Nice video, Berlinski is a jerk... :-) but one thing, couldn't you turn down the volume of those bleeps everytime he does something wrong, because they are kinda loud.... and he is wrong a lot.....
Omega Theta's inserts are just really annoying. He (or she, not really sure, need to check out the channel page) doesn't even answer his basic point, which is that the fact that it is a lie to say that all darwinian critics are religious fundamentalists. That fact is, a particular religious opinion, that of radical antitheism, is trying to use a theory to elevate their religious opinion to the level of scientific orthodoxy in order to silence debate from competing worldviews.
Well a lot of them aren't even atheists in the academic sense. If you read the collected works of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, P.Z. Myers (who advocates something we saw in the french revolution) and even Bill Maher they outright express not just incredulity towards the concept of God but outright hatred of the concept and entity (as described in religious texts) but also a deep contempt and malice towards those who do believe.
My point is we are beyond atheism with those people. They have actually embraced an antitheistic world view and as time goes on it takes on more of the functional elements of a religion. Lot Scott Adkins calling religion evil, he's basically fashioning an ethical framework and moral outlook for an atheistic worldview, which however inappropriate of atheists it may be, is the signature foundations of a religious system.
I mean, where do atheists get of calling anything evil?
good commentary technique; it can be done with dawkins, the pope, the bushes, the dems, basically anyone that uses RHETORIC. you get ir from everyone. wake up.
What an idiot? todays cows are also a product of evolution, todays domesticated breeds of cows are the descendants of wild animals in africa about ten thousand years ago.
Even to an evolutionist , combarderozaul, what you've said is incorrect.
Cows are dommesticated using selectie breeding to produce BETTER AND MORE QUANTITIVE MILK. Consequently, many generations of this cause LIMIT. Yes, there is a limit - cows won't change at all.
They did not evolve, and domestication only preserves the best genes, and does not change the organism into one and another.
Darwin's Sumerian THEORIES on positive mutations empowering entities to hopscotch across species' thresholds over countless millions of years are for those poor souls who suffer from religious mania. How could anyone, who's capable of using a toilet unassisted, believe that these evolutionary fairy tales constitute analytical research i.e. science?
Dr. Berlinski made a short brilliant illustration about a fairy tale that goes like this:
Once upon a time long long time ago, roughly 45 million years ago, there was a creature in what now is known as Pakistan hence the name pakicetus that very slooowly turned into ambulucetus and then into rodhocetus, and then into basilosaurus (enfasis added on saurus) and then turned into durodon and finally W H A L E S.-
What a beautifull hallucinational, sorry transitional forms.-
This guy is so shockingly clueless about biology (yes, I know who he is. I know he CLAIMS to understand biology well).
His cow-whale example is SO inept, because he doesn't have the slightest clue about how small changes in developmental steps (i.e., just a few mutations in the genes that control development) can have huge effects.
And, of course, he NEVER GETS AROUND TO MENTIONING the FIVE very clear and sequential intermediary "cow"-whale fossils that HAVE been found!!!
A close look at the G-20 Summit reveals a radical change in our world to a "global economic structure". Could this set the stage for a one-world economy that the Antichrist will rule over (Revelation 13:16-17 & Revelation 18) in the last days?
Biologist never have to approach evolution mathematically or quantitatively? Tell that to my statistics professor. Biology IS statistics. Oh, and swing by my genetics professor, too. He'll enjoy a good laugh!
Thanks for making this video. The red notes reflect what I wanted to say to the creatard very nicely.
David Berlinski raised in New York City, educated at Columbia College,received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton U. He became a Fellow of the Faculty in Mathematics and a Post Doctoral Fellow in molecular biology at Columbia U. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, Columbia, the Universite de Paris at Jussieu, the Uof Puget Sound, the U of Santa Clara, San Jose State University and San Francisco State U.
"David Berlinski (blah blah argument from authority blah blah)"
You don't want to go there, man. The worlds most educated minds are by FAR more atheistic and accepting of evolutionary biology. Not that it matters. Evolution occurs, and the evidence in support of it is amazingly numerous and unequivocal.
"(and you have what again thetaomega?)"
A clue about evolution? Coherent thoughts? A finger on the pulse of the scientific status quoe (e.g. Project Steve)?
Obviously there are many similarities betwixt simians & humans: fingers, toes, mammae, circulatory & endocrine systems, digestive & excretory functions and on & on. Similarly there are innumerable traits common betwixt humans & equines; between maggots & earthworms and so forth. A vivid imagination, which is the lynch pin upon which human evolutionary conjecture hinges on, is a requisite for anyone who has a pathological need "to believe."
"there are innumerable traits common betwixt humans & equines; between maggots & earthworms and so forth. A vivid imagination, which is the lynch pin upon which human evolutionary conjecture hinges on, is a requisite for anyone who has a pathological need "to believe.""
It's not merely similarity. It's a nested hierarchy of similarities, with traceable genetic markers. Why aren't birds similar to mammals, for example? Why don't any birds have teeth, or any mammals have feathers? Ask yourself.
"What would one expect from the flora & fauna of any given planet? Similarities?"
You didn't answer anything, and you didn't respond to any one of my points. All you did was reiterate your flawed and simplistic point that there are similarities between species. The picture is more complex than just mere similarity, even if you won't recognize that. I tried to explain that and you just repeat yourself. Polly want a cracker?
examples are not straw mans... sorry he's simply helping us understand complex changes through things we understand. He never said evolution says or evolution believes he said "let's start with something blatantly obvious not something evolution believe's. You are trying to use fallacies but you are uneducated in them.
ThetaOmega obviously you are an idiot. Dr. Berlinski is an authority on theoretical biology and mathematics. If you did not agree with his observations that is acceptable. However, you are doing what every other hardened evolutionist does when someone credible disowns the very questionable theory. You attack their credentials and attempt to ridicule their observations. Berlinski is just one of many scholars who reject the theory of Evolution on its own merits.
I said "made," but only to make an easy sentence. More than anything, I am agnostic, and think that these things are beyond our knowing right now. So, I said "made," but I have no clue if the universe was ever made, or if it is infinite, or if it is one of many universes; I can't know from just my own experience as a human. (to be continued)
As far as my teacher goes, the research he has done is completely hands-on; he is extremely experienced and active and at the cutting edge in biology and geology. And of all people--you can trust me here--he understands that all people live with a bias, and he really believes in the possibility of a God existing. But, he also believes that it is impossible for us people, who live such short, biased lives, to believe in anything with absolute certainty.
Well, I'd be able to say "years" because I believe the sun has existed for millions of years.
What I'm saying is that God could not have created the sun on the fourth day because days--as we and the people who wrote the bible know days--did not exist.
I am open to the possibility of a god or creator existing, but I definitely do not believe that it can be completely known and understood by people; it takes faith to believe in, not an instruction manual.
I think my favourite part is where he says "the skin would have to change to become waterproof", which implies that he thinks that a cow's skin isn't waterproof. Which is of course why a cow drowns everytime it rains. All skin is waterproof, which is just why that doesn't happen, and why we don't drown every time we have a bath! And a whales "breathing apparatus" doesn't have to change either, as whales (being mammals) breath air and so have lungs (rather than gills to breathe in water as
fish do). Even if he had the most basic understanding of mathematics (which he doesn't appear to), his knowledge of biology is clearly inferior to that of most primary school students, something which could be seen as a setback to someone attempting to disprove evolution; the central and most important theme of all biology.
My second favourite part is when he says "there are at least 50,000 differences between a cow and a whale". Please, for the sake of your own amusement, picture this man at
home, studiously, meticulously (probably imagining himself to be some kind of maverick genius) COUNTING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A COW AND A WHALE.
And how on earth has he counted such an incredibly small number of differences? The differences between me and my parents - people I am more related to than anyone else in the world - are probably in the millions of millions. Is a cow really more similar to a whale than I am to my own parents? The whole point of evolution is that these millions of
minute differences (or changes to use his word) are cumilative and so add up over time to create massive differences (or changes). The only reason I point this out is because I first saw this video posted by someone who genuinely thought "Dr. David Berlinski" had disproved evolution, rather than just publically announced his incredible ignorance on the subject. The sad thing is, the comments section was full of people who agreed with him.
I think the universe, and whatever force made the universe, is such an incredible and extravagant thing that it cannot be explained with words or completely understood; I think saying that God is "indecisive" is just projecting human words and emotions onto something that is definitely not human and is definitely not describable.
My Marine Biology professor told me about the whales' bones, so I can't say that I really know what I'm talking about, but I have confidence in his understanding.
There are still remnants of femurs--leg bones--attached to those joints in Fin whales, Blue whales, and Humpback whales. Do you think those bones are useful to whales?
Really though, I don't see why there is so much argument over evolution; evolution does not cancel out the possibility of a God at all. If there IS a god, I am certain it works through miracles. Intelligent Design is hokey because people try to justify it scientifically, which can't be done.
You can see, in a whale's skeleton, that many species of whales still have deteriorating, useless hip-joints, much like how humans have useless tail bones. The whales' ancestors used these hip joints to operate actual hips and legs.
Search "whale skeleton" on Google images or something.
David Berlinski (born 1942 in New York City) is an American educator and author of books on mathematics. He is a leading critic of evolution within the intelligent design movement and author of numerous articles on the topic.[1] Berlinski is a secular Jew and self-described agnostic, and according to a 2008 Slate magazine profile "a critic, a contrarian, and — by his own admission — a crank [...and] zealous skeptic, well at least he got the crank part right
That's just semantics. I can observe the non-functioning remnants of hip bones in whales today, so I assume, without REALLY knowing, that other whales today in the same species have the same hip joints. Because of these hip joints, I BELIEVE that they evolved from land creatures that actually used those hip joints. This is the same kind of thing as not knowing, positively, that an apple will fall to the ground if I drop it. I believe it will from my own experience, but I can't really know.
Funny how Berlinski is an agnostic yet this video portray's him as a theist
He used a cow not because it is the animal theorized but simply as an example of differences like with the "car to a submarine" comment
If Evolution cannot answer how the right design of organisms, such as how a land animal turns into a sea creature, then this is purely by faith in chance
This video doesn't contradict anything but only rapes the word "strawman"
Did you jerk yourself off after you've made this video ? I mean this honestly, and if you did, how did that feel ? Did you have the feeling to find more clips like the original one so you can boost up your future orgasms ?
Thetaomega, You can make a computer model do whatever you want. It all depends on programming - a sentient activity by the way.
..."I haven't met one." Well you need to get out more.
No, there is nothing saying a mutation can't be recessive, but that only increases the odds against its adaptation. It is nonsense to say odds do not enter into it. The mathematical equation is part of all science. Odds would have to be entered into your computer program or it would be useless.
Thetaomega, Your spherical planet analogy suffers from the same problem as the smashed watch. Yes, non-sentient forces can create shapes. I live in Canada, I see it with snow drifts all the time. However they do not mate and no 2 are alike. There is no selection in the formation of a drift or a planet.
Thetaomega, "...who fully understands evolution." Again you appeal to the belief that others are ignorant.
For random mutation to account for the complexity of life we see is not possible. It would require the formation of a series of positive mutations which would then be passed on, followed by more & more.
The problem is each one of these mutations would not only need to be beneficial, it would need to be a dominant trait or it would need to mate with another with the same mutation. Odds?
What? That's a genuine comment, I haven't met one.
You won't accept it will you, natural selection is not random, hence evolution is not random, evolution occurs to populations, not individuals, There's nothing saying a beneficial mutation can't be recessive, spreading through subsequent generations until individuals are born with double-copies. Odds do not enter into the argument, yet you will forever insist on injecting them.
Natural selection only works with avaliable genetics & is more fitting to the Creationist model given anything that henders an organism to live would be eliminated not continue to be enhanced
"There's nothing saying a beneficial mutation can't be recessive"
That's science based on faith not evidence
"evolution occurs to populations, not individuals"
This contradicts the explanations & "evidence" of using insects resistance to pesticides to why monkeys are still around with humans
Thetaomega, Natural selection by way of random mutation IS a random process. The only way it cannot be random is if the entity making the selection is sentient. This is not a rookie mistake, this is plain common sense. if natural selection is not sentient it cannot make a selection as selection by definition is a choice among options. How can that be so hard to grasp.
Natural selection is not random, just like thousands of other physical processes aren't random, they are also not sentient. You are asserting that, in order to create spherical planets from randomly arranged rocks/dust, there must be some sentience? I think that claim would require serious evidential support.
Not only have evolutionary processes been observed to work in nature, but they have also been shown to work in computer models.
Thetaomega, "...lack of understanding of evolution." I am so tired of evolutionists telling everyone who does not agree with them that it is because we do not understand. I do understand the claims of evolution, and like many intelligent people i reject them. You might have a case for appealing to peoples ignorance if those who rejected evolution were restricted to the uneducated. This is plainly not the case.
I have not yet seen someone who fully understands evolution and does not accept it, the fact is your argument was based on evolution being a random process, it is not random. That is a rookie mistake, if you understood evolution you would not have said that, and you would realise that an argument from probability doesn't work against a process that isn't random.
Thetaomega, I watched the video before, not impressed.I know the argument of watches not reproducing is valid, but only to a point. No analogy is perfect. However, the argument that natural selection through random mutation provides a sound model for life is total nonsense. Most mutations are harmful or if you wish to argue, neutral. This process could in no way lead to the complexity and variety of life we see. It would lead to less complexity and variety.
Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful and some are beneficial, depending on the environment. Those best adapted are more likely to survive, passing on those mutations. What about the evolutionary process and the evidence in favor of it do you not understand?
Thetaomega, "Berlinski holds qualifications in mathematics..." True, however he has done post doctoral research in biology, so he is hardly ignorant on the subject. Also, it was Leonardo Da Vinci who said that no real science is accomplished without it ultimately being tested by mathematics. To adhere to evolution is to totally ignore the mathematical data which clearly shows the process to be impossible. What random chance creates, it will just as quickly destroy.
Thetaomega, "I'd love to see a confrontation..." So would I. Unlike, you, I think Berlinski would more than hold his own. Dawkins is a militant atheist, and his extreme prejudice is palpable. His approach is anything but objective. Also his analogy of a blind watchmaker is just plain silly. Being blind does not remove the creative aspect of the watchmaker analogy. The complexity of life simply cannot be explained by natural selection through random mutation. The model doesn't work.
Please tell us all how we can become as smart as you. You're obviously smarter than Dr. Berlinski. Do tell us what degrees you hold, at what universities you have held teaching positions and what books you have authored. I won't hold my breath. You're a typical wannbe intellectual. Your type is so common on youtube. I would love to see in a confrontation with Berlinski, you'd be drooling in minuted.
Well that's an argument from authority if I ever saw one. Berlinski holds qualifications in mathematics, he is not a biologist, so I'd like to see in what way HE is qualified to educate us on evolution. I'd love to see a confrontation between him and thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins or any evolutionary biologist.
Hmmm....just watched this on the "JaredJammer" channel, wrote a refuting comment that I was going to continue into a second comment, and hit the 'comment pending approval' barrier!
Why is it that creationist channels so HEAVILY censor (or completely disallow) comments, and evolution favoring channels NEVER do that??
Trying going to Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research. They do hold to a young earth view, but I think you will find some interesting material. Do not pre-judge them because they are Christian based. Also try The Discovery Institute.
I read most of what Ken Ham puts out on his site (AIG); easily debunked and he still has not defined what a "kind" is. Pure nonsense. An person with a knowledge in rhetoric can dismantle the arguments proposed on that site. Poor source, but a good laugh.
It doesn't matter if 99.99% of scientists think evolution is correct. Truth is absolute. It is not determined by how many people do or don't believe it. Besides saying 99.99% percent believe in evolution is nonsense. There is no source for that statistic. Some guys on Youtube like to throw it around in hopes it will overwhelm their critics. There are numerous scientists who do not support evolution. There is work available you just have to be willing to approach it with an open mind.
the thing is, is that they dont have to 'think' it is correct. there are plenty of people who 'think', like you say, that it is wrong. however, those people have nothing to substantiate those claims. this is the point. im looking for something from the creationists to work with. instead of links to some actual work that i can read, you tell me to have an 'open mind'. so where is it? considering evolution is wrong and evil, it should be very easy to point out definitively why, for all to see.
Well said. That is the point exactly. Evolutionists do not want any other opinions but there own to be heard. They know it cannot stand the scrutiny. It is really funny to watch Youtube wannabe intellectuals try to attack true intellectuals like Dr. Berlinski. It is a sad commentary on our society when the true intellectual is ridiculed and youtube pretenders are seen as the true source of knowledge. I would love to see thetaomega face-to-face with Dr. Berlinski.
no seriously guys...post a link to some published work that i can read. im on a mission! if evolution is so wrong, then i want to learn about the alternatives! but i dont want just any old bs. post some links to some actual work so i can give it a fair shot. so far i cant find anything substantial. help me out
I tried to comment on jaredjammer's original vid, but it's not until you take the time, thoughtfully type in your polite response to the nonsense, that you realize it's "comment pending approval."
I wouldn't have bothered...
Youtube, PLEASE show us like with the ratings, whether comments are disabled or have to be approved!
ThetaOmega, good vid, thanks for doing what I can't :D
Berlinski comes out of the gate with a whopping error. "This is the way life originated". No, evolution only deals with existing creatures and gradual biological changes over time. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, the origin of life is abiogenisis.
Either Berlinski is badly misunderstanding evolution or these critics he speaks of are badly misunderstanding it.
Wow, McMonster, you have a serious temper! What is it that all those billboards say? "God probably doesn't exist, so go live your life?" Why so serious? What is this obsession you have with papers? Why do you think that modern science is immune to scrutiny? I'm sure you're aware that general relativity and quantum mechanics can't both be true and this fact has doesn't seem to bother most scientists? Event the string theorists are mostly at a loss. Go play some G chords till you calm down.
science is absolutely immune to scrutiny from uneducated clowns like yourself.
I don;t have a temper at all- I have a child whose education is potentially threatened by religious fanatics who cant bear to have science take their fairy stories away.
You are afraid your child might get a rounder perspective? You don't want him to consider other options? You want him to grow up narrow minded just like you? Education comes from the home before the school so you shouldn't fear anything. After all, I grew up in public school, learned jesus-free biology, went through university and took several biology courses with no nods to religion at all and yet, I don't buy it. You should spend more time with your child and less time ranting on youtube.
any chance you could focus on the established fact that berlinski is simply lying through his teeth about a great mathematician with whom he never worked- von neumann at no time "hooted" at evolution.
tell you what - yo stick to babbling drivel about jeebus-biology and leave joined up thinking to the grown ups.
you fanatics want your superstitious twaddle taught as science to my child. you are utterly dishonest about it too- you will be fought and you'll be beaten.
I guess you're too full of your smug sanctimonious ignorance to be capapble of contemplating why the likes of yourself steeped in superstitious nonsense, telling me how to raise my children would make a civilised person sick.
why consider other options when there isnt any evidence for it? one could spend the entirety of their life considering other options. this is the problem...people are willing to consider the alternatives, but there is just nothing there, nothing to work with. why waste too much time with creationism when nothing has come from it? its proponents cant even muster enough evidence or argument to withstand youtube discussion, let alone the scrutiny of the 99.99% of professoinals who think its wrong.
what the fuck is a darwinist? am I an eistienialist if I give credence to relativity, maybe I'm a neonewtonionalistiaclaist since I accept his theory of gravity. maybe you're full of shit.
why can't you just admit that you'd like us to believe that you've upended 150 years of work by some of the greatest scientific minds our species has ever produced WITHOUT READING ANY OF IT!
you are an utter fool. go away and read a some biology.
McMonster65 You think that what you stated is great. But there is not need to be so defensive if I said it is "Psychologically Formated". Unless if U feel that other opinions is threatening UR comfort zone and waking u from slumbers
"Psychologically Formated"....you've used this meanigless made up term several times and it's a bit tired don't you think? I presume you are actually a grown up and not some kid pretending to be educated by inventing technical sounding terms.
lets get specific- tell us where lenski went wrong in his 20 yr + investigation of evolution in ecoli. show us where we can read your detailed rebuttal of his groups work.
"Psychological Formation" You look that you do not want to understand what I stated to you several times. Your understanding is "Psychologically Formated" what you think about Evolution and you interpretations R subjective Just unblock and open up to the fatal arguments against evolution
"In the present study, we have sequenced the complete mitochondrial genome of the hippopotamus, Hippopotamus amphibius, and included it in phylogenetic analyses together with 15 other placental mammals. These analyses separated the hippopotamus from the other suiform included, the pig, and identified the hippopotamus as the artiodactyl sister group of the cetaceans, thereby making both Artiodactyla and the suborder Suiformes paraphyletic." -Ursing&Arnason in PubMed
Actually, evolution does not care one way or the other what we think of it. It continues in the same way it always has.
Evolutionary theory is quite sound and has withstood 150 years of scrutiny from the scientific community.
Only people with religious, not scientific, objections remain. These people the science community largely ignores as being irrelevant. Until they try to force their religion into the public school classroom or some other inappropriate place. THEN, we fight.
can you tell me how the dramatic confirmation of the modern synthesis that occurs each and every day with every single genome sequenced, every fossil discovered, every experiment done....how do we get from that to "crisis".
there is as big a crisis in evolution as there is in the germ theory of disease.
that is only in your head . All what you are stating are subjective interpretations with respect to the "Psychological Formation" of the eyes of the beholder
add "ad hominem" to the inexhaustable list of things you don't understand. calling an arrogant fool an arrogant fool is accurate description not a hominem. calling you an ugly pig molestor would be an ad hominem since your relations with barnyard animals are unknown to me and you may be extremely handsome. you are quite obviously an arrogant fool therfore saying so is not an ad hominem.
likewise berkinski is a serial liar and an utter fraud- no ad hominem there. hope this helps.
you poor clown! you couldn't hit a nerve with a mallet.
PAPERS!! which have you read, you stupid babbling fool! name some peer reviewed reserach papers in evolutionary biology and tell us where we can read your rebuttal.
McMonster if you are educated enough yourself.....
very well educated thanks- unlike that awful narcisissitc bore berlinski, my education is in mathematics and I know for example that the late john von neumann deserves better that to be lied about by a corrup pseudo intellectual fraud like the preening liar above.
is there any subject on which you can speak with any knowledge- science clearly being off that agenda?
Religionists must apologize for the shortcomings of their orthodoxy. There are fossils. They support the fact that 98% of Earth's flora & fauna are extinct. I see no piety, nor humility, in the humanism of Satan's handmaidens. The evidence bore by Darwinists bears out that the impetus of life is unknown, and likely unknowable, to the meager mind of Man.
Well, if anything, you guys are predictable. Am I wrong? Is a submarine more complicated than a human being? Is a car, more complex than a fish? The real issue, which you don't face, is the morphological transitions between forms number in the tens of thousands. We see less than .001 of those transitions in the fossil record. This isn't a problem? You are blinded by your faith in Darwin, to think his theory is above reproach.
your babbling about the fossil record is contradicted by the thousands of scientists who study eh...the fossil record- you know, researchers who've devoted their entire working lives to this study. but what would they know next to a genius like yourself.
to think that science is beholden unto darwin is not to think at all. grow up and in the meantime belt up.
That's a poor argument. There are many more theologians, pastors and Christian philosophers than there are paleontologists. With your reasoning, God must exist, since so many people devote their lives to studying Him.
Science however is not some pure pursuit driven by the will to discover. It is completely steered by capitalism, or in other words greed. Funding is given to the scientists who find the results that can make them even more money... get out of the box. Use your mind.
rarely has such unmitigated drivel been crammed into 500 chars. the point you are incapable of percieving is that it is a little odd that someone like yourself from a postition of stupifying ignorance who has studied nothing who knows nothing who does nothing...is somehow in a position to refute 150 years of creative work, research, measurement, hypothesising, testing etc. by some of the finest minds our species has produced.
The problem with pointing out the supposed "straw man" here is that, the example given about the car is not weakened at all. If anything a car turning into a submarine is a stronger argument than a fish turning into a human being. Do you really think that whenever someone uses an analogy it is a straw man, and simply pointing that out, makes you 'win'? Very closed minded sir.
"The skin has to change, it has to become impermiable to water". There for I (a human) am a whale because my skin is impermiable to water. Michel Phelps is also there for a fish and not a human. Thank you Dr. Berlinski for revealing the truth to me that I am a whale.
LOL. Wikipedia and/or Zuckerman polls do not count as coherent.
No Religion Groups Agnostic 0.5% Atheist 0.4%
Not a worldview group, but rather individuals who stated: "No religion" 13.2% Other [smaller representation groupings examples]: Humanist; Secular Total No Religion Specified 14.1%
Include the rest of the world and the figures drop even lower.
How do you explain that a charachupa has a 10 foot reptilian tail, a body like a kangaroo, and a mouth like a defective canine beast? Whether it's man-made, or from cross breeding, it's still a product of transmutation.
Maybe, but complexity can also be seen as the proof of evolutionism. A creationist being is more like the golem of Rabbi Löw. All you have is a hump of clay with "emet" written on it. Of course at the source, Adam is also described in the Talmud as a golem.
Unless God steps in and makes you born again, you DO NOT have a natural ability to choose Faith. Your spiritually dead in sin. Its called TOTAL DEPRAVITY:
But the NATURAL MAN receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are FOOLISHNESS unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
So god will send me to hell unless he steps in, and if he doesn't step in I go to a fiery pit to be tortured for all eternity because that is his will. Do you see a problem with this logic? If this true than your god is a bitch. If all you have is the bible then just turn back now.
ChristianTULIP, please stick to the subject of the video when leaving comments for the video. The issue is supposed to be discussed in a scientific manner, so please refrain from citing one of the most scientifically and logically unsound texts ever produced.
He's making a living out of this shit! Fuck me, I might become a creationist, make a packet and then admit I was talking shit all along and fuck off to my nice country estate with the cash.
It is amazing how the desire to oppose a scientific theory turns even educated people into complete idiots.
There is nothing wrong with questioning a scientific theory in fact it is a must in the scientific community and no credible scientist would back any theory proven to be false.
In nature there is no project of transformation and no blue print of a final product, it is an extremely slow process and produces one tiny change at a time which in turn might induce another change and so on.
Oh wow, rational thought. Thank you. The problem is that you teach someone a little bit of science and they become and expert. Most scientists that I know realize that there is no way that this world came to exist without a creator and that evolution is ludicrous.
The theory of evolution is a fact for most who have a scientific background except of course for the Christian scientists fundamentalists who object to it not based on reasoning and facts but simply because it challenges the core of their belief and threatens to shatter their delusions. So go back to your bubble of hallucinations and ignorance where mythical Jesus is alive and well.
After reading your profile I find your claim to know any credible scientists to be Hilarious .
No, if I went back to my bubble of hallucination I would have to become an atheist again. Not going there. I love how when evolutionists feel threatened they start name calling. I never varies. I guess that is outflow of a superior intellect, aye? My brother and husband are both scientists with advanced degrees and are both Christians. My brother has taught at a university level. So there shatters YOUR delusion. Have a great day.
Oh and by the way? We were not raised as Christians. We were raised atheist. Jesus is alive and he lived on this earth. He is who He says He is. There is plenty of historical evidence for it that of course would shatter your delusion, godandpeace, if you ever dared to look at it.
I said credible scientists not two buffoons who lost any sense of rationality because of their blind faith; almost anyone can memorize formulas and scientific concepts without ever understanding them and even manage to obtain advanced degrees otherwise, according to your twisted mind, if a Muslim with a PhD in Science tells me that Allah is the true God I should believe him because he has an advanced degree.
It is ironic that you should question evolution while your IQ is that of an ape.
So now you are calling my brother and husband names. No, it was your twisted mind that presented that point. I simply refuted it with citing two people that I know personally that are scientists and believers. And knowing my brother and not knowing you, except for the fact that you defend yourself by insulting people, I think I would be wise accept any of his assertions over yours. My IQ is 150. ;) but IQ doesn't "prove" anything. Just look at history at who Jesus is. You accept other
historical facts readily. Why are you afraid to accept that Jesus is God? Because it would shatter all of your delusions about science being a be all end all? :)
so "most of the scientists you know" belong to the 0.02% who reject evolution. care to name any? can you give references to their peer reviewed work demonstrating that evolution is "ludicrous"? .....of course you can't
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What environmental factors favored the natural selection of monecious sexual reproduction over the far more expedient and reliable asexual reproduction? Why didnt all species remain asexual or hermaphroditic? Can you conjure mathematically, a probability scenario of what forces led to the less efficient and more tenuous sexual reproduction to dominant in all species?
proho "...Why didnt all species remain asexual or hermaphroditic? " most did remain asexual genius- and some hermaphroditic species are protandrous-others protogynous- google it fool- and while you're googling- look up 'bacterial conjugation' and 'horizontal gene transfer'- "...less efficient and more tenuous sexual reproduction to dominant in all species? " that would be 'dominate' you pretentious illiterate dork- not 'dominant' unless you include the 'to become'-
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dear evolutionists:Im not religious nor do I propose any dogma or agenda.I have a question that I have yet to hear an evo answer.
What environmental factors favored the natural selection of monecious sexual reproduction over the far more expedient and reliable asexual reproduction?Why didnt all species remain asexual or hermaphroditic? Can you conjure mathematically,a probability scenario of what forces led to the less efficient and more tenuous sexual reproduction to dominant in all species?
"...Can you conjure mathematically,a probability scenario of what forces led to the less efficient and more tenuous sexual reproduction to dominant in all species?"
there's the problem once again-
how would you apply mathematics to the question ?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Etern:I thought we were through! Are your words lacking specificity or are they mere ambiguities that you fit at anytime where you want to?
Answer the 1st part of the question 1st, the 2nd half is mathematical verification and follow up.
"What environmental factors favored the natural selection of monecious sexual reproduction over the far more expedient and reliable asexual reproduction? Why didnt all species remain asexual or hermaphroditic?"
proho you keep stirring up new shit troll- new puerile insults mostly and you keep lying- just can't leave it alone can you ? "Answer the 1st part of the question 1st, the 2nd half is mathematical verification and follow up. " more equivocation and lies- hedging your bets- when you're not quoting you get in trouble quickly- already gave you the working 'hypothesis'-not 'theory' idiot- why should I repeat myself because your a fool ?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Eternal: Listen Nigger, You said to me: "you're game is played- I leave it to readers to decide- you have no response other than insults- done" What happened Nigger? Why u go bak on ur wurds homey? Answer the fuckin question shit then talk. Waddup?
Nice video, Berlinski is a jerk... :-) but one thing, couldn't you turn down the volume of those bleeps everytime he does something wrong, because they are kinda loud.... and he is wrong a lot.....
AndreasDammann 2 years ago
Whales didn't come from a grass eating cows. This idiot lies in order to make fun of science.
gregrutz 2 years ago
He never said that. He just used it as an example.
SwitchRich 2 years ago
Omega Theta's inserts are just really annoying. He (or she, not really sure, need to check out the channel page) doesn't even answer his basic point, which is that the fact that it is a lie to say that all darwinian critics are religious fundamentalists. That fact is, a particular religious opinion, that of radical antitheism, is trying to use a theory to elevate their religious opinion to the level of scientific orthodoxy in order to silence debate from competing worldviews.
pittland44 2 years ago
I hate it when atheists use evolution to show there is no god, can't be done.
Evolution just shows that man is an ape.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Well a lot of them aren't even atheists in the academic sense. If you read the collected works of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, P.Z. Myers (who advocates something we saw in the french revolution) and even Bill Maher they outright express not just incredulity towards the concept of God but outright hatred of the concept and entity (as described in religious texts) but also a deep contempt and malice towards those who do believe.
pittland44 2 years ago
So, they are atheists, what's you point.
they don't like religion ?!?
gregrutz 2 years ago
My point is we are beyond atheism with those people. They have actually embraced an antitheistic world view and as time goes on it takes on more of the functional elements of a religion. Lot Scott Adkins calling religion evil, he's basically fashioning an ethical framework and moral outlook for an atheistic worldview, which however inappropriate of atheists it may be, is the signature foundations of a religious system.
I mean, where do atheists get of calling anything evil?
pittland44 2 years ago
he didnt say all he said most
jebarwood 2 years ago
good commentary technique; it can be done with dawkins, the pope, the bushes, the dems, basically anyone that uses RHETORIC. you get ir from everyone. wake up.
reaguirre 2 years ago
Oh no! a straw man argument! he argued from personal incredulity! Doesnt he realize evolutionists hate that! He crushed evolution in that clip.
9pt9 2 years ago
your annoying buzzer prevented me from even listening to the entire clip.
crowinarow 2 years ago
he is making shit up so you didn't miss anything.
gregrutz 2 years ago
What an idiot? todays cows are also a product of evolution, todays domesticated breeds of cows are the descendants of wild animals in africa about ten thousand years ago.
bombarderoazul 2 years ago
Even to an evolutionist , combarderozaul, what you've said is incorrect.
Cows are dommesticated using selectie breeding to produce BETTER AND MORE QUANTITIVE MILK. Consequently, many generations of this cause LIMIT. Yes, there is a limit - cows won't change at all.
They did not evolve, and domestication only preserves the best genes, and does not change the organism into one and another.
abbasownage 2 years ago
Darwin's Sumerian THEORIES on positive mutations empowering entities to hopscotch across species' thresholds over countless millions of years are for those poor souls who suffer from religious mania. How could anyone, who's capable of using a toilet unassisted, believe that these evolutionary fairy tales constitute analytical research i.e. science?
ElHombreConDosOjos 2 years ago
what an annoying bloody video
prithramesh 2 years ago
Dr. Berlinski made a short brilliant illustration about a fairy tale that goes like this:
Once upon a time long long time ago, roughly 45 million years ago, there was a creature in what now is known as Pakistan hence the name pakicetus that very slooowly turned into ambulucetus and then into rodhocetus, and then into basilosaurus (enfasis added on saurus) and then turned into durodon and finally W H A L E S.-
What a beautifull hallucinational, sorry transitional forms.-
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Evolution predicted the transitional fossils proving this transition from land mammal to whale Chuy, and they were found: Pakicetus, Nalacetus, Ichthyolestes, Gandakasia, Ambulocetus, Himalayacetus, Attockicetus, Remingtonocetus, Dalanistes, Kutchicetus, Andrewsiphius, Indocetus, Qaisracetus, Takracetus, Artiocetus, Babiacetus, Protocetus, Pappocetus, Eocetus, Georgiacetus, Natchitochia, Dorudon, Ancalacetus, Zygorhiza, Saghacetus, Chrysocetus, Gaviacetus, Pontogeneus, Basilosaurus, Basiloterus.
alexistarr 2 years ago
This guy is so shockingly clueless about biology (yes, I know who he is. I know he CLAIMS to understand biology well).
His cow-whale example is SO inept, because he doesn't have the slightest clue about how small changes in developmental steps (i.e., just a few mutations in the genes that control development) can have huge effects.
And, of course, he NEVER GETS AROUND TO MENTIONING the FIVE very clear and sequential intermediary "cow"-whale fossils that HAVE been found!!!
GetMeThere1 2 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Prophecy Poll
A close look at the G-20 Summit reveals a radical change in our world to a "global economic structure". Could this set the stage for a one-world economy that the Antichrist will rule over (Revelation 13:16-17 & Revelation 18) in the last days?
Yes 97.4%
No 1.7%
Not Sure 0.9%
Total Votes: 117
Have you already voted?
spiritslain 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————
procommenter 2 years ago
I hear you have this tattooed to your backside Procom. :-)
alexistarr 2 years ago
Biologist never have to approach evolution mathematically or quantitatively? Tell that to my statistics professor. Biology IS statistics. Oh, and swing by my genetics professor, too. He'll enjoy a good laugh!
Thanks for making this video. The red notes reflect what I wanted to say to the creatard very nicely.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
Wow this retard posted a video that shows what a cunt he is lmfao
Barker346 2 years ago
David Berlinski raised in New York City, educated at Columbia College,received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton U. He became a Fellow of the Faculty in Mathematics and a Post Doctoral Fellow in molecular biology at Columbia U. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, Columbia, the Universite de Paris at Jussieu, the Uof Puget Sound, the U of Santa Clara, San Jose State University and San Francisco State U.
(and you have what again thetaomega?)
fractalfires 2 years ago
All those degrees do not make his argument any more cogent. He shows that he has a VERY poor understanding of evolution.
therach1025 2 years ago 3
"David Berlinski (blah blah argument from authority blah blah)"
You don't want to go there, man. The worlds most educated minds are by FAR more atheistic and accepting of evolutionary biology. Not that it matters. Evolution occurs, and the evidence in support of it is amazingly numerous and unequivocal.
"(and you have what again thetaomega?)"
A clue about evolution? Coherent thoughts? A finger on the pulse of the scientific status quoe (e.g. Project Steve)?
smaakjeks 2 years ago 5
Obviously there are many similarities betwixt simians & humans: fingers, toes, mammae, circulatory & endocrine systems, digestive & excretory functions and on & on. Similarly there are innumerable traits common betwixt humans & equines; between maggots & earthworms and so forth. A vivid imagination, which is the lynch pin upon which human evolutionary conjecture hinges on, is a requisite for anyone who has a pathological need "to believe."
procommenter 2 years ago
"there are innumerable traits common betwixt humans & equines; between maggots & earthworms and so forth. A vivid imagination, which is the lynch pin upon which human evolutionary conjecture hinges on, is a requisite for anyone who has a pathological need "to believe.""
It's not merely similarity. It's a nested hierarchy of similarities, with traceable genetic markers. Why aren't birds similar to mammals, for example? Why don't any birds have teeth, or any mammals have feathers? Ask yourself.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
What would one expect from the flora & fauna of any given planet? Similarities?
procommenter 2 years ago
"What would one expect from the flora & fauna of any given planet? Similarities?"
You didn't answer anything, and you didn't respond to any one of my points. All you did was reiterate your flawed and simplistic point that there are similarities between species. The picture is more complex than just mere similarity, even if you won't recognize that. I tried to explain that and you just repeat yourself. Polly want a cracker?
smaakjeks 2 years ago
I'm not your social worker.
procommenter 2 years ago
You spend a lot of time agonising over your tattooed, drug dealing neighbour Procom, so why ever not? :-)
alexistarr 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————
procommenter 2 years ago
dude, you have too many problems with your " on screen rebuttals" I won't even bother responding with a viddy
jbenjamin06 2 years ago
examples are not straw mans... sorry he's simply helping us understand complex changes through things we understand. He never said evolution says or evolution believes he said "let's start with something blatantly obvious not something evolution believe's. You are trying to use fallacies but you are uneducated in them.
jbenjamin06 2 years ago
ThetaOmega obviously you are an idiot. Dr. Berlinski is an authority on theoretical biology and mathematics. If you did not agree with his observations that is acceptable. However, you are doing what every other hardened evolutionist does when someone credible disowns the very questionable theory. You attack their credentials and attempt to ridicule their observations. Berlinski is just one of many scholars who reject the theory of Evolution on its own merits.
mozartgenetics 2 years ago
I said "made," but only to make an easy sentence. More than anything, I am agnostic, and think that these things are beyond our knowing right now. So, I said "made," but I have no clue if the universe was ever made, or if it is infinite, or if it is one of many universes; I can't know from just my own experience as a human. (to be continued)
darnallt 2 years ago
(continued)
As far as my teacher goes, the research he has done is completely hands-on; he is extremely experienced and active and at the cutting edge in biology and geology. And of all people--you can trust me here--he understands that all people live with a bias, and he really believes in the possibility of a God existing. But, he also believes that it is impossible for us people, who live such short, biased lives, to believe in anything with absolute certainty.
darnallt 2 years ago
Well, I'd be able to say "years" because I believe the sun has existed for millions of years.
What I'm saying is that God could not have created the sun on the fourth day because days--as we and the people who wrote the bible know days--did not exist.
I am open to the possibility of a god or creator existing, but I definitely do not believe that it can be completely known and understood by people; it takes faith to believe in, not an instruction manual.
darnallt 2 years ago
I think my favourite part is where he says "the skin would have to change to become waterproof", which implies that he thinks that a cow's skin isn't waterproof. Which is of course why a cow drowns everytime it rains. All skin is waterproof, which is just why that doesn't happen, and why we don't drown every time we have a bath! And a whales "breathing apparatus" doesn't have to change either, as whales (being mammals) breath air and so have lungs (rather than gills to breathe in water as
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
fish do). Even if he had the most basic understanding of mathematics (which he doesn't appear to), his knowledge of biology is clearly inferior to that of most primary school students, something which could be seen as a setback to someone attempting to disprove evolution; the central and most important theme of all biology.
My second favourite part is when he says "there are at least 50,000 differences between a cow and a whale". Please, for the sake of your own amusement, picture this man at
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
home, studiously, meticulously (probably imagining himself to be some kind of maverick genius) COUNTING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A COW AND A WHALE.
And how on earth has he counted such an incredibly small number of differences? The differences between me and my parents - people I am more related to than anyone else in the world - are probably in the millions of millions. Is a cow really more similar to a whale than I am to my own parents? The whole point of evolution is that these millions of
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
minute differences (or changes to use his word) are cumilative and so add up over time to create massive differences (or changes). The only reason I point this out is because I first saw this video posted by someone who genuinely thought "Dr. David Berlinski" had disproved evolution, rather than just publically announced his incredible ignorance on the subject. The sad thing is, the comments section was full of people who agreed with him.
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
Please answer this question for me:
If God made the sun, the moon, and the stars on the fourth day, then how could the days have been measured before the sun's existence?
A "day," as we know it, could not be conceived without the sun.
Do you really believe that the bible is God's word?
darnallt 2 years ago
I think the universe, and whatever force made the universe, is such an incredible and extravagant thing that it cannot be explained with words or completely understood; I think saying that God is "indecisive" is just projecting human words and emotions onto something that is definitely not human and is definitely not describable.
My Marine Biology professor told me about the whales' bones, so I can't say that I really know what I'm talking about, but I have confidence in his understanding.
darnallt 2 years ago
how does it cancel out God.what does God have to do with evolution.he could have created us using evolution.who knows why God does certain things.
youngcatlaflare 2 years ago
far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."[6]
origin2012 2 years ago
There are still remnants of femurs--leg bones--attached to those joints in Fin whales, Blue whales, and Humpback whales. Do you think those bones are useful to whales?
Really though, I don't see why there is so much argument over evolution; evolution does not cancel out the possibility of a God at all. If there IS a god, I am certain it works through miracles. Intelligent Design is hokey because people try to justify it scientifically, which can't be done.
darnallt 2 years ago
You can see, in a whale's skeleton, that many species of whales still have deteriorating, useless hip-joints, much like how humans have useless tail bones. The whales' ancestors used these hip joints to operate actual hips and legs.
Search "whale skeleton" on Google images or something.
darnallt 2 years ago
David Berlinski (born 1942 in New York City) is an American educator and author of books on mathematics. He is a leading critic of evolution within the intelligent design movement and author of numerous articles on the topic.[1] Berlinski is a secular Jew and self-described agnostic, and according to a 2008 Slate magazine profile "a critic, a contrarian, and — by his own admission — a crank [...and] zealous skeptic, well at least he got the crank part right
benolly22 2 years ago
Lifeforms appear, thrive, decline and disappear. They don't endlessly "evolve" leaving in their wake millions, if not billions, of go-betweens.
procommenter 2 years ago
That's because it happens over millions upon millions of years, with just minute differences between sequential generations.
darnallt 2 years ago
That's not science. Science means "to know." If you can't observe you can't know.
procommenter 2 years ago
That's just semantics. I can observe the non-functioning remnants of hip bones in whales today, so I assume, without REALLY knowing, that other whales today in the same species have the same hip joints. Because of these hip joints, I BELIEVE that they evolved from land creatures that actually used those hip joints. This is the same kind of thing as not knowing, positively, that an apple will fall to the ground if I drop it. I believe it will from my own experience, but I can't really know.
darnallt 2 years ago
nothing disappears energy turns into other energy.
youngcatlaflare 2 years ago
To think I heard ThetaOmega was good at this -
Funny how Berlinski is an agnostic yet this video portray's him as a theist
He used a cow not because it is the animal theorized but simply as an example of differences like with the "car to a submarine" comment
If Evolution cannot answer how the right design of organisms, such as how a land animal turns into a sea creature, then this is purely by faith in chance
This video doesn't contradict anything but only rapes the word "strawman"
IIMoses740II 2 years ago
ThetaOmega, tell me and please do not lie.
Did you jerk yourself off after you've made this video ? I mean this honestly, and if you did, how did that feel ? Did you have the feeling to find more clips like the original one so you can boost up your future orgasms ?
wrestlingfan110 2 years ago
Thetaomega, You can make a computer model do whatever you want. It all depends on programming - a sentient activity by the way.
..."I haven't met one." Well you need to get out more.
No, there is nothing saying a mutation can't be recessive, but that only increases the odds against its adaptation. It is nonsense to say odds do not enter into it. The mathematical equation is part of all science. Odds would have to be entered into your computer program or it would be useless.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
Thetaomega, Your spherical planet analogy suffers from the same problem as the smashed watch. Yes, non-sentient forces can create shapes. I live in Canada, I see it with snow drifts all the time. However they do not mate and no 2 are alike. There is no selection in the formation of a drift or a planet.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
Thetaomega, "...who fully understands evolution." Again you appeal to the belief that others are ignorant.
For random mutation to account for the complexity of life we see is not possible. It would require the formation of a series of positive mutations which would then be passed on, followed by more & more.
The problem is each one of these mutations would not only need to be beneficial, it would need to be a dominant trait or it would need to mate with another with the same mutation. Odds?
wallyjude3 2 years ago
What? That's a genuine comment, I haven't met one.
You won't accept it will you, natural selection is not random, hence evolution is not random, evolution occurs to populations, not individuals, There's nothing saying a beneficial mutation can't be recessive, spreading through subsequent generations until individuals are born with double-copies. Odds do not enter into the argument, yet you will forever insist on injecting them.
Evolution is NOT RANDOM.
ThetaOmega 2 years ago
Natural selection only works with avaliable genetics & is more fitting to the Creationist model given anything that henders an organism to live would be eliminated not continue to be enhanced
"There's nothing saying a beneficial mutation can't be recessive"
That's science based on faith not evidence
"evolution occurs to populations, not individuals"
This contradicts the explanations & "evidence" of using insects resistance to pesticides to why monkeys are still around with humans
IIMoses740II 2 years ago
Thetaomega, Natural selection by way of random mutation IS a random process. The only way it cannot be random is if the entity making the selection is sentient. This is not a rookie mistake, this is plain common sense. if natural selection is not sentient it cannot make a selection as selection by definition is a choice among options. How can that be so hard to grasp.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
Natural selection is not random, just like thousands of other physical processes aren't random, they are also not sentient. You are asserting that, in order to create spherical planets from randomly arranged rocks/dust, there must be some sentience? I think that claim would require serious evidential support.
Not only have evolutionary processes been observed to work in nature, but they have also been shown to work in computer models.
ThetaOmega 2 years ago
Thetaomega, "...lack of understanding of evolution." I am so tired of evolutionists telling everyone who does not agree with them that it is because we do not understand. I do understand the claims of evolution, and like many intelligent people i reject them. You might have a case for appealing to peoples ignorance if those who rejected evolution were restricted to the uneducated. This is plainly not the case.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
I have not yet seen someone who fully understands evolution and does not accept it, the fact is your argument was based on evolution being a random process, it is not random. That is a rookie mistake, if you understood evolution you would not have said that, and you would realise that an argument from probability doesn't work against a process that isn't random.
ThetaOmega 2 years ago
Thetaomega, I watched the video before, not impressed.I know the argument of watches not reproducing is valid, but only to a point. No analogy is perfect. However, the argument that natural selection through random mutation provides a sound model for life is total nonsense. Most mutations are harmful or if you wish to argue, neutral. This process could in no way lead to the complexity and variety of life we see. It would lead to less complexity and variety.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful and some are beneficial, depending on the environment. Those best adapted are more likely to survive, passing on those mutations. What about the evolutionary process and the evidence in favor of it do you not understand?
ThetaOmega 2 years ago
Thetaomega, "Berlinski holds qualifications in mathematics..." True, however he has done post doctoral research in biology, so he is hardly ignorant on the subject. Also, it was Leonardo Da Vinci who said that no real science is accomplished without it ultimately being tested by mathematics. To adhere to evolution is to totally ignore the mathematical data which clearly shows the process to be impossible. What random chance creates, it will just as quickly destroy.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
"What random chance creates, it will just as quickly destroy. "
And with that statement, you have demonstrated your lack of understanding of evolution.
watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
ThetaOmega 2 years ago
Thetaomega, "I'd love to see a confrontation..." So would I. Unlike, you, I think Berlinski would more than hold his own. Dawkins is a militant atheist, and his extreme prejudice is palpable. His approach is anything but objective. Also his analogy of a blind watchmaker is just plain silly. Being blind does not remove the creative aspect of the watchmaker analogy. The complexity of life simply cannot be explained by natural selection through random mutation. The model doesn't work.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
ThetaOmega 2 years ago
Sherlockmethod, "...that is why we laugh at him."
Please tell us all how we can become as smart as you. You're obviously smarter than Dr. Berlinski. Do tell us what degrees you hold, at what universities you have held teaching positions and what books you have authored. I won't hold my breath. You're a typical wannbe intellectual. Your type is so common on youtube. I would love to see in a confrontation with Berlinski, you'd be drooling in minuted.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
Well that's an argument from authority if I ever saw one. Berlinski holds qualifications in mathematics, he is not a biologist, so I'd like to see in what way HE is qualified to educate us on evolution. I'd love to see a confrontation between him and thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins or any evolutionary biologist.
ThetaOmega 2 years ago
you are a complee idiot if you had a brain may be you could understand what Dr. David Berlinski is saying.
kmh10956 2 years ago
Oh, we understand Dr. Berlinski -- that is why we laugh at him.
sherlockmethod 2 years ago
Hmmm....just watched this on the "JaredJammer" channel, wrote a refuting comment that I was going to continue into a second comment, and hit the 'comment pending approval' barrier!
Why is it that creationist channels so HEAVILY censor (or completely disallow) comments, and evolution favoring channels NEVER do that??
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Yamaha893,
Trying going to Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research. They do hold to a young earth view, but I think you will find some interesting material. Do not pre-judge them because they are Christian based. Also try The Discovery Institute.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
I read most of what Ken Ham puts out on his site (AIG); easily debunked and he still has not defined what a "kind" is. Pure nonsense. An person with a knowledge in rhetoric can dismantle the arguments proposed on that site. Poor source, but a good laugh.
sherlockmethod 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if 99.99% of scientists think evolution is correct. Truth is absolute. It is not determined by how many people do or don't believe it. Besides saying 99.99% percent believe in evolution is nonsense. There is no source for that statistic. Some guys on Youtube like to throw it around in hopes it will overwhelm their critics. There are numerous scientists who do not support evolution. There is work available you just have to be willing to approach it with an open mind.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
the thing is, is that they dont have to 'think' it is correct. there are plenty of people who 'think', like you say, that it is wrong. however, those people have nothing to substantiate those claims. this is the point. im looking for something from the creationists to work with. instead of links to some actual work that i can read, you tell me to have an 'open mind'. so where is it? considering evolution is wrong and evil, it should be very easy to point out definitively why, for all to see.
yamaha893 2 years ago
Shut up everyone!! the world and everything alive in it was created by giant PASTA with meat balls for eyes!
tyelperiel 2 years ago
Orionsmane,
Well said. That is the point exactly. Evolutionists do not want any other opinions but there own to be heard. They know it cannot stand the scrutiny. It is really funny to watch Youtube wannabe intellectuals try to attack true intellectuals like Dr. Berlinski. It is a sad commentary on our society when the true intellectual is ridiculed and youtube pretenders are seen as the true source of knowledge. I would love to see thetaomega face-to-face with Dr. Berlinski.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
no seriously guys...post a link to some published work that i can read. im on a mission! if evolution is so wrong, then i want to learn about the alternatives! but i dont want just any old bs. post some links to some actual work so i can give it a fair shot. so far i cant find anything substantial. help me out
yamaha893 2 years ago
I tried to comment on jaredjammer's original vid, but it's not until you take the time, thoughtfully type in your polite response to the nonsense, that you realize it's "comment pending approval."
I wouldn't have bothered...
Youtube, PLEASE show us like with the ratings, whether comments are disabled or have to be approved!
ThetaOmega, good vid, thanks for doing what I can't :D
invisblchzbrgr 2 years ago
Berlinski comes out of the gate with a whopping error. "This is the way life originated". No, evolution only deals with existing creatures and gradual biological changes over time. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, the origin of life is abiogenisis.
Either Berlinski is badly misunderstanding evolution or these critics he speaks of are badly misunderstanding it.
bigfilmhat 2 years ago
waht does vohn von neumann know about biology? didnt he die in the 50's?
yamaha893 3 years ago
he probably knew quite a lot but if your point is that it's irrelevant what one non specialist thought about evolution then I agree.
berlinski is however lying.
McMonster65 3 years ago
What did darwin know about biology didnt he die in 1882?
lol..
(darwinists mullahs can be complete idiots)
karamarouge 2 years ago
Bacteria are among the most successful living things. Therefore, the trend towards complexity does not describe the history of life.
The idea that Evolution tends toward complexity out of necessity is a myth. The best way to survive is to not evolve.
In other words:
Complexity is a liability -- not an asset.
Entropy56 3 years ago
Wow, McMonster, you have a serious temper! What is it that all those billboards say? "God probably doesn't exist, so go live your life?" Why so serious? What is this obsession you have with papers? Why do you think that modern science is immune to scrutiny? I'm sure you're aware that general relativity and quantum mechanics can't both be true and this fact has doesn't seem to bother most scientists? Event the string theorists are mostly at a loss. Go play some G chords till you calm down.
Orionsmane 3 years ago
science is absolutely immune to scrutiny from uneducated clowns like yourself.
I don;t have a temper at all- I have a child whose education is potentially threatened by religious fanatics who cant bear to have science take their fairy stories away.
McMonster65 3 years ago
You are afraid your child might get a rounder perspective? You don't want him to consider other options? You want him to grow up narrow minded just like you? Education comes from the home before the school so you shouldn't fear anything. After all, I grew up in public school, learned jesus-free biology, went through university and took several biology courses with no nods to religion at all and yet, I don't buy it. You should spend more time with your child and less time ranting on youtube.
Orionsmane 3 years ago
you should spend less time preaching at you betters as to how they should rasie their children you ill mannered prick.
how does lying to chidren about magic being real round out their education?
don't answer that. I really feel sick anythime one of you fanatics starts spewing.
you know nothing about the breadth of my interestes and you look like a fool when you pontificate assuming you do.
lying to children does not make you braod minded it makes you a liar.
McMonster65 3 years ago
any chance you could focus on the established fact that berlinski is simply lying through his teeth about a great mathematician with whom he never worked- von neumann at no time "hooted" at evolution.
tell you what - yo stick to babbling drivel about jeebus-biology and leave joined up thinking to the grown ups.
you fanatics want your superstitious twaddle taught as science to my child. you are utterly dishonest about it too- you will be fought and you'll be beaten.
now fuck off!
McMonster65 3 years ago
I guess you're too full of your smug sanctimonious ignorance to be capapble of contemplating why the likes of yourself steeped in superstitious nonsense, telling me how to raise my children would make a civilised person sick.
be ahsamed of yourself- it's your only hope.
McMonster65 3 years ago
why consider other options when there isnt any evidence for it? one could spend the entirety of their life considering other options. this is the problem...people are willing to consider the alternatives, but there is just nothing there, nothing to work with. why waste too much time with creationism when nothing has come from it? its proponents cant even muster enough evidence or argument to withstand youtube discussion, let alone the scrutiny of the 99.99% of professoinals who think its wrong.
yamaha893 2 years ago
what the fuck is a darwinist? am I an eistienialist if I give credence to relativity, maybe I'm a neonewtonionalistiaclaist since I accept his theory of gravity. maybe you're full of shit.
McMonster65 3 years ago
if using swear words is the only thing that makes you feel good. I would suggest you make some deep reviews about your "Psychological formation"
balamanti2 3 years ago
why can't you just admit that you'd like us to believe that you've upended 150 years of work by some of the greatest scientific minds our species has ever produced WITHOUT READING ANY OF IT!
you are an utter fool. go away and read a some biology.
McMonster65 3 years ago
McMonster65 You think that what you stated is great. But there is not need to be so defensive if I said it is "Psychologically Formated". Unless if U feel that other opinions is threatening UR comfort zone and waking u from slumbers
balamanti2 3 years ago
"Psychologically Formated"....you've used this meanigless made up term several times and it's a bit tired don't you think? I presume you are actually a grown up and not some kid pretending to be educated by inventing technical sounding terms.
lets get specific- tell us where lenski went wrong in his 20 yr + investigation of evolution in ecoli. show us where we can read your detailed rebuttal of his groups work.
babbling fool!
McMonster65 3 years ago
McMonster65
"Psychological Formation" You look that you do not want to understand what I stated to you several times. Your understanding is "Psychologically Formated" what you think about Evolution and you interpretations R subjective Just unblock and open up to the fatal arguments against evolution
balamanti2 3 years ago
P.S. I am not gonna Debate you with 500 words limits
balamanti2 3 years ago
"In the present study, we have sequenced the complete mitochondrial genome of the hippopotamus, Hippopotamus amphibius, and included it in phylogenetic analyses together with 15 other placental mammals. These analyses separated the hippopotamus from the other suiform included, the pig, and identified the hippopotamus as the artiodactyl sister group of the cetaceans, thereby making both Artiodactyla and the suborder Suiformes paraphyletic." -Ursing&Arnason in PubMed
So what's this about cows?
librarylu 3 years ago
EVOLUTION is in a big crisis
balamanti2 3 years ago
Actually, evolution does not care one way or the other what we think of it. It continues in the same way it always has.
Evolutionary theory is quite sound and has withstood 150 years of scrutiny from the scientific community.
Only people with religious, not scientific, objections remain. These people the science community largely ignores as being irrelevant. Until they try to force their religion into the public school classroom or some other inappropriate place. THEN, we fight.
middlekk 3 years ago
This Video has she great light on the Psychological truma of the evolutionists.
The arguments and attitudes of evolutionists speaks louder than Hyenas - Just big noise for herd of Scavengers
balamanti2 3 years ago
no it isn't.
McMonster65 3 years ago
Open up your mind evolutionist. and get out of the herd of Hyenas.
balamanti2 3 years ago
can you tell me how the dramatic confirmation of the modern synthesis that occurs each and every day with every single genome sequenced, every fossil discovered, every experiment done....how do we get from that to "crisis".
there is as big a crisis in evolution as there is in the germ theory of disease.
you are an arrogant fool.
McMonster65 3 years ago
Mc Monster65
"dramatic confirmation" >>
that is only in your head . All what you are stating are subjective interpretations with respect to the "Psychological Formation" of the eyes of the beholder
balamanti2 3 years ago
dont babble such utter ribbish.
name a few of the reseach papers on genome sequencing you've read and where we can read your scientific objections!!
better still- stop posting this arrogant infantile tripe and get an education.
McMonster65 3 years ago
McMonster if you are educated enough yourself, then you would have understood to what I am referring to : "Psychological Formation"
balamanti2 3 years ago
it was a simple question. and you are utterly incapable of answering.
NAME SOME RESEARCH PAPERS ON GEMOME SEQUENCING THAT YOU'VE READ AND TELL US WHERE WE CAN READ YOUR DETAILED OBJECTIONS.
the reason you can;t answer a simpe question is all the more simple. you haven't the faintest dimmest miserable CLUE what you are talking about.
get help.
arrogant fool.
McMonster65 3 years ago
Mc Monster
Your ad Hominem clearly because I hit a nerve : "Psychological formation"
balamanti2 3 years ago
add "ad hominem" to the inexhaustable list of things you don't understand. calling an arrogant fool an arrogant fool is accurate description not a hominem. calling you an ugly pig molestor would be an ad hominem since your relations with barnyard animals are unknown to me and you may be extremely handsome. you are quite obviously an arrogant fool therfore saying so is not an ad hominem.
likewise berkinski is a serial liar and an utter fraud- no ad hominem there. hope this helps.
papers?
McMonster65 3 years ago
you poor clown! you couldn't hit a nerve with a mallet.
PAPERS!! which have you read, you stupid babbling fool! name some peer reviewed reserach papers in evolutionary biology and tell us where we can read your rebuttal.
McMonster65 3 years ago
McMonster if you are educated enough yourself.....
very well educated thanks- unlike that awful narcisissitc bore berlinski, my education is in mathematics and I know for example that the late john von neumann deserves better that to be lied about by a corrup pseudo intellectual fraud like the preening liar above.
is there any subject on which you can speak with any knowledge- science clearly being off that agenda?
McMonster65 3 years ago
This video hurt my brain and my ears:/
Xerxes4242 3 years ago
Religionists must apologize for the shortcomings of their orthodoxy. There are fossils. They support the fact that 98% of Earth's flora & fauna are extinct. I see no piety, nor humility, in the humanism of Satan's handmaidens. The evidence bore by Darwinists bears out that the impetus of life is unknown, and likely unknowable, to the meager mind of Man.
procommenter 3 years ago
Well, if anything, you guys are predictable. Am I wrong? Is a submarine more complicated than a human being? Is a car, more complex than a fish? The real issue, which you don't face, is the morphological transitions between forms number in the tens of thousands. We see less than .001 of those transitions in the fossil record. This isn't a problem? You are blinded by your faith in Darwin, to think his theory is above reproach.
Orionsmane 3 years ago
your babbling about the fossil record is contradicted by the thousands of scientists who study eh...the fossil record- you know, researchers who've devoted their entire working lives to this study. but what would they know next to a genius like yourself.
to think that science is beholden unto darwin is not to think at all. grow up and in the meantime belt up.
you haven't a clue.
McMonster65 3 years ago
That's a poor argument. There are many more theologians, pastors and Christian philosophers than there are paleontologists. With your reasoning, God must exist, since so many people devote their lives to studying Him.
Science however is not some pure pursuit driven by the will to discover. It is completely steered by capitalism, or in other words greed. Funding is given to the scientists who find the results that can make them even more money... get out of the box. Use your mind.
Orionsmane 3 years ago
rarely has such unmitigated drivel been crammed into 500 chars. the point you are incapable of percieving is that it is a little odd that someone like yourself from a postition of stupifying ignorance who has studied nothing who knows nothing who does nothing...is somehow in a position to refute 150 years of creative work, research, measurement, hypothesising, testing etc. by some of the finest minds our species has produced.
do you do kids parties? I need a clown...
McMonster65 3 years ago
what kind of scientist tries to disprove something without even addressing how that thing works
muphart 3 years ago
The problem with pointing out the supposed "straw man" here is that, the example given about the car is not weakened at all. If anything a car turning into a submarine is a stronger argument than a fish turning into a human being. Do you really think that whenever someone uses an analogy it is a straw man, and simply pointing that out, makes you 'win'? Very closed minded sir.
Orionsmane 3 years ago
Your understanding of how evolution works is not even at a high school level, as per your "a fish turning into a human being" comment.
Faustuss1 3 years ago 2
Nice video.
But you've got to find a less grating sound effect to indicate an error.
That horrible mechanical-duck-being-thrown-into-a-woodchipper sound effect really gets old.
AlmightyAtheismo 3 years ago
"The skin has to change, it has to become impermiable to water". There for I (a human) am a whale because my skin is impermiable to water. Michel Phelps is also there for a fish and not a human. Thank you Dr. Berlinski for revealing the truth to me that I am a whale.
meatwork999 3 years ago
lol
simonandtheghost 3 years ago
you are the minority. get over it.
0.1%
garbagemann1234 3 years ago
Actually, I am part of the majority. 66% of the world's population don't believe in the God of the Bible.
ThetaOmega 3 years ago
LOL. Wikipedia and/or Zuckerman polls do not count as coherent.
No Religion Groups Agnostic 0.5% Atheist 0.4%
Not a worldview group, but rather individuals who stated: "No religion" 13.2% Other [smaller representation groupings examples]: Humanist; Secular Total No Religion Specified 14.1%
Include the rest of the world and the figures drop even lower.
garbagemann1234 3 years ago
later, putz.
garbagemann1234 3 years ago
Anyway, by claiming that, you are lumping yourself in with categories that dont apply to you. I'm non-black but I'm not Asian. Get it?
And stop forcing your beliefs on others, hypocrite.
Now I promise, later sucker.
garbagemann1234 3 years ago
Had to rate it 1 star, because it's unwatchable with that annoying buzz, way-too-loud buzzing. Other than that, it was brilliant!
MoistKumquat 3 years ago
How do you explain that a charachupa has a 10 foot reptilian tail, a body like a kangaroo, and a mouth like a defective canine beast? Whether it's man-made, or from cross breeding, it's still a product of transmutation.
ANGELBLU2042 3 years ago
LOL
ANGELBLU2042 3 years ago
It's perfectly possible that you could change a car into a submarine. So therefore evolution is possible too.
rickelmonoggin 3 years ago
Maybe, but complexity can also be seen as the proof of evolutionism. A creationist being is more like the golem of Rabbi Löw. All you have is a hump of clay with "emet" written on it. Of course at the source, Adam is also described in the Talmud as a golem.
try37 3 years ago
ARE YOU SAVED? The Bible teaches that God has appointed a Judgment day in which sinners will be punished:
2Peter3:7
But the heavens and the earth..are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
THE ONLY WAY OF ESCAPE IS THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST:
John3:36
He that believes on the Son has everlasting life and he that believes not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him
TURN TO GOD, REPENT & BELIEVE ON JESUS!
ChristianTULIP 3 years ago
Oh my god, you are right. I was so blind, I will begin worshipping Jesus now.
retard
BZ987654 3 years ago
Unless God steps in and makes you born again, you DO NOT have a natural ability to choose Faith. Your spiritually dead in sin. Its called TOTAL DEPRAVITY:
1 Cor2:14
But the NATURAL MAN receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are FOOLISHNESS unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
1 Cor1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God
Jon3:7
you MUST be born again
ChristianTULIP 3 years ago
So god will send me to hell unless he steps in, and if he doesn't step in I go to a fiery pit to be tortured for all eternity because that is his will. Do you see a problem with this logic? If this true than your god is a bitch. If all you have is the bible then just turn back now.
BZ987654 3 years ago
ChristianTULIP, please stick to the subject of the video when leaving comments for the video. The issue is supposed to be discussed in a scientific manner, so please refrain from citing one of the most scientifically and logically unsound texts ever produced.
RussianAssassin21 3 years ago
My bad. I clicked the spam button instead of the reply. And you can't undo it. They shouldn't put them right next to each other
snakeguy76 3 years ago
z0mg mathmeticians are skeptical of evolution? While we're at it, why don't we ask Ken Miller what he thinks of Jacob Steiner's Isoperimetric theorem?
tl;dr lol
SkepticalAtheist 3 years ago
He's making a living out of this shit! Fuck me, I might become a creationist, make a packet and then admit I was talking shit all along and fuck off to my nice country estate with the cash.
IsaacIsaiahMusic 3 years ago
Berlinski is definitely worse than Creationists.
rottenfungus 3 years ago
It is amazing how the desire to oppose a scientific theory turns even educated people into complete idiots.
There is nothing wrong with questioning a scientific theory in fact it is a must in the scientific community and no credible scientist would back any theory proven to be false.
In nature there is no project of transformation and no blue print of a final product, it is an extremely slow process and produces one tiny change at a time which in turn might induce another change and so on.
GODandPEACE 3 years ago
Oh wow, rational thought. Thank you. The problem is that you teach someone a little bit of science and they become and expert. Most scientists that I know realize that there is no way that this world came to exist without a creator and that evolution is ludicrous.
melaniestevens 3 years ago
melanistevens
The theory of evolution is a fact for most who have a scientific background except of course for the Christian scientists fundamentalists who object to it not based on reasoning and facts but simply because it challenges the core of their belief and threatens to shatter their delusions. So go back to your bubble of hallucinations and ignorance where mythical Jesus is alive and well.
After reading your profile I find your claim to know any credible scientists to be Hilarious .
GODandPEACE 3 years ago
No, if I went back to my bubble of hallucination I would have to become an atheist again. Not going there. I love how when evolutionists feel threatened they start name calling. I never varies. I guess that is outflow of a superior intellect, aye? My brother and husband are both scientists with advanced degrees and are both Christians. My brother has taught at a university level. So there shatters YOUR delusion. Have a great day.
melaniestevens 3 years ago
Oh and by the way? We were not raised as Christians. We were raised atheist. Jesus is alive and he lived on this earth. He is who He says He is. There is plenty of historical evidence for it that of course would shatter your delusion, godandpeace, if you ever dared to look at it.
melaniestevens 3 years ago
I said credible scientists not two buffoons who lost any sense of rationality because of their blind faith; almost anyone can memorize formulas and scientific concepts without ever understanding them and even manage to obtain advanced degrees otherwise, according to your twisted mind, if a Muslim with a PhD in Science tells me that Allah is the true God I should believe him because he has an advanced degree.
It is ironic that you should question evolution while your IQ is that of an ape.
GODandPEACE 3 years ago
So now you are calling my brother and husband names. No, it was your twisted mind that presented that point. I simply refuted it with citing two people that I know personally that are scientists and believers. And knowing my brother and not knowing you, except for the fact that you defend yourself by insulting people, I think I would be wise accept any of his assertions over yours. My IQ is 150. ;) but IQ doesn't "prove" anything. Just look at history at who Jesus is. You accept other
melaniestevens 3 years ago
historical facts readily. Why are you afraid to accept that Jesus is God? Because it would shatter all of your delusions about science being a be all end all? :)
melaniestevens 3 years ago
If Jesus heard that Paul had said he was god, he'd turn over in his grave.
MoistKumquat 3 years ago
Don't confuse fact with theory. They are not one and the same. That is where you yourself get into religion of speculating and fantasizing.
gold95 3 years ago
so "most of the scientists you know" belong to the 0.02% who reject evolution. care to name any? can you give references to their peer reviewed work demonstrating that evolution is "ludicrous"? .....of course you can't
McMonster65 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What environmental factors favored the natural selection of monecious sexual reproduction over the far more expedient and reliable asexual reproduction? Why didnt all species remain asexual or hermaphroditic? Can you conjure mathematically, a probability scenario of what forces led to the less efficient and more tenuous sexual reproduction to dominant in all species?
Prohoridzo 3 years ago
EternalSkeptic123 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear evolutionists:Im not religious nor do I propose any dogma or agenda.I have a question that I have yet to hear an evo answer.
What environmental factors favored the natural selection of monecious sexual reproduction over the far more expedient and reliable asexual reproduction?Why didnt all species remain asexual or hermaphroditic? Can you conjure mathematically,a probability scenario of what forces led to the less efficient and more tenuous sexual reproduction to dominant in all species?
Prohoridzo 3 years ago
proho
"...Can you conjure mathematically,a probability scenario of what forces led to the less efficient and more tenuous sexual reproduction to dominant in all species?"
there's the problem once again-
how would you apply mathematics to the question ?
show us your numbers-
tell us how you derived them-
or admit your question is
bullshit
and 'conjure mathematically' ?
please
EternalSkeptic123 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Etern:I thought we were through! Are your words lacking specificity or are they mere ambiguities that you fit at anytime where you want to?
Answer the 1st part of the question 1st, the 2nd half is mathematical verification and follow up.
"What environmental factors favored the natural selection of monecious sexual reproduction over the far more expedient and reliable asexual reproduction? Why didnt all species remain asexual or hermaphroditic?"
No theory? Come on now! Explain! Please!
Prohoridzo 3 years ago
EternalSkeptic123 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Prohoridzo 3 years ago
prohomey
played-
and now 'nigger' ?
no end to your stupidity is there-
keep stirring the shit troll
read the fucking board then we'll talk
EternalSkeptic123 3 years ago