Your challenge is accepted. I will do what I can to further this two part video. Wish it was translated into my native language. Is it at all possible for me to do this via dotsub or any other service?
One reason science (and scientists) get a bad name, is because they are associated with ideologies and institutions that apply newly developed technologies for ill purpose. Humans by nature are predatory, sadistic and self-annihilating (put under the right conditions). As much technology has been developed to control, kill and destroy life as has been to save and preserve it. Science is a benign means... certainly not the culprit of misplaced discovery. Lust of power and domination are.
Hey C0nc0rdance, there are plenty of positive image of science in the cinema industry : Doc Brown ( Back to the future, sort of positive ), Dana Scully ( X files ), Daniel Jackson and Samantha Carter ( Stargate movie and tv show ), The four character in The Big bang theory, Stewie ( Family Guy ), Dr Frankenstein, Dr Jekyll ... Oups I loose track.
Forty years, using a manufactured planted Piltdown Man HOAX (1913-53) as the "missing link" to satisfy "irrefutable evidence" is not sloppy science, it's Criminal Fraud, constituting a Crime Against Humanity. Proof of scientific demonic water boarding as a technique to install an Evil Illusion into the minds of humanity, are the diabolical frauds steadily dripped to sustain the illusion of having a "missing link", enabling Godforsaken Nazis to teach an Evil Illusion, as Scientific Fact.
Favorited and Liked. I completely see where you're coming from. Promoting rationality in an irrational world is difficult. You ever wonder why people who don't believe are portrayed as fools in the media? Because being grounded in reality is perceived as a bad thing. You're just raining on their fantasy parade!
The masses are ignorant. So the media has to appeal to that audience. Thus they perpetuate that ignorance with more ignorant media. Why do they do that? Because we ar in a monetary system. They have to make money. We are living in the wrong paradigm. Time to shift from a monetary economic system to a resource based economy. I hope you are aware of this. If not...research it.
OH YEAH, and of course Outbreak. Dustin Hoffman! AND it's based on The Hot Zone which is a (mostly) true story, so hell yeah. OKAY I promise I'm done listing movies.
Scientists who are even slightly portrayed in a positive light are almost always the cause of the conflict to begin with, by doing something sciencey without understanding the consequences of their actions. Walter Bishop (and William Bell) on Fringe, Nicholas Rush on SGU, Gaius Baltar (and it's questionable whether he is even portrayed in a "good" light) from BSG, virtually every character on Eureka.... Bruce Banner AKA The Hulk is a good guy, but he made himself a monster, etc, etc, etc.
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, even Iron Man (movies) he wouldn't have enemies if he hadn't made the suit in he first place. Evolution has a Biologist as it's centerpiece, but he created a horrible vaccine. Mr. Fantastic got himself and his friends mutated. Jurassic Park, Splice, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and The Butterfly Effect have science stars with self-caused conflict. The Fountain has a star who must abandon his research on his dying wife, science is not the cause but not the solution either.
Avatar is the only movie I can think of where the scientists are unequivocally the "good guys" and didn't cause the main conflict in the movie, and didn't make things worse, and were essentially "right." Go Sigourney Weaver!
@Guardian0487 err correction, a scientist opening a pandora box trying to cure cancer with whatever the hell virus it was made them in the first place. 1 scientist cleaning up another scientists catastrophic mess doesn't seem like a "positive" portrayal of science to me.
@Guardian0487 Wait, really? Huh, didn't realize that. May watch Legend again later.
Well then in that case, I can't really think of any portrayals of science in a truly positive light in the movies, and thus Ken Hovind needs to STFU about only negative religious potrayals in Hollywood. Great listing there too, I think this is a great topic to delve in, the positive and negative potrayals of religion and science in movies.
6:07 Huh, good point about science in movies. Sure, most of the time it's portrayed as a potential pandora's box at times because that's fun and explorative entertainment, but I can't think of many... well, near any movies where religion is portrayed in an equally and unapologetically negative light.
Any political candidate in my country who would openly say that they don't accept the theory of evolution (or any other accepted scientific theory) would get laugh out of their political carrier.
Also, the AIDS map you show is incorrectly interpreted.
You will see that that highest HIV prevalances are in the S.A., Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zambia. Of these only Mozambique has a (simple) majority Catholic population.
Protestantism is the overwhelming majority in the rest.
The prevalence of Aids in this region is far more complex than you imagine, but is at least partly due to a genetic predisposition.
I love myth busters but i found as the series got more popular they would occasionally do this science warning thing in a half jesty way when ever they would explain a scientific principle. As if it was some dirty act.That pissed me off so much i wanted to puke. Im not sure if they do it any more.
I fucking love your videos, good work on being awesome. But i have to disagree with your notation that because large numbers of people are becoming less scientific two opposing camps are forming. I think its more probable that being scientific is becoming more fashionable and acceptable in some groups. The conflict comes from the massive numbers of conservatives or dirty hippies that have all ways been around spotting that some people wont swallow there shit as eagerly any more.
Good video. But to be fair, not all people are interested in science For example, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with, say, a doctorate in Biblical Archaeology or Ancient Languages, wouldn't know the relationships between amino acids and proteins or electrons and atoms. They may have known something about it at one time, but have forgotten since it isn't in their field of study. However, being anti-science is another thing entirely.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. As for your challenge, I've passed your channel on to my young, scientifically-minded son so that he can have authoritative logic at the ready when someone at school (or otherwise out in the world) confronts him with pseudoscience, irrationality and other uselessness. Rock on, c0nc0rdance, and long live the scientific method.
I hate anti-intellectualism...I'm proud and glad of being a know-it-all, and prefer to question than accept. It's better to be cynical than gullible. If I ever manage to become a dictator, I'll dump at least half of my income to scientific research, and tax religion a maddening amount.
You are trying to prove that the USA science contributions are declining.. your example is piss poor. US held the majority of science research in the early 1900s because it was one of the few doing science research....
THUS... other countries began doing this too and the proportion of the US contribution decrease. This is normal.
So spitting out facts doesnt always prove a point. But someone with half a brain will probably be tricked. my only complaint.
@majortom321 Your assertion is valid, however the data point he uses it not from the early 1900s, its from 1983. That's a 32% decline in 23 years, and I feel that indicates something beyond more countries entering the competition. Maybe you can dig up some statistics and sources that show the rate of change for US paper output and compares it with various competing nations and share them with us.
not to offend but what was the thing @4:40 ? it looked a bit like a mobile... but i don't comprehend it... what is it supposed to model? is it simply an expression of perspective?
Here are the minimum requirements for passing as a licensed practitioner of medicine in Australia:
Year 11 and 12 study of Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics
6 years of nothing but study at med school. This covers Human Anatomy (the structure and organs), Physiology (How the anatomy works), Pathology (What can go wrong with Anatomy or Physiology such as bacteria, genetics, etc) and Psychology (mind).
I think that lasers being focused soundwaves question confuses most people. I thin if you ask them if they are focused light, most people will actually get it correct.
Not because they know about lasers, but because the whole focused thing rings true. and with focused lights they are all like 'Aaah yeah, that was it!' With focused sound they are all like 'Uh... well it was focused stuff! Wasn't it something else? Nah, this sounds right.'
I think the main problem is that we don't have enough publicaly funded science in the public interest. Corporations are doing a great deal to demonize and create distrust of science - especially environmental science.
Also - it is false to frame GMO activists as anti-science. The science is not in yet on GMOs and hasn't even begun on the rapid dissemination of nanotech for instance.
I am very techno and science-philic but there is a disconnect.
Wow... to say "What difference does it make" about Evolution is hard whilst (in the US at least) a nobody gets elected who answers that to "Are you christian?"
Actually I think a charismatic non-christian COULD be elected in the US if they had the balls to actually try. And had the charisma to pull it off. It's not about religion as much as people think, if you ask me.
The religious right may be extremely vocal, but they actually are a SMALLER group then all the atheists combined. (Even though religious people in general are a much larger group, most don't belong to (or even like) the religious right.)
In fact actually think alot of Americans would LOVE to see some blowback against the religious right. People are sick of them, if a politician actually both gave them a kick in the nuts and had good ideas, he might actually get alot of votes (provided he isn't seen as hostile to moderate religious people.)
I propose all scientific minds work together on a sure fire way to kill the cancer which is destroying humanity. Religion and superstition. Once those two things are abolished from current society, then intellectual advancement can finally go unhindered, and advancement towards a technological and understanding utopia would be that much closer.
The little influence Muslim countries have over the rest of the world is not a threat. Nuclear weapons are the only real problem and all of them combined don't have even 1 thousandth of USA's nukes.
It doesn't take many nuclear weapons to radically change the face of the Earth for future generations. One, maybe.
The Malaysians, Iraqi, Iranians, Turks, Syrians, Egyptians, and Pakistanis might disagree with your first statement. The last estimate I read said that 22% of the world's population, 1.2 billion people, are considered as Muslim.
I'm not sure what you mean by "radically change the face of the earth". A big nuke can blast and irradiate a large city, but it can't affect the whole planet much.
Yes, there are a lot of Muslims but I was responding to claims that Muslims are going to take over/destroy the world. In the worst case they can provoke other countries to nuclear war, but that's about the limit of their power. The US and Russia have enough nukes to sterilize the whole planet many times over.
@Miranox2 well, depending on the model of bomb or missle, there could be enough nuclear fallout to render greater areas of land uninhabitable for some time, especially if the weather spreads radioactive materials even further.
@C0nc0rdance To restate what you said about nuclear weapons in other words: We may have thirty matches and they may only have three, but when it comes to nuclear warfare, we're all standing waste deep in gasoline.
I know the US likes to think it's the center of the universe but muslim countries want nuclear weapons to strengthen alliances and deter their neighbors they cannot and will not hit the US so we should stay out of it. Considering that Israel has violated more international laws than any other country ever I think it would be nice to strike a little fear in them to keep them in line.
I am very confident. I am very confident that we are screwed. We are going the wrong way. Islam is taking over more and more territory and if there is one group worse than fundamental Christians it is fundamental Muslims. Kiss the humans species goodbye.
Archeology, geology, and other earth sciences, typically uncover evidence for the real historical events rather than those depicted in Biblical tales. They also uncover evidence for similar tales found in Greek mythology.
The evidence found greatly contrasts the mythical accounts however, both for Greek and Biblical mythology. We should always understand this for what it is, the exaggeration and obsfucation of events in order to sell something to those more susceptible to fraud.
lol. Honestly, I think the biggest reason why there aren't more scientists in congress right now is because scientists make lousy liars. lol. They are trained to find the truth, not fabricate "a spin" on a negative truth. They simply tell it like it is. I don't think it's because of the public image of scientists. Love the vid!
@Ripley747 I think your spot on. Scientists discover, politicians spin.Being popular does not require scientific, mathematical, or even superb linguistic skills. It requires a different kind of intelligence- connecting with people, dynamics of submission and dominance, and charisma (qualities scientist dont usually concern themselves with ).
Just to share my (REAL) story. The other day, I had a chat with my sis's boyfriend (a christian, to boot). As expected from bigoted believer, he held some hatred to scientist and call them "unethical" anti-christ. He believes that the world pandemic (such as swine flu and avian flu) is caused by genetically modified common flu, INTENTIONALLY spread to 3rd world countries by rich pharmaceuticals so that it would be their money tree...
*sis, if you read this, dont add idiot to our family tree*
ADN is a code, I don't know if what I'm saying is 100% correct, but I'd say that if you write a 100 lines of computer code, you can have many different behavior as a function of the exact content of the program. length is not the only criterion
The same length of pair bases can encode for two genes or one depending of stop codons etc. If you have two proteins instead of one, how do you call that if not some increase in information ?
Why would you expect the US to maintain it's commanding lead in the number of scientific papers produced from the 80s?
The world today is completely different than then, what with the ability to have multinational projects thanks to computers. Also, one of the reasons we were so far ahead there is because of the people fleeing Europe during WW II. People die.
I agree that the drop off is sharp, but I don't think it has quite the implications you are saying it does
I would like for people to hear the opinion of a Christian that works with science and tech everday. From what I see is that the Gov't is doing what pleases the masses. NOt what is right or wrong. They are trying to people please. Christain has been take away to the point that we can not practice what we want to do in public because of what our Gov't has said is unpleasing to the un-believes. Also If you knew the first thing about Christanty you would know that we only believe in one ghost......
The Holy Ghost. Also Science has been able to discover that the events in the Bible is are true. So the mix of the masses is what I believe you need to target. NOt Christains. So I say as a christian that science is what makes me believe the bible even more. All of the thoeries I have seen about are so unlikely. Also they can never explain all events. And the Bible can. So what do you have to lose by believing in God and the Bible's teaching? Nothing at all.The un-believer has everything to lose
"So what do you have to lose by believing in God and the Bible's teaching?"
- Dignity and a competent grasp on reality. So science has been able to prove the accuracy of the Bible, you say? Then I'm sure you can name me some four-legged insects (Lev. 11:22-23) and provide some genetic justification that bats are in fact birds (Lev. 11:13-19, Deu. 14:11-18).
@Kytescall, perfect response! How does one communicate with those who are proud of their lack of dignity and lack of a competent grasp on reality? Well said!
Don't forget about "Bible genetics" - when goats copulate while looking at streaked rods, the result is streaked, speckled, and spotted baby goats (Genesis 30:37-39).
@Kytescall There are several verses that are translated in our English Bibles to imply that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word sherets, translated as "insect" is not nearly as specific as the term "insect" would imply. The word really refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures,27 in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents,28 ,
If you're just going to say "look it up yourself" I can go ahead and tell you the same. Was it you who claimed that the contents of the Bible are scientifically verified? Research this in actual academic papers, not random websites written uneducated apologists.
@Kytescall nope I said events of the bible scientist are find to be true. If you are mad at God that is your business I was here stating information that I have read and watch videos of and not here on YT
I am not mad at God any more than I am mad at goblins. I do however get annoyed when I see people misinformed about science, or worse, misinforming others.
So tell me. Name an event in the Bible that scientists have found to be true.
There's a lot of crap in Exodus. Be more specific please.
I can tell you already though that there is no evidence for the splitting of the Red Sea, and the idea that it took Moses and company 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan is absolutely hilarious. The distance between the two is about 220 miles. If you walk about 12 hours a day, you can make it in 6 days. Even if you're traveling slowly with a lots of people, it will not take you 40 days, let alone 40 years.
@Kytescall The misunderstanding of the translatioin Reed Sea which is about 20 from where they believe they cross is an area called the Reed Sea. Also there was about 40000 people that traveled and they left and went to Mt Sinia and Camped in front of the Mt Exodus 18. NOwhere in there did it say how long. Also they were waiting on the sign from God when to leave the wilderness. It wasn't that they walked straight from one location to another.
Any confusion between "Red" and "Reed" only makes sense in English. Are the Hebrew words spelt alike too? Anyway it is beside the point. There is no evidence for the splitting of any sea, unless "splitting" is a mistranslation as well, in which case I'm not sure what you're left with. And I find it impossible to believe that they would stop a mere few days' walk from their destination and sit on their bums for 40 years. Unless "40 years" is another mistranslation.
@Kytescall 29 insects,30 rodents,31 and reptiles.32 The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive. I found this by googling the topic and was real easy to find so. So I am not taking credit for the info. I am taking only that it was real easy to find the answer which is the name of the game.
Whenever facing to people asking me to go church or to believe God, I told them I am busy to do something. I never asked them back to understand science or to show how science works. 6 months ago, after watching Youtube videos like yours, I have stood up and told them the true story that I am believing in evolution, an atheist. The reaction from them seems like death penalty from their God. Do you know a way to tell them the truth without hurting their feelings?
Great video!!! I have just found out understanding science and working with scientific projects are gifts from nature. They are not subjects for everyone. In order to believe/understand a simple math to complicate calculation, people need to practice them over and over. If everyone is smart enough to understand science, the world gets a big trouble. You and I feel we have to work hard because of the fact that out there we have people we have to take good care of with our gifts.
For all you theists, why would anything that rationalists say offend you? If your jesus, and god are so immovable in their foundation, you shouldn't feel threatened or offended. If you claim the existence of god is so obvious, why are we left out? I can assure you I've kept an open heart to let "god" in, but it's strange that nothing happens. An overactive imagination is a dangerous thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Science is amazing, too bad the big issues that are supposed to go through the scientific process like global warming are proven to be lies and that the data was manipulated. At least no scientists ever tried lying about evolution; Wait, what about Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor,, Pithecanthropus Erectus, Nebraska Man, Hahnhöfersand Man and many more I can't think of off the top of my head.. guess i'll just have to go back to trusting the time tested Bible that has been true for more than 2000 yrs
By the way, what does the Bible have to say about breast cancer therapeutics? Microchips? Agricultural technology? Non-invasive surgery? Pathology, toxicology, astrophysics, HIV/AIDS, materials science, alternative energy production, endangered species, effective population size, powered flight, planetary exploration, ending poverty, infectious disease, natural disasters, and environmental protection?
Actually anybody who believes in the bible loves science. It's when people who claim to be scientists who have an agenda and lie to the public is what I have a problem with. Breast cancer therapeutics, microchips, agricultural technology, non-invasive surgery, pathology, toxicology, materials science etc. etc. I have absolutely no problem with it. But if you're going to be a scientist, you have to go where the facts lead you. Evolution excludes intelligent design, not very scientific now is it?
Then how do you know that what you're being taught right now isn't a lie, and that what scientists think is fact now, will turn out to be false in the future. Think about it, don't let the scientific community fool you into thinking that they're very scientific.
It's not a lie, it's a inference gained from examining the world. They examine things, test things, reproduce results to test for accuracy ect.
I agree that something we know now may turn out to be a false assumption but not because the scientific community lied about it.
Take for example the four elements, plato didn't lie to everyone when he talked about them. That was the best he could come up with, with the tools he had and the knowledge at the time. Now we know there are many more.
Actually the things that the atheistic scientists observe they don't know if it is accurate or not. They're relying on their 5 senses to tell them that what they see, touch, smell, hear, and taste is all true. These messages are sent to the brain which says "yes what my senses are telling me is true". But this is circular reasoning. They can not tell you that what they observe is accurate if one of their senses is incorrect, they would have no way of knowing it.
"They're relying on their 5 senses to tell them that what they see, touch, smell, hear, and taste is all true."
What do you rely on then? :)
Yes, science is empirical. When scientists are doing science they are studying natural processes empirically.
There are other "ways of knowing" such as personal revelation, lore, logical conclusions based on assumptions, etc. When scientists do those things, they aren't doing science.
There is no way of testing evolution, reproducing evolution etc. If you look at irreducible complexity you will see that there are countless things in the world as we know that could not have evolved. I'll give you an example. DNA, we know how the chemicals (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine) bind together, but we don't know how they arrange themselves to create information in the DNA itself. It is a written language like a computer program. U should infer that it came from an intelligence
as u say we don't know hoe they arrange themselves - so how do you come from "we don't know how the arrange themselves" to they cannot arrange themselves?? that's quite a leap more so than the leap that they arrange themselves - cause if the can bind themselves (as u concede) than it's more probable that they can arrange themselves than it is that they cannot ...
It's the same concept as me writing one of Shakespeares plays. You can tell me how the ink binds to the paper, but can not tell me how the play was written without using your inductive reasoning to determine that an intelligence wrote it. The same applies to DNA.
So, since we understand there is a culture whose language is protein sequencing, we have written documentation of this culture and their language and other design projects, and the intelligent beings that continue to write in a very similar language still exist and can be studied - we can infer that an individual from this culture wrote DNA?
Look - if an alien or god came down and "wrote" DNA - we just don't have empirical evidence for this and assuming so is a dead end to studying NATURE.
So help me understand chemical evolution... something happened and we got some basic amino acids.... and with these amino acids there is no DNA to give instructions to the amino acids to form protein to a cell that doesn't exist.
What I DO know about chemical evolution is that non-living atoms certainly CAN arrange themselves in complex ways given the right conditions. Little machines can self-assemble as well as nano-tubes, etc. under controlled conditions.
However, Bada and others are interesting in what MAY have happened on earth a long time ago - under probable conditions.
There are competing ideas, but they have little to do with biological evolutionary theory.
Oh and believing that "aliens" sequenced our DNA, and that they evolved from natural processes is circular reasoning. The same problems apply to their chemical evolution.
p.s. Stay tuned for my first YouTube video showing how it is impossible for aliens to reach earth even if they did exist!
"Oh and believing that "aliens" sequenced our DNA..."
Sorry about the assumption. Recently "Creation Science" became "Intelligent Design" in an effort to be able to teach it in schools - and the party line has become "an intelligent designer" which includes the possibility of ALIENS instead of "GOD" so they aren't accused of violating the establishment clause of the constitution when they sell "Of Pandas and People" to public schools.
I used to work in a research group doing nano-science during grad school. A great number of non-living things can "arrange themselves" given the right conditions. Fun stuff! However, at that point we're talking about "chemical evolution" not biological evolution.
Chemical evolution is a bit mysterious, and many "creation science" folks assume that if chemical evolution is mysterious than biological evolution must be false. (Silly)
Well for the DNA to arrange itself, there must be a mechanism. Please elaborate and explain this mechanism as to how DNA arranges itself.
Also, you're not being scientific. Scientists go wherever the data leads them, you're excluding intelligent design, therefore you're not looking at ALL possibilities. Inferring that an intelligent designer created everything is a possibility. Denying this fact shows that you're bias and your opinion is subjective.
"Inferring that an intelligent designer created everything is a possibility."
Sure it is. Most scientists (even evolutionary biologists as far as I know) think that there is a creator god of some sort.
However, that isn't science because it's a HUGE assumption. Part of the philosophy of science is Occam's Razor. Scientists describe stuff based on observable evidence, they do not include ALL possibilities to muck up their theories.
So if you can admit that there is a possibility of an intelligent designer, then why are you so heart-set on claiming there is no God? Your belief in evolution isn't one based on facts or logic. Your problem is that there is a God, and if there is a God then you have to answer for all the sinful things you've done in your life. Jesus said it best (this is from memory). "Evil men do not want to believe in God because he brings their sins to the light when they want to keep them in the dark".
"why are you so heart-set on claiming there is no God?"
Evolutionary theory - even chemical evolution and abiogenics - isn't a means of asserting that there is no God or gods.
It does conflict with very specific interpretations of creation stories (take your pick which of the two version in Genesis you want to believe), but it is not an assault on God...just like believing that the moon does not shine with it's own light or pi =/= 3, is not an assault on God.
The thing is that my own personal beliefs about theism have very little to do with evolution. It's really a separate issue for me. For goodness sakes, if the Pope thinks "Creation Science" is just some sort of quirky "cultural phenomena" and doesn't see it as an attack - I'd think the average theist could somehow integrate it or at least tolerate the idea that alleles change in frequency over time.
However, if you want to talk atheism instead of evolution - so be it.
I'm going to friend-add you to YouTube cuz at least you're somewhat competent compared to who I usually talk to. Is there any way we can open a private chat or anything?
the only thing that as a concept is a possibility (from ID) is irreducible complexity - but that hasn't been found yet -- and it can't stand really cause everything can be irreducible if we don't know hot to reduce it yet....
the eye example always gives me a smirk as the mechanism for it's development has been explained already (a very plausible and probable mechanism) but the ID crows still uses the eye as an example ...
There is nothing observed to date that supports ID as a possibility. If you really studied science you would understand this. To make assertions about science in the way you have is both dishonest and frankly childish. You really don't have much of a science education do you?
"If you look at irreducible complexity you will see that there are countless things in the world as we know that could not have evolved."
Irreducible complexity is basically just an argument that boils down to an "argument from ignorance" a common logical fallacy.
Also, when flagellum and the eye are the most sited "irreducibly complex" structures you wonder where these "countless things" are, because simpler functional structures exist in nature.
What you're talking about is co-option. In the example of bacterial flagellum, it takes about 40 components to have this mechanism. The next closest structure found is bacteria is in the shape of a needle, this mechanism transfers DNA from the bacteria into the host cell etc. But the problem is, this mechanism has only 10 components. You would need to have evolved an additional 30 to get the flagellum. Show me the evolutionary process, or a better example of co-option for flagellum.
"Show me the evolutionary process, or a better example of co-option for flagellum."
Still classic "argument from ignorance" - Are you saying that an intelligent creator (of some sort) must have zapped the flagellum into existence based on evidence even though there are simpler working structures, which fits into evolutionary theory?
"God-in-the-gaps" means that we no longer try to find natural mechanisms. I mean - thunder is made by Thor - so why bother studying weather?
The argument you're presenting is that chance did everything. If you look at the fine tuning of the universe, the odds of there being another planet capable of sustaining intelligent life, all the way down to the complexity of DNA itself, you'll quickly realize that the odds of this, are impossible.
Believing in chance is much more illogical than believing in God.
Who said anything about "chance" - your using classic "creation science" straw man arguments.
Mutations are usually called "random", but their are mechanisms for them. They can be identified and tracked (such as lactose tolerance). Natural selection has everything to do with environmental pressures and being sexy. :)
This isn't about evolution OR God - as if it's a choice. Scientists try to discover natural processes and describe them. That's all. The supernatural is a different field.
Whatever, if I roll some dice i'll call it chance, you can call it random. Given the scientific achievements and massive increase in knowledge of the world in the 150 years that darwinian evolution has been around, give me 1 example of a beneficial mutation in which information in the genome was increased.
This can include all birds, animals, fish, trees, plant-life etc. etc. etc. Literally billions of possibilities of this happening on a daily basis. And all I need is 1 example :)
lactose tolerance isn't an example of a beneficial mutation in which information in the genome is INCREASED. What you're referring to I assume is lactose INtolerance, which is in no way beneficial.
I need an example of something that was lactose intolerant, and then became lactose tolerant where genetic information was beneficially increased, not re-arranged.
MOST people in the world are lactose intolerant. The gene for lactose tolerance was mapped back to families in what is now Finland. That's why the only group on earth that is MOSTLY lactose tolerant are Norther Europeans. Almost nobody from Asia is lactose tolerant and most Africans are not either, nor Native Americans, nor....
What you're talking about is micro-evolution, there is no increase in genetic information. There is still the same amount of genetic information, the genome containing lactose intolerance was re-arranged so some people are now lactose tolerant. Just like we now have lima-beans that are genetically modified to be resistant to frost, that is an example of a micro-mutation. Again, no new information was gained, just old information re-arranged.
The whole "information" thing is just an extension of the "creation science" argument that evolution violates a misrepresented version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So, can we dispense with it please?
There is no HUGE difference between "micro" and "macro" - there is no magical reason why mutations that cause speciation are impossible while those that cause variation within species are possible.
I'm going to pass the buck again - sorry about that. However, if you go to "Talk Origins" and search for "speciation" there is an incredibly thorough (I just skimmed it myself) discussion of the topic as well as a few examples of directly observed speciation in plants.
Most evidence of speciation is inferred, but I've never heard of some sort of mechanism that would block it from happening - even though many creation scientists insist it is impossible ("after their own kind").
excuse me sir, but the introduction of a new trait in an organism (lactose tolerance in your example) is definitely increase of information (whatever your definition of information here is). And please stop reusing this long debunked argument. We know many mechanisms by which an organism can increase it's number of bases, on which mutations and natural selection can work easily.
you're just copy-pasting stuff you heard about. please think by yourself next time.
I really don't know how to put it more simply... let's say I have 100 genomes. But i'm allergic to nuts. Then I have a child, who still only has 100 genomes, but is not allergic to nuts. Where was the INCREASE in genetic information?
a genome is the collection of your genes, first of all, not a gene or whatever.
the allergy to nuts is not 100% genetic, thus this example is bogus anyway. I guess I was refering to the fact that if you have intolerance or some sort of genetic problem, it could be the fact that a certain protein is no more expressed due to a deficient gene or something like that. there is a difference of information between the two.
@telanius, "but we don't know how they arrange themselves to create information in the DNA itself." Your comment is based on ignorance. Not only do we know how DNA information is represented, we manipulate it every day in the lab. Take a course in genetics or microbiology and you might understand. You blanket indictment of science and scientists is just offensive and you should be embarrassed and ashamed.
According to your precious book pi equals three, bats are birds, snakes eat dirt, hares are ruminant ("chew the cud") and when goats copulate while looking at streaked rods, the result is streaked, speckled, and spotted baby goats... Yeah, right...
Nobody said that scientists were super-human and that science has never dealt with dishonesty or simply being mistaken.
The difference is that religion generally DOES claim to be above such things, and people believe it despite all evidence to the contrary. Religion does not include (and many times rejects) review and criticism. Do you even know how many changes have been made to your "time tested" Bible or how it was compiled or how theology has changed over the last 2000 years?
The Bible and many religious texts as well as ancient stories, have meaning. I enjoy finding out bits and pieces of information about Norse mythology because many of my ancestors are from Scandinavia.
However, the moment I decide that wearing a Rune will protect me from real harm, spreading blood on a battle field will ensure victory, or insisting that biology teachers mention that "some people" believe the earth is the dead carcass of a frost giant - there is a bit of an issue isn't there?
I would like to think that I am doing something about it. I am working to become a high school science and math teacher.
I am an atheist in Texas, a rare breed in my neck of the woods. I'm not saying that makes me superior, but I certainly won't "teach the controversy" or gloss over any known details of the origin of the earth and of species that are unsavory to Christians.
I hope that I will be able to inspire an appreciation for logical thought and critical reasoning in my students.
Great video, as always. I will disagree with your comment about Greenpeace. Nuclear energy, as it stands today, is not a viable option for the future. Most plants are crumbling and dangerous, or will be in the near future and it take 20 -30 years for a new plant to become viable after planning and building. Not to mention the cost to build all those plants. On top of all that they become an instant security risk.
Investing in greener and safer options is the smartest way forward.
Nuclear energy is not just essential for the production of energy.
Where do you think medical isotopes come from? (For for instance cancer treatments). Or the materials involved in PET scans?
Broaden your view before forming an opinion!
PS. Your claims require evidence. All buildings crumble eventually, I don't see the bearing on your argument. Same with the security risk, which seems exaggerated as well.
I tried talking to my friend about the problem of people replacing rational ideas with beliefs of one's preference, but she was adamant that belief in the spiritual world is a benefit to our society beyond what science can ever achieve. She said that I'm offensive when I talk about religion because it feels like a debate when I talk about it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The US is declining in importance in the scientific world"
"Declining"! That's an evidential statistic that demonstrates the intellectually negative effect that the escalation in atheism of recent years has had upon the US
During the 1950's the predominantly Creationist population of US students scored as good or better than the rest of the world
Today's apes are embarrassingly sub par, having been surpassed by even some 3rd world countries
It's reaffirmed by private schoolers routing publc
I'm pretty sure the statistic has more to do with the fact that other countries are catching up.
The 50's were a *boom* time for science for a good reason - namely all the German scientists that relocated.
Right now we're a huge brain drain on other countries, a very large number of American scientists were not born in the U.S. and many do not have U.S. citizenship but work in the U.S.
Well, even if you're correct, I wasn't talking about scientists. I was talking about students, both high school & college. In the past, American students most often outperformed the rest of the world. The 60's came... the cultural revolution... then students were taught that they're apes & it has coincided with Americas academic nosedive
Authoritarian NWO elites who push Marxism also push evo & have intentionally set up the schools to produce dummies. Intelligent people aren't easily tyrannized
Intelligent people don't make obvious errors like confusing correlation and causation. America was never ahead because it wasn't teaching evolution. If that were true, why is America falling behind other, evolution-teaching nations?
"students were taught that they're apes & it has coincided with Americas academic nosedive"
So, it's your reasoned analysis that teaching evolutionary theory causes students to do bad academically?
Perhaps we should give math and reading tests to evolutionary biologists and see how well they do against those who have never studied evolutionary biology and see what happens. :)
"In the past, American students most often outperformed the rest of the world."
You're also basically doing an "experiment" with no control group. If what you say is true, how can you assert that somehow "Americas academic nosedive" actually occurred because we were not out-competing other nations. Many "other nations" are doing a heck of a lot better than they were in the 50's.
Also, what metric are we using for academic success? Pedagogy has changed dramatically.
The day of that debate was a bleak indicator of the future.
I will make videos, with real contributions, when I am able.
Though I reluctantly agree that the world of man is as stupid as the stats you supplied imply, any yes/no questionnaire with that witch question on it, should be thrown out, as far too stupidly written, to even take. If you wanted these vids to be taken seriously, you should have not mentioned it. I really liked your intention, and message summation. Please try again.
GREAT as always, each new Conc' video is an instant favorite, it never fails. Keep it up, few things are more important than the advancement of rationality and science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's what science gets when it advocates forced sterilization of some people (up until 1974 in Sweden for example) and make a nuclear bomb that is subsequently used on innocents, twice in a row, and which they called : Trinity, for the kicks. Or the scientists experimenting on humans, be it in nazi camps or the japanese in china.
Just examples.
Scientists are not better people, but they have more power.
I'm totally pro-science by the way, I'm just saying I can understand why people aren't.
@heloizyjhenifer Shouldn't the people who are against science because of those things also be against religion. They've done just as much bad if not worse over the years.
My viewpoint is from France. You'll hardly find religious people under the age of 60 here.
Religion is ridiculed but science is often regarded with mefiance, and I think rightfully so. Mind you, I am often attributed Scientism for the opinions I express around here e.g saying that we should trust science. But, trusting science is *not* trusting scientists.
Science doesn't advocate, it's a method of understanding the natural world. Yes, occasionally scientists have done awful things, but for science? Sometimes men just do evil when given the opportunity. Like Mengele, probably one of the worst bastards in the history of humanity. Auschwitz prisoner Alex Dekel said of him:
"I have never accepted the fact that Mengele himself believed he was doing serious work — not from the slipshod way he went about it. He was only exercising his power"
@NoAntecessor but, how cruel his methods may have been, he has found data about human survival that would be very hard to get these day. Like finding out how long a human can do without air or other cruel things. NASA used some of his studies.
Thank you but I think you know exactly what I meant. Sterilization has more scientific justifications than ethical ones.
What was going on in Sweden was medical doctors using those scientific reasons. You can replace science with scientists in my statement if it makes you happy; retrospectively it was what I should have used.
Anyway, my only point is that scientists have more power over other people's lives than non scientists do, and this is the main concern.
Well, my counterpoint is that scientists are *not* generally evil like people continuously try to portray them as. Yes, a few scientists have gone on to do evil things, but the majority are working for the betterment of mankind. Eugenics and similar programs are NOT science, they are the application of (from my perspective) twisted values which are inherently subjective. Science doesn't advocate! It describes.
Also, what about Trinity? Are you referring to inadvertent civilian fallout?
Trinity was the name of the first A-bomb test. Christened so by the scientists who devised it. Another one (maybe the first H-bomb, not sure) was called Kaaba (reference to islam's cult place).
Is it the way to go when you want to sound like humanistic scientists?
The very use of the bomb on innocents is and understandably so the greatest of taboos for america. It's absolutely inexcusable, for ever. And it is a great example of what a secular nation can do when backed by scientists.
Your challenge is accepted. I will do what I can to further this two part video. Wish it was translated into my native language. Is it at all possible for me to do this via dotsub or any other service?
Krappman 1 month ago
Ima go to my library and read a few books.
weurRTG 1 month ago
One reason science (and scientists) get a bad name, is because they are associated with ideologies and institutions that apply newly developed technologies for ill purpose. Humans by nature are predatory, sadistic and self-annihilating (put under the right conditions). As much technology has been developed to control, kill and destroy life as has been to save and preserve it. Science is a benign means... certainly not the culprit of misplaced discovery. Lust of power and domination are.
TheMonkeyMedicine 2 months ago
Hey C0nc0rdance, there are plenty of positive image of science in the cinema industry : Doc Brown ( Back to the future, sort of positive ), Dana Scully ( X files ), Daniel Jackson and Samantha Carter ( Stargate movie and tv show ), The four character in The Big bang theory, Stewie ( Family Guy ), Dr Frankenstein, Dr Jekyll ... Oups I loose track.
M4dM4rx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Forty years, using a manufactured planted Piltdown Man HOAX (1913-53) as the "missing link" to satisfy "irrefutable evidence" is not sloppy science, it's Criminal Fraud, constituting a Crime Against Humanity. Proof of scientific demonic water boarding as a technique to install an Evil Illusion into the minds of humanity, are the diabolical frauds steadily dripped to sustain the illusion of having a "missing link", enabling Godforsaken Nazis to teach an Evil Illusion, as Scientific Fact.
waketheoblivious 7 months ago
i am embarrassed to be human.. lol
Ptondus 7 months ago
Don't worry guys, the Illuminati is on this shit :)
Narkolepzy 8 months ago
5:18 Therefore creationism spreads HIV. lol syllogism
Ghi102 9 months ago
Comment removed
ThePuppyTurtle 9 months ago
Favorited and Liked. I completely see where you're coming from. Promoting rationality in an irrational world is difficult. You ever wonder why people who don't believe are portrayed as fools in the media? Because being grounded in reality is perceived as a bad thing. You're just raining on their fantasy parade!
mymatryoshka 9 months ago
Why is it that, when people are talking about 'scientists', they're always referring to Beta-scientists, and not alpha- or gamma-scientists??
daddyleon 1 year ago
A refreshing dose of clear thinking. How un-Youtube like. Be ready for the torrent of ignorant hate :p
JossJossJoss1 1 year ago
The masses are ignorant. So the media has to appeal to that audience. Thus they perpetuate that ignorance with more ignorant media. Why do they do that? Because we ar in a monetary system. They have to make money. We are living in the wrong paradigm. Time to shift from a monetary economic system to a resource based economy. I hope you are aware of this. If not...research it.
gorfjorf2112112 1 year ago 3
OH YEAH, and of course Outbreak. Dustin Hoffman! AND it's based on The Hot Zone which is a (mostly) true story, so hell yeah. OKAY I promise I'm done listing movies.
Guardian0487 1 year ago
AND INDEPENDENCE DAY! OH HELL YEAH I THOUGHT OF ONE!
Guardian0487 1 year ago
Scientists who are even slightly portrayed in a positive light are almost always the cause of the conflict to begin with, by doing something sciencey without understanding the consequences of their actions. Walter Bishop (and William Bell) on Fringe, Nicholas Rush on SGU, Gaius Baltar (and it's questionable whether he is even portrayed in a "good" light) from BSG, virtually every character on Eureka.... Bruce Banner AKA The Hulk is a good guy, but he made himself a monster, etc, etc, etc.
Guardian0487 1 year ago
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, even Iron Man (movies) he wouldn't have enemies if he hadn't made the suit in he first place. Evolution has a Biologist as it's centerpiece, but he created a horrible vaccine. Mr. Fantastic got himself and his friends mutated. Jurassic Park, Splice, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and The Butterfly Effect have science stars with self-caused conflict. The Fountain has a star who must abandon his research on his dying wife, science is not the cause but not the solution either.
Guardian0487 1 year ago
Comment removed
Guardian0487 1 year ago
Avatar is the only movie I can think of where the scientists are unequivocally the "good guys" and didn't cause the main conflict in the movie, and didn't make things worse, and were essentially "right." Go Sigourney Weaver!
Guardian0487 1 year ago
Oh wait! I Am Legend.
Paur 1 year ago
@Paur nah he made the zombies/vampires in the first place, so I don't think he counts as a "positive" portrayal.
Guardian0487 1 year ago
@Guardian0487 err correction, a scientist opening a pandora box trying to cure cancer with whatever the hell virus it was made them in the first place. 1 scientist cleaning up another scientists catastrophic mess doesn't seem like a "positive" portrayal of science to me.
Guardian0487 1 year ago
@Guardian0487 Wait, really? Huh, didn't realize that. May watch Legend again later.
Well then in that case, I can't really think of any portrayals of science in a truly positive light in the movies, and thus Ken Hovind needs to STFU about only negative religious potrayals in Hollywood. Great listing there too, I think this is a great topic to delve in, the positive and negative potrayals of religion and science in movies.
To tvtropes!
Paur 1 year ago
6:07 Huh, good point about science in movies. Sure, most of the time it's portrayed as a potential pandora's box at times because that's fun and explorative entertainment, but I can't think of many... well, near any movies where religion is portrayed in an equally and unapologetically negative light.
Paur 1 year ago
i got a cut onion next to my bed...but that is not due to sickness it has to do with i like the smell of it
bjam89 1 year ago
Any political candidate in my country who would openly say that they don't accept the theory of evolution (or any other accepted scientific theory) would get laugh out of their political carrier.
greyman000 1 year ago
Also, the AIDS map you show is incorrectly interpreted.
You will see that that highest HIV prevalances are in the S.A., Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zambia. Of these only Mozambique has a (simple) majority Catholic population.
Protestantism is the overwhelming majority in the rest.
The prevalence of Aids in this region is far more complex than you imagine, but is at least partly due to a genetic predisposition.
How easy it is to fall prey to faulty reasoning.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
The onion will be no more effective than any of the remedies offered to you by modern science once you actually have the flu.
If the onion makes you feel better, why not use it? At least you are doing something, and placebo is a real measurable effect.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
I love myth busters but i found as the series got more popular they would occasionally do this science warning thing in a half jesty way when ever they would explain a scientific principle. As if it was some dirty act.That pissed me off so much i wanted to puke. Im not sure if they do it any more.
antonyneal 1 year ago
I fucking love your videos, good work on being awesome. But i have to disagree with your notation that because large numbers of people are becoming less scientific two opposing camps are forming. I think its more probable that being scientific is becoming more fashionable and acceptable in some groups. The conflict comes from the massive numbers of conservatives or dirty hippies that have all ways been around spotting that some people wont swallow there shit as eagerly any more.
antonyneal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Big Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the energy revolution!
ivylsp 1 year ago
Good video. But to be fair, not all people are interested in science For example, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with, say, a doctorate in Biblical Archaeology or Ancient Languages, wouldn't know the relationships between amino acids and proteins or electrons and atoms. They may have known something about it at one time, but have forgotten since it isn't in their field of study. However, being anti-science is another thing entirely.
highstakes136 1 year ago
Thank you, thank you, thank you. As for your challenge, I've passed your channel on to my young, scientifically-minded son so that he can have authoritative logic at the ready when someone at school (or otherwise out in the world) confronts him with pseudoscience, irrationality and other uselessness. Rock on, c0nc0rdance, and long live the scientific method.
sohcahtoa1970 1 year ago
I hate anti-intellectualism...I'm proud and glad of being a know-it-all, and prefer to question than accept. It's better to be cynical than gullible. If I ever manage to become a dictator, I'll dump at least half of my income to scientific research, and tax religion a maddening amount.
MetroidfanCNC 1 year ago 3
@MetroidfanCNC I'd support you :D
shad0wdawg 1 year ago
OK STOP RIGHT THERE.. at 5:25..
You are trying to prove that the USA science contributions are declining.. your example is piss poor. US held the majority of science research in the early 1900s because it was one of the few doing science research....
THUS... other countries began doing this too and the proportion of the US contribution decrease. This is normal.
So spitting out facts doesnt always prove a point. But someone with half a brain will probably be tricked. my only complaint.
majortom321 1 year ago
@majortom321 Your assertion is valid, however the data point he uses it not from the early 1900s, its from 1983. That's a 32% decline in 23 years, and I feel that indicates something beyond more countries entering the competition. Maybe you can dig up some statistics and sources that show the rate of change for US paper output and compares it with various competing nations and share them with us.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
Great video, I wonder if i can incorporate your challenge into giving my channel some content.
groovyengineer 1 year ago
not to offend but what was the thing @4:40 ? it looked a bit like a mobile... but i don't comprehend it... what is it supposed to model? is it simply an expression of perspective?
morthim 1 year ago
Why don't these anti science idiots go live in the woods without basic health needs?
HybridD91 1 year ago
People always fear that which they do not understand. This is why many people are afraid of things like science science and technology.
norcofreerider604 1 year ago
What do Doctors really know, after all?
Here are the minimum requirements for passing as a licensed practitioner of medicine in Australia:
Year 11 and 12 study of Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics
6 years of nothing but study at med school. This covers Human Anatomy (the structure and organs), Physiology (How the anatomy works), Pathology (What can go wrong with Anatomy or Physiology such as bacteria, genetics, etc) and Psychology (mind).
2 years of residency.
Compare that to your stupid lore.
Robtehman 1 year ago 2
@Robtehman lol
HybridD91 1 year ago
I think that lasers being focused soundwaves question confuses most people. I thin if you ask them if they are focused light, most people will actually get it correct.
Not because they know about lasers, but because the whole focused thing rings true. and with focused lights they are all like 'Aaah yeah, that was it!' With focused sound they are all like 'Uh... well it was focused stuff! Wasn't it something else? Nah, this sounds right.'
Ignorant, but not as badly so as it sounds.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time...
Start airing this again! And the problem will be solved.
slitor 1 year ago
I think the main problem is that we don't have enough publicaly funded science in the public interest. Corporations are doing a great deal to demonize and create distrust of science - especially environmental science.
Also - it is false to frame GMO activists as anti-science. The science is not in yet on GMOs and hasn't even begun on the rapid dissemination of nanotech for instance.
I am very techno and science-philic but there is a disconnect.
CityzenJane 1 year ago 2
the internet is a series of tubes!
People simply don't trust or like people that are smarter. Every discussion seems to hold insult because ignorance is not validated or accepted.
CityzenJane 1 year ago
This video is concerning. It makes me want to go and start educating all my friends!
twinkazz 1 year ago 3
"God: Hidden Science" - Google it!
byScrooby 1 year ago
Wow... to say "What difference does it make" about Evolution is hard whilst (in the US at least) a nobody gets elected who answers that to "Are you christian?"
RazielKain 2 years ago 21
@RazielKain
Actually I think a charismatic non-christian COULD be elected in the US if they had the balls to actually try. And had the charisma to pull it off. It's not about religion as much as people think, if you ask me.
The religious right may be extremely vocal, but they actually are a SMALLER group then all the atheists combined. (Even though religious people in general are a much larger group, most don't belong to (or even like) the religious right.)
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak
In fact actually think alot of Americans would LOVE to see some blowback against the religious right. People are sick of them, if a politician actually both gave them a kick in the nuts and had good ideas, he might actually get alot of votes (provided he isn't seen as hostile to moderate religious people.)
Shavarnarak 1 year ago 2
I propose all scientific minds work together on a sure fire way to kill the cancer which is destroying humanity. Religion and superstition. Once those two things are abolished from current society, then intellectual advancement can finally go unhindered, and advancement towards a technological and understanding utopia would be that much closer.
bulbinking 2 years ago 2
The little influence Muslim countries have over the rest of the world is not a threat. Nuclear weapons are the only real problem and all of them combined don't have even 1 thousandth of USA's nukes.
Miranox2 2 years ago
It doesn't take many nuclear weapons to radically change the face of the Earth for future generations. One, maybe.
The Malaysians, Iraqi, Iranians, Turks, Syrians, Egyptians, and Pakistanis might disagree with your first statement. The last estimate I read said that 22% of the world's population, 1.2 billion people, are considered as Muslim.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago 11
I'm not sure what you mean by "radically change the face of the earth". A big nuke can blast and irradiate a large city, but it can't affect the whole planet much.
Yes, there are a lot of Muslims but I was responding to claims that Muslims are going to take over/destroy the world. In the worst case they can provoke other countries to nuclear war, but that's about the limit of their power. The US and Russia have enough nukes to sterilize the whole planet many times over.
Miranox2 2 years ago
@Miranox2 well, depending on the model of bomb or missle, there could be enough nuclear fallout to render greater areas of land uninhabitable for some time, especially if the weather spreads radioactive materials even further.
Krogoth04 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance To restate what you said about nuclear weapons in other words: We may have thirty matches and they may only have three, but when it comes to nuclear warfare, we're all standing waste deep in gasoline.
roadkillrabbit69 1 year ago
I know the US likes to think it's the center of the universe but muslim countries want nuclear weapons to strengthen alliances and deter their neighbors they cannot and will not hit the US so we should stay out of it. Considering that Israel has violated more international laws than any other country ever I think it would be nice to strike a little fear in them to keep them in line.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
I am very confident. I am very confident that we are screwed. We are going the wrong way. Islam is taking over more and more territory and if there is one group worse than fundamental Christians it is fundamental Muslims. Kiss the humans species goodbye.
Eugensdiet 2 years ago
Hehe. "The week-long education in about immunology and infectious disease that you are about to receive."
ibtrippen 2 years ago
Archeology, geology, and other earth sciences, typically uncover evidence for the real historical events rather than those depicted in Biblical tales. They also uncover evidence for similar tales found in Greek mythology.
The evidence found greatly contrasts the mythical accounts however, both for Greek and Biblical mythology. We should always understand this for what it is, the exaggeration and obsfucation of events in order to sell something to those more susceptible to fraud.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
if you really believe that I have some waterfront property to sell ya
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
Sorry, I'm not a fan of beaches, lakes, rivers, or large bodies of water.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
lol. Honestly, I think the biggest reason why there aren't more scientists in congress right now is because scientists make lousy liars. lol. They are trained to find the truth, not fabricate "a spin" on a negative truth. They simply tell it like it is. I don't think it's because of the public image of scientists. Love the vid!
Ripley747 2 years ago 52
@Ripley747 I think your spot on. Scientists discover, politicians spin.Being popular does not require scientific, mathematical, or even superb linguistic skills. It requires a different kind of intelligence- connecting with people, dynamics of submission and dominance, and charisma (qualities scientist dont usually concern themselves with ).
TheMonkeyMedicine 2 months ago
Just to share my (REAL) story. The other day, I had a chat with my sis's boyfriend (a christian, to boot). As expected from bigoted believer, he held some hatred to scientist and call them "unethical" anti-christ. He believes that the world pandemic (such as swine flu and avian flu) is caused by genetically modified common flu, INTENTIONALLY spread to 3rd world countries by rich pharmaceuticals so that it would be their money tree...
*sis, if you read this, dont add idiot to our family tree*
caseyrainer 2 years ago
Great vid series!
DesertLaser 2 years ago
ADN is a code, I don't know if what I'm saying is 100% correct, but I'd say that if you write a 100 lines of computer code, you can have many different behavior as a function of the exact content of the program. length is not the only criterion
The same length of pair bases can encode for two genes or one depending of stop codons etc. If you have two proteins instead of one, how do you call that if not some increase in information ?
Cheers
rienafairefr 2 years ago
I have a question for you.
Why would you expect the US to maintain it's commanding lead in the number of scientific papers produced from the 80s?
The world today is completely different than then, what with the ability to have multinational projects thanks to computers. Also, one of the reasons we were so far ahead there is because of the people fleeing Europe during WW II. People die.
I agree that the drop off is sharp, but I don't think it has quite the implications you are saying it does
KelvinGreyheart 2 years ago
I would like for people to hear the opinion of a Christian that works with science and tech everday. From what I see is that the Gov't is doing what pleases the masses. NOt what is right or wrong. They are trying to people please. Christain has been take away to the point that we can not practice what we want to do in public because of what our Gov't has said is unpleasing to the un-believes. Also If you knew the first thing about Christanty you would know that we only believe in one ghost......
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
The Holy Ghost. Also Science has been able to discover that the events in the Bible is are true. So the mix of the masses is what I believe you need to target. NOt Christains. So I say as a christian that science is what makes me believe the bible even more. All of the thoeries I have seen about are so unlikely. Also they can never explain all events. And the Bible can. So what do you have to lose by believing in God and the Bible's teaching? Nothing at all.The un-believer has everything to lose
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
"So what do you have to lose by believing in God and the Bible's teaching?"
- Dignity and a competent grasp on reality. So science has been able to prove the accuracy of the Bible, you say? Then I'm sure you can name me some four-legged insects (Lev. 11:22-23) and provide some genetic justification that bats are in fact birds (Lev. 11:13-19, Deu. 14:11-18).
Kytescall 2 years ago 2
@Kytescall, perfect response! How does one communicate with those who are proud of their lack of dignity and lack of a competent grasp on reality? Well said!
Stromatolite577 2 years ago
Don't forget about "Bible genetics" - when goats copulate while looking at streaked rods, the result is streaked, speckled, and spotted baby goats (Genesis 30:37-39).
KristoffDoe 2 years ago
Oh yeah! Forgot about that gem!
Kytescall 2 years ago
@Kytescall There are several verses that are translated in our English Bibles to imply that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word sherets, translated as "insect" is not nearly as specific as the term "insect" would imply. The word really refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures,27 in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents,28 ,
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
So? It still refers to "creeping things" that fly and have four legs. What do you think they're talking about? A crippled griffin?
Kytescall 2 years ago
@Kytescall If you read it all by googling the topic you will find the rest I will not post something that has a whole website telling all.
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
If you're just going to say "look it up yourself" I can go ahead and tell you the same. Was it you who claimed that the contents of the Bible are scientifically verified? Research this in actual academic papers, not random websites written uneducated apologists.
Kytescall 2 years ago
@Kytescall nope I said events of the bible scientist are find to be true. If you are mad at God that is your business I was here stating information that I have read and watch videos of and not here on YT
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
I am not mad at God any more than I am mad at goblins. I do however get annoyed when I see people misinformed about science, or worse, misinforming others.
So tell me. Name an event in the Bible that scientists have found to be true.
Kytescall 2 years ago
@Kytescall Exodus
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
There's a lot of crap in Exodus. Be more specific please.
I can tell you already though that there is no evidence for the splitting of the Red Sea, and the idea that it took Moses and company 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan is absolutely hilarious. The distance between the two is about 220 miles. If you walk about 12 hours a day, you can make it in 6 days. Even if you're traveling slowly with a lots of people, it will not take you 40 days, let alone 40 years.
Kytescall 2 years ago
@Kytescall The misunderstanding of the translatioin Reed Sea which is about 20 from where they believe they cross is an area called the Reed Sea. Also there was about 40000 people that traveled and they left and went to Mt Sinia and Camped in front of the Mt Exodus 18. NOwhere in there did it say how long. Also they were waiting on the sign from God when to leave the wilderness. It wasn't that they walked straight from one location to another.
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
Any confusion between "Red" and "Reed" only makes sense in English. Are the Hebrew words spelt alike too? Anyway it is beside the point. There is no evidence for the splitting of any sea, unless "splitting" is a mistranslation as well, in which case I'm not sure what you're left with. And I find it impossible to believe that they would stop a mere few days' walk from their destination and sit on their bums for 40 years. Unless "40 years" is another mistranslation.
Kytescall 2 years ago
Moses. History's worst navigator.
middlekk 2 years ago
@Kytescall 29 insects,30 rodents,31 and reptiles.32 The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive. I found this by googling the topic and was real easy to find so. So I am not taking credit for the info. I am taking only that it was real easy to find the answer which is the name of the game.
Godlyguitarman 2 years ago
Whenever facing to people asking me to go church or to believe God, I told them I am busy to do something. I never asked them back to understand science or to show how science works. 6 months ago, after watching Youtube videos like yours, I have stood up and told them the true story that I am believing in evolution, an atheist. The reaction from them seems like death penalty from their God. Do you know a way to tell them the truth without hurting their feelings?
Dreamrio 2 years ago
Great video!!! I have just found out understanding science and working with scientific projects are gifts from nature. They are not subjects for everyone. In order to believe/understand a simple math to complicate calculation, people need to practice them over and over. If everyone is smart enough to understand science, the world gets a big trouble. You and I feel we have to work hard because of the fact that out there we have people we have to take good care of with our gifts.
Dreamrio 2 years ago
For all you theists, why would anything that rationalists say offend you? If your jesus, and god are so immovable in their foundation, you shouldn't feel threatened or offended. If you claim the existence of god is so obvious, why are we left out? I can assure you I've kept an open heart to let "god" in, but it's strange that nothing happens. An overactive imagination is a dangerous thing.
1heersond 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science is amazing, too bad the big issues that are supposed to go through the scientific process like global warming are proven to be lies and that the data was manipulated. At least no scientists ever tried lying about evolution; Wait, what about Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor,, Pithecanthropus Erectus, Nebraska Man, Hahnhöfersand Man and many more I can't think of off the top of my head.. guess i'll just have to go back to trusting the time tested Bible that has been true for more than 2000 yrs
telanius 2 years ago
*Sigh* Yeah, you do that.
By the way, what does the Bible have to say about breast cancer therapeutics? Microchips? Agricultural technology? Non-invasive surgery? Pathology, toxicology, astrophysics, HIV/AIDS, materials science, alternative energy production, endangered species, effective population size, powered flight, planetary exploration, ending poverty, infectious disease, natural disasters, and environmental protection?
Not much science in that book, huh?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
I wonder, how many of the 'illiterates' do you actually reach with your (very nice) videos?
And with reach I mean convince.
Nerusai 2 years ago
Actually anybody who believes in the bible loves science. It's when people who claim to be scientists who have an agenda and lie to the public is what I have a problem with. Breast cancer therapeutics, microchips, agricultural technology, non-invasive surgery, pathology, toxicology, materials science etc. etc. I have absolutely no problem with it. But if you're going to be a scientist, you have to go where the facts lead you. Evolution excludes intelligent design, not very scientific now is it?
telanius 2 years ago
It was science which also found out they were fakes.
So I think the scientific community correcting its mistakes is quite valuable.
Xirbtt 2 years ago 7
Then how do you know that what you're being taught right now isn't a lie, and that what scientists think is fact now, will turn out to be false in the future. Think about it, don't let the scientific community fool you into thinking that they're very scientific.
telanius 2 years ago
It's not a lie, it's a inference gained from examining the world. They examine things, test things, reproduce results to test for accuracy ect.
I agree that something we know now may turn out to be a false assumption but not because the scientific community lied about it.
Take for example the four elements, plato didn't lie to everyone when he talked about them. That was the best he could come up with, with the tools he had and the knowledge at the time. Now we know there are many more.
Xirbtt 2 years ago
Actually the things that the atheistic scientists observe they don't know if it is accurate or not. They're relying on their 5 senses to tell them that what they see, touch, smell, hear, and taste is all true. These messages are sent to the brain which says "yes what my senses are telling me is true". But this is circular reasoning. They can not tell you that what they observe is accurate if one of their senses is incorrect, they would have no way of knowing it.
telanius 2 years ago
your trying to argue demonstrable science against metaphysics.
symelian 2 years ago
"They're relying on their 5 senses to tell them that what they see, touch, smell, hear, and taste is all true."
What do you rely on then? :)
Yes, science is empirical. When scientists are doing science they are studying natural processes empirically.
There are other "ways of knowing" such as personal revelation, lore, logical conclusions based on assumptions, etc. When scientists do those things, they aren't doing science.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
There is no way of testing evolution, reproducing evolution etc. If you look at irreducible complexity you will see that there are countless things in the world as we know that could not have evolved. I'll give you an example. DNA, we know how the chemicals (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine) bind together, but we don't know how they arrange themselves to create information in the DNA itself. It is a written language like a computer program. U should infer that it came from an intelligence
telanius 2 years ago
name one of the countless things ...
as u say we don't know hoe they arrange themselves - so how do you come from "we don't know how the arrange themselves" to they cannot arrange themselves?? that's quite a leap more so than the leap that they arrange themselves - cause if the can bind themselves (as u concede) than it's more probable that they can arrange themselves than it is that they cannot ...
symelian 2 years ago
It's the same concept as me writing one of Shakespeares plays. You can tell me how the ink binds to the paper, but can not tell me how the play was written without using your inductive reasoning to determine that an intelligence wrote it. The same applies to DNA.
telanius 2 years ago
So, since we understand there is a culture whose language is protein sequencing, we have written documentation of this culture and their language and other design projects, and the intelligent beings that continue to write in a very similar language still exist and can be studied - we can infer that an individual from this culture wrote DNA?
Look - if an alien or god came down and "wrote" DNA - we just don't have empirical evidence for this and assuming so is a dead end to studying NATURE.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
So help me understand chemical evolution... something happened and we got some basic amino acids.... and with these amino acids there is no DNA to give instructions to the amino acids to form protein to a cell that doesn't exist.
So which then came first? DNA or Protein?
telanius 2 years ago
"So help me understand chemical evolution..."
What I DO know about chemical evolution is that non-living atoms certainly CAN arrange themselves in complex ways given the right conditions. Little machines can self-assemble as well as nano-tubes, etc. under controlled conditions.
However, Bada and others are interesting in what MAY have happened on earth a long time ago - under probable conditions.
There are competing ideas, but they have little to do with biological evolutionary theory.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Get an education and stop asking for someone to educate you. Put some effort into it for pete's sake!
Stromatolite577 2 years ago
Oh and believing that "aliens" sequenced our DNA, and that they evolved from natural processes is circular reasoning. The same problems apply to their chemical evolution.
p.s. Stay tuned for my first YouTube video showing how it is impossible for aliens to reach earth even if they did exist!
telanius 2 years ago
"Oh and believing that "aliens" sequenced our DNA..."
Sorry about the assumption. Recently "Creation Science" became "Intelligent Design" in an effort to be able to teach it in schools - and the party line has become "an intelligent designer" which includes the possibility of ALIENS instead of "GOD" so they aren't accused of violating the establishment clause of the constitution when they sell "Of Pandas and People" to public schools.
(Didn't work.)
sinmantyx 2 years ago
only that u know that an intelligence wrote it cause it's demonstrable -- god is not....
symelian 2 years ago
"they cannot arrange themselves"
yep.
I used to work in a research group doing nano-science during grad school. A great number of non-living things can "arrange themselves" given the right conditions. Fun stuff! However, at that point we're talking about "chemical evolution" not biological evolution.
Chemical evolution is a bit mysterious, and many "creation science" folks assume that if chemical evolution is mysterious than biological evolution must be false. (Silly)
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Well for the DNA to arrange itself, there must be a mechanism. Please elaborate and explain this mechanism as to how DNA arranges itself.
Also, you're not being scientific. Scientists go wherever the data leads them, you're excluding intelligent design, therefore you're not looking at ALL possibilities. Inferring that an intelligent designer created everything is a possibility. Denying this fact shows that you're bias and your opinion is subjective.
telanius 2 years ago
"Inferring that an intelligent designer created everything is a possibility."
Sure it is. Most scientists (even evolutionary biologists as far as I know) think that there is a creator god of some sort.
However, that isn't science because it's a HUGE assumption. Part of the philosophy of science is Occam's Razor. Scientists describe stuff based on observable evidence, they do not include ALL possibilities to muck up their theories.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
So if you can admit that there is a possibility of an intelligent designer, then why are you so heart-set on claiming there is no God? Your belief in evolution isn't one based on facts or logic. Your problem is that there is a God, and if there is a God then you have to answer for all the sinful things you've done in your life. Jesus said it best (this is from memory). "Evil men do not want to believe in God because he brings their sins to the light when they want to keep them in the dark".
telanius 2 years ago
"why are you so heart-set on claiming there is no God?"
Evolutionary theory - even chemical evolution and abiogenics - isn't a means of asserting that there is no God or gods.
It does conflict with very specific interpretations of creation stories (take your pick which of the two version in Genesis you want to believe), but it is not an assault on God...just like believing that the moon does not shine with it's own light or pi =/= 3, is not an assault on God.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
If you're not assaulting God (I forget the french philosopher who said this) "To believe in God you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain".
So my question would be, what can atheism offer me?
telanius 2 years ago
The thing is that my own personal beliefs about theism have very little to do with evolution. It's really a separate issue for me. For goodness sakes, if the Pope thinks "Creation Science" is just some sort of quirky "cultural phenomena" and doesn't see it as an attack - I'd think the average theist could somehow integrate it or at least tolerate the idea that alleles change in frequency over time.
However, if you want to talk atheism instead of evolution - so be it.
cont.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
I'm going to friend-add you to YouTube cuz at least you're somewhat competent compared to who I usually talk to. Is there any way we can open a private chat or anything?
telanius 2 years ago
Sure - go ahead. I keep running out of comments and my comments are starting to get lost. :(
We're also getting off-topic from the vid...so friend away. :)
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Is there a way to private chat on YouTube with somebody? Or do we have to use a 3rd party program?
telanius 2 years ago
the only thing that as a concept is a possibility (from ID) is irreducible complexity - but that hasn't been found yet -- and it can't stand really cause everything can be irreducible if we don't know hot to reduce it yet....
the eye example always gives me a smirk as the mechanism for it's development has been explained already (a very plausible and probable mechanism) but the ID crows still uses the eye as an example ...
symelian 2 years ago
There is nothing observed to date that supports ID as a possibility. If you really studied science you would understand this. To make assertions about science in the way you have is both dishonest and frankly childish. You really don't have much of a science education do you?
Stromatolite577 2 years ago
"If you look at irreducible complexity you will see that there are countless things in the world as we know that could not have evolved."
Irreducible complexity is basically just an argument that boils down to an "argument from ignorance" a common logical fallacy.
Also, when flagellum and the eye are the most sited "irreducibly complex" structures you wonder where these "countless things" are, because simpler functional structures exist in nature.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
What you're talking about is co-option. In the example of bacterial flagellum, it takes about 40 components to have this mechanism. The next closest structure found is bacteria is in the shape of a needle, this mechanism transfers DNA from the bacteria into the host cell etc. But the problem is, this mechanism has only 10 components. You would need to have evolved an additional 30 to get the flagellum. Show me the evolutionary process, or a better example of co-option for flagellum.
telanius 2 years ago
"Show me the evolutionary process, or a better example of co-option for flagellum."
Still classic "argument from ignorance" - Are you saying that an intelligent creator (of some sort) must have zapped the flagellum into existence based on evidence even though there are simpler working structures, which fits into evolutionary theory?
"God-in-the-gaps" means that we no longer try to find natural mechanisms. I mean - thunder is made by Thor - so why bother studying weather?
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Your biggest problem is "Chance-in-the-gaps".
The argument you're presenting is that chance did everything. If you look at the fine tuning of the universe, the odds of there being another planet capable of sustaining intelligent life, all the way down to the complexity of DNA itself, you'll quickly realize that the odds of this, are impossible.
Believing in chance is much more illogical than believing in God.
telanius 2 years ago
Who said anything about "chance" - your using classic "creation science" straw man arguments.
Mutations are usually called "random", but their are mechanisms for them. They can be identified and tracked (such as lactose tolerance). Natural selection has everything to do with environmental pressures and being sexy. :)
This isn't about evolution OR God - as if it's a choice. Scientists try to discover natural processes and describe them. That's all. The supernatural is a different field.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Whatever, if I roll some dice i'll call it chance, you can call it random. Given the scientific achievements and massive increase in knowledge of the world in the 150 years that darwinian evolution has been around, give me 1 example of a beneficial mutation in which information in the genome was increased.
telanius 2 years ago
This can include all birds, animals, fish, trees, plant-life etc. etc. etc. Literally billions of possibilities of this happening on a daily basis. And all I need is 1 example :)
telanius 2 years ago
ACK - my account quit posting - it was like one of those dropped call commercials.
I already mentioned one: lactose tolerance
sinmantyx 2 years ago
lactose tolerance isn't an example of a beneficial mutation in which information in the genome is INCREASED. What you're referring to I assume is lactose INtolerance, which is in no way beneficial.
I need an example of something that was lactose intolerant, and then became lactose tolerant where genetic information was beneficially increased, not re-arranged.
telanius 2 years ago
MOST people in the world are lactose intolerant. The gene for lactose tolerance was mapped back to families in what is now Finland. That's why the only group on earth that is MOSTLY lactose tolerant are Norther Europeans. Almost nobody from Asia is lactose tolerant and most Africans are not either, nor Native Americans, nor....
sinmantyx 2 years ago
What you're talking about is micro-evolution, there is no increase in genetic information. There is still the same amount of genetic information, the genome containing lactose intolerance was re-arranged so some people are now lactose tolerant. Just like we now have lima-beans that are genetically modified to be resistant to frost, that is an example of a micro-mutation. Again, no new information was gained, just old information re-arranged.
telanius 2 years ago
The whole "information" thing is just an extension of the "creation science" argument that evolution violates a misrepresented version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So, can we dispense with it please?
There is no HUGE difference between "micro" and "macro" - there is no magical reason why mutations that cause speciation are impossible while those that cause variation within species are possible.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
I'm going to pass the buck again - sorry about that. However, if you go to "Talk Origins" and search for "speciation" there is an incredibly thorough (I just skimmed it myself) discussion of the topic as well as a few examples of directly observed speciation in plants.
Most evidence of speciation is inferred, but I've never heard of some sort of mechanism that would block it from happening - even though many creation scientists insist it is impossible ("after their own kind").
sinmantyx 2 years ago
excuse me sir, but the introduction of a new trait in an organism (lactose tolerance in your example) is definitely increase of information (whatever your definition of information here is). And please stop reusing this long debunked argument. We know many mechanisms by which an organism can increase it's number of bases, on which mutations and natural selection can work easily.
you're just copy-pasting stuff you heard about. please think by yourself next time.
rienafairefr 2 years ago
I really don't know how to put it more simply... let's say I have 100 genomes. But i'm allergic to nuts. Then I have a child, who still only has 100 genomes, but is not allergic to nuts. Where was the INCREASE in genetic information?
telanius 2 years ago
a genome is the collection of your genes, first of all, not a gene or whatever.
the allergy to nuts is not 100% genetic, thus this example is bogus anyway. I guess I was refering to the fact that if you have intolerance or some sort of genetic problem, it could be the fact that a certain protein is no more expressed due to a deficient gene or something like that. there is a difference of information between the two.
rienafairefr 2 years ago
@telanius, "but we don't know how they arrange themselves to create information in the DNA itself." Your comment is based on ignorance. Not only do we know how DNA information is represented, we manipulate it every day in the lab. Take a course in genetics or microbiology and you might understand. You blanket indictment of science and scientists is just offensive and you should be embarrassed and ashamed.
Stromatolite577 2 years ago
According to your precious book pi equals three, bats are birds, snakes eat dirt, hares are ruminant ("chew the cud") and when goats copulate while looking at streaked rods, the result is streaked, speckled, and spotted baby goats... Yeah, right...
KristoffDoe 2 years ago 2
Nobody said that scientists were super-human and that science has never dealt with dishonesty or simply being mistaken.
The difference is that religion generally DOES claim to be above such things, and people believe it despite all evidence to the contrary. Religion does not include (and many times rejects) review and criticism. Do you even know how many changes have been made to your "time tested" Bible or how it was compiled or how theology has changed over the last 2000 years?
sinmantyx 2 years ago 3
The Bible and many religious texts as well as ancient stories, have meaning. I enjoy finding out bits and pieces of information about Norse mythology because many of my ancestors are from Scandinavia.
However, the moment I decide that wearing a Rune will protect me from real harm, spreading blood on a battle field will ensure victory, or insisting that biology teachers mention that "some people" believe the earth is the dead carcass of a frost giant - there is a bit of an issue isn't there?
sinmantyx 2 years ago 2
I would like to think that I am doing something about it. I am working to become a high school science and math teacher.
I am an atheist in Texas, a rare breed in my neck of the woods. I'm not saying that makes me superior, but I certainly won't "teach the controversy" or gloss over any known details of the origin of the earth and of species that are unsavory to Christians.
I hope that I will be able to inspire an appreciation for logical thought and critical reasoning in my students.
NobillyT 2 years ago
Great video, as always. I will disagree with your comment about Greenpeace. Nuclear energy, as it stands today, is not a viable option for the future. Most plants are crumbling and dangerous, or will be in the near future and it take 20 -30 years for a new plant to become viable after planning and building. Not to mention the cost to build all those plants. On top of all that they become an instant security risk.
Investing in greener and safer options is the smartest way forward.
ruckty 2 years ago
Nuclear energy is not just essential for the production of energy.
Where do you think medical isotopes come from? (For for instance cancer treatments). Or the materials involved in PET scans?
Broaden your view before forming an opinion!
PS. Your claims require evidence. All buildings crumble eventually, I don't see the bearing on your argument. Same with the security risk, which seems exaggerated as well.
Nerusai 2 years ago
I tried talking to my friend about the problem of people replacing rational ideas with beliefs of one's preference, but she was adamant that belief in the spiritual world is a benefit to our society beyond what science can ever achieve. She said that I'm offensive when I talk about religion because it feels like a debate when I talk about it.
JRChadwick 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The US is declining in importance in the scientific world"
"Declining"! That's an evidential statistic that demonstrates the intellectually negative effect that the escalation in atheism of recent years has had upon the US
During the 1950's the predominantly Creationist population of US students scored as good or better than the rest of the world
Today's apes are embarrassingly sub par, having been surpassed by even some 3rd world countries
It's reaffirmed by private schoolers routing publc
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure the statistic has more to do with the fact that other countries are catching up.
The 50's were a *boom* time for science for a good reason - namely all the German scientists that relocated.
Right now we're a huge brain drain on other countries, a very large number of American scientists were not born in the U.S. and many do not have U.S. citizenship but work in the U.S.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Well, even if you're correct, I wasn't talking about scientists. I was talking about students, both high school & college. In the past, American students most often outperformed the rest of the world. The 60's came... the cultural revolution... then students were taught that they're apes & it has coincided with Americas academic nosedive
Authoritarian NWO elites who push Marxism also push evo & have intentionally set up the schools to produce dummies. Intelligent people aren't easily tyrannized
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Intelligent people don't make obvious errors like confusing correlation and causation. America was never ahead because it wasn't teaching evolution. If that were true, why is America falling behind other, evolution-teaching nations?
Kytescall 2 years ago
"students were taught that they're apes & it has coincided with Americas academic nosedive"
So, it's your reasoned analysis that teaching evolutionary theory causes students to do bad academically?
Perhaps we should give math and reading tests to evolutionary biologists and see how well they do against those who have never studied evolutionary biology and see what happens. :)
sinmantyx 2 years ago
"In the past, American students most often outperformed the rest of the world."
You're also basically doing an "experiment" with no control group. If what you say is true, how can you assert that somehow "Americas academic nosedive" actually occurred because we were not out-competing other nations. Many "other nations" are doing a heck of a lot better than they were in the 50's.
Also, what metric are we using for academic success? Pedagogy has changed dramatically.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
awe-inspiring video! Great job, and I agree. We need to tell this to everyone. Without science we are doomed.
Fr0zenLegend 2 years ago
Bravo! Good Video!
fegolem 2 years ago
The day of that debate was a bleak indicator of the future.
I will make videos, with real contributions, when I am able.
Though I reluctantly agree that the world of man is as stupid as the stats you supplied imply, any yes/no questionnaire with that witch question on it, should be thrown out, as far too stupidly written, to even take. If you wanted these vids to be taken seriously, you should have not mentioned it. I really liked your intention, and message summation. Please try again.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
Amazing video wonderful!
SuperSharko 2 years ago
GREAT as always, each new Conc' video is an instant favorite, it never fails. Keep it up, few things are more important than the advancement of rationality and science.
anglicantian 2 years ago
impressive
Wernerrrrr 2 years ago
awsome as always C0nc0rdance youre a pimp!!!!!!!!!!
me28andholding 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's what science gets when it advocates forced sterilization of some people (up until 1974 in Sweden for example) and make a nuclear bomb that is subsequently used on innocents, twice in a row, and which they called : Trinity, for the kicks. Or the scientists experimenting on humans, be it in nazi camps or the japanese in china.
Just examples.
Scientists are not better people, but they have more power.
I'm totally pro-science by the way, I'm just saying I can understand why people aren't.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
@heloizyjhenifer Shouldn't the people who are against science because of those things also be against religion. They've done just as much bad if not worse over the years.
darkdragonsoul99 2 years ago
Of course, and in fact they are.
My viewpoint is from France. You'll hardly find religious people under the age of 60 here.
Religion is ridiculed but science is often regarded with mefiance, and I think rightfully so. Mind you, I am often attributed Scientism for the opinions I express around here e.g saying that we should trust science. But, trusting science is *not* trusting scientists.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
Science doesn't advocate, it's a method of understanding the natural world. Yes, occasionally scientists have done awful things, but for science? Sometimes men just do evil when given the opportunity. Like Mengele, probably one of the worst bastards in the history of humanity. Auschwitz prisoner Alex Dekel said of him:
"I have never accepted the fact that Mengele himself believed he was doing serious work — not from the slipshod way he went about it. He was only exercising his power"
NoAntecessor 2 years ago 2
@NoAntecessor but, how cruel his methods may have been, he has found data about human survival that would be very hard to get these day. Like finding out how long a human can do without air or other cruel things. NASA used some of his studies.
philateliceun 2 years ago
Comment removed
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
Thank you but I think you know exactly what I meant. Sterilization has more scientific justifications than ethical ones.
What was going on in Sweden was medical doctors using those scientific reasons. You can replace science with scientists in my statement if it makes you happy; retrospectively it was what I should have used.
Anyway, my only point is that scientists have more power over other people's lives than non scientists do, and this is the main concern.
PS What about "Trinity", uh?
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
Well, my counterpoint is that scientists are *not* generally evil like people continuously try to portray them as. Yes, a few scientists have gone on to do evil things, but the majority are working for the betterment of mankind. Eugenics and similar programs are NOT science, they are the application of (from my perspective) twisted values which are inherently subjective. Science doesn't advocate! It describes.
Also, what about Trinity? Are you referring to inadvertent civilian fallout?
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
Trinity was the name of the first A-bomb test. Christened so by the scientists who devised it. Another one (maybe the first H-bomb, not sure) was called Kaaba (reference to islam's cult place).
Is it the way to go when you want to sound like humanistic scientists?
The very use of the bomb on innocents is and understandably so the greatest of taboos for america. It's absolutely inexcusable, for ever. And it is a great example of what a secular nation can do when backed by scientists.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago