step back to "smell test" his claims.

[sk8teh14]

@Destm157

So just to repeat what I'm trying to say, I understand the textbook answers and all the details suggest that it's possible. I'm asking you to step back and smell test your claim. To really consider yourself and your ability to observe. To step back when you're alone, away from a computer and just look at yourself. The answer is there. The "Ah ha" is there waiting for you to find it, to be in awe to it, if you'll only let it.

[5744ellis]

@sk8teh14 Just out of interest if you don't mind, what exactly do you believe? Saying you are a Creationist doesn't really explain all the details.

[Destm157]

@sk8teh14 *sigh* Thanks for clarifying. Also you are way too mysterious, can you clarify what mean? Answer to what? What is this "it" that you speak of?

[sk8teh14]

@Destm157

It's difficult. It's something that can't be expressed very easily. I mean that it takes time pondering. I'm serious too. I'm not making this up. If you sit and consider your brain and your consciousness - and really question it, eventually you'll have a brief moment of bewilderment. You'll blink, shake your head, and announce, "There's just no way. This isn't possible." That's the "it" I mean. The "ah hah" to say, There is something more than just naturalism.

[Celephaith]

@sk8teh14: I had that same "ah hah" moment, many moons ago. At the time, I was tripping my balls off on a cocktail of LSD and peyote, but don't let that take away from your supposed realization. I'm quite sure you've stumbled onto something profound...perhaps not to any of us, but anyone in the mental health profession should be positively fascinated.

[sk8teh14]

@Celephaith ha ha, very funny. But it's there. It takes pondering and something to happen that "shifts" the way you see life. But we do take consciousness for granted. Your lack of amazement in my "ah hah" moment shows you lack "awe" as you look at consciousness. That doesn't say so much about me as it does you. If you lack this awe, does it mean you've fully and deeply considered consciousness? Or does it mean you've taken it for granted and disregarded it?

[Celephaith]

@sk8teh14: On the contrary, I am very much in awe of consciousness. More so, as I do not attribute "magic" as it's cause. It is truly amazing to me that such a complex collection of cells and neurons and neural transmitters could produce consciousness, all via millions of years of natural selection. Amazing!

[sk8teh14]

@Destm157

The best way I know to do this. Go in front of a mirror, look at you. Look yourself in the eye. And just repeat, "I am me" while looking at yourself. I can't promise you'll see anything. But if you do, chances are you'll freak yourself out. You'll be able to understand that you, just like everyone, takes consciousness for granted - and doesn't really consider it when learning evolution (or doesn't factor it into the "model" - again analogous to the 2008 crisis).

[Destm157]

@sk8teh14 Consciousness, I have to admit it is freaking incredible. There are relevant fields of science/philosophy related to this subject. I'm sure there is someone who has studied evolution AND considered consciousness, you know, those who also happen to be philosophers. Or those who just thought about.

[NerdmasterChang]

@sk8teh14

I find it difficult to grasp how water randomly flies into the air and then redistributes itself uniformly over another area many miles away. I don't understand how you people would have a problem with me denying the water cycle. It just seems extremely unlikely that that sort of thing would just happen on its own. I ask that you just sit back and "smell test" your claim. Spend a long time thinking about it. The "Ah ha" moment is there just waiting for you to find it.

[meritocratic1337]

@sk8teh14 The problem is that one's inability to understand an argument is not a valid reason to claim it to be false. Generally, this is due to creationists' non-understanding of time scales. Think of how long ago Jesus was supposedly around; about 2000 years. Now imagine that every day since then you had to wait around for another 2000 years. That's the amount of time which we have evidence it took for life to form. Note that that life was single celled, not intelligent.

[sk8teh14]

@meritocratic1337

It is indeed the case that people who don't believe something might not understand the argument. But it is also the case that people who "understand" the argument, are capable of being like the investment bankers in the 2008 financial crisis. They understood the math, but they didn't have common sense. Similarly, it's good to consider the math and science in biology, but it's also good to step back and "smell test" your claims.

[meritocratic1337]

@sk8teh14 It is a misunderstanding of the mathematical and scientific methods which would lead one to hope that an expert in either field would apply common sense to any sort of problem. A mathematician doesn't just do what "makes sense," but rather proves each step to follow from the last. (Mathematics cannot be wrong.) Likewise, science is only ever held back by conventional "wisdom" and only progressed by looking only at evidence, thinking of explanatory hypotheses, and testing them.

[sk8teh14]

@meritocratic1337

I know that this is what a mathematician does. One gets in trouble when the assumptions used in math do not mirror reality. I have been rather vague, but the assumptions can literally be anything worth considering in the "model". Again, look at the 2008 financial crisis. The guys who developed option-pricing were very advanced mathematicians. The people in finance are very bright and understand the math/science. And yet, they got it wrong.

[meritocratic1337]

@sk8teh14 Oh, I see what you're saying. Most people in the field wouldn't call anybody working with a model a mathematician. Maybe an applied mathematician, but (without knowing the specifics) I'd guess those guys were economists. Either way, it's not an issue of science or mathematics. Economics isn't a science (they don't test their models, usually) and it certainly isn't mathematics.

[sk8teh14]

@meritocratic1337

So too, how do you factor in consciousness into the evolution model? Do you think we even fully understand the human brain? The answer is we do not. You need to "experiment" (i.e. keep one variable and hold all others constant) in order to have "causality" (and not just a correlation). But you'd need to experiment on human brains to do this - which is extremely unethical and thus hasn't been done.

[meritocratic1337]

@sk8teh14 We do experiments on the brain all the time. The ones we do are perfectly ethical. Some are non-invasive. Some are on dead humans. Some are on living animals. We know a lot about the brain. Not everything, but not knowing everything is not a reason to say that it is a total mystery and cannot be fully explained naturally given more time to work on the problem. As for consciousness in evolution, it's no problem for evolution at all: it's beneficial so things with it survive.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@sk8teh14

"So too, how do you factor in consciousness into the evolution model? "

It's an emergent property, caused by the sheer number of neurons in our brain. 

[TheAtomicist42]

@sk8teh14 You discount one factor from the bankers and other mathematical 'great' minds that foisted this crisis upon the people: Greed. The people who 'got the math wrong' just got it a little too right with respect to a few people's bank accounts. This is much like some creationist apologetics. They know that their arguments are bullmess but due to the fact that they make a living off of their 'ministry' by repeating them, they 'get it wrong.' Not all of them though. Some are just wrong.

[sk8teh14]

@meritocratic1337

In fact, the more I talk about it, the more difficult it is to believe my position. This is what I mean. It's very difficult to see what I'm talking about. It takes time of really pondering what observation is and who I really am - I'm me. We take these things for granted in the everday; like a mathematician mindlessly rearranging equations - not really considering what he's doing at each step.

It's very difficult to consider my points, and that's the mark of all truths.

[gavinplaysbass]

So you assume it happened magically? You're telling me that when i have a brain already made 100% of non-living chemicals which functions 100% via non-living chemistry i am to find it more reasonable to think it came about magically?

[Mekiwyn]

@sk8teh14 I think people find the creationist belief hard to accept because there is so much that shows us that it is highly unlikely. Life from non living material was reporduced in a lab proving the possiblity of this. Now even with low probability life from non living material is not only possible but probable. Testing for a theistic god is easily done and has been proven false. A deistic god however improbable will always remain as possible. Value and accept your 1 life, it is awesome!

[thegliphic]

he would say : " what sort of pants might those be fine sir?"

[yohanZ95]

I like teacher's like this.

[xchainlinkx]

darwin would've needed to come up with a theory of de-evolution

[ChurchOfArceus]

Thumbs up if you were directed to this awesome video by Thunderf00t.

[ArFeeDee]

Banana man.

[TheStoasterRisen]

If Darwin was still alive he would have suffered a lethal facepalm when the crocoduck was suggested by Kirk Cameron.

[GrifterSixOne]

@TheStoasterRisen The Crocoduck was awesome.

[TruthfulChristian2]

Darwin was mad/insane, his myths were rejected in his time, but in todays corrupt society people have adopted his idea to make themselves appear bigger, stronger and faster. Egotistical, cocky people; generally atheists.

[supra297]

@TruthfulChristian2 ...lol

[GrifterSixOne]

@TruthfulChristian2 As opposed to having an invisible friend. Sorry that was rude. The only thing i hate about this topic, is that people, Religious and Atheists alike, get argumentative when someone disagrees with them, both sides get childish about it, can't we just accept the fact that people believe in different things?

[MrNobody47710]

@GrifterSixOne

"can't we just accept the fact that people believe in different things?"

But I don't wanna!

[wowpapa]

@TruthfulChristian2

Lol another deluded figure. You are ignorant of every argument put out by evolutionist. You choose to dwell in a delusion that kills millions of people every year and lies about everything. Your belief is sickening.

[crawbles]

@TruthfulChristian2 the more educated are the ones that agree with evolution as where someone like you has not studied it at all, and even if you did you've already made your decision beforehand, creationists are the most close minded people on the planet. can't accept what right in front of you.

[equallyeasilyfuqyou]

@TruthfulChristian2 lawl

[DanielBMS]

@TruthfulChristian2 That person making himself appear bigger is you. And no most evolution acceptors are Christians.

[Destm157]

@TruthfulChristian2 You're using the word myth incorrectly.

myth - a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people.

Rejection is the complete opposite of acceptance.

myth - An improvable story, almost always including incredible or miraculous events, that has no specific reference point or time in history.

People have adopted the idea because it is natural, supported by evidence, demonstrable. Changing slowly over millions of years is not miraculous.

[ElValhallaMeEspera]

@TruthfulChristian2 you are so fuckin retarded.... does it hurt???

[ThatOneQuestion]

@TruthfulChristian2 So someone using logic is insane, but someone pulling "MAGIC MAN DUN IT!!" out of their ass because their parents told them to is perfectly fine?

.

Moron-just go play in traffic or something productive for society, rather than vomiting your ignorance all over the place.

.

Speaking to idiots like you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon: you knock everything over, crap all over the place, and fly off.

.

Get the hell out of here already.

[supra297]

@ThatOneQuestion LMFAAOOOO u sir, made me crap myself.

[Boomx2Brian]

@TruthfulChristian2 Stop drinking the koolaid you dumbass

[xsls24sx]

@TruthfulChristian2 To assume ones sanity and to call out his hypothesis as "myth" makes you sound egotistical, cocky, and generally christian. You sir, merely contradict yourself when you open your mouth. Get off the christian forums and read a real science book or actually take a class and PAY attention like you failed to do in your public schooling.

Cheers

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

@TruthfulChristian2 Actually Charles Darwin's theory was rejected in his time is a Myth. The Church of England for a long time had been trying to claim that the Vatican had corrupted the bible, saying that 'god worked Man Kind through Evolution' was beneficial for them and meant that the theory actually spread around England fairly quickly. Today even the Vatican accepts Evolution, mainly only American Evangelicals/Creationists do not as far as Christianity goes.

[petrobolos]

@TheStoasterRisen

Haha! Definately!

[ThatOneQuestion]

@TheStoasterRisen A lethal facepalm! Thats great!!

[sonickid001]

@TheStoasterRisen The Crocoduck is Darwin reincarnated. He exists out there, as a way for us to taunt Kirk Cameron and his superfriend Bananaman.

[PlayfulGibbon]

@TheStoasterRisen I's not sure about that.

If Cameron is right, Darwin might very well commission a voyage to new lands in search of the Rhinogoat.

[justrandomIguess157]

@PlayfulGibbon He would, of course, conduct this search in Atlantis, before moving on to Japanada.

[DebateFaith]

@TheStoasterRisen I thought Brian Sapien was about to do that in that Debate on ABC, Brians reaction was kind to say the least, good thing ABC jacked up the vol when he said, oh my god lol

[ilikezappa]

@TheStoasterRisen However the manpig is well known to science , and can be found drinking in bars in Newcastle upon Tyne , England

[jmlew]

@TheStoasterRisen

HAHAHA! I almost fell off my chair - very well said.

[mastaODI56]

Darwin would facepalm

[Zito773]

darwin would call them noobs.

[mandrellian]

@Zito773 Indeed: furthermore I believe Mr Darwin would issue a stunning, withering Victorian rebuke of their idiocy and then proclaim "Sirs, you have been PWWWNNNZT!!!"

[soulinite]

@Zito773 ROFL

[selearemus]

lol i taught its a video from a person against creationists.

[jssherrard]

E.S. + NCSE = !!!AWESOME!!!

[ctressle]

I think I hear her saying, "1815" right around 2:10 into the vid, when she meant the year 1915?

[Venaloid]

@ctressle - I caught that too, she must have meant 1915.

[MetaphorInVain]

Very good lecture! The whole idea about social darwinism and its' supposed connection to natural selection is for me too absurb to think that anyone can even take seriously

[CousinoMacul]

"If you don't know, go to YouTube and do a search for *Ray Comfort + banana*."

Priceless!

[TheMrDeist]

I have listened to a few of Dennis Lamoureux's lectures and I can see why he was left out of EXPELLED. He calls Young Earth Creationists "a world view that is in grave error," points out that most world view's that allow evolution also accept a God, and that Christianity can trust the Bible, but not use it as science because the Bible was written with the best science of..... the Bronze Age. Basically, he is very critical of creationism, but considers himself a conservative Christian.

[mmmodafoca]

haha i wish i could have received that free modified copy of Origins.. thats what i get for attending a community college.. thank you "god" for making me poor bwahahaha :P excellent presentation thank you for submitting.. i think Mrs. Scott is hot!!

[hanspshansen]

the bible has not 2 creation stories, it has 3.

always forgetting 1 of john.

[gregrutz]

Creationists lie !