"Intelligent design" aka creationism is not science and is not based on scientific principles and the scientific method. So why give it any credence in the science classroom?
Regardless of your own personal opinion on the subject, common ancestry has shown itself to be true; we have multiple independant lines of evidence which all confirm common ancestry.
@quinnmcguee, I suppose it depends on your definition of science and of evolution but if you're speaking about evolution from single celled organisms to humans that is not science by my definition. It's simply a fairy tale like the tooth fairy.
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
@thewaterfalloflove actually said " if you're speaking about evolution from single celled organisms to humans that is not science by my definition. It's simply a fairy tale like the tooth fairy."
Either your grandchildren will laugh at your superstition, or most people will laugh at your grandchildren and their shrinking cult.
Are you just trolling, or are you really stating that the explanation that we now have of the diversity of life (evolution) is not based on the scientific method?
The key point about this bill is that it doesn't specify where teachers and students will have pursued research on Intelligent Design. It could easily be in the classroom by the wording of the bill, which is a real problem.
In Belgium it has also recently been aired that Jewish schools in Antwerp censure the text books in favor of a Biblical creation story. No real steps have been taken to stop this or sanction these state supported institutes of crazy religious indoctrination.
I'm atheist, I'm a texan, born in Texas, I love Texas. But I do agree that this bill they are trying to pass is fucking ridicules. We have very nice people, and our few smart people are usually exceptionally smart as a compliment. sadly, theres not a ton of intellectuals here:(
ID has nothing to do with religion. It simply says an intelligence was required. It doesn't say the Christian God created us or any other religion's God for that matter.
@54tumelo56 "ID has nothing to do with religion." You obviously haven't read the Wedge Strategy Document, and don't have any idea what the Discovery Institute does, who funds it, supports the unsubstantiated non-theory nonsense of ID Creationism. I bet you haven't even taken the time to look at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial documents where ID was soundly refuted as "not science" and supported by "liars" in court by a judge.
I would suggest you do a little more research before you comment.
@infinity730 In that entire post you said nothing about the theory of Intelligent Design itself. I could argue the involvement of atheism in the theory of evolution if I wanted, just like what Henry Morris said: "Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism." And you can obviously argue the involvement of religion in ID, but we both know the actual theories themselves have nothing to do with either.
@54tumelo56 "theory of Intelligent Design" ID IS NOT a theory, in fact it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
Evolution is a scientific theory with mountains of evidence in support, ID is not. End of.
Also, atheism has nothing to do with evolution, in fact most of the people who support evolution worldwide are in fact Christians, so trying to equate atheism with the acceptance of science is presenting a false dichotomy.
@infinity730 "Evolution is a scientific theory with mountains of evidence in support"
You do realize that vertical evolution cannot pass the scientific method right? It's not testable, it's not repeatable, it's not observable. You can hardly call that science.
@54tumelo56 I suggest you go to the National Center for Science Education website and attempt to educate yourself in the sciences.
Someone who so ignorant as to say that Biological Evolution is not a well established and well supported Scientific Theory is really not worth my time.
I'm not going to argue with someone who blatantly lies to support their assertions. Your further comments will go ignored.
@infinity730 "Someone who so ignorant as to say that Biological Evolution is not a well established and well supported Scientific Theory is really not worth my time"
Good thing I didn't say that. I'd love to "educate" myself on all the experiments that support vertical evolution, but there are none.
Biological evolution is biological evolution. Life mutates, fact. Natural selection happens, fact. DNA accumulates changes, fact. These things combined result in speciation events, fact.
All of these things are testable, observable, demonstrable.
@ScientificBob Yes, but what's not testable, observable, or demonstrable is organisms gaining NEW body parts, getting larger and more complex, which is required for the frog-into-man theory to be true. If I'm wrong then point me to a link that proves otherwise.
@ScientificBob "Demanding observational evidence of things that require millions of years to accomplish is incredibly dishonest."
I'm not demanding observational evidence. I'm just pointing out how unscientific it is, since people like you love to say that ID isn't science.
But what's dishonest is you acting like it requires millions of years when we both know that it's not about the number of years, it's about the number of generations.
@54tumelo56 "I'm not demanding observational evidence. I'm just pointing out how unscientific it is" You're not pointing out anything. You're just (baselessly) claiming that it is unscientific.
"since people like you love to say that ID isn't science" That's because it isn't science. Show me one scientific paper on ID... Just one will do. I can show you over 200.000 about evolution and many more relating to evolution. I even use it every day as a software engineer. Genetic algoritms...
@54tumelo56 "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
@54tumelo56 " Frankly I don't care what's science and what's not science" There you go. You don't care. You just want to believe your fairy tale.
" I care about what's true and what's not true" Clearly, you don't. Science is a methodology to differentiate truth from fiction. You say you don't care about science. Hence.
@ScientificBob We can then take that tree and make predictions about what kind of stuff we should/could find in the world (and what kind of stuff we shouldn't find). And all of the stuff that we discover, corresponds perfectly with that hierarchical structure. We don't find mammals in pre-cambrian strata. We don't find lions with whom we share more ERV's then we do with chimps. Chickens have inactive genes to build teeth. The eyes of moles are mutating away. Ou jaw is to big. It's all there
@ScientificBob "You just want to believe your fairy tale." I don't think you know what I believe, but I'm pretty sure your beliefs are closer to a fairy tale then mine. I'm sure you've heard of the toad turning into a prince haven't you. Even that is more plausible because magic would be a sufficient cause.
"Science is a methodology to differentiate truth from fiction."
Yes and science has clear limitations and obviously cannot explain all truth.
@54tumelo56 " I don't think you know what I believe" I have yet to meet a person who rejects basic biology who is NOT a follower of one of the 3 abrahamic religions from the bronze age. Are you saying that you are NOT a jew, christian or muslim?
"Yes and science has clear limitations and obviously cannot explain all truth"
That would depend on the subject. In case of biology - not at all. Science is perfectly fine.
@ScientificBob "That would depend on the subject. In case of biology - not at all. Science is perfectly fine."
if that's the case then imagine that an all-powerful being did in fact create all life on earth through super-natural means. How could science prove that fact?
As far as organisms that reproduce very quickly, you already admitted that species gaining NEW body parts, getting larger and more complex cannot/has not been observed in our lifetime so don't go back to your "speciation" bs.
@54tumelo56 "if that's the case then imagine that an all-powerful being did in fact create all life on earth through super-natural means. How could science prove that fact?" A better question would be: why would I imagine such a thing? I fail to see the point? ps: "imagination" is not a pathway to correct information.
And I can't help it if you don't know what speciation is. Speciation doesn't require "new body parts". Learn about biology before arguing against it.
@ScientificBob "A better question would be: why would I imagine such a thing?"
Good job dodging the question. The correct answer is science can't prove it. Science is limited even in biology, at least regarding the origin of life anyways.
"Speciation doesn't require 'new body parts'"
Nobody's talking bout speciation except you so if you wanna argue with yourself then reply to your own messages. The assumptions put forth by the theory of evolution do require this.
@54tumelo56 "Good job dodging the question." I don't see it that way. I was making a point that clearly didn't reach the inner workings of your brain. On what basis would one "imagine" such a thing? Explanation follows observation. What observation was made to propose this god of yours? If there aren't any, then why propose it? How is it different from proposing Thor's hammer to explain lightning?
@ScientificBob "I was making a point that clearly didn't reach the inner workings of your brain"
No, I was the one making the point that went right over your head. My point being that Science IS in fact limited. Which is why I care more about what's true then what's science. And for you to insinuate that science trumps truth is absolutely ridiculous.
As for all your questions in your last comment: I don't, people like you are far too closed off for such things. No. No. No. No. And yes.
Please stop having this debate; it is going nowhere. I am all for criticism and debate, but this debate is circular. Please take it somewhere else. Thanks.
@bubbamickmac "Please stop having this debate; it is going nowhere. I am all for criticism and debate, but this debate is circular. Please take it somewhere else. Thanks."
As you wish. This is your video so I will not reply to him here anymore. Doesn't look like he understands my points anyways.
@54tumelo56 "Which is why I care more about what's true then what's science" Please provide me with an alternative to science, with at least equal success rate, to differentiate truth from fiction.
"And for you to insinuate that science trumps truth is absolutely ridiculous." Strawmen will not help you. I never said such a thing. Rather, i'ld say that science is the best methodology we have to find out what is actually true and what isn't. Something is not true because you say it.
@54tumelo56 "The correct answer is science can't prove it" Off course it can't, because it only exists in your imagination. Science can't prove Thor's hammer either. Because it only exists in Viking imagination. Science also can't prove the invisible dragon in my backyard, because it also only exists in my imagination.
"Nobody's talking bout speciation " Everybody who understands the basics of the theory do. Dishonest cdesign proponentists who don't know the first thing about it, don't.
@ScientificBob "Off course it can't, because it only exists in your imagination"
No sir. Not correct. Not even close. For an "all-powerful being" to create all life on earth it must exist in reality. Science wouldn't be able to prove it because it is OUTSIDE the realm of science.
If you wanna get into a religious discussion, I gladly will, but for the current subject, just know that rejecting a theory solely based on the fact that it is "not science" is no intelligent reason at all.
@54tumelo56 "For an "all-powerful being" to create all life on earth it must exist in reality" Then prove it. Ow you can't? So you don't have empirical observations about supernatural things to propose such things exist? In that case, these god claims can ONLY come from people's imagination.
ps: explaining reality through theories is science's domain.
@54tumelo56 "The correct answer is science can't prove it" Here's an important question...
Since science can't, how do you plan on proving it?
Are you exempt from proving your claims? Are you immune to criticism?
Are we required to take your claims on face-value? If so, should we thendo the same with the claims of muslims, hindu's, mayans, vikings, etc? Are we beginning to see a pattern here?
@54tumelo56 Fact of the matter is that you cdesign proponentists dishonesty request for "observations" of which you KNOW that biology doesn't even say that we should see such things. Evolution is a slow and gradual process. NO biologist claims that things like a stomach, lungs, kidney's or whatever can form within a human's lifetime - no matter what species you are dealing with.
Comment on what the theory ACTUALLY says, not on what cdesign proponentists claim it says.
@ScientificBob "...cdesign proponentists dishonesty request for 'observations...'"
I think your getting "cdesign proponentists" and the scientific method mixed up...
"..NO biologist claims that things like a stomIach, lungs, kidney's or whatever can form within a human's lifetime..."
How about anything forming within a human lifespan? Oh wait, 2 million generations isn't long enough is it? Anything new about an organism is a variation of something it already possessed.
@54tumelo56 "I think your getting "cdesign proponentists" and the scientific method mixed up" Explain. Amuse me.
"How about anything forming within a human lifespan? " Google "observed speciation".
"Anything new about an organism is a variation of something it already possessed. " Ok. Find me an African that has the (unique) gene sequence that Tibetans possess which increases red blood cell production, allowing them to live at high altitudes without getting sick. Or retract that statment
@54tumelo56 "You already admitted that It can't be observed" No I did not. I said that you can't observe that which take longer then your lifetime. You however, choose to understand that as saying "it's impossible to prove". It is not. Observational evidence is not the only kind of valid evidence. We can't observe a full orbit of Pluto since it takes 249 years. Yet, we know it takes 249 years.
We can look at DNA and find the hierarchical structure of common ancestry in all of life.
@ScientificBob "I said that you can't observe that which takes longer then your lifetime."
Yes you did say that, and with that statement you were being "incredibly dishonest" since some organisms can go though well over 2 million generations in a single human life-span, more than enough time to show the major changes that are assumed in the theory of evolution. And you never answered my question. How can you call something that isn't observable, testable, or repeatable scientific?
@54tumelo56 "some organisms can go though well over 2 million generations in a single human life-span" Yes indeed. And if you would actually do your research, you'ld know that speciation events in those categories of life have been observed in nature as well as the lab in multiple occasions. But it is clear that you don't understand how complexity can arise, and how complexity arises exponentially.
@54tumelo56 "How can you call something that isn't observable, testable, or repeatable scientific"
Evolution IS observable, testable and repeatable.
Speciation has been observed and repeated. Multiple times in nature as well as in the lab.
Evolution is also very testable since it makes LOADS of predictions, not only about biology but also about archeology etc. Not one fact can be found that doesn't fit in the theory. That makes it strong.
@ScientificBob "Evolution IS observable, testable and repeatable."
Okay then, I suggest you guys stick with the testable and repeatable part of evolution and quit teaching the untestable and unrepeatable part of it as science.
@54tumelo56 "Repeatable" does not necessarily mean that we have to repeat things like "evolve a single-celled organism into a cat" in the lab.
In areas such as astrophysics, geology, and biology (e.g. evolution), it more often means that the kinds of _predictions_ you can make based on a theory can be repeated (or applied) over and over again. Predictions about observations. And evolution for a long time now has been very well tested/repeated beyond reasonable doubt, in that sense.
@54tumelo56 "you said nothing about the theory of Intelligent Design itself" It's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's just as baseless and unsubstantiated as creationism. It IS creationism in disguise - as was exposed in the Dover trial.
Evolution is a theory supported by and explaining all the relevant facts, it makes testable predictions, it's falsifiable, independently verifiable and it has practical applications. It's solid science. ID is not. That's just solid bullshit.
Thing is, it's only saying you can't discriminate against people for holding to or working in relation to ID, which is basically like saying (in effect and in the principle of what ID is) that you can't discriminate against people for RELIGIOUS reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.
I don't understand how these "academics" have stopped teaching students about the amazing and purely scientific theory of fairies. Don't these 'science' teachers know about how they make the plants grow? Unbelievable. .....People of Texas, people have thought of Texans to be dimwitted for a long time now. Prove them wrong. Get fairy magic out of your damn schools, don't delete parts of known history, and don't get rid of your teachers. It's fucking obvious that you are in dire need of them.
@FunLovingCriminals77 No, it's not the same. All places have idiots, but it becomes entirely different when those same idiots can actually have influence over people, and it's even worse when those idiots can get elected. And only in a backwards redneck dystopia can idiots like that get elected.
Most of the Texan law makers would be too crazy to get elected in another US state, and most Republicans and some Democrats in the US congress would be too crazy to get elected in Canada or the UK.
@FunLovingCriminals77 But unless the state is made up of idiots, how else can idiots get consistently and repeatedly elected? That's the point I'm trying to make. If the representatives remotely "represent" their constituents, then that means that the constituents in Texas are total dumbasses.
In fairness, the way you explained it, it sounds like if a prof wants to do research in ID, you can't stop it. It does not say you must allow them it to teach their students. Of course, in any other field, if that prof wastes time doing research in something that does not bring in grant money, that would be a firing offense in another field. You and I both know what they are trying to do but this is a very strange way to do it. It would be hard to get grant money from this so why allow it?
I've been stuck in this shithole of a state for almost 4 years now. Fortunately, I escape in July. Everything you've heard is basically true: Clumps of morons with oasis spots of intelligence here and there. Unfortunately Texas prints upwards of 85% of the NATION'S schoolbooks. So, what they decide 'here' can easily come out in NY, California, etc, etc.
@reuben Obviously BMM is making a sweeping statement -- but one that is 'true' if you look at the fucking retards on the Texas Board of Education, Rick Perry, etc. From a high-level view, Texas most certainly hates evolutionary theory being taught, at least without it's fantasy feel-good counterpoint being tossed into the mix.
I know several Texans (AronRa for one) who are rationalists. It's the governing bodies that are the "clumps of morons" I refer to in my comment below. ; )
*Prohibition of discrimination based on research related to intelligent design....*
You cannot prohibit *discrimination* in science. Science has not special treatment or respect for ANY ideas, institutions, ideologies, inclinations, or anything.
Everything is assessed, and often disregarded,on its OWN merit,not the special protection of any silly, silly...fucking silly manmade law. I will discriminate against the Moon-Cheese theory, the Flat Earth hypothesis...and I will direct funds elsewhere
Should I.T. be taught or given a chance in science classes? NO! It is a purely theistic point of view without a shred of evidence of its truth. Philosophy doesn't belong in a science class, it belongs in a religious studies or Philosophy class. I think this wave of desperation to legitimize religion is showing just how irrelevant it has become in modern times.
I feel discriminated against when I tell people that 2 + 2 = 5
Why is everyone discriminating against me DERP!
Clearly we need a law passed to push stupidity in school. (sarcasm over)
Man.. It's like a never ending battle between smart people( who think that only testable, provable Theories with a ton of evidence to back them up should be taught ) and dumb people( Who think Ideas are all one needs to teach anything, Fuck evidence, Fuck testing, fuck reality. Such is the way of the moron ).
@Seargent363 Please get involved in your states local councils and whatever else, grassroots up will probably make all the difference. If it was this bad where I lived I would start doing something... I would probably write to local representatives, see what ways I can support non-idiots in local politics, and I guess one thing I would try to do is go to a couple of big Universities in Texas and have a one-on-one meeting with professors of biology/evolution, to tell them and see what they think.
"Intelligent design" aka creationism is not science and is not based on scientific principles and the scientific method. So why give it any credence in the science classroom?
carlsm95 3 months ago 2
dude your map is fucked up new mexico should NOT be in jesusland in fact california would fit better then new mexico
downwiththemaster 7 months ago
Regardless of your own personal opinion on the subject, common ancestry has shown itself to be true; we have multiple independant lines of evidence which all confirm common ancestry.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@quinnmcguee, I suppose it depends on your definition of science and of evolution but if you're speaking about evolution from single celled organisms to humans that is not science by my definition. It's simply a fairy tale like the tooth fairy.
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
thewaterfalloflove 7 months ago
@thewaterfalloflove kill yourself dumbfuck
downwiththemaster 7 months ago
@thewaterfalloflove actually said " if you're speaking about evolution from single celled organisms to humans that is not science by my definition. It's simply a fairy tale like the tooth fairy."
Either your grandchildren will laugh at your superstition, or most people will laugh at your grandchildren and their shrinking cult.
ndrthrdr1 5 months ago
@quinnmcguee, space travel has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is not science and nobody said Texas hates science. Ignorance abounds.
thewaterfalloflove 7 months ago
@thewaterfalloflove "Evolution is not science"
Are you just trolling, or are you really stating that the explanation that we now have of the diversity of life (evolution) is not based on the scientific method?
0debug 1 month ago
The key point about this bill is that it doesn't specify where teachers and students will have pursued research on Intelligent Design. It could easily be in the classroom by the wording of the bill, which is a real problem.
Venaloid 8 months ago
In Belgium it has also recently been aired that Jewish schools in Antwerp censure the text books in favor of a Biblical creation story. No real steps have been taken to stop this or sanction these state supported institutes of crazy religious indoctrination.
isleofyew1 10 months ago
Darn it those votebots are efficient!
TherionNLD 11 months ago
How is it possible that such backwardness is possible in a country like the US?
Do they realise that they are breeding a generation of idiots?
Things like this make me believe that I will see the fall of the US as a superpower within my lifetime.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
How is it possible that such backwardness is possible in a country like the US?
Do they realise that they are breeding a generation of idiots?
Things like this make me believe that I will see the fall of the US as a superpower within my lifetime.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
I'm atheist, I'm a texan, born in Texas, I love Texas. But I do agree that this bill they are trying to pass is fucking ridicules. We have very nice people, and our few smart people are usually exceptionally smart as a compliment. sadly, theres not a ton of intellectuals here:(
jedikillers1 11 months ago
Florida is jewland
FunLovingCriminals77 11 months ago
like fighting for the right to be willfully stupid. fucked up society.
pilgrimomega 11 months ago
ID has nothing to do with religion. It simply says an intelligence was required. It doesn't say the Christian God created us or any other religion's God for that matter.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "ID has nothing to do with religion." You obviously haven't read the Wedge Strategy Document, and don't have any idea what the Discovery Institute does, who funds it, supports the unsubstantiated non-theory nonsense of ID Creationism. I bet you haven't even taken the time to look at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial documents where ID was soundly refuted as "not science" and supported by "liars" in court by a judge.
I would suggest you do a little more research before you comment.
infinity730 11 months ago
@infinity730 In that entire post you said nothing about the theory of Intelligent Design itself. I could argue the involvement of atheism in the theory of evolution if I wanted, just like what Henry Morris said: "Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism." And you can obviously argue the involvement of religion in ID, but we both know the actual theories themselves have nothing to do with either.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "theory of Intelligent Design" ID IS NOT a theory, in fact it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
Evolution is a scientific theory with mountains of evidence in support, ID is not. End of.
Also, atheism has nothing to do with evolution, in fact most of the people who support evolution worldwide are in fact Christians, so trying to equate atheism with the acceptance of science is presenting a false dichotomy.
Why are creationists so dishonest?
infinity730 11 months ago 4
@infinity730 "Evolution is a scientific theory with mountains of evidence in support"
You do realize that vertical evolution cannot pass the scientific method right? It's not testable, it's not repeatable, it's not observable. You can hardly call that science.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 I suggest you go to the National Center for Science Education website and attempt to educate yourself in the sciences.
Someone who so ignorant as to say that Biological Evolution is not a well established and well supported Scientific Theory is really not worth my time.
I'm not going to argue with someone who blatantly lies to support their assertions. Your further comments will go ignored.
infinity730 11 months ago 2
@infinity730 "Someone who so ignorant as to say that Biological Evolution is not a well established and well supported Scientific Theory is really not worth my time"
Good thing I didn't say that. I'd love to "educate" myself on all the experiments that support vertical evolution, but there are none.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 open google, type "observed instances of speciation", click search, read, come back and appologise for your ignorance.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 Wtf is "vertical evolution"??
Biological evolution is biological evolution. Life mutates, fact. Natural selection happens, fact. DNA accumulates changes, fact. These things combined result in speciation events, fact.
All of these things are testable, observable, demonstrable.
Therefor, evolution is a fact.
ScientificBob 11 months ago 2
@ScientificBob Yes, but what's not testable, observable, or demonstrable is organisms gaining NEW body parts, getting larger and more complex, which is required for the frog-into-man theory to be true. If I'm wrong then point me to a link that proves otherwise.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 1. there's no such thing as a "frog-into-man theory". Strawman fallacies don't help you credibility or your argument.
2. here's your link: biology.
Demanding observational evidence of things that require millions of years to accomplish is incredibly dishonest.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "Demanding observational evidence of things that require millions of years to accomplish is incredibly dishonest."
I'm not demanding observational evidence. I'm just pointing out how unscientific it is, since people like you love to say that ID isn't science.
But what's dishonest is you acting like it requires millions of years when we both know that it's not about the number of years, it's about the number of generations.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "I'm not demanding observational evidence. I'm just pointing out how unscientific it is" You're not pointing out anything. You're just (baselessly) claiming that it is unscientific.
"since people like you love to say that ID isn't science" That's because it isn't science. Show me one scientific paper on ID... Just one will do. I can show you over 200.000 about evolution and many more relating to evolution. I even use it every day as a software engineer. Genetic algoritms...
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "That's because it isn't science. Show me one scientific paper on ID"
I'm not trying to argue that ID is science. Frankly I don't care what's science and what's not science. I care about what's true and what's not true.
"You're just (baselessly) claiming that it is unscientific."
You already admitted that It can't be observed. If it's not observable, testable, or repeatable then how can you call it scientific?
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
infinity730 11 months ago 3
@54tumelo56 " Frankly I don't care what's science and what's not science" There you go. You don't care. You just want to believe your fairy tale.
" I care about what's true and what's not true" Clearly, you don't. Science is a methodology to differentiate truth from fiction. You say you don't care about science. Hence.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob We can then take that tree and make predictions about what kind of stuff we should/could find in the world (and what kind of stuff we shouldn't find). And all of the stuff that we discover, corresponds perfectly with that hierarchical structure. We don't find mammals in pre-cambrian strata. We don't find lions with whom we share more ERV's then we do with chimps. Chickens have inactive genes to build teeth. The eyes of moles are mutating away. Ou jaw is to big. It's all there
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "You just want to believe your fairy tale." I don't think you know what I believe, but I'm pretty sure your beliefs are closer to a fairy tale then mine. I'm sure you've heard of the toad turning into a prince haven't you. Even that is more plausible because magic would be a sufficient cause.
"Science is a methodology to differentiate truth from fiction."
Yes and science has clear limitations and obviously cannot explain all truth.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 " I don't think you know what I believe" I have yet to meet a person who rejects basic biology who is NOT a follower of one of the 3 abrahamic religions from the bronze age. Are you saying that you are NOT a jew, christian or muslim?
"Yes and science has clear limitations and obviously cannot explain all truth"
That would depend on the subject. In case of biology - not at all. Science is perfectly fine.
ps: what's your alternative to science?
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "That would depend on the subject. In case of biology - not at all. Science is perfectly fine."
if that's the case then imagine that an all-powerful being did in fact create all life on earth through super-natural means. How could science prove that fact?
As far as organisms that reproduce very quickly, you already admitted that species gaining NEW body parts, getting larger and more complex cannot/has not been observed in our lifetime so don't go back to your "speciation" bs.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "if that's the case then imagine that an all-powerful being did in fact create all life on earth through super-natural means. How could science prove that fact?" A better question would be: why would I imagine such a thing? I fail to see the point? ps: "imagination" is not a pathway to correct information.
And I can't help it if you don't know what speciation is. Speciation doesn't require "new body parts". Learn about biology before arguing against it.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "A better question would be: why would I imagine such a thing?"
Good job dodging the question. The correct answer is science can't prove it. Science is limited even in biology, at least regarding the origin of life anyways.
"Speciation doesn't require 'new body parts'"
Nobody's talking bout speciation except you so if you wanna argue with yourself then reply to your own messages. The assumptions put forth by the theory of evolution do require this.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "Good job dodging the question." I don't see it that way. I was making a point that clearly didn't reach the inner workings of your brain. On what basis would one "imagine" such a thing? Explanation follows observation. What observation was made to propose this god of yours? If there aren't any, then why propose it? How is it different from proposing Thor's hammer to explain lightning?
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "I was making a point that clearly didn't reach the inner workings of your brain"
No, I was the one making the point that went right over your head. My point being that Science IS in fact limited. Which is why I care more about what's true then what's science. And for you to insinuate that science trumps truth is absolutely ridiculous.
As for all your questions in your last comment: I don't, people like you are far too closed off for such things. No. No. No. No. And yes.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 @ScientificBob,
Please stop having this debate; it is going nowhere. I am all for criticism and debate, but this debate is circular. Please take it somewhere else. Thanks.
bubbamickmac 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbamickmac "Please stop having this debate; it is going nowhere. I am all for criticism and debate, but this debate is circular. Please take it somewhere else. Thanks."
As you wish. This is your video so I will not reply to him here anymore. Doesn't look like he understands my points anyways.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "Which is why I care more about what's true then what's science" Please provide me with an alternative to science, with at least equal success rate, to differentiate truth from fiction.
"And for you to insinuate that science trumps truth is absolutely ridiculous." Strawmen will not help you. I never said such a thing. Rather, i'ld say that science is the best methodology we have to find out what is actually true and what isn't. Something is not true because you say it.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "I don't, people like you are far too closed off for such things. No. No. No. No. And yes"
I have no idea what questions you are answering here. None of the questions in the post you replied to are yes/no questions.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "The correct answer is science can't prove it" Off course it can't, because it only exists in your imagination. Science can't prove Thor's hammer either. Because it only exists in Viking imagination. Science also can't prove the invisible dragon in my backyard, because it also only exists in my imagination.
"Nobody's talking bout speciation " Everybody who understands the basics of the theory do. Dishonest cdesign proponentists who don't know the first thing about it, don't.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "Off course it can't, because it only exists in your imagination"
No sir. Not correct. Not even close. For an "all-powerful being" to create all life on earth it must exist in reality. Science wouldn't be able to prove it because it is OUTSIDE the realm of science.
If you wanna get into a religious discussion, I gladly will, but for the current subject, just know that rejecting a theory solely based on the fact that it is "not science" is no intelligent reason at all.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "For an "all-powerful being" to create all life on earth it must exist in reality" Then prove it. Ow you can't? So you don't have empirical observations about supernatural things to propose such things exist? In that case, these god claims can ONLY come from people's imagination.
ps: explaining reality through theories is science's domain.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "The correct answer is science can't prove it" Here's an important question...
Since science can't, how do you plan on proving it?
Are you exempt from proving your claims? Are you immune to criticism?
Are we required to take your claims on face-value? If so, should we thendo the same with the claims of muslims, hindu's, mayans, vikings, etc? Are we beginning to see a pattern here?
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 Fact of the matter is that you cdesign proponentists dishonesty request for "observations" of which you KNOW that biology doesn't even say that we should see such things. Evolution is a slow and gradual process. NO biologist claims that things like a stomach, lungs, kidney's or whatever can form within a human's lifetime - no matter what species you are dealing with.
Comment on what the theory ACTUALLY says, not on what cdesign proponentists claim it says.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "...cdesign proponentists dishonesty request for 'observations...'"
I think your getting "cdesign proponentists" and the scientific method mixed up...
"..NO biologist claims that things like a stomIach, lungs, kidney's or whatever can form within a human's lifetime..."
How about anything forming within a human lifespan? Oh wait, 2 million generations isn't long enough is it? Anything new about an organism is a variation of something it already possessed.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@54tumelo56 "I think your getting "cdesign proponentists" and the scientific method mixed up" Explain. Amuse me.
"How about anything forming within a human lifespan? " Google "observed speciation".
"Anything new about an organism is a variation of something it already possessed. " Ok. Find me an African that has the (unique) gene sequence that Tibetans possess which increases red blood cell production, allowing them to live at high altitudes without getting sick. Or retract that statment
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "You already admitted that It can't be observed" No I did not. I said that you can't observe that which take longer then your lifetime. You however, choose to understand that as saying "it's impossible to prove". It is not. Observational evidence is not the only kind of valid evidence. We can't observe a full orbit of Pluto since it takes 249 years. Yet, we know it takes 249 years.
We can look at DNA and find the hierarchical structure of common ancestry in all of life.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "I said that you can't observe that which takes longer then your lifetime."
Yes you did say that, and with that statement you were being "incredibly dishonest" since some organisms can go though well over 2 million generations in a single human life-span, more than enough time to show the major changes that are assumed in the theory of evolution. And you never answered my question. How can you call something that isn't observable, testable, or repeatable scientific?
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "some organisms can go though well over 2 million generations in a single human life-span" Yes indeed. And if you would actually do your research, you'ld know that speciation events in those categories of life have been observed in nature as well as the lab in multiple occasions. But it is clear that you don't understand how complexity can arise, and how complexity arises exponentially.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "How can you call something that isn't observable, testable, or repeatable scientific"
Evolution IS observable, testable and repeatable.
Speciation has been observed and repeated. Multiple times in nature as well as in the lab.
Evolution is also very testable since it makes LOADS of predictions, not only about biology but also about archeology etc. Not one fact can be found that doesn't fit in the theory. That makes it strong.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@ScientificBob "Evolution IS observable, testable and repeatable."
Okay then, I suggest you guys stick with the testable and repeatable part of evolution and quit teaching the untestable and unrepeatable part of it as science.
54tumelo56 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 All claims about evolution theory are testable.
The claim that chimps and humans share an ancestor makes a gazillion of scientific predictions that can be investigated and tested.
Denying it doesn't make it any less correct.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
@54tumelo56 "Repeatable" does not necessarily mean that we have to repeat things like "evolve a single-celled organism into a cat" in the lab.
In areas such as astrophysics, geology, and biology (e.g. evolution), it more often means that the kinds of _predictions_ you can make based on a theory can be repeated (or applied) over and over again. Predictions about observations. And evolution for a long time now has been very well tested/repeated beyond reasonable doubt, in that sense.
0debug 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScientificBob "That's because it isn't science. Show me one scientific paper on ID"
I'm not trying to argue that ID is science. Frankly I don't care what's science and what's not science. I care about what's true and what's not true.
"You're just (baselessly) claiming that it is unscientific."
You already admitted that It can't be observed. If it's not observable, testable, or repeatable then how can you call it scientific?
54tumelo56 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@54tumelo56 "But what's dishonest is you acting like it requires millions of years"
It does. There's nothing dishonest about that.
" when we both know that it's not about the number of years, it's about the number of generations"
Indeed. And many, many, many generations require millions of years. Durrr.
It's like driving. Driving a short distance will not take long. Driving a long distance will take more time.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@54tumelo56 "you said nothing about the theory of Intelligent Design itself" It's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's just as baseless and unsubstantiated as creationism. It IS creationism in disguise - as was exposed in the Dover trial.
Evolution is a theory supported by and explaining all the relevant facts, it makes testable predictions, it's falsifiable, independently verifiable and it has practical applications. It's solid science. ID is not. That's just solid bullshit.
ScientificBob 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@54tumelo56 "ID has nothing to do with religion" cdesign proponentists disagree.
"It doesn't say the Christian God created us" It's clearly implied. This lie was also exposed during the Dover trial.
ScientificBob 11 months ago 2
This feller gone done and used big words on us.
CrimsonNasferatu 11 months ago
Thing is, it's only saying you can't discriminate against people for holding to or working in relation to ID, which is basically like saying (in effect and in the principle of what ID is) that you can't discriminate against people for RELIGIOUS reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.
Venaloid 11 months ago
I don't understand how these "academics" have stopped teaching students about the amazing and purely scientific theory of fairies. Don't these 'science' teachers know about how they make the plants grow? Unbelievable. .....People of Texas, people have thought of Texans to be dimwitted for a long time now. Prove them wrong. Get fairy magic out of your damn schools, don't delete parts of known history, and don't get rid of your teachers. It's fucking obvious that you are in dire need of them.
skywize 11 months ago
Comment removed
FunLovingCriminals77 11 months ago
@FunLovingCriminals77 No, it's not the same. All places have idiots, but it becomes entirely different when those same idiots can actually have influence over people, and it's even worse when those idiots can get elected. And only in a backwards redneck dystopia can idiots like that get elected.
Most of the Texan law makers would be too crazy to get elected in another US state, and most Republicans and some Democrats in the US congress would be too crazy to get elected in Canada or the UK.
TheoreticChaos 11 months ago
Comment removed
FunLovingCriminals77 11 months ago
@FunLovingCriminals77 But unless the state is made up of idiots, how else can idiots get consistently and repeatedly elected? That's the point I'm trying to make. If the representatives remotely "represent" their constituents, then that means that the constituents in Texas are total dumbasses.
TheoreticChaos 11 months ago
@TheoreticChaos the state is not made of idiots Texas isn't a fly over state like Iowa
the are more than 48 colleges in texas and Bush isnt a Texan I didnt vote for Arnold he was elected anyway
thr have been alot kooks elected into office everywhere thank to the tea party its just a bunch cow puckers in fly over states that want to bash Tx
FunLovingCriminals77 11 months ago
In fairness, the way you explained it, it sounds like if a prof wants to do research in ID, you can't stop it. It does not say you must allow them it to teach their students. Of course, in any other field, if that prof wastes time doing research in something that does not bring in grant money, that would be a firing offense in another field. You and I both know what they are trying to do but this is a very strange way to do it. It would be hard to get grant money from this so why allow it?
Ripley747 11 months ago
omg fuck texas dumbest state ever.
Azurewrath232 11 months ago
To bubbamickmac, please do an extensive video on David Barton please. Thanks for the video.
DaHonestAbe 11 months ago
I am ashamed to be a Texan
airsoftmasterz 11 months ago
I've been stuck in this shithole of a state for almost 4 years now. Fortunately, I escape in July. Everything you've heard is basically true: Clumps of morons with oasis spots of intelligence here and there. Unfortunately Texas prints upwards of 85% of the NATION'S schoolbooks. So, what they decide 'here' can easily come out in NY, California, etc, etc.
Damn scary.
rationalmuscle 11 months ago 2
i like it when you read from something you wrote out ahead of time much better then your freestyle.
phead80 11 months ago
I'm a Texan and a atheist.
reuben 11 months ago 8
@reuben welcome to civilization :-)
Meskiagkasher 11 months ago
@reuben Obviously BMM is making a sweeping statement -- but one that is 'true' if you look at the fucking retards on the Texas Board of Education, Rick Perry, etc. From a high-level view, Texas most certainly hates evolutionary theory being taught, at least without it's fantasy feel-good counterpoint being tossed into the mix.
I know several Texans (AronRa for one) who are rationalists. It's the governing bodies that are the "clumps of morons" I refer to in my comment below. ; )
rationalmuscle 11 months ago
@reuben One of the respectful Texans like Matt Dillahunty, AronRa, The Athiest Experience of Austin, and anyone else who stands for logic and reason.
Jimb0can 11 months ago
@reuben - You might be an atheist but you show that you are a Texan lol. It is "an" atheist, not "a".....
TheSpankymonkey 7 months ago
@quinnmcguee lol, that's actually not a bad idea
LaFemmeCelena 11 months ago
*Prohibition of discrimination based on research related to intelligent design....*
You cannot prohibit *discrimination* in science. Science has not special treatment or respect for ANY ideas, institutions, ideologies, inclinations, or anything.
Everything is assessed, and often disregarded,on its OWN merit,not the special protection of any silly, silly...fucking silly manmade law. I will discriminate against the Moon-Cheese theory, the Flat Earth hypothesis...and I will direct funds elsewhere
Neanderthalcouzin 11 months ago
texas doesnt hate evolution, only the dumbassess in charge trying to introduce ID hate evolution
and everyone i know here in san antonio, texas dislike these idiots also
RpgdUd3 11 months ago
A Searing Indictment on All Texans... Well if we employ ShredderIsAlive logic. Nice video.
GodlessInfinity 11 months ago
Should I.T. be taught or given a chance in science classes? NO! It is a purely theistic point of view without a shred of evidence of its truth. Philosophy doesn't belong in a science class, it belongs in a religious studies or Philosophy class. I think this wave of desperation to legitimize religion is showing just how irrelevant it has become in modern times.
s8ntmark 11 months ago
I feel discriminated against when I tell people that 2 + 2 = 5
Why is everyone discriminating against me DERP!
Clearly we need a law passed to push stupidity in school. (sarcasm over)
Man.. It's like a never ending battle between smart people( who think that only testable, provable Theories with a ton of evidence to back them up should be taught ) and dumb people( Who think Ideas are all one needs to teach anything, Fuck evidence, Fuck testing, fuck reality. Such is the way of the moron ).
mrx0066600 11 months ago
Excellent video man.
RiseOfSuperDogAway96 11 months ago
excellently produced video mate.. nice work. you nailed it.
SkidRowRadio 11 months ago
I'm so proud to be a Texan. :/
SuperMcSparta 11 months ago
Why are so many of my fellow Texans so stupid, why?
Seargent363 11 months ago
@Seargent363 Texans become stupid when they don't think and when they use religion as a crutch instead of thinking.
farvision 11 months ago
@Seargent363 Please get involved in your states local councils and whatever else, grassroots up will probably make all the difference. If it was this bad where I lived I would start doing something... I would probably write to local representatives, see what ways I can support non-idiots in local politics, and I guess one thing I would try to do is go to a couple of big Universities in Texas and have a one-on-one meeting with professors of biology/evolution, to tell them and see what they think.
Neanderthalcouzin 11 months ago