Science mumbo jumbo? I would start with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Cambridge University, Meyer’s many other publications include a contribution to, and the editing of, the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004), Dr. David Berlinski, Princeton University and also mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University or Dr. Richard Sternberg Ph.D. in Biology (Molecular Evolution) and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) papers.
@Lennon4ever1 undermine evolution? How can ANY information or hypothesis hurt you or the science community? Science doesn't care if you are an atheist, agnostic or theist ONLY that scientific truth is revealed.
Did you know as of 2012; NO scientific project or experiment has created a single living cell from the basic blocks of life (ATCG). They have been trying for last 75 years, you will NOT get that revelation from the scientific community. You can't get money or grants if you are truthful.
@yhenry77 it's one thing to say "hmm science can't explain this yet, we'll call it unknown for now", it's totally an entire thing to say "aha, science can't explain this, but my Bible can, so therefore creationism is right!"
@Casshyr Science can't explain this yet? I always thought Science required proof and evidence? So let me understand this: science cannot create ONE single living cell and we are to believe that MANKIND will create LIFE in the future. They can try for another 75 years or million years and the results will be the same.
How do I know? The bible says so.
There is much wisdom in the bible, which is different than knowledge. Don't be deceived, many answers to many life's questions are in the bible.
@yhenry77 no many parts of science is educated guesses based on other scientific facts. For example, bioinformatics often make predictions on protein structures and functions that cannot be validated due to limitation in wet-lab protocols. Does that make it non-science? No.
and btw, nice usage of "since science can't explain this, therefore God did it". Keep this shit up and you'll win troll of the year.
@Casshyr Yes I know, it's called hypothesis just like my statement "only God can create life" based on the bible and latest scientific projects. On May 21, 2010 the J. Craig Venter Inst. (JCVI) announced they created DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a simple bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. They had to use a host cell (not abiogenesis).
It took 15 years, 21 scientists and a supercomputer. Wouldn't we call this an Intelligent Design project?
@yhenry77 "It took 15 years, 21 scientists and a supercomputer. Wouldn't we call this an Intelligent Design project?" => the word intelligent design, when used against the standard evolution theory, is that it is too complicated to come about by nature, or even by means of man (i.e. it has to be divine, something only providable by God). So if humans can also create life from non-life via experiments, that's not much divine intelligence here.
@Casshyr You can't see the forest because on the trees. You are so bias in your thinking you cannot come to objective conclusion or assume we all against evolution. I'm not using the I.D. against evolution; I never said evolution was not valid. It allows living things to adapt to the changing environment. All I am trying to do; is make you aware of issues against outdated theories or hypothesis due to advancements in DNA studies and microbiology. You do not even know what the issues are. Study..
@yhenry77 lmao there is no DNA studies or microbiology that even remotely debunk evolution theory. I'm a grad student, ok? You can't fool me with so-called science mumbo jumbo lol. Only information from peer-reviewed academic journals count as part of science.
This is one of the least funniest things I've ever seen. I got the point after about 2 principal visits and it was beat into the fucking ground like a railroad spike. I wasn't religious by any means, but now I am, because I am convinced that God sent this video, who was once his favorite angel, down to hell, and now the beginning of the apocalypse is with us, because that angel has come back to earth to start the rapture. It's Satan. The devil. Just driving the point home to keep with the theme.
I'm not sure the point of this being a cartoon. It's badly draw, badly animated, and it's not actually funny. I guess just another person trying to get views from the newly-fourteen year old atheist Youtube crowd.
@sykeo123 Whoa, aren't you a hostile little thirteen year-old? I'm an atheist and well-versed in evolutionary biology, I just don't think this is funny at all and trying to cater to kids like you who are brand new atheists and look up every atheist video and website to find stuff to relate to. It's okay, I was like that too a few years ago when I became a more adamant atheist. I thought TheAmazingAtheist was hilaaaarious and I always looked up atheist websites, then I found none of it was funny.
@sykeo123 ...are you saying how old one has had a Youtube account has anything to do with their age or how long they've been an atheist? Yeah, you're DEFINITELY thirteen.
First of all, that might be the stupidest logic I've ever heard. Ever.
Second, this is a new account anyway. I'm pretty sure my first account was made in like...2008? I'm not sure. I'd have to check but I honestly don't care that much.
@sykeo123 Oh geez, the thirteen year-old goes on Tumblr so now he thinks he knows trolling. Alright, later dawg. I have a gram of bud with my name on it.
@sykeo123 Whoa, aren't you a hostile little thirteen year-old? I'm an atheist and well-versed in evolutionary biology, I just don't think this is funny at all and trying to cater to kids like you who are brand new atheists and look up every atheist video and website to find stuff to relate to. It's okay, I was like that too a few years ago when I became a more adamant atheist. I thought TheAmazingAtheist was hilaaarious and I always looked up atheist websites, then I found none of it was funny.
In order for species to change and adapt, DNA mapping alterations must occur. They say "look at the millions of fossils we have"; yes but they are MISSING the most complex part of the species, the DNA structure. You cannot make assumptions of a theory on little or no evidence (DNA) of the species. I can't believe I am the only ONE who sees this issue? How can scientists keep ignoring the pink elephant in the room? They only have answered one half of the question; WHAT was created, but not HOW.
@yhenry77 Ah yes, scientists should take time out of their daily lives to teach YOU what evolution currently says and the evidence for it.
Or better yet, just to prove your competant, would you care to name a single scientific paper you've read that proves that there are DNA gaps currently?
t helps if your going to debate or add value; you should read what the issues are FIRST. Please address the issues in previous comments, PLEASE we have moved way beyond general statements at this time. We looking for recent experiments or projects which covers the assembling of living single cell using the basic building blocks of life. If they also address evolution (not abiogenesis) methods, that would be better. We appreciate your efforts.
@yhenry77 So in esssense, you have not read any scientific papers.
At least your dishonesty shines when you try to sidestep the question. Yes, it's important to add value to a debate, sources like scientifically peer-reviewed publications certainly help you more than your own speculation and thoughts on a matter which may be lacking.
@crazyinsane500 Do you even know what the debate is about? It seems we have done a flyby.
Yes I know about the 290,000+ papers of evolution! As I have mentioned earlier; I am NOT denying the existence or validity of evolution. The issue is HOW it occurs especially to the PROOF or EVIDENCE (not papers but successful experiments) of assembling of living single cell using basic blocks of life (ATCG).
Please respond (if you can) ONLY with (dates/experiments/projects/scientists) evidence.
maybe you should do actual research before spewing on interweb
why waste my time telling you anything cause just like any other christian uneducated wacko you will wander off to another video to troll with your ignorant garbage.
@sykeo123 Since you have NOT read any of the previous comments; let me again say: On May 21, 2010 - A team from the J. Craig Venter Institute created the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. BTW: they used a host cell (not abiogenesis); it would NOT spontaneously come alive. It took 15 years, 21 scientists and super computer. This breakthrough is considered a Intelligent Design project, right?
"I am NOT denying the existence or validity of evolution. The issue is HOW it occurs especially to the PROOF or EVIDENCE (not papers but successful experiments) of assembling of living single cell using basic blocks of life"
THAT IS CALLED ABIOGENSIS YOU UNEDUCATED RETARDED FUCK
NOW IF YOU HAD A BRAIN CELL YOU WOULD SCAMPER OFF AND SLIT YOUR WRIST
BUT YOU ARE THEIST SO WE KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE A BRAIN CELL
As of 2011, NO scientific experiment, program or project has assemble a living single cell using evolution methods. Scientists use words like NATURAL SECTION, ADAPTATION, MUTATION, but without any thought of the processes. They have been trying to assemble a living single cell organism WITHOUT any success for the last 100 years. The closest is: J. Craig Venter Inst. synthetic genome "bacterium" project; it took 15 years, 21 scientists and supercomputer. Wouldn't you call this Intelligent Design?
@yhenry77 nope, I'd call it being unable to replicate in a century using limited resources what occurred by chance over a period of some 4 billion years
@Googlystube Then your are saying there is NO current proof or evidence (assembling living single cell) for evolution? I then say "we have as much evidence for Intelligent Design, as we do for Evolution".
Evolution shows us WHAT species were created, but not HOW they were created.
@yhenry77 proof is all over the place, why the fact that you are reading this means that you evolved the cognitive function to understand these words.
Every intelligent design argument falls flat because of a creationists insistance that 'there's no way simple cells could just appear even given the near infinite amount of opportunity', but instead MUST have been created by an entity.
An entity which itself 'just sprung out of nowhere'?..."Oh wait, we just said that wasn't possible; hang on"
Proof is all over the place? Name ONE scientific experiment or project that was successful in assembling a single living cell using the basic building blocks of life (ATCG). You will soon find out ; there is NONE; it's all show and propaganda...
@yhenry77 So, are you denying a limited supply of food vs an higher supply of offspring by species, biological variation which bring competition? Are you denying that environment have a factor on life of animals? Are you denying that your children have hair of the same colors as you have or your wife does? Are you denying that geographical isolations have an effect on species? Are you just a jerk who don't want to understand any of these questions?
@therrydicule I never denied evolution; it allows species to adapt and change due to the environment. The question that they won't answer (or can't) is how. PLEASE ANYONE!
Name ONE scientific experiment or project that was successful in assembling a single living cell using the basic building blocks of life (ATCG).
If convincing people were as simple as pointing out the patent absurdity built into the creation myths that christians so desperately want to be taught to our children, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Creationists are willfully and deliberately ignorant and they will cling to whatever lies their evil cults claim disprove scientific research. You can't appeal to people's sense of reason and critical thought when they profess to believe in an imaginary being who listens to their prayers.
Actually, I think we SHOULD teach 'intelligent design' in science classes. Think about it: As soon as students start applying the basic scientific method, they will see that there is NO SCIENCE in creationism while there is ample and coherent evidence for evolution. Teaching creationism in science class is the best way to get rid of creationism once and for all.
"OK children, for todays biology class we will talk about life. There are 2 theories: Evolution and Creation. We will start with Creation. GOD DID IT! And now for the evolution part. (45 minutes later, the bell rings) We will continue about evolution in next lesson. Have a nice day."
This is what I think the biology class would look like if Christians would succeed with their stupid creation and teach the controversy stuff...
I would be happy if we just stopped feeding kids bullshit, like Hackeals drawings, the peppered moth story, or the myth that the total genetic similarity between humans and chimps is 99%. Surly thats not to much to ask for.
@benthemiester True, the similarity between human and chimp DNA is more like 96%. As for the peppered moth, what's your issue there? That's a legitimate illustration of natural adaptation/evolution in that species during observable history: Seems like good evidence to offer to students. As for Haeckel's drawings, I'd agree that those need to either be ignored, replaced, or taught as part of evolution's history, not its science. But even those aren't bullshit, just poor science.
@paxpaul Peppered moth has nothing to do with macro or even micro evolution because nothing evolved. It was a case of simply one type of moth being favored by natural selection, which no one disputes has a role in nature. When more black moths were being eaten, more white moths bread and thrived, and visa versa. They both still exist with the exact same phenotype as before the industrial revolution.
@benthemiester Natural selection is a vital mechanism of evolution, so teaching about the natural selection of peppered moths is a valid tool for teaching evolution. And yes, lots of people--primarily Christians--dispute the role of natural selection in nature. (Because if God created everything "as is," which lots of Christians believe, then natural selection does not occur.)
@paxpaul "Natural selection is a vital mechanism of evolution, so teaching about the natural selection of peppered moths is a valid tool for teaching evolution."
Not in the peppered moth story, because nothing evolved, and if the story is going to be taught, the children should be told this fact. You also had to be corrected on the human chimp genome. Kids are never taught that the over all genome differential between humans and apes are as low as 70%. Dont you think they should be told?
@benthemiester Since I disagree with your claims, no, I don't think students should be told that. And I clearly stated that the NATURAL SELECTION involving the moths is a valid evolutionary concept, whether you want to accept that they've evolved or not. YOU said they are a matter of natural selection, which is a component of evolution.
So, are you a proponent of Intelligent Design in the classroom? Or what, exactly?
@benthemiester Then they should be taught that the moths are evidence of natural selection, which is a mechanism of evolution. That's a fact. They should be taught that human and chimp genomes are roughly 96% the same. That's the current state of knowledge regarding chimp/human DNA similarities. They should be taught critical thinking as well, especially in a science class, so that they know how to understand and to check such knowledge.
Again I ask, do you support ID in the classroom? Or...?
@paxpaul "Then they should be taught that the moths are evidence of natural selection"
"From what an older moth"
Well then find an example and dont use the peppered moth story. The true similarity between humans and chimps is empirical, and it is in the science literature. Why would you not tell kids the truth? Dont you believe in teaching scientific data? I know of no creationist who publicly lectures on this subject of denying micro evolution. If you do, then can you please name them.
@benthemiester You didn't say "no public lecturer denies...." You said NO ONE denies it.You made a claim, I challenged it, so you asked me to prove something totally different. I'm not playing that game.
As for the rest, I DO believe in teaching kids the truth, which is why YOUR crap shouldn't be taught. Oh, and YOU are the one who first pointed out that the moths are examples of natural selection, so don't mock that--it's YOUR OWN POINT.
@benthemiester You're the only one trying to speak for an entire group (by saying "no one denies..."). I just asked you to speak for yourself by saying what you actually believe and where you're coming from. Do you believe in creationism? Do you support Intelligent Design being taught?
@paxpaul The concept of natural selection was developed by a Christian zoololgist named Edward Blythe.
Its not blasphemy to understand that it has a role in nature. Again it is the limitations of NS and random mutation that are now being challenged. Please no more red herrings. No one can speak for everyone. There is always going to be an exception. Again as for those who understand the subject, I know of no creationist who denies NS, only the limitations are being challenged.
@benthemiester Natural selection is the key mechanism of evolution. Period. No matter who came up with it or anything else you say, that's just a fact. As for the rest...what the hell are you talking about? What red herrings did I offer up? I've stayed on subject, unlike you: You keep switching (from "no one" to "no public lecturer" and so on), and you keep spouting that "no creationist denies" crap. And who the hell brought up blasphemy? What does that have to do with OUR conversation?
@paxpaul I have responded to all your questions and statements yet you have ignore my main points. If a student ask if there is any phenotypical change between these moths during or after the industrial revolution should we lie and say yes? Why shouldn't students be taught the true differential between human and chimp genome? Why are evo devo's now also challenging these same dogmas, and why did J. Gould propose punctuate equilibrium if evolution happens through gradualism?
@benthemiester No, I haven't ignored your main points when they've been on topic. I've ignored your nonsense, but tried to carry on this conversation. I stand by everything I've said: Teach kids the 96% similarity between chimp/human DNA, the natural selection of moths, and so forth. YOU said the moths were examples of NS, which is what I said to teach about them.
Are you a supporter of creationism/Intelligent Design? Unless you answer that, I'm done talking with you.
@paxpaul I proposed specific question concerning phenotype and if there was any change. You are playing word games. As for the 70% total differential I can cite it in the science literature if you wish.
@paxpaul The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005). "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome". Nature 437 "A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications". Nature 437 (1 September 2005):
@paxpaul cont.......Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) account for another ~3 % difference between the alignable sequences.[19] In addition, variation in copy number of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference between the two species.[20] Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%.
@paxpaul The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005 showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million bases[19] – that is, 75.8% of the genome. This 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome in single nucleotide polymorphisms[19] (changes of single DNA “letters” in the genome).
@paxpaul No no denies the term evolution as defined by minor change, i.e. adaptation or even common descent of major animals as in wolves and dogs etc. Its the prokaryote to man neo Darwinian/modern synthesis that is being challenged by many. The evo devo's I spoke of earlier being the exception.
@benthemiester Yes, MANY people deny the term evolution re: minor change/adaptations/etc. The fact that you say no one denies this shows that you are fairly uninformed about this topic. Huge numbers of Christians refuse to accept ANY form of evolution or natural selection as fact. I'm a teacher, and I have to be careful when using the word "evolve" in ANY context because of student/parent/administration reactions, so don't you're simply wrong on this point.
@paxpaul Disagreeing with open criticism of the limitations of NS has nothing to do with the question. The question is, should students be told the truth? & the truth in this e.g. is that these black and light colored moths are exactly the same phenotype as they were before the industrial evolution. One did better for a while, and now they both are thriving. They should also be told the truth of the true genome differentia between man and chimp.
@paxpaul You spoke of Christians denying NS, and then you go on to claim that I'm the only one trying to generalize a group of people, even though I explained my position and why I used this language. You also seem to have a problem with reading. I never denied that NS has a role in biology. My point was that children should be taught that these moths are exactly the same phenotypes as that of the pre industrial revolution. Maybe your not familiar with the PM story
@benthemiester I said "huge numbers" and "many people," so I clearly was NOT trying to talk for all people. Funny that YOU accuse ME of a reading problem when you've misstated my position, denied/ignored your own words, and refused to answer a direct question. Your comments are barely related to mine, much less being direct responses.
@paxpaul "The modern synthesis, while remaining the prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology since the middle of the twentieth century, has been expanded and even challenged by a number of developments in evolutionary theory. In particular, the traditional, neo-Darwinian views of gradualism, speciation, and natural selection have been challenged, and the acceptability of extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from observations on the microevolutionary level has also come under fire" SOURCED.
@paxpaul As for the statement..... "True, the similarity between human and chimp DNA is more like 96%"
96% of a 3 billion nucleotide base pair genome is a lot of information, but measuring the differential in terms of SNP this is only a small way of looking at the genome. When all factors are taken into account, the true differential can be as low as 70%. Poor science is bullshit, especially when presented as evidence.
@benthemiester Which comment are you "correcting" here? I think something's missing, because this is the only spot I see you mentioning the 4%, so...what did I miss?
Teach the controversy: It'd go something like this. "because there are people who believe in their religion so hard, they choose to ignore established facts and are causing a ruccus. They are largely ignorant of the science because they have been lied to by people pushing the creationist agenda."
"He's the antichrist" hehe. I'm sure 7thdayers liked that 1. Kids with religious parents are constitutionally protected 2 teach their children their beliefs at home. The classroom is religiously sterile 4 good reason: state sanctioned religious bias is clearly anti-constitutional. If the constitution is subverted 2 favor 1 particular religious view, it can also be subverted 2 persecute xians & deny them their right 2 practice, can't it? That's a pandora's box they shouldn't open upon themselves.
This may be satirical but it really is the truth. If we taught the opposing views to the fact of evolution, we'd throw in all other explanations, to be fair, like the Hindu idea of the world being on the back of an enormous turtle floating in space. Which do you think imaginative children will go for? Old man poofing shit from nothing, giant freakin space turtle, or scientific fact?
@Mstrjedi1852 I know that if I was as younbg as the kids in the video i'd go for the giant freaking space turtle. I'd take it as scientific proof the discworld books were true and protest to get funding to find the discworld. And that's why you don't teach the controversy to over-imaginative kids. And it's meant to show the truth: it shows that the christians don't want "the controversy", they want "christianity".
Oh I could think of a class purpose for creationism. I've learned ALOT about evolutionary biology (And even science, the scientific method and it's history, abiogenesis and astronomy) simply from watching people DEBUNK creationism. And that's coming from someone who already had many of those things as intellectual hobbies of sorts (lifelong too!) and already knew way more then average!
So Creationism Debunking Classes would actually probably be extremely educative.
good grief man, we kicked God in the nads by reversing the death process and brought J.C back to life, what more do you want?!
lol, there is no controversy. Honestly, in order for there to be a controversy there would have to be a large percentage of scientists FOR the 'alternative' for that to happen, said 'alternative' would have to hold up to scientific scrutiny. It doesn't happen, plain and simple. If you want to go back to primitive times so much, join the Amish.
I would be all in favor of "teaching the controversy" if that means "explain to kids the origin of the so called 'controversy' and how completely full of shit the creationists are". In other words, tell them the truth and prepare them against the propaganda.
Question is how one would explain it in simple terms...
Like, just a heads up -- What you learn here is science, but there are bad men out there with a lot of money and a lot of power. These people believe that they speak for a magical wizard in the sky. This man has a book. Now, these men say that science is a lie, in order to get people to devote their life to the wizard and his book. No-one has ever seen the wizard, and his book doesn't prove his existence.
"Okay. Because populations don't always speciate cleanly and because evolution is such a gradual process, there is a great amount of controversy over how to classify these millions of transitional fossils. Was this one an ancient precursor to modern fish, to modern tetrapods, or both? Where do the branches occur, and how fuzzy are the spaces between them?"
@godhatesbooklerners i think this made a very clear and important point. If you did not see that i think you may have to watch it again. creationist want the schools to "teach the controversy" But only there controversy. they don't want all the other beliefs and religions taught. Just there own. this short film is pointing that out. now it being well animated and well acted is arguable and largly more opinion based so i wont touch that.
Teach the flat earth controversy, and the controversy over gravity. Oh, and don't forget alchemy. Much better than modern chemistry. I mean, if we teach the ID controversy, why discriminate against the others?
I guess it's a nervous laugh this video. Funny but too true for comfort. In the USA anyway. Elsewhere it's not so bad. I wonder when Americans are going to catch up with the rest of us who now know that you don't need a god to explain things anymore.
@warren52nz: I would warn you against complacency. Australia has shown what just a few years of laxity can do, and fundamentalists are missionaries. The US seems to be unusually problematic in this way, but that's right now - in twenty years, the shoe may be on the other foot.
@warren52nz Alot of us have! Unfortunately, the brainwashed ones are many. And the brainwashing STRONG! We're trying to help but it's very difficult! The brainwashed think we have something to do w/ SATAN?! (Roll of the eyes!)
I would teach the controversy to show how different creation myths contradict one another because they rely on cultural stories and subjective reasoning. Then I would show how science uses objective reasoning and how this helped to support the Theory of Evolution. Not exactly what the creationists want, but atleast I would be teaching "the controversy" in a very scientific manner. ;)
Christian parents Forced a school to allow religion n think that there community was Christians so a couple of times the kids go home with buddist or Mormon pamplets n the parent for open religion in school petition that those religion should not be taught, how selfish n arrogant n this cartoon shows that
Science mumbo jumbo? I would start with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Cambridge University, Meyer’s many other publications include a contribution to, and the editing of, the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004), Dr. David Berlinski, Princeton University and also mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University or Dr. Richard Sternberg Ph.D. in Biology (Molecular Evolution) and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) papers.
yhenry77 2 days ago
lol, great video. Irony is still the best weapon against idiocy.
pastafarianprophet 2 weeks ago
Horse shit is more wholesome than bullshit.
Why is that not taught in yankee schools ?
tellnet 1 month ago
@0:52 PZ Meyers. LOL!
YY4Me133 1 month ago
ID proponents don't want equal time, they want to undermine evolution in the long run! -They're underhanded sleazy liars
Lennon4ever1 2 months ago 3
@Lennon4ever1 undermine evolution? How can ANY information or hypothesis hurt you or the science community? Science doesn't care if you are an atheist, agnostic or theist ONLY that scientific truth is revealed.
Did you know as of 2012; NO scientific project or experiment has created a single living cell from the basic blocks of life (ATCG). They have been trying for last 75 years, you will NOT get that revelation from the scientific community. You can't get money or grants if you are truthful.
yhenry77 5 days ago
@yhenry77 it's one thing to say "hmm science can't explain this yet, we'll call it unknown for now", it's totally an entire thing to say "aha, science can't explain this, but my Bible can, so therefore creationism is right!"
Casshyr 3 days ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr Science can't explain this yet? I always thought Science required proof and evidence? So let me understand this: science cannot create ONE single living cell and we are to believe that MANKIND will create LIFE in the future. They can try for another 75 years or million years and the results will be the same.
How do I know? The bible says so.
There is much wisdom in the bible, which is different than knowledge. Don't be deceived, many answers to many life's questions are in the bible.
yhenry77 3 days ago
@yhenry77 no many parts of science is educated guesses based on other scientific facts. For example, bioinformatics often make predictions on protein structures and functions that cannot be validated due to limitation in wet-lab protocols. Does that make it non-science? No.
and btw, nice usage of "since science can't explain this, therefore God did it". Keep this shit up and you'll win troll of the year.
Casshyr 3 days ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 3 days ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr Yes I know, it's called hypothesis just like my statement "only God can create life" based on the bible and latest scientific projects. On May 21, 2010 the J. Craig Venter Inst. (JCVI) announced they created DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a simple bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. They had to use a host cell (not abiogenesis).
It took 15 years, 21 scientists and a supercomputer. Wouldn't we call this an Intelligent Design project?
yhenry77 3 days ago
@yhenry77 "It took 15 years, 21 scientists and a supercomputer. Wouldn't we call this an Intelligent Design project?" => the word intelligent design, when used against the standard evolution theory, is that it is too complicated to come about by nature, or even by means of man (i.e. it has to be divine, something only providable by God). So if humans can also create life from non-life via experiments, that's not much divine intelligence here.
Casshyr 2 days ago
@Casshyr You can't see the forest because on the trees. You are so bias in your thinking you cannot come to objective conclusion or assume we all against evolution. I'm not using the I.D. against evolution; I never said evolution was not valid. It allows living things to adapt to the changing environment. All I am trying to do; is make you aware of issues against outdated theories or hypothesis due to advancements in DNA studies and microbiology. You do not even know what the issues are. Study..
yhenry77 2 days ago
@yhenry77 lmao there is no DNA studies or microbiology that even remotely debunk evolution theory. I'm a grad student, ok? You can't fool me with so-called science mumbo jumbo lol. Only information from peer-reviewed academic journals count as part of science.
Casshyr 2 days ago
If Jesus was a full supporter of sane science, I would TOTALLY listen to him.
cadman2300 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.
needgod.com
if you are interested in abortion or thinking of having one watch 180 movie
standingontruth1 2 months ago in playlist Religion
"He's the anti-christ!"
trololololololo
Poor Catholics, always the butt of our jokes :'(
TheSturdyWall 2 months ago
Can we teach science in church now ??
MrJohnnyrace 2 months ago 39
epic video
Moppy1988 4 months ago
Loled at PZ Myers.
baldurus1 4 months ago
Creationism or "Intelligent Design" should not be taught in science class because it's not science, their is nothing scientific about it.
MrArokOleary 4 months ago
This is one of the least funniest things I've ever seen. I got the point after about 2 principal visits and it was beat into the fucking ground like a railroad spike. I wasn't religious by any means, but now I am, because I am convinced that God sent this video, who was once his favorite angel, down to hell, and now the beginning of the apocalypse is with us, because that angel has come back to earth to start the rapture. It's Satan. The devil. Just driving the point home to keep with the theme.
arethemad 4 months ago
@arethemad it's not even supposed to be funny, are you on drugs?
DavorMATF 3 months ago
I'm not sure the point of this being a cartoon. It's badly draw, badly animated, and it's not actually funny. I guess just another person trying to get views from the newly-fourteen year old atheist Youtube crowd.
teethofghosts 4 months ago
@teethofghosts
you need a brain
something you lack
to understand this
sykeo123 4 months ago
@sykeo123 Whoa, aren't you a hostile little thirteen year-old? I'm an atheist and well-versed in evolutionary biology, I just don't think this is funny at all and trying to cater to kids like you who are brand new atheists and look up every atheist video and website to find stuff to relate to. It's okay, I was like that too a few years ago when I became a more adamant atheist. I thought TheAmazingAtheist was hilaaaarious and I always looked up atheist websites, then I found none of it was funny.
teethofghosts 4 months ago
@teethofghosts
lolol
"Joined:Jan 29, 2011"
yup child , i am the new one here kid..... LOL
sykeo123 4 months ago
@sykeo123 ...are you saying how old one has had a Youtube account has anything to do with their age or how long they've been an atheist? Yeah, you're DEFINITELY thirteen.
First of all, that might be the stupidest logic I've ever heard. Ever.
Second, this is a new account anyway. I'm pretty sure my first account was made in like...2008? I'm not sure. I'd have to check but I honestly don't care that much.
teethofghosts 4 months ago
@teethofghosts
"are you saying how old one has had a Youtube account has anything to do with their age"
Are you saying you just got a computer this month? never owned one before?
come one dumb stop playing even more dumb
sykeo123 4 months ago
@sykeo123 Do you know what you're talking about? Because you're making less and less sense as this goes on.
teethofghosts 3 months ago
@teethofghosts
not my problem you lack intelligence to understand.
sykeo123 3 months ago
@sykeo123 Haha, awh cute. The thirteen year-old is trying to be condescending. How adorable.
teethofghosts 3 months ago
@teethofghosts
wicked and the troll who will likely close his account in a week or two and open another made a retarded remark
sykeo123 3 months ago
@sykeo123 Obviously since anyone who says something you don't like must be a troll. Logic of a high schooler.
teethofghosts 3 months ago
@teethofghosts
obviously cause you don't know what a troll is dumb ass
sykeo123 3 months ago
@sykeo123 Hahaha. Oh god, I think I have to stop this because I can't keep laughing at you, I'll bust a stitch.
teethofghosts 3 months ago
@teethofghosts
y u so mad bro?
sykeo123 3 months ago
@sykeo123 Oh geez, the thirteen year-old goes on Tumblr so now he thinks he knows trolling. Alright, later dawg. I have a gram of bud with my name on it.
teethofghosts 3 months ago
@teethofghosts
woah jelly kid y u so mad?
sykeo123 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sykeo123 "lolol
"Joined:Jan 29, 2011"
yup child , i am the new one here kid..... LOL"
Youtube is not the world, as people have lives outside of youtube.
QuestionRenee 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sykeo123 Whoa, aren't you a hostile little thirteen year-old? I'm an atheist and well-versed in evolutionary biology, I just don't think this is funny at all and trying to cater to kids like you who are brand new atheists and look up every atheist video and website to find stuff to relate to. It's okay, I was like that too a few years ago when I became a more adamant atheist. I thought TheAmazingAtheist was hilaaarious and I always looked up atheist websites, then I found none of it was funny.
teethofghosts 4 months ago
In order for species to change and adapt, DNA mapping alterations must occur. They say "look at the millions of fossils we have"; yes but they are MISSING the most complex part of the species, the DNA structure. You cannot make assumptions of a theory on little or no evidence (DNA) of the species. I can't believe I am the only ONE who sees this issue? How can scientists keep ignoring the pink elephant in the room? They only have answered one half of the question; WHAT was created, but not HOW.
yhenry77 5 months ago
@yhenry77 Ah yes, scientists should take time out of their daily lives to teach YOU what evolution currently says and the evidence for it.
Or better yet, just to prove your competant, would you care to name a single scientific paper you've read that proves that there are DNA gaps currently?
crazyinsane500 4 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 4 months ago
t helps if your going to debate or add value; you should read what the issues are FIRST. Please address the issues in previous comments, PLEASE we have moved way beyond general statements at this time. We looking for recent experiments or projects which covers the assembling of living single cell using the basic building blocks of life. If they also address evolution (not abiogenesis) methods, that would be better. We appreciate your efforts.
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77 So in esssense, you have not read any scientific papers.
At least your dishonesty shines when you try to sidestep the question. Yes, it's important to add value to a debate, sources like scientifically peer-reviewed publications certainly help you more than your own speculation and thoughts on a matter which may be lacking.
crazyinsane500 4 months ago
@crazyinsane500 Do you even know what the debate is about? It seems we have done a flyby.
Yes I know about the 290,000+ papers of evolution! As I have mentioned earlier; I am NOT denying the existence or validity of evolution. The issue is HOW it occurs especially to the PROOF or EVIDENCE (not papers but successful experiments) of assembling of living single cell using basic blocks of life (ATCG).
Please respond (if you can) ONLY with (dates/experiments/projects/scientists) evidence.
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77 Just a quick check, you do know that living cells are not solely composed of DNA, correct?
crazyinsane500 4 months ago
@crazyinsane500 It would help, if your read past comments.
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77
that is called abiogenesis
which is a different field in biology
maybe you should do actual research before spewing on interweb
why waste my time telling you anything cause just like any other christian uneducated wacko you will wander off to another video to troll with your ignorant garbage.
sykeo123 4 months ago
@sykeo123 Since you have NOT read any of the previous comments; let me again say: On May 21, 2010 - A team from the J. Craig Venter Institute created the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. BTW: they used a host cell (not abiogenesis); it would NOT spontaneously come alive. It took 15 years, 21 scientists and super computer. This breakthrough is considered a Intelligent Design project, right?
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77
"Blah blah blah institution of uneducated trash said they did something"
Wheres the research paper?
O ya forgot they don't know how to conduct science.
sykeo123 4 months ago
@sykeo123
1) Suthers, P. F., A genome-scale metabolic reconstruction of Mycoplasma genitalium, iPS189
PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Feb 01; 5(2): e1000285.
2) Gibson, D. G., Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome, Science. 2008 Jan 24; 319(5867): 1215-20
3) Lartigue, C., Glass, J. I., et al. Genome transplantation in bacteria: changing one species to another
Science. 2007 Aug 03; 317(5838): 632-8
see website for additional papers. (hint: try Google)
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77
here is a hint you uneducated dumb fuck
You asked for this
"I am NOT denying the existence or validity of evolution. The issue is HOW it occurs especially to the PROOF or EVIDENCE (not papers but successful experiments) of assembling of living single cell using basic blocks of life"
THAT IS CALLED ABIOGENSIS YOU UNEDUCATED RETARDED FUCK
NOW IF YOU HAD A BRAIN CELL YOU WOULD SCAMPER OFF AND SLIT YOUR WRIST
BUT YOU ARE THEIST SO WE KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE A BRAIN CELL
sykeo123 4 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 4 months ago
@sykeo123 Did you read any of the papers YOU requested or had doubts about? What were your exact words:
"Blah blah blah institution of uneducated trash said they did something" Wheres the research paper?
Personally I would stop, your embarrassing yourself.
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77
lol you are so stupid you can't even keep on subject was point of my previous message if I TALKED ABOVE YOUR HEAD
sykeo123 4 months ago
@sykeo123 Yes I give up, you win.
yhenry77 4 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 5 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 5 months ago
Evolution is as good of a theological theory than the fixidity of species due to creation theory.
therrydicule 5 months ago
As of 2011, NO scientific experiment, program or project has assemble a living single cell using evolution methods. Scientists use words like NATURAL SECTION, ADAPTATION, MUTATION, but without any thought of the processes. They have been trying to assemble a living single cell organism WITHOUT any success for the last 100 years. The closest is: J. Craig Venter Inst. synthetic genome "bacterium" project; it took 15 years, 21 scientists and supercomputer. Wouldn't you call this Intelligent Design?
yhenry77 5 months ago
@yhenry77 nope, I'd call it being unable to replicate in a century using limited resources what occurred by chance over a period of some 4 billion years
Googlystube 5 months ago
@Googlystube Then your are saying there is NO current proof or evidence (assembling living single cell) for evolution? I then say "we have as much evidence for Intelligent Design, as we do for Evolution".
Evolution shows us WHAT species were created, but not HOW they were created.
yhenry77 5 months ago
@yhenry77 proof is all over the place, why the fact that you are reading this means that you evolved the cognitive function to understand these words.
Every intelligent design argument falls flat because of a creationists insistance that 'there's no way simple cells could just appear even given the near infinite amount of opportunity', but instead MUST have been created by an entity.
An entity which itself 'just sprung out of nowhere'?..."Oh wait, we just said that wasn't possible; hang on"
Googlystube 5 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 5 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 5 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proof is all over the place? Name ONE scientific experiment or project that was successful in assembling a single living cell using the basic building blocks of life (ATCG). You will soon find out ; there is NONE; it's all show and propaganda...
yhenry77 5 months ago
@yhenry77 Evolution has nothing to do with how life originally formed. It explains how live diverges once already in existence.
thor123422 5 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 5 months ago
@yhenry77 So, are you denying a limited supply of food vs an higher supply of offspring by species, biological variation which bring competition? Are you denying that environment have a factor on life of animals? Are you denying that your children have hair of the same colors as you have or your wife does? Are you denying that geographical isolations have an effect on species? Are you just a jerk who don't want to understand any of these questions?
therrydicule 5 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@therrydicule I never denied evolution; it allows species to adapt and change due to the environment. The question that they won't answer (or can't) is how. PLEASE ANYONE!
Name ONE scientific experiment or project that was successful in assembling a single living cell using the basic building blocks of life (ATCG).
yhenry77 5 months ago
If convincing people were as simple as pointing out the patent absurdity built into the creation myths that christians so desperately want to be taught to our children, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Creationists are willfully and deliberately ignorant and they will cling to whatever lies their evil cults claim disprove scientific research. You can't appeal to people's sense of reason and critical thought when they profess to believe in an imaginary being who listens to their prayers.
sailcat9 5 months ago 17
Actually, I think we SHOULD teach 'intelligent design' in science classes. Think about it: As soon as students start applying the basic scientific method, they will see that there is NO SCIENCE in creationism while there is ample and coherent evidence for evolution. Teaching creationism in science class is the best way to get rid of creationism once and for all.
paxpaul 5 months ago
"OK children, for todays biology class we will talk about life. There are 2 theories: Evolution and Creation. We will start with Creation. GOD DID IT! And now for the evolution part. (45 minutes later, the bell rings) We will continue about evolution in next lesson. Have a nice day."
This is what I think the biology class would look like if Christians would succeed with their stupid creation and teach the controversy stuff...
mmazvis 5 months ago
should have gotten every preacher/bishop/priest for the different sects XD
GaarasKnight1691 5 months ago
I would be happy if we just stopped feeding kids bullshit, like Hackeals drawings, the peppered moth story, or the myth that the total genetic similarity between humans and chimps is 99%. Surly thats not to much to ask for.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester True, the similarity between human and chimp DNA is more like 96%. As for the peppered moth, what's your issue there? That's a legitimate illustration of natural adaptation/evolution in that species during observable history: Seems like good evidence to offer to students. As for Haeckel's drawings, I'd agree that those need to either be ignored, replaced, or taught as part of evolution's history, not its science. But even those aren't bullshit, just poor science.
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul Peppered moth has nothing to do with macro or even micro evolution because nothing evolved. It was a case of simply one type of moth being favored by natural selection, which no one disputes has a role in nature. When more black moths were being eaten, more white moths bread and thrived, and visa versa. They both still exist with the exact same phenotype as before the industrial revolution.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Natural selection is a vital mechanism of evolution, so teaching about the natural selection of peppered moths is a valid tool for teaching evolution. And yes, lots of people--primarily Christians--dispute the role of natural selection in nature. (Because if God created everything "as is," which lots of Christians believe, then natural selection does not occur.)
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul "Natural selection is a vital mechanism of evolution, so teaching about the natural selection of peppered moths is a valid tool for teaching evolution."
Not in the peppered moth story, because nothing evolved, and if the story is going to be taught, the children should be told this fact. You also had to be corrected on the human chimp genome. Kids are never taught that the over all genome differential between humans and apes are as low as 70%. Dont you think they should be told?
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Since I disagree with your claims, no, I don't think students should be told that. And I clearly stated that the NATURAL SELECTION involving the moths is a valid evolutionary concept, whether you want to accept that they've evolved or not. YOU said they are a matter of natural selection, which is a component of evolution.
So, are you a proponent of Intelligent Design in the classroom? Or what, exactly?
paxpaul 5 months ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Then they should be taught that the moths are evidence of natural selection, which is a mechanism of evolution. That's a fact. They should be taught that human and chimp genomes are roughly 96% the same. That's the current state of knowledge regarding chimp/human DNA similarities. They should be taught critical thinking as well, especially in a science class, so that they know how to understand and to check such knowledge.
Again I ask, do you support ID in the classroom? Or...?
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul "Then they should be taught that the moths are evidence of natural selection"
"From what an older moth"
Well then find an example and dont use the peppered moth story. The true similarity between humans and chimps is empirical, and it is in the science literature. Why would you not tell kids the truth? Dont you believe in teaching scientific data? I know of no creationist who publicly lectures on this subject of denying micro evolution. If you do, then can you please name them.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester You didn't say "no public lecturer denies...." You said NO ONE denies it.You made a claim, I challenged it, so you asked me to prove something totally different. I'm not playing that game.
As for the rest, I DO believe in teaching kids the truth, which is why YOUR crap shouldn't be taught. Oh, and YOU are the one who first pointed out that the moths are examples of natural selection, so don't mock that--it's YOUR OWN POINT.
Still won't tell me if you support ID or not, eh?
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul In this field of evolution vs creationism or ID, the mouthpieces for both sides are well known.
You nor I can speak for all creationist, Id'ers or Neo Darwinist. I am speaking of the well known critics of the theory.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester You're the only one trying to speak for an entire group (by saying "no one denies..."). I just asked you to speak for yourself by saying what you actually believe and where you're coming from. Do you believe in creationism? Do you support Intelligent Design being taught?
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul The concept of natural selection was developed by a Christian zoololgist named Edward Blythe.
Its not blasphemy to understand that it has a role in nature. Again it is the limitations of NS and random mutation that are now being challenged. Please no more red herrings. No one can speak for everyone. There is always going to be an exception. Again as for those who understand the subject, I know of no creationist who denies NS, only the limitations are being challenged.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Natural selection is the key mechanism of evolution. Period. No matter who came up with it or anything else you say, that's just a fact. As for the rest...what the hell are you talking about? What red herrings did I offer up? I've stayed on subject, unlike you: You keep switching (from "no one" to "no public lecturer" and so on), and you keep spouting that "no creationist denies" crap. And who the hell brought up blasphemy? What does that have to do with OUR conversation?
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul I have responded to all your questions and statements yet you have ignore my main points. If a student ask if there is any phenotypical change between these moths during or after the industrial revolution should we lie and say yes? Why shouldn't students be taught the true differential between human and chimp genome? Why are evo devo's now also challenging these same dogmas, and why did J. Gould propose punctuate equilibrium if evolution happens through gradualism?
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester No, I haven't ignored your main points when they've been on topic. I've ignored your nonsense, but tried to carry on this conversation. I stand by everything I've said: Teach kids the 96% similarity between chimp/human DNA, the natural selection of moths, and so forth. YOU said the moths were examples of NS, which is what I said to teach about them.
Are you a supporter of creationism/Intelligent Design? Unless you answer that, I'm done talking with you.
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul I proposed specific question concerning phenotype and if there was any change. You are playing word games. As for the 70% total differential I can cite it in the science literature if you wish.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@paxpaul The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005). "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome". Nature 437 "A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications". Nature 437 (1 September 2005):
benthemiester 5 months ago
@paxpaul cont.......Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) account for another ~3 % difference between the alignable sequences.[19] In addition, variation in copy number of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference between the two species.[20] Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@paxpaul The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005 showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million bases[19] – that is, 75.8% of the genome. This 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome in single nucleotide polymorphisms[19] (changes of single DNA “letters” in the genome).
benthemiester 5 months ago
@paxpaul No no denies the term evolution as defined by minor change, i.e. adaptation or even common descent of major animals as in wolves and dogs etc. Its the prokaryote to man neo Darwinian/modern synthesis that is being challenged by many. The evo devo's I spoke of earlier being the exception.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Yes, MANY people deny the term evolution re: minor change/adaptations/etc. The fact that you say no one denies this shows that you are fairly uninformed about this topic. Huge numbers of Christians refuse to accept ANY form of evolution or natural selection as fact. I'm a teacher, and I have to be careful when using the word "evolve" in ANY context because of student/parent/administration reactions, so don't you're simply wrong on this point.
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul Disagreeing with open criticism of the limitations of NS has nothing to do with the question. The question is, should students be told the truth? & the truth in this e.g. is that these black and light colored moths are exactly the same phenotype as they were before the industrial evolution. One did better for a while, and now they both are thriving. They should also be told the truth of the true genome differentia between man and chimp.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@paxpaul You spoke of Christians denying NS, and then you go on to claim that I'm the only one trying to generalize a group of people, even though I explained my position and why I used this language. You also seem to have a problem with reading. I never denied that NS has a role in biology. My point was that children should be taught that these moths are exactly the same phenotypes as that of the pre industrial revolution. Maybe your not familiar with the PM story
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester I said "huge numbers" and "many people," so I clearly was NOT trying to talk for all people. Funny that YOU accuse ME of a reading problem when you've misstated my position, denied/ignored your own words, and refused to answer a direct question. Your comments are barely related to mine, much less being direct responses.
paxpaul 5 months ago
@paxpaul "The modern synthesis, while remaining the prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology since the middle of the twentieth century, has been expanded and even challenged by a number of developments in evolutionary theory. In particular, the traditional, neo-Darwinian views of gradualism, speciation, and natural selection have been challenged, and the acceptability of extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from observations on the microevolutionary level has also come under fire" SOURCED.
benthemiester 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paxpaul As for the statement..... "True, the similarity between human and chimp DNA is more like 96%"
96% of a 3 billion nucleotide base pair genome is a lot of information, but measuring the differential in terms of SNP this is only a small way of looking at the genome. When all factors are taken into account, the true differential can be as low as 70%. Poor science is bullshit, especially when presented as evidence.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@paxpaul Correction, meant to say 4% of the genome is still a lot of information cont........
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Which comment are you "correcting" here? I think something's missing, because this is the only spot I see you mentioning the 4%, so...what did I miss?
paxpaul 5 months ago
I thought the one who can appeal to real american christians was the guy with the hood.
smaug100 5 months ago
Teach the controversy: It'd go something like this. "because there are people who believe in their religion so hard, they choose to ignore established facts and are causing a ruccus. They are largely ignorant of the science because they have been lied to by people pushing the creationist agenda."
Rundvelt 5 months ago
How about preach the controversy, preach evolution in church.
menacingfox 6 months ago 26
Let's teach the controversy on how big of an asshole creationists are.
nactan 6 months ago
"I said someone nicer!"
nearly crapped myself I was laughing so hard!
LucianUramu 6 months ago 2
"He's the antichrist" hehe. I'm sure 7thdayers liked that 1. Kids with religious parents are constitutionally protected 2 teach their children their beliefs at home. The classroom is religiously sterile 4 good reason: state sanctioned religious bias is clearly anti-constitutional. If the constitution is subverted 2 favor 1 particular religious view, it can also be subverted 2 persecute xians & deny them their right 2 practice, can't it? That's a pandora's box they shouldn't open upon themselves.
BrokenAeroVT 6 months ago 2
lol "someone nicer!"
yo1o2eggs 6 months ago
I like it !!
MrBeautifulba1 6 months ago
hahaha
CRITIKCK 6 months ago
Teach the controversy! Did Yoko really break up the Beatles?????
Pacisdiligo 6 months ago 10
PZ Meyers FTW! xD
Tanoro 7 months ago
I love that you have PZ Myers demonstrating to the class that "It's just a cracker." Too funny! You've got a new subscriber.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
This may be satirical but it really is the truth. If we taught the opposing views to the fact of evolution, we'd throw in all other explanations, to be fair, like the Hindu idea of the world being on the back of an enormous turtle floating in space. Which do you think imaginative children will go for? Old man poofing shit from nothing, giant freakin space turtle, or scientific fact?
Mstrjedi1852 7 months ago
@Mstrjedi1852 The problem is there is already not enough time for most scientific curriculum without the BS (creationism).
Tactic11 7 months ago 2
@Mstrjedi1852 I know that if I was as younbg as the kids in the video i'd go for the giant freaking space turtle. I'd take it as scientific proof the discworld books were true and protest to get funding to find the discworld. And that's why you don't teach the controversy to over-imaginative kids. And it's meant to show the truth: it shows that the christians don't want "the controversy", they want "christianity".
th3vampan3z3l0rd 7 months ago
good grief, she gets him Jesus and he's still not happy. Worst. Boss. Ever.
Zuifan 7 months ago 3
Oh I could think of a class purpose for creationism. I've learned ALOT about evolutionary biology (And even science, the scientific method and it's history, abiogenesis and astronomy) simply from watching people DEBUNK creationism. And that's coming from someone who already had many of those things as intellectual hobbies of sorts (lifelong too!) and already knew way more then average!
So Creationism Debunking Classes would actually probably be extremely educative.
TheSkunkCat 8 months ago 2
@CynicalCatharsis Really I nvr thought of that how is it oxymoronic?
Exli3r 9 months ago
God is the joke that ONLY Atheists get.
Atheism WINS!
244Ohiro 9 months ago 3
I understand it makes no sense to teasch Creationism or I.D in school becasue not all student are from a Christian back let alone a religious one.
Exli3r 10 months ago
I vote we also teach Alchemy and Astrology!
rjc34 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"teach the contraversy"
STALKS DELIVER BABIES!
Shyhalu 10 months ago
There is no cotroversy!
Evolution is FACT, Genesis and the Qu'ran are FAIRY TALES, from a time when mankind was intellectually immature.
What really pisses me off is that people are allowed to teach ANY religion to children.
Young minds will believe anything you tell them, that's why they believe in Santa Claus, Jesus, The Tooth Fairy, Allah and The Easter Bunny.
Is there anything more sad than a 3 year old Muslim child saying on YouTube that she wants to kill Jews when she grows up?
legion1a 10 months ago 17
"teach the contraversy"
EARTH IS FLAT......!
jannikmt 10 months ago 3
@jannikmt No it isn't. It is banana shaped!
ragerancher 9 months ago
good grief man, we kicked God in the nads by reversing the death process and brought J.C back to life, what more do you want?!
lol, there is no controversy. Honestly, in order for there to be a controversy there would have to be a large percentage of scientists FOR the 'alternative' for that to happen, said 'alternative' would have to hold up to scientific scrutiny. It doesn't happen, plain and simple. If you want to go back to primitive times so much, join the Amish.
Zuifan 11 months ago
@Zuifan
That's funny... I've adopted a similar mantra as late: "If you want to reject science, sell all of your belongings and join the Amish."
mtszabo 11 months ago
Hysterical satire!!
MISTERASMODEUS 1 year ago
LOL someone who can appeal to american Christians, definitely ain't Jesus
bringonthewrath 1 year ago 3
The FSM.. Teach the controversy. He boiled for our sins RAmen
19822andy 1 year ago 8
They're called creation stories because that's all they are, stories.
davidls11 1 year ago
I would be all in favor of "teaching the controversy" if that means "explain to kids the origin of the so called 'controversy' and how completely full of shit the creationists are". In other words, tell them the truth and prepare them against the propaganda.
LordZentei 1 year ago 3
@LordZentei
Question is how one would explain it in simple terms...
Like, just a heads up -- What you learn here is science, but there are bad men out there with a lot of money and a lot of power. These people believe that they speak for a magical wizard in the sky. This man has a book. Now, these men say that science is a lie, in order to get people to devote their life to the wizard and his book. No-one has ever seen the wizard, and his book doesn't prove his existence.
How about that?
EikC 1 year ago
"Teach the controversy!"
"Okay. Because populations don't always speciate cleanly and because evolution is such a gradual process, there is a great amount of controversy over how to classify these millions of transitional fossils. Was this one an ancient precursor to modern fish, to modern tetrapods, or both? Where do the branches occur, and how fuzzy are the spaces between them?"
rkyeun 1 year ago 32
This isn't even an issue if we recognize that public schooling is immoral.
reapfreak 1 year ago
TEACH TEH STUPIDZ!!!
aezeon 1 year ago
Excellent cartoon.
phinny5608 1 year ago 3
@godhatesbooklerners i think this made a very clear and important point. If you did not see that i think you may have to watch it again. creationist want the schools to "teach the controversy" But only there controversy. they don't want all the other beliefs and religions taught. Just there own. this short film is pointing that out. now it being well animated and well acted is arguable and largly more opinion based so i wont touch that.
HellsGate9999 1 year ago
0:53, is that meant to be PZ Myers?
oilotnoM 1 year ago
Yes. :)
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
Teach the flat earth controversy, and the controversy over gravity. Oh, and don't forget alchemy. Much better than modern chemistry. I mean, if we teach the ID controversy, why discriminate against the others?
ubuntututorials 1 year ago
Perfect!
myteethareshiny 1 year ago
i was thinking wheres the jfk assassination
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 Right....now THAT's a controversy they should teach!
ChuckyJesus666 1 year ago
Pure gold.
jfinite 1 year ago
hehe nice vid. made me laff. :)
liked the KKK bit, hehe.
CyberNeticRodent 1 year ago 3
Hey!! Where's the Flying Spaghetti Monster? We pastafarians demand equal time!
boksbox 1 year ago 4
ok im going to piss myself over here.
brilliant, again.
onlywhenprovoked 1 year ago
LOL someone nicer at Retardson.
bigboss025 1 year ago
I guess it's a nervous laugh this video. Funny but too true for comfort. In the USA anyway. Elsewhere it's not so bad. I wonder when Americans are going to catch up with the rest of us who now know that you don't need a god to explain things anymore.
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz: I would warn you against complacency. Australia has shown what just a few years of laxity can do, and fundamentalists are missionaries. The US seems to be unusually problematic in this way, but that's right now - in twenty years, the shoe may be on the other foot.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex As an American, I can only "pray" that you're right! (Nothing wrong w/ praying as long as you understand that it has no PRACTICAL use!)
crazy4carolyn 1 year ago
@warren52nz Alot of us have! Unfortunately, the brainwashed ones are many. And the brainwashing STRONG! We're trying to help but it's very difficult! The brainwashed think we have something to do w/ SATAN?! (Roll of the eyes!)
crazy4carolyn 1 year ago
LOL! She actually invited Jesus! Can you imagine!?!?
CosmosFan1 1 year ago
Biggest lmfao at 1:21...
^_^ \/,
100percentrekkie 1 year ago
fantastic!
faeryfirefly 1 year ago
I would teach the controversy to show how different creation myths contradict one another because they rely on cultural stories and subjective reasoning. Then I would show how science uses objective reasoning and how this helped to support the Theory of Evolution. Not exactly what the creationists want, but atleast I would be teaching "the controversy" in a very scientific manner. ;)
TheMrDeist 1 year ago 3
@godhatesbooklerners youre painfully unfunny !
rosen00000 1 year ago
FUCKING EPIC!
superwowie111 1 year ago
HA!! This is outstanding! Well done!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Christian parents Forced a school to allow religion n think that there community was Christians so a couple of times the kids go home with buddist or Mormon pamplets n the parent for open religion in school petition that those religion should not be taught, how selfish n arrogant n this cartoon shows that
8o8riddim 1 year ago
they should have placed ted haggard at the ending and the principal approved
bajorjor1 1 year ago
@godhatesbooklerners yeah the comic timing is kinda off XD
JamesTR4 1 year ago