8:30s, concerning 6b: I don't care about the freedom from God. "No moral absoulutes," because all atheists want to kill people and rape little babies, durr hurr. But seriously, I think most of the atheists at my school are better concerning morals than alot of the crazy-ass conservative motherfuckers. >_>
@erinsmonster Kinda interesting that Texas is number 4 in unwed/teen pregnancies and still continues to teach abstinence..Abstinence is 99.99 percent effective as long as your name is not Mary and you lived 2000 years ago in Bethlehem...get it? If you want good people to do evil...give them religion, i.e. the 'get out of jail free jesus card'....scary, ain't it?
I was an atheist long before I encountered evolution. I've always been an atheist. Up until my 30s biology bored the crap out of me - just random facts. Then I encountered books by Dawkins. Eye-openers. This stuff makes sense. Prior to that I'd never questioned why life could be without a God, just accepted that it was (there's no God but I'm here so there's probably an explanation). Suddenly (for me) a coherent explanation.
Endosymbiotic Theory explains photosynthetic bacteria, which is a strong precursor to photosynthesis in plants. Why didn't you mention it? Or did I misunderstand something?
Scientists are theologians. They create elaborate myths. We have no idea what is gravity, or where it comes from. What is a black hole? Can you see it? Can you touch it?
No, but you can see light displacement, and feel its vibrations.
Gravity is a religion. They say the lip of a black hole is like an eternal moment in all directions. That's completely religion. Nothing factual about Einstein. E=Love.
@philnoll Uh- I don't really get what you are trying to pass here, gravity is a religion? Gravity although it's a law of the universe, and clearly exists, we have problems with it's theoretical part which might be incorrect. Because if steady motion is applied on an object not affected by gravity, that object acts as if it has a gravitational field on the opposite direction of the one it's going. Scientists hope to solve these issues with the M theory.
@philnoll Also, by 'lip' you mean the event horizon of a black hole? If so no, that's just the point of no return. It's not a timeless point, because time is an illusion and just a thing we invented so we could measure the changes of the state of matter. There is no such thing as time when you want to talk about physics that work in quantum levels because then you talk about observable facts which is against the quantum laws. Look at the two slits experiment.
@philnoll To wrap it up, Einstein was a great man and if it wasn't for him, our coal deposited would have been long gone by now. So I suggest you'd be a bit more respectful and not spill shit over his name, please. So- I just proved you, with FACTS, science is not a religion and offers observable facts. If you kindly, and not offend you, took the time to actually educate yourself, you'd probably understand. Stop being selfish and admit that you are wrong like many of us did/still do.
@Razgrits Thanks for the response. Now I don't want to sound too stupid. I know how science works and I basically agree with you. What I am saying is that we've had to use dark matter, strings, and "timelessness" to explain the universe, but none of those things can we experience with our senses. So still it is a lot of conjecture. But maybe you're right, and we will solve some of these problems soon.
@philnoll Don't confuse yourself, dark matter can be sensed if you go too close to it by it's gravitational force. String theory, is still an unproven theory but it does explain a lot and fits well with the current laws in physics. As for timelessness, you know the twin's experiment where one is sent to space and the other stays here on earth, they experience time differently. I'll send you a vid about relativity that should help you a bit.
@Razgrits See, that's what I mean. They wouldn't change the laws of physics, so they make up the invisible particles to explain the parts that don't make sense. Dark matter didn't explain everything, so now they need dark energy to even things out. For most of us laymen around the world, all this is just orthodoxy, as opposed to something we can actually see for ourselves.
@philnoll There is a big difference with the bible though. Instead of making presumptions that say 'god did it' and that answer their questions, they make some research before they say 'dark energy does that'. And any of us 'laymen' can study and learn about science, and see for ourselves. If you are too lazy to do it, you just have to trust them. But on one hand, you trust pastors screaming 2k year old scriptures, on the other hand you trust educated and intelligent people. That's simple, no?
@philnoll Lets not mention that everything you have around you right now, is what those educated and intelligent people gave you. Your screaming pastors did the complete opposite in the dark ages. Keeping the public in dark and tortured and killed people who tried to think outside their little religious box. Try to weight those two choices and tell me which one you trust the most, the future or the past?
@Razgrits First off, I don't think its an either/or situation between pastors and scientists. Science explains the way things are. Religion deals with morality and the way things ought to be. Neither can be substituted for the other.
Anyway, take quantum science. Its all probabilites. Nothing is 100% certain. The portrait on my wall could wink at me. Its very unlikely, but its possible. So you see, I do need a certain degree of faith to buy into objectivism.
@philnoll Uh- you're a bit wrong there, religion tries to pass on it's OWN moral code, for example they are against gay people and consider them immoral. Some Atheists consider them disgusting, some other atheists don't care at all about them, and some non-gay atheists want to protect their rights as they do for all humans. Morality, for atheists, comes from life, their social life. And their view of the world.
@philnoll As the for the probabilities. You are wrong about 'Nothing is 100% certain'. It's more like EVERYTHING IS 100% CERTAIN because everything happens and nothing happens at the same time. Unless you're trying to peak. ;)
@Razgrits Okay, so on that note, we come to the main disagreement between science and mysticism. Science would assert that matter exists and consciousness is a bi-product. On the flip side though, you seem to be suggesting that reality is directly affected by my conscious observation - like if I peek. Or did you mean "peak" like on an LSD trip...The way this is all shaping up, I'm beginning to wonder if there is any difference at all.
But it's good that you told me about LSD! You know that when you are under the influence of said drug, your mind is working over time, if you can control it, you'll start thinking things you normally wouldn't, see patterns that when you try to explain them to someone, you just... can't, there are no words for them. That's the other side of this world and when you overwork your mind, you might see a glimpse of it.
@philnoll But I believe it will take us a lot of generations, maybe a second Einstein before the rest of the world will catch up with how the world really is, even if our scientists FIND all the answers we won't be able to comprehend them, like most of us can't comprehend the theory of relativity and the quantum world or the higher dimensions. Humans still need time.
@philnoll yea i never understood that. How can it be just be by observation that the universe exist? If humans were not here would the universe cease to exists. I understand that with our primitive senses that we perceive things different then each other (our own universes).
@sparkyyoung It is hard to define an object without relating it to something. An apple is only sweet in relation to a tongue. This writing on this page is only blurry in relation to my eyes.
@sparkyyoung Did they ever exist? To me, matter is solid. To a subatomic particle, matter is mostly space. I think of apples as being red and green. A dog would think of them as being gray. Something with no eyes might call them invisible. So think about this. Can an object really be red, gray, and invisible at the same time?
@sparkyyoung Well, when we say something exists, its based on observations, so if there were no observers, it wouldn't exist in the way we normally think of "existence." Then again, if you believe in the existence of an immaterial world, or an immaterial consciousness...that could change everything
@sparkyyoung Take the concept of the invisible apple and apply it to all 5 senses. Now we have an invisible apple, with no taste or odor, which does not feel like anything, and does not make a sound. How can you be certain this apple exists?
loved that comic at the end. I can totally see how someone who studies / understands the theory of evolution could be a religious person. Evolution would be the most intelligent design / technique if a creator wanted to allow life to survive in the universe. Evolution makes perfect sense from a scientific and religious perspective.
The question is what is beyond the formation of hydrogen gas. What is beyond the big bang? Is the highs particle the holy grail to complete the model or not? Is it dimensional fields that bump, or some other power, that creates a sort of big bang? Thats the questions that need to be asked, there are very few intelligent educated scientists that actually believe in creationism/id in the western world. If you see the charts about the western world nations. Either everyone is stupid or you are. .
@RazielKain evolution is faith based, because there is no science taken from millions years ago, people just give their faith that their science proves that it existed and evolution occurred in the manner they scientifically conclude, not from first had observation. observing science now shows that there has been micro evolution (one canine into another kind of canine) but not eyeless organism to one with vision over time. how can a sightless anything evolve eyes, let alone a brain.
@RichardBrimson "because there is no science taken from millions years ago" this makes no sense whatsoever. "how can a sightless anything evolve eyes, let alone a brain" don't you feel a little strange feeling in your gut when you just bluff like this and post such things in public, knowing damn well you're just repeating something fed to you on a creationist/ID website? what is that like i wonder?
@BillKiernan No I do not feel strange at all, but I am glad to make you feel that way, as it is a step toward the truth. The TRUTH of Evolution is that it is a theory, i.e. NOT PROVEN, and those that believe in the big bang are people of faith, just as those that believe every word of Genesis. Of course Im repeating something a Creationist would/ have said...I am that Creationist. May God bless what he has started in you.
@RichardBrimson "The TRUTH of Evolution is that it is a theory, i.e. NOT PROVEN" do i really have to point out to you that the term "theory" in scientific terminology does NOT mean a hypothesis or an idea thrown around? really? "believe in the big bang are people of faith, just as those that believe every word of Genesis" your ignorance is painful to witness. "Of course Im repeating something a Creationist would/ have said...I am that Creationist" yes, you reguritate the propaganda fed to you.
@RichardBrimson, your comments are so ridiculous that I put them on my creationist wall of shame video. Maybe some more rational creationists can see the true idiocy of their belief. And it's funny.
@RichardBrimson "The TRUTH of Evolution is that it is a theory, i.e. NOT PROVEN" Learn what a 'theory' in science is before commenting. Oh, and there's more evidence for Evolution than there is for Gravity.
"those that believe in the big bang are people of faith" Because it's obviously faith that since planets are moving away from each other [indicated by red shift] and in doing so leave background radiation, there was an origin point.
"I am that Creationist." That explains your stupidity.
In response to those questioning the poster's assertion that he is Christian and how/why he is so, is it possible that he strives to live according to Jesus's teachings, yet does not believe that the old testament is factual? As I understand it (as a former christian and current atheist) that is how one is defined as a christian (hence the prefix "christ-" in the term)
I wish I had seen this videos earlier. Some creationist asked me these exact same questions. I thought that he had at least taken some time to ask these questions, I took the time to answer all of them. That bitch probably didn't even read it.
Humans also represent a bad example of evolution because we have so radically changed our environment as compared to all other species, that we have greatly changed the effect of natural selection, such as air conditioning and heating systems, taking care of the mentally and physically challenged, etc...
Just wanted to add something regarding 5: Evolution is also of importance in the field of medicine because of a lot of implications about causes of ailments as well as possible approaches for treatments.
Well ok, so you got all these questions that Scince hasn't been able to answer yet. So does that mean becuase our ability to solve these problems isn't quite there yet, that we should all Bow down to the Tooth Fairy ? Should I, because I can't answer the Questions myself, Beleive soemone else's point of veiw that lived 2000 Years ago ?
Sorry but I base my thoughts and actions in Reality, not whatever place you Religious poeple live in.
I agree. To disagree on one of the most important core points of the bible, one that establishes most of the rest of the bible, would render you to believing in god, but not the theology of god and the bibles teaching. Grats, your a deist, not a theist. Really hard to be a christian deist in the strict sense.
I don't understand how you're a Christian. Evolution disproves creation. Without creation, there's no Adam & Eve. Without Adam & Eve, there's no original sin. Without original sin, there's no reason to be saved by it, and there's no Jesus. That's basically the entire NT right there thrown out the window. You are definately not a Christian. You're probably closer to an agnostic deist.
krunk1980. Up here in Scandinavia we don't have many christians anymore, but the ones we do have accept evolution as the fact it is. You don't find many "creationists" up here, that's mainly an american problem in the western world, I think.. Cheers!
Yeah, along with a lot of other problems that you guys don't have. Seriously there's something in the water up there. Everything is better. Maybe hot climate = mushy brains. That seems to be the trend in the southern states.
Evolution =/= Atheism. I believed in evolution long before I became an Atheist. =) Actually, I became an atheist because I was fed up with "Christans" and "Catholics" using religion as justification for their stupid, irrational behavior (and I'm not even talking about priests!).
Now I'm an atheist because it makes more sense to me, but I have nothing against people with rationality and a belief in god.
@sarge2006 Agreed. I became an Atheist for my own reasons, but I know there are scientists out there, rational scientists who understand evolutionary theory, support it, and have a belief in god. I am fine with people believing in whatever they will, so long as they don't use their belief in a deity or ideology to distort the facts and thus science.
AW MAN!! You were on such a roll and then at about 7:25 "I'm a Christian". WTF? how can you be both? you just tore the Bible to shreds. seriously, I don't get it.
People way back before the theory of Evolution came around didn't take Genesis literally, for example Saint Augustine said it was just metaphor, look it up.
@jacobromu Well that's just simply not true. Evangelicals don't, Mormons don't, and Catholics are riding the fence. Those are DEFINITELY major denominations and there are several more but we could argue about how major they are. Which of the major denominations accept it?
@jacobromu Define "major" because Catholics are the only one I know that allow their members and push it, including the Big Bang, ie the Vatican. The rest, not sure about. Most Christians are scientifically illerate, including basic history so that's a huge claim lol. I would like to know of these denominations.
@krunk1980 You can believe in evolution and still be a religious person. In the 18th century deism became popular. God exist, he created the universe, but left it alone and never touched it again and that's where evolution comes in the picture
@krunk1980 he has faith in the religion i suppose. there is nothing wrong with that. he sounds like a really smart guy, and i am sure he knows his religion is based on faith. (perhaps, it makes him feel good, he likes the idea.) And although i dont agree with him, there is no problem with it is there? he does not say he wants to kill atheists and make American a christian nation or anything like that. that would be evil.
@mauriciohavok yeah I saw that and it warmed my cold black heart. It's really the only logical conclusion yet there are still plenty of bright otherwise logical people who do mental gymnastics to retain the title of xtian. My pt. about how can u be both was rhetorical. If the bible is unreliable, why believe any of it?
@krunk1980 Any serious 'apologetic Christian' (such as C.S. Lewis) will accept that the Bible can not always be taken literally, and in modern days there are a great many Christian scientists... who of course accept evolution because it is irrefutable.
@krunk1980 Its the sign of a rational mind. The anchient greeks would worship this guy as a hero of natural philosophy [now diverged into physics and biology].
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This sounds very interesting on the surface and I feel over powered litterally by the author's knowledge of basics of biology. But I am not buying that we all have a common ancestor, God's word says that all creatures produce after its kind. We do not see transitional speicies nowadays, just simply creatures that have always existed... I am not the smartest person on earth, but I know that evolution is only a religion....not science...
"We do not see transitional speicies nowadays, just simply creatures that have always existed..."
This is incorrect, as highlighted with Makyui's poodle example. It simply isn't true to say that all species alive today have always existed. We know this as an unquestionable fact.
"I am not the smartest person on earth, but I know that evolution is only a religion....not science..."
You kind took the wind out of your own sails with the first part of this comment, didn't you.
I belong to the religion of Plate Tectonics. Our messiah is Arthur Homes because we think he is interesting and we praise volcanoes and tsunamis. We are currently at wore with those damn Cell Theorists, who preach the false God Robert Hooke, that willy bastard.
"I am not the smartest person on earth, but I know that evolution is only a religion....not science... "
and perhaps you might want to learn more about the evidence and get smarter BEFORE you draw such a rash conclusion. otherwise you'd be arguing from ignorance. EG:
"i don't understand how crystals form, therefore god makes snow"
my Geology teacher back in Kuwait used to say: "likulli qaa3idah shawaadh".
hence, if evolution is the rule, then it follows that there must be exeptions: Kirk Cameron is the perfect example. because of this, Kirk cameron's existance is not necessarily bad for the cause of evolution...just makes you wonder...
The outward man sees with his eyes without wisdom and his heart's desire is full of flesh. Is random selection really random? Do U mean that there cannot be a sovereign God who permits U 2 see what you believe? After all wouldn't U think that God would save everybody if He truly desired to have everybody? Just because something is witnessed by a human doesn't mean that God must be futile. 4 all we know our knowledge could be equal 2 a knat compared 2 all that is out beyond our comprehension.
Selection isn't random. Scientific observation doesn't render God as being futile, unless the religion is trying to assert facts about the natural world. I can't prove that God doesn't exist beyond our comprehension, but any statements regarding the nature of this god would be pure speculation.
Is he a god who wants a personal relationship, or are we a project that's lying neglected under his bed? Who knows, but that's not a question that science would even attempt to answer.
there is natural selection and there is sexual selection...both drive evolution. Great book...The Mating Mind discusses the latter. Things like mimicry and feelings could have evolved through sexual selection. Sexual selction isn't discussed but Darwin did introduce natural selection and sexual selection as the 2 processes that drive evolution. Peacock's tail doesn't fit natural but does sexual.
u fuckin evolutionists and all yure big words, you aint takin my bible from me! evryone NOWS that evolution cant explain gravity there fore its WRONG!!!
interesting scientific fact about morning glories: If you eat a significant quantity of their seeds you get really fucking high and everything gets all shimmery and you end up saying things to your ex-girlfriend that you later regret
one important annotation about mimicry that could ease a bit of the incredulity is that typically taxonomic groups that diverge from common ancestors such as the smaller butterfly that looks like the distasteful monarch, is that there are these underlying patterns of genes that through mutation can happen upon recurrent patterns. That butterfly for example could just be pigments being selected to fold to be one particular wavelength(color)and then deposited in underlying stereotypical patterns.
I agree on all the facts here about evolution, but. . .
How can you call yourself a Christian and not believe in creationism? You even talk about abiogenesis. Many Christians accept evolution but believe God just got it started. You go farther and say abiogenesis the hypothesis.
So young earth creationism is a wacky idea, yet you somehow still believe that a Jew from 2000 yrs ago died for your sins? That makes no sense.
The bible says that the earth is flat, but we know that's not true. Are you not allowed to be a Christian if you scoff at the people who still insist the earth is flat?
If we've got strong evidence that counters something in the bible, why should we have to believe in a literal interpretation of it? Why not just seek out the spiritual truth contained in it, and not worry about the lack of a crystal dome covering the earth.
You are missing my point. I am talking about what it means to be a Christian at the basic level, not the ridiculous yet largely unimportant passages in the bible - dragons, nephilim, giants, etc.
My question has been, "how can a Christian attack the idea of creationism?", meaning whether a Christian believes in young earth creationism or completely agrees with today's science, they must believe that at some point god created the universe.
3 Jesus came to earth to be the sacrifice for sin & conquered sin by raising from the dead.
4 Believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead for your sin & you will be saved.
You could say you don't literally believe these things, that you look for the "spiritual truth", & Christians everywhere would say you weren't a Christian. To them saying, "I'll walk in love" is not enough to be "saved".
Isn't it obvious Adam was made of dust? I mean the evidence is everywhere!!! Plus it explains why males have "adams apple" and men have 1 less rib them women (which isn't true but I've had people toll me, face to face, that this is true and everything else I quoted was true). I've come to the conclusion that if you're view on reality is completely reliant on your imagination chances are you're wrong.
These people should try some methodological skepticism and forget everything they think they know and start from scratch. This would be especially helpful with shedding these poorly designed paradigms of thinking they inherited from their families and give them a clean start. At least this way they can take full responsibility for being the idiots they are.
Howdy Don. First off, this is a fantastic video, keep up the good work. I am curious, however, as to why you state that you are a theist. You obviously have a large number of atheistic people watching your videos and it would be nice if you made some comments as to why you believe in a supernatural being if for no other reason than to help build a bridge between those who believe and those who do not. Thanks again and great job.
Question recinded, I found your videos on your belief in god. Although you obviously do not enjoy talking about your religion I do appreciate that willingness to talk about it candidly. You gave me some things to think about.
Good video. Question: How do you put up with the dumb people and their stupid arguments and charges that you may not be christian? I'm an athiest but its really nice to see simple reason and logic. Good job and thanks.
Natural Selection limits variation as not all mutations, particularly drastic mutations, may survive. However given the biodiversity in the fossil record, but that the majority of creatures are now extinct would indicate that creatures will expand into other "types" but all these types might not survive. All the creationist have is "the t-rex could not fit on the Ark".
Oh, it happens so slowly that no one can ever see it happen in any organism ever and never ever will see it happen ever. Oh, OK then you're guessing that it happened despite all of the empirical evidence that says it doesn't happen.
How about the mutations that happens inside our own species? people immune to HIV, People with stronger bones, that kids that was born with his muscles fully developed, people that have echo localization, people that are born with the ability to see ultraviolet light waves. If those traits went to everyone else, we would evolve into a better species.
Really get a better argument, cause you are an idiot.
you are a lemming. you believe in magic mutations that no one has ever observed, recorded, or caused. However, you are positive they have happened. interesting
Your arguments are filled with ignorance, you are only making yourself idiotic. But go ahead. Believe in a ghost born from the ignorant minds of people 2000 years ago that no one has ever seen and that produce not only things that are against logic and nature, but against our ethics and principles.
You are a product of a poor educational system.
Idiotic, immature and ignorant.
And we have observed this mutations, we produce them in fruit flies. Just look it up imbecile.
I am a product of an excellent educational system and a great country that allows me the freedom to discover the truth. My multiple post secondary degrees help me evaluate things in a logical manner. The hypothesis presented by Evolutionists, no matter how many lemmings follow it, is not observed, logical, or supported by evidence. The status of any other theory is irrelevant. It is Evolution that at the crux and it FAILS.
Uhu,, it's more well supported than the existence of God, but if you want to remain blind and believe that you just poofed into existence be my guest, you are only fooling yourself.
By saying it never been observed you only prove your ignorance.
Look for Speciation, more than enough people have explain it, but you don't even seem to be aware of everything like you like to think.
But I give up on you are a close minded fool, keep it that way.
And really your sarcasm is pathetic, insulting me like that won't change anything. At least have the balls to be direct with insults. You are neither smart nor cool.
Speciation is not evolution. that is why they use two different words. I'm sorry if you feel that I have been condescending. However you need to do more homework and not just follow one path of information.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Basically, over time you inherit enough traits to be considered a different species, specially when you have a hard time mating with others with the same ancestor.
I don't see why you try so hard to disprove something that is so obvious.
change is not in debate at all organisms change from one generation to the next all the time. Changes can even occur which make mating difficult or impossible. There is no question about this it is observed all the time. however, the idea that these changes can cause one type of animal to change into another type, eg a fish into a mamal, is 100% speculative. there is no empirical evidence to support it what so ever.
Hey, I got a good idea. Why don't you define evolution as any time organisms mate. then you will have no doubt as to if it is true or not. LOL. If you define evolution as changes in allele frequencies, then there is no debate.
It's not what I don't understand, it is what you suppose that is silly.
I, and everyone else with a brain, understand perfectly how organisms mate and the changes that take place. It is you and yours that suppose that small changes that are observed bring about momentous changes that are not and never have been observed or recorded in any way.
silly child learn what is real and what exists only in your head.
« It is you and yours that suppose that small changes that are observed bring about momentous changes »
Tell me. If you can take one step, can you not walk to the end of the street? What prevents small changes from accumulating over time? Explain, please.
there is no evidence that random mutations can cause the changes that are needed to change one animal into another kind of animal. It has never been observed recorded or documented in all of human history, breeding, or experiment.
Random mutation + natural selection= destruction of species.
download Mendel's accountant and try the computer simulation yourself.
The experiments and observations all ALL show that there is no documented evidence that small changes in an organism can cause it to change into a different kind of organism over time.
« observations all ALL show that there is no documented evidence that small changes in an organism can cause it to change into a different kind of organism over time »
On the contrary; our genomes and the genomes of any other species that has been sampled, as well as the fossil record, show that this is exactly what happened. And evolutionary theory explains how it happened.
Fairy tales will not help you. Our genome does not show that any animal changed into another animal, ever. The fossil record is the same. organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record and disappear just as abruptly. that is why Gould developed the idea of punctuated equilibrium. There is no evidence of gradual change by millions of small mutations.
mejc, you are clearly not educated in this matter and it makes arguing with you tiresome and frustrating. Seriously; do some research, get the facts that you are arguing about straight, and then come back and have an educated discussion. Until then, we cannot debate against pure ignorance. To the people who know this material, your knowledge (or lack there-of) is evident beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nobody can take you seriously until you get some information straight on the subject!
A common Ancestor? Another mythical creature that changed into every kind of organism known. by some unproven, unobserved and statistically impossible method.
No straw man here. just facts. Common ancestor? Eventually it must become some other kind of organism. and that must happen billions of times to make your little story true. You however, will never admit this because you and I both know that it is impossible and never happened.
"Common ancestor? Eventually it must become some other kind of organism."
Not really. Although I am still not sure what you mean by 'kind'.
Go back through the entire evolutionary record of a single species and you will never find a single point where one 'kind' changes into another 'kind'.
You would instead see a very gradual change over time.
And the relics of those changes are still in our DNA.
Not quite, they have diversified into several different species which can no longer interbreed.
'discovering' a virus certainly has little to do with evolution. But a NEW strain formed from the mutation and selection of an old one certainly does.
And where did I talk of 'similarity' in DNA?
I spoke of the past changes being recorded in DNA. Like Tails in humans.
PE advocates gradual change, just in geologically condensed (i.e., millions and millions) time spans in response to changed (or changing) environmental conditions. Its logic is drastic structural changes require drastic changes in habitat to justify incurring the cost of natural selection's blind ends. Thus, we do see gradual change; we just do not see constant, significant change.
Macroevolution is a PREDICTION following from evolutionary theory. A prediction, moreover, confirmed by the pattern of genetic and morphological homologies in extant species as well as the fossil record.
« The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
S.J. Gould »
(1/1)
That, my friend, is what we call quote mining. Quote mining is the activity of quoting phrases by well known persons out of context, on the false assumptions that:
« The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
S.J. Gould »
(2/2)
1) these persons should somehow be considered as absolute authorities, whose words cannot be doubted, and more importantly 2) that we cannot or will not look up the entire passage from which the quote was lifted to find out that it does not support your position. Quote mining is not merely dishonest: it is stupid and self-defeating as well.
Natural selection has limits. Everyone knows this. We observe it in all areas. We cannot make ten pound apples, hundred pound chickens, etc. It is the theoretical mutations That are unlimited.they supposedly cause all of these new features to just appear on organisms. the problem with the hypothesis is, These billions of major mutations have never been observed. fruit flies no matter what we do, stay fruit flies.
0:21 IVE BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO POINT THAT OUT ALREADY
childmolester16 3 weeks ago
I love the overlaping sets chart near the end
aaqucnaona94 3 months ago
hey...
i want my free cake
GodsArePeopleToo 9 months ago
8:30s, concerning 6b: I don't care about the freedom from God. "No moral absoulutes," because all atheists want to kill people and rape little babies, durr hurr. But seriously, I think most of the atheists at my school are better concerning morals than alot of the crazy-ass conservative motherfuckers. >_>
erinsmonster 10 months ago
@erinsmonster Kinda interesting that Texas is number 4 in unwed/teen pregnancies and still continues to teach abstinence..Abstinence is 99.99 percent effective as long as your name is not Mary and you lived 2000 years ago in Bethlehem...get it? If you want good people to do evil...give them religion, i.e. the 'get out of jail free jesus card'....scary, ain't it?
scootkh 5 months ago
This guy is epic.
erinsmonster 10 months ago
Question 22 makes no sense. What is meant by "other eight or ten kinds" of evolutionist? I've only ever heard of one kind.
criskity 10 months ago
"im a christian"
...you're a goddamn awesome example for the millions of arrogant christians everywhere
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@fruitytuttiluigi this is an old vid. he isnt a christian any more
kokofan50 1 year ago
I was an atheist long before I encountered evolution. I've always been an atheist. Up until my 30s biology bored the crap out of me - just random facts. Then I encountered books by Dawkins. Eye-openers. This stuff makes sense. Prior to that I'd never questioned why life could be without a God, just accepted that it was (there's no God but I'm here so there's probably an explanation). Suddenly (for me) a coherent explanation.
bdf2718 1 year ago
Endosymbiotic Theory explains photosynthetic bacteria, which is a strong precursor to photosynthesis in plants. Why didn't you mention it? Or did I misunderstand something?
HybridD91 1 year ago
Scientists are theologians. They create elaborate myths. We have no idea what is gravity, or where it comes from. What is a black hole? Can you see it? Can you touch it?
No, but you can see light displacement, and feel its vibrations.
Gravity is a religion. They say the lip of a black hole is like an eternal moment in all directions. That's completely religion. Nothing factual about Einstein. E=Love.
E=Jesus. E=Peace.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll Uh- I don't really get what you are trying to pass here, gravity is a religion? Gravity although it's a law of the universe, and clearly exists, we have problems with it's theoretical part which might be incorrect. Because if steady motion is applied on an object not affected by gravity, that object acts as if it has a gravitational field on the opposite direction of the one it's going. Scientists hope to solve these issues with the M theory.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@philnoll Also, by 'lip' you mean the event horizon of a black hole? If so no, that's just the point of no return. It's not a timeless point, because time is an illusion and just a thing we invented so we could measure the changes of the state of matter. There is no such thing as time when you want to talk about physics that work in quantum levels because then you talk about observable facts which is against the quantum laws. Look at the two slits experiment.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@philnoll To wrap it up, Einstein was a great man and if it wasn't for him, our coal deposited would have been long gone by now. So I suggest you'd be a bit more respectful and not spill shit over his name, please. So- I just proved you, with FACTS, science is not a religion and offers observable facts. If you kindly, and not offend you, took the time to actually educate yourself, you'd probably understand. Stop being selfish and admit that you are wrong like many of us did/still do.
E=Energy.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits Thanks for the response. Now I don't want to sound too stupid. I know how science works and I basically agree with you. What I am saying is that we've had to use dark matter, strings, and "timelessness" to explain the universe, but none of those things can we experience with our senses. So still it is a lot of conjecture. But maybe you're right, and we will solve some of these problems soon.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll Don't confuse yourself, dark matter can be sensed if you go too close to it by it's gravitational force. String theory, is still an unproven theory but it does explain a lot and fits well with the current laws in physics. As for timelessness, you know the twin's experiment where one is sent to space and the other stays here on earth, they experience time differently. I'll send you a vid about relativity that should help you a bit.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits See, that's what I mean. They wouldn't change the laws of physics, so they make up the invisible particles to explain the parts that don't make sense. Dark matter didn't explain everything, so now they need dark energy to even things out. For most of us laymen around the world, all this is just orthodoxy, as opposed to something we can actually see for ourselves.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll There is a big difference with the bible though. Instead of making presumptions that say 'god did it' and that answer their questions, they make some research before they say 'dark energy does that'. And any of us 'laymen' can study and learn about science, and see for ourselves. If you are too lazy to do it, you just have to trust them. But on one hand, you trust pastors screaming 2k year old scriptures, on the other hand you trust educated and intelligent people. That's simple, no?
Razgrits 1 year ago
@philnoll Lets not mention that everything you have around you right now, is what those educated and intelligent people gave you. Your screaming pastors did the complete opposite in the dark ages. Keeping the public in dark and tortured and killed people who tried to think outside their little religious box. Try to weight those two choices and tell me which one you trust the most, the future or the past?
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits First off, I don't think its an either/or situation between pastors and scientists. Science explains the way things are. Religion deals with morality and the way things ought to be. Neither can be substituted for the other.
Anyway, take quantum science. Its all probabilites. Nothing is 100% certain. The portrait on my wall could wink at me. Its very unlikely, but its possible. So you see, I do need a certain degree of faith to buy into objectivism.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll Uh- you're a bit wrong there, religion tries to pass on it's OWN moral code, for example they are against gay people and consider them immoral. Some Atheists consider them disgusting, some other atheists don't care at all about them, and some non-gay atheists want to protect their rights as they do for all humans. Morality, for atheists, comes from life, their social life. And their view of the world.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@philnoll As the for the probabilities. You are wrong about 'Nothing is 100% certain'. It's more like EVERYTHING IS 100% CERTAIN because everything happens and nothing happens at the same time. Unless you're trying to peak. ;)
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits Okay, so on that note, we come to the main disagreement between science and mysticism. Science would assert that matter exists and consciousness is a bi-product. On the flip side though, you seem to be suggesting that reality is directly affected by my conscious observation - like if I peek. Or did you mean "peak" like on an LSD trip...The way this is all shaping up, I'm beginning to wonder if there is any difference at all.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll Uh- actually I meant peek... >.>;
But it's good that you told me about LSD! You know that when you are under the influence of said drug, your mind is working over time, if you can control it, you'll start thinking things you normally wouldn't, see patterns that when you try to explain them to someone, you just... can't, there are no words for them. That's the other side of this world and when you overwork your mind, you might see a glimpse of it.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@philnoll But I believe it will take us a lot of generations, maybe a second Einstein before the rest of the world will catch up with how the world really is, even if our scientists FIND all the answers we won't be able to comprehend them, like most of us can't comprehend the theory of relativity and the quantum world or the higher dimensions. Humans still need time.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@philnoll yea i never understood that. How can it be just be by observation that the universe exist? If humans were not here would the universe cease to exists. I understand that with our primitive senses that we perceive things different then each other (our own universes).
sparkyyoung 1 year ago
@sparkyyoung It is hard to define an object without relating it to something. An apple is only sweet in relation to a tongue. This writing on this page is only blurry in relation to my eyes.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll True, but....would things cease to exists if we were not here to observe it?
sparkyyoung 1 year ago
@sparkyyoung Did they ever exist? To me, matter is solid. To a subatomic particle, matter is mostly space. I think of apples as being red and green. A dog would think of them as being gray. Something with no eyes might call them invisible. So think about this. Can an object really be red, gray, and invisible at the same time?
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll yea i get that but......whether or not the apple is red, gray or invisible does that change the fact that the apple exists?
sparkyyoung 1 year ago
@sparkyyoung Well, when we say something exists, its based on observations, so if there were no observers, it wouldn't exist in the way we normally think of "existence." Then again, if you believe in the existence of an immaterial world, or an immaterial consciousness...that could change everything
philnoll 1 year ago
@sparkyyoung Take the concept of the invisible apple and apply it to all 5 senses. Now we have an invisible apple, with no taste or odor, which does not feel like anything, and does not make a sound. How can you be certain this apple exists?
philnoll 1 year ago
loved that comic at the end. I can totally see how someone who studies / understands the theory of evolution could be a religious person. Evolution would be the most intelligent design / technique if a creator wanted to allow life to survive in the universe. Evolution makes perfect sense from a scientific and religious perspective.
The0Burger0King 1 year ago
The question is what is beyond the formation of hydrogen gas. What is beyond the big bang? Is the highs particle the holy grail to complete the model or not? Is it dimensional fields that bump, or some other power, that creates a sort of big bang? Thats the questions that need to be asked, there are very few intelligent educated scientists that actually believe in creationism/id in the western world. If you see the charts about the western world nations. Either everyone is stupid or you are. .
kloneo 1 year ago
4:50 uh I know what you meant but it nearly sounded like you are saying that evolution is a religion
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RazielKain evolution is faith based, because there is no science taken from millions years ago, people just give their faith that their science proves that it existed and evolution occurred in the manner they scientifically conclude, not from first had observation. observing science now shows that there has been micro evolution (one canine into another kind of canine) but not eyeless organism to one with vision over time. how can a sightless anything evolve eyes, let alone a brain.
RichardBrimson 1 year ago
@RichardBrimson just no
RazielKain 1 year ago
@RichardBrimson "because there is no science taken from millions years ago" this makes no sense whatsoever. "how can a sightless anything evolve eyes, let alone a brain" don't you feel a little strange feeling in your gut when you just bluff like this and post such things in public, knowing damn well you're just repeating something fed to you on a creationist/ID website? what is that like i wonder?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan No I do not feel strange at all, but I am glad to make you feel that way, as it is a step toward the truth. The TRUTH of Evolution is that it is a theory, i.e. NOT PROVEN, and those that believe in the big bang are people of faith, just as those that believe every word of Genesis. Of course Im repeating something a Creationist would/ have said...I am that Creationist. May God bless what he has started in you.
RichardBrimson 1 year ago
@RichardBrimson "The TRUTH of Evolution is that it is a theory, i.e. NOT PROVEN" do i really have to point out to you that the term "theory" in scientific terminology does NOT mean a hypothesis or an idea thrown around? really? "believe in the big bang are people of faith, just as those that believe every word of Genesis" your ignorance is painful to witness. "Of course Im repeating something a Creationist would/ have said...I am that Creationist" yes, you reguritate the propaganda fed to you.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@RichardBrimson, your comments are so ridiculous that I put them on my creationist wall of shame video. Maybe some more rational creationists can see the true idiocy of their belief. And it's funny.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@RichardBrimson "The TRUTH of Evolution is that it is a theory, i.e. NOT PROVEN" Learn what a 'theory' in science is before commenting. Oh, and there's more evidence for Evolution than there is for Gravity.
"those that believe in the big bang are people of faith" Because it's obviously faith that since planets are moving away from each other [indicated by red shift] and in doing so leave background radiation, there was an origin point.
"I am that Creationist." That explains your stupidity.
onijester56 1 year ago 2
@RichardBrimson please look up the meaning of the word 'theory' because it will save you be mocked.
janto58 1 year ago
@RichardBrimson evolution is not a religion.
janto58 1 year ago
In response to those questioning the poster's assertion that he is Christian and how/why he is so, is it possible that he strives to live according to Jesus's teachings, yet does not believe that the old testament is factual? As I understand it (as a former christian and current atheist) that is how one is defined as a christian (hence the prefix "christ-" in the term)
jamaicab 1 year ago
lol at 8:43
zzall22 1 year ago
You can't hate a god, that does not exist. Fool!
Sleeko11 2 years ago 4
I wish I had seen this videos earlier. Some creationist asked me these exact same questions. I thought that he had at least taken some time to ask these questions, I took the time to answer all of them. That bitch probably didn't even read it.
Keeban3 2 years ago
Humans also represent a bad example of evolution because we have so radically changed our environment as compared to all other species, that we have greatly changed the effect of natural selection, such as air conditioning and heating systems, taking care of the mentally and physically challenged, etc...
WisdomVendor 2 years ago 2
Just wanted to add something regarding 5: Evolution is also of importance in the field of medicine because of a lot of implications about causes of ailments as well as possible approaches for treatments.
gagaplex 2 years ago
lol @ how they ask these scientifc questions to idiots, then say...
"see?.. now let me help you get your checkbook out.. the lord needs more money. "
BratvaTV 2 years ago
Well ok, so you got all these questions that Scince hasn't been able to answer yet. So does that mean becuase our ability to solve these problems isn't quite there yet, that we should all Bow down to the Tooth Fairy ? Should I, because I can't answer the Questions myself, Beleive soemone else's point of veiw that lived 2000 Years ago ?
Sorry but I base my thoughts and actions in Reality, not whatever place you Religious poeple live in.
Have fun with that though....... Be Yourself.
mic6010 2 years ago 3
I agree. To disagree on one of the most important core points of the bible, one that establishes most of the rest of the bible, would render you to believing in god, but not the theology of god and the bibles teaching. Grats, your a deist, not a theist. Really hard to be a christian deist in the strict sense.
LtZerge 2 years ago
I don't understand how you're a Christian. Evolution disproves creation. Without creation, there's no Adam & Eve. Without Adam & Eve, there's no original sin. Without original sin, there's no reason to be saved by it, and there's no Jesus. That's basically the entire NT right there thrown out the window. You are definately not a Christian. You're probably closer to an agnostic deist.
Bf2009 2 years ago 3
YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN!!???? WHAT THE FUCKKK!!!!????
I could understand if you were a deist, but even then, what the fuck man, what the fuck.
5k4k1dhtp 2 years ago 4
woah, this must of been votebotted like crazy.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago 4
krunk1980. Up here in Scandinavia we don't have many christians anymore, but the ones we do have accept evolution as the fact it is. You don't find many "creationists" up here, that's mainly an american problem in the western world, I think.. Cheers!
winterstellar 2 years ago 4
Yeah, along with a lot of other problems that you guys don't have. Seriously there's something in the water up there. Everything is better. Maybe hot climate = mushy brains. That seems to be the trend in the southern states.
kyebean 2 years ago
Evolution =/= Atheism. I believed in evolution long before I became an Atheist. =) Actually, I became an atheist because I was fed up with "Christans" and "Catholics" using religion as justification for their stupid, irrational behavior (and I'm not even talking about priests!).
Now I'm an atheist because it makes more sense to me, but I have nothing against people with rationality and a belief in god.
sarge2006 2 years ago 35
@sarge2006 Agreed. I became an Atheist for my own reasons, but I know there are scientists out there, rational scientists who understand evolutionary theory, support it, and have a belief in god. I am fine with people believing in whatever they will, so long as they don't use their belief in a deity or ideology to distort the facts and thus science.
Stoub 1 year ago
AW MAN!! You were on such a roll and then at about 7:25 "I'm a Christian". WTF? how can you be both? you just tore the Bible to shreds. seriously, I don't get it.
krunk1980 2 years ago 16
Why can't you be both?
People way back before the theory of Evolution came around didn't take Genesis literally, for example Saint Augustine said it was just metaphor, look it up.
HerrSchnabeltier 2 years ago
my thoughts exactly
natmanprime 2 years ago
@krunk1980 he doesnt beleive the bible literally except i think the gospels but im not sure
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@krunk1980 all major christian denominations accept the theory of evolution by natural selection.
jacobromu 1 year ago
@jacobromu Well that's just simply not true. Evangelicals don't, Mormons don't, and Catholics are riding the fence. Those are DEFINITELY major denominations and there are several more but we could argue about how major they are. Which of the major denominations accept it?
krunk1980 1 year ago
@jacobromu Define "major" because Catholics are the only one I know that allow their members and push it, including the Big Bang, ie the Vatican. The rest, not sure about. Most Christians are scientifically illerate, including basic history so that's a huge claim lol. I would like to know of these denominations.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 Most Christians are scientifically illerate
Prove that claim generalization please.
movcrit 1 year ago
@krunk1980 Being Theist doesnt mean believing in the bible.
LedKenji666 1 year ago
@krunk1980 You can believe in evolution and still be a religious person. In the 18th century deism became popular. God exist, he created the universe, but left it alone and never touched it again and that's where evolution comes in the picture
Darkagedd 1 year ago
@krunk1980 he has faith in the religion i suppose. there is nothing wrong with that. he sounds like a really smart guy, and i am sure he knows his religion is based on faith. (perhaps, it makes him feel good, he likes the idea.) And although i dont agree with him, there is no problem with it is there? he does not say he wants to kill atheists and make American a christian nation or anything like that. that would be evil.
Great video! :)
ryan4144 11 months ago
@krunk1980 he's an atheist now
mauriciohavok 11 months ago
@mauriciohavok yeah I saw that and it warmed my cold black heart. It's really the only logical conclusion yet there are still plenty of bright otherwise logical people who do mental gymnastics to retain the title of xtian. My pt. about how can u be both was rhetorical. If the bible is unreliable, why believe any of it?
krunk1980 11 months ago
@krunk1980 Any serious 'apologetic Christian' (such as C.S. Lewis) will accept that the Bible can not always be taken literally, and in modern days there are a great many Christian scientists... who of course accept evolution because it is irrefutable.
energysage 5 months ago
@krunk1980 Its the sign of a rational mind. The anchient greeks would worship this guy as a hero of natural philosophy [now diverged into physics and biology].
aaqucnaona94 3 months ago
don, i think you mispoke on Q 25.
shouldn't you have said:
" wtf does this have to do with evolution?!"
thinkppl 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This sounds very interesting on the surface and I feel over powered litterally by the author's knowledge of basics of biology. But I am not buying that we all have a common ancestor, God's word says that all creatures produce after its kind. We do not see transitional speicies nowadays, just simply creatures that have always existed... I am not the smartest person on earth, but I know that evolution is only a religion....not science...
Ganadores500 2 years ago
"We do not see transitional speicies nowadays, just simply creatures that have always existed..."
So poodles have always existed? What about dolphins? If we dig about in the Cambrian layers of rock, will we find dolphin fossils?
Really, when you get right down to it, EVERY species is a transitional species. So, no, you can see transitional species everywhere.
Makyui 2 years ago 3
"We do not see transitional speicies nowadays, just simply creatures that have always existed..."
This is incorrect, as highlighted with Makyui's poodle example. It simply isn't true to say that all species alive today have always existed. We know this as an unquestionable fact.
"I am not the smartest person on earth, but I know that evolution is only a religion....not science..."
You kind took the wind out of your own sails with the first part of this comment, didn't you.
stalwartatheist 2 years ago 5
I belong to the religion of Plate Tectonics. Our messiah is Arthur Homes because we think he is interesting and we praise volcanoes and tsunamis. We are currently at wore with those damn Cell Theorists, who preach the false God Robert Hooke, that willy bastard.
Yeah, it makes sense.
Vornesoul 2 years ago 2
Damn... I thought I was the only member. SPLITTER! ; )
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
"I am not the smartest person on earth, but I know that evolution is only a religion....not science... "
and perhaps you might want to learn more about the evidence and get smarter BEFORE you draw such a rash conclusion. otherwise you'd be arguing from ignorance. EG:
"i don't understand how crystals form, therefore god makes snow"
no...that's not how shit works....
thinkppl 2 years ago 3
@ 2:18
my Geology teacher back in Kuwait used to say: "likulli qaa3idah shawaadh".
hence, if evolution is the rule, then it follows that there must be exeptions: Kirk Cameron is the perfect example. because of this, Kirk cameron's existance is not necessarily bad for the cause of evolution...just makes you wonder...
Albukhshi 2 years ago
The outward man sees with his eyes without wisdom and his heart's desire is full of flesh. Is random selection really random? Do U mean that there cannot be a sovereign God who permits U 2 see what you believe? After all wouldn't U think that God would save everybody if He truly desired to have everybody? Just because something is witnessed by a human doesn't mean that God must be futile. 4 all we know our knowledge could be equal 2 a knat compared 2 all that is out beyond our comprehension.
WileNot 2 years ago
Selection isn't random. Scientific observation doesn't render God as being futile, unless the religion is trying to assert facts about the natural world. I can't prove that God doesn't exist beyond our comprehension, but any statements regarding the nature of this god would be pure speculation.
Is he a god who wants a personal relationship, or are we a project that's lying neglected under his bed? Who knows, but that's not a question that science would even attempt to answer.
scepticalpreacher 2 years ago
there is natural selection and there is sexual selection...both drive evolution. Great book...The Mating Mind discusses the latter. Things like mimicry and feelings could have evolved through sexual selection. Sexual selction isn't discussed but Darwin did introduce natural selection and sexual selection as the 2 processes that drive evolution. Peacock's tail doesn't fit natural but does sexual.
jsgardener 2 years ago
Creationism is pseudo-science
tampertt 2 years ago 5
I love your videos, man. Keep 'em coming!
billygutter01 2 years ago 2
u fuckin evolutionists and all yure big words, you aint takin my bible from me! evryone NOWS that evolution cant explain gravity there fore its WRONG!!!
Mathew 27:51-53
Jesus will send zombies to eat you!
gonyea12 2 years ago 3
Now that is a good idea for horror movie gonyea12 (probably by either Quentin Tarintino and/or Rob rodriguez AGAIN!!!)
oreolvrsshane1987 2 years ago
interesting scientific fact about morning glories: If you eat a significant quantity of their seeds you get really fucking high and everything gets all shimmery and you end up saying things to your ex-girlfriend that you later regret
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
"a kind of animal is like, a bird is one kind of animal and a JACKASS is another kind of animal"
---
would you consider coral and jellyfish to be different "kinds"?
Would you consider sponges and coral to be the same "kind"?
Would you consider flatworms and earthworms the same "kind"?
what about worms and snakes?
What about squid and snails?
what about a salamander and a lizard? They look similar, are they the same "kind"?
What about fish and amphibians?
feel free to answer any or all of these
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
What about your mother and a chimpanzee?
How about a partridge and a pear tree?
Feel free to answer these
mejc2 2 years ago
I don't use the term "kinds" like a creationist does I use real scientific terms such as phylum or order or species.
and I can give a definition of any of these.
if you can't you should go get fucked to death by a bear
feel free to take my advice
- Love, Nixon
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
one important annotation about mimicry that could ease a bit of the incredulity is that typically taxonomic groups that diverge from common ancestors such as the smaller butterfly that looks like the distasteful monarch, is that there are these underlying patterns of genes that through mutation can happen upon recurrent patterns. That butterfly for example could just be pigments being selected to fold to be one particular wavelength(color)and then deposited in underlying stereotypical patterns.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I agree on all the facts here about evolution, but. . .
How can you call yourself a Christian and not believe in creationism? You even talk about abiogenesis. Many Christians accept evolution but believe God just got it started. You go farther and say abiogenesis the hypothesis.
So young earth creationism is a wacky idea, yet you somehow still believe that a Jew from 2000 yrs ago died for your sins? That makes no sense.
TritoneMcgee 2 years ago
Pope John Paul spoke out in favor of Evolution over a literal view of Genesis. Is he not allowed to be a Christian?
Macrochenia 2 years ago
Anyone can believe whatever they want. What I wanted from DonE was more information about his beliefs.
I would imagine that the Pope would still say that god had a hand in creating the universe. If god didn't create us why should we worship him?
If one doesn't take some of Genesis literally how does one still believe in Jesus? Jesus came to earth because of Adam's original sin right?
It's a bit disingenuous for a Christian to scoff at creationists because they all believe god created something.
TritoneMcgee 2 years ago
The bible says that the earth is flat, but we know that's not true. Are you not allowed to be a Christian if you scoff at the people who still insist the earth is flat?
If we've got strong evidence that counters something in the bible, why should we have to believe in a literal interpretation of it? Why not just seek out the spiritual truth contained in it, and not worry about the lack of a crystal dome covering the earth.
Macrochenia 2 years ago
You are missing my point. I am talking about what it means to be a Christian at the basic level, not the ridiculous yet largely unimportant passages in the bible - dragons, nephilim, giants, etc.
My question has been, "how can a Christian attack the idea of creationism?", meaning whether a Christian believes in young earth creationism or completely agrees with today's science, they must believe that at some point god created the universe.
TritoneMcgee 2 years ago
Christianity has basic tenants.
1 God created all.
2 Adam's original sin made all sinners.
3 Jesus came to earth to be the sacrifice for sin & conquered sin by raising from the dead.
4 Believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead for your sin & you will be saved.
You could say you don't literally believe these things, that you look for the "spiritual truth", & Christians everywhere would say you weren't a Christian. To them saying, "I'll walk in love" is not enough to be "saved".
TritoneMcgee 2 years ago
If our father died, and our mother remarried, why should we respect or obey the stepfather?
Why should we listen to our teachers? Or our bosses? Or our leaders/rulers/authorities?
They had no hand in creating us. Why should we give them the time of day?
Makyui 2 years ago
Because they make us better people and we have enough self-awareness to realize that.....
PAKMAN52 2 years ago
Well, there you go.
Makyui 2 years ago
Also: Adam's original sin was that the ate forbidden fruit. That has absolutely nothing to do with how he was created.
Makyui 2 years ago
Isn't it obvious Adam was made of dust? I mean the evidence is everywhere!!! Plus it explains why males have "adams apple" and men have 1 less rib them women (which isn't true but I've had people toll me, face to face, that this is true and everything else I quoted was true). I've come to the conclusion that if you're view on reality is completely reliant on your imagination chances are you're wrong.
dichotomyofone 2 years ago 2
Haha, yes. Especially when it contradicts what reality says.
CHRISTIANITY FALLS APART UNLESS ADAM WAS MADE FROM DUST AND A SNAKE TALKED TO EVE. EVERYTHING IS LITERAL. EVERYTHING.
FAITH RELIES ON EVIDENCE AND PROOF, ALWAYS.
Makyui 2 years ago
These people should try some methodological skepticism and forget everything they think they know and start from scratch. This would be especially helpful with shedding these poorly designed paradigms of thinking they inherited from their families and give them a clean start. At least this way they can take full responsibility for being the idiots they are.
dichotomyofone 2 years ago
That, or they should stop insisting that they're right and other people are wrong, especially if they're legitimately corrected.
I wonder which one will happen first.
Makyui 2 years ago
pi isnt allowed to be 3.141... it has to be 3.
PAKMAN52 2 years ago
wow this is so wierd i actually sent an email response to that website
no reply what a suprise
ajgrovery 2 years ago
Howdy Don. First off, this is a fantastic video, keep up the good work. I am curious, however, as to why you state that you are a theist. You obviously have a large number of atheistic people watching your videos and it would be nice if you made some comments as to why you believe in a supernatural being if for no other reason than to help build a bridge between those who believe and those who do not. Thanks again and great job.
kingsley82 2 years ago
Question recinded, I found your videos on your belief in god. Although you obviously do not enjoy talking about your religion I do appreciate that willingness to talk about it candidly. You gave me some things to think about.
kingsley82 2 years ago
Good video. Question: How do you put up with the dumb people and their stupid arguments and charges that you may not be christian? I'm an athiest but its really nice to see simple reason and logic. Good job and thanks.
Adnaana 2 years ago
2:36 Where is the paper from cambridge in the video description?
(hint: not in the video description)
philip1201 2 years ago
Natural Selection limits variation as not all mutations, particularly drastic mutations, may survive. However given the biodiversity in the fossil record, but that the majority of creatures are now extinct would indicate that creatures will expand into other "types" but all these types might not survive. All the creationist have is "the t-rex could not fit on the Ark".
specialkalpha 2 years ago
Very well answered, my friend- even if you seem, to have a habit of getting a bit technically for we poor laymen
XxsolusxX 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, it happens so slowly that no one can ever see it happen in any organism ever and never ever will see it happen ever. Oh, OK then you're guessing that it happened despite all of the empirical evidence that says it doesn't happen.
Grow a pair will ya. IT NEVER HAPPENED
mejc2 3 years ago
HAHA!
Great argument, scared little man...
XxsolusxX 2 years ago
How about the mutations that happens inside our own species? people immune to HIV, People with stronger bones, that kids that was born with his muscles fully developed, people that have echo localization, people that are born with the ability to see ultraviolet light waves. If those traits went to everyone else, we would evolve into a better species.
Really get a better argument, cause you are an idiot.
Grow a pair fucktard.
natzo89 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are a moron, please stop embarrassing yourself.
mejc2 2 years ago
If that is you best argument, you only prove you are a retard. Hollow, stupid and without anything to back it up.
Please grow up, stop embarrassing yourself and go wait for unicorns to puff into existence or something.
natzo89 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are a lemming. you believe in magic mutations that no one has ever observed, recorded, or caused. However, you are positive they have happened. interesting
mejc2 2 years ago
Your arguments are filled with ignorance, you are only making yourself idiotic. But go ahead. Believe in a ghost born from the ignorant minds of people 2000 years ago that no one has ever seen and that produce not only things that are against logic and nature, but against our ethics and principles.
You are a product of a poor educational system.
Idiotic, immature and ignorant.
And we have observed this mutations, we produce them in fruit flies. Just look it up imbecile.
natzo89 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a product of an excellent educational system and a great country that allows me the freedom to discover the truth. My multiple post secondary degrees help me evaluate things in a logical manner. The hypothesis presented by Evolutionists, no matter how many lemmings follow it, is not observed, logical, or supported by evidence. The status of any other theory is irrelevant. It is Evolution that at the crux and it FAILS.
mejc2 2 years ago
Uhu,, it's more well supported than the existence of God, but if you want to remain blind and believe that you just poofed into existence be my guest, you are only fooling yourself.
By saying it never been observed you only prove your ignorance.
natzo89 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh you are aware of when it has been observed? Please enlighten us all and don't forget your Nobel Prize on the way out.
mejc2 2 years ago
Look for Speciation, more than enough people have explain it, but you don't even seem to be aware of everything like you like to think.
But I give up on you are a close minded fool, keep it that way.
And really your sarcasm is pathetic, insulting me like that won't change anything. At least have the balls to be direct with insults. You are neither smart nor cool.
natzo89 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Speciation is not evolution. that is why they use two different words. I'm sorry if you feel that I have been condescending. However you need to do more homework and not just follow one path of information.
mejc2 2 years ago
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Basically, over time you inherit enough traits to be considered a different species, specially when you have a hard time mating with others with the same ancestor.
I don't see why you try so hard to disprove something that is so obvious.
natzo89 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
change is not in debate at all organisms change from one generation to the next all the time. Changes can even occur which make mating difficult or impossible. There is no question about this it is observed all the time. however, the idea that these changes can cause one type of animal to change into another type, eg a fish into a mamal, is 100% speculative. there is no empirical evidence to support it what so ever.
mejc2 2 years ago
I think that every disease resistant bacterium/virus/parasite ever would like to have a word with you.
FightinEvolutionist 2 years ago
LOL you think THAT is evidence for EVOLUTION? LOL LOL LOL LOL
HA HA HA HA
GASP
HA HA HA HA
mejc2 2 years ago
« LOL you think THAT is evidence for EVOLUTION? »
I think the fact that we can observe evolution both in labs and in the nature is sufficient evidence for evolution.
And before you start: no, evolution is defined as changes in allele frequencies in populations from one generation to the next.
And before you go on: no, that is NOT "micro" evolution; both "micro" and "macro" are PREDICTED EFFECTS of the same thing: evolution.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Thank you so, so much. Seeing people get put in their place is one of my favorite things.
FightinEvolutionist 2 years ago
Hey, I got a good idea. Why don't you define evolution as any time organisms mate. then you will have no doubt as to if it is true or not. LOL. If you define evolution as changes in allele frequencies, then there is no debate.
mejc2 2 years ago
« Why don't you define evolution as any time organisms mate »
Dear boy, reproduction is *already* part of the definition of evolution: reproductive variation and differential reproductive success.
It is exactly because organisms reproduce with variation that evolution occurs.
What don't you understand about this?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
It's not what I don't understand, it is what you suppose that is silly.
I, and everyone else with a brain, understand perfectly how organisms mate and the changes that take place. It is you and yours that suppose that small changes that are observed bring about momentous changes that are not and never have been observed or recorded in any way.
silly child learn what is real and what exists only in your head.
mejc2 2 years ago
« It is you and yours that suppose that small changes that are observed bring about momentous changes »
Tell me. If you can take one step, can you not walk to the end of the street? What prevents small changes from accumulating over time? Explain, please.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
there is no evidence that random mutations can cause the changes that are needed to change one animal into another kind of animal. It has never been observed recorded or documented in all of human history, breeding, or experiment.
Random mutation + natural selection= destruction of species.
download Mendel's accountant and try the computer simulation yourself.
mejc2 2 years ago
« there is no evidence that random mutations can cause the changes that are needed to change one animal into another kind of animal »
Yes there is. Numerous experiments have been done, as well as observations in nature, of successive mutations causing successive small changes.
What you need to do to make your case is demonstrate that there exists a mechanism stopping those small changes from accumulating over time.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
The experiments and observations all ALL show that there is no documented evidence that small changes in an organism can cause it to change into a different kind of organism over time.
it is mere speculation.
mejc2 2 years ago
« observations all ALL show that there is no documented evidence that small changes in an organism can cause it to change into a different kind of organism over time »
On the contrary; our genomes and the genomes of any other species that has been sampled, as well as the fossil record, show that this is exactly what happened. And evolutionary theory explains how it happened.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Fairy tales will not help you. Our genome does not show that any animal changed into another animal, ever. The fossil record is the same. organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record and disappear just as abruptly. that is why Gould developed the idea of punctuated equilibrium. There is no evidence of gradual change by millions of small mutations.
mejc2 2 years ago
mejc, you are clearly not educated in this matter and it makes arguing with you tiresome and frustrating. Seriously; do some research, get the facts that you are arguing about straight, and then come back and have an educated discussion. Until then, we cannot debate against pure ignorance. To the people who know this material, your knowledge (or lack there-of) is evident beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nobody can take you seriously until you get some information straight on the subject!
ninjaphile 2 years ago 2
Computer simulation != reality.
And I would also note that >99% of all species which have existed are now extinct.
"...changes that are needed to change one animal into another kind of animal."
Please define 'kind'.
In biology two animals are the same species if they can breed naturally and produce fertile young.
So Horses and Donkeys while being very similar and having a common ancestor are different species because they do not produce fertile young.
ytmoog 2 years ago
a kind of animal is like, a bird is one kind of animal and a JACKASS is another kind of animal.
mejc2 2 years ago
"a bird is one kind of animal"
Birds are a large group consisting of thousands of different species.
Just like Apes are a large group consisting of many different species. Including Humans and Chimpanzees.
"...changes that are needed to change one animal into another kind of animal."
Evolution does not state that that should happen. One 'kind' of animal does not change into 'another'.
But all 'kinds' of life have a common ancestor.
ytmoog 2 years ago
if one kind of animal will never change into a different kind of animal then you CAN NOT have one common ancestor.
mejc2 2 years ago
"if one kind of animal will never change into a different kind of animal then you CAN NOT have one common ancestor. "
That does not follow.
For example,
An ape did not 'change' into a human, humans ARE apes. And Apes are vertebrates, etc. etc.
And Chimpanzees are also from the great-ape family (or kind). (you still not have given any definition of 'kind' btw)
A chimpanzee could not 'change' into a human, but they do have a common ancestor.
ytmoog 2 years ago
A common Ancestor? Another mythical creature that changed into every kind of organism known. by some unproven, unobserved and statistically impossible method.
mejc2 2 years ago
"Another mythical creature that changed into every kind of organism known."
No.
Again as you seem to have been told a few times.
Evolution does not state that one creature 'changes' into another.
This is a straw man.
Why do you persist in it?
Perhaps you should actually do some research into how evolution actually works and then come back.
ytmoog 2 years ago
No straw man here. just facts. Common ancestor? Eventually it must become some other kind of organism. and that must happen billions of times to make your little story true. You however, will never admit this because you and I both know that it is impossible and never happened.
mejc2 2 years ago
"Common ancestor? Eventually it must become some other kind of organism."
Not really. Although I am still not sure what you mean by 'kind'.
Go back through the entire evolutionary record of a single species and you will never find a single point where one 'kind' changes into another 'kind'.
You would instead see a very gradual change over time.
And the relics of those changes are still in our DNA.
ytmoog 2 years ago
We do not see gradual change. that is the problem. that is why Punctuated equilibrium was proposed. There is no evidence of gradual change.
mejc2 2 years ago
"We do not see gradual change."
Of course we do.
Darwin saw it in his finches.
We see it in the vast variety of cats and dogs we have made.
It's seen in the endless number of new strains of viruses and bacteria which crop up.
Like I said:
"You would instead see a very gradual change over time.
And the relics of those changes are still in our DNA. "
ytmoog 2 years ago
The finches change back and forth all the time. that isn't evolution.
Cats and dogs are bred and have nothing to do with evolution. if anything they show the limits of natural selection.
discovering a virus also has nothing to do with evolution.
Noticing similarity in DNA does not in any way show evolution it shows similarity in DNA.
mejc2 2 years ago
"The finches change back and forth all the time."
Not quite, they have diversified into several different species which can no longer interbreed.
'discovering' a virus certainly has little to do with evolution. But a NEW strain formed from the mutation and selection of an old one certainly does.
And where did I talk of 'similarity' in DNA?
I spoke of the past changes being recorded in DNA. Like Tails in humans.
"Atavisms".
ytmoog 2 years ago
PE advocates gradual change, just in geologically condensed (i.e., millions and millions) time spans in response to changed (or changing) environmental conditions. Its logic is drastic structural changes require drastic changes in habitat to justify incurring the cost of natural selection's blind ends. Thus, we do see gradual change; we just do not see constant, significant change.
CSHallo 2 years ago
Comment removed
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Microevolution can be studied directly.
Macroevolution cannot.
Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations
and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern.
Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old
macroevolution could be postulated.
Chris Colby
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology(dot)html
.
!! Macroevolution it's a Postulate !!
Texoki 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Henderson dicctionary Biology
Macroevolution :
Evolutionary proceses extendeding thru geological times leading to the evolution of makeing diferent genere and higher taxa.
.
Between species is microevolution,
Macroevolution is only a postulate.
Texoki 3 years ago
« Macroevolution is only a postulate »
Macroevolution is a PREDICTION following from evolutionary theory. A prediction, moreover, confirmed by the pattern of genetic and morphological homologies in extant species as well as the fossil record.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
S.J. Gould
Texoki 3 years ago
« The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
S.J. Gould »
(1/1)
That, my friend, is what we call quote mining. Quote mining is the activity of quoting phrases by well known persons out of context, on the false assumptions that:
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
S.J. Gould »
(2/2)
1) these persons should somehow be considered as absolute authorities, whose words cannot be doubted, and more importantly 2) that we cannot or will not look up the entire passage from which the quote was lifted to find out that it does not support your position. Quote mining is not merely dishonest: it is stupid and self-defeating as well.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Natural selection has limits. Everyone knows this. We observe it in all areas. We cannot make ten pound apples, hundred pound chickens, etc. It is the theoretical mutations That are unlimited.they supposedly cause all of these new features to just appear on organisms. the problem with the hypothesis is, These billions of major mutations have never been observed. fruit flies no matter what we do, stay fruit flies.
mejc2 3 years ago
PeiperJ2 :and speciation has been observed.
.
that's microevolution
Texoki 3 years ago