I have understood you. You have just stated again that a stationary earth is "possible" according to relativity. If I have understood correctly, relativity doesn't insist that everything is in motion. If it does then it is stupid because it does not allow for the possibility that anything could be stationary and be a frame of reference for everything else. Would it not help cosmologists to begin with the assumption that earth is still, thus providing a reference?
Relativity insists that nothing is at rest, because there is no absolute frame of reference. That's the entire point. All motion is relative. As is the passage of time, but that's getting complicated.
If you arbitrarily say the Earth is a stationary object, you have to make the entire universe move in tiny epicycles within larger epicycles within an ever larger epicycle to take into account the Earth's rotation, orbit around the Sun and orbit around the galactic core. It's stupid.
@nashertheatheist After this comment we're done. You thought I was dumb for believing in a stationary earth but you've as much as admitted that within your preferred ways of thinking about cosmology it is "possible" for earth to be stationary. So I really don't see that we're at that much variance. I just happen to believe in one of several possible scenarios that relativity allows for. If relativity doesn't allow for the possible truth that one or other body in space is at rest, it's no good.
Imagine an endless ocean. The water is constantly moving, so it is impossible to use it as a frame of reference. There are several ships on the surface, moving here and there in different directions. Which one is still? Answer: none of them. But the sailors on each boat think their boat is still.
Are any of the sailors right? A yes or no answer will suffice, but do elaborate if you wish.
@nashertheatheist It's a terrible analogy.simply because it doesn't allow for the possibility that any of the vessels is stationary. That possibility MUST be allowed. Logic insists upon it. I understand the usefulness of the analogy but it can not be used to illustrate the truth of what is going on out there. Any one of the celestial bodies we see in the sky "could" be stationary and/or central in the universe. I see that it might not matter when sums are being done etc but earth "can" be still
But you just said before there is not even proof that the earth moves. According to you the earth could very well be still. In which case the sun and every other entity in the sky would travel around earth. You seem very resistant even to this possibilty. I wonder why?
I thought you had misunderstood me, and indeed you have. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
According to the principle of relativity, there is no absolute frame of reference. If I spin a coin, you could look from the coin's point of view and see the entire universe spinning around the stationary coin. But should we? No, it's stupid.
If a cloud of gas and dust collapses and forms a spinning planet, should we look at everything from that planet's point of view? Again, no. It's stupid.
Creationism is a danger if it is not met with serious opposition and derided as it may give credibility to other wider religious beliefs held about our world and its peoples.
I'm sure my RS teachers would have disagreed. Three of them were agnostic atheists and one was a Buddhist. There was a Catholic, but he left after a year. They taught about religions as fairly as they could. Teaching creationism as anything more than a myth believed by very few people in the UK would have been a misrepresentation.
We don't do our kids any favours by teaching them great lies like evolution being responsible for the existence of humans, or that the earth travels round the sun, (never been proven!)
@punksachoo ayyyy, it's a troll! @punksachoo Well done to you sir, smacked this bitch down without getting mad, wish youtube were full of folks like you.
"There has never been any scientific proof that the Earth is moving in space and plenty of evidence that it is not moving."
You are either the stupidest person alive, or you're Poe-ing everyone here into thinking you're actually sincere. If, for some weird, scary reason you ARE sincere, please, do humanity a favour and read some factual information about astronomy... then come back and speak to the grown-ups.
You don't need to be tolerant of religious propaganda and delusions. God is no more likely to exist, and in fact less likely to exist, than lepricauhns, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster! If I walked around claiming I believed in and have seen lepricauhns I would be put in a fucking asylum!
To say that creationism is a minority scientific view shows a complete lack of understanding about what science is. Science is a process to understand the nature of reality through observation, prediction and repeatable experimentation. It is not about allowing everyone to have their say or coming up with their own unbased reasons why something might be. Science is not a place for debate it is a place for reason.
@Wulfyn99 Science is not a place for debate it is a place for reason. It should be but it isn't is it when scientists who don't "toe the line" are not having properly conducted scientifically grounded scientific works refused publication in all the mainstream journals because their findings don't "agree".
@Glaswegianmark Crap, cos your mutt could still breed with it's wolf cousins. No new genes are there, they are all still there, just some are operating in the wolf and not in your dog and some which are not operating in the wolf, are operating in your dog. What you have said is an example of breeding.
@punksachoo You misunderstand. Dogs are the result of selectively breeding wolves, they are not their own species (simple wikipedia could tell you that). They prove evolution because before this breeding happened, there were only a handful of "Canis lupus" breeds and now there are so many, with vastly different characteristics, a far better, if albeit artificially induced, example to the Galapagos finches.
@robgiss This proves that a certain species can display a wide variety of physical attributes and behavioural traits. It doesn't prove that even given vast amounts of time any of these breeds can become anything other than "Canis lupus".
@punksachoo It proves the fundamental aspect of evolution, over time a species becomes more and more diverse until they become different. There hasn't been a "vast" amount of time in evolutions scale yet.
@robgiss "It proves the fundamental aspect of evolution, over time a species becomes more and more diverse until they become different"
No the variations within a species are the full extent of the differences that are achievable by the mechanisms that have been proven to exist.
It takes a major and unjustifiable extrapolation to reach the conclusion that changes to a population of single cell animals could result in mammals like us.
@punksachoo The mechanism for variation is the exact same as evolution. It causes new alleles arise, and possibly, new genes. This is due to the process called crossing over, dna is swapped between parent gametes so the offspring can never be an exact 50/50 copy of their parents. You say it's unjustifiable? I disagree, but there hasn't been enough time since the theory was proposed. You have a better theory? Let's hear it.
@robgiss What's the point of replying if you accept that it's justifiable to make the leap of faith necessary to believe that a single cell animal can over many generations become a multi cellular organism capable of very complicated functions that it's distant parent didn't need to survive.
@punksachoo So simply accepting a book written by slaves and drug addicts, with half of its content missing because it didn't fit Roman society, which says it's okay to rape people so long as you pay off their father is the sensible option? Also, do you realise how long it took for that to happen? It's supposed to have taken 1.5 billion years for the first plant to have occurred. Considering how long it takes for two hydrogen atoms to collide in the sun. I can believe that.
@robgiss" It's supposed to have taken 1.5 billion years for the first plant to have occurred."
According to who.
Unlike medical science where hypothesis are 'empirically' tested several times this branch of science is no better than fairy tales. Believe who you like, but be aware that science has so blinded us that while most believe the earth to orbit the sun, the fact has and can never be proven. So why are we taught that it does?
@punksachoo "Believe who you like, but be aware that science has so blinded us that while most believe the earth to orbit the sun, the fact has and can never be proven. So why are we taught that it does?"
This is the 21st century... how can you be so monumentally ignorant in this day and age? We have observed the behaviour of solar system bodies for hundreds of years, both from the surface of the Earth, and from space-bound probes. How can you say it "has and can never be proven"?
@Sheshader Show me "proof" that we orbit the sun. Even "relativity", the much loved theory of modern times times doesn't predict that earth orbits the sun. It has never been proven. Neither has it been proven that earth is at the centre of the universe but there are some experiments whose results show that "earth does not move".
@punksachoo if earth does not move then how can we get seasons, how comes the planets like mars go one way across the sky and then seem to reverse before continueing their path, aristotle discovered this over 4000 years ago and every astronomer since has backed this up how can you say that there is no proof the earth moves?
@KungfuCow5 I know this. When you said "The Earth is at the centre of the observable universe" I thought you were being clever by observing that if you were to mark the furthest reaches of space we have discovered in all directions, we would of course be at the centre (geographically).
@robgiss The idea of paying the father of a girl you had raped was the punishment for doing that. It was not saying that it was ok to rape someone. In fact it clearly says that it is not ok. You could argue that it was ok to put someone's eye out if you then let them put out yours. Or today saying you can murder someone if you can do the fifteen year stretch for murder.
@punksachoo According to the carbon dating of fossils. Okay, it's not always trustable, there have been enough cases to prove that. And I have no illusion that it will always be that number, somebody will change it. But here's how science works, we stick to the explanation that best fits the evidence until somebody comes up with a better one. If you know one, I'll gladly listen to you, hell, if I have the time, I'll help you prove it.
@punksachoo I already know you're a geocentricist, and I know I can't convince you, despite the fact that if the Earth was stationary, the rest of the universe wouldn't operate as it does. Have you heard of gravity? Yeah, the little thing goes towards the big thing. By the way, they've proven gravity. stationary Earth? How exactly do we get day and night? The sun does not move fast enough for that. Why do the constellations change? Why is earth so special?
@robgiss I believe that according to the current (fashionable) model for explaining all things, you would be incorrect to make the statement "the little thing goes towards the big thing" in relation to gravity. The position of things cannot be stated absolutely according to relativity. Also relativity, which is ever so popular, neither predicts earth to be central or the sun to be central. As I have said, the sun has never been proved to be the centre of any system. Why are we taught that it is?
@punksachoo Relativity was never supposed to prove that, it's just a subset of physics which helps explain things. And I don't see how I can. The same amount of force is exerted on both bodies, the smaller body is therefore affected more, and therefore is attracted to the larger body. Or we could apply the bending of spacetime if you'd prefer, the object continues to travel forwards but forwards isn't "forwards" that helps explain light being affected by gravity.
@punksachoo And also, if the Earth didn't move, we couldn't possibly perform parallax, there would be no stellar aberration. And how about the Doppler effect? And by the way, parallax proves the Earth orbits the sun. We know it's true, because we get the same results using other methods of measuring distance.
@punksachoo the truth is that things orbit at a central point of balence meaning that a small thing pulls the big thing this is how plenet hunting is done by looking at the way a small planet wobbles a large star
@robgiss I have come across evidence that the earth does not move but not that it is in the centre. However I have read of recent findings from research done into radiation from space that the best explanation for the patterns of radiation is that earth is at the centre. That is why we can soon expect calls from the scientific community for us to consider that this universe is only one of many parallel universes and that this one just happens to be the one with planet earth in the middle.
@punksachoo I want to know your source though. I've seen somebody try to conclude that the Earth is the centre, because we can see the same distance in all directions. That's just because it takes time for light to get to us. I suspect that's what you've encountered.
Also, the multiverse has been theorised for many years.
@robgiss There has never been any scientific proof that the Earth is moving in space and plenty of evidence that it is not moving. Look up Airy's Failure and experiments by Michelson-Morley; Sagnac, and MichelsonGale.
Can you show me a proof of earth going round the sun?
It is true there is much evidence and measurements to go on but there is little that cannot be accounted for by assuming either the sun or earth to be orbiting the other. I'm annoyed because I've been sold a non-truth.
@punksachoo No, stellar aberration is definitive proof. It relies ENTIRELY on the fact that the Earth follows an elliptical path. the change in velocity of the Earth is what causes it.
No, but you seem to have indicated numerous times in this comments section that the Earth remains stationary in space. This is blatantly and categorically wrong and utterly incompatible with everything we have learned in more than 4 centuries. Not to mention the fact that the very celestial mechanics you claim to deny have let us send probes to many worlds in our solar system.
There is no reasonable way for a person in the 21st century to believe such things.
@nashertheatheist You can't prove that the earth isn't stationary. That doesn't mean that it is, but it allows it to be. Therefore you are free to either believe that it is still or that it moves.
You are an atheist? Your atheism has blinded you. You will say I only believe this because of irrational belief in a book. You have an irrational belief in lots of books written by blind scientists. There are some scientists who have an open mind about geocentricity. Check them out!
We know the location of the Earth-Sun barycentre, relative to which they both circle. The Sun is so massive compared to the Earth that the point is actually inside the Sun. Relative to every object in the universe except itself, the Earth is is motion.
Kindly name a scientist who grants credibility to geocentricism. What is their field, what work have they done?
Also; if you don't mind me asking; what is your educational background?
@nashertheatheist "Kindly name a scientist who grants credibility to geocentricism. What is their field, what work have they done?
Also; if you don't mind me asking; what is your educational background?"
Do your own research if you are serious enough, and don't assume that I have no real idea what I am talking about by asking the second of these questions I quoted from you.
Do I take that to mean there are no scientists backing it? I asked you that question so I could look at these people you trust from a critical point of view. Science works on a principle of "evidence or GTFO". If you can't provide evidence for your position, you can't expect to be taken seriously.
From your dodging the question about your credentials, do I take it that you have none, and that you likely came to your conclusions from "research" on the internet?
@nashertheatheist There has never been any scientific proof that the Earth is moving in space and plenty of evidence that it is not moving (e.g., Airy's Failure, Michelson-Morley experiment, Sagnac, MichelsonGale, and other such evidence).
What do credentials have to do with anything?
If you don't wish to keep up this dialogue then don't. Don't you agree that most people have no choice but to rely on secondary sources of evidence to build up their own picture of the whys and wherefores of life?
Those experiments only show the Earth isn't moving if the aether exists, which it does not.
As it happens, there is evidence that the Earth is moving. Are you familiar with James Bradley's experiment? He showed that the light from stars appears to come from a slightly different position depending on the time of year, because the apparent direction of the stars varied as the Earth orbited the Sun, just as rain falling straight down appears to come towards you as you run through it.
The Michelson-Morley experiment, which you cited before, along with several others, failed to find evidence of the luminiferous aether. At the start of the 20th century the existence of the aether was the only way the maths worked out. But with Einstein's theory of special relativity, Lorenzt's maths could work without needing to resort to the aether model. So Occam's razor came into effect and since the aether was unnecessary for explaining reality, it quietly faded out of science.
Relative to practically every other object in the entire universe, the Earth is in motion. If we proclaim the Earth to be motionless, then we must also proclaim every star, every planet, moon, comet, every rock and dust particle in Saturn's rings to be motionless. As indeed they are, relative to themselves.
@nashertheatheist Is that the conclusion that reliance on relativity insists you make?
I rather believe that it allows for a stationary earth but doesn't insist upon one; nevertheless, a stationary earth must be a possibility.
Relativity seems a bit like Freud's psychological theories, if you are familiar with those. They lead to hypotheses that are untestable and are therefore a very good example of "bad" science. How, for example can we test for the reality of black holes?
@nashertheatheist Black holes, I used to believe, because of their constantly being mentioned, must exist. However they are by their nature impossible to detect and are merely assumed to exist. I rather assume the aether to exist. We are thus in the same caregory, you and I. Ultimately, our positions are based upon faith in something; there is nothing special about your position; it is neither more logical, more resaoned or more anything than mine. Do you agree?
Black holes are a prediction of relativity and are, as it happens, quite possible to detect. They still have gravity, so as a result we can observe other objects as they move around them and infer the existence of a black hole based on the shape of the orbit and velocity of the objects.
There is a very large one near the centre of our galaxy, and a hydrogen cloud is going to enter it in 2014, IIRC.
There is an animation by UCLA of the stars around it here:
@nashertheatheist No. They are merely theoretical constructs with a theoretical means of detection. I take it you disagree with what I said earlier about our positions?
Going back to a stationary earth and relativity theory, do you agree or not that the earth "can " be stationary?
I have just explained how we can detect black holes, and given a specific example in which we actually have detected one. I can cite many others on request.
I do not agree with what you said about our positions. Mine is backed by experiment, by multi-billion dollar industries (sat-nav), by countless peer-reviewed papers and by some of the greatest minds alive today.
The Earth can no more be stationary than any other object. There is no absolute frame of reference to measure against.
@nashertheatheist Thank-you. It has to be said that it is difficult to get someone like you to admit that, even within the parameters you work within, it cannot be justifiably said that the earth is in motion. I agree with you that there is no justification for insisting that our planet moves. You would be right if you said it can't be proved to be stationary and neither can it be proved to move. Unless you use the bible as the absolute frame of reference. it is still.
Relative to me, as I sit here, the Earth is still. Relative to the Sun, it is in motion. Relative to the galactic core, it is whizzing around the Sun as the Sun also moves around the galactic plane. Relative to every single object in the universe except those of us on Earth, it is in motion. The Earth is just one world of trillions. It holds no special place in the cosmos, and using it as a stationary reference point in the maths is counter-productive.
@nashertheatheist I understand what you mean. However, you must admit based on what you have already said that, it is "possible" for earth to be still and everything else move; whether that is "counter-productive" to what you are endeavouring to achieve or not. Also, why, in relation to what the video is about, are children taught that the earth orbits the sun when in fact it might just as well not be?
@punksachoo If I turn my head, does the entire universe move around it? Yes, relative to my head it does. But it's stupid and pedantic to think about it that way. The same goes for the Earth's rotation.
By your logic, we should also teach children that the entire cosmos shifts based on the date, time of day and direction they tilt their head. But that would be counter-productive and confusing. Teaching "the Earth orbits the Sun and rotates every 24 hours" is simpler and mathematically easier.
@nashertheatheist Easier, it may be, but to present it as a truth or hold it as a version of reality when it isn't is a total denial of the basic reason for scientific endeavour which is to find out what is true.( Or at least that is what I thought science was about).
@nashertheatheist That's far from what I'm saying. Why do we teach kids that it is true that earth orbits the sun when it hasn't been shown that it does?
"By your logic, we should also teach children that the entire cosmos shifts based on the date, time of day and direction they tilt their head" No. Because that suggests that their head is the centre of the universe which there is no proof of. It would be misleading just as telling them the earth goes round the sun is.
It has been shown time and time again that the Earth goes around the Sun. In fact, we can even infer it simply from Maths, by looking at the other planets, then taking the mass of the Earth and distance to the Sun.
Is it your belief that the Earth is at the centre of the universe?
It's a danger to elect leaders of powerful countries that are required to have religious beliefs. Would you give ICBM launch codes to someone who claims to hear voices in his head?
Creationism deserves ridicule so that society can move past a point where any large number of people take it seriously. RE is still important though so people learn about religion in the right context and not in a way that asserts it as fact. It's not science.
This programme is called 'Question Time', not 'Answer Time'.
In the description it says "this candid discourse will be refreshing... would they still have jobs if they worked in the USA?"
QT, or any of these BBC shows cant really be described as "candid". They are scripted, edited && produced to bits. Chosing panelists of known views is not 'candid' ('natural' or 'non-contrived').
It does seem this video is to flame, not to inform. It's under 'News & Politics' so can't be entertainment.
@HoratioWatson He like you has been conned into believing a pile of crap. Soon the scientists are going to tell us to believe that this universe is one of many just so they don't have to admit that earth has a special place (i.e. in the middle) in this one because that points to there being a God. Recent evidence and old rarely mentioned experiments are pointing to the fact that Galileo was wrong and the earth stands still as described in the best science book you can get; the Bible.
@punksachoo Oh my, you're a geocentrist. How cute!
Ok, why don't you hit me with your best shot. Prove to me that the earth is the centre of the universe or solar system or whatever it is you're trying to say here. I'm trembling with anticipation.
@HoratioWatson If you do your homework you will quickly realise that what you were taught at school, that the Sun is at the centre of a solar system has never been proved,(which for most people is a shock). I can't prove the earth is at the centre but experiments have shown the earth to be stationary (doesn't spin), also contrary to what we have been taught. Recent findings suggest the Earth to be near the middle of the Universe.
Find websites about this and come to your own conclusions.
@punksachoo You're talking rubbish old chap! Copernicus proved solar system heliocentricity and Kepler nailed it, with his brilliant contribution to orbital analysis...(Do you think we might have a tiny edit window pleas Mr YouTube?)
@ronocko No, I won't because I am neither being sarcastic or doing that other thing. I think unless you wish to remain deluded like Mr. Hain by what is merely the current fashionable thinking then you ought to do as I suggest and do some research of your own. All the evidence ever collected can be successfully accounted for in more than one way.
@punksachoo So starlight aberration, The fact that we can send shuttles and probes into space and they hit their destinations using a heliocentric model, being able to measure the parallax, Or ignore barycentre's, or retrograde motion, Doppler signals from voyager and pioneer, doppler shifts in stars all around the celestial sphere... Should I continue?
@punksachoo No you're wrong and full of shit you can't refute any of the things I said you just nonchalantly dismissed all evidence so explain to me gravity how is the sun orbiting something with much smaller mass do you realize the solar system in your geocentric model makes no sense at all? Can you explain how space probes and shuttles work if we're using a heliocentric model if earth is stationary IT SHOULDNT work. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
@ronocko "Now as an undergraduate at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, I'd taken enough relativity theory to know that neither heliocentrism nor geocentricity could be proven or disproven"...Dr.G.D. Bouw
@punksachoo Someone who had a prejudice going into studying something got the answer they already had after misunderstanding the field they were in? Geez I guess we just take fringe group radicals for their word when it comes to science Your argument from pathetic authority aside you're not refuting anything I've said how can the sun orbit the earth? There are physics simulators go get one for free and try creating an object the size of the sun and one the size of the earth and see what happens.
@punksachoo Your a fucking idiot. Honestley, you say you can find websites. Well I can find books, thesis and studys not the rabid rambling of idiot clergy men who have so much faith in a book that they twist their view of reality to fit to said book.
@gotsda I didn't mean works by religious people but scientists who are prepared to consider all possibilties as opposed to just going along with everyone else. I apologise for not making that clearer.
@punksachoo "Soon the scientists are going to tell us to believe that this universe is one of many just so they don't have to admit that earth has a special place (i.e. in the middle) in this one because that points to there being a God. Recent evidence and old rarely mentioned experiments are pointing to the fact that ... the earth stands still"
May i ask what recent evidence.? What experiments.? The earth stands still now.?
You may have misread or misheard something. What recent evidence?
Creation damn well is a danger. First off Religious science is the only kind of science where one can say 'My ways the right way and I'll burn anyone who says otherwise', and secondly its' a danger to the intelligence and enlightenment of man. Creationism is fit for belief by cavemen, not a sensible, rational, civilized society, and we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot if we allow it to spread.
@Epeolatry1 "Creation is a danger... Religious science .. can say 'My ways the right way and I'll burn anyone who says otherwise', secondly its' a danger to the intelligence and enlightenment of man. Creationism is fit for belief by cavemen not a civilized society, we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot if we allow it to spread"
Any evidence.? You have it the other way 'round, it 'spread' the opposing way. Darwinism is new-ish.
If something breaks, you don't blame the instruction manual.
How many of you have ever read a single book or journal article about Evolution?
Exactly. So don't go around laughing at 'Creationists'. Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive at all, the Big Bang theory is creationism itself, and all humans are created (at conception). Evolutionary theory is much contested, and certainly provides no definite answers as to the origin of life.
Gravity is a theory. If you like I might also point out that the idea of the sun being the centre of our solar system is a theory (heliocentric theory), as is quantum theory. The Theory of Evolution is in the same league as those.
And I'm sure you know this, but you managed to not actually reply to any of my questions.
@MrCallumEvans 'Questions'? You only asked one. 'I might as you how the Big Bang Theory is in any way creationism? '
Because we're told that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. The universe was thus created at that moment. 'Creationism' is really just a word.
My point is that it isn't as simple as the false duality of 'Evolution vs. Creationism'. No one who as read the literature can claim that it is.
Well, creationism just doesn't mean that. If you want to use it to describe the big bang then go ahead, but you either mean that a god was involved or, if not, then you've changed the definition of creationism.
To summarise: the Big Bang Theory is only a form of creationism when you (stupidly) say there's a deity of some kind involved.
Thankfully, I think I misunderstood your point as believing god created humans as they are.
@historypoliticsbb Incorrect. MrCallumEvans is absolutely right in saying that gravity and evolution are both theories. We are just using the dictionary definition of the word rather than your colloquial one.
As much as I agree that in the UK we should not teach creationism in any classes outside of religious education. However the gentleman who said "Creationist beliefs are a far minority". In fact the vast majority of the world believes in creationism as to the literal belief in a holy book. It is just the vast majority of the civilized world (Which most certainly does not include America) who understand evidence is a more valid source than a particular holy book.
Does Peter Hain really have any idea what he is talking about. If he can come up with a suitable alternative that doesn't involve life sprouting out of completely nothing then I'd like to hear it. People used to think that the idea that the earth was round instead of flat was barmy
"Does Peter Hain really have any idea what he is talking about. If he can come up with a suitable alternative that doesn't involve life sprouting out of completely nothing then I'd like to hear it."
May I suggest you research the subject a little deeper beyond that fairy story book "The Bible".
The devil uses confusion to have people run around like rats chasing their own tails. When you become Born Again it will all become clearer. God is not a God of confusion. Love God, love people, do good works, do not sin - keep yourself clean (holy) - and pray often, for yourself and others.
What a tangled web people weave. The devil must laugh at it. Mankind, listen only to your Creator Who is God. Read God's Word because it is the Truth. Follow only God's Commandments and not your own and you can't go wrong. God is holy which is pure. When you remember that, you can understand better that anything which is not pure is not of God. Simple really!
I’m a science teacher and I think Creationism should be taught in schools, defiantly - as long as it is in the context of religious classes and religious themes. The problem is, as you see in the US, where Creationism is taught alongside Evolution as a counter idea to Evolution. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It therefore can’t be compared to Evolution which is. Both ideas need to be protected and given to educate, but trying to dispel one by the other is not education.
@NefariousVirtuoso88, With respect, Creationism, the idea that God created the world is defiantly taught in US schools. It’s taught in UK schools, but only in religious classes.
To reiterate my point, there’s a big difference between saying “Christians believe God created the Earth”, and, “God created the Earth”.
@NefariousVirtuoso88, The latter is the one I disagree with – and the one that schools like those in Alabama and Kentucky seem to be at ends with. I was reading an article in Reuters the other day where a Texas science teacher refused to teach Evolution unless she was also allowed to teach Creationism also. She quoted Amendment I of the US Constitution.
Calling creationism 'barmy' is scarcely compatible with free-thinking. Surely by definition being free-thinking means that people should be free to have all manner of beliefs.
Funnily enough, one can read a Bertrand Russell essay on teaching the controversy. It may be the origin of the phrase, actually. It's a shame one of those guys didn't grasp that fact is independent of what the majority of the scientific community believe (appeal to popularity). Even if a view is in the majority, it doesn't mean that it's right. For example, the belief that a book that prescribes execution for homosexuals and obedience to slaves is a moral one may cause problems in Uganda.
it's funny when Creationists say that 'both sides of the argument should be taught'. Ermm...No, what they mean to say is 'Evolution goes against what I believe to be the truth, Creationism is the only possible answer'.
Creationism is a danger to intelligent thought and rational thinking when taught to children. Disturbing to think these people with these views are actually being elected to run the country!
@Matt120592 "Creationism is a danger to intelligent thought and rational thinking when taught to children. Disturbing to think these people with these views are actually being elected to run the country!"
The 'Theory' (or 'conjecture') of evolution may be any safer.?
You don't give any evidence for what is a strong (&& 'dangerous') comment. Do you have any.?
Elected by whom.? Free thinkers.? Maybe your viewpoint could 'evolve' or adapt by coming around to what you propose in your comment.
I have understood you. You have just stated again that a stationary earth is "possible" according to relativity. If I have understood correctly, relativity doesn't insist that everything is in motion. If it does then it is stupid because it does not allow for the possibility that anything could be stationary and be a frame of reference for everything else. Would it not help cosmologists to begin with the assumption that earth is still, thus providing a reference?
punksachoo 1 day ago
@punksachoo
Relativity insists that nothing is at rest, because there is no absolute frame of reference. That's the entire point. All motion is relative. As is the passage of time, but that's getting complicated.
If you arbitrarily say the Earth is a stationary object, you have to make the entire universe move in tiny epicycles within larger epicycles within an ever larger epicycle to take into account the Earth's rotation, orbit around the Sun and orbit around the galactic core. It's stupid.
nashertheatheist 1 day ago
@nashertheatheist After this comment we're done. You thought I was dumb for believing in a stationary earth but you've as much as admitted that within your preferred ways of thinking about cosmology it is "possible" for earth to be stationary. So I really don't see that we're at that much variance. I just happen to believe in one of several possible scenarios that relativity allows for. If relativity doesn't allow for the possible truth that one or other body in space is at rest, it's no good.
punksachoo 15 hours ago
@punksachoo
I will use Galileo's analogy.
Imagine an endless ocean. The water is constantly moving, so it is impossible to use it as a frame of reference. There are several ships on the surface, moving here and there in different directions. Which one is still? Answer: none of them. But the sailors on each boat think their boat is still.
Are any of the sailors right? A yes or no answer will suffice, but do elaborate if you wish.
nashertheatheist 11 hours ago
@nashertheatheist It's a terrible analogy.simply because it doesn't allow for the possibility that any of the vessels is stationary. That possibility MUST be allowed. Logic insists upon it. I understand the usefulness of the analogy but it can not be used to illustrate the truth of what is going on out there. Any one of the celestial bodies we see in the sky "could" be stationary and/or central in the universe. I see that it might not matter when sums are being done etc but earth "can" be still
punksachoo 1 hour ago
But you just said before there is not even proof that the earth moves. According to you the earth could very well be still. In which case the sun and every other entity in the sky would travel around earth. You seem very resistant even to this possibilty. I wonder why?
punksachoo 2 days ago
@punksachoo
I thought you had misunderstood me, and indeed you have. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
According to the principle of relativity, there is no absolute frame of reference. If I spin a coin, you could look from the coin's point of view and see the entire universe spinning around the stationary coin. But should we? No, it's stupid.
If a cloud of gas and dust collapses and forms a spinning planet, should we look at everything from that planet's point of view? Again, no. It's stupid.
nashertheatheist 1 day ago
Creationism is a danger if it is not met with serious opposition and derided as it may give credibility to other wider religious beliefs held about our world and its peoples.
terrortorn 2 days ago
I'm in the intellectual part of Youtube again...
OLL1E45 3 days ago
@OLL1E45 HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. These commetytnss are so stfunyny
lampard554 3 days ago
Well, in the US a politician can't say a barmy idea is barmy in public. But they have guns, so obviously they're more free than we are.
Spoonface370 5 days ago
I think the best way to settle this, would be to have creationism teach in religious studies and evolution taught in science. Problem solved.
0ct0parr0t 6 days ago
@0ct0parr0t
I'm sure my RS teachers would have disagreed. Three of them were agnostic atheists and one was a Buddhist. There was a Catholic, but he left after a year. They taught about religions as fairly as they could. Teaching creationism as anything more than a myth believed by very few people in the UK would have been a misrepresentation.
nashertheatheist 6 days ago
@nashertheatheist
surely they can teach it as a theory, not as fact. personally I think it's nonsense...
0ct0parr0t 6 days ago
@nashertheatheist
A misrepresentation of what?
We don't do our kids any favours by teaching them great lies like evolution being responsible for the existence of humans, or that the earth travels round the sun, (never been proven!)
punksachoo 5 days ago
@punksachoo ayyyy, it's a troll! @punksachoo Well done to you sir, smacked this bitch down without getting mad, wish youtube were full of folks like you.
cybercheeseburger 5 days ago
"There has never been any scientific proof that the Earth is moving in space and plenty of evidence that it is not moving."
You are either the stupidest person alive, or you're Poe-ing everyone here into thinking you're actually sincere. If, for some weird, scary reason you ARE sincere, please, do humanity a favour and read some factual information about astronomy... then come back and speak to the grown-ups.
Sheshader 2 weeks ago
A. I Believe in X
B. Do you have any evidence of X
C. No
END OF CONVERSATION.
dawtchins 2 weeks ago
You don't need to be tolerant of religious propaganda and delusions. God is no more likely to exist, and in fact less likely to exist, than lepricauhns, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster! If I walked around claiming I believed in and have seen lepricauhns I would be put in a fucking asylum!
coxi666 3 weeks ago
I see I've arrived on the Athiest part of youtube again.
The6thSimpson 3 weeks ago
@The6thSimpson yep :) religion is slowly dying out :)
alexhamster1134 2 weeks ago
To say that creationism is a minority scientific view shows a complete lack of understanding about what science is. Science is a process to understand the nature of reality through observation, prediction and repeatable experimentation. It is not about allowing everyone to have their say or coming up with their own unbased reasons why something might be. Science is not a place for debate it is a place for reason.
Wulfyn99 3 weeks ago
@Wulfyn99 Science is not a place for debate it is a place for reason. It should be but it isn't is it when scientists who don't "toe the line" are not having properly conducted scientifically grounded scientific works refused publication in all the mainstream journals because their findings don't "agree".
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
proof of evolution.
i have a rottweiler dog. WHICH evolved from a wolf
Glaswegianmark 4 weeks ago
@Glaswegianmark Crap, cos your mutt could still breed with it's wolf cousins. No new genes are there, they are all still there, just some are operating in the wolf and not in your dog and some which are not operating in the wolf, are operating in your dog. What you have said is an example of breeding.
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo You misunderstand. Dogs are the result of selectively breeding wolves, they are not their own species (simple wikipedia could tell you that). They prove evolution because before this breeding happened, there were only a handful of "Canis lupus" breeds and now there are so many, with vastly different characteristics, a far better, if albeit artificially induced, example to the Galapagos finches.
robgiss 3 weeks ago
@robgiss This proves that a certain species can display a wide variety of physical attributes and behavioural traits. It doesn't prove that even given vast amounts of time any of these breeds can become anything other than "Canis lupus".
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo It proves the fundamental aspect of evolution, over time a species becomes more and more diverse until they become different. There hasn't been a "vast" amount of time in evolutions scale yet.
robgiss 3 weeks ago
@robgiss "It proves the fundamental aspect of evolution, over time a species becomes more and more diverse until they become different"
No the variations within a species are the full extent of the differences that are achievable by the mechanisms that have been proven to exist.
It takes a major and unjustifiable extrapolation to reach the conclusion that changes to a population of single cell animals could result in mammals like us.
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo The mechanism for variation is the exact same as evolution. It causes new alleles arise, and possibly, new genes. This is due to the process called crossing over, dna is swapped between parent gametes so the offspring can never be an exact 50/50 copy of their parents. You say it's unjustifiable? I disagree, but there hasn't been enough time since the theory was proposed. You have a better theory? Let's hear it.
robgiss 3 weeks ago
@robgiss What's the point of replying if you accept that it's justifiable to make the leap of faith necessary to believe that a single cell animal can over many generations become a multi cellular organism capable of very complicated functions that it's distant parent didn't need to survive.
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo So simply accepting a book written by slaves and drug addicts, with half of its content missing because it didn't fit Roman society, which says it's okay to rape people so long as you pay off their father is the sensible option? Also, do you realise how long it took for that to happen? It's supposed to have taken 1.5 billion years for the first plant to have occurred. Considering how long it takes for two hydrogen atoms to collide in the sun. I can believe that.
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@robgiss" It's supposed to have taken 1.5 billion years for the first plant to have occurred."
According to who.
Unlike medical science where hypothesis are 'empirically' tested several times this branch of science is no better than fairy tales. Believe who you like, but be aware that science has so blinded us that while most believe the earth to orbit the sun, the fact has and can never be proven. So why are we taught that it does?
punksachoo 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo "Believe who you like, but be aware that science has so blinded us that while most believe the earth to orbit the sun, the fact has and can never be proven. So why are we taught that it does?"
This is the 21st century... how can you be so monumentally ignorant in this day and age? We have observed the behaviour of solar system bodies for hundreds of years, both from the surface of the Earth, and from space-bound probes. How can you say it "has and can never be proven"?
Sheshader 2 weeks ago
@Sheshader Show me "proof" that we orbit the sun. Even "relativity", the much loved theory of modern times times doesn't predict that earth orbits the sun. It has never been proven. Neither has it been proven that earth is at the centre of the universe but there are some experiments whose results show that "earth does not move".
punksachoo 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo if earth does not move then how can we get seasons, how comes the planets like mars go one way across the sky and then seem to reverse before continueing their path, aristotle discovered this over 4000 years ago and every astronomer since has backed this up how can you say that there is no proof the earth moves?
seanhamson 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo The Earth is at the centre of the observable universe.
KungfuCow5 1 week ago
@KungfuCow5 ..but it is not the central entity of which all else orbits.
EvoProd 1 week ago
@EvoProd Everything in this solar system orbits the Sun. There are others. As there are galaxies.
KungfuCow5 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KungfuCow5 I know this. When you said "The Earth is at the centre of the observable universe" I thought you were being clever by observing that if you were to mark the furthest reaches of space we have discovered in all directions, we would of course be at the centre (geographically).
EvoProd 6 days ago
@robgiss The idea of paying the father of a girl you had raped was the punishment for doing that. It was not saying that it was ok to rape someone. In fact it clearly says that it is not ok. You could argue that it was ok to put someone's eye out if you then let them put out yours. Or today saying you can murder someone if you can do the fifteen year stretch for murder.
punksachoo 2 weeks ago
@robgiss Drug addicts?
punksachoo 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo According to the carbon dating of fossils. Okay, it's not always trustable, there have been enough cases to prove that. And I have no illusion that it will always be that number, somebody will change it. But here's how science works, we stick to the explanation that best fits the evidence until somebody comes up with a better one. If you know one, I'll gladly listen to you, hell, if I have the time, I'll help you prove it.
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo I already know you're a geocentricist, and I know I can't convince you, despite the fact that if the Earth was stationary, the rest of the universe wouldn't operate as it does. Have you heard of gravity? Yeah, the little thing goes towards the big thing. By the way, they've proven gravity. stationary Earth? How exactly do we get day and night? The sun does not move fast enough for that. Why do the constellations change? Why is earth so special?
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@robgiss I believe that according to the current (fashionable) model for explaining all things, you would be incorrect to make the statement "the little thing goes towards the big thing" in relation to gravity. The position of things cannot be stated absolutely according to relativity. Also relativity, which is ever so popular, neither predicts earth to be central or the sun to be central. As I have said, the sun has never been proved to be the centre of any system. Why are we taught that it is?
punksachoo 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo Relativity was never supposed to prove that, it's just a subset of physics which helps explain things. And I don't see how I can. The same amount of force is exerted on both bodies, the smaller body is therefore affected more, and therefore is attracted to the larger body. Or we could apply the bending of spacetime if you'd prefer, the object continues to travel forwards but forwards isn't "forwards" that helps explain light being affected by gravity.
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo And also, if the Earth didn't move, we couldn't possibly perform parallax, there would be no stellar aberration. And how about the Doppler effect? And by the way, parallax proves the Earth orbits the sun. We know it's true, because we get the same results using other methods of measuring distance.
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo And I forgot to mention THERE'S PHOTOGRAPHS
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo the truth is that things orbit at a central point of balence meaning that a small thing pulls the big thing this is how plenet hunting is done by looking at the way a small planet wobbles a large star
seanhamson 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo Now, are you going to tell me where you found this experiment that shows evidence for the Earth as the centre of the universe or not?
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@robgiss I have come across evidence that the earth does not move but not that it is in the centre. However I have read of recent findings from research done into radiation from space that the best explanation for the patterns of radiation is that earth is at the centre. That is why we can soon expect calls from the scientific community for us to consider that this universe is only one of many parallel universes and that this one just happens to be the one with planet earth in the middle.
punksachoo 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo I want to know your source though. I've seen somebody try to conclude that the Earth is the centre, because we can see the same distance in all directions. That's just because it takes time for light to get to us. I suspect that's what you've encountered.
Also, the multiverse has been theorised for many years.
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@robgiss There has never been any scientific proof that the Earth is moving in space and plenty of evidence that it is not moving. Look up Airy's Failure and experiments by Michelson-Morley; Sagnac, and MichelsonGale.
Can you show me a proof of earth going round the sun?
It is true there is much evidence and measurements to go on but there is little that cannot be accounted for by assuming either the sun or earth to be orbiting the other. I'm annoyed because I've been sold a non-truth.
punksachoo 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo No, stellar aberration is definitive proof. It relies ENTIRELY on the fact that the Earth follows an elliptical path. the change in velocity of the Earth is what causes it.
robgiss 2 weeks ago
@punksachoo Erm... ahem, if the earth dinnae move then how is there night and day?
KungfuCow5 1 week ago
@punksachoo Thats some good trolling dude.
thegarbeen 1 week ago
@thegarbeen Trolling!? I don't think so.
punksachoo 1 week ago
@punksachoo
I do not believe that proclaiming a belief in geocentricism can be anything more than trolling.
nashertheatheist 6 days ago
@nashertheatheist
I'm just not a sucker!
Are you trying to wind me up?
punksachoo 6 days ago
@punksachoo
No, but you seem to have indicated numerous times in this comments section that the Earth remains stationary in space. This is blatantly and categorically wrong and utterly incompatible with everything we have learned in more than 4 centuries. Not to mention the fact that the very celestial mechanics you claim to deny have let us send probes to many worlds in our solar system.
There is no reasonable way for a person in the 21st century to believe such things.
nashertheatheist 5 days ago
@nashertheatheist You can't prove that the earth isn't stationary. That doesn't mean that it is, but it allows it to be. Therefore you are free to either believe that it is still or that it moves.
You are an atheist? Your atheism has blinded you. You will say I only believe this because of irrational belief in a book. You have an irrational belief in lots of books written by blind scientists. There are some scientists who have an open mind about geocentricity. Check them out!
punksachoo 5 days ago
@punksachoo
We know the location of the Earth-Sun barycentre, relative to which they both circle. The Sun is so massive compared to the Earth that the point is actually inside the Sun. Relative to every object in the universe except itself, the Earth is is motion.
Kindly name a scientist who grants credibility to geocentricism. What is their field, what work have they done?
Also; if you don't mind me asking; what is your educational background?
nashertheatheist 5 days ago
@nashertheatheist "Kindly name a scientist who grants credibility to geocentricism. What is their field, what work have they done?
Also; if you don't mind me asking; what is your educational background?"
Do your own research if you are serious enough, and don't assume that I have no real idea what I am talking about by asking the second of these questions I quoted from you.
punksachoo 5 days ago
@punksachoo
Do I take that to mean there are no scientists backing it? I asked you that question so I could look at these people you trust from a critical point of view. Science works on a principle of "evidence or GTFO". If you can't provide evidence for your position, you can't expect to be taken seriously.
From your dodging the question about your credentials, do I take it that you have none, and that you likely came to your conclusions from "research" on the internet?
nashertheatheist 5 days ago
@nashertheatheist There has never been any scientific proof that the Earth is moving in space and plenty of evidence that it is not moving (e.g., Airy's Failure, Michelson-Morley experiment, Sagnac, MichelsonGale, and other such evidence).
What do credentials have to do with anything?
If you don't wish to keep up this dialogue then don't. Don't you agree that most people have no choice but to rely on secondary sources of evidence to build up their own picture of the whys and wherefores of life?
punksachoo 4 days ago
@punksachoo
Those experiments only show the Earth isn't moving if the aether exists, which it does not.
As it happens, there is evidence that the Earth is moving. Are you familiar with James Bradley's experiment? He showed that the light from stars appears to come from a slightly different position depending on the time of year, because the apparent direction of the stars varied as the Earth orbited the Sun, just as rain falling straight down appears to come towards you as you run through it.
nashertheatheist 4 days ago
@nashertheatheist "Those experiments only show the Earth isn't moving if the aether exists, which it does not."
Where is the proof the aether does not exist?
I will look into the Bradley experiment; thanks.
punksachoo 4 days ago
@punksachoo
The Michelson-Morley experiment, which you cited before, along with several others, failed to find evidence of the luminiferous aether. At the start of the 20th century the existence of the aether was the only way the maths worked out. But with Einstein's theory of special relativity, Lorenzt's maths could work without needing to resort to the aether model. So Occam's razor came into effect and since the aether was unnecessary for explaining reality, it quietly faded out of science.
nashertheatheist 4 days ago
@nashertheatheist If you insist on resorting to relativity to explain things then must you not desist from insisting that the earth is in motion?
punksachoo 4 days ago
@punksachoo
Relative to practically every other object in the entire universe, the Earth is in motion. If we proclaim the Earth to be motionless, then we must also proclaim every star, every planet, moon, comet, every rock and dust particle in Saturn's rings to be motionless. As indeed they are, relative to themselves.
nashertheatheist 4 days ago
@nashertheatheist Is that the conclusion that reliance on relativity insists you make?
I rather believe that it allows for a stationary earth but doesn't insist upon one; nevertheless, a stationary earth must be a possibility.
Relativity seems a bit like Freud's psychological theories, if you are familiar with those. They lead to hypotheses that are untestable and are therefore a very good example of "bad" science. How, for example can we test for the reality of black holes?
punksachoo 4 days ago
@nashertheatheist Black holes, I used to believe, because of their constantly being mentioned, must exist. However they are by their nature impossible to detect and are merely assumed to exist. I rather assume the aether to exist. We are thus in the same caregory, you and I. Ultimately, our positions are based upon faith in something; there is nothing special about your position; it is neither more logical, more resaoned or more anything than mine. Do you agree?
punksachoo 4 days ago
@punksachoo
Black holes are a prediction of relativity and are, as it happens, quite possible to detect. They still have gravity, so as a result we can observe other objects as they move around them and infer the existence of a black hole based on the shape of the orbit and velocity of the objects.
There is a very large one near the centre of our galaxy, and a hydrogen cloud is going to enter it in 2014, IIRC.
There is an animation by UCLA of the stars around it here:
/watch?v=bXaDO-U_2yA
nashertheatheist 3 days ago
@nashertheatheist No. They are merely theoretical constructs with a theoretical means of detection. I take it you disagree with what I said earlier about our positions?
Going back to a stationary earth and relativity theory, do you agree or not that the earth "can " be stationary?
punksachoo 2 days ago
@punksachoo
I have just explained how we can detect black holes, and given a specific example in which we actually have detected one. I can cite many others on request.
I do not agree with what you said about our positions. Mine is backed by experiment, by multi-billion dollar industries (sat-nav), by countless peer-reviewed papers and by some of the greatest minds alive today.
The Earth can no more be stationary than any other object. There is no absolute frame of reference to measure against.
nashertheatheist 2 days ago
@nashertheatheist Thank-you. It has to be said that it is difficult to get someone like you to admit that, even within the parameters you work within, it cannot be justifiably said that the earth is in motion. I agree with you that there is no justification for insisting that our planet moves. You would be right if you said it can't be proved to be stationary and neither can it be proved to move. Unless you use the bible as the absolute frame of reference. it is still.
punksachoo 2 days ago
@punksachoo
You might misunderstand me.
Relative to me, as I sit here, the Earth is still. Relative to the Sun, it is in motion. Relative to the galactic core, it is whizzing around the Sun as the Sun also moves around the galactic plane. Relative to every single object in the universe except those of us on Earth, it is in motion. The Earth is just one world of trillions. It holds no special place in the cosmos, and using it as a stationary reference point in the maths is counter-productive.
nashertheatheist 2 days ago
@nashertheatheist I understand what you mean. However, you must admit based on what you have already said that, it is "possible" for earth to be still and everything else move; whether that is "counter-productive" to what you are endeavouring to achieve or not. Also, why, in relation to what the video is about, are children taught that the earth orbits the sun when in fact it might just as well not be?
punksachoo 2 days ago
@punksachoo If I turn my head, does the entire universe move around it? Yes, relative to my head it does. But it's stupid and pedantic to think about it that way. The same goes for the Earth's rotation.
By your logic, we should also teach children that the entire cosmos shifts based on the date, time of day and direction they tilt their head. But that would be counter-productive and confusing. Teaching "the Earth orbits the Sun and rotates every 24 hours" is simpler and mathematically easier.
nashertheatheist 2 days ago
@nashertheatheist Easier, it may be, but to present it as a truth or hold it as a version of reality when it isn't is a total denial of the basic reason for scientific endeavour which is to find out what is true.( Or at least that is what I thought science was about).
punksachoo 2 days ago
@punksachoo
Then is teaching kids that their head is turning rather than the entire universe also a total denial of the basic reason for scientific endeavour?
nashertheatheist 2 days ago
@nashertheatheist That's far from what I'm saying. Why do we teach kids that it is true that earth orbits the sun when it hasn't been shown that it does?
"By your logic, we should also teach children that the entire cosmos shifts based on the date, time of day and direction they tilt their head" No. Because that suggests that their head is the centre of the universe which there is no proof of. It would be misleading just as telling them the earth goes round the sun is.
punksachoo 2 days ago
@punksachoo
It has been shown time and time again that the Earth goes around the Sun. In fact, we can even infer it simply from Maths, by looking at the other planets, then taking the mass of the Earth and distance to the Sun.
Is it your belief that the Earth is at the centre of the universe?
nashertheatheist 2 days ago
It's a danger to elect leaders of powerful countries that are required to have religious beliefs. Would you give ICBM launch codes to someone who claims to hear voices in his head?
Creationism deserves ridicule so that society can move past a point where any large number of people take it seriously. RE is still important though so people learn about religion in the right context and not in a way that asserts it as fact. It's not science.
N64isgreat 4 weeks ago
This programme is called 'Question Time', not 'Answer Time'.
In the description it says "this candid discourse will be refreshing... would they still have jobs if they worked in the USA?"
QT, or any of these BBC shows cant really be described as "candid". They are scripted, edited && produced to bits. Chosing panelists of known views is not 'candid' ('natural' or 'non-contrived').
It does seem this video is to flame, not to inform. It's under 'News & Politics' so can't be entertainment.
De5O54 4 weeks ago
Peter Hain.........typical politician, wouldn't know the Truth if it smacked him in the face.
punksachoo 1 month ago
@punksachoo I dunno, he seems to have hit the nail on the head pretty competently when he says creationism is a crock.
HoratioWatson 1 month ago
@HoratioWatson He like you has been conned into believing a pile of crap. Soon the scientists are going to tell us to believe that this universe is one of many just so they don't have to admit that earth has a special place (i.e. in the middle) in this one because that points to there being a God. Recent evidence and old rarely mentioned experiments are pointing to the fact that Galileo was wrong and the earth stands still as described in the best science book you can get; the Bible.
punksachoo 1 month ago
@punksachoo Oh my, you're a geocentrist. How cute!
Ok, why don't you hit me with your best shot. Prove to me that the earth is the centre of the universe or solar system or whatever it is you're trying to say here. I'm trembling with anticipation.
HoratioWatson 4 weeks ago
@HoratioWatson If you do your homework you will quickly realise that what you were taught at school, that the Sun is at the centre of a solar system has never been proved,(which for most people is a shock). I can't prove the earth is at the centre but experiments have shown the earth to be stationary (doesn't spin), also contrary to what we have been taught. Recent findings suggest the Earth to be near the middle of the Universe.
Find websites about this and come to your own conclusions.
punksachoo 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
KongofPip 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@punksachoo You're talking rubbish old chap! Copernicus proved solar system heliocentricity and Kepler nailed it, with his brilliant contribution to orbital analysis...(Do you think we might have a tiny edit window pleas Mr YouTube?)
KongofPip 4 weeks ago
@KongofPip Errata ^ please. (see what I mean? Uggawugga stone age computing!)
KongofPip 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
JangleJumes 4 weeks ago
@punksachoo Please tell me you're being sarcastic and or trolling, please...?
ronocko 3 weeks ago
@ronocko No, I won't because I am neither being sarcastic or doing that other thing. I think unless you wish to remain deluded like Mr. Hain by what is merely the current fashionable thinking then you ought to do as I suggest and do some research of your own. All the evidence ever collected can be successfully accounted for in more than one way.
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo So starlight aberration, The fact that we can send shuttles and probes into space and they hit their destinations using a heliocentric model, being able to measure the parallax, Or ignore barycentre's, or retrograde motion, Doppler signals from voyager and pioneer, doppler shifts in stars all around the celestial sphere... Should I continue?
ronocko 3 weeks ago
@ronocko Wrong; the space people use a geocentric model. All these other things can be explained even assuming Earth to be central and still.
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo No you're wrong and full of shit you can't refute any of the things I said you just nonchalantly dismissed all evidence so explain to me gravity how is the sun orbiting something with much smaller mass do you realize the solar system in your geocentric model makes no sense at all? Can you explain how space probes and shuttles work if we're using a heliocentric model if earth is stationary IT SHOULDNT work. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
ronocko 3 weeks ago
@ronocko "Now as an undergraduate at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, I'd taken enough relativity theory to know that neither heliocentrism nor geocentricity could be proven or disproven"...Dr.G.D. Bouw
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo Someone who had a prejudice going into studying something got the answer they already had after misunderstanding the field they were in? Geez I guess we just take fringe group radicals for their word when it comes to science Your argument from pathetic authority aside you're not refuting anything I've said how can the sun orbit the earth? There are physics simulators go get one for free and try creating an object the size of the sun and one the size of the earth and see what happens.
ronocko 3 weeks ago
@ronocko Cos it can.
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo Your a fucking idiot. Honestley, you say you can find websites. Well I can find books, thesis and studys not the rabid rambling of idiot clergy men who have so much faith in a book that they twist their view of reality to fit to said book.
gotsda 3 weeks ago
@gotsda I didn't mean works by religious people but scientists who are prepared to consider all possibilties as opposed to just going along with everyone else. I apologise for not making that clearer.
punksachoo 3 weeks ago
@punksachoo Also, cite your reference material on these "recent findings"
robgiss 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@punksachoo "Soon the scientists are going to tell us to believe that this universe is one of many just so they don't have to admit that earth has a special place (i.e. in the middle) in this one because that points to there being a God. Recent evidence and old rarely mentioned experiments are pointing to the fact that ... the earth stands still"
May i ask what recent evidence.? What experiments.? The earth stands still now.?
You may have misread or misheard something. What recent evidence?
De5O54 4 weeks ago
I really, really hate Liam Fox. Him and Theresa May, the last two hardline social conservatives in Britain. May their careers be short.
LiberalIntervention 1 month ago
I came here because I thought that was Jeremy Clarkson.
17OBrien 1 month ago
Creation damn well is a danger. First off Religious science is the only kind of science where one can say 'My ways the right way and I'll burn anyone who says otherwise', and secondly its' a danger to the intelligence and enlightenment of man. Creationism is fit for belief by cavemen, not a sensible, rational, civilized society, and we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot if we allow it to spread.
Epeolatry1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epeolatry1 "Creation is a danger... Religious science .. can say 'My ways the right way and I'll burn anyone who says otherwise', secondly its' a danger to the intelligence and enlightenment of man. Creationism is fit for belief by cavemen not a civilized society, we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot if we allow it to spread"
Any evidence.? You have it the other way 'round, it 'spread' the opposing way. Darwinism is new-ish.
If something breaks, you don't blame the instruction manual.
De5O54 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.’ John 3:3
KingdomSeeker2012 1 month ago
The universe is a thoughtform projected from the mind of God.
karezza6 1 month ago
@karezza6 "I have no evidence whatsoever with which to support my views"
That's cute, run along now.
ihaterobbie123 1 month ago
@ihaterobbie123
Most great philosophers believed in something transcendental.
karezza6 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karezza6 Most great philosophers lived before the time of modern science, and most of the ones before were deists or atheists.
"I have no evidence whatsoever with which to support my views"
Yes, you've told me that already, please go away.
ihaterobbie123 1 month ago
@karezza6 .no its not.
M10663 1 month ago
@M10663
Yes it is. The universe is a hologram.
karezza6 1 month ago
How many of you have ever read a single book or journal article about Evolution?
Exactly. So don't go around laughing at 'Creationists'. Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive at all, the Big Bang theory is creationism itself, and all humans are created (at conception). Evolutionary theory is much contested, and certainly provides no definite answers as to the origin of life.
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Look up abiogenesis for that.
You'd be as well criticising evolution for not explaining why things fall to the floor.
I might as you how the Big Bang Theory is in any way creationism? The Theory of Evolution and creationist 'theory' are very much mutually exclusive.
MrCallumEvans 1 month ago
@MrCallumEvans Gravity is law (within the earth's atmosphere) and Evolution is a theory.
You should know that.
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb
Gravity is a theory. If you like I might also point out that the idea of the sun being the centre of our solar system is a theory (heliocentric theory), as is quantum theory. The Theory of Evolution is in the same league as those.
And I'm sure you know this, but you managed to not actually reply to any of my questions.
MrCallumEvans 1 month ago
@MrCallumEvans 'Questions'? You only asked one. 'I might as you how the Big Bang Theory is in any way creationism? '
Because we're told that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. The universe was thus created at that moment. 'Creationism' is really just a word.
My point is that it isn't as simple as the false duality of 'Evolution vs. Creationism'. No one who as read the literature can claim that it is.
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb
Okay, sorry. You didn't reply to my 'question'.
Well, creationism just doesn't mean that. If you want to use it to describe the big bang then go ahead, but you either mean that a god was involved or, if not, then you've changed the definition of creationism.
To summarise: the Big Bang Theory is only a form of creationism when you (stupidly) say there's a deity of some kind involved.
Thankfully, I think I misunderstood your point as believing god created humans as they are.
MrCallumEvans 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb Incorrect. MrCallumEvans is absolutely right in saying that gravity and evolution are both theories. We are just using the dictionary definition of the word rather than your colloquial one.
MrPianoJames 1 month ago
@healylegend07 yes. Peter Hain really does have an idea what he is talking about. Creationism really is barmy.
daverowbotham 1 month ago
America is at least fifty years behind on the rational thinking thing
Babs44sun 1 month ago
As much as I agree that in the UK we should not teach creationism in any classes outside of religious education. However the gentleman who said "Creationist beliefs are a far minority". In fact the vast majority of the world believes in creationism as to the literal belief in a holy book. It is just the vast majority of the civilized world (Which most certainly does not include America) who understand evidence is a more valid source than a particular holy book.
RogerabbitGosu 1 month ago
Contrast this with America...Christ, hearing my own politicians stand up for my views (which is their job) gives me a sense of democracy working ^3^
LichQueenKathie 1 month ago
Does Peter Hain really have any idea what he is talking about. If he can come up with a suitable alternative that doesn't involve life sprouting out of completely nothing then I'd like to hear it. People used to think that the idea that the earth was round instead of flat was barmy
healylegend07 1 month ago
@healylegend07
"Does Peter Hain really have any idea what he is talking about. If he can come up with a suitable alternative that doesn't involve life sprouting out of completely nothing then I'd like to hear it."
May I suggest you research the subject a little deeper beyond that fairy story book "The Bible".
Pigdowndog 1 month ago
The devil uses confusion to have people run around like rats chasing their own tails. When you become Born Again it will all become clearer. God is not a God of confusion. Love God, love people, do good works, do not sin - keep yourself clean (holy) - and pray often, for yourself and others.
KingdomSeeker2012 1 month ago
@KingdomSeeker2012 God doesn't exist. What you call 'the devil's confusion' i call 'using your brain'.
Gavin17259 1 month ago 5
What a tangled web people weave. The devil must laugh at it. Mankind, listen only to your Creator Who is God. Read God's Word because it is the Truth. Follow only God's Commandments and not your own and you can't go wrong. God is holy which is pure. When you remember that, you can understand better that anything which is not pure is not of God. Simple really!
KingdomSeeker2012 1 month ago
@KingdomSeeker2012 Do you believe in magic?
Gavin17259 1 month ago
Comment removed
matt4812 1 month ago
@KingdomSeeker2012 Yes, you are.
jacksawild 1 month ago
Plato was a creationist.
karezza6 1 month ago
We don't need to be tolerant of utter insanity, and tough if you're offended. Grow up.
WiggyWittgenstein 1 month ago 11
@WiggyWittgenstein Sorry, but we do have to teach people minority views.
Just because nobody believes in it, doesn't make it crazy. Look at the Civil Rights Movement.
I personally think creationism is completely stupid, but I'm not arrogant enough to assume we shouldn't be critical of it.
molewizard 3 weeks ago
@molewizard Yes, minority views, however barmy, must be addressed,
Creationism should be taught in Religious Studies, and evolution taught in Science classes.
BasilFawlty4444 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WiggyWittgenstein
/// We don't need to be tolerant of utter insanity ///
Well in that case I'm justified in my intolerance towards the Darwinian theory of Evolution!
doctorh2005 3 weeks ago
It is barmy and also dangerous if they misrepresent important information that young people need to know
qttytn 1 month ago
Creationism should not be taught in School.
A religion class is to teach children about different belief systems not politically motivated views of the dominant religious cult.
NefariousVirtuoso88 1 month ago
I’m a science teacher and I think Creationism should be taught in schools, defiantly - as long as it is in the context of religious classes and religious themes. The problem is, as you see in the US, where Creationism is taught alongside Evolution as a counter idea to Evolution. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It therefore can’t be compared to Evolution which is. Both ideas need to be protected and given to educate, but trying to dispel one by the other is not education.
TYwokki 1 month ago
@TYwokki
Creationism or Intelligent Design is NOT taught in America.
NefariousVirtuoso88 1 month ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88, With respect, Creationism, the idea that God created the world is defiantly taught in US schools. It’s taught in UK schools, but only in religious classes.
To reiterate my point, there’s a big difference between saying “Christians believe God created the Earth”, and, “God created the Earth”.
TYwokki 1 month ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88, The latter is the one I disagree with – and the one that schools like those in Alabama and Kentucky seem to be at ends with. I was reading an article in Reuters the other day where a Texas science teacher refused to teach Evolution unless she was also allowed to teach Creationism also. She quoted Amendment I of the US Constitution.
TYwokki 1 month ago
@TYwokki
They did that shit in Dover 2005. Went to court. Lost. Intelligent Design was ruled by a Christian judge Creationism in a lab coat ... END.
NefariousVirtuoso88 1 month ago
@TYwokki well said, sir.
TheValeyard92 1 month ago
Calling creationism 'barmy' is scarcely compatible with free-thinking. Surely by definition being free-thinking means that people should be free to have all manner of beliefs.
MrTUCTUC1 1 month ago
@MrTUCTUC1 Yes, they are free to have these beliefs. Just as I'm free to say that these beliefs are 'barmy'.
Jdrizzz 1 week ago
Funnily enough, one can read a Bertrand Russell essay on teaching the controversy. It may be the origin of the phrase, actually. It's a shame one of those guys didn't grasp that fact is independent of what the majority of the scientific community believe (appeal to popularity). Even if a view is in the majority, it doesn't mean that it's right. For example, the belief that a book that prescribes execution for homosexuals and obedience to slaves is a moral one may cause problems in Uganda.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
it's funny when Creationists say that 'both sides of the argument should be taught'. Ermm...No, what they mean to say is 'Evolution goes against what I believe to be the truth, Creationism is the only possible answer'.
JamesAlex88 2 months ago
people do crazy things in the name of god !
m23ghost 2 months ago
god is a simple as 1day gettin up an beliving and then the next day u hate the fucker ... its choice thats all .. there is no god so just get a grip
m23ghost 2 months ago
It's important to know what other people believe.
willscomix 2 months ago
"school's should be a place to over come ignorance not teach it" Lawrence Krauss
jadagod 2 months ago 33
It baffles me that politicians in the US can get elected if they are creationists, in the UK you would be the laughing stock of the whole country
haz464 2 months ago 3
Creationism is a danger to intelligent thought and rational thinking when taught to children. Disturbing to think these people with these views are actually being elected to run the country!
Matt120592 2 months ago 38
This has been flagged as spam show
@Matt120592 "Creationism is a danger to intelligent thought and rational thinking when taught to children. Disturbing to think these people with these views are actually being elected to run the country!"
The 'Theory' (or 'conjecture') of evolution may be any safer.?
You don't give any evidence for what is a strong (&& 'dangerous') comment. Do you have any.?
Elected by whom.? Free thinkers.? Maybe your viewpoint could 'evolve' or adapt by coming around to what you propose in your comment.
De5O54 4 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evoloution is a loads of rubbish
asadzubair100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@asadzubair100 "evoloution is a loads of rubbish." next time you speak... dont.
cascadingsun 2 months ago