Charles Darwin's Brave New World: A Dangerous Idea

[gulbirk]

What I find most anoying is when they refuse to understand the time perspective. When they assume that it happens in ONE generation.

When they view evolution as if it was something going on in your body.

[TheDarkLordLucifer]

Let creationists speak and show the world just how stupid they really are.

[Macrochenia]

I wonder if I can find a copy in the US.

[narfanoid]

I hear the position of God is currently open.

[narfanoid]

Dropping a bowling ball on your foot doesn't prove the existence of gravity, but it sure does make a person look stupid when they try to say there is no such thing as gravity. Filling the world's museums and universities with clear evidence of evolution in the past and the present doesn't prove evolutionary theory, but it sure does make a person look stupid when they say the universe was created by a god.

[inert010]

That's rather presumptuous. Can't you believe in God as well as evolutionary theory? They're not mutually exclusive.

[narfanoid]

It is presumptuous to think that having a good grasp of evolutionary theory and a belief in creation can work. You have to take it to the next step. Almost everything in the bible is contradicted, or at least challenged, by modern scientific discoveries. Why should a person be considered correct to insist that creation actually took place in light of this? All I'm saying is that if creation took place then the only source for this "knowlege" is in the bible, not in nature.

[inert010]

I think we're mixing up semantics. When you say "creation," I don't interpret that as "creationism." I believe in evolutionary theory, not the creation of everything as-is within a time span of seven days 4,000 years ago; though if that's someone's belief, good on them, I respect that. I'm sorry that you disagree, however I believe that God and evolutionary theory could co-exist. Beyond that, it's a moot point. Believing in God isn't adhering to the entire Bible; they are a lot of extremities.

[narfanoid]

My point is that I see no logical reason to mix evolution with a belief in a god. If the bible is seen to be flawed, which it is, then why bother to hold onto a belief in such a thing as a god? I understand that "god" and "bible" are not synonyms but it is religion that creates both gods and bibles. Science gives us neither concept, and science has the potential to provide the answers we need. Those few things it doesn't can be answered through such things as intuition.

[demonikreaper]

@inert010

You can believe in /God/ and evolution, but not the /Bible/ and evolution. If you believe in the Bible (which Christianity tells you you need to do in order to believe in God), then you cannot believe in evolution.

[inert010]

In a literal sense, probably true. I believe in parts of the Bible, though I won't say I've read the entire thing cover to cover simply because I don't think it's necessary to understand the morality one is supposed to gain from it. I think it's a good source to get a lot of good themes of which to base one's beliefs off of, though I think I'll skip over the stoning of the adulterous women parts of it. Different strokes for different folks, no two folk have the same belief.

[mutzilnosoundl]

Why doesn't dropping a bowling ball on your foot prove the existence of gravity...? Mmmaybe I misunderstood....? If you'd drop the ball on your foot in our moon the results would be different. I think that's pretty good proof

[Macrochenia]

It has to do with the way proof works in science- since we don't understand absolutely everything about how it works, scientists won't say that it's been proven.

Incidentally, I do know a guy who doesn't believe in gravity (he thinks it's a Jewish conspiracy- crazy, I know, but what can I say?)

[mutzilnosoundl]

Well, good point there, but I disagree, because I think we DO know how it works. We have the law of Newtons gravity. And by that law were able to calculate any kind of gravity in our galaxy. And these calculations DO match. Good example jumping in the moon compared to earth. Even though the gravitational constant isn't so accurate, these calculations are still pretty accurate. I'm a scientist myself and I think we have proof of grav.

But if I'm wrong, the gravity is still pretty obvious thing :)

[Macrochenia]

No, we know THAT it works. The exact mechanisms that cause it to work are not nearly so well understood. That's why we have Newtons Laws of Gravity, but Gravity itself is a theory. In order for Gravity itself to be a law, we'd have to know everything there is to know about how gravity acts under every possible set of conditions, and we don't know that yet.

[narfanoid]

Well, yes, and no... we know gravity works, and we know that we can calculate what will happen based on what we have learned. BUT, we don't know HOW it works. We only know that when we drop things they fall at certain rates, and they fall predictably toward the center of the Earth. This allows us to use gravity in formulaic ways but it does not tell us what the force is behind it.

[narfanoid]

Dropping a bowling ball on your foot only proves that when you dropped the ball it fell on your foot. You need to do a lot more work than that to prove the existence of gravity. You need to know that everyone who drops a bowling ball ends up with a sore foot. Adding the fact that the rate of falling is different on the moon is part of the process of learning more about the nature of gravity.

[mutzilnosoundl]

@narfanoid Yeah. I just keep thinking it's so obvious but....

[synsei1]

@narfanoid

It doesn't disprove god but at least it should make people question the story of Adam and Eve and other myths. Great coment though.

[narfanoid]

@synsei1

I don't recall having said that there is proof that there is no god. But just because you can't prove the non-existence of something is no good reason to choose to believe it. I can't prove there are not pixies living under my house, but you don't see me coming up with reasons I should choose to believe there are. In short, if there is no real-world evidence to support any claim, why believe it?

[synsei1]

@narfanoid I'm totally with you, actually I almost made the same comment with smurfs and dragons for another video.

[frankystein12]

Got to watch this, this looks awesome!

[BarronTD]

What?  Not being shown in the States?

There's a shocker...

[granton85]

In the end neither can explain the creation of universe. Big bang theory that's great, where did the universe it was in come from.

Creation, that's great where did god come from.

[ramio1983]

If God was created he wouldn't be God silly. People have no idea what the concept of God even is.

[InterZlatan8]

The concept of God? Or God?

The concept of God is what we all believe, it is that invisible agent who apparently created everything and some people believe it exists.

Atheists also believe in the concept of God but not in God

[InterZlatan8]

Yet the big bang theory has some evidence, while God remains a hypotheses of wich we have 0 evidence, so logically, Big bang is more likely.

[ramio1983]

Evolution doesn't disprove God hellooooo??

[sux0rz]

it just goes against biblical teachings in terms of the origin of man.

[InterZlatan8]

Evolution also doesn't disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but we have no good reason to believe it exists.

[TheDermyShow]

Interesting. Hopefully I remember to watch this.

[superwowie111]

moron christians go "err so we came from apes, thats stupid!"

their explanation is an invisible person that we have no evidence of snapped his fingers and made it happen.

fucking morons! fuck!

[Alexov54]

Yeah, countless millions of people who've considered the enormous mountain of evidence that supports the theory do take it as irrefutable truth. And countless millions, those who have the invisible friend, God, to help them think, believe it all started around 4000 BC, in an instant, with perfection abounding. Fortunately, we humans are free to believe which of the two theories is more likely to be the real explanation.

[taybathar]

yeah and that's all it is: a theory, yet so many people take it as irrefutable truth

[peterb1968]

Theory in science means an idea accepted as truth by general consesus of ppl in the area of study. One has evidence the other has none. Which is the rational choice?

[InterZlatan8]

you mean evolution?

A theory in the scientific sense means a bunch of facts stuck together

[imroy264]

Gravity? Just a theory. Atoms? Just a theory. Electricity? Just a theory. Electromagnetic radiation? Just a theory. Wave-particle duality of light? Just a theory. Fibre optics? Just a theory. Germs? Just a theory. Cells? Just a theory. Genetics? Just a theory. Plate tectonics? Just a theory. Learn what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. You likely make indirect use of many scientific theories every single day.

[Raherin]

Maybe it's their theory that these are just theories, in which sense their theory is just a theory as well, except that scientific theory is a theory that has more credibility then a regular theory because it's based on facts (yehaw). Anyone can make a theory about a theory, but only a scientific theory makes sense regarding actually verified fact. (I'm mostly talking about evolution). I realize that most religious people don't understand the definition of theory. Good post. :)

[Raherin]

I should let you know actually. Those are not theories to religious people (not all of you :) ). Those are religions or faith (at least they should be according to their own logic, but only evolution is) because we use faith to believe them, all that evidence and verified fact is just faith based BS. Let us bow to the Theory God. So far the only one that makes sense! - no need to bow, he doesn't give a shit. :) Pray to the great Atom and Electon.

[Thirshaatheart]

@imroy264 THANK YOU!

[kutkinderen]

@imroy264 what an annoying word ''theory'' the facts,estimations,analyses,obs­ervation hmmmm we are still human and it's natural for ous to make mistakes. It should be placed in a broader context don't you think ?