Acceptance, or not, of the fact of evolution is NOT a prerequisite for (non-)belief in gods! Millions of theists--including Sarah Palin and, the last I knew, the pope--are just fine with evolution. Conversely, some atheists do *not* accept it (or at least so they say).
Even if evolution were somehow proved to be 100% false--even if the mountain of evidence supporting it were somehow negated--that STILL wouldn't mean that a "god" hypothesis, poorly supported by data, would therefore be true.
I believe that a level of evolution is true. and that the Bible is true. I do not believe that humans have evolved. what is the evidence that humans have evolved? and if we did evolve from some other creature would it not take an extremely long amount of time? (small changes over a long time).? is it true that we evolved over a long period of time?
Literally, as in "Noah's ark was real!", or more generally, as in "Jesus had some good ideas"?
- "I do not believe that humans have evolved. . . . is it true that we evolved over a long period of time?"
Yes and no. "We" didn't evolve. We just live until we die, but life goes on and things change over time. Continents move, ice ages come and go, volcanoes erupt, meteors fall, animals migrate, plant life spreads out, species die out, etc.
@sk8er4god737 You do know that the earth is 4 billion years old, right? Also, you do understand that humankind, along with all of our close ancestors such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc., have been around for MILLIONS and millions of years as well, right? Also, if you want evidence of human evolution, look at the differences between Homo sapien and Neanderthals. There are certainly evolutionary differences between the two.
@sk8er4god737 "[What] is the evidence that humans have evolved?"
If you're asking this question seriously, you might be best served by going to talkorigins[dot]org. Tons of information there; you probably should read "Humans As a Case Study for the Evidence of Evolution" first.
Among other topics, comparative taxonomy, comparative biochemistry (DNA), comparative embryology, imperfections (aka UNintelligent design), and the sequence of fossils all strongly support the fact of human evolution.
@sk8er4god737 Cela-Conde and Ayala's Human Evolution is a good place to see the main lines of evidence for human evolution. Ayala believes in God (he was once a Dominican priest), though not in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
The guys opening remarks reflects his ignorance....you do not need to be a scientist or have a masters to understand simple biological facts or evolution. Again he states this as if you DO NEED those things to understand yet he does not and asks for evidence....in his eyes he already needs to be a scientist to accept it yet demands laymen explanations for it. He contradicts himself.
@Gaybykersonacid A bunch of racists who are looking for any excuse they can think of to get Obama impeached or not re-elected screaming "he's the antichrist!" when they see him perform "cool tricks" proves nothing. Although I'm not as familiar as most with the legend of the antichrist a former girlfriend tried to explain it to me once and she never said anything about the antichrist being a black man from America.
To believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is to believe in letters, but not sentences. You have the means, but you deny the ends because they are too amazing for you. The uneducated are easily amazed.
@MunkyDrag0n lol. im referring to rabbits. i know why they have big ears. because the rabbit with big ears had a better survival rate, thus better breeding rate, thus all rabbits have big ears. but the ear it self, to me its a different story. im just saying micro evolution is easily explainable and observable, but the origin of these complex instruments, including the one we exist within, our brain, demands more theory than evidence. thats my take, enlighten me if you can.
@indefinable88 That makes more sense. Check here "From Jaw to Ear: Transition Fossil Reveals Ear Evolution in Action" from The Scientific American. Basically the ear began in a small burrowing mammal called Yanoconodon. It had an incomplete ear that was better for sensing ground vibrations than air vibrations. As mammals grew bigger and moved out of the ground, they modified their ears to be higher up on the head and more sensitive. Transitional forms solve MOST problems.
@indefinable88 Rabbits have big ears because, when magicians pull them out of hats, they are more likely to pull out the rabbits with long ears than those with short ears. Thus, over the course of thousands of years, long-eared rabbits came to dominate the wild population.
"If you're not a scientist then you are listening to what other people are telling you." Um duh. That is exactly what religion is. At least people who follow science have evidence to support their claims. Religious people only follow blind claims form thousands of years ago.
@Chaoitcme I think the better thing to say to those that claim this is that "yes but the people that I'm believing provide the notes on how they did what they did, the results, and can even post information on how to replicate the same effects or processes so that I can, if I please, witness it for myself. Never do you ask a scientist for evidence and have them say -just have faith-."
@RunfromtheHeathen i understand completely how things can evolve over time! but the big argument is "was this universe created by a creator? Or, did something go BOOM a long time ago, which started life itself?
@jayzook Gravity is also only a theory, whats your point?
It seems you have a poor understanding of the word theory. A theory is a statement that is supported by facts but is not something we can ever be 100% certain of. A hypothesis is what I think your confusing a theory with, as it is something not supported by facts yet, but is an idea stated and then after tested to see if it works with what we do know, if it does then it becomes a theory. (cont)
@DarkBunnyLord "A theory is a statement that is supported by facts but is not something we can ever be 100% certain of." Sorry bud, I have to call you on this one; you are doing the exact same thing Creationists due; confuse scientific theory with 'theory' in the philosophical or colloquial connotation. A scientific theory establishes a model that explains the process behind a natural phenomenon; Cell theory, Atomic Theory, Evolutionary theory; all substantive fact.
@DarkBunnyLord No, once again you are confusing theory in the philosophical context with scientific theory. In layman's terms, a scientific law explains what something tends to do; a scientific theory explains how it works. Scientific theories are predicated on copious amounts of empirical evidence; scientific theories are factual, as they explain the mechanisms behind natural phenomena.
@RebelWrestler45 You're still wrong. If this was the case a theory would never change and would be 100 percent accurate, yet it's NOT the case. Theories change all the time as new evidence and data are recorded.
The process is simple, an unsupported idea is a hypothesis and typically is waiting to be tested. An idea that has been tested and matches all current knowledge is a theory. Something that always is and always will be true is a fact, there are VERY few facts. I am not bashing the (cont)
@RebelWrestler45 (cont) reliability of a Theory as I'm admitting that a theory is supported by ALL of the current evidence, I'm simply stating that a theory is NOT a fact (lest we'd call them facts and not theories). This is where you seem to be confused as your description does not match the scientific definition of the word.
@DarkBunnyLord He is absolutely right. I can provide you several sources that explain the difference between a scientific law, a scientific theory, and a hypothesis. Scientific laws are the existence of observable phenomenon (like gravity) and a scientific theory explains how these phenomenon work. Theories change and are not 100% accurate simply because we don't know everything and new information can always be discovered. That's why scientific laws change as well.
@NoelBlueheart I'm not sure who your responding to, you quoted me making me think the "he's absolutely 100% right" was you telling me that Rebel was, but your response basically said exactly what I did (that theories are not facts because facts are 100% accurate while theories might not be but do to a lack of knowledge of everything we can't quite ascertain that). So just a bit confused at who the comment was targeted at.
@DarkBunnyLord Silly! I said the opposite of what you said. I related that theories are not 100% accurate, but what I disagreed with you was why. It is not so because they are not facts. It is so because we gain new and more information as we advance and what we recognize as facts can change. This is why even laws are not 100% accurate.
@DarkBunnyLord Look, you cannot negate the fact that theories are facts. Not always, but "theories" in the scientific meaning of the term is not the same as in layman's term. Theories only describe why observable phenomenon (laws) happen. Please. I will send you a damn link if I have to. You are like a stubborn child screaming to the top of his lungs that the sky isn't blue. I know that because I saw your epic fail with Colibri. I'm not wasting my time like he did =)
@NoelBlueheart That's not a fact unless you're using some twisted form of the english language. I'm sorry that I choose to stick to the actual definition of the words. Facts are facts, unchanging and constant, theories are not unchanging. Some "may" never change but the point is that they "may" change, once we are certain they are not going to change (ie we've gained all possible information on the matter) they become a fact and not a theory.
@DarkBunnyLord "Some "may" never change but the point is that they "may" change, once we are certain they are not going to change (ie we've gained all possible information on the matter) they become a fact and not a theory." => not exactly correct. A scientific theory will NEVER become a fact. A cell theory remains a theory. A scientific theory is the highest level possibly achieved in science. A theory doesn't become a law either, unlike the popular misconception.
@NoelBlueheart No you didn't. I said that theories where not 100% true because they change as we gain new information so in that manner you repeated EXACTLY what I said. Did you not thoroughly read my post?
Facts never change, they are 100% accurate and irrefutable. For example, the earth rotates around our sun. We know this is true because we have all information about the sun and how it moves. Gravity is caused by mass, however, is something we are very sure of but "can" change (cont)
@NoelBlueheart (cont) however unlikely, with the introduction of new evidence, tests, etc in the future. 1+1 will always equal 2, again this would be a fact something that will never change and whilst the earth may eventually stop rotating around the sun, the fact that it did will never change.
@DarkBunnyLord not even 1+1=2 is a fact, because it still depends on an underlying definition. Sure within mathematics, the underlying defintion will always support 1+1=2.
But there are other domains where it does not, like for example boolean algebra, where + is defined as the OR-operator, and hence 1+1=1
@MagnusNyborg Yes but in this situation you're taking an obviously different meaning for the symbol that wasn't intended in the original example. It's like saying "but this word means this in another language" it would be great if not for the fact that no one was speaking that language.
@jayzook (cont) As for the big bang we know it occurred as we can test the energy and expansion from it. We don't know if it was the start of everything, but again all facts support it (though it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution so I don't know why you're using the two together). That said we don't know how the big bang started, stating that someone had to create it though is silly as you're assuming everything had to start with a creator given no evidence to make such a claim.
@jayzook You obviously have no idea of what a theory and a scientific theory means. ''what caused the big bang''' We don't have all the answers yet. ''who created this ''big bang''. Why do you say ''Who'' and not ''What''. Why do you think the question should be phrased in the form of a ''Who''?
@jayzook First off, evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang; hell, they aren't even in the same scientific field (Biology vs Cosmology). Secondly, you are completely ignorant of what scientific theory is; it doesn't mean 'guess' or 'idea', a scientific theory is a model which explains the process behind a natural phenomenon. Cell Theory, Heliocentric theory, Atomic Theory; all are scientific theories, all are substantive fact. You know, reading books never hurt anyone.
- "So you're saying if I leave out a plate of Jello for the next billion years it will transform into some sort of living alien creature? That's fucking stupid."
That is exactly the problem with creationists, and that is why you have now been blocked.
@PlantOParadise I think you need to take those biology classes again, or a basic science course. Theories are WELL-TESTED EXPLANATIONS for OBSERVATIONS of OCCURRENCES in NATURE. EVOLUTION explains the DIVERSITY of LIFE and until there is testable COUNTER-ARGUMENT that manages to DISPROVE the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, it will either be REVISED or will be REPLACED by a more accurate means for the diversity of life. EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN anything that has nothing to do with the DIVERSITY OF LIFE.
too much credit for someone who dont know who is he calling.. I wish to see more complex conversations... Ex: wy dont you belive in god? tooooooooo. got it? next call please. But all my admiration on your paciencia guys. You go to heaven. hehe.. hugs!
@PlantOParadise ignoring the fact that your assertions about evolution are wrong,why does it automatically mean there is a god when we can't explain something?
I'm not going to do your homework for you but I will give you a couple of starting points...
William R. Rice, George W. Salt., "The Evolution of Reproductive Isolation as a Correlated Character Under Sympatric Conditions: Experimental Evidence" (published & peer reviewed)
As I said earlier, talkorigins has an excellent FAQ on speciation which would be a good primer. I suggest you read that first to familiarise yourself with the basics.
@PlantOParadise "If evolution was a real fact, it would be a law" & "biology classes,...theories cannot become laws, therefore they are not scientific facts."
I suggest you look up the term "Scientific Theory" because if you believe that load of crap you evidently have no idea what the scientific method is or how it works.
A theory is the highest attainable status an idea can obtain in science. There is no such thing as a scientific fact & a law is just a formal expression of a theory.
@tvsinesperanto Gravitation is "just" a theory too but would you expect a rock to fly away into space if you drop it or for it to accelerate towards the centre of the earth at 9.8ms-2? We design spacecraft, aircraft, bridges, & a multitude of other things based on gravitational theory & billions of people entrust their lives to them daily. All this despite the fact that gravitation is "just" a theory.
Your knowledge in this area is insufficient to support your level of criticism.
And that's the core of the real issue, isn't it? You don't like the implications of evolution on your particular worldview so you utterly reject it. You don't look at the situation objectively & decide what to believe based on the facts, you accept or reject the facts according to your beliefs. That's called living in a fantasy world.
"is like me saying the sky isn't blue. That's pathetic."
No, it isn't, it's entirely valid. Just like the undeniable observation the the sky is blue, evolution has also been OBSERVED. Not hypothesised, DIRECTLY OBSERVED in species with short enough life spans for us to see the changes on human time scales. Look it up. Talkorigins. org has an excellent FAQ on it.
@PlantOParadise "no adequate explanation...life from dead chemicals."
True. Sort of. We have a pretty good idea but it's not yet a solid theory.
"The fossil record, our only documentation"
False. Nuclear & Mitochondrial DNA are also completely independent yet congruent records. Besides, evolution has been directly observed in many short lived species. It's been seen LIVE. It happens. it's a fact. If you are going to deny that you may as well deny that the sky is blue.
@conordawl It happens. Just do three "Hail Satans" and sacrifice a puppy on a goat-skull altar and The Almighty Hitch will forgive you. Just make sure to drain all the blood into a golden chalice. Very important.
@Nirah So because I offer a different perspective, in addition to an argument, that automatically makes me an idiot? Gee, you sure showed me! I won't ever disagree with you again, because if I do, that means i'm stupid!
Also, if you're so intolerant toward the opposing side, don't even bother commenting back, because that proves you're the real 'idiot', not to mention you can't seem to make replies without being a smtartass and calling people names like a little toddler.
@PlantOParadise No, what makes you an idiot is that you are arguing against evolution when you seem to know nothing about it. I'm perfectly tolerant to a REAL argument, but everything I read from you was completely invalid! Don't get your knickers in a twist because you make yourself look stupid and people call you out on it. And I'm not being a smartass, I just say it like it is--if you're an idiot, I call you an idiot. If you're going to argue against science, learn a little science first
As for transitional fossils, there are tons all over the place if you would bother to just use google instead of swallowing creationist nonsense and calling it a day. Here's one picture of a famous one:
scienceblogs.
com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/tiktaalik_phylo.
jpg
Talkorigins also has a lot of stuff on transitional fossils (and rebuttals for other creationist bogus claims, too):
Your comment about Jello is so stupid I was debating not replying. It is not impossible to create life, but it is hard to prove in our lifetime because it takes time. Anyway, the *very* basic building blocks of life actually exist all around us: organic molecules. The ones I was talking about, however, are amino acids: the building blocks for proteins. Even in 1952 the Miller-Urey experiment managed to create amino acids from using hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia.
The basic building blocks of life have been recreated in a laboratory: the only thing missing is the long time-span required to recreate life.
Also, the fossil record is not the only evidence, and there are plenty of transitional forms; you're just ignoring them because you don't understand how it works. It is all fully-formed because it wouldn't bloody well be able to survive if not now would it?
Your ignorance is staggering; educate yourself, please.
Self-causation is the ultimate status of every form of the theory of evolution, every concept of an infinite regress and naturalism. To believe in self-causation one must suspend reason believe in that Shakespearean dilemma "To Be or Not to Be". Nothing can be the cause of its own existence, otherwise it will have to exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship.
@MultiShinar all domesticated dogs evolved from grey wolves, this is a fact that was observed, they didnt create themselves, evolution doesnt demand such a thing, god however, does
oh ok. ive been trying to find an example of mutation that has led to an increase of stable information, dna i mean, in a creature that has mutated and then had offspring with that same mutation.. and created a sub species. i would grateful if you could post some links or something?
i understand subtle changes over time, like big people with big people breed big people and so on. but thats existing information reinforced by natural selection. i hope u understand my question.
@indefinable88 Check out the fossil record on talk origins for species we know evolved (not to mention the complete lack of fossils of common creatures). As for things we've observed recently there where lizards introduced to the coast of croatia a few decades ago that have taken huge leaps in evolution which would normally take many many years. You're going to have to do some googling to find this but given the island name and the word lizards should be easy enough.
@indefinable88 An increase of information does not mean an increase of an organism's complexity. DNA duplications and copy number variants can increase an organism's 'information' without making it more refined or complex; e.g. a lungfish has 15 times the DNA of humans. Speciation has been observed in nature across multiple populations and taxonomic families; and scientists have recreated speciation in certain populations; e.g. botflies.
@MultiShinar No, what you are talking about is abiogenesis; a first cause, which has nothing to do with evolution. Mutation is not a voluntary process; it cannot be 'self caused' because evolution does not occur in individuals, it occurs in populations. Your understanding of Evolution is hopelessly ignorant.
The theory of evolution violates science. One of the main tenets of science is observation. But man was not there to observe his own origin, hence the seven assumptions are not rooted in facts but are mere assumptions grounded in psuedo-science. The theory of evolutions also violates the "fixation of species".
Great, so you're in this thread as well spouting more nonsense. You are making the classic mistake of confusing evolution—the gradual change of living organisms—with abiogenesis, which is the origin of life.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be, it only tells us how life changes over time.
You're also misinformed about how abiogenesis works, too.
Life didn't just appear out of nowhere any more than a baby appears out of nowhere after a particularly drunk frat party.
@PaonSol "Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be, it only tells us how life changes over time." You are correct in your statement about evolution. I fully agree, and Im sure many theists would agree with you. However, evolution is not in question, it is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION that is in question. Im sure you are aware that evolution and the theory of evolution are not the same. Abiogenesis falls in the theory of evolution.
No, it does not. Abiogenesis is NOT part of the the theory of evolution, it is completely separate. The theory of evolution only requires life to exist, and it does not matter how life came to be.
Claiming that evolution requires explaining how life came to be is like saying you can't use an umbrella without being a meteorologist.
@PaonSol I challenge you to look at the theory of evolution again, in detail. The primordial soup predates the term abiogenesis. In the primordial soup supposed inorganic material gave rise to organic material, i.e. life. Abiogenesis makes the same claim. "Claiming that evolution requires explaining how life came to be is like saying you can't use an umbrella without being a meteorologist" you fail to see the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution.
Evolution does not make that claim. You are the one that is confused, here. Check your sources and stop reading creationist sites. Heck, even Wikipedia will steer you in the right direction: try going to Wikipedia and searching for "Primordial soup" and see where it redirects you.
@PaonSol What is abiogenesis? What is the primordial soup? If you can give an honest answer to these two questions you will see that abiogenesis is nothing but the Darwinian concept of evolution that begins with a primordial soup. If you want to be dishonest then please continue in your dishonesty, but such dishonesty proves nothing concerning the theory of evolution.
You really need to look at more recent information, here. I am really not sure what kind of sources you are using. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis that they are still working on.
A scientific theory is the highest achievable status within science. Plate tectonics, evolution, gravity etc, are all backed by a humongous amount of facts and data and have survived many, many years of rigorous scrutiny by skeptics.
Abiogenesis is how life came to be from natural processes (as opposed to supernatural).
The origin of life doesn't have anything to do with evolution, however. As I have said several times, evolution only requires life to be there. It explains the processes of change that organisms go through over time.
Let's say God himself came down and gave rise to life. Evolution then tells the story of what happened after life came to be by God or Zeus or whatever.
@PaonSol "Abiogenesis is how life came to be from natural processes (as opposed to supernatural)." This is the same as the theory of evolution. "The origin of life doesn't have anything to do with evolution, however. As I have said several times, evolution only requires life to be there. It explains the processes of change that organisms go through over time." You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution, they are not the same.
There is no difference! Evolution IS the theory of evolution—full stop. There is a ton of science behind every facet of the theory of evolution like natural selection, genetic drift, speciation—but abiogenesis is not part of it. Stop reading shitty websites set up by creationists or ID proponents. Once again even Wikipedia will prove you wrong: search for "theory of evolution" and see where it redirects you.
@PaonSol "Let's say God himself came down and gave rise to life. Evolution then tells the story of what happened after life came to be by God or Zeus or whatever." This is true, you are correct. But this is EVOLUTION and evolution is not in question. It is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION that is in question. You keep confusing the two but they are not mutually compatible.
@PaonSol "You're also misinformed about how abiogenesis works, too." Abiogenesis attempts to explain the orgin of life by claiming that life came from inorganic matter. Does this sound familiar? Charles Darwin predates the newly epithet abiogenesis (a term used to refer to the original claims of Darwin). In abiogenesis there is the concept of natural selection (which is a contradiction in terms), but natural selection is built on the faulty concept of self-causation. Are you aware of this?
Darwin is not relevant to abiogenesis for crying out loud, how far have we come since his predictions? Scientists today are not stuck hundreds of years in the past.
Also, natural selection is built on no such thing. Natural selection works by itself and also has nothing to do with 1 in a trillion chances or such nonsense, too. Claiming this shows a fundamental lack of understanding how evolution truly works. If you'd like I can explain to you how natural selection works.
@MultiShinar Yes; the observation is that "There are many different species", science does not require real time observation, just observation of natural phenomena. There is no "fixation of species". Please do more research; ignorance is not a virtue my friend.
The first assumption of the theory of evolution is: non-living things gave rise to living things (spontaneous generation occurred). The second assumptions is: spontaneous generation occurred once. Spontaneous generation is self-causation. For something to cause its own existence is nonsense because it would have to exist before it ever existed.
The theory of evolution is a grotesque form of nonsense. When discussing the theory of evolution the seven assumptions of the theory are never mentioned. Many people are not aware of the seven assumptions of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution cannot get started because of the first assumption.
Despite this time this show was recorded, it is very much relevant now, perhaps more so than when it was recorded (RE: Gov. Perry's statement that evolution is "just a theory").
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
wtf, this guy says, "if you're not a scientist then you're just believing what other people are telling you," wtf is religion? you're just believing what other people and a book written almost 2000 years ago tell you
Creationists, if man is a descendant of Adam and Eve, with who did Cain (Adam and Eve's son) have sex? who was his wife if there was suppose to be no other humans on earth?
See now, most of you theist speak loudly about creation being the only possible way but you don't even know the fckn story. Theists read your bible/thora/q'ran and try to explain to yourselves who was Cain's wife. be creative.
@ZZzzzzzWhat And Abel died too. So, basically there were only three people in the planet. Next thing we know, Cain is telling god that, "anyone who find me will kill me." who the hell was he talking about? And furthermore, he get married and building cities. I mean, WTF.
@avatar2011ism Glad to see that even you thought your comments were so laughable that they should be removed. Well done, perhaps there is hope for you yet.
When the guy asked at 1:18 if they believed in religion and Matt answered a lazy "no" I could'd almost read his mind saying "Oh fuck here we go again!".
@avatar2011ism You have proof of your delusion. Congrats. There are many like you, most though, are in a place called an Asylum. Go forth ye with thy proof of thine devil, may your "light" shine on science.
And if you cannot tolerate ridicule, I suggest you do not even attempt to step into an academic arena with scientists.
@avatar2011ism You do care otherwise you would not have responded. And your explosive temper mixed with your insanity is even more proof you are going to hurt someone one day. You want to post in a public forum like youtube then don't tell someone to mind their own business.
Regardless of what you would like to believe, all the evidence says that evolution has, is, & in all likelihood will continue to occur. Not only is there an enormous fossil record & DNA evidence to demonstrate this but speciation has been DIRECTLY observed in LIVING populations of short-lived species like Drosophila melanogaster & Escherichia coli.
News Flash: The argument is over, you lost. Suck it up & get over it.
"thank you for calling Corey, that was actually kind of fun." ROFL... To all the morons out there: Science is not a religion. The difference? Science is based on evidence and experience and takes little to know faith whatsoever. Religion tends to be based on a single book, or grouping of scrolls written BEFORE MOST OF HUMANITY COULD READ THEM!!!!"
The power of the church is ridiculous. That adult men have to ask tv hosts how we got here and what happens when we die is testament to how the church has thwarted our education about ourselves and our world. It's like these people have been drugged up to this point and are clueless about basic knowledge which they should have acquired in kindergarten.
This guy is a troll just like all religious subhumans. Even the religious dont believe because its ridiculous. They just want to be in a club so they say the think there is a god concept. Its pretty funny
@TheAtheistExperience Hallelujah! You have done mankind a service this day. "No contradictions"... Well, if we're just going to start making things up now...
so if your not a scientist your just believing what someone else is saying kind of like with the bible? jsut believing what the other people are telling you about god and jesus. so even if that arguement made any sense it applies to religion just as much.
Sorry i don't want to be mean but i can't hold back. I can't believe that there is such a stupid caller like this guy. Leave the evolution and other scientific evidence out of the picture, this guy is one of the less educated individuals who know nothing beside what he believes in and is relevant to him. I mean he doesn't even know what SCIENCE IS.
God is the energy within and without all life. Its a very intelligent energy... My Life is like a book and my Soul is a bookcase. When your skin cells die new ones replace them everyday, without the death of those cells we wouldnt age, there would be no time. Without death there is no time. Everything has to die so it can be re-born, so we can continue to move thru time... God is life and death. Its the circle energy of life that flows thru time. God didnt just create the Universe, he became it
The day paleonthologists find the last human-chimpanzee common ancestor, that's the day religion ends forever hands down. That day might never come, but I hope it does.
@Melexonitrate Oh boo hoo, someone insulted you. Here's a quote for you, since you so eloquently pointed out how quotes should work for me. "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson
@Nucl3arTeacup People who use insults to make a point are pathetic. People who use insults on the internet who would not other wise do so in person are cowards and equally pathetic. Just because there's no punishment on the internet doesnt mean code of conduct should change to people. There's a difference between using criticism and insulting some one. Just because a famous person used the word "Ridicule" doesnt mean that view is correct... There is no trinity, he's correct in that respect.
@ExpertMusik What a load of bullshit. You could have said that decades ago during the cold war, and Vietnam. The middle east? There has been unrest in the middle east for centuries. There have been famines and earthquakes for hundreds of years too, what the hell is your point? Various christian sects have been saying Jesus is coming back for decades too. So I hate to break it to ya "expertMusik", but your bible predicts precisely squat.
This has been flagged as spam show
Acceptance, or not, of the fact of evolution is NOT a prerequisite for (non-)belief in gods! Millions of theists--including Sarah Palin and, the last I knew, the pope--are just fine with evolution. Conversely, some atheists do *not* accept it (or at least so they say).
Even if evolution were somehow proved to be 100% false--even if the mountain of evidence supporting it were somehow negated--that STILL wouldn't mean that a "god" hypothesis, poorly supported by data, would therefore be true.
lease2coach1 4 days ago
Is Matt burnt, bored or sleepy in this vid?
chinngis83 1 week ago
I believe that a level of evolution is true. and that the Bible is true. I do not believe that humans have evolved. what is the evidence that humans have evolved? and if we did evolve from some other creature would it not take an extremely long amount of time? (small changes over a long time).? is it true that we evolved over a long period of time?
sk8er4god737 3 weeks ago
@sk8er4god737
- "I believe . . . that the Bible is true."
Literally, as in "Noah's ark was real!", or more generally, as in "Jesus had some good ideas"?
- "I do not believe that humans have evolved. . . . is it true that we evolved over a long period of time?"
Yes and no. "We" didn't evolve. We just live until we die, but life goes on and things change over time. Continents move, ice ages come and go, volcanoes erupt, meteors fall, animals migrate, plant life spreads out, species die out, etc.
TheAtheistExperience 3 weeks ago
@sk8er4god737 You do know that the earth is 4 billion years old, right? Also, you do understand that humankind, along with all of our close ancestors such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc., have been around for MILLIONS and millions of years as well, right? Also, if you want evidence of human evolution, look at the differences between Homo sapien and Neanderthals. There are certainly evolutionary differences between the two.
disfigured75 2 weeks ago
@sk8er4god737 "[What] is the evidence that humans have evolved?"
If you're asking this question seriously, you might be best served by going to talkorigins[dot]org. Tons of information there; you probably should read "Humans As a Case Study for the Evidence of Evolution" first.
Among other topics, comparative taxonomy, comparative biochemistry (DNA), comparative embryology, imperfections (aka UNintelligent design), and the sequence of fossils all strongly support the fact of human evolution.
lease2coach1 4 days ago
@sk8er4god737 Cela-Conde and Ayala's Human Evolution is a good place to see the main lines of evidence for human evolution. Ayala believes in God (he was once a Dominican priest), though not in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
acr08807 2 days ago
This caller would have you take an auto mechanics course and train to be a NASCAR racer before you drive a car.
AvatarZ 1 month ago
Fail @ 4:40 >_<
AvatarZ 1 month ago
Corey sounds like an idiot
Casper3417 1 month ago
The guys opening remarks reflects his ignorance....you do not need to be a scientist or have a masters to understand simple biological facts or evolution. Again he states this as if you DO NEED those things to understand yet he does not and asks for evidence....in his eyes he already needs to be a scientist to accept it yet demands laymen explanations for it. He contradicts himself.
Antimidation 1 month ago
@Gaybykersonacid A bunch of racists who are looking for any excuse they can think of to get Obama impeached or not re-elected screaming "he's the antichrist!" when they see him perform "cool tricks" proves nothing. Although I'm not as familiar as most with the legend of the antichrist a former girlfriend tried to explain it to me once and she never said anything about the antichrist being a black man from America.
Bromopar 2 months ago
Maybe this caller should move to Mississippi
scotchlouis 4 months ago
@scotchlouis If he did, it would instantly raise the IQ of both Texas and Mississippi ;-)
Sizerian 3 months ago
"God is someone who is..more..better than you in a way. Know what I'm saying?"
blaze8272000 4 months ago
To believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is to believe in letters, but not sentences. You have the means, but you deny the ends because they are too amazing for you. The uneducated are easily amazed.
MunkyDrag0n 4 months ago 40
@MunkyDrag0n big ears make sense. but ears? pretty incredible
indefinable88 4 months ago
@indefinable88 That is the dumbest response I have ever seen...
MunkyDrag0n 4 months ago
@MunkyDrag0n lol. im referring to rabbits. i know why they have big ears. because the rabbit with big ears had a better survival rate, thus better breeding rate, thus all rabbits have big ears. but the ear it self, to me its a different story. im just saying micro evolution is easily explainable and observable, but the origin of these complex instruments, including the one we exist within, our brain, demands more theory than evidence. thats my take, enlighten me if you can.
indefinable88 3 months ago
@indefinable88 That makes more sense. Check here "From Jaw to Ear: Transition Fossil Reveals Ear Evolution in Action" from The Scientific American. Basically the ear began in a small burrowing mammal called Yanoconodon. It had an incomplete ear that was better for sensing ground vibrations than air vibrations. As mammals grew bigger and moved out of the ground, they modified their ears to be higher up on the head and more sensitive. Transitional forms solve MOST problems.
MunkyDrag0n 3 months ago
@indefinable88 Rabbits have big ears because, when magicians pull them out of hats, they are more likely to pull out the rabbits with long ears than those with short ears. Thus, over the course of thousands of years, long-eared rabbits came to dominate the wild population.
acr08807 2 days ago
@MunkyDrag0n Ooh... Well put!
weelittledragon 1 month ago
CHANGE
OVER
TIME
IS
A
FUCKING
FACT
DEAL WITH IT
bigredphenom 4 months ago 35
@bigredphenom <3
gleehmee 3 months ago
"If you're not a scientist then you are listening to what other people are telling you." Um duh. That is exactly what religion is. At least people who follow science have evidence to support their claims. Religious people only follow blind claims form thousands of years ago.
Chaoitcme 4 months ago
@Chaoitcme I think the better thing to say to those that claim this is that "yes but the people that I'm believing provide the notes on how they did what they did, the results, and can even post information on how to replicate the same effects or processes so that I can, if I please, witness it for myself. Never do you ask a scientist for evidence and have them say -just have faith-."
DarkBunnyLord 4 months ago
this guy is jumping all over the place and has no idea what he is talking about lol
vegeta30000 4 months ago
evolution is only a theory you idiots! even darwin says so! if there was a "big bang", what caused this "big bang"? and who created this "big bang"?
jayzook 4 months ago
@jayzook Evolution is a way of explaining how life forms change over time. Thats it. Evolution has NOTHING to do with how everything came to be.
RunfromtheHeathen 4 months ago
@RunfromtheHeathen i understand completely how things can evolve over time! but the big argument is "was this universe created by a creator? Or, did something go BOOM a long time ago, which started life itself?
jayzook 4 months ago
@jayzook Oh goodness... You need to do a lil bit of learnin' there, dear.
bttrflykiss7701 4 months ago
@jayzook Gravity is also only a theory, whats your point?
It seems you have a poor understanding of the word theory. A theory is a statement that is supported by facts but is not something we can ever be 100% certain of. A hypothesis is what I think your confusing a theory with, as it is something not supported by facts yet, but is an idea stated and then after tested to see if it works with what we do know, if it does then it becomes a theory. (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 4 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord "A theory is a statement that is supported by facts but is not something we can ever be 100% certain of." Sorry bud, I have to call you on this one; you are doing the exact same thing Creationists due; confuse scientific theory with 'theory' in the philosophical or colloquial connotation. A scientific theory establishes a model that explains the process behind a natural phenomenon; Cell theory, Atomic Theory, Evolutionary theory; all substantive fact.
RebelWrestler45 3 months ago
@RebelWrestler45 You're still wrong. They are idea's supported by facts but that are not facts themselves (otherwise we wouldn't call them theories.)
I believe in the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, etc however they are not facts as we have no empirical evidence.
Like a wise man said "Facts are boring and simple, there are so few, theories are exciting and ever changing, ever progressing".
DarkBunnyLord 3 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord No, once again you are confusing theory in the philosophical context with scientific theory. In layman's terms, a scientific law explains what something tends to do; a scientific theory explains how it works. Scientific theories are predicated on copious amounts of empirical evidence; scientific theories are factual, as they explain the mechanisms behind natural phenomena.
RebelWrestler45 3 months ago
@RebelWrestler45 You're still wrong. If this was the case a theory would never change and would be 100 percent accurate, yet it's NOT the case. Theories change all the time as new evidence and data are recorded.
The process is simple, an unsupported idea is a hypothesis and typically is waiting to be tested. An idea that has been tested and matches all current knowledge is a theory. Something that always is and always will be true is a fact, there are VERY few facts. I am not bashing the (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 3 months ago
@RebelWrestler45 (cont) reliability of a Theory as I'm admitting that a theory is supported by ALL of the current evidence, I'm simply stating that a theory is NOT a fact (lest we'd call them facts and not theories). This is where you seem to be confused as your description does not match the scientific definition of the word.
DarkBunnyLord 3 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord He is absolutely right. I can provide you several sources that explain the difference between a scientific law, a scientific theory, and a hypothesis. Scientific laws are the existence of observable phenomenon (like gravity) and a scientific theory explains how these phenomenon work. Theories change and are not 100% accurate simply because we don't know everything and new information can always be discovered. That's why scientific laws change as well.
NoelBlueheart 2 months ago
@NoelBlueheart I'm not sure who your responding to, you quoted me making me think the "he's absolutely 100% right" was you telling me that Rebel was, but your response basically said exactly what I did (that theories are not facts because facts are 100% accurate while theories might not be but do to a lack of knowledge of everything we can't quite ascertain that). So just a bit confused at who the comment was targeted at.
DarkBunnyLord 2 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Silly! I said the opposite of what you said. I related that theories are not 100% accurate, but what I disagreed with you was why. It is not so because they are not facts. It is so because we gain new and more information as we advance and what we recognize as facts can change. This is why even laws are not 100% accurate.
NoelBlueheart 2 months ago
Comment removed
DarkBunnyLord 2 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Look, you cannot negate the fact that theories are facts. Not always, but "theories" in the scientific meaning of the term is not the same as in layman's term. Theories only describe why observable phenomenon (laws) happen. Please. I will send you a damn link if I have to. You are like a stubborn child screaming to the top of his lungs that the sky isn't blue. I know that because I saw your epic fail with Colibri. I'm not wasting my time like he did =)
NoelBlueheart 2 months ago
@NoelBlueheart That's not a fact unless you're using some twisted form of the english language. I'm sorry that I choose to stick to the actual definition of the words. Facts are facts, unchanging and constant, theories are not unchanging. Some "may" never change but the point is that they "may" change, once we are certain they are not going to change (ie we've gained all possible information on the matter) they become a fact and not a theory.
DarkBunnyLord 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBunnyLord "Some "may" never change but the point is that they "may" change, once we are certain they are not going to change (ie we've gained all possible information on the matter) they become a fact and not a theory." => not exactly correct. A scientific theory will NEVER become a fact. A cell theory remains a theory. A scientific theory is the highest level possibly achieved in science. A theory doesn't become a law either, unlike the popular misconception.
Casshyr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NoelBlueheart No you didn't. I said that theories where not 100% true because they change as we gain new information so in that manner you repeated EXACTLY what I said. Did you not thoroughly read my post?
Facts never change, they are 100% accurate and irrefutable. For example, the earth rotates around our sun. We know this is true because we have all information about the sun and how it moves. Gravity is caused by mass, however, is something we are very sure of but "can" change (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 2 months ago
@NoelBlueheart (cont) however unlikely, with the introduction of new evidence, tests, etc in the future. 1+1 will always equal 2, again this would be a fact something that will never change and whilst the earth may eventually stop rotating around the sun, the fact that it did will never change.
DarkBunnyLord 2 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord not even 1+1=2 is a fact, because it still depends on an underlying definition. Sure within mathematics, the underlying defintion will always support 1+1=2.
But there are other domains where it does not, like for example boolean algebra, where + is defined as the OR-operator, and hence 1+1=1
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Yes but in this situation you're taking an obviously different meaning for the symbol that wasn't intended in the original example. It's like saying "but this word means this in another language" it would be great if not for the fact that no one was speaking that language.
DarkBunnyLord 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBunnyLord
« we have no empirical evidence »
But we do. Evidence is the answer to the question:
"If hypothesis H were true, what would we expect to be able to see here and now?"
For common descent, that answer is: nested hierarchies (and more).
For relativity the answer includes gravitational lensing (and more).
Such observations constitute the evidence for these theories.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@jayzook (cont) As for the big bang we know it occurred as we can test the energy and expansion from it. We don't know if it was the start of everything, but again all facts support it (though it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution so I don't know why you're using the two together). That said we don't know how the big bang started, stating that someone had to create it though is silly as you're assuming everything had to start with a creator given no evidence to make such a claim.
DarkBunnyLord 4 months ago
@jayzook You obviously have no idea of what a theory and a scientific theory means. ''what caused the big bang''' We don't have all the answers yet. ''who created this ''big bang''. Why do you say ''Who'' and not ''What''. Why do you think the question should be phrased in the form of a ''Who''?
MarcusEFN 3 months ago
@jayzook First off, evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang; hell, they aren't even in the same scientific field (Biology vs Cosmology). Secondly, you are completely ignorant of what scientific theory is; it doesn't mean 'guess' or 'idea', a scientific theory is a model which explains the process behind a natural phenomenon. Cell Theory, Heliocentric theory, Atomic Theory; all are scientific theories, all are substantive fact. You know, reading books never hurt anyone.
RebelWrestler45 3 months ago
Hey Corey, ive got a bridge to sell ya.
red666111 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise
- "So you're saying if I leave out a plate of Jello for the next billion years it will transform into some sort of living alien creature? That's fucking stupid."
That is exactly the problem with creationists, and that is why you have now been blocked.
TheAtheistExperience 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise
- "If evolution was a real fact, it would be a law."
Visit "notjustatheory dotcom" to educate yourself. You have now been blocked.
TheAtheistExperience 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise I think you need to take those biology classes again, or a basic science course. Theories are WELL-TESTED EXPLANATIONS for OBSERVATIONS of OCCURRENCES in NATURE. EVOLUTION explains the DIVERSITY of LIFE and until there is testable COUNTER-ARGUMENT that manages to DISPROVE the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, it will either be REVISED or will be REPLACED by a more accurate means for the diversity of life. EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN anything that has nothing to do with the DIVERSITY OF LIFE.
Celticcondor2 5 months ago
too much credit for someone who dont know who is he calling.. I wish to see more complex conversations... Ex: wy dont you belive in god? tooooooooo. got it? next call please. But all my admiration on your paciencia guys. You go to heaven. hehe.. hugs!
cacasarq 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise ignoring the fact that your assertions about evolution are wrong,why does it automatically mean there is a god when we can't explain something?
Flash13Magic 5 months ago
@Flash13Magic I think we scared him off by unfairly using facts. How dare we!
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@tvsinesperanto maybe,or maybe he is lost in Narnia and we will get a coherent answer in oh i don't know a week?
Flash13Magic 5 months ago
@Flash13Magic Well, an answer maybe. Coherent? That may be asking a bit much.
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise "some proof of this 'Live evolution'"
I'm not going to do your homework for you but I will give you a couple of starting points...
William R. Rice, George W. Salt., "The Evolution of Reproductive Isolation as a Correlated Character Under Sympatric Conditions: Experimental Evidence" (published & peer reviewed)
As I said earlier, talkorigins has an excellent FAQ on speciation which would be a good primer. I suggest you read that first to familiarise yourself with the basics.
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise "If evolution was a real fact, it would be a law" & "biology classes,...theories cannot become laws, therefore they are not scientific facts."
I suggest you look up the term "Scientific Theory" because if you believe that load of crap you evidently have no idea what the scientific method is or how it works.
A theory is the highest attainable status an idea can obtain in science. There is no such thing as a scientific fact & a law is just a formal expression of a theory.
CONT
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@tvsinesperanto Gravitation is "just" a theory too but would you expect a rock to fly away into space if you drop it or for it to accelerate towards the centre of the earth at 9.8ms-2? We design spacecraft, aircraft, bridges, & a multitude of other things based on gravitational theory & billions of people entrust their lives to them daily. All this despite the fact that gravitation is "just" a theory.
Your knowledge in this area is insufficient to support your level of criticism.
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise "I refuse to believe"
And that's the core of the real issue, isn't it? You don't like the implications of evolution on your particular worldview so you utterly reject it. You don't look at the situation objectively & decide what to believe based on the facts, you accept or reject the facts according to your beliefs. That's called living in a fantasy world.
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise "I literally laughed my ass off"
Really? Literally huh?
"is like me saying the sky isn't blue. That's pathetic."
No, it isn't, it's entirely valid. Just like the undeniable observation the the sky is blue, evolution has also been OBSERVED. Not hypothesised, DIRECTLY OBSERVED in species with short enough life spans for us to see the changes on human time scales. Look it up. Talkorigins. org has an excellent FAQ on it.
THAT is why you're wrong.
CONT...
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise "no adequate explanation...life from dead chemicals."
True. Sort of. We have a pretty good idea but it's not yet a solid theory.
"The fossil record, our only documentation"
False. Nuclear & Mitochondrial DNA are also completely independent yet congruent records. Besides, evolution has been directly observed in many short lived species. It's been seen LIVE. It happens. it's a fact. If you are going to deny that you may as well deny that the sky is blue.
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@conordawl It happens. Just do three "Hail Satans" and sacrifice a puppy on a goat-skull altar and The Almighty Hitch will forgive you. Just make sure to drain all the blood into a golden chalice. Very important.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 5 months ago
9 again?
IoEstasCedonta 5 months ago
omg! im sorry! I really missed the like button!!! D=
conordawl 6 months ago
In school they taught me that that 1+1 =2. I only believe it because my teacher told me so. Oh my fucking God!"!!#¤#¤%¤&%(/%¤
Thank God for atheism :-)
KOSKentOlaf 6 months ago
@PlantOParadise If God were real, he would be weeping to see such an idiot making arguments for him
Nirah 6 months ago
@Nirah So because I offer a different perspective, in addition to an argument, that automatically makes me an idiot? Gee, you sure showed me! I won't ever disagree with you again, because if I do, that means i'm stupid!
Also, if you're so intolerant toward the opposing side, don't even bother commenting back, because that proves you're the real 'idiot', not to mention you can't seem to make replies without being a smtartass and calling people names like a little toddler.
PlantOParadise 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise No, what makes you an idiot is that you are arguing against evolution when you seem to know nothing about it. I'm perfectly tolerant to a REAL argument, but everything I read from you was completely invalid! Don't get your knickers in a twist because you make yourself look stupid and people call you out on it. And I'm not being a smartass, I just say it like it is--if you're an idiot, I call you an idiot. If you're going to argue against science, learn a little science first
Nirah 5 months ago
@PlantOParadise
As for transitional fossils, there are tons all over the place if you would bother to just use google instead of swallowing creationist nonsense and calling it a day. Here's one picture of a famous one:
scienceblogs.
com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/tiktaalik_phylo.
jpg
Talkorigins also has a lot of stuff on transitional fossils (and rebuttals for other creationist bogus claims, too):
talkorigins.
org/faqs/faq-transitional.
html
Just drag your mouse over them and copy.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@PlantOParadise
Your comment about Jello is so stupid I was debating not replying. It is not impossible to create life, but it is hard to prove in our lifetime because it takes time. Anyway, the *very* basic building blocks of life actually exist all around us: organic molecules. The ones I was talking about, however, are amino acids: the building blocks for proteins. Even in 1952 the Miller-Urey experiment managed to create amino acids from using hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@PlantOParadise
The basic building blocks of life have been recreated in a laboratory: the only thing missing is the long time-span required to recreate life.
Also, the fossil record is not the only evidence, and there are plenty of transitional forms; you're just ignoring them because you don't understand how it works. It is all fully-formed because it wouldn't bloody well be able to survive if not now would it?
Your ignorance is staggering; educate yourself, please.
PaonSol 6 months ago
adam and eve were the first existance on earth acording to the bible? why didnt we die when the dinosours did?
EpixBawokLoL 6 months ago
Self-causation is the ultimate status of every form of the theory of evolution, every concept of an infinite regress and naturalism. To believe in self-causation one must suspend reason believe in that Shakespearean dilemma "To Be or Not to Be". Nothing can be the cause of its own existence, otherwise it will have to exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@MultiShinar all domesticated dogs evolved from grey wolves, this is a fact that was observed, they didnt create themselves, evolution doesnt demand such a thing, god however, does
wearestarstuffsagan 5 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan macro or micro??
indefinable88 4 months ago
@indefinable88 micro (variation) and macro (speciation) have both been observed
wearestarstuffsagan 4 months ago
oh ok. ive been trying to find an example of mutation that has led to an increase of stable information, dna i mean, in a creature that has mutated and then had offspring with that same mutation.. and created a sub species. i would grateful if you could post some links or something?
i understand subtle changes over time, like big people with big people breed big people and so on. but thats existing information reinforced by natural selection. i hope u understand my question.
indefinable88 4 months ago
@indefinable88 Check out the fossil record on talk origins for species we know evolved (not to mention the complete lack of fossils of common creatures). As for things we've observed recently there where lizards introduced to the coast of croatia a few decades ago that have taken huge leaps in evolution which would normally take many many years. You're going to have to do some googling to find this but given the island name and the word lizards should be easy enough.
DarkBunnyLord 4 months ago
@indefinable88 An increase of information does not mean an increase of an organism's complexity. DNA duplications and copy number variants can increase an organism's 'information' without making it more refined or complex; e.g. a lungfish has 15 times the DNA of humans. Speciation has been observed in nature across multiple populations and taxonomic families; and scientists have recreated speciation in certain populations; e.g. botflies.
RebelWrestler45 3 months ago
@MultiShinar No, what you are talking about is abiogenesis; a first cause, which has nothing to do with evolution. Mutation is not a voluntary process; it cannot be 'self caused' because evolution does not occur in individuals, it occurs in populations. Your understanding of Evolution is hopelessly ignorant.
RebelWrestler45 3 months ago
The theory of evolution violates science. One of the main tenets of science is observation. But man was not there to observe his own origin, hence the seven assumptions are not rooted in facts but are mere assumptions grounded in psuedo-science. The theory of evolutions also violates the "fixation of species".
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@MultiShinar
Great, so you're in this thread as well spouting more nonsense. You are making the classic mistake of confusing evolution—the gradual change of living organisms—with abiogenesis, which is the origin of life.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be, it only tells us how life changes over time.
You're also misinformed about how abiogenesis works, too.
Life didn't just appear out of nowhere any more than a baby appears out of nowhere after a particularly drunk frat party.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@PaonSol "Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be, it only tells us how life changes over time." You are correct in your statement about evolution. I fully agree, and Im sure many theists would agree with you. However, evolution is not in question, it is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION that is in question. Im sure you are aware that evolution and the theory of evolution are not the same. Abiogenesis falls in the theory of evolution.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@MultiShinar
No, it does not. Abiogenesis is NOT part of the the theory of evolution, it is completely separate. The theory of evolution only requires life to exist, and it does not matter how life came to be.
Claiming that evolution requires explaining how life came to be is like saying you can't use an umbrella without being a meteorologist.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@PaonSol I challenge you to look at the theory of evolution again, in detail. The primordial soup predates the term abiogenesis. In the primordial soup supposed inorganic material gave rise to organic material, i.e. life. Abiogenesis makes the same claim. "Claiming that evolution requires explaining how life came to be is like saying you can't use an umbrella without being a meteorologist" you fail to see the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@MultiShinar
Evolution does not make that claim. You are the one that is confused, here. Check your sources and stop reading creationist sites. Heck, even Wikipedia will steer you in the right direction: try going to Wikipedia and searching for "Primordial soup" and see where it redirects you.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@PaonSol What is abiogenesis? What is the primordial soup? If you can give an honest answer to these two questions you will see that abiogenesis is nothing but the Darwinian concept of evolution that begins with a primordial soup. If you want to be dishonest then please continue in your dishonesty, but such dishonesty proves nothing concerning the theory of evolution.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@MultiShinar
You really need to look at more recent information, here. I am really not sure what kind of sources you are using. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis that they are still working on.
A scientific theory is the highest achievable status within science. Plate tectonics, evolution, gravity etc, are all backed by a humongous amount of facts and data and have survived many, many years of rigorous scrutiny by skeptics.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@PaonSol You still have not given me a definition of abiogenesis and primordial soup.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@MultiShinar
Abiogenesis is how life came to be from natural processes (as opposed to supernatural).
The origin of life doesn't have anything to do with evolution, however. As I have said several times, evolution only requires life to be there. It explains the processes of change that organisms go through over time.
Let's say God himself came down and gave rise to life. Evolution then tells the story of what happened after life came to be by God or Zeus or whatever.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@PaonSol "Abiogenesis is how life came to be from natural processes (as opposed to supernatural)." This is the same as the theory of evolution. "The origin of life doesn't have anything to do with evolution, however. As I have said several times, evolution only requires life to be there. It explains the processes of change that organisms go through over time." You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution, they are not the same.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@MultiShinar
There is no difference! Evolution IS the theory of evolution—full stop. There is a ton of science behind every facet of the theory of evolution like natural selection, genetic drift, speciation—but abiogenesis is not part of it. Stop reading shitty websites set up by creationists or ID proponents. Once again even Wikipedia will prove you wrong: search for "theory of evolution" and see where it redirects you.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@PaonSol "Let's say God himself came down and gave rise to life. Evolution then tells the story of what happened after life came to be by God or Zeus or whatever." This is true, you are correct. But this is EVOLUTION and evolution is not in question. It is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION that is in question. You keep confusing the two but they are not mutually compatible.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@PaonSol "You're also misinformed about how abiogenesis works, too." Abiogenesis attempts to explain the orgin of life by claiming that life came from inorganic matter. Does this sound familiar? Charles Darwin predates the newly epithet abiogenesis (a term used to refer to the original claims of Darwin). In abiogenesis there is the concept of natural selection (which is a contradiction in terms), but natural selection is built on the faulty concept of self-causation. Are you aware of this?
MultiShinar 6 months ago
@MultiShinar
Darwin is not relevant to abiogenesis for crying out loud, how far have we come since his predictions? Scientists today are not stuck hundreds of years in the past.
Also, natural selection is built on no such thing. Natural selection works by itself and also has nothing to do with 1 in a trillion chances or such nonsense, too. Claiming this shows a fundamental lack of understanding how evolution truly works. If you'd like I can explain to you how natural selection works.
PaonSol 6 months ago
@MultiShinar Yes; the observation is that "There are many different species", science does not require real time observation, just observation of natural phenomena. There is no "fixation of species". Please do more research; ignorance is not a virtue my friend.
RebelWrestler45 3 months ago
The first assumption of the theory of evolution is: non-living things gave rise to living things (spontaneous generation occurred). The second assumptions is: spontaneous generation occurred once. Spontaneous generation is self-causation. For something to cause its own existence is nonsense because it would have to exist before it ever existed.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
The theory of evolution is a grotesque form of nonsense. When discussing the theory of evolution the seven assumptions of the theory are never mentioned. Many people are not aware of the seven assumptions of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution cannot get started because of the first assumption.
MultiShinar 6 months ago
"What do you guys think after people die?"
Pause. Dead pan. "They're dead" #LOL
audience2 6 months ago
Despite this time this show was recorded, it is very much relevant now, perhaps more so than when it was recorded (RE: Gov. Perry's statement that evolution is "just a theory").
Bear5177 6 months ago
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Please read and pass on this Internet article. Just google the title.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 There's no way. The time table is way off.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
Once he brought up Pluto, I fucking lost it.
ONCE THERE WERE NINE PLANETS, NOW THERE ARE EIGHT.
CHECK-MATE ATHEISTS.
kissmygrittsyall 7 months ago
LOL. When people die they are dead. What an awesome answer.
Draginvry2 7 months ago
wtf, this guy says, "if you're not a scientist then you're just believing what other people are telling you," wtf is religion? you're just believing what other people and a book written almost 2000 years ago tell you
djww1989 7 months ago 3
@SNAKESOAP117 .. and the worst kind there could be, either between a son and a mother or between a son and his very young sister.
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
Creationists, if man is a descendant of Adam and Eve, with who did Cain (Adam and Eve's son) have sex? who was his wife if there was suppose to be no other humans on earth?
See now, most of you theist speak loudly about creation being the only possible way but you don't even know the fckn story. Theists read your bible/thora/q'ran and try to explain to yourselves who was Cain's wife. be creative.
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
One of his ribs?
James92453 7 months ago
@James92453 lol, thats a good one and i'm sure many religious freaks would believe that.
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat And Abel died too. So, basically there were only three people in the planet. Next thing we know, Cain is telling god that, "anyone who find me will kill me." who the hell was he talking about? And furthermore, he get married and building cities. I mean, WTF.
petion2010 7 months ago
@petion2010 true, one of the many absurdities of the bible. one they believe in a talking snake, everything else is possible. :)
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@avatar2011ism Glad to see that even you thought your comments were so laughable that they should be removed. Well done, perhaps there is hope for you yet.
tvsinesperanto 7 months ago
Corey: What do u guys think of when people die?
Matt: ........They're dead!
Me: LMFAO!!
Sciborg09 7 months ago
When the guy asked at 1:18 if they believed in religion and Matt answered a lazy "no" I could'd almost read his mind saying "Oh fuck here we go again!".
albertofilho79 7 months ago
@avatar2011ism You have proof of your delusion. Congrats. There are many like you, most though, are in a place called an Asylum. Go forth ye with thy proof of thine devil, may your "light" shine on science.
And if you cannot tolerate ridicule, I suggest you do not even attempt to step into an academic arena with scientists.
Judicial78 7 months ago
@avatar2011ism You do care otherwise you would not have responded. And your explosive temper mixed with your insanity is even more proof you are going to hurt someone one day. You want to post in a public forum like youtube then don't tell someone to mind their own business.
Judicial78 7 months ago
@avatar2011ism No, @Judicial78 is right. You sound like a wack job. Get help.
Regardless of what you would like to believe, all the evidence says that evolution has, is, & in all likelihood will continue to occur. Not only is there an enormous fossil record & DNA evidence to demonstrate this but speciation has been DIRECTLY observed in LIVING populations of short-lived species like Drosophila melanogaster & Escherichia coli.
News Flash: The argument is over, you lost. Suck it up & get over it.
tvsinesperanto 7 months ago
@avatar2011ism You sound like a fucking nut job. Go seek professional help before you hurt someone.
Judicial78 7 months ago
atheists are the christians of science. and science is our bible
whyyySOOOssstupid 8 months ago
He just keeps asking new questions after Jeff and Matt shoot him down. What a douche
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@AshleyHunt60 Hahahaha
BlckSbthMan 8 months ago
Hey Corey, since you seem to need the word of some authority, I'm a Scientist. Guess what? Evolution is a done deal. There you go.
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago 42
@tvsinesperanto u funny :)
880330145789 5 months ago
@880330145789 I aim to please ;-)
tvsinesperanto 5 months ago
@pynic29 he's prolly high
M3t4lManiac 9 months ago
Like I said, I'm not a scientist myself. No...really??? You had me fooled :)
gigisdad 9 months ago
man this is just tooo funny!
arjunmax7 9 months ago
"What do you guys think after people die?"
"They're dead."
LOL! hahaha
pepsnpeps 9 months ago
The only reason gravity works is because I was brought up to believe that it does. Every good Christian knows this.
greyeyed123 9 months ago 19
"thank you for calling Corey, that was actually kind of fun." ROFL... To all the morons out there: Science is not a religion. The difference? Science is based on evidence and experience and takes little to know faith whatsoever. Religion tends to be based on a single book, or grouping of scrolls written BEFORE MOST OF HUMANITY COULD READ THEM!!!!"
skywize 9 months ago 5
The power of the church is ridiculous. That adult men have to ask tv hosts how we got here and what happens when we die is testament to how the church has thwarted our education about ourselves and our world. It's like these people have been drugged up to this point and are clueless about basic knowledge which they should have acquired in kindergarten.
Brenda2OOO 9 months ago 5
This guy is a troll just like all religious subhumans. Even the religious dont believe because its ridiculous. They just want to be in a club so they say the think there is a god concept. Its pretty funny
699backstab 9 months ago 2
those technobeats in the middle, coming out of nowhere, made me laugh out in a volume that is above average
JustusFriedolin 9 months ago
"what you people believe when people dies? - they are dead" made me lol
ddk992 9 months ago
@trightwingconspiracy
- "'apes our closest ancestors' ha, ha, ha!..."
Yes, that was a silly remark. Apes are not our ancestors, because people are apes.
TheAtheistExperience 9 months ago
@trightwingconspiracy
- "The Bible: 66 books, 40 authors, written over 1,500 years span, no contradictions."
You: several comments, 1 author, now blocked.
TheAtheistExperience 9 months ago 4
@TheAtheistExperience Hallelujah! You have done mankind a service this day. "No contradictions"... Well, if we're just going to start making things up now...
DSB33 9 months ago
Science! IT WORKS BITCH!!!
*bomchikabompchikabomp!*
But, my belief is very sincere!
*bomchikabompchikabomp!*
That's irrelevant to what is true.
*bomchikabompchikabomp!*
LULZ
LordSlag 9 months ago
so if your not a scientist your just believing what someone else is saying kind of like with the bible? jsut believing what the other people are telling you about god and jesus. so even if that arguement made any sense it applies to religion just as much.
maccaaccam99 9 months ago 2
random disco/techno music within the atheist experience..... Winning
izzet2006 9 months ago
Sorry i don't want to be mean but i can't hold back. I can't believe that there is such a stupid caller like this guy. Leave the evolution and other scientific evidence out of the picture, this guy is one of the less educated individuals who know nothing beside what he believes in and is relevant to him. I mean he doesn't even know what SCIENCE IS.
bleachnlot 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Death isnt the end and God knows that... Death is no big deal,
just like closing one book, your going to open another sooner or later....
My Life is a book and my Soul is a bookcase..... Someone asked me a question ...
"what would a God less world look like?"... A world without God would be a
world without Life.. because God is Life, the intelligent inter-connection of ALL LIFE...
He isnt a old man with a bread on a cloud.
OooHesGood 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is the energy within and without all life. Its a very intelligent energy... My Life is like a book and my Soul is a bookcase. When your skin cells die new ones replace them everyday, without the death of those cells we wouldnt age, there would be no time. Without death there is no time. Everything has to die so it can be re-born, so we can continue to move thru time... God is life and death. Its the circle energy of life that flows thru time. God didnt just create the Universe, he became it
OooHesGood 10 months ago
The day paleonthologists find the last human-chimpanzee common ancestor, that's the day religion ends forever hands down. That day might never come, but I hope it does.
LesPaul2006 10 months ago
Did Dillahunty go to the creation museum disguised as a creationist .Watch this video you decide-"Creationism Museum Documentary" 3:20 is it him ????
flyingscience 10 months ago
@flyingscience
I don't think so. Doesn't look like him. The guy in the other video looks goofier
HerrKnitler 10 months ago
@Melexonitrate Oh boo hoo, someone insulted you. Here's a quote for you, since you so eloquently pointed out how quotes should work for me. "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson
Nucl3arTeacup 10 months ago
@Nucl3arTeacup People who use insults to make a point are pathetic. People who use insults on the internet who would not other wise do so in person are cowards and equally pathetic. Just because there's no punishment on the internet doesnt mean code of conduct should change to people. There's a difference between using criticism and insulting some one. Just because a famous person used the word "Ridicule" doesnt mean that view is correct... There is no trinity, he's correct in that respect.
Melexonitrate 10 months ago
@ExpertMusik What a load of bullshit. You could have said that decades ago during the cold war, and Vietnam. The middle east? There has been unrest in the middle east for centuries. There have been famines and earthquakes for hundreds of years too, what the hell is your point? Various christian sects have been saying Jesus is coming back for decades too. So I hate to break it to ya "expertMusik", but your bible predicts precisely squat.
Nucl3arTeacup 10 months ago
@Nucl3arTeacup Ask anyone who has lived long enough they will tell you it's never been as bad as this
ExpertMusik 10 months ago
@trightwingconspiracy Evolution doesn't occur on the individual level.
kubush 10 months ago
@kubush It does. Is called microevolution, even you creationists admit it.
LesPaul2006 10 months ago
@LesPaul2006 I'm not a Creationist.
kubush 10 months ago
@LesPaul2006 microevolution doesn't prove man evolved from ape ancestor.
trightwingconspiracy 10 months ago
@trightwingconspiracy Men evolving from ape ancestor is fact.
kubush 10 months ago
@kubush no, is not a fact<