@2Staccato3 Unfortunately, evolution is debated as a counter-part to intelligent design and rarely if ever has a theory that could co-exist with one another. Because of that, your comment about it only dealing with life's constant changing is only a small piece of the puzzle.
@ComputerScience54 Actually, it is considering that when people try to prove evolution they talk about the big bang followed by us originating from a single celled amoeba. After all, that is part of the reason why they want to find the Higgs Boson.. a remnant of that big bang that would give further evidence in that evolutionary chain, amongst other things.
If you have to make a snide remark to refute a point, you aren't much of a scientist.
I love his story about the scientist who found out he was wrong. But, I would like to stand up for those who have faith and are good. He blanket critices those of faith, when so many good people have faith. Faith doesn't have to mean fundamentalism or even religion. It can mean at its simplist, just hope. I wouldn't like to extinguish positive and good people of faith or simple hope from those who have it.
It is all based on faith ... all of it ... both 'science' and 'religion'. As near as I can see, one man's faith is another man's fable, and we will fight and argue to the death of reason to prove the un-provable foundation upon which both are based.
I was told by the director of the graduate school of which I attended that the humanist sociological perspective of which he propounded could not be scientifically proven, but must be accepted as a matter of 'faith', yet Dr Holt constantly railed against anything else based upon 'faith'. As one 'faith' better than the next? I still find it all confusing ...
@LeonardMelton1 We have faith that science is right because it has been tried and tested. Our scientific "faiths" are based off of ideas which lead to experiments which have lead to results we call truths. In religion, your faith comes from an anonymously written text, usually some 2,000 years old which hold no scientific or historical fact. Which is the better "faith" in the 21st century? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just stating an opinion.
@HewettT2 It's about falsifiability. It sounds like "the strongest survive". But how can it be falsified? By showing an example of a weaker surviving? But doesn't that mean that it was indeed a stronger one? Like this in simple words :)
It reminds me of math and logic though. How can one go about disproving that 1+1 = 2? It's a seemingly inescapable tautology which cannot be falsified (at least not with my imagination), yet mathematical/logical shenanigans like these are potentially useful. Maybe natural selection is one of those inescapable axioms?
@HewettT2 Yeah, 2 = 1 + 1 looks like the definition of "2" actually, but when it comes to juxtaposing evolution to creationism or other theories, we cannot define "surviors" as "the strongest ones", because other theories (I'm making this up now) can think of "survivors" as "chosen ones" or "meant to be" or "planned to eventually live" or "the worthies to stay" (where the worthies can mean something like "forgiving" or "kind", not necessarily having the biggest claws) etc.
@dachevashe ...And things that can probably throw evolution's explanatory power out the window:
1. A dog being born literally from a lightning strike hitting a mud puddle, bringing up the possibility that a species could have been born but not from evolution
2. A human fossil dated back to the Jurassic to support the above
@dachevashe And if I were to think about God, it's not something you can falsify - even with all the logic you can throw at people, people can just use ad hoc reasoning and even go as far to say that God is out of our realm of understanding.
So far, I'm not sure what it would take to prove that God doesn't exist.
Frankly, I don't understand what the atheist are hanging around for. nothing you do matters, good or bad. life is hard sometimes, so why suffer through it at all? I always confuse this guy with stephen hawking, the guy in the wheelchair who's an atheist. I know he's suffering, but he doesn't commit suicide, why not? surely he's not worried about heaven or hell. I'm sure all these alleged atheist say secret prayer when times get tough...just in case.
@gftnil saying that atheists secretely pray when times get tough is stupid. when you want a new phone, but cant afford one, do you secretely write letters and send to the north pole just in case santa is real. no. as for the rest of what you said, atheists doesn't mean nihilist, so i dont even understand what you are saying. you can be an atheist and find meaning in life, follow any philosophy ect. buddhist for example are atheists. there is no god in buddhism.
@gftnil With life comes not only suffering but also joy. How fun must it be to be disabled yet being one of the worlds leading scientist doing research the majority of the people on earth, including you, are not even able to comprehend. Knowing that there is only one life also makes your life worth living. To religious people on the other hand, life is simply doing a lot of shit each day and ask a god to forgive you, so that you may enter heaven or whatever when you die. I'd hate it.
@gftnil WOW you must have a boring and sad live, the only reason you do not commit suicide is your belief in a god and an afterlife? or even worse, becaues you fear punishment because in your religion suicide is a sin?
neither the evolutionist nor the creationist have the palpable proof of their claims, so why can't we admit that we are all on the same boat, still seeking for the truth, but while we haven't find it out yet, let's just say "we don't know" because neither one had ever seen adam and eve nor the nature that formed a single celled animal, this is the most beautiful honest conclusion that we can arrive at! that we are all don't know about the source of life nor the afterlife...:)
@sam9X Claims of what? Where exactly life came from maybe not but you can see proof of evolution, mapped genomes between species look like family trees. Evolution is fact, how evolution works exactly is the theory, hence you have evolution and evolutionary theory which are different. The church of England accepts evolution as fact because the evidence is so huge. I do agree though that no one can know if there is an after life, it's sort of a one way ticket. lol.
@sam9X we have plenty of evidence for evolution and zero evidence for creationism. what are you talking about no evidence for evolution? it ranges from genectics, dna, fossil record, natural selection, artificial selection, vistigial body parts. ect....however the begining of life is not evolution, that is abiogenesis, which we dont fully understand, but it doesnt mean we know nothing. that is a false dichotomy.
@sam9X you may have had a point some 150 years ago, but meanwhile we have figured it out and found huge amounts of evidence and this evidence is conclusively showing us that evolution is a fact. we have observed it, replicated it in laboratories, we understand some important mechanisms of evolution. while the idea of creationsim is much older, no evidence nor any mechanisms have been discovered that would show creation is a fact.
@sam9X "neither the evolutionist nor the creationist have the palpable proof of their claims, so why can't we admit that we are all on the same boat, still seeking for the truth,"
What you state is grossly incorrect. evolutionary theory is verified by thousands of peer reviewed research experiments and is observed virtually daily in the lab and the field. creationism is simply the creation myth of Abrahamic religions.
this video proves to me one thing, most people really dont have much to do in there lives(dont mean the man in it, i mean the people argueing in the comments)
Richard Dawkins and any scientists has been offered 4,4 trillion pound-sterling by Adnan Oktar if he could prove the evolution theory, by showing the transitional fossils, NO OF THEM CAN !!! Dawkins had also been invited by Adnan Oktar to have a debate in public, But he didn't dare to come! even when his own TV program on Channel 4, which is called Enemies of Reason, were suggested to have a discussion with MR. Adnan Oktar, He didn't dare. Because He's a dickless scientist!
« has been offered 4,4 trillion pound-sterling by Adnan Oktar if he could prove the evolution theory »
No, not really. Yahya has probably made some fuss about anybody being able to "prove evolution", whereby he substituted evolution for his own Hovindistic misrepresentations of such, but there's nothing new there: Hovind himself already tried the exact same thing, and his transparent attempt at deception was quickly dismantled.
« Dawkins had also been invited by Adnan Oktar to have a debate in public »
Why would he? Yahya presents the *exact* same misrepresentations as Hovind did back in the day. They've already been thoroughly debunked, and Yahya's credibility destroyed. At least amongst the less gullible.
@sam9X First of all no one would come for the reason, that he has not show to have that amount of money.
2. His condition for the challenge are made up by him and cannot be tested double blindly. He can change his definition of transitional fossil at anytime. Which has done in past challenges to his debacle of a challenge.
3. So because this guy is lying and no one could ever meet his goals as he would move the goalpost, then its no wonder why people shy away.
@sam9X you're fucking retard numbuts, you got no idea what you are talking about and richest person in the world wouldn't have more than 50billion pounds, get facts straight before you try to be smart you fucktard. It makes me sick listening to not properly fucked people like you, go heal your brains.
@rkcraigslist51907 evolution has yet to be proven, every aspect has a proven law working against it, evolutionists have yet to use facts, creationists havent lied. kinda funny when a flaw is presented in evolution, the story changes.
I get a laugh out of all the people satisfying themselves and patting each other on the back like they're geniuses for figuring out that the bible says things that aren't true or provable. I get my intellectual satisfaction by thinking beyond these petty squabbles. At the tips of science and logic is philosophy which is next door to spirituality. Dawkins is postured to reject the supersensible out of hand. He has set an automatic limit to what he can accept as true. he is as bad as a Christian.
@gorilla199uncensored You guys always say the same things. Unicorns, were they to exist, would be a physical horse with a horn. I was talking about thinking about possibilities beyond materialism. No, it isn't rock solid facts I can throw in peoples' faces, but it's satisfying for me to wonder about. Better than the "atheists vs the westboro baptist church" hate-fight. I didn't say anything about any "belief" of mine either. Sorry. You get your kicks from beating up on the mentally weak. I'm not
@grenangle The spirit of the 4th of July is one of nationalism and patriotism. You can't hold those in your hand. The word sexuality refers to things of or related to sex itself, so things of or related to the intangible essences of things are called spirituality. It's a pretty popular and inspiring to think about. For me anyway. I don't reject evolution and I'm not a christian. OK?
@the1voiceofreason you can make fun of christianity all you want but dont forget when you take that 666 mark of the beast on your hand/forehead, that was foretold in the christian bible 2,000 years ago. You atheists cant undo prophecy. You will dance to the bible's tune as it was foretold. You cant stop 666. The only thing you can do is outlaw the book that exposes your soon coming master.
@jct09100 You are what's wrong with the world. Humanity has survived IN SPITE of religion, not because of it. We will survive your ignorance too. You have now made yourself a part of re-occuring history. Scientists discover truth about wold, the religious deny it until it can't be denied anymore. Look up Galileo Galilei and his theory about the sun being the center of the solar system... Who opposed that theory? What about the flat-earth?
The evolution theory is being taught same as operational science. It is not the same. You cannot do experiments or even observe the past. R. Dawkins said " evolution HAS been observed, just not while it was happening"... Thats like saying you recorded the song playing on the radio, but just not while it was playing...
The universe burped and oot of some gas explosion, lifeless chemicals without inteligent design, assembled themselves into the first living cell -amoeba which later evolved into every living creature. All living creatures derived from amoeba.
So much for darwins survival of the fittest.. Natural selection BS.. Asexual reproduction produces twice as much reproductive success as sexual reproduction. How did the later gain enough advantage to be selected?
Christian science is always cutting edge and correct.
Like the fact that ring around saturn is actually jesus foreskin (its true google it) the pope supported this idea & it was the head of his library in the vatican that came up with this brilliant scientific theory.
Christians were still trying to spread the idea that the earth was flat in the beginning of the 1900´s google "flat earth map" and you will see a map of a flat earth with an angel standing in all 4 corners,like in revelation
Shove your so called fact- based theories where the sun dont shine and show me your crocoduck along with all the untold millions of mutated animals that have misteriously and conviniently (for evolutionists) been kidnaped by aliens and hid on other planets. Their absence is the trade secret of paleontology.
In the words of Tim Minchin, you hope that the people who claim evolution is only a theory would also feel the same way about the theory of gravity... and would just float the fuck away.
it's not evil, it's just the opposite. it's truth vs lies, light vs darkness. jesus cannot be hid. you cant hide light in darkness. this man sought truth thats why he found Christ because Christ is Truth. burn your evolution books. the bible is the only book he needs. God bless that man! and save his whole family!
watch ancient aliens its the most logical idea ive ever heard of when it comes to how we where created. (i know it sounds so stupid) But it is the only theory of creation that has evidence.
@safeinsuburbia Hello? Science BEAT AIDs to a chronical disease (at least in the west) Cancer is very difficult to treat and a stop to aging is even more difficult (one of the most annoying facts is that cancer and more life seem to be intertwined somehow - you can have more life but that means more cancer too)
@Tracchofyre strange, people on this video cant seem to make an educated arguement when something is said that they do not have the brain power to understand
@rkcraigslist51907 I would fall to my death. Why? Do you know for sure that "gravity" exists. What holds the solar system together. Who knows? No one can know for sure, but gravity is a good guess.
Merely trying to point out that theory in the scientific community is not a shot in the dark but based on solid evidence. You don't have to be an asshole about it just because science has questioned beliefs you happen to hold. That's the point of it all.... Prick.
@rkcraigslist51907 No, I enjoy long winded discussions. Telling someone to go jump off of a bridge is not a good way to have a mature argument. Let me leave it off in a language you might be able to understand because you are clearly dim-witted:
@IKillBabyKittensLOL Your so right, gravity is a theory. In fact i dont think gravity exist at all. it must be a peanut butter molasses hybrid that holds us all to the earth... sounds good right? being that gravity still is ONLY a theory... i guess i was really ignorant like you say all along..
@jonjon2034 That is actually wrong. A Theory doesn´t need to be proven in Scientific Community. It´s more so that a scientific Theory should easily ALLOW itself to be proven or disproven.At least in the empiric sciences like Biology or Chemistry and so on. Evolution is a Theory that was PROVEN countless times with numerous measure theories that pointed to the same results. Thus Evolution is an exceptionally well grounded Theory. Science is altogether well grounded knowledge, so that means a lot.
@Tracchofyre couldnt have said it better myself. its hard for me to explain things while stoned.. but harder still is to try to explain to someone that this theory.. is already a proven fact due to MASS ammounts of Overwhelming evidence.
@jonjon2034 -- who exactly do you mean by "you guys"? In this video Dawkins refutes the idea that evolution is "only a theory" -- the title is ironic. The video does not misuse the word theory, and this channel is largely dedicated to spreading reason and the scientific method. Since your comment is not a reply to another comment, I can only assume it's a reply to the video itself . . . . . or rather, to the title, since you don't seem to have watched the actual video.
The reason they don't call it a fact is because they realize that even the most impenetrable arguments could be wrong; scientists don't deny anything, truth just needs proof.
@jonjon2034 Exactly. Evolution has been proven, God hasn't.
Even if God came down we could argue that it was just some guy pretending to be God or just like a mirage of something, lol. Even if God does exist we could argue that he's not even the one written in the scriptures. Even if my fingernails aren't blue I could argue that they possibly are. If just saying shit for no reason is science than everyone's a scientist.
@jonjon2034 Well, not really; scientific theory explains the mechanism or process behind a natural phenomenon. The accuracy or legitimacy of a theory is predicated on the amount of evidence supporting it; and the theory of evolution meets its burden of proof, as the observable mechanism of speciation.
A Theory is a scientificly accepted fact, calculated out through math.
The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action. Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.
@rkcraiglsit51907......... and you know what? When you are at your worst and don't have anyone to turn to what do you do, you pray, do you put up a christmas tree and celebrate christmas cause if you do you are just another hypocrite. I don't celebrate this holiday or any other one because the bible tells you not to. Yet all these religions are hypocrites as well. I am a biblical christian and live my life as best I can with the rules that have been laid out before me.
@Treehugrr13 You are such an idiot. Darwin never said that, that was put out by idiotic christians like yourself. I posted a link of fossils leading from our ancestoral apes to modern humans, look at it! You are so ignorant, no wonder why other countries are laughing at us. You really have nothing inteligent to say at all, I really hope you haven't reproduced yet. Please read a book other then the bible once in a while, you might just learn something.
@Treehugrr13 What is your argument? You're saying people pray (because they think God is there), therefor God exists and evolution doesn't happen? The thing is though, when people pray, they are just talking to themselves, praying does absolutely nothing. And so what is an atheist wants to celebrate Christmas? What does that prove?
@rkcraigslist51097....... I have read Darwin's theories of evolution and if you had you would also know that on his death bed in 1882, he admitted and said he was wrong. That he was actually reading the bible. So I ask you again where is the missing link that connects one species to another. Here I will give you a hint there isn't one.
@Treehugrr13 So if I'm to understand, you're saying that because Darwin said that evolution was wrong then it should be disregarded? I liken that to if Newton said on his deathbed that gravity didn't exist, you would disregard gravity, despite the evidence therein. Keep in my mind, that other independent scientists have provided incredibly strong evidence for Evolution. Can you not see a huge flaw in your statement?
@TheMaxTobias Even tho it doesn't hinder one bit the evidence for evolution, It was proven that he never said that. That was some rumor passed by some evangelical religous person. The same with Anton LaVey, apparently he said he was wrong as well, and I'm sure when Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens dies They'll mutter the same words as well. Its funny isn't it, how scientist use evidence to prove a point, and creationist turn to lies.
My god, your argument is so stupid. It's like watching 5 year olds say, 'but he started it!'. MrDunsapy, you seriously need to brush up on your scientific terminology (difference between hypotheses, theory, law and fact) and understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis; rkcraiglist, it's a common ancestor with monkeys and macroevolution is a defunct term, it's known as speciation. You're not even debating, your just typing at each other...
@biobotism Ill give you that Speciation is a more accurate term, thank you. Yes of course we share a common ancestor with monkeys, but some where down the tree the branch splits, most likely before the oldest fossil we have today of our ancestor A. ramidus (4.4 Ma). And we actuelly are debateing, unless the definition for debate changed recently. Your welcome to join in if you'd like.
@rkcraiglist51907 wow! First instead of having an intelligent conversation like adults do, you want to resort to insults. Let me ask you this oh wise one? If you believe in evolution where is the missing link that we supposedly evolved from? And if there is no missing link found then logically we have a creator. I am not saying that evolution does not exist on a certain level but to say we evolved from slime is absurd.
@Treehugrr13 I was having an intelligent coversation with MrDunsapy but when i get people like you telling me that photographs having a photographer is evidence for our origins, its hard not to tear it down. there is an abundent amount of fossils we have found showing missing links, here they are for the thrid time... Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens (current humans). research it man
@Treehugrr13 And its nice to see you accept one form of evolution (micro-evolution, which is what the pope now accepts, although he also campaigns against birth control in HIV/AIDs stricken countries.. pleasent huh?). but for some reason you cant accept Macro-evolution (from species to species). Just because living things in the world look designed doesn't mean they were. It's called shaping over millions of years through natural selection. Sorry there isn't a gospel for it, read a science book.
@Treehugrr13 Okay, this is really getting infuriating. Why do you creationists always say "were is the missing link"?! Why don't you go to a Natural History Museum or something and see for yourself? You people ALWAYS say this and you don't actually bother to find out about the thousands of transitional fossils out there. Even if we show you loads of transitional fossils, you won't accept them as evidence, you'll find a way to discount them and keep your head in the sand.
@rkcraigslist51907. Because it doesn't exist honey!!!! Of course there is evolution in species but for survival purposes not for superiority such as you are suggesting!
@Treehugrr13 lets see whos ignorant. I'm getting my information from many books and articles i've read written by various scientist. Your getting your information about the bible FROM another bible.. I've read the bible before, and it is one of the things that helped me become an athiest. It's complete crap! any sane rational person with just cerebral fluid can see that. There is no scientific evidence for creation, there never has been. Your pulling a very common creationist arguement..
"This world is so complex, it looks designed so it MUST have a designer." everything in this world has evolved through natural selection over millions of years, 99% of scientist accept it. Why cant you just expand your horizons to reading a science book once in a while, try Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth". And we have many missing links that we have found, just walk to a museum once in a while.
@rkcraigslist51907. How ignorant can you be. GEEZ!!!! for example, a photograph has a photographer, a child has a parent, why is it so hard for you to realize that a creation has to have a creator? Have you even read the bible? I have not only read it but I have studied it.. I have what is called an archaeological bible. The bible has been proven not only through fossils but through writings such as the dead sea scrolls. No one has ever found the missing link you want to know why?
@Treehugrr13 The Bible talks about talking donkeys and people floating into the sky, how on fucking earth can the Bible be true? You're trying to portray mythical stories (The Bible) as just as valid as legitimate science (evolution). When you prove that a burning bush could possibly talk, or that a stick could turn into a snake, then I might be able to take the Bible seriously. Until then, the Bible is nothing more than fairy-tales.
@MrDunsapy All your "facts" aren't. You don't know what you are talking about. Your science denial has nothing to do with science.
"life comes from life" except for when it doesn't: abiogenisis
"human comes from humans" No, humans are just a segment of a long chain the we arbitrarily call "human". Humans also came from fish, and blue-green algae.
"there is design in life" This is your conclusion stated as a premiss. Order and complexity are not the same thing as design.
@no2religions abiogenesis is only a theory and scientists really do not have any good stories even to explain how a cell can just be complete without being put together. The reason this is so, is that RNA is needed in the production of proteins, but proteins are need in the production of RNA. The cell have to be complete before it can survive and reproduce. This is one of the catch 22 types of events that cannot happen by chance. Abiogenesis, is nowhere near explaining the start to life.
@MrDunsapy "The cell have to be complete before it can survive and reproduce" => while i agree abiogenesis has flaws and is no where complete, this statement i quoted here is wrong. A cell does not need a full machinery to survive. A naked strand of RNA has been shown to be capable of catalyzing its own replication, and that, by definition, is a living thing already. You don't need a complete cell, with nucleus, ribosomes, proteins, Golgi apparatus...etc to survive.
@Casshyr Ya, but were did the eye come from, how did everything come from nothing and were do you get your morals? lol... what is what the conversation turns to when you present actual science to a science denier. Watch, if he replies to this it will be misdirection and denial. It's not even central to his point, but it would be reflex to act this way in the face of physical evidence.
@no2religions The eye was created. Now morals has nothing to do with 'evolution' . That is a creative trait.
That comes with intelligence. It is not just instinct. You can actually put yourself in harms way because you think it is right thing to do. What does that have to with 'evolution'? What does music have to do with 'evolution' or painting or math? These things gives us pleasure, to make life interesting. Nothing to do with 'evolution'
@MrDunsapy How about the fact that our brains have evolved so much that we now can comprehend, music, art, and math... the eye was not created, we have many records of where it evolved from.. of course you wont believe that... can you please acknowledge the fact that i just gave you a list of Human evolutionary fossils that we have discovered and recorded... i would love to hear about how God did it..
@rkcraigslist51907 The eye is a good example of creation. It is not only the eye it'self, but also the connection to the brain. And the brain being able to code the information. If you like, go back to before any eyes were around. How did it 'evolve'?
@MrDunsapy Not suprising that you turn to the most commonly asked question by skeptics. Eyes started as eye spots, photoreceptive proteins that sense varying degrees of light. After the eyespots Pit Eyes came around, which were like sunken in eye spots to help differentiate light (still seen in some invertibrates today). After the pit eye came the Pin Hole Eye, turning the eye into a chamber making objects distinguishable. After that cornias and lenses apeared. do you want a link to this info?
@rkcraigslist51907 these spots where did they come from? I mean, if the animal before them had no spots, they could not have mutated because they are not there.
So instead of ignoring completely the list of fossils i gave you that you can at any time go to a museum to see for yourself, can you please tell me how god did that? I find it interesting that you completely looked past my list of recorded fossils. Any thoughts?
@MrDunsapy I just gave you a list of fossils of the progression of hominids. the progression from our ancestor african ape to modern humans. their skull sizes show the evolution of the brain. what do you mean where are the "almost" humans? they're our ancestors! we came from them! we have found enough fossils to show our evolution. have we found them all? of course not, they're fossils, they're not raising their hands saying "i'm over here!!". where is your evidence for creation?
@MrDunsapy Tells you nothing? Can you read? I gave you a LIST of fossils we found of our hominid ancestors showing our progression from acient ape to US. Here it is again just to save you the effort of going back one page. Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens (current humans). any one of these supports evolution. I'm still waiting for your evidence of creation... when your ready my friend.
@rkcraigslist51907I I picked this one " Australopithecus africanus" . Tel Aviv
University anthropologists have published a study casting serious doubt on Lucy’s role as mankind’s ape ancestor Lucy should no longer be considered to be our direct ancestor. So as I said they fall by the way side. Lucy’s demise falsifies 33 years of evolutionary exaggeration and propaganda. Which means that he scientists will go to almost any lengths to try and prove their case.Do you see what I mean?
@MrDunsapy How interesting that you pull your bullshit information off of a creation website. That Article was written in 2006 for "The Journal of Creation" and includes studys from a university that honestly looks predominitly religous. research recent news on lucy where you can get up to date opinions by people who are acutelly credible. By the way Lucy comes from Australopithecus afarensis not africanus. Nice try my friend, pick a new fossile lets try this again.
@rkcraigslist51907 Actually I did know that Lucy was from, Australopithecus, that was a slip on my part.
But the result is the same. Lucy was big news and promoted by the scientists until,new scientist come along without the prejudiced ,these 'links' quietly fade away.
australopithecus-ramidu ‘strikingly chimpanzee-like in morphology.’
The arm bones are described as showing ‘a host of characters usually associated with modern apes.’
This is another one that bites the dust. Teeth were ape like.
@MrDunsapy My friend do me favor and honestly search "recent news about our ancestor lucy". The first page is filled with links to articles all dating to this present year, you cant get much newer then that. As for A. ramidus (including the famous fossil Ardi), This fossil shows through the pelvis that this was a species that included tree climbing with bipedal activity. And of course this species which dates back 4.4 million years ago, of course it has ape traits, it was more ape then human.
@rkcraigslist51907 So if it was more ape like than human, how do you know it had anything to do with humans? That it was just an ape. You see this is all assumption. What you need to see is a ape having a human as a offspring. Otherwise what you are saying is nothing. Because some life has things in common with other life, does not mean one came from another. they are similar. I can say God created one and from that DNA with a little change in the DNA made another animal.
@MrDunsapy Are you seriously saying that in order for evolution to be true, an ape has to have human offspring? Hold old are you man? Thats something i would expect to hear from a 3rd grader. Scientist never claim to positivly know how life started, but they have theorys that are much more plausible then some idiotic imaginary person in the sky. Of course life comes from life, a toaster wouldn't give birth to a kitten. But this is NOT evidence for creation.
Well I was taking the liberty, that you would understand that I meant over many generations.
That man came from some type of other animal over many many generations.
The scientists would have to show that could happen and actually did happen. Because what this is saying , goes against the facts that we do have, and we see, around us.
@MrDunsapy Your three "facts" are not facts at all but are merely hypothosis. Scientist have found evidence that refutes "The God Theory". But since people like you absolutely deny this evidence, saying that "god" is the truth of the world, YOU bear the burden of proof. Where is your material evidence for "god", where is your proof for creation? we've talked for 5 pages and you haven't givin me one credible piece of evidence that is acknowledged as proof for creation. I'm still waiting...
Of course they are facts. There is nothing to say they are not. And we see it every day. They have even been tested by the scientists, for a 150 years. And not broken.
@MrDunsapy These many fossils we have show that transition from ape to man, why can't you see that? look at the fossils! look at what scientist are saying! Its mind blowing to believe that people like you actually think this way, to deny science, because a 2000 year old book says so... why do you choose to remain ignorant about this? Maybe you refuse to believe you came from a monkey because your ego is to high. Sorry man but you and your whole family are monkeys, just like everyone else.
@rkcraigslist51907 What you are looking at is not real. It is taken from bits and pieces and artist conceptions. Also many have been be reclassified as having nothing to do with man.
That's why I call what the scientists have done as: The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
If you like pick one of the examples of your progression, and we will talk about that.
@MrDunsapy The evolution of the eye is well understood, ANY research would've shown that. All social animals have behavioural limits, "morals". Even piranha don't eat each other. Self sacrifice is an element of something called "kin selection" also something ANY looking into would show. Music is tied to language, painting and math are creativity, problem solving and communication... all beneficial traits. It is now clear you've never even tried looking into these things. At all. Period.
@MrDunsapy I know. You are the one saying there is a difference. I don't think there is any reason to make that distinction. Don't kill is, for example, a limit regarded by every society all through time. Like piranha. If you want to pile on a bunch of stuff like having the wrong kind of thoughts or liking the wrong kind people I don't see those as morals as much as made-up stuff. These don't define "good" in any sense I recognize.
@MrDunsapy not quite, such examples are generally synthesized artificially in the lab. You will not find RNA existing by itself in today's world because if evolution is true, then it tells us that RNA has become dependent on other cofactors over time, thus losing the ability to be independent. But my point is via artificial means, we can indeed show RNA existing by itself, and self-replicating.
@Casshyr Yes by artificial means. Intelligent interference.
The point I'm trying to make is that the scientists theories are not based on evidence or facts, but based on their interpretation of what the the fossils, mean.The same in biology.But if you go by the actual evidence, life comes from life, a human comes from humans, and there is design in life. Those 3 cover the actual evidence we have. I don't have to interpret anything. Those are the facts.
@MrDunsapy yes agree, except you are not just saying that. You are also implying that your Christian creationism is true! You have your own set of inferences and interpretation, and those in the end, are not scientifically supported. There is a reason why over 99% of life scientists accept evolution. It's not a matter of which explanation is the "fact", it's a matter of which explanation has more evidence supporting it.
@MrDunsapy " Abiogenesis, is nowhere near explaining the start to life." Oh, well it must be an invisible sky wizard then! That's the most scientific possibility. Believe what you want, but pretending science supports or has anything to do with it is fully dishonest.
@no2religions You can't run from the truth. Isn't it better to test what you believe in, or is it better to ignore what some do not want to hear? After all this is the scientists and they are supposed to have the real answers. So why don't they. Why do they go against the evidence we have.
I see by your name you are against religions, so I can see why you might not like what I am saying
@MrDunsapy I don't think you know what evidence is. And I don't think that science being a 2 billion person conspiracy against jesus is a likely possibility. Evolution and atheism are not the same thing... at all. You conflate the two. That is not science, that is misinformation and dishonesty. You claim facts, that aren't, just call people scared of the truth, then you offer no verifiable information. Leave science aside, you don't need it for faith. You can stay honest that way.
he is such a jerk !!!
Rsos2010 6 days ago
@2Staccato3 Unfortunately, evolution is debated as a counter-part to intelligent design and rarely if ever has a theory that could co-exist with one another. Because of that, your comment about it only dealing with life's constant changing is only a small piece of the puzzle.
darklumina13 1 week ago
@darklumina13
Intelligent design isn't even a theory. It's not even a hypothesis.
Chiungalla79 1 week ago
@ComputerScience54 Actually, it is considering that when people try to prove evolution they talk about the big bang followed by us originating from a single celled amoeba. After all, that is part of the reason why they want to find the Higgs Boson.. a remnant of that big bang that would give further evidence in that evolutionary chain, amongst other things.
If you have to make a snide remark to refute a point, you aren't much of a scientist.
darklumina13 1 week ago
@darklumina13
" evolution they talk about the big bang "
WOW the ignorant creatard doesnt even know wwhat evolution is, what a surprise.
Heres a point,
Every field of science proves your primative bronze aged story book wrong.
CASE CLOSED!
gorilla199uncensored 3 days ago
I love his story about the scientist who found out he was wrong. But, I would like to stand up for those who have faith and are good. He blanket critices those of faith, when so many good people have faith. Faith doesn't have to mean fundamentalism or even religion. It can mean at its simplist, just hope. I wouldn't like to extinguish positive and good people of faith or simple hope from those who have it.
ummmerrrrummm 2 weeks ago
Dawkins is copying Sagan's fashion sense :)
PrimericanIdol 3 weeks ago
It is all based on faith ... all of it ... both 'science' and 'religion'. As near as I can see, one man's faith is another man's fable, and we will fight and argue to the death of reason to prove the un-provable foundation upon which both are based.
LeonardMelton1 3 weeks ago
I was told by the director of the graduate school of which I attended that the humanist sociological perspective of which he propounded could not be scientifically proven, but must be accepted as a matter of 'faith', yet Dr Holt constantly railed against anything else based upon 'faith'. As one 'faith' better than the next? I still find it all confusing ...
LeonardMelton1 3 weeks ago
@LeonardMelton1 We have faith that science is right because it has been tried and tested. Our scientific "faiths" are based off of ideas which lead to experiments which have lead to results we call truths. In religion, your faith comes from an anonymously written text, usually some 2,000 years old which hold no scientific or historical fact. Which is the better "faith" in the 21st century? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just stating an opinion.
JeremiahCrow 3 weeks ago
@LeonardMelton1 Religion is based on "BLIND FAITH"... big difference.
richig761 2 weeks ago
@LeonardMelton1 You would need to understand science first then you would be able to make a rational decision.
grenangle 2 weeks ago
YOU are the evidence of Intelligent Design!!!
sam9X 3 weeks ago
Religion needs more critics.
MsMommaRose 3 weeks ago 14
Gravity is just a theory...why not take a wander to the nearest cliff and see if you feel unconvinced
d245470k 4 weeks ago
According to the scientific sense of the word "theory", evolution is a theory.
According to the creationist sense of the word "theory", God is just a theory.
HewettT2 4 weeks ago 18
@HewettT2 oh i like this hahaha i am a christian but even i have to say job well done HewettT2 well done!
lamar99999 3 weeks ago
@HewettT2 Actually, according to Popper's (the scientific) sense, Darwin's evolution is not a theory.
dachevashe 2 weeks ago
@dachevashe In a sense it cannot be falsified? Here are things that can probably falsify evolution:
1. A dog being born from human parents, disproving the notion that organisms inherit much of their characteristics from its parents
2. The non-existence of mutations, disproving the notion that characteristics of the general population can change over time.
HewettT2 2 weeks ago
@HewettT2 I was talking about the natural selection part, this is a well-known fallacy, you are familiar with it, why are you talking about nonsense?
dachevashe 2 weeks ago
@dachevashe I'm not seeing how natural selection is exactly a fallacy. Is it too wishy-washy?
HewettT2 2 weeks ago
@HewettT2 It's about falsifiability. It sounds like "the strongest survive". But how can it be falsified? By showing an example of a weaker surviving? But doesn't that mean that it was indeed a stronger one? Like this in simple words :)
dachevashe 2 weeks ago
@dachevashe Lol nice one.
It reminds me of math and logic though. How can one go about disproving that 1+1 = 2? It's a seemingly inescapable tautology which cannot be falsified (at least not with my imagination), yet mathematical/logical shenanigans like these are potentially useful. Maybe natural selection is one of those inescapable axioms?
HewettT2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
dachevashe 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HewettT2 Yeah, 2 = 1 + 1 looks like the definition of "2" actually, but when it comes to juxtaposing evolution to creationism or other theories, we cannot define "surviors" as "the strongest ones", because other theories (I'm making this up now) can think of "survivors" as "chosen ones" or "meant to be" or "planned to eventually live" or "the worthies to stay" (where the worthies can mean something like "forgiving" or "kind", not necessarily having the biggest claws) etc.
dachevashe 2 weeks ago
@dachevashe ...And things that can probably throw evolution's explanatory power out the window:
1. A dog being born literally from a lightning strike hitting a mud puddle, bringing up the possibility that a species could have been born but not from evolution
2. A human fossil dated back to the Jurassic to support the above
HewettT2 2 weeks ago
@dachevashe And if I were to think about God, it's not something you can falsify - even with all the logic you can throw at people, people can just use ad hoc reasoning and even go as far to say that God is out of our realm of understanding.
So far, I'm not sure what it would take to prove that God doesn't exist.
HewettT2 2 weeks ago
@HewettT2 "And if I were to think about God, it's not something you can falsify" exactly. So we, scientists, don't think about it.
dachevashe 2 weeks ago
@HewettT2 He is barely a hypothesis
supermanuman95 2 weeks ago
Frankly, I don't understand what the atheist are hanging around for. nothing you do matters, good or bad. life is hard sometimes, so why suffer through it at all? I always confuse this guy with stephen hawking, the guy in the wheelchair who's an atheist. I know he's suffering, but he doesn't commit suicide, why not? surely he's not worried about heaven or hell. I'm sure all these alleged atheist say secret prayer when times get tough...just in case.
gftnil 1 month ago
@gftnil saying that atheists secretely pray when times get tough is stupid. when you want a new phone, but cant afford one, do you secretely write letters and send to the north pole just in case santa is real. no. as for the rest of what you said, atheists doesn't mean nihilist, so i dont even understand what you are saying. you can be an atheist and find meaning in life, follow any philosophy ect. buddhist for example are atheists. there is no god in buddhism.
420simpson 4 weeks ago
@gftnil With life comes not only suffering but also joy. How fun must it be to be disabled yet being one of the worlds leading scientist doing research the majority of the people on earth, including you, are not even able to comprehend. Knowing that there is only one life also makes your life worth living. To religious people on the other hand, life is simply doing a lot of shit each day and ask a god to forgive you, so that you may enter heaven or whatever when you die. I'd hate it.
Orbitusx 3 weeks ago
@gftnil WOW you must have a boring and sad live, the only reason you do not commit suicide is your belief in a god and an afterlife? or even worse, becaues you fear punishment because in your religion suicide is a sin?
i feel so sorry for you :(
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
neither the evolutionist nor the creationist have the palpable proof of their claims, so why can't we admit that we are all on the same boat, still seeking for the truth, but while we haven't find it out yet, let's just say "we don't know" because neither one had ever seen adam and eve nor the nature that formed a single celled animal, this is the most beautiful honest conclusion that we can arrive at! that we are all don't know about the source of life nor the afterlife...:)
sam9X 1 month ago
@sam9X Claims of what? Where exactly life came from maybe not but you can see proof of evolution, mapped genomes between species look like family trees. Evolution is fact, how evolution works exactly is the theory, hence you have evolution and evolutionary theory which are different. The church of England accepts evolution as fact because the evidence is so huge. I do agree though that no one can know if there is an after life, it's sort of a one way ticket. lol.
gazthefunky39 1 month ago
@sam9X we have plenty of evidence for evolution and zero evidence for creationism. what are you talking about no evidence for evolution? it ranges from genectics, dna, fossil record, natural selection, artificial selection, vistigial body parts. ect....however the begining of life is not evolution, that is abiogenesis, which we dont fully understand, but it doesnt mean we know nothing. that is a false dichotomy.
420simpson 4 weeks ago
@sam9X you may have had a point some 150 years ago, but meanwhile we have figured it out and found huge amounts of evidence and this evidence is conclusively showing us that evolution is a fact. we have observed it, replicated it in laboratories, we understand some important mechanisms of evolution. while the idea of creationsim is much older, no evidence nor any mechanisms have been discovered that would show creation is a fact.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@sam9X "neither the evolutionist nor the creationist have the palpable proof of their claims, so why can't we admit that we are all on the same boat, still seeking for the truth,"
What you state is grossly incorrect. evolutionary theory is verified by thousands of peer reviewed research experiments and is observed virtually daily in the lab and the field. creationism is simply the creation myth of Abrahamic religions.
kaysandesses 2 weeks ago
this video proves to me one thing, most people really dont have much to do in there lives(dont mean the man in it, i mean the people argueing in the comments)
messi996 1 month ago
@messi996
CONGRATULATIONS! You are one of those people who really dont have much to do in there lives....
Happy Holidays!
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
People who believe in creation science have got a cheek saying evolution is "only a theory". Creation science is not even a theory it's an assertion.
gextvedde 1 month ago
I love the way the top rated comment for these videos is always just some guy restating what the video plainly says.
GlorifiedTruth 1 month ago
Richard Dawkins and any scientists has been offered 4,4 trillion pound-sterling by Adnan Oktar if he could prove the evolution theory, by showing the transitional fossils, NO OF THEM CAN !!! Dawkins had also been invited by Adnan Oktar to have a debate in public, But he didn't dare to come! even when his own TV program on Channel 4, which is called Enemies of Reason, were suggested to have a discussion with MR. Adnan Oktar, He didn't dare. Because He's a dickless scientist!
sam9X 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sam9X
« has been offered 4,4 trillion pound-sterling by Adnan Oktar if he could prove the evolution theory »
No, not really. Yahya has probably made some fuss about anybody being able to "prove evolution", whereby he substituted evolution for his own Hovindistic misrepresentations of such, but there's nothing new there: Hovind himself already tried the exact same thing, and his transparent attempt at deception was quickly dismantled.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sam9X
« Dawkins had also been invited by Adnan Oktar to have a debate in public »
Why would he? Yahya presents the *exact* same misrepresentations as Hovind did back in the day. They've already been thoroughly debunked, and Yahya's credibility destroyed. At least amongst the less gullible.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@sam9X First of all no one would come for the reason, that he has not show to have that amount of money.
2. His condition for the challenge are made up by him and cannot be tested double blindly. He can change his definition of transitional fossil at anytime. Which has done in past challenges to his debacle of a challenge.
3. So because this guy is lying and no one could ever meet his goals as he would move the goalpost, then its no wonder why people shy away.
NathanWubs 1 month ago
@sam9X wow you are an embarrassment to humans. I hope you are kidding but you are probably just REALLY dumb
nilbog44 1 month ago
@sam9X you're fucking retard numbuts, you got no idea what you are talking about and richest person in the world wouldn't have more than 50billion pounds, get facts straight before you try to be smart you fucktard. It makes me sick listening to not properly fucked people like you, go heal your brains.
Mindaugas7100 1 month ago
@rkcraigslist51907 evolution has yet to be proven, every aspect has a proven law working against it, evolutionists have yet to use facts, creationists havent lied. kinda funny when a flaw is presented in evolution, the story changes.
CrashHavokTV 1 month ago
@CrashHavokTV
Before I converse with you I would like to put two questions forth.
1.If I reply to all your questions with back up evidence, will you change your mind?
2. Can you give me the definition of evolution?
If you can answer 1 with an honest yes, and 2 with the correct definition of evolution. then I will converse with you and answer all your questions.
NathanWubs 1 month ago
@CrashHavokTV you are completely wrong.
nilbog44 1 month ago
I get a laugh out of all the people satisfying themselves and patting each other on the back like they're geniuses for figuring out that the bible says things that aren't true or provable. I get my intellectual satisfaction by thinking beyond these petty squabbles. At the tips of science and logic is philosophy which is next door to spirituality. Dawkins is postured to reject the supersensible out of hand. He has set an automatic limit to what he can accept as true. he is as bad as a Christian.
DrLight9 1 month ago
@DrLight9
"He has set an automatic limit to what he can accept as true. he is as bad as a Christian."
LOL you have a strange standard, you claim people who deny unicorns are are just as crazy as people who think unicorns exist.
Thats only because you are in the baseless group and you insult facts by lying and saying they are the same standard as your baseless belief.
gorilla199uncensored 1 month ago
@gorilla199uncensored You guys always say the same things. Unicorns, were they to exist, would be a physical horse with a horn. I was talking about thinking about possibilities beyond materialism. No, it isn't rock solid facts I can throw in peoples' faces, but it's satisfying for me to wonder about. Better than the "atheists vs the westboro baptist church" hate-fight. I didn't say anything about any "belief" of mine either. Sorry. You get your kicks from beating up on the mentally weak. I'm not
DrLight9 2 weeks ago
@DrLight9 Define 'spirituality'.
grenangle 2 weeks ago
@grenangle The spirit of the 4th of July is one of nationalism and patriotism. You can't hold those in your hand. The word sexuality refers to things of or related to sex itself, so things of or related to the intangible essences of things are called spirituality. It's a pretty popular and inspiring to think about. For me anyway. I don't reject evolution and I'm not a christian. OK?
DrLight9 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrLight9
"I'm not a christian. OK?"
Does this magical invisable non material god you "think" might exist have a name or a religion to go with it?
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@vampyekai Science's version of "truth" is BS. Read the last few posts and answer them Einstein !
jct09100 1 month ago
@vampirekai you're so smart.. The sum of your intelligence fits inside a sweetpea and there's still room in it for a baseball. A vampire.. Lol
Grow up
jct09100 1 month ago
@the1voiceofreason you can make fun of christianity all you want but dont forget when you take that 666 mark of the beast on your hand/forehead, that was foretold in the christian bible 2,000 years ago. You atheists cant undo prophecy. You will dance to the bible's tune as it was foretold. You cant stop 666. The only thing you can do is outlaw the book that exposes your soon coming master.
jct09100 1 month ago
@jct09100 You are what's wrong with the world. Humanity has survived IN SPITE of religion, not because of it. We will survive your ignorance too. You have now made yourself a part of re-occuring history. Scientists discover truth about wold, the religious deny it until it can't be denied anymore. Look up Galileo Galilei and his theory about the sun being the center of the solar system... Who opposed that theory? What about the flat-earth?
Vampyrekai 1 month ago
The evolution theory is being taught same as operational science. It is not the same. You cannot do experiments or even observe the past. R. Dawkins said " evolution HAS been observed, just not while it was happening"... Thats like saying you recorded the song playing on the radio, but just not while it was playing...
Moron!
(lol)
jct09100 1 month ago
The universe burped and oot of some gas explosion, lifeless chemicals without inteligent design, assembled themselves into the first living cell -amoeba which later evolved into every living creature. All living creatures derived from amoeba.
Morons!
jct09100 1 month ago
So much for darwins survival of the fittest.. Natural selection BS.. Asexual reproduction produces twice as much reproductive success as sexual reproduction. How did the later gain enough advantage to be selected?
Morons!
jct09100 1 month ago
Gravity is no theory. Go outside and take a leak. If your piss hits the ground, gravity is a proven fact not a theory.
Morons!
jct09100 1 month ago
@jct09100 Do you know the meaning of 'theory'?
grenangle 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christian science is always cutting edge and correct.
Like the fact that ring around saturn is actually jesus foreskin (its true google it) the pope supported this idea & it was the head of his library in the vatican that came up with this brilliant scientific theory.
Christians were still trying to spread the idea that the earth was flat in the beginning of the 1900´s google "flat earth map" and you will see a map of a flat earth with an angel standing in all 4 corners,like in revelation
The1VoiceOfReason 1 month ago
Shove your so called fact- based theories where the sun dont shine and show me your crocoduck along with all the untold millions of mutated animals that have misteriously and conviniently (for evolutionists) been kidnaped by aliens and hid on other planets. Their absence is the trade secret of paleontology.
Morons!
jct09100 1 month ago
In the words of Tim Minchin, you hope that the people who claim evolution is only a theory would also feel the same way about the theory of gravity... and would just float the fuck away.
CydoniaKnight1 1 month ago
Peoples definition of the word THEORY is mistaken for some type of "maybe" when in science it's an evidence backed tested fact
damplyons 1 month ago
Gravity is only a THEORY as well soo..... screw gravity *flys away*
WasLilChrisnowbigish 1 month ago
hes a ungodly man
1DANIELTUBE 1 month ago
it's not evil, it's just the opposite. it's truth vs lies, light vs darkness. jesus cannot be hid. you cant hide light in darkness. this man sought truth thats why he found Christ because Christ is Truth. burn your evolution books. the bible is the only book he needs. God bless that man! and save his whole family!
jct09100 1 month ago
watch ancient aliens its the most logical idea ive ever heard of when it comes to how we where created. (i know it sounds so stupid) But it is the only theory of creation that has evidence.
HanselThorn 2 months ago
it'not an evil force, it's the truth.
jct09100 2 months ago
Absolute faith, is the death of science.
Therefore, we should doubt science.
safeinsuburbia 2 months ago
@safeinsuburbia that is what scientists are doing every single moment -.-
DeinosDinos 2 months ago
@DeinosDinos "that is what scientists are doing every single moment -.-"
I see a bit too much dogma and scientific priesthood, for my comfort.
Billions of $ and decades, and still no cures for cancer and aging....for instance.
Break the monopolies, break the "authorities", break the priesthood.
Or stagnate and decline as a specie.
safeinsuburbia 2 months ago
@safeinsuburbia Hello? Science BEAT AIDs to a chronical disease (at least in the west) Cancer is very difficult to treat and a stop to aging is even more difficult (one of the most annoying facts is that cancer and more life seem to be intertwined somehow - you can have more life but that means more cancer too)
Tracchofyre 1 month ago
@Tracchofyre "Science BEAT AIDs to a chronical disease "
Really?
watch?v=QyY4SP_A4bo
Is what you know......real?
safeinsuburbia 1 month ago
@Tracchofyre strange, people on this video cant seem to make an educated arguement when something is said that they do not have the brain power to understand
messi996 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@safeinsuburbia
"Absolute faith, is the death of science."
LOL NO
As always science disproves your baseless religious beliefs
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
remeber science cant prove anything soooo they cant prove that there is no god?
cowdude43 2 months ago
Miserable Pretentious heathens. You better hope you're right. Repent or burn
gftnil 2 months ago
you guys are misusing the word "Theory"
Theory in Common tongue = Idea, Hypothesis, Guess.
Theory in Scientific Community = Proven Fact. Backed up by Evidence
jonjon2034 2 months ago 29
@jonjon2034 Gravity is still a theory.
Anticrombie918 2 months ago
@Anticrombie918 Go jump off a building, then we'll really see if its a theory or not
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago
@rkcraigslist51907 I would fall to my death. Why? Do you know for sure that "gravity" exists. What holds the solar system together. Who knows? No one can know for sure, but gravity is a good guess.
Merely trying to point out that theory in the scientific community is not a shot in the dark but based on solid evidence. You don't have to be an asshole about it just because science has questioned beliefs you happen to hold. That's the point of it all.... Prick.
Anticrombie918 2 months ago
@Anticrombie918 Calm down there mister sensitive. touchy a bit huh?
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkcraigslist51907 No, I enjoy long winded discussions. Telling someone to go jump off of a bridge is not a good way to have a mature argument. Let me leave it off in a language you might be able to understand because you are clearly dim-witted:
Come at me Bro!
Anticrombie918 2 months ago
@rkcraigslist51907 Well, you're the one who's ignorant of gravity's status as a theory.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 2 months ago
@IKillBabyKittensLOL Your so right, gravity is a theory. In fact i dont think gravity exist at all. it must be a peanut butter molasses hybrid that holds us all to the earth... sounds good right? being that gravity still is ONLY a theory... i guess i was really ignorant like you say all along..
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago
Comment removed
Anticrombie918 2 months ago
@jonjon2034 That is actually wrong. A Theory doesn´t need to be proven in Scientific Community. It´s more so that a scientific Theory should easily ALLOW itself to be proven or disproven.At least in the empiric sciences like Biology or Chemistry and so on. Evolution is a Theory that was PROVEN countless times with numerous measure theories that pointed to the same results. Thus Evolution is an exceptionally well grounded Theory. Science is altogether well grounded knowledge, so that means a lot.
Tracchofyre 1 month ago
@Tracchofyre couldnt have said it better myself. its hard for me to explain things while stoned.. but harder still is to try to explain to someone that this theory.. is already a proven fact due to MASS ammounts of Overwhelming evidence.
jonjon2034 1 month ago
@jonjon2034 -- who exactly do you mean by "you guys"? In this video Dawkins refutes the idea that evolution is "only a theory" -- the title is ironic. The video does not misuse the word theory, and this channel is largely dedicated to spreading reason and the scientific method. Since your comment is not a reply to another comment, I can only assume it's a reply to the video itself . . . . . or rather, to the title, since you don't seem to have watched the actual video.
TheLizardLass 1 month ago
@TheLizardLass my bad. meant to reply to one of the commenters here.
By "you guys" i mean the general public, or people who have no idea of the scientific definition of the word theory.
I agree 100% the title is ironic.
jonjon2034 1 month ago
@jonjon2034 ; In addition.
The reason they don't call it a fact is because they realize that even the most impenetrable arguments could be wrong; scientists don't deny anything, truth just needs proof.
guyonthebenchful 1 month ago
@guyonthebenchful to make evolution by natural selection anything less than a fact.. would require divine intervention at this point.
in a simpler version.. it would literally take GOD coming down and revealing him/her/it self to the human populace as a whole..
hmm even then it wouldn't disprove evolution.. it would just mean that another was the catalyst for such an event...
jonjon2034 1 month ago
Comment removed
guyonthebenchful 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonjon2034 Exactly. Evolution has been proven, God hasn't.
Even if God came down we could argue that it was just some guy pretending to be God or just like a mirage of something, lol. Even if God does exist we could argue that he's not even the one written in the scriptures. Even if my fingernails aren't blue I could argue that they possibly are. If just saying shit for no reason is science than everyone's a scientist.
guyonthebenchful 1 month ago
@jonjon2034 Well, not really; scientific theory explains the mechanism or process behind a natural phenomenon. The accuracy or legitimacy of a theory is predicated on the amount of evidence supporting it; and the theory of evolution meets its burden of proof, as the observable mechanism of speciation.
RebelWrestler45 1 month ago
@jonjon2034
WRONG!!!!
A Theory is a scientificly accepted fact, calculated out through math.
The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action. Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.
M4xH4xCentaurus 1 month ago
@jonjon2034 What about the String theory is that = Proven Fact. Backed up by Evidence?
Arghira 1 month ago
@jonjon2034 agreed!! he puts it beautifully in his book "the greatest show on earth" :)
scottishguy100 3 weeks ago
@jonjon2034 lol
Kayode88 3 weeks ago
Yes it's a theory...but a bloody damn good one
AAS0009 2 months ago
Archeology has proven the bible time and time again!!!!
Treehugrr13 2 months ago
@rkcraiglsit51907......... and you know what? When you are at your worst and don't have anyone to turn to what do you do, you pray, do you put up a christmas tree and celebrate christmas cause if you do you are just another hypocrite. I don't celebrate this holiday or any other one because the bible tells you not to. Yet all these religions are hypocrites as well. I am a biblical christian and live my life as best I can with the rules that have been laid out before me.
Treehugrr13 2 months ago
@Treehugrr13 You are such an idiot. Darwin never said that, that was put out by idiotic christians like yourself. I posted a link of fossils leading from our ancestoral apes to modern humans, look at it! You are so ignorant, no wonder why other countries are laughing at us. You really have nothing inteligent to say at all, I really hope you haven't reproduced yet. Please read a book other then the bible once in a while, you might just learn something.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago
@Treehugrr13 What is your argument? You're saying people pray (because they think God is there), therefor God exists and evolution doesn't happen? The thing is though, when people pray, they are just talking to themselves, praying does absolutely nothing. And so what is an atheist wants to celebrate Christmas? What does that prove?
cornflakeclusters 1 month ago
@rkcraigslist51097....... I have read Darwin's theories of evolution and if you had you would also know that on his death bed in 1882, he admitted and said he was wrong. That he was actually reading the bible. So I ask you again where is the missing link that connects one species to another. Here I will give you a hint there isn't one.
Treehugrr13 2 months ago
@Treehugrr13 So if I'm to understand, you're saying that because Darwin said that evolution was wrong then it should be disregarded? I liken that to if Newton said on his deathbed that gravity didn't exist, you would disregard gravity, despite the evidence therein. Keep in my mind, that other independent scientists have provided incredibly strong evidence for Evolution. Can you not see a huge flaw in your statement?
TheMaxTobias 2 months ago
@TheMaxTobias Even tho it doesn't hinder one bit the evidence for evolution, It was proven that he never said that. That was some rumor passed by some evangelical religous person. The same with Anton LaVey, apparently he said he was wrong as well, and I'm sure when Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens dies They'll mutter the same words as well. Its funny isn't it, how scientist use evidence to prove a point, and creationist turn to lies.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago 9
@rkcraigslist51907 @MrDunsapy
My god, your argument is so stupid. It's like watching 5 year olds say, 'but he started it!'. MrDunsapy, you seriously need to brush up on your scientific terminology (difference between hypotheses, theory, law and fact) and understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis; rkcraiglist, it's a common ancestor with monkeys and macroevolution is a defunct term, it's known as speciation. You're not even debating, your just typing at each other...
biobotism 2 months ago
@biobotism Ill give you that Speciation is a more accurate term, thank you. Yes of course we share a common ancestor with monkeys, but some where down the tree the branch splits, most likely before the oldest fossil we have today of our ancestor A. ramidus (4.4 Ma). And we actuelly are debateing, unless the definition for debate changed recently. Your welcome to join in if you'd like.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago
@rkcraiglist51907 wow! First instead of having an intelligent conversation like adults do, you want to resort to insults. Let me ask you this oh wise one? If you believe in evolution where is the missing link that we supposedly evolved from? And if there is no missing link found then logically we have a creator. I am not saying that evolution does not exist on a certain level but to say we evolved from slime is absurd.
Treehugrr13 2 months ago
@Treehugrr13 I was having an intelligent coversation with MrDunsapy but when i get people like you telling me that photographs having a photographer is evidence for our origins, its hard not to tear it down. there is an abundent amount of fossils we have found showing missing links, here they are for the thrid time... Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens (current humans). research it man
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@Treehugrr13 And its nice to see you accept one form of evolution (micro-evolution, which is what the pope now accepts, although he also campaigns against birth control in HIV/AIDs stricken countries.. pleasent huh?). but for some reason you cant accept Macro-evolution (from species to species). Just because living things in the world look designed doesn't mean they were. It's called shaping over millions of years through natural selection. Sorry there isn't a gospel for it, read a science book.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@Treehugrr13 Okay, this is really getting infuriating. Why do you creationists always say "were is the missing link"?! Why don't you go to a Natural History Museum or something and see for yourself? You people ALWAYS say this and you don't actually bother to find out about the thousands of transitional fossils out there. Even if we show you loads of transitional fossils, you won't accept them as evidence, you'll find a way to discount them and keep your head in the sand.
cornflakeclusters 1 month ago
@rkcraigslist51907. Because it doesn't exist honey!!!! Of course there is evolution in species but for survival purposes not for superiority such as you are suggesting!
Treehugrr13 2 months ago
@Treehugrr13 lets see whos ignorant. I'm getting my information from many books and articles i've read written by various scientist. Your getting your information about the bible FROM another bible.. I've read the bible before, and it is one of the things that helped me become an athiest. It's complete crap! any sane rational person with just cerebral fluid can see that. There is no scientific evidence for creation, there never has been. Your pulling a very common creationist arguement..
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
"This world is so complex, it looks designed so it MUST have a designer." everything in this world has evolved through natural selection over millions of years, 99% of scientist accept it. Why cant you just expand your horizons to reading a science book once in a while, try Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth". And we have many missing links that we have found, just walk to a museum once in a while.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@rkcraigslist51907. How ignorant can you be. GEEZ!!!! for example, a photograph has a photographer, a child has a parent, why is it so hard for you to realize that a creation has to have a creator? Have you even read the bible? I have not only read it but I have studied it.. I have what is called an archaeological bible. The bible has been proven not only through fossils but through writings such as the dead sea scrolls. No one has ever found the missing link you want to know why?
Treehugrr13 2 months ago
@Treehugrr13 The Bible talks about talking donkeys and people floating into the sky, how on fucking earth can the Bible be true? You're trying to portray mythical stories (The Bible) as just as valid as legitimate science (evolution). When you prove that a burning bush could possibly talk, or that a stick could turn into a snake, then I might be able to take the Bible seriously. Until then, the Bible is nothing more than fairy-tales.
cornflakeclusters 1 month ago
IS HE SAYING RELIGION IS "ONLY A THEORY"?
EGMAG 2 months ago
@EGMAG religion is "only a hypothesis"
no2religions 2 months ago
The opening lines of this video should be taken to heart by Dawkins also.
I wonder why scientists don't use the facts or evidence about this
For example here are 3 facts everyone knows.
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life
The scientists goes against all 3 facts.
The reason is that these facts support creation.
So what is happening is that the scientists have created 'The Greatest Snow Job on Earth'.
Designed to bury the evidence.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy All your "facts" aren't. You don't know what you are talking about. Your science denial has nothing to do with science.
"life comes from life" except for when it doesn't: abiogenisis
"human comes from humans" No, humans are just a segment of a long chain the we arbitrarily call "human". Humans also came from fish, and blue-green algae.
"there is design in life" This is your conclusion stated as a premiss. Order and complexity are not the same thing as design.
no2religions 2 months ago
@no2religions abiogenesis is only a theory and scientists really do not have any good stories even to explain how a cell can just be complete without being put together. The reason this is so, is that RNA is needed in the production of proteins, but proteins are need in the production of RNA. The cell have to be complete before it can survive and reproduce. This is one of the catch 22 types of events that cannot happen by chance. Abiogenesis, is nowhere near explaining the start to life.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy "The cell have to be complete before it can survive and reproduce" => while i agree abiogenesis has flaws and is no where complete, this statement i quoted here is wrong. A cell does not need a full machinery to survive. A naked strand of RNA has been shown to be capable of catalyzing its own replication, and that, by definition, is a living thing already. You don't need a complete cell, with nucleus, ribosomes, proteins, Golgi apparatus...etc to survive.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Ya, but were did the eye come from, how did everything come from nothing and were do you get your morals? lol... what is what the conversation turns to when you present actual science to a science denier. Watch, if he replies to this it will be misdirection and denial. It's not even central to his point, but it would be reflex to act this way in the face of physical evidence.
no2religions 2 months ago
@no2religions The eye was created. Now morals has nothing to do with 'evolution' . That is a creative trait.
That comes with intelligence. It is not just instinct. You can actually put yourself in harms way because you think it is right thing to do. What does that have to with 'evolution'? What does music have to do with 'evolution' or painting or math? These things gives us pleasure, to make life interesting. Nothing to do with 'evolution'
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy How about the fact that our brains have evolved so much that we now can comprehend, music, art, and math... the eye was not created, we have many records of where it evolved from.. of course you wont believe that... can you please acknowledge the fact that i just gave you a list of Human evolutionary fossils that we have discovered and recorded... i would love to hear about how God did it..
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@rkcraigslist51907 The eye is a good example of creation. It is not only the eye it'self, but also the connection to the brain. And the brain being able to code the information. If you like, go back to before any eyes were around. How did it 'evolve'?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Not suprising that you turn to the most commonly asked question by skeptics. Eyes started as eye spots, photoreceptive proteins that sense varying degrees of light. After the eyespots Pit Eyes came around, which were like sunken in eye spots to help differentiate light (still seen in some invertibrates today). After the pit eye came the Pin Hole Eye, turning the eye into a chamber making objects distinguishable. After that cornias and lenses apeared. do you want a link to this info?
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@rkcraigslist51907 these spots where did they come from? I mean, if the animal before them had no spots, they could not have mutated because they are not there.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
So instead of ignoring completely the list of fossils i gave you that you can at any time go to a museum to see for yourself, can you please tell me how god did that? I find it interesting that you completely looked past my list of recorded fossils. Any thoughts?
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@rkcraigslist51907 There have been so many missing links to humans, that all disappear. So which one are you talking about?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@rkcraigslist51907 Then where are the almost humans, the ones with the brains a little smaller? Why are they with us today?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy I just gave you a list of fossils of the progression of hominids. the progression from our ancestor african ape to modern humans. their skull sizes show the evolution of the brain. what do you mean where are the "almost" humans? they're our ancestors! we came from them! we have found enough fossils to show our evolution. have we found them all? of course not, they're fossils, they're not raising their hands saying "i'm over here!!". where is your evidence for creation?
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@rkcraigslist51907 the progression of hominids, tells me nothing. Pick one that out of that progression you think supports your idea.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Tells you nothing? Can you read? I gave you a LIST of fossils we found of our hominid ancestors showing our progression from acient ape to US. Here it is again just to save you the effort of going back one page. Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens (current humans). any one of these supports evolution. I'm still waiting for your evidence of creation... when your ready my friend.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago
@rkcraigslist51907I I picked this one " Australopithecus africanus" . Tel Aviv
University anthropologists have published a study casting serious doubt on Lucy’s role as mankind’s ape ancestor Lucy should no longer be considered to be our direct ancestor. So as I said they fall by the way side. Lucy’s demise falsifies 33 years of evolutionary exaggeration and propaganda. Which means that he scientists will go to almost any lengths to try and prove their case.Do you see what I mean?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy How interesting that you pull your bullshit information off of a creation website. That Article was written in 2006 for "The Journal of Creation" and includes studys from a university that honestly looks predominitly religous. research recent news on lucy where you can get up to date opinions by people who are acutelly credible. By the way Lucy comes from Australopithecus afarensis not africanus. Nice try my friend, pick a new fossile lets try this again.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@rkcraigslist51907 Actually I did know that Lucy was from, Australopithecus, that was a slip on my part.
But the result is the same. Lucy was big news and promoted by the scientists until,new scientist come along without the prejudiced ,these 'links' quietly fade away.
australopithecus-ramidu ‘strikingly chimpanzee-like in morphology.’
The arm bones are described as showing ‘a host of characters usually associated with modern apes.’
This is another one that bites the dust. Teeth were ape like.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy My friend do me favor and honestly search "recent news about our ancestor lucy". The first page is filled with links to articles all dating to this present year, you cant get much newer then that. As for A. ramidus (including the famous fossil Ardi), This fossil shows through the pelvis that this was a species that included tree climbing with bipedal activity. And of course this species which dates back 4.4 million years ago, of course it has ape traits, it was more ape then human.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@rkcraigslist51907 So if it was more ape like than human, how do you know it had anything to do with humans? That it was just an ape. You see this is all assumption. What you need to see is a ape having a human as a offspring. Otherwise what you are saying is nothing. Because some life has things in common with other life, does not mean one came from another. they are similar. I can say God created one and from that DNA with a little change in the DNA made another animal.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Are you seriously saying that in order for evolution to be true, an ape has to have human offspring? Hold old are you man? Thats something i would expect to hear from a 3rd grader. Scientist never claim to positivly know how life started, but they have theorys that are much more plausible then some idiotic imaginary person in the sky. Of course life comes from life, a toaster wouldn't give birth to a kitten. But this is NOT evidence for creation.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago
@rkcraigslist51907
Well I was taking the liberty, that you would understand that I meant over many generations.
That man came from some type of other animal over many many generations.
The scientists would have to show that could happen and actually did happen. Because what this is saying , goes against the facts that we do have, and we see, around us.
Do you understand now what I was saying?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Your three "facts" are not facts at all but are merely hypothosis. Scientist have found evidence that refutes "The God Theory". But since people like you absolutely deny this evidence, saying that "god" is the truth of the world, YOU bear the burden of proof. Where is your material evidence for "god", where is your proof for creation? we've talked for 5 pages and you haven't givin me one credible piece of evidence that is acknowledged as proof for creation. I'm still waiting...
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago
@rkcraigslist51907
Of course they are facts. There is nothing to say they are not. And we see it every day. They have even been tested by the scientists, for a 150 years. And not broken.
The scientists are denying reality.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy These many fossils we have show that transition from ape to man, why can't you see that? look at the fossils! look at what scientist are saying! Its mind blowing to believe that people like you actually think this way, to deny science, because a 2000 year old book says so... why do you choose to remain ignorant about this? Maybe you refuse to believe you came from a monkey because your ego is to high. Sorry man but you and your whole family are monkeys, just like everyone else.
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@rkcraigslist51907 What you are looking at is not real. It is taken from bits and pieces and artist conceptions. Also many have been be reclassified as having nothing to do with man.
That's why I call what the scientists have done as: The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
If you like pick one of the examples of your progression, and we will talk about that.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy The evolution of the eye is well understood, ANY research would've shown that. All social animals have behavioural limits, "morals". Even piranha don't eat each other. Self sacrifice is an element of something called "kin selection" also something ANY looking into would show. Music is tied to language, painting and math are creativity, problem solving and communication... all beneficial traits. It is now clear you've never even tried looking into these things. At all. Period.
no2religions 2 months ago
@no2religions Honestly man if there ain't a gospel for it i don't think he'd read about it..
rkcraigslist51907 2 months ago in playlist rkcraigslist51907's favorites
@no2religions limits are instinct. Programmed into animals. What we were talking about was morality.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy I know. You are the one saying there is a difference. I don't think there is any reason to make that distinction. Don't kill is, for example, a limit regarded by every society all through time. Like piranha. If you want to pile on a bunch of stuff like having the wrong kind of thoughts or liking the wrong kind people I don't see those as morals as much as made-up stuff. These don't define "good" in any sense I recognize.
no2religions 2 months ago
@Casshyr do you get the naked strand from a cell?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy not quite, such examples are generally synthesized artificially in the lab. You will not find RNA existing by itself in today's world because if evolution is true, then it tells us that RNA has become dependent on other cofactors over time, thus losing the ability to be independent. But my point is via artificial means, we can indeed show RNA existing by itself, and self-replicating.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Yes by artificial means. Intelligent interference.
The point I'm trying to make is that the scientists theories are not based on evidence or facts, but based on their interpretation of what the the fossils, mean.The same in biology.But if you go by the actual evidence, life comes from life, a human comes from humans, and there is design in life. Those 3 cover the actual evidence we have. I don't have to interpret anything. Those are the facts.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy yes agree, except you are not just saying that. You are also implying that your Christian creationism is true! You have your own set of inferences and interpretation, and those in the end, are not scientifically supported. There is a reason why over 99% of life scientists accept evolution. It's not a matter of which explanation is the "fact", it's a matter of which explanation has more evidence supporting it.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy " Abiogenesis, is nowhere near explaining the start to life." Oh, well it must be an invisible sky wizard then! That's the most scientific possibility. Believe what you want, but pretending science supports or has anything to do with it is fully dishonest.
no2religions 2 months ago
@no2religions
The answers are found in the science. All you have to do is use the evidence we have.
The problem is the scientists do not use the evidence.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy I'm calling troll.
no2religions 2 months ago
@no2religions You can't run from the truth. Isn't it better to test what you believe in, or is it better to ignore what some do not want to hear? After all this is the scientists and they are supposed to have the real answers. So why don't they. Why do they go against the evidence we have.
I see by your name you are against religions, so I can see why you might not like what I am saying
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy I don't think you know what evidence is. And I don't think that science being a 2 billion person conspiracy against jesus is a likely possibility. Evolution and atheism are not the same thing... at all. You conflate the two. That is not science, that is misinformation and dishonesty. You claim facts, that aren't, just call people scared of the truth, then you offer no verifiable information. Leave science aside, you don't need it for faith. You can stay honest that way.
no2religions 2 months ago