ReThink Review of Creation (About Darwin) w/ Jonathan Kim

[Fettman501]

someone tell me, what is it about science that would kill religion? what is it about religion that would kill science? I could disprove and destroy both ideas in a few sentences.

[tijuanamarisol666]

@Fettman501 the idea is that religion primarily focuses on "god" creating everything, god making things to happen, god as an all-knowing being, etc. Science contradicts this, because when things like evolution, laws of physics, etc., are proven, it brings to mind "did god create humans or did they evolve from a previous being," and other such problems. Being an athiest, I personally believe in science; it just makes more sense to me than the existence of a god. But there are many standpoints.

[Fettman501]

science and religion are not enemies. the bible only explains so much, and it has been distorted over several millennium. science doesn't disprove the existence of God at all. it is merely the study of God's universe. the bible never explains the exact process by which he made the universe. science fills in the gaps. the bible, when translated right, tells us about history and morals. Religion tells what happened and how to be righteous. i pray this ridiculous conflict ends soon.

[septogram7]

Look, I'm sorry if I offended you and for my use of profanity, I am very passionate about this issue, as I can see you are as well. As immortalized by a 1980's theme song: "it takes different strokes to move the world. I hate to have bad energy with another human soul, so let's just row our proverbial boats the way we feel we have to, and be at peace. "you shit-brained morons," are "You're a retard." I know we are both better than that. Be Blessed and Deva Om.

[BastiaanV2]

Darwin was an old whitebearded man, so I trust him. It's in our DNA to trust man like that.

WE have done that for 100 thousands of years. During the Hunter/Gatherer period

[septogram7]

Evolution is not a mother-fucking theory!!! Are there really 25% of Americans who are completely delusional!?! And 36% are so goddamn stupid that they think that this is a matter upon which to have an opinion!?! It isn't an opinion you shit-brained morons!!!

[fearthegeeklord]

@septogram7 Evolution IS a theory: "a statement of what are held to be general laws, principals or causes of something known or observed". As opposed to reigion which is the wild imaginings of un-enlightened, scientifically retarded people. Watch this watch?v=hGx-Typ_pGg

[septogram7]

@fearthegeeklord

Too bad you are not a theory. If you weren't real then you couldn't spread your Christian propaganda like the sickness that is.

[fearthegeeklord]

@septogram7 you're a retard. 

[AragornHottie]

Okay, I just want to say that I am very religious BUT, I do believe in evolution. I do not believe we or other animals evolved from an emeeba or whatever it was, I believe God put us on the earth but I do believe that animals need to evolve, and have evolved, in order to survive. But, to those who think we came from monkeys-and this really angers me-why are there so many monkeys still around?? Someone explain this to me, please.

[masonkim7]

damn John makes a LOT of sense.

[ValueFreedom]

The "theory of evolution" is just that, a theory. It can't be proven. You can throw whatever movie spin you want on it.. It's always good to question, but it is still just a theory, as is the concept of God. The movie review? Throw it in the garbage, it's not science. Where is the "missing link"? Why is it just theory? Cause it can't be proven. Darwinism, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc... None of it can be proven without a doubt. Evolution is a nice theory, but there is a God.

[Ylviste]

@ValueFreedom God is also a theory, but evolution has some logical arguments for it, there is no reasoning that can give evidence for god.

[ValueFreedom]

@Ylviste Wow, you are super sharp. You've managed to say one theory is more "logical". EVOLUTION IS A THEORY; DEAL WITH IT.

Or, have you found the "missing link"? Why ya keeping it all to yourself then eh? lol... Also, you speak of no reasoning for a God? There are some very logical reasons for it. This shit didn't happen by no fucking accident. There is a balance is there not? Good/Evil; Man/Woman; C02 to plants/O2 4 us to live; it goes on & on. Possibilites are endless.

[Ylviste]

@ValueFreedom For someone to say that these things are proof of god requires a great, a GREAT leap of faith. You can't deduct from these things that there is god, unless you already believe there is god and then yes, it might seem logical.

[ValueFreedom]

@Ylviste Proof of God requires a great, a GREAT leap of faith? If there is no God, then why would you believe in faith? Yes, I do believe there is a God, that being said, it doesn't necessarily have to follow any controlled religion concept of God. But, I do know there is something bigger than you, me. Things many times seem to fit in, and there is a balance of good n bad. Unless you live in an Ivory Tower, then you'de see it. Things are too perfect to be by an accident. Just a theory...

[MassLiberal1]

@ValueFreedom "Things are too perfect to be an accident".

That's a valid observation but it needs to be proven for it to be taken as fact. Life on earth at first glance seems designed. But since Darwin, we now know that life evolved naturally w/o supernatural intervention. Just as we now know how life came about, we may one day know how the universe exists. In the meantime, to propose a god did it is just an argument from ignorance.

[ValueFreedom]

@MassLiberal1 Thank you for your observation on my observation. Thank you for your theory on my theory. "argument from ignorance", lol... I'm sorry, you know it all. Tell me, Darwin theory: It's proven as fact is it? Did YOU find the missing link? Please share it with the rest of the world will you. You know so much, that you can dismiss another cus "you know better".... lol... do you? It's all in your head. Believe what you want, but honestly, you don't know shit.

[MassLiberal1]

@ValueFreedom Missing link? So what do you think all the transitional fossils? Did the devil plant them there to fool us? Do you know better than highly trained biologists? It's a myth believed by the general public that there are no transitional fossils. Go take take a look at them for yourself, that is if you care about the truth of life on earth.

[Ylviste]

@ValueFreedom God is also a theory, but evolution has some logical arguments for it, there is no reasoning that can give evidence for god. But yeah, utter belief in evolution is almost as bad and unscientific as utter belief in God.

[NothingBut666]

When we see humans born with incurable diseases, down syndrome, deformation and even miscarraiges, I can't help but think: 'wow, god's design sure is perfect isn't it?'

[56like9]

I usually like the young turks. What makes me go off the walls is that the school system just teaches this crap. I would at least teach the other side, intelligent design. I am glad 2 say that I dont believe in evolution. Texas knows there shit. And i also believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, da scientific evidence is all around you. Yes there is proof, btw, there is a footprint of a dino and a humans fossilized together. And I will refuse to beleve tht we came from monkeys.

[NUTCASE71733]

@56like9

The human footprint is a forgery, being from where the so-called "human track" was found I am insulted to hear creationsits cling to that.

Humans ARE apes, a creationist classified us as such back in the 1600s since there was nothing else humans looked anything like in the world. Besides that there is DNA and fossil evidence to support it.

Final Score: Logic- three billion, religion- 0

[56like9]

@NUTCASE71733 When I go to the zoo I c monkeys in cages throwing their own shit around, I ask myself, do people believe that we are related to them Well it turns out 39% of people r dumb enough to believe that we r actually related to those animals. And the so called "scientific" evidence makes no sence BTW its not fake NUTCASE, which describes all Evolutionists Ive literally seen the Taylor Trail with my own eyes. And evidence is evrywhere tht God exists FINAL SCORE God infinity Atheists 0

[jahs389]

Cenk,

I totally agree Faith is here to stay but Religion going to the way of the 'doo-doo' - Unless Bill Maher's nightmares are true and religion takes us with it... Revelations the self fulfilling prophecy.

[EziekielNightwind]

IF you don't accept evolution as fact, stop using the products of evolutionary study, mainly modern medicine, and foods.

[charlie1der]

The "best" ideas don´t survive if they mean that the best for the general good. However, the best ideas for a limited group will always survive and just how harmful or beneficial those ideas end up being depends on which group you happen to be to. Don´t worry about the human race. Read Galápagos by Vonnegut if you have any questions.

[NCCAJAX]

The archeological evidence of life on this planet over the past 250 million years illustrates a very un Darwinian evolutionary process. Life remains the same for millions of years then in archeological time over night leaps to a new phase, then plat toes out for millions of years before taking a huge leap to another state of life on this planet. The evolution of life on this planet was not the gradual progressive incremental ramping up as Darwin presumed.

[fostoll]

like it

[TheHiachiever]

You are absolutely right about "deformities and abnormalities". Nothing useful for evolution.

Here is a fascinating tale:

"During the latter part of the Hadean, about four billion years ago, primitive life emerged, perhaps as small self-replicating strands of DNA or RNA using energy-rich chemicals for fuel (heterotrophs)."

Has anyone created self-replicating strands of DNA or RNA from scratch? Not from previously living DNA?

Just how likely is this without intelligent intervention?

[TheHiachiever]

Embryonic development passing through stages of fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal sounds like an argument Darwin would make before there was an understanding of the complexity of genetics. Oh. Wow! It actually was part of the support of his hypothesis.

Unfortunately, you just can't simply stop the human embryonic development at the fish stage and come up with a guppy.

But, you see this data as a "footprint record of ancestral development". That's just because that's the view you want to see.

[TheHiachiever]

Common descent or common design?

How can you tell the difference? It's all in the interpretation of the data.

Perhaps you can be helpful by citing a controlled experiment where a simple single celled creature like an amoeba evolved into a completely different creature. I believe you've had over 150 years to conduct such an experiment.

[MrAlexanderMadison]

To presuppose a designer, we would have to immediately ask ourselves why it is that at times this designer designs well-functioning cells, but often allows defects into its design. The development of the cell only seems designed if you ignore everything that goes wrong in the process, resulting in deformities and abnormalities. Unlike evolution, which is without conscious intent, design would have motive, meaning that we would have to explain why this designer is screws up so badly, so often.

[MrAlexanderMadison]

Now, to the second part I suggest you read anything by Jerry Coyne, who lists numerous controlled speciation experiments. Also I noticed you never directly addressed my question of why it is that embryos develop along an evolutionary line fish->amphibian->reptile->mamm­al, pretty much giving us a footprint record of ancestral development. You're now trying to have it both ways, saying that darwinian evolution can happen by design, but that speciation doesn't happen. Keep your arguments straight.

[TheStraightFacts]

@TheHiachiever

Regarding common descent/common design;

watch?v=Of0PjoZY4L0

watch?v=CqsvEwByKU0

[MrAlexanderMadison]

@TheHiachiever

I don't know if that was meant to be a joke, but just in case I suggest you look into the embryonic development of different species. We have the technology now to actually look at the whole process, and what we find is that before amphibian embryos look like amphibians thay go through a fish phase, reptiles go throuhg a fish->amphibian process, and mammals go from fish to amphibian to reptile, before they look anything close to mammals. Explain this without using common descent

[TheHiachiever]

Common descent or common design?

How can you tell the difference? It's all in the interpretation of the data.

I'm still waiting for any controlled experiment that shows a simple celled creature evolving into a completely different creature. Amoebas divide one or more times a day. Should be simple to show, after all, you've had 150 years to demonstrate evolution.

[TheHiachiever]

Common descent or common design?

How can you tell the difference? It's all in the interpretation of the data.

You can do us all a favor and cite a controlled experiment in which a simple single celled organism like an amoeba evolved into a completely different creature. I believe you've had over 150 years to conduct such an experiment.

[clownpenisfart]

The reason that there is a backlog of re-think review films that Cenk hasn't seen yet is because he is a busy man and the time spent watching these movies is time that he could spend watching Gladiator over and over again.

[TheHiachiever]

What experimental evidence is there for evolution?

Under what conditions will a simple celled amoeba mutate into a volvox or a paramecium? Certainly evolutionists have shown this, haven't they?

Unfortunately, evolution is supported by selectively citing portions of the evidence. For example, why not discuss fossil tracks where human footprints are covered over by dinosaur tracks? That wouldn't be convenient, would it?

Real science should look at ALL the evidence.

[clownpenisfart]

The premise of your inquiries is wrong and betrays your ignorance.

The experimental evidence, of which there are literally tens of thousands of examples, is cited in scientific journals you choose not to look for or read. Moreover, amoebas do not mutate into volvoxes or anything else other than slightly different amoebas. Over many thousands of generations, new species of amoebas will emerge.

You tell me where this dinosaur track is and I'll get back to you.

[jsjkim]

Mankind's millenia of breeding plants and animals is experimental evidence for evolution. And science DOES look at all the evidence — it just discards the shitty stuff. Post the link for the published, peer-reviewed paper showing that these footprints suggest the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, then i'll get back to you too.

[Alecal89]

Jonathan is boring

[MrDanielHen]

Theistic Evolution FTW!

[Omadus]

Darwin's theory is the greatest scientific achievement in history? Sorry Newton, your succint and mathemathically graceful theories on natural mechanics -- which inspired every field of human labor from engineering to philosophy, and which undoubtly aided in the growth of Western power, as well as reason -- will have to take a back seat to Johnaton Kim's political sausage party.

Go back to bed Kim, seriously.

[clownpenisfart]

The Theory of Evolution is the unifying theory of every field and branch of biology.

Newtonian physics (classical physics) has been supplanted by relativity, quantum physics, and possibly by several competing theoretical unified field theories.

[Omadus]

We're speaking here more about significance and impact rather than lifetime. While Newtonian physics have been supplanted, their main merit lies them being the first theories to immortalize -- both in the scientific and popular imaginations -- the idea that the Universe is a machine, which is understandable and predictable.

[Omadus]

Also I would argue that Newton's theories weren't incorrect, but incomplete. Just like the idea that the Earth is spherical is incomplete -- but still not incorrect. The same can be said of Darwin's theories, which while forming the basis for evolutionary theory, have been developed on and changed from their original form -- Altough not as dramatically as the jump from Newtonian to Quantum physics.

[kgonepostl]

Too bad your too dumb to realize that the intelligent quotient test is a flawed outdated test that proves nothing Cenk. You'd think the guy who was raised by a science background would know something so obvious and correct him. Instead they are just having a mental snobby erection.

Btw, I'm an atheist, I just don't prefer snobby pricks that love the smell of their own farts.

[newnewscientist]

Sorry Cenk but you really butcher science, it's sad really because from the way you approach politics you're clearly a smart guy and from other videos you clearly appreciate the importance of science you just need to read more or something

[vandomVenom]

i believe in my religion but i am not stupid, I take religion as a guiding line so i dont go overboard

[lassek85]

The thing is, you cant have both science and religion unless you put science first. Science gives u a falsifiable theory that can be empirically tested while religion tells you that this is how it is and should be...

I personally can't rule out that there is a creationstic being as size is relative (no pun pls), for all i know we can be a part of a bigger organism in which the universe is just one "atom" or "cell". But i do know that the process getting to the knowledge about our origin

[lassek85]

and the function of everything is better explained if we get to go through the process of knowing what it means through our labels (language).

[vandomVenom]

oh okay i get your point there but okay i only follow the fundamentals of my religion, there can be balance. If there is like a vast mutation and evolution, great! Because i would believe it and STILL have faith

[WeskerA]

Wow, the guy's presupposing that the Darwinian Mechanism has been proven--it has not. As far as Common ancestry goes that's pretty much a slam dunk case, but NOT the mechanism. I think he's ignorantly speaking on matters he knows not of.

[Walerka11]

has anyone heard of:

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version

[jsunflyguy]

@08:15

"And people say you can't take the old testament literally because the new testament fixed it...now remind me what part Genesis is in."

"Old testament"

Elbow from the sky.

[Jaywed]

I love the airplane analogy in comparison with evolution

[RationalPeace]

Because the analogy is so crap?

[winterstellar]

Jaywed Yeah, it's so funny. It really shows how ignorant and stupid the regular creationist is. : )

[baxtar1963]

Only 39% of people in the USA have the ability to think clearly.

[Melpheos1er]

Each steps science makes is a loss for religion...

[dEdGrimley]

I'm reading 1984, and it sounds like there's a lot of doublethink amidst the religious and Glenn Beck types.

[Richardgwm]

Saw the movie. It was boring and way too artsy for a movie about science.

[RAMUNEsweet]

I like Jonathan Kim. What he says makes sense. :)

[amalwaysawsome]

cenk your "faith" isn't really faith

[RelaxingSin]

the book isn't on Itunes :(

[cleanhomer]

I think advocates on both sides of the evolution/creation argument sometimes forget that Darwin was a person, like anyone else.

It sounds like this movie was meant to show that aspect, Darwin the man.

[ZKoftherebellion]

woot, fuck year Japan

[audadvnc]

Texas: 35th out of 34 countries. Kreeashunists are safe from evolution here!

[stemcgolf]

Yeah Cenk. If the parties of god dont blow us up by then!

[blingbling65943]

" I watched with glee

While your kings and queens

Fought for ten decades

For the gods they made "

[SocialistAtheist1986]

@blingbling65943 Good song.

[Misunderstood246]

I don't believe in any God. Never will. Have a good day :)

[blingbling65943]

Thats what my Grandfather always says to me, and I always say back to him;

"thats ok, He still believes in you"

[DrQuijano]

I can just imagine Christians using Darwin's portrayed emotional conflict in this film as "evidence of an all-powerful God working his wonders on Darwin" but "he eventually succumbed to Satan".

[Johansen1000]

yeaa go Denmark.

[zacky89]

@Johansen1000

I am from DenmarK

so thats cool

[Johansen1000]

@zacky89 jeg er også fra danmark så det er cool

[DidntKnowWhatToPut1]

Kim, missed the point on this film. The film is about the men behind the theory, not the theory itself

[nilbud]

His point is they are misrepresented.

[DidntKnowWhatToPut1]

I really enjoyed this film. Amazing look into the life the man who opened our eyes!

[sabertooth1980]

Awesome. Sad to see a movie that was to be about Darwin go so horribly wrong.

[bballadante]

About time! I haven't gotten my fix of Rethink reviews in weeks.

[Nibielari]

this is a great movie it was my favorite of 2009

[theFAParchives]

WTF? Cenk already knew Turkey was last, he's covered this story

O.o

[kazooga1234]

i believe if we let texas keep writing the texts books we r all fucked and mine as well just kill all the republicans caz its the only way we can save the world if that happens

[TheGiantRobot]

Hey, the old testament doesn't say you'll die if you eat shrimp. If you read through it, you'll see the food advice is astonishingly accurate to this day. Fat is full of toxins. Shellfish is full of toxins. Pork is. Predators generally are, too.

[AllWalksofLife]

@TheGiantRobot

You're dumb. In Lividicus, it says that you shall be put to death for eating shell-fish. And what the fuck "toxins" are you talking about? That's extremely vague.

[TheGiantRobot]

Am I dumb?

It's called Leviticus. It doesn't say you should be put to death for eating shellfish. You just made that up?

And toxins isn't extremely vague. All these animals accumulate toxins in different ways. You want me to write a dissertation on each one?

[xxFortunadoxx]

@TheGiantRobot

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you"

An abomination is inferred as something that is punishable by death. Fail.

[TheGiantRobot]

No, it doesn't. It's a word that is used to refer to prohibitions throughout the bible.

Your stretch to say that because in one place something carries the death penalty AND is an abomination therefore all abominations carry the death penalty is extreme fundy logic.

[xxFortunadoxx]

It's perfectly clear to me that you've never read the latin Vulgate or the english translation of it which clearly disagrees with you. It states that:

"Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people."

So yes. Eating shellfish does mean that you will put to death.

Oh, and what you meant to say in your second paragraph is that coorelation does not imply causation.

Fail again.

[TheGiantRobot]

So, no, it doesn't mean you will be put to death. It means you will be cut off from the Jews or it means you will be spiritually cut off - it's a matter of debate.

Gee, I'm glad you understood what I said enough to translate it into a common phrase. What are you, 14? Who writes fail at the end of each post? Are you marking your own failure?

[xxFortunadoxx]

You're a complete moron.  The phrase "to perish" means to die. There is no debate here at all. It's simply you being intellectually dishonest and failing to concede your argument even when presented with overwhelming evidence contrary to your argument.

You're also apparently ignorant to the internet because everyone, even adults say fail. Oh, and also, apparently all 14 year olds are well aware of the scientific concept that coorelation does not imply causation. Moron.

Once again, fail.

[TheGiantRobot]

Haha, your opinion is overwhelming evidence?

I guess I should take that over the word of scholars?

Not only are most 14 year olds probably acquainted with correlation, they can probably spell it by the second try.

Once again, as you say.

[xxFortunadoxx]

perish"

"To pass away; to come to nought; to waste away; to decay and disappear; To die; to cease to live"

AKA: I have nothing but baseless ad hominems to throw out because I can't back my argument up. Yes. Please by all means make fun of my minor spelling mistakes. It just goes to show everyone how sophomoric you really are. Also, considering you don't know what the word "perish" meant, I wouldn't be making fun of other people's spelling

Game over. stop posting now. You lose.

[TheGiantRobot]

I lose? Stop posting now?

Hahaha. You're better than a troll.

That's pretty funny what you say about my not knowing what perish means. Then you had to look it up. And, of course, when you looked it up you saw the reference to spiritual death. Oops, embarrassing, wasn't it?

The thing is, adults don't pretend context doesn't matter. They also don't pretend they've posted a refute to a definition when we all have access to online dictionaries. It's kind of a give away.

[xxFortunadoxx]

No, it wasn't embarassing. That's simply you attempting to find a way out of an argument you've already lost. It's called confirmation bias. No one but you is pretending that the word "perish" means "spiritual death."

Yawn. Your argument is boring now. Go away now.

[DidntKnowWhatToPut1]

@TheGiantRobot *Face Palm* accept it, its all bullshit

[TheGiantRobot]

You're being as thickheaded as the right wing who says evolution is all bullshit. Just because you don't like the religious ideas in the book doesn't mean it's all bullshit.

[ennuiandthensome]

i think the fact that you're arguing for a guy in the clouds is dumb. it is unprovable and unscientific and bringing civilization back 300 years.

[TheGiantRobot]

When did I argue for that?

[votumseparatum1]

@ennuiandthensome - You have no direct proof that disprove the existence of deities, and there is no proof to prove their existence, thus the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Faith is not founded on reason. It is irrational and yet because there is nothing on earth that dismantle the need for faith in some god,then people will inevitable take up faith in some god. And it is not bringing civilization back because religion will ALWAYS exist. People die, ideas live on forever.

[Irbubble]

Actually absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The quote in its original form is "absence of proof is not proof of absence", which is logically sound.

However, as for evidence of absence, of course if there is a lack of evidence where it should be, then this is evidence of the absence.

[votumseparatum1]

@Irbubble - That may be true but the scientific method is not based on simple dismissal of a subject because it is illogical and so,because there is no evidence does not mean you can write it off as non-existent. I don't believe science will ever disprove the existence of deities but they can develop facts that seem more logical than to believe in some god who does nothing but what you imagine him/her to do or be.

[Irbubble]

I said nothing to the contrary.

[ennuiandthensome]

religion will never die. like a bad yeast infection or case of herpes.

an unprovable hypothesis, such as the existence of a god, is neither useful nor necessary, and therefore pondering the existence of a god that may or may not exist is a waste of time and a social drain.

[votumseparatum1]

@ennuiandthensome - you could be right. but it is useful to some people, specifically the poor, but then again, poverty is being cured with hope and religion instead of education and discipline.

As much I'd love to live in a secular society, you have people wanting to bring religion in the schools, it is deep in American government, and it is a multi-million dollar non-taxed tool used by con artists. How many votes did Bush/Obama get when they state their religious beliefs?

[ennuiandthensome]

arguing that our corrupt system would fall if religion was taken out is like arguing that taking racism out of the slave debate would be a bad thing.

atheists and agnostics have a good answer for the poverty problem without evoking a god who more often than not is bragging out wiping a race of people from the earth.

[votumseparatum1]

@ennuiandthensome - I never said the system would fall. I said the the end of religion would not be the end-all of our problems or to some extent, beneficial to some people.

There is no good answer to poverty because poverty is a continuous problem. The solution is to have secular people, not atheists or the undecided, figure how to reduce poverty and to run the country, and keep religion and anti-religion (atheism, etc.) out of government.

[ennuiandthensome]

+ kill organized religion

[nilbud]

Religion is the opium of the masses but no one wants a bunch of fucking junkies clogging the place up. I would never hire someone who was delusional enough to think there invisible friends were real. Religion is a disgusting weakness.

[kazooga1234]

the 25% is prob all texans and then most of those who dont have an opinion just dont care and those people need to watch this link wimp(dot)com/newinfo or since they r idiots /niceinfo

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

The word he's referencing is "Creationists" to "Cdesign proponentists" to "Design Proponents".

Thats the transitional form... : )

[jsjkim]

This is Jonathan, the guy in the video with cenk. I knew i had that reference wrong! I was struggling to remember the correct word that got changed and knew i didn't have it right, but i was having trouble finding it online. Glad you know it :-).

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

I figured from the look of it, and just decided to be the first asshole to post a correction. : )

I'm trying to find a T-shirt that says "Cdesign Proponentist"

[jo05dk]

I love that my country is in the top 5 (Denmark), and the US ended up on the second to last place. Man you got your work cut out for you overthere!

I believe in the difference in iq between atheists and theists btw. Mostly because two things seem to make up intelligence; genes and training. Theists don't much training = lower iq.

..and no.. People like that aren't called evolution deniers. They're morons. Believing in fairy tales over facts, acting look idiots when challenged.

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

Well considering a few years ago the majority Americans disbelieved evolution, I'd say we're gaining ground.

I really hate how they keep using the term "Evolution believers".

I like the way Barack Obama said it: "...those of you who disagree with the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of global climate change..."

I want that Darwin Loves You bumper sticker.

[Udinbak]

the only way for religion to survive, is for it to evolve ;-)

[johnedwards1968]

That 25% seems to be a consistent number when it comes to ignorant, non-factual belief! The "Obama is a kenyan"/ Global warming is a scam/ the earth is 6000 years old/ crowd seems to be the same people!

[kazooga1234]

yep moronic republicans r really trying to fuck up the world and the republicans believe something called get them while they r young

[coosoorlog]

@johnedwards1968

I would not be at all surprised.

[patetico100]

Dammit Cenk, you had to go and say you have "faith in evolution". No! Faith is not evidence based. Evolution is. Get it right!

[jumjalalabash]

faith has more meanings then there are invisible man in the sky

[TheCrimsonLion]

I gotta disagree on the assertion that religion is doomed. The human IQ is skewed depending socio-economic conditions and the lower part of the skew is always going to need religion to easily fill in their blanks. religion will only die if all circumstances rise to acceptable levels of comfort and Education has been incorporated deeply for several generations.

Which ain't gonna happen.

[TheGiantRobot]

Cenk thought it would be worse than that? My jaw dropped when I heard those numbers.

Well, it explains American politics.

Something I want to say about the dinosaurs. There is ancient pottery showing people riding dinosaurs. It seems most likely that they were doing the same thing we do now - make fantastic drawings of people riding dinosaurs. But there are also people who believe in Nessi. Evolution doesn't dictate when species died out or first evolved, it estimates.

[GoatOfTheMountains]

dammit

[NuLLx42]

Fucking failure