2 mins, I can't stand him, he's pulled the "it's only a theory" the "I was a staunch EVOLUTIONIST" ...WTF!!!!! and that there is a debate about it. *sigh* I can't wait for PZ to rip him a new one
The things stated in this video are an opinion, and only an opinion. There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution, in the past 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove the theorum. Please post the published (main stream scientific journal), peer reviewed (main stream scientific journal) paper that does.
OMFG! Every time I hear the "theory not a fact" argument I want to hit the person with a stick.
Maybe we should take one creationist and make a brutal example. How can you explain to people that theory is not just assumption. It's an explanation of a fact. Evolution - fact. Theory of evolution - explanation of evolution. Not assumption. Maybe we should brand stubborn creationist like cattle?
"There are no transpre-whale fossils" Actually...Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Protocetus, Basilosaurus are you fucking kidding me? Not only did they show the ancestor of the whale but how gradually they evolved to an aquatic life!
1. A snake can not only talk...it can become a donkey...lol
2. A donkey can maybe be a whale....or at least a rat can...lol
3. Or a princess can kiss a frog and get a prince....lol
Many people ignore the difference between science and belief.
People that run around ACTING like they know life can spring up from non living matter or one animal can turn into another animal, is only based on science fiction not fact. It hasn't been observed.
@legion1a I have shit for brains? Your the one that lets small children play with poisonous snakes...lol
I actually going to save that and show it to a couple people. I have a video list i keep called dumbass videos...this one is going on there right now.
@legion1a No prob with the video...i'll b plugging it more too. Also, i've never been on here pushing a religious view. My point is...The evidence for life springing from non life is science fiction. One bacteria changing to another is not observed. Even the fruit fly that has been manipulated for thousands of generations still has no positive mutations. Learn your fact better and gave to balls to stand up...its not religious. If you make it religious you will learn nothing.
@smoothpeople33 "The evidence for life springing from non life is science fiction"
That's simply not true. Based on the current evidence we can postulate reasonable hypothesis and make some good inferences. The thing is it's far from solved but it's also not science fiction. Over the past few decades it has become an increasingly active field of research.
@smoothpeople33 1) That seems to be a rather strange objection seeing that a reducing atmosphere is conducive to all sorts of organic compounds necessary for life. Now if it were like today it would pose a real threat. Further since Miller-Urey we have tested several reducing atmospheres with most of them yielding not only quantitatively but qualitatively better results.
@smoothpeople33 You'll have to provide more context in your criticisms. I don't know how the descriptive term 'toxic' is supposed to relate to prebiotic chemistry as it is a term that relates to organisms and is inherently tied to dosage. There is nothing implicit chemically destructive about 'toxic' chemicals.
Could you give me a reference to the numbers you've provided? I can't find them in the original paper.
@smoothpeople33 That said we will have to go into deep detail considering how the tar/carboxylic acids would harm or could potentially help life being formed.
To me however that would seem like an exercise in futility as we know that the experiment does not accurately reflect what scientists believe the early atmosphere to be. Like I've pointed out there have been several experiments since Urey-Miller which are both better in quality and yield and more align with the prebiotic atmosphere.
@smoothpeople33 2) While homochirality still remains problematic in recent decades there have been several theories and experimental observations which could account for the fact that almost all life chemistry is enantiopure.
It has been shown that once there is a slight enantiomeric imbalance there are reactions and crystallization processes which can lead to enantiopure products. There is spectroscopic evidence to suggest that the original imbalance is of extraterrestrial nature.
@infinit888 This is a case where honesty with the problems of life springing from non life is at least addressed. The chances are so slim and problematic here on earth that it must be imported in from other parts of the universe.
If there is a theory that all sheep are white and a black sheep shows up...that's all that is really needed to falsify the theory.
@smoothpeople33 "The chances are so slim and problematic here on earth that it must be imported in from other parts of the universe."
I'm not really in favor of the panspermian model. No matter where you put the likelihood of abiogenesis occurring the pansperimian model takes that probability and adds further problems. It is not the most parsimonious hypothesis.
@smoothpeople33 3) Let us not forget that the Precambrian spans over a vast amount of time. So it really depends on the specific Precambrian date if we should see oxidizing materials or not because it was during the Precambrian period that the earths atmosphere shifted from mostly reducing to mostly oxidizing.
@smoothpeople33 4) Could you please reformulate your objection? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.
5) Yes that is true but again it is an active field of research. In the last few decades we've conducted a few experiments that show how these building blocks can spontaneously form polymers under what is assumed are prebiotic conditions. i.e RNA by Sutherland et al.
There is still a lot more research to do however to call abiogenesis science fiction would be way to hyperbolic.
4.Gather independent data to CHALLENGE the hypothesis.
Theories can never be proven...they can defy being dis-proven. Non verifiable/untestable statements are meaningless in science. I don't blame evolution theory from ditching the term chemical evolution when describing abiogenisis.
Darwin wouldn't be published now? Well, no shit; he also wouldn't have written today what he wrote 150 years ago, dumbass. He'd know more about human biology.
Through his studies and what he learned over time, he began to doubt the existence of god. But science is science, and validity is validity. What he discovered was revolutionary and inescapable. He'd be published.
@jerico641 It's nice to believe that. Today, his credentials would have been under attack and the messenger would have been shot before he could have delivered the message. I doubt issac newton would get published either because he was such a religious person. Randomness, mutation, death, Time and the properties of hydrogen are responsible for are all it takes for life...This doesn't fit a common sense view, only after a lot of training (brainwashing) did this make sense as a child.
@smoothpeople33 what the f are you talking about? There are also religious people who publish journals and they are reviewed and accepted. Nobody gives a fuck if you're religious, it's the validity of your claims that we are interested. Don't play a victim, please
@wHisperis001 What the F-im talking about is...FUNDING. For instance should the limited time and funding of telescopes in universities. Should money go to people that are building on the existing beliefs about space or should time be given to a scientist that sees reasons to question the red shift theory or the nature of the speed of light? This is one example of how world view comes into play. No victims here.
@jerico641 How do you know this....the chances are as good that he'd never get the chance to publish anything peer review because he would have been cut off by the gate keepers of knowledge. Based on his beliefs he wouldn't have ever been approved for funding from any university. A religious man what can he know about science...i can hear it now. I have never heard Darwin recant any statement about his beliefs either.
He wasn't attempting to publish anything about reigion or from a religious standoint. He was writing a scientific text about the evolution of the species. Even today no one cares what religion a scientist may belong to, as long as his research is valid. The Vatucan itself has one of the largest atronomical observatories in the world, and the priests who operate it are also scientists who accept evolution. Jonas Salk was a devout Catholic. Who cared? He'd be published.
" Jonas Salk was a devout Catholic. Who cared? He'd be published."
Jonas Salk himself had trouble securing jobs.....And actually he has a Jew....Jewish quota was a limit put on Jews in education that plagued Salk at Cornell, Colombia, Pennsylvania, and Yale. Apparently religious bias played a part in his career. He was too gifted to be held back.
The principal at Yale was quoted as saying "never let more then 5 Jews in at a time"
Well, now you're comparing apples and oranges; the irrational prejudice against jewish people is much more ethnic than it is religious. And anyway, despite any of that (and I've always heard he was catholic), he was published for his great work and discovered a vaccine that saved millions from polio. If a person promotes a silly theory based on religion rather than science, sure he'll be ignored; but Darwin would, in fact, be published today. He based his work on science.
People assume that MD's understand evolutionary biology, but they don't. It's entirely possible to become a physician with taking ~ 2 undergraduate biology courses, none of which focus on evolution. You don't really understand evolution until you study it in-depth at a graduate level. The reason why creationists and ID proponents don't produce evolutionary biologists (or ecologists, or molecular geneticists) that adopt their views is because they are virtually non-existent.
I still wish Darwin had met Mendel, 2 people so far away from each other yet so close to the truth. A transcript of a conversation between those 2 would have been an amazing and inspiring read.
He "uses theory instead of fact?" What the fuck, that's now how things work. Theories are well documented explanations for factual observations. Facts are tied together by theories.
Wtf it's like simmons had problems hearing a word spoken by PZ at the beginning and keeps prattling on about Darwin and the original theory. What year is simmons living in? And does he even know what Theory means? What's wrong with him aside from being a christian?
How the fuck did Simmons become a MD w/o being able to distinguish the scientific use of the word "theory" from its everyday usage? He's either blatantly dishonest or hopelessly incompetent in the medical profession just for repeating the BS that evolution is "just a theory".
While I'm sure there are many more of these moments in this "debate", the point where Simmons criticizes evolution for being a theory vs a fact should be the end of the discussion. It's like criticizing calculus for being a branch of mathematics vs an equation and therefore concluding that the entire field of calculus is suspect. It's not surprising that biologists discourage each other from entering these kinds of "debates".
@buttface112211 Exactly! I find that incredible as well. He also puts facts above theory in rank of importance, when in fact it's the opposite, and that alone gives me serious doubt that Simmons is a real doctor.
@Direkin Well any doctor that administers medicine, vaccinations, and antibiotics regularly should understand evolution and know that it is true. The medicine industry is dependent on evolution, bacteria's and viruses evolve all the time. Flu shots are being altered anually. Simmons is a doctor, not a biologist or anthropologist that actually know what they are talking about
I just can't believe that a medical doctor with a BS in biology is using the "evolution is just a theory" and the "Darwin says we came from monkeys" argument.
That only shows that you can have a PhD and still be douche bag.
Yes, there are no animals that don't have to breath at a specific time. OMG he has completely disproved evolution! Why has no one thought of this earlier?!?... oh wait, lungfish, amphibians etc :P
This is funny. The Simmons guy is literally a lay-person and he's debating with someone who has a PhD in the subject. PZ Myers is a pretty remarkable fellow for putting up with this incompetent asshole.
No pre-giraffe neck's and no proto-whale fossils? Is Simmons so disconnected from fossil collections? There are hundreds of proto-giraffe and proto-cetacean fossils. Knowing that fossils are unlikely to form and hard to come by, this is a remarkably complete record. Simmons is misguiding on purpose or he is woefully uninformed. Either way, shame on him.
'there is a valve of the heart that changes to shift blood to the lungs at birth. this could not have developed by trial and error.' i assume he means that it couldn't have developed by trial and error because organisms that didn't have this valve/it didn't function as it should, they would die? and those whose valve worked the way it should, would survive? yeah, that's evolution you fucktard.
simmons his a dr, well i am in medecin world too and his arguments his a disgrace to our community obviously he knows nothing about genes(genetics) ,micobiology virology or enven retrovirus he talk like a generalist but not like a specialist nor like a researcher in all the one that i enumarate stop thing thing because he has the tittle dr he knows best,i know many social worker psychologist ,nursesse that did their doctora in their discipline and yet we do not call them dr see what i want tosay
Its funny how so many folks think that when they were not a religous fanatic that that automatically makes em an Athiest and when they do become religous fanatic they claim they were once Athiests becuase they did not adore thier religon lol.
@BigLundi how depressing that we might be treated by a doctor next time we fall ill that doesn't even know what a 'theory' is. how did he get through medical school? with his fingers in his ears, screaming LALALALALALALA?!
@BigLundi haha. 'so what if we've eradicated smallpox? germ theory is just a theory...therefore demons cause disease. also, the earth is flat. here are some leeches for your cancer. brb off to sacrifice a lamb.' too far?...k maybe bit still....*facepalm*
What a liar this Geoffrey Simmons is, "I'm not Christian" @ 1:52!!!!!!!! Does he think were all stupid? I'm sure the Discovery Institute does not have "fellows" who are not Cristian and therefore had the mandatory lobotomy.
It is important to understand that their is a BIG, BIG difference between science and religious belief systems. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are stories you believe in. You don't believe in science. Instead, you use it to solve problems just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Science and religious belief systems are completely unrelated and unfit for comparison.
@LesPaul2006 "What is a "story you believe" good for if you don't know if it is true or not?"
I'm not sure I understand the question. But, you would have to investigate WHY you believe the story. Perhaps you enjoy the story like any enjoyable piece of fictional literature. You would have to offer more to your counter argument.
wow, just a theory, a detailed explanation of the observed facts that has not been disproved in 150 years. Hows gravity doing ? Every fossil that fits in a sequence adds a new gap , lol How do you get a fossil human heart ?
@SqueakerAlpha Are you comparing the theory of gravity with all possible theories? If so I have a theory about underwear gnomes... It's probably bullshit so I suppose if I stop theorizing about it the underwear gnomes will go away. Without the theory of gravity the phenomenon still exists. We cannot say the same about the theory of evolution; at least not yet. Tesla did not accept Einstein's theories of relativity. Such theories appeared 200 years earlier in philosophy, not science.
@crazycatlady667 since a theory in science is a tested and verified explanation for what is observed then yes , the observed item continues in the absence of a theory, what else would happen ? gravity has no real theory, its practical application is understood and there is some maths to calculate what should happen at certain scales, but gravity fails at quantum scales and may fail at very large scales. Evolution beats gravity by miles as a scientific theory.
@crazycatlady667 which God ? and before you claim there is only one , God himself in the bible admits other Gods exist, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before ME" , since God (the christian one) can not lie there must be other actual Gods.
@SqueakerAlpha God? What God(s)? I thought God(s) didn't exist? How can God make statements about himself let alone other gods if he doesn't exist? Wow, you read the Bible!? ... I wish I could do that. :O
But I've been perplexing linguists, psychiatrists, lexicographers and neurologists for years! I don't even know if I'm making words. CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND THIS!?!? AM I MAKING ANY SENSE!?!? Gawd this is frustrating... :O
The scary part of this is not that the moron is who appear to not know anything, or worse, do know science but fundamentalist and ideology make him lie and use pseudo science to subdue all secular progress in this country. If for some reason Sarah Palin, Mike Hucabee, or Met Romney become president, it is these people who will be setting polices in these country.
When that happen we must say goodbye science and welcome to the Inquisition of the middle Ages again.
LOL, a theory by P.Z's very own definition allows you to make predictions!
Exactley what predictions has evolutionary theory made?
Ohh the atheists will go for the technical win with a little concept known as "retrodictions", but in the end it is par for the course where modern science is concerned!
If any of you egghead atheists can point to one Theory that you swear by that has been proven incontrivertably- then you win, until then, Science is just a mathmatical religion!
Well the predictions of fossil locations and genetic makeup can only be made subject to finding the right specimen. Still, saying "I predict a mammalian fossil will only ever occur between X and Y million years ago in the fossil record" IS a prediction.
Theories don't get 'proved'- you're still not understanding what a theory is! The theory of gravitation has never been proved but that doesn't discourage you from gettin an airplane. Science does not equal atheism.
Valid points indeed, but to clarify the concept i'm trying to point out to those that believe evolution is the driving force behind mans existance is this- There are absolutely no real world examples of macroevolution, not one, not ever, and some how they want to apply the concept of micro evolution as if it were the same-it is not!
Until a clear example of macro evolution is brought forth the theory can not be seen as an answer, and therefore must be seen as flawed!
Ok but macro-evolution means it happens over millions of years. What type of evidence would you expect? Well you're entitled to your opinion but I'm afraid you're not the one who decides if the theory is flawed- the scientific community is the only place these things are decided and evolution is almost completely accepted as a fact by biologists- I often get the journal 'Nature' and about 50% of the articles treat evolution as a fact.
And might I add, macro-evolution is a necessary implication of mirco-evolution UNLESS there were some reason to believe that genes cannot mutate beyond a certain point (so species could never transition to other species). Know you of such a constraint?
@commonsensrules There is no such things as "proven incontrovertibly" in any discipline outside of math.
Study human Chromosome 2. Look up Ken Miller's presentation on the subject and you'll see what science means when it speaks of predictions (it's not about fortune telling or seeing the future, it's about logical conclusions and expectations based on factual evidence).
The problem nowadays is that everybody gives different meanings to many words without knowing ethimology . Incredible how Mr. Myers does not know
that the word ¨Theory¨comes from the greek word: Theorein, that means to contemplate or to observate without making a practical movement. He is afraid of calling evolution Hypothesis as it should be known.
It's called the evolution of language (no pun intended). That's like saying any englishman (i.e me) should be angry with everyone in the USA for misusing the english language- language has never been seen as an absolute guideline. It's a dynamic framework. You don't have a point because it doesn't matter what a word was originally used for- all you need to know is the context in which it is BEING used. I could list hundreds of english words which are now used 'wrongly'
@chebob2009 ¨Used wrongly¨, YOUR OWN WORDS, not mine, but I mentioned it first. You remind me the words of Voltaire : ¨the number of delinquents does not justify the felonies¨
Anyone that has even a pedestrian understanding of biology, natural history, the methodology of science, or even reasoned arguments will undoubtedly be astonished at the sheer dishonesty pouring from Simmons' mouth. What a disgrace to humanity.
Disproving with all those hundreds of studies being published each week that prove evolution?
Also, he claims he's not a Christian, yet he supports ID and he's part of the Discovery Institute? I call bullshit. They're a Christian institution that does nothing but try to package Creationism into the box of Intelligent Design and spread it like propaganda. He says he believed in evolution for 40 years? It's hard to believe any liar from DI.
Every single sentence out of Simmons mouth made me cringe at his lack of knowledge on the topic. I only have a high school education on evolution (as I am in high school now), and even I could see that Simmons was full of shit.
Simmons: "Darwin's theory has been changed at some points". "Most people don't know this". Hence: "It's handy to act as if it hasn't changed, as most people don't know it has". FOR CRYING OUT LOUD
@AustratheistX it's an utterly pathetic argument. i mean...facepalm doesn't even cover it. how sad is it that this man is apparently a doctor and doesn't know the meaning of the word theory? worrying. & note how he says something along the lines of 'physics is delving into the unknown...so is science.' DERPPP. another one that made me giggle: 'darwin wouldn't be published nowadays.' really? a scientist with 19th century scientific knowledge wouldn't be published now? ARE YOU SOME KIND OF GENIUS?
Lol! "And you'll notice he uses the word theory over and over again instead of the word fact".
Right there, that alone disqualifies him from speaking on the subject of science. He doesnt even understand the most basic terminology, or rather he probably does but is intentionally confusing the colloquial use of the word Theory with the scientific term.
Good christ, and it doesnt get any better from there, does it? He talks about going from what was it, new york to LA and skipping all the stops and restrooms and diners in between, and yet THAT IS *HIS* BELIEF! He believes that the passenger was magically poofed into new york by god's own wiggly fingertips! And he doesnt even realize this?! And then about birth and trial and error? Has this man ever seen an animal giving birth?! What a fucking retard, birth is a touchy and dangerous business!
Hey Simmo!
Your ignorance about the state of the fossil record is not evidence that there are holes in evolutionary theory.
dingodavid 2 days ago
2 mins, I can't stand him, he's pulled the "it's only a theory" the "I was a staunch EVOLUTIONIST" ...WTF!!!!! and that there is a debate about it. *sigh* I can't wait for PZ to rip him a new one
superiorplanet 3 weeks ago
Simmons: 'Darwin said we're descended from monkeys.'
END OF DEBATE. Fucking moron.
Huckxxx 1 month ago
This turd makes it sound like we have gigantic gaps in every lineage. What an ass.
TheAspietunes 2 months ago in playlist PZ Myers destroys Simmonds in evolution debate
Fucking Hell: Cutting off PZ Myers, then let PP Simmons talk completely, and then including religious adverts!
Man, I'm disappointed
NBM397 2 months ago
The things stated in this video are an opinion, and only an opinion. There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution, in the past 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove the theorum. Please post the published (main stream scientific journal), peer reviewed (main stream scientific journal) paper that does.
wizard970 2 months ago
Ive already hit Simmons with my magic stick. Classic quite "150 yrs later the fossil record is even more incomplete" - what a ridiculous statement
transformations1 2 months ago
OMFG! Every time I hear the "theory not a fact" argument I want to hit the person with a stick.
Maybe we should take one creationist and make a brutal example. How can you explain to people that theory is not just assumption. It's an explanation of a fact. Evolution - fact. Theory of evolution - explanation of evolution. Not assumption. Maybe we should brand stubborn creationist like cattle?
Glad1kun 2 months ago
"There are no transpre-whale fossils" Actually...Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Protocetus, Basilosaurus are you fucking kidding me? Not only did they show the ancestor of the whale but how gradually they evolved to an aquatic life!
DeinosDinos 3 months ago
Is there a reason why the person who posted this video cut off parts with PZ Myers, but left in Simmons whole speech?
AsSomedayItMayHappen 3 months ago 2
Wow. So much ignorance. How on earth did Myers manage sit through this nonsense?
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
A christian video, and he saying he is not a Christian.
I guess it is not a sin for Christians to lie; when promoting their delusions.
Isn't it apparent they have to resort to lying to keep their delusions alive, because actual FACTS disprove what they claim.
The Earth is not 6,000 years old.
Snakes and Donkeys can't talk.
The Earth revolves around the Sun.
And Bronze Age explanations of reality don't work anymore!
legion1a 3 months ago
@legion1a
Given enough time...
1. A snake can not only talk...it can become a donkey...lol
2. A donkey can maybe be a whale....or at least a rat can...lol
3. Or a princess can kiss a frog and get a prince....lol
Many people ignore the difference between science and belief.
People that run around ACTING like they know life can spring up from non living matter or one animal can turn into another animal, is only based on science fiction not fact. It hasn't been observed.
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33
Evolution is real.
Anyone, like you, that believes it is not real has shit for brains.
legion1a 2 months ago
@legion1a I have shit for brains? Your the one that lets small children play with poisonous snakes...lol
I actually going to save that and show it to a couple people. I have a video list i keep called dumbass videos...this one is going on there right now.
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33
Yes; you do have shit for brains.
You are also bearing false witness.
I would never let a child play with a poisonous snake.
Actually it would be venomous snake, I understand you being that stupid, you can't understand the world due to you delusion
By the way, sorry, none of my snakes can talk.
If one ever does talk, I'll convert and make a Christian video.
Now you can stick your head back up your ass; and waste your life praising the Lord.
Thanks for plugging my video!
legion1a 2 months ago 2
@legion1a No prob with the video...i'll b plugging it more too. Also, i've never been on here pushing a religious view. My point is...The evidence for life springing from non life is science fiction. One bacteria changing to another is not observed. Even the fruit fly that has been manipulated for thousands of generations still has no positive mutations. Learn your fact better and gave to balls to stand up...its not religious. If you make it religious you will learn nothing.
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 "The evidence for life springing from non life is science fiction"
That's simply not true. Based on the current evidence we can postulate reasonable hypothesis and make some good inferences. The thing is it's far from solved but it's also not science fiction. Over the past few decades it has become an increasingly active field of research.
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 Here are some issues i have against Abiogenesis
1. Reducing Atmosphere
2. equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (chirality problem)
3. oxidized materials exist in the Precambrian geological strata
4. organic matter would equal a concentration about 100 times higher than a modern American city’s sewer water
5. obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement
Big Probs With these too:
theory of panspermia
The RNA world hypothesis
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 1) That seems to be a rather strange objection seeing that a reducing atmosphere is conducive to all sorts of organic compounds necessary for life. Now if it were like today it would pose a real threat. Further since Miller-Urey we have tested several reducing atmospheres with most of them yielding not only quantitatively but qualitatively better results.
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 One big fact is that 98% of the material created in the miller experiment is toxic..
1. 85% Tar
2. 13% carboxylic acids
2% amino acids which only contain 8 of 20 of the necessary building blocks needed for life.
The amount of variables added to the experiment don't simulate the real world.
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 You'll have to provide more context in your criticisms. I don't know how the descriptive term 'toxic' is supposed to relate to prebiotic chemistry as it is a term that relates to organisms and is inherently tied to dosage. There is nothing implicit chemically destructive about 'toxic' chemicals.
Could you give me a reference to the numbers you've provided? I can't find them in the original paper.
infinit888 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 That said we will have to go into deep detail considering how the tar/carboxylic acids would harm or could potentially help life being formed.
To me however that would seem like an exercise in futility as we know that the experiment does not accurately reflect what scientists believe the early atmosphere to be. Like I've pointed out there have been several experiments since Urey-Miller which are both better in quality and yield and more align with the prebiotic atmosphere.
infinit888 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 2) While homochirality still remains problematic in recent decades there have been several theories and experimental observations which could account for the fact that almost all life chemistry is enantiopure.
It has been shown that once there is a slight enantiomeric imbalance there are reactions and crystallization processes which can lead to enantiopure products. There is spectroscopic evidence to suggest that the original imbalance is of extraterrestrial nature.
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 This is a case where honesty with the problems of life springing from non life is at least addressed. The chances are so slim and problematic here on earth that it must be imported in from other parts of the universe.
If there is a theory that all sheep are white and a black sheep shows up...that's all that is really needed to falsify the theory.
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 "The chances are so slim and problematic here on earth that it must be imported in from other parts of the universe."
I'm not really in favor of the panspermian model. No matter where you put the likelihood of abiogenesis occurring the pansperimian model takes that probability and adds further problems. It is not the most parsimonious hypothesis.
infinit888 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 3) Let us not forget that the Precambrian spans over a vast amount of time. So it really depends on the specific Precambrian date if we should see oxidizing materials or not because it was during the Precambrian period that the earths atmosphere shifted from mostly reducing to mostly oxidizing.
infinit888 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 4) Could you please reformulate your objection? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.
5) Yes that is true but again it is an active field of research. In the last few decades we've conducted a few experiments that show how these building blocks can spontaneously form polymers under what is assumed are prebiotic conditions. i.e RNA by Sutherland et al.
There is still a lot more research to do however to call abiogenesis science fiction would be way to hyperbolic.
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 Here is how science should work...
1.Obseserve a phenomenon.
2.Seek patterns and meaures in the observation.
3.Formulate a hypothesis from the description.
4.Gather independent data to CHALLENGE the hypothesis.
Theories can never be proven...they can defy being dis-proven. Non verifiable/untestable statements are meaningless in science. I don't blame evolution theory from ditching the term chemical evolution when describing abiogenisis.
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33 "A snake can not only talk" are you referring to the snake in genesis?
"it can become a donkey" is this the donkey in numbers 22?
ptango101 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptango101 Yes...It was in reply to this...
The Earth is not 6,000 years old.
Snakes and Donkeys can't talk.
The Earth revolves around the Sun.
And Bronze Age explanations of reality don't work anymore!
and
Evolution is real.
Anyone, like you, that believes it is not real has shit for brains.
legion1a 12 hours ago
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
"150 years later the fossil record is even more incomplete!"
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.
djpob 3 months ago 16
You just have to laugh at people like Simmons and the idiots who give him a platform to spout his silly little 'arguments'.
LondonIrishRover 3 months ago 2
Darwin wouldn't be published now? Well, no shit; he also wouldn't have written today what he wrote 150 years ago, dumbass. He'd know more about human biology.
jerico641 4 months ago
@jerico641 Darwin was a religious man. His degree was in theology. Just based on that I doubt darwin would get published.
smoothpeople33 4 months ago
@smoothpeople33
Through his studies and what he learned over time, he began to doubt the existence of god. But science is science, and validity is validity. What he discovered was revolutionary and inescapable. He'd be published.
jerico641 4 months ago
@jerico641 It's nice to believe that. Today, his credentials would have been under attack and the messenger would have been shot before he could have delivered the message. I doubt issac newton would get published either because he was such a religious person. Randomness, mutation, death, Time and the properties of hydrogen are responsible for are all it takes for life...This doesn't fit a common sense view, only after a lot of training (brainwashing) did this make sense as a child.
smoothpeople33 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smoothpeople33
I'm sorry, I'm a little slow, so help me out here; are you arguing against my position or for it?
jerico641 4 months ago
@smoothpeople33 what the f are you talking about? There are also religious people who publish journals and they are reviewed and accepted. Nobody gives a fuck if you're religious, it's the validity of your claims that we are interested. Don't play a victim, please
wHisperis001 2 months ago
@wHisperis001 What the F-im talking about is...FUNDING. For instance should the limited time and funding of telescopes in universities. Should money go to people that are building on the existing beliefs about space or should time be given to a scientist that sees reasons to question the red shift theory or the nature of the speed of light? This is one example of how world view comes into play. No victims here.
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@jerico641 How do you know this....the chances are as good that he'd never get the chance to publish anything peer review because he would have been cut off by the gate keepers of knowledge. Based on his beliefs he wouldn't have ever been approved for funding from any university. A religious man what can he know about science...i can hear it now. I have never heard Darwin recant any statement about his beliefs either.
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33
He wasn't attempting to publish anything about reigion or from a religious standoint. He was writing a scientific text about the evolution of the species. Even today no one cares what religion a scientist may belong to, as long as his research is valid. The Vatucan itself has one of the largest atronomical observatories in the world, and the priests who operate it are also scientists who accept evolution. Jonas Salk was a devout Catholic. Who cared? He'd be published.
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641
" Jonas Salk was a devout Catholic. Who cared? He'd be published."
Jonas Salk himself had trouble securing jobs.....And actually he has a Jew....Jewish quota was a limit put on Jews in education that plagued Salk at Cornell, Colombia, Pennsylvania, and Yale. Apparently religious bias played a part in his career. He was too gifted to be held back.
The principal at Yale was quoted as saying "never let more then 5 Jews in at a time"
smoothpeople33 2 months ago
@smoothpeople33
Well, now you're comparing apples and oranges; the irrational prejudice against jewish people is much more ethnic than it is religious. And anyway, despite any of that (and I've always heard he was catholic), he was published for his great work and discovered a vaccine that saved millions from polio. If a person promotes a silly theory based on religion rather than science, sure he'll be ignored; but Darwin would, in fact, be published today. He based his work on science.
jerico641 2 months ago
Simmons is embarrassing; he's using kindergarten theology arguments.
HubbellKent 4 months ago
People assume that MD's understand evolutionary biology, but they don't. It's entirely possible to become a physician with taking ~ 2 undergraduate biology courses, none of which focus on evolution. You don't really understand evolution until you study it in-depth at a graduate level. The reason why creationists and ID proponents don't produce evolutionary biologists (or ecologists, or molecular geneticists) that adopt their views is because they are virtually non-existent.
seriussam101 5 months ago in playlist PZ Myers destroys Simmonds in evolution debate
4:14 There are no "pre-whale" fossils? Yes there is. There are many.
MalchikBlue 5 months ago 3
Ah fake, when a biologist purposely uses misleading analogys it becomes obvious that he is jumping issues.
Politician maybe, scientist no, st lois. Wtf ? No stopping in gas stations? Huh? What exactly is analagous with gas stations in evolution?
Budfam74 5 months ago
I still wish Darwin had met Mendel, 2 people so far away from each other yet so close to the truth. A transcript of a conversation between those 2 would have been an amazing and inspiring read.
WaltonSauce 5 months ago 2
He "uses theory instead of fact?" What the fuck, that's now how things work. Theories are well documented explanations for factual observations. Facts are tied together by theories.
opmike343 6 months ago
So Simmons is a senior fellow of The Discovery Institute, explains a lot.
GuillemotWatcher 6 months ago 2
Evolution is just a theory......... *Facepalm*
Mikebenia 6 months ago
@Mikebenia As soon as someone says that I know their understanding of not only evolution but science in general is severely lacking.
insainbassist 6 months ago
Wtf it's like simmons had problems hearing a word spoken by PZ at the beginning and keeps prattling on about Darwin and the original theory. What year is simmons living in? And does he even know what Theory means? What's wrong with him aside from being a christian?
Baeloth 6 months ago
@Baeloth
He's also a creationist.
rkyeun 5 months ago
How the fuck did Simmons become a MD w/o being able to distinguish the scientific use of the word "theory" from its everyday usage? He's either blatantly dishonest or hopelessly incompetent in the medical profession just for repeating the BS that evolution is "just a theory".
typhoidX 6 months ago
Is it a debate if all Simmons does is put forth a series of lies and twisted half truths?
Ryakki 6 months ago
@Ryakki no shit. I spend way to much time watching this type of thing, and I'm still amazed.
no2religions 6 months ago in playlist PZ Myers destroys Simmonds in evolution debate
While I'm sure there are many more of these moments in this "debate", the point where Simmons criticizes evolution for being a theory vs a fact should be the end of the discussion. It's like criticizing calculus for being a branch of mathematics vs an equation and therefore concluding that the entire field of calculus is suspect. It's not surprising that biologists discourage each other from entering these kinds of "debates".
ArchRascal 6 months ago 8
@ArchRascal That's a fantastic analogy, I'm definitely going to borrow that if someone ever tries the it's a theory not a fact tactic.
ARKAtheist 2 months ago
This is the great thing about religion. It makes smart people cretins, and the rest of us smart. It's the great leveller.
lewisner 6 months ago
This guy claims to be a scientist and he doesnt even know the scientific meaning of theory?
buttface112211 6 months ago
@buttface112211, I know! Shocking, isn't it, that a medical doctor doesn't understand what a scientific theory is.
Turandot29 6 months ago
@Turandot29 it's not that he doesn't know, it's that he is intentionally miseducating.
no2religions 6 months ago in playlist PZ Myers destroys Simmonds in evolution debate
@buttface112211 Exactly! I find that incredible as well. He also puts facts above theory in rank of importance, when in fact it's the opposite, and that alone gives me serious doubt that Simmons is a real doctor.
Direkin 6 months ago
@Direkin Well any doctor that administers medicine, vaccinations, and antibiotics regularly should understand evolution and know that it is true. The medicine industry is dependent on evolution, bacteria's and viruses evolve all the time. Flu shots are being altered anually. Simmons is a doctor, not a biologist or anthropologist that actually know what they are talking about
buttface112211 6 months ago 2
You have to be kidding me. A serious scientists, debating a man who did not take the time to find out what theory means? LOL
gulbirk 7 months ago 3
No pre-whale fossils? Really? Is he that ignorant of the fossil record?
agamemnon05 7 months ago 3
I just can't believe that a medical doctor with a BS in biology is using the "evolution is just a theory" and the "Darwin says we came from monkeys" argument.
That only shows that you can have a PhD and still be douche bag.
cperez1000 7 months ago
wow ,this guy's a complete joke.
Moh5Itachi1 7 months ago
Yes, there are no animals that don't have to breath at a specific time. OMG he has completely disproved evolution! Why has no one thought of this earlier?!?... oh wait, lungfish, amphibians etc :P
FDSCEV 7 months ago
Really? This chucklehead is the best creationists can do? Just incredible.
TBlake34 7 months ago
Is this a joke?
jimjim 7 months ago
This is funny. The Simmons guy is literally a lay-person and he's debating with someone who has a PhD in the subject. PZ Myers is a pretty remarkable fellow for putting up with this incompetent asshole.
BigMikeMcBastard 7 months ago 2
in the first part PZ Myers pwns this guy. Now in this one he pwns himself.
MrBiomaniac 8 months ago
Why did PZ's first 5 minutes get cut off the first video? where is it?
KaslarProductions 8 months ago 2
I think PZ Myers was really angry for agreeing to this shit while listening to this moron.
JeayBee 8 months ago
@JeayBee
If anything, he was lamenting that he didn't heed the advice of his colleagues and eschew any sort of debate with these morons.
hobokombat 7 months ago
No pre-giraffe neck's and no proto-whale fossils? Is Simmons so disconnected from fossil collections? There are hundreds of proto-giraffe and proto-cetacean fossils. Knowing that fossils are unlikely to form and hard to come by, this is a remarkably complete record. Simmons is misguiding on purpose or he is woefully uninformed. Either way, shame on him.
drfoxcourt 8 months ago
I would be less scornful of the creationist party if they would actually do real science, teach science, and generate testable data and conclusions.
I'd be more open to hearing their claims if someone were doing actual work to provide scientifically applicable research.
GermanChocolateCake 8 months ago
'there is a valve of the heart that changes to shift blood to the lungs at birth. this could not have developed by trial and error.' i assume he means that it couldn't have developed by trial and error because organisms that didn't have this valve/it didn't function as it should, they would die? and those whose valve worked the way it should, would survive? yeah, that's evolution you fucktard.
ilytopy 8 months ago
It astounds me how Creationists will tenaciously cling to utterly false arguments long after they're debunked. "No pre-whale fossils"...*headdesk*
brpierce 8 months ago
simmons his a dr, well i am in medecin world too and his arguments his a disgrace to our community obviously he knows nothing about genes(genetics) ,micobiology virology or enven retrovirus he talk like a generalist but not like a specialist nor like a researcher in all the one that i enumarate stop thing thing because he has the tittle dr he knows best,i know many social worker psychologist ,nursesse that did their doctora in their discipline and yet we do not call them dr see what i want tosay
mystisme 8 months ago
Its funny how so many folks think that when they were not a religous fanatic that that automatically makes em an Athiest and when they do become religous fanatic they claim they were once Athiests becuase they did not adore thier religon lol.
wowamonn 9 months ago
"We come from monkey's" "I was an 'evolutionist' for 40 years"
The guy is either a liar, a fool, or both.
dude3516 9 months ago 3
Darwin's lack of knowledge of biology just shows how insightful he was! I just wish he could see how far his theory has come since he thought of it!
maskofsan1ty 9 months ago
at about 1:20, he said we came from monkeys, this tells me he is an idiot, or a liar
kshe95realrockradio 9 months ago 2
Isn't Simmons supposed to be a scientist? And he doesn't know what a theory is? Holy motherfucking flying horse shit!
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi how depressing that we might be treated by a doctor next time we fall ill that doesn't even know what a 'theory' is. how did he get through medical school? with his fingers in his ears, screaming LALALALALALALA?!
ilytopy 8 months ago
@ilytopy "Yes, this shot MIGHT cure you...but you know it's all just based on a theory, so we'll just wait and see how things pan out."
Yeah, I'd switch hospitals. Immediately.
BigLundi 8 months ago
@BigLundi haha. 'so what if we've eradicated smallpox? germ theory is just a theory...therefore demons cause disease. also, the earth is flat. here are some leeches for your cancer. brb off to sacrifice a lamb.' too far?...k maybe bit still....*facepalm*
ilytopy 8 months ago
What a liar this Geoffrey Simmons is, "I'm not Christian" @ 1:52!!!!!!!! Does he think were all stupid? I'm sure the Discovery Institute does not have "fellows" who are not Cristian and therefore had the mandatory lobotomy.
bcm010 10 months ago
i feel sry for Dr. Simmons patients
isrealjason 10 months ago
Is anyone else scared that a PHYSICIAN is that confused about evolution and basic biology?
kartmankai 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is important to understand that their is a BIG, BIG difference between science and religious belief systems. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are stories you believe in. You don't believe in science. Instead, you use it to solve problems just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Science and religious belief systems are completely unrelated and unfit for comparison.
blaisingm 10 months ago
@blaisingm What is a "story you believe" good for if you don't know if it is true or not?
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LesPaul2006 "What is a "story you believe" good for if you don't know if it is true or not?"
At the bare minimum, I would say entertainment.
blaisingm 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LesPaul2006 "What is a "story you believe" good for if you don't know if it is true or not?"
I'm not sure I understand the question. But, you would have to investigate WHY you believe the story. Perhaps you enjoy the story like any enjoyable piece of fictional literature. You would have to offer more to your counter argument.
blaisingm 6 months ago
Complexity, complexity, complexity. Did you know that cells are really complicated? Complexity, complexity, complexity....
TheInfidelis 11 months ago
"He knew nothing about genetics"
Well, duh! The discovery of genetics CONFIRMED evolution.
coltharpnicholas 11 months ago 26
wow, just a theory, a detailed explanation of the observed facts that has not been disproved in 150 years. Hows gravity doing ? Every fossil that fits in a sequence adds a new gap , lol How do you get a fossil human heart ?
SqueakerAlpha 11 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha Are you comparing the theory of gravity with all possible theories? If so I have a theory about underwear gnomes... It's probably bullshit so I suppose if I stop theorizing about it the underwear gnomes will go away. Without the theory of gravity the phenomenon still exists. We cannot say the same about the theory of evolution; at least not yet. Tesla did not accept Einstein's theories of relativity. Such theories appeared 200 years earlier in philosophy, not science.
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
@crazycatlady667 since a theory in science is a tested and verified explanation for what is observed then yes , the observed item continues in the absence of a theory, what else would happen ? gravity has no real theory, its practical application is understood and there is some maths to calculate what should happen at certain scales, but gravity fails at quantum scales and may fail at very large scales. Evolution beats gravity by miles as a scientific theory.
SqueakerAlpha 11 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha Just for the sake of argument lets say you're right. That still doesn't explain why God would create evolution. :O
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
@crazycatlady667 which God ? and before you claim there is only one , God himself in the bible admits other Gods exist, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before ME" , since God (the christian one) can not lie there must be other actual Gods.
SqueakerAlpha 11 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha God? What God(s)? I thought God(s) didn't exist? How can God make statements about himself let alone other gods if he doesn't exist? Wow, you read the Bible!? ... I wish I could do that. :O
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
@crazycatlady667 Easy! ....just pick it up and read, Simples! lol!
MrsSWB10 10 months ago
@MrsSWB10 I don't know how to read (sniff) =' (
crazycatlady667 10 months ago
@crazycatlady667 Er... how do you manage to type words then? :-? (scratches head)
MrsSWB10 10 months ago
@MrsSWB10
Beats me! :O
But I've been perplexing linguists, psychiatrists, lexicographers and neurologists for years! I don't even know if I'm making words. CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND THIS!?!? AM I MAKING ANY SENSE!?!? Gawd this is frustrating... :O
crazycatlady667 10 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha "Thou shalt have no other Gods before ME"
What he means is that NO other being or angel shall rule like a god before him other than him. he didn't mean there are OTHER gods.
MrsSWB10 10 months ago
Lol, simmons says he isnt a christian, and i'm a green dragon while we're pretending
Feralus69 1 year ago 24
Darwin does not say we descended from monkies, what a dumbass.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago 2
I think the Discovery Institute is a massive conspiracy to indirectly discredit religion.
Behe and Warren probably go home after speaking and just laugh it up at anyone they actually convinced.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago 2
This guy has published books and he says, 'evolution is just a theory, not a fact.'
I completely comply with Professor Farnsworth when he says, 'I don't want to live on this planet anymore.'
LukeShetler 1 year ago 2
@LukeShetler
"I completely comply with Professor Farnsworth"
Agreed!
"Yes they have! It's called astrolopithicus africanis!"
hahahahahahahahhahaha
roont 11 months ago
This moron does not know the definition a Theory in sceince.
How could this Simmon get a degree of Doctor?
The moron does not know about Human reproduction, he is making stuff up.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio As Neil Tyson said, not all doctors are smart.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago 3
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
The scary part of this is not that the moron is who appear to not know anything, or worse, do know science but fundamentalist and ideology make him lie and use pseudo science to subdue all secular progress in this country. If for some reason Sarah Palin, Mike Hucabee, or Met Romney become president, it is these people who will be setting polices in these country.
When that happen we must say goodbye science and welcome to the Inquisition of the middle Ages again.
JerezJulio 1 year ago 2
And this Simmons is a real physician who actually take care of Human?
I fill Pity of those unfortunate who has the bad luck of going to a doctor with some serious illness and have this wackjob as a physician.
I never thought I will come across to an University educated Man so poorly informed.
What Moron, what university did this idiot Graduated from?
JerezJulio 1 year ago 2
Damn Meyers is forced to challenge such an elementary view.
capoman1 1 year ago
LOL, a theory by P.Z's very own definition allows you to make predictions!
Exactley what predictions has evolutionary theory made?
Ohh the atheists will go for the technical win with a little concept known as "retrodictions", but in the end it is par for the course where modern science is concerned!
If any of you egghead atheists can point to one Theory that you swear by that has been proven incontrivertably- then you win, until then, Science is just a mathmatical religion!
commonsensrules 1 year ago
@commonsensrules
Well the predictions of fossil locations and genetic makeup can only be made subject to finding the right specimen. Still, saying "I predict a mammalian fossil will only ever occur between X and Y million years ago in the fossil record" IS a prediction.
Theories don't get 'proved'- you're still not understanding what a theory is! The theory of gravitation has never been proved but that doesn't discourage you from gettin an airplane. Science does not equal atheism.
chebob2009 1 year ago
@chebob2009
Valid points indeed, but to clarify the concept i'm trying to point out to those that believe evolution is the driving force behind mans existance is this- There are absolutely no real world examples of macroevolution, not one, not ever, and some how they want to apply the concept of micro evolution as if it were the same-it is not!
Until a clear example of macro evolution is brought forth the theory can not be seen as an answer, and therefore must be seen as flawed!
commonsensrules 1 year ago
@commonsensrules
Ok but macro-evolution means it happens over millions of years. What type of evidence would you expect? Well you're entitled to your opinion but I'm afraid you're not the one who decides if the theory is flawed- the scientific community is the only place these things are decided and evolution is almost completely accepted as a fact by biologists- I often get the journal 'Nature' and about 50% of the articles treat evolution as a fact.
chebob2009 1 year ago
@commonsensrules
And might I add, macro-evolution is a necessary implication of mirco-evolution UNLESS there were some reason to believe that genes cannot mutate beyond a certain point (so species could never transition to other species). Know you of such a constraint?
chebob2009 1 year ago
@commonsensrules There is no such things as "proven incontrovertibly" in any discipline outside of math.
Study human Chromosome 2. Look up Ken Miller's presentation on the subject and you'll see what science means when it speaks of predictions (it's not about fortune telling or seeing the future, it's about logical conclusions and expectations based on factual evidence).
GermanChocolateCake 8 months ago
Evolution= the atheists religion!
commonsensrules 1 year ago
The problem nowadays is that everybody gives different meanings to many words without knowing ethimology . Incredible how Mr. Myers does not know
that the word ¨Theory¨comes from the greek word: Theorein, that means to contemplate or to observate without making a practical movement. He is afraid of calling evolution Hypothesis as it should be known.
Rigelcentauri58 1 year ago
@Rigelcentauri58
That's a shame that the greeks didn't invent modern scientific terminology- modern scientists did. Otherwise, you might have a point.
chebob2009 1 year ago
@chebob2009 I do. They would be angry to hear how some poeple destroy their beautiful language.
Rigelcentauri58 1 year ago
@Rigelcentauri58
It's called the evolution of language (no pun intended). That's like saying any englishman (i.e me) should be angry with everyone in the USA for misusing the english language- language has never been seen as an absolute guideline. It's a dynamic framework. You don't have a point because it doesn't matter what a word was originally used for- all you need to know is the context in which it is BEING used. I could list hundreds of english words which are now used 'wrongly'
chebob2009 1 year ago
@chebob2009 ¨Used wrongly¨, YOUR OWN WORDS, not mine, but I mentioned it first. You remind me the words of Voltaire : ¨the number of delinquents does not justify the felonies¨
Rigelcentauri58 1 year ago
@Rigelcentauri58
Well done, it's called a joke. I even used the inverted commas to make sure!
chebob2009 1 year ago
@chebob2009 Allright!. Live long and prosper.
Rigelcentauri58 1 year ago
4:15 That loud "smack" in the background was PZ facepalming. You may not have heard that over your OWN.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago 2
no whale transitional fossils?!?!?!?
Simmons, you are an ignorant , lying, two faced nut case.
you know nothing about evolution and from your words you now very little about biology in general.
stop teaching, get your head out of your ars and go back to grammar school.
you dont even understand what is meant by the word theory as used in science.
you are as dumb as a box of rocks.....and that is an insult to the rocks!
Simmons....just shut the fuck up and sit down, you have nothing more to say.
zencat999 1 year ago
Anyone that has even a pedestrian understanding of biology, natural history, the methodology of science, or even reasoned arguments will undoubtedly be astonished at the sheer dishonesty pouring from Simmons' mouth. What a disgrace to humanity.
kryptoknightmare 1 year ago
"A theory that science is disproving."
Disproving with all those hundreds of studies being published each week that prove evolution?
Also, he claims he's not a Christian, yet he supports ID and he's part of the Discovery Institute? I call bullshit. They're a Christian institution that does nothing but try to package Creationism into the box of Intelligent Design and spread it like propaganda. He says he believed in evolution for 40 years? It's hard to believe any liar from DI.
Klazzt 1 year ago
"its a theory"
now i really cant believe simmons has a degree in biology...wht an idiot ?
captaindisguise 1 year ago
I love the description of this vid... Eviscerates, annihilates, destroys, defenistrates. Haha Meyers totally raped this guy.
marsjacobvolta 1 year ago
Someone from the Discovery institute saying "I'm not a christian, and I'm not on any mission..." seems VERY unbelievable to me... I'm just saying.
TheStigma 1 year ago
Simmons argument:
(1) Confuse theory and fact
(2) Forgets about vestigial organs despite being a physician
(3) Be completely uninformed about the fossil record
(4) Use complexity of closure of ductus arteriosus as proof against evolution
(5) Repeat fossil record misinformation.
Chimpdaddy 1 year ago
@Chimpdaddy (6) Make fool of self on radio.
(7) Go home and cry in closet.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
Every single sentence out of Simmons mouth made me cringe at his lack of knowledge on the topic. I only have a high school education on evolution (as I am in high school now), and even I could see that Simmons was full of shit.
MidoriFan10 1 year ago
full of ad hominem
chsoo92 1 year ago
Simmons is a fucking RETARD. Thanks Jeebus I live in Canada. god (too bad there is'nt one) help the US of A, our god soaked southern cousins.
InverStone 1 year ago
Simmons is amazing...an outright bald-faced liar. The gall of this disgusting man...unbelievable.
Bookwyrm86 1 year ago
For somebody that is not a "christian", this guy sure does sound ignorant.
He doesn't even understand the distinction between the concept of scientific theory and scientific law or fact.
judoyodan 1 year ago
Simmons: "Darwin's theory has been changed at some points". "Most people don't know this". Hence: "It's handy to act as if it hasn't changed, as most people don't know it has". FOR CRYING OUT LOUD
ErSchTsp 1 year ago 5
Being senior fellow at the Discovery Institute is like being team captain of the Clippers.
bcgonynor 1 year ago 2
this idiot simmons has a PhD?!?!?!?!?!?
no wonder the USA is at the bottom of education.
zencat999 1 year ago 5
@zencat999 I think they fucked it up and said he had one - the time omst people take to get a PhD, this fucker spent learning to spell it.
Buddhabright 1 year ago
@zencat999 He's a medical doctor, he doesn't own a PhD, thankfully
Noproblemos 1 year ago
Everytime a fossil gap is filled it gives the creationists 2 new gaps to point out.
Its sooo infuriating debating these idiots
ultimatumjs 1 year ago 2
I don't know if I should be thumbing this video up or down...
GummoNZ 1 year ago
Excuse me Mr. physician? Please read this fucking list :
The Recurrent laryngeal nerve,
Endogenous retroviruses, Goose Bumps,
Jacobson's Organ, Junk DNA, The Auriculares muscles,
The Plantaris Muscle, Wisdom Teeth, The Coccyx and the The Appendix. Thank you.
c0rp53f4c3 1 year ago 4
@c0rp53f4c3 ugh formatting :(
c0rp53f4c3 1 year ago
Was there a bit skipped from video 1 to 2?
coasterpro 1 year ago
@coasterpro I noticed that too. Cut out the end of PZ opener
VictorEchoNovember79 1 year ago
Wow! He doesnt even know what a theory is.
BabySatch1 1 year ago 65
This has been flagged as spam show
@BabySatch1 wow ... you do not know what a tjeory is!
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
Creationists: Please learn what the word "theory" means. *facepalm*
AustratheistX 1 year ago 97
@AustratheistX I prefer using the word "model", as it gives a better place forus to begin with.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@AustratheistX Please... do tell. = )
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
@AustratheistX it's an utterly pathetic argument. i mean...facepalm doesn't even cover it. how sad is it that this man is apparently a doctor and doesn't know the meaning of the word theory? worrying. & note how he says something along the lines of 'physics is delving into the unknown...so is science.' DERPPP. another one that made me giggle: 'darwin wouldn't be published nowadays.' really? a scientist with 19th century scientific knowledge wouldn't be published now? ARE YOU SOME KIND OF GENIUS?
ilytopy 8 months ago
This "creationist" is a Doctor? Just proves a that you can be well educated and still be an idiot!
He has absolutely no idea how evolution works and builds one straw-man after another. What a waste of PZ Meyers time!
speerdali 1 year ago
Newton's works wouldn't be published today, how the hell is that relevant?
tml4873 1 year ago
Lol, this advertisement right in the middle sure makes it sound like this radio station is unbiased and fair, doesnt it?
Etimos 1 year ago
Lol! "And you'll notice he uses the word theory over and over again instead of the word fact".
Right there, that alone disqualifies him from speaking on the subject of science. He doesnt even understand the most basic terminology, or rather he probably does but is intentionally confusing the colloquial use of the word Theory with the scientific term.
Etimos 1 year ago
Good christ, and it doesnt get any better from there, does it? He talks about going from what was it, new york to LA and skipping all the stops and restrooms and diners in between, and yet THAT IS *HIS* BELIEF! He believes that the passenger was magically poofed into new york by god's own wiggly fingertips! And he doesnt even realize this?! And then about birth and trial and error? Has this man ever seen an animal giving birth?! What a fucking retard, birth is a touchy and dangerous business!
Etimos 1 year ago