You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Sad. The arrogance of a young person who doesn't even present a decent scientific view to support her stance. If you get anyone to support you based on this video let me know.
Faith is one thing science is another. I don’t understand creationism of any kind outside metaphorical tales for good stories. Evolution and science makes sense. My beliefs don’t trump old hard science and research. I am an animist and I am not a creationist.
You should ask your friends, who don't 'believe' in evolution, how, if evolution doesn't happen in 'thousands' of years, the different races, white,black, asian, native americans, aborgines, pygmies, etc came about, from the remnants of Noah and his passengers just 4200 years ago.
The fact that these differences exist shows that we have evolved, differently, based on the climatic differences of the locations in which we live.
We don't need millions of years to see differences - but it helps.
Look up HAARP, we can control the weather. We can also stop a meteor from hitting us. We're not completely there, but we're dabbing our feet into having complete control of our enviroment.
You are too cute! Made me think a bit, even at 27year old married Mother. Raised Lutheran but by also taught about Judaism by my stepmother, i have always had my own thoughts and stuck to them. At any rate, You are a sweetie!!! I can relate to A LOT of your thoughts!!!
I have studied it more than you might think. Did Einstein believe in Evolution? No, because he was a true scientist. Did Darwin leave many way out in his book "Originsof Species",? Yes, something about bees making a hive puzzled him, something about eyes making him loose sleep, something about the fact that if their was something smaller than a cell it would be reasonable to reject his theory, something about the lack of archeologie to dispute his theory. I could go on and on about this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution is a lie, it has never been proven it will never be proven. Every experiment that man does to try and prove simple elements of the THEORIE of evolution ends disproving it more and more. How can chance accomplish something that man can't even do will have the technologie we have. Real scientists know that evolution is impossible, because it has no scientific bases, everything it claims is only junk science that even Darwin would find foolish. One day we'll ask how were we so dumb.
ismfofbiggestfan: It amazes me that someone who has no clue about the subject would suggest that someone else should, "at least understand what your (sp?) saying, before you say it." Actually proper English is "you're" and, you have no clue what being an Atheist means so, you shouldn't be saying it. There is no faith in being an Atheist. All that being an Atheist means is that you don't accept the faith of others.
faith, is belief without proof. you need FAITH to be an atheist. hence, atheism is a blunt joke. no i'm not religous i don't subscribe to any mainstream or private insitutions and shit. just saying.. you should at least understand what your saying, before you say it.
i'd say the most inteligent species on the planet is your average moggy, your common or garden pet cat, gets to do , what it wants when it wants, and has coerced humans into being their slaves , we cater for all their needs, food, shelter, health care plan. i would not include dogs in the higher intelligent species, mainly because they allow humans to dictate terms to vigourously like when get to go walkies. plus smart is not sayin hello by sniffing rear ends or thinking trouserlegs r a sex aid
If by defining "intelligence" as the ability to take advantage of others, then by your logic, yes many pets are intelligent in that way. However if you define "intelligence" as the ability to reason phenomena, then by all means humans are much more intelligent than any other species of organiams on this planet. Curiosity is essentially a significant characteristic of homo sapiens sapiens. Although many other organisms do possess curiousity, it is nowhere as close in magnitude as the modern human
beings. The vital distinction between the curiosity of homo sapiens sapiens and that of other organisms is that the other organiams are curious of things other than the reasoning of a phenomenon while the modern humans are curious about everything including reasoning. In fact it is this curiosity for reasoning that has led the humans to gain so much knowledge on the mechanisms of nature. Now to counter your argument, the humans are in fact more intelligent even in terms of your definition.
Before concluding that pets like cats are better than humans in taking advantage of others, you must acknowledge the fact that the cats are not playing an active role in taking advantage of the humans. In fact, it is the humans that are in control. The humans take care of cats not because they are deceived to do so by the cats but because they choose to do so for the goal of entertainment. When that goal is dismissed by the human, the cat will then be no longer capable of taking advantage of the
human, both passively and actively. In other words, the broader perspective of your scenario is that the humans are actually taking advantage of the cats for the use of entertainment. In conclusion, humans are in fact more intelligent based on a closer analogy of your argument as well as mine.
your arguement has merit, but the trouble with subject is defining intelligence, if we're regardin intel of a species, not an individual, the most vital factor is its ability to survive and as it seems to be becoming clear that humans are destroying their habitat, globally, thus dooming in distance to extinction and only species knowingly doing so, then i would have to say humanity is the least intelligent species currently breathing. on that basis cats as species greater smarts
also you could argue that if a species gains the same type of intelligence as mankind it is doomed to destroy itself via weapons, science and destroyin environment, so if a species elected through natural selection to take an evolutionary path that stopped it gaining that type of intelligence such as a slug then in a way by the individual in the species staying stupid and harmless it would again make the species as a whole more intelligent than mankind
what amuses me is that there are people in our society who dont belive in a higher intwelligence spiritually( that is o.k, what ever gets u thru the day), but they also think mankind is the most intelligent species on planet( how we r destroying our habitat, which may one day cause our extinction throws doubt on that), but they also dont believe in aliens or intelligent life out there in the stars, which means some people think theyre the highest intelligence in reality,
Excellent! Another person who dislikes the word "belief".
Scientific Pantheism is actually kind of cool. Google that phrase with Carl Sagan's name and read the whole page. If there were to be "religion" of any kind that would be most acceptable to the scientific view.
these religious people have wires crossed. they can't think critically or objectively. it's futile. exhausting just talking to them.
it sounds like you conversed with a rather isolated, complacent, prideful individual. their story of "homeless people" is a sleight- against you not 'being grateful.' they see atheists as 'ungrateful' in general.
science's greatest psychological implication is that it forces us to face the world clearly, directly-- whether we like it or not.
Merchickety, nice vid. Keep up the good work. The sexist thing about you is your brain! Nice body - (can I say that :) - 2.
Anyway I give you 4 stars, cause I'm sure you will get better.
Now creationists are just plain dumb. You may as well try explain evolution to a goldfish... except they may have slightly greater comprehension.
Creationist can only hear arguments that support their belief 'God did it', and are completely deaf to anything else said to them - unless you do the next vid n..
Evolution is a flawed "theory." It does not EXPLAIN how life began... ("on the backs of crystals" I've heard one Scientist explain... or "perhaps aliens from another planet deposited the seed of life here," another postulated... Yeah... that's so much less crazy than believing in God. LOL)
Until proven, an educated "guess" is exactly what a theory is... and, since, as you just admitted, the Theory of Evolution has "nothing to do with the origins of life," what "theory" would you propose which would prove that "God" did NOT create life?
...aside from that, I guess we'll have to wait until "the end" to see who's truly "ignorant."
Look up the scientific terminology. "It's just a theory" in the passive vernacular, is a gross misunderstanding. The scientific method uses the word "Theory" differently.
In science, nothing is undisputably "proven." Theories never graduate to "facts." Facts support theories, and theories are both internally coherent, and utilitarian.
What's going on in the states these days? Nobody knows anything about science anymore. So many are loudly criticizing it without even understanding it closely.
I don't have a problem with Science... or even Darwin's theories... but, I don't understand why people feel they have to choose Science or God. (and, I DO think Science over-steps it's bounds at times... such as these Dr. Frankensteins creating glowing monkeys & puppies & sh*t. Do they have to f*ck things up to learn about them?) Can't I have both? I also have quite a few friends who are Atheists... but, I'm sick of people "preaching" Atheism; trying to "convert" people... Anyway, no disrespect
I see lately a large misunderstanding of science in modern culture.
The "glowing puppies" hardly represents the aim of science. It represents the media highlighting entertaining extremes. You see science has terrible everyday coverage. Nobody understands it anymore, likely because it has become so advanced in the past few decades. It's become esoteric.
"I'm sick of people "preaching" Christ; trying to "convert" people... "
Offensive, isn't it? Ask a Native American.
Everyone wants to share their mode of thinking. Existential matters and cosmologies are immense topics. We ought to expect people to be vocal with them.
It would be nice if people of different mind would just shut up. But words and ideas are not always comfortable. Diversity is the rule of nature.
Watch Ben Stein's "EXPELLED" to see why "Evolutionists" are the closed minded ones... and, check out former Athiest Philosopher, Antony Flew's book,"There Is A God: How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind."
I'm confused were do you think this stuff up... Were does it come from? Someone must be feeding this type of thinking to you... Because, its not original :)
I believe creationists seem to have a stubborness about them, that is masked by pride and closemindedness. The fact that there may not be a god scares some people. I believe,fear has alot to do with faith in a strange way. I believe the overall message the bible has for us can be beautiful, however I cannot bring myself to believe it. I believe if god did exist as the bible says, he absolutely would not send a single SOUL to hell
Um. we are still evolving, like we are much more social, some individuals just can't hack it and don't breed. Also there are all the pathogens which have wiped out 1/3 population of europe in the dark ages. The survivors had better immunity etc. It is not like we evolve into glowing golden orbs, it is more like we constantly adapt and have carried the advantageous genes to the next generation.that is all that evolution is, over huge time spans it changes animals into lots of variants/species
what happens when you have beleifs with out knowledge?
what happens when you have knowledge with out beleifs.
we'll never no everything, there'll always be doubts, thats been discovered by numourous people in the past and is very old! doesn't make it true but it is becoming popular
no offense but we don't no shit right now what makes you think they didn't no shit back then?? i like your oppinion but you know beliefs are important, religion is a way to express our most extreme and most interesting beliefs and since the most extreme beliefs arn't based usually based on knowledge we get some pretty interesting religions. you know theres prob a lot of beleifs that fail, when comes along that becomes pop, bang you get a following.
evolution is a change in genetic materials in a population of an organism over generations. in that sense, evolution is an ongoing process that happens every generation. it simply happens in such a small increment that it is virtually unnoticable.
Ok, so you cringed at the word believe? Why? You are saying that you 'think.' But you do not know. You make a movie about what you 'think,' but not believe in anything. Wow, your video is odd, but if you want to have a real discussion just send me a message through this because who you discussed with about religion seems to be a bit off.
I'm not going to speak for her, but the reason most people who think about it cringe at the word believe in the context of a scientific theory is that one does not "believe" a theory. One either accepts or rejects its arguement.
Darlin, I like your spunk. Just tell the naysayers the truth, all religion, without exception, was created by man to control other men. Oh yeah, some religions provide help to the needy, just as long as the needy agree with them, or appear to. But god help you, (pardon the pun), if you don't agree. You will be ostracized, or worse yet proselytized to, till you're bleeding from the ears.
Keep up the good work, and refute any godnik who gets in your face about their particular fairy tale.
NO thats not how evolution works a Dog is just as evolved as you or me PLEASE research evolution before you comment on it.
we didn't come from a dog or a monkey or any other animal.
Evolution has been PROVEN fact since 2005 when they found the gene #2 and #13 is the same in man and chimps this is from a retro virus that infected our ancestor (that was the same ancestor as the chimp) millions of years ago But hey thats science!
If evolution were true we wood at least see animals that were half the way thru evolving...which we dont see today...all thru history humans have wanted wings....y doesnt anyone in the human race have wings...or at least half formed nubs of wings?
"Doesn't make the existence of multiple Gods true, though"
though they did believe in gods, they did not limit their minds by it, instead they though about things as if the gods didn't even existed ... not only did they know about earth being a sphere, there was also some philosopher 300BC who even calculated pretty accurate the distance of the earth to the sun, erastopathes (i think) was his name
lets face it, as george carlin once said "we have some dumb ass motherfuckers floating around here" many many ... many people are just to stupid to grasp it (!) no need to appologize, as we can't all climb the evolutionary ladder on an equal speed ;-)
I think you're very rude against Pantheism. Don't missunderstand me, I am an atheist myself, but actually the Gods known in ancient Greece DO make more sense than the Christian God.
Philosophers in Ancient Greece were a lot more educated than any other people before the 16th/17th century. They knew for instance, that the world was a globe. So... they did know sh!t! They could explain much more than Christians in the Middle Age.
Doesn't make the existence of multiple Gods true, though.
Good Point ! God is imaginary and was created by men due of their fear of the unknown and their ignorance ! Extraterrestrial life is logical. It's a great example of our ignorance, our hypocrisy, naivety, arrogance to tell we are alone in this big universe and God created this Earth only for mankind. Bullshit of course ! Mankind lack of humility and modesty. Period ! Keep up the good work ! Peace and Wisdom from France !
Pantheism/polytheism is an easy mistake to make if you consider that the Greek "Pantheon" is the "temple for all gods" (polytheistic). The same etymology is used for pantheism (all is God), but with a vastly different meaning. I describe myself as an atheist when talking to theists, and a scientific pantheist when talking to atheists because it best describes the difference between my beliefs and theirs. Most theists have no idea what a pantheist is anyway; I may as well be a pastafarian.
Vry good spiritual position,i thought i was one of few but i'm discovering thy are much more around me now. Scientific pantheists,we shall all become it very soon,i hope.But still i'm also theist sometimes (for myself,nothing related to any written religion) cos nobody knows anyway if there's a creator entity or not and i remember the joy i felt when i wasnt questionning myself about it as a kid, and joy is very important. Unfortunattly has been owned by religious morality, but joy is the goal
haha I love people who argue that a belief must be true because it's been around a long time :D By that logic we should all be worshipping the giant dung beetle that buries the sun at the end of every day ^^
A nice theory that: Humans evolved until the moment they started adapting their environment to fit their needs instead of continuing to adapt to it. But when that started to happen they started to devolve.
And there's enough evidence for (evolution) changes in humans over the last few thousend years, as well as evidence of devolving changes in the last few centuries.
Hmmmmm...perhaps I should post something on that subject to see what kind of reaction I'll get.
Where do these people get this junk from? It's always the SAME junk so there must be a common source. Who is responsible for the lies? I'd be interested to know where your mom's friend got her ideas from.
Yea, but I suspect it's invaded the brains of priests and other false nobilities that these people bow to. I suspect they get it from their local church or they hear it while standing next to their sacrificial stone or torture instrument.
It's simple Darwin even said without the support of the fossil record his point of evolution would not work. I've read about Darwin, if Darwin was alive today he would of said there must be a God that designed this. I believe we was seeing the systems that be. It would of only been a matter of time for him.
careful, without the morals and right and wrong, would you think it is ok should someone rape you and then would you be ok about it? Because after all to hell with morals right? Where did right and wrong come from and would you be ok if someone does not live by your rules?
Humans are a social animal. We thought up our morals and ethics ourselves through thousands of years of putting up with each other. Religion evolved to help enforce these rules, but it was still somethig that came from the minds of humans. There are no gods. Sorry.
I'm not sure if you have read the bible, but they knew the world was in space, they knew about germs, they knew a lot more than you know. Because the fact you don't even know your history shows this fact.
No, actually, they thought the world was flat, extended in a small circle around the midle east and was covered in a metal dome on which the sun, moon and stars were fixed.
just like the Sumerians and Babylonians who gave them their cosmology.
Isaiah 40:22 states the world is a circle, with the sky suspended like a tent over it. What about our actual sky is tent like exactly?
Have you thought why in the world if it takes millions of years for humans to evolve?, it's only been the last 6000 that we have even understood we are human? So is it in the last 6000 years that we have evolved this far to record history?
However, the bumble bee learned to fly and you don't believe no humans why to fly? Evolution is something that can be turned on and off? How? How did we turn it off?
I don't expect you would care that I answer, but I'm gonna do it anyway.
There is natural evolution and there is cultural evolution, which doesn't change genetics. We have come as humans to a cultural evolution much more important than our genetic changes. By the way crows too have cultural evolution, interesting to read on it.
Evolution = become fitter. Man doesn't need to fly to survive; now just imagine a fly with no wings - pathetic. Evolution is off when individuals don't die.
No disrespect to your mother, but from what you describe she sounds like should wants to argue against your point of view but she does not have the knowledge to allow her to successfully present her side of things. Or maybe she knows you are right but cannot bring herself to admit it because of her upbringing and long standing beliefs. It always takes more effort to go against the crowd.
how i got into this video i will never know, but seriously after reading your comments and all that, i swear you guys are just a bunch of nerds with no life sitting on your asses with no jobs/girlfriends/boyfriends or whatever bitching/arguing like little assholes thinking your smarter then eachother by saying dorkey words that you dont even know the meaning for. Seriously just quit while your ahead and get a life.
I can just go on and on at her. What about the starving or freezing people that don't live in america and have the tools to change the enviornment? why haven't they evolved? P.S. most laws of physics still fit in biblical stories. And explain your "unreachable, unseeable parallel universes" bull.
The laws of inertia and Gravity were once Theory until proven and backed by many scientists who retested and improved the theory. Newton -> Scientists improve and revise -> Laws of Inertia and Gravity(Laws of Motion).
the laws of inertia and gravity are different because they're based on mathematical framework, which separates them from conventional theory. (i.e evolution, germ theory, atomic theory.)
yup, but they differ from conventional theory; in that they can become proven through mathematics whereas germ theory, atomic theory and evolution cannot. end of discussion.
Um no simply due to the fact that science and math are connected and proving a scientific theory via math still remains in the field of science since all scientific theories can be proven using math. Also all mathmatical theories can be proven using science.
Well you said; 'they can become proven through mathematics whereas germ theory, atomic theory and evolution cannot. end of discussion.'
Actually, atomic theory can be proven through mathematics in a similar way to how gravity was proved by mathematics. As I said, anything related to physics - atomic theory for example, has its foundations rooted in mathematics.
Gravity is still a theory actually. But that doesn't make it not fact. Theory's are facts according to science. A theory is something that can be tested using the scientific method. If it survives this method, it becomes a theory, but that doesn't make it any less fact by science. Example: Evolution is a 100% fact while still being a theory. To debate that fact is to debate most of the scientific truths we hold today.
Dude are you just rippin' on her or are you disproving creationist? Either's fine because 1. Her mom's friend is an example of a stupid christian and 2. she's not as hot as she thinks she is.
you weren't there neither was I...evolution and creationism are both irrational. Evolution just like creation both have an agenda for "control" over the people. Religion and science are ALWAYS changing. You must understand this.
You need to stop by shockawenow channel. Also just to let you know your video is cutting in and out on the sound..you should upload them at lower than 512 bps
Actually, we have evolved since the use of tools. As Jared Diamond has pointed out, populations living in close proximity to farm animals (eg Europeans), developed a reasonable level of immunity to certain germs, whereas populations that did not (eg North American natives) lacked this immunity.
When Europeans arrived here, there came wave upon wave of devastating plagues among the native populations.
We continue to evolve. Men today have far lower sperm counts than their grandfathers.
Wait. I just remembered something. This perception that "no discernable beneficial mutations have occured by now" is not true.
We have examined the skulls of early humans and found somewhat smaller cranial cavities, indicating smaller brains. Examination of their shapes has shown us that the part of the brain which governed verbal communication was not present. This trait, when it emerged, spread very rapidly through the species, leaving those who lacked it absolutely unable to compete.
Now when someone makes a big deal about no discernable steps in evolution happening "by now," what does that mean? How long is it supposed to take? Human beings have been around for 160,000 years. If I remember correctly, the most widespread complex organism on the planet before us dominated for 500,000 years before being superceded. The same holds true for its predecessor and the one before that. This is the norm.
"God wishes to protect our free will which we do not have unless we are free to deny His existence. The way we know that He exists is from the fact that He manifested to us centuries ago. This means that He was either able to manifest without infringing on free will at the time, or that he had no compunctions about it then... er... wait..."
Humans don't evolve much anymore because we have largely circumvented the mechanism of natural selection. If somebody has an otherwise debilitating genetic disorder, society steps in to ensure his survival and enables his procreation.
For effective speciation to occur it is necessary for a group to be seperated and severely decimated to allow minority adaptations to become dominant. They just get lost in the gene pool with large populations.
I do not agree. Globalisation is a change in circumstances to which we are left to adapt. Evolution cannot be countered because change cannot be halted.
But how are we supposed to change? Evolution does NOT work like Lamarck thought it did. We don't just adapt to our surroundings as a whole; a mechanism of selection has to be in place. If eveyone is fed through, all the mutations - fit or unfit - remain in the gene pool and positive adaptations don't have a chance to dominate a population.
a) There are no populations being isolated anymore
b) Society allows everybody to survive and procreate.
The proper question is how are we supposed to *avoid* change? Genetic variation occurs. No one is suggesting Lamarckism here.
How do you define fit or unfit? An unfit mutation is one which makes someone less able to survive. If society renders a wider percentage of humanity able to survive, doesn't this redraw the parameters of what makes a characteristic beneficial?
Random genetic variations are too minute and diverse to actually affect a species as a whole without any selective and/or divisive process; they just get lost in the gene pool. In modern human society the competetiveness of nature has been circumvented and "fitness" has lost its relevance.
I can only see humanity evolving socially until one day society will break down and our decendants might have to survive in the wilderness again. Then natural selection will kick in soon enough.
What? Random genetic variations are no less minute than they ever were. And the larger the gene pool in question, the more diverse will be the variations.
When you talk about "fitness" having lost its relevance, you are talking about its parameters having been redrawn.
How does humanity evolving socially lead to society breaking down?
Okay, one last time: Random variation alone doesn't lead to evolution. There has to be a mechanism of selection, and modern society has replaced that. Possibly helpful adaptations can't become dominant because EVERYBODY gets to procreate, fit or not. If you want to change a population, you need a process of selective breeding (like the nazis tried), or the helpful mutations won't have a chance to become dominant.
Society breaking down was an example of a once again competetive environment.
Actually, there are plenty of people in the world today who don't get to procreate. But if everyone did get to procreate, that would mean that there are no unfit mutations. After all, an unfit mutation is one which renders renders someone less able to procreate. That is how it is defined and identified. Any mutation which does not have this effect is not unfit.
That may be, but in modern society any mutation that does not render you sterile is a fit one; the all get passed on. That doesn't help evolution one bit. The only way we can really evolve from that is to grow even less sterile. ;-)
Well now, once the concepts of fit and unfit mutations are redefined, the same holds true about the the parameters of mutation and natural selection. What if a mutation which detracts from your function in one setting contributes to it in another?
Before I continue, I should explain a couple terms:
Actual strength: the overall amount of weight an organism can lift.
Relative strength: an organisms actual strength relative to its weight.
So the average human being has more actual strength while the average ant has more relative strength.
Now if you compare human beings to all the other five-digit primates we know of, you find that they each have more relative strength and a higher percentage of their body-mass from muscle than we have, but none of them are able to swim. One of the reasons is that for swimming to be practical, a certain measure of buoyancy is required which is detracted from by too much muscle mass.
Right. I'm sorry. I lost my train of throught. The point I was getting to is that a mutation which leads to inreased relative strength and muscle mass would not necessarily be beneficial.
Right. I'm sorry. I lost my train of throught. The point I was getting to is that a mutation which leads to inreased relative strength and muscle mass would not necessarily be beneficial.
That's true. Evolution is all about adapting to different ecolocal niches. You will find similar structures of "roles" in similar environments, even if they are far away from each other.
So what if a mutation which detracts from your function in one setting contributes to it in another? What if the other setting just happens to be one you don't know about yet?
What if a mutation renders a man unable to walk, yet able to achieve fluency in 30 languages in just a few months?
If you "don't know about it yet", that isn't enough. Every mutation has to cause an immediate increase in fitness, or natural selection will discard it.
However a shift of focus can occur if the selective process is modified. For example, if a rival species invades your ecological niche, you might be forced to adapt a new specialisation. Another example is climate change: Only the all-rounders will survive it, the specialists are too dependent on the status quo and not flexible enough.
But my question is, is the change in characteristics beneficial or detrimental? What if, for example, a random mutation produces offspring with more narrow nostrils. These offspring would be less well suited to function in a warm climate, but would function better in the cold. So is this mutation beneficial or detrimental?
I would say it depends entirely on the surroundings. If a bit of variation happens to be just the thing an organism needs in order to adapt to a changing environment, it will be favoured by natural selection. The mutation has to result in an immediately improved chance of survival, or it will be discarded. So the nostril thing depends on the climate AT THE TIME of the mutation. As does the paraplegic polyglot depend upon the present selective factors (i.e. do chicks dig jocks or smartiepants?).
What if the fellow with more narrow nostrils lives in a place of relatively greater extremes and so functions worse in the summer but better in the winter?
And what if the paraplegic polyglot is born unable to walk and abandoned before his linguistic skills are given a chance to become apparent.
Immediate improvement? My understanding is that most mutations are neutral, producing changes in ways not exposed to the forces of natural selection.
Yes, exactly. By immediate improvement I meant that the mutation has to be an advantage for THAT individual, not something that may benefit his decendants.
So if we apply that to your examples, the mutations turn out to be detrimental at first, and, thus, are discarded. If the selective circumstances happen to favour these mutations at the time of their occurence however, they might be given a chance to flourish.
Why are we so consistently driven by a desire to keep these people alive? Is this drive not a regular characteristic? How have we come to have it so long unless it is beneficial?
If I have understood Dawkins (etc.) properly about this, it is an instinct that has been extant in mammals long before the homo genus arose. We have developed an instinctive desire to help individuals that we percieve as part of our group, which directly leads to a stronger tribe, ensuring greater chances of survival for every member. Many of us today apply this charitable urge to all humans, but society is not short of examples of how quickly our equally well-developed xenophobia can take over.
ahhh the age fallacy
Pavelserboris 1 year ago
like ur video, im glad theres younger atheists like myself out there... text me back and ill share sum of my crazy christian moments with u
cjames7777 1 year ago
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Sad. The arrogance of a young person who doesn't even present a decent scientific view to support her stance. If you get anyone to support you based on this video let me know.
drjackflash 1 year ago
Faith is one thing science is another. I don’t understand creationism of any kind outside metaphorical tales for good stories. Evolution and science makes sense. My beliefs don’t trump old hard science and research. I am an animist and I am not a creationist.
XMoonSeekerX 1 year ago
You should ask your friends, who don't 'believe' in evolution, how, if evolution doesn't happen in 'thousands' of years, the different races, white,black, asian, native americans, aborgines, pygmies, etc came about, from the remnants of Noah and his passengers just 4200 years ago.
The fact that these differences exist shows that we have evolved, differently, based on the climatic differences of the locations in which we live.
We don't need millions of years to see differences - but it helps.
GorgeGeorg 1 year ago
I love American Atheists like all atheists
I am a New Zealand Atheist.
HOORAY FOR ALL OF US!
ilovepanslabyrinth 1 year ago
Your moms friend lacks what athiests have... free thinking!
h0lystrike 1 year ago
like your vid keep em up!
opaqueclover 1 year ago
Look up HAARP, we can control the weather. We can also stop a meteor from hitting us. We're not completely there, but we're dabbing our feet into having complete control of our enviroment.
abdishtar 1 year ago
my mum had almost this exact same conversation with me
Friskeee 1 year ago
You are too cute! Made me think a bit, even at 27year old married Mother. Raised Lutheran but by also taught about Judaism by my stepmother, i have always had my own thoughts and stuck to them. At any rate, You are a sweetie!!! I can relate to A LOT of your thoughts!!!
juliespieces 1 year ago
I have studied it more than you might think. Did Einstein believe in Evolution? No, because he was a true scientist. Did Darwin leave many way out in his book "Originsof Species",? Yes, something about bees making a hive puzzled him, something about eyes making him loose sleep, something about the fact that if their was something smaller than a cell it would be reasonable to reject his theory, something about the lack of archeologie to dispute his theory. I could go on and on about this.
morrij01 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is a lie, it has never been proven it will never be proven. Every experiment that man does to try and prove simple elements of the THEORIE of evolution ends disproving it more and more. How can chance accomplish something that man can't even do will have the technologie we have. Real scientists know that evolution is impossible, because it has no scientific bases, everything it claims is only junk science that even Darwin would find foolish. One day we'll ask how were we so dumb.
morrij01 2 years ago
you really haven't studied the topic you are preaching about friend
ingeolusn 1 year ago
@morrij01
This is the kind of thinking that put's the brakes on human advancement.
luxfair 1 year ago
ismfofbiggestfan: It amazes me that someone who has no clue about the subject would suggest that someone else should, "at least understand what your (sp?) saying, before you say it." Actually proper English is "you're" and, you have no clue what being an Atheist means so, you shouldn't be saying it. There is no faith in being an Atheist. All that being an Atheist means is that you don't accept the faith of others.
sgtcyber 2 years ago
yes you are completely right !!
c3h9e4v7y 2 years ago
faith, is belief without proof. you need FAITH to be an atheist. hence, atheism is a blunt joke. no i'm not religous i don't subscribe to any mainstream or private insitutions and shit. just saying.. you should at least understand what your saying, before you say it.
ismfofbiggestfan 2 years ago
Great video.
Hitchens FTW
Solarcoreg 2 years ago 2
i'd say the most inteligent species on the planet is your average moggy, your common or garden pet cat, gets to do , what it wants when it wants, and has coerced humans into being their slaves , we cater for all their needs, food, shelter, health care plan. i would not include dogs in the higher intelligent species, mainly because they allow humans to dictate terms to vigourously like when get to go walkies. plus smart is not sayin hello by sniffing rear ends or thinking trouserlegs r a sex aid
bryngOneOn 2 years ago
If by defining "intelligence" as the ability to take advantage of others, then by your logic, yes many pets are intelligent in that way. However if you define "intelligence" as the ability to reason phenomena, then by all means humans are much more intelligent than any other species of organiams on this planet. Curiosity is essentially a significant characteristic of homo sapiens sapiens. Although many other organisms do possess curiousity, it is nowhere as close in magnitude as the modern human
hansdafrog 2 years ago
beings. The vital distinction between the curiosity of homo sapiens sapiens and that of other organisms is that the other organiams are curious of things other than the reasoning of a phenomenon while the modern humans are curious about everything including reasoning. In fact it is this curiosity for reasoning that has led the humans to gain so much knowledge on the mechanisms of nature. Now to counter your argument, the humans are in fact more intelligent even in terms of your definition.
hansdafrog 2 years ago
Before concluding that pets like cats are better than humans in taking advantage of others, you must acknowledge the fact that the cats are not playing an active role in taking advantage of the humans. In fact, it is the humans that are in control. The humans take care of cats not because they are deceived to do so by the cats but because they choose to do so for the goal of entertainment. When that goal is dismissed by the human, the cat will then be no longer capable of taking advantage of the
hansdafrog 2 years ago
human, both passively and actively. In other words, the broader perspective of your scenario is that the humans are actually taking advantage of the cats for the use of entertainment. In conclusion, humans are in fact more intelligent based on a closer analogy of your argument as well as mine.
hansdafrog 2 years ago
your arguement has merit, but the trouble with subject is defining intelligence, if we're regardin intel of a species, not an individual, the most vital factor is its ability to survive and as it seems to be becoming clear that humans are destroying their habitat, globally, thus dooming in distance to extinction and only species knowingly doing so, then i would have to say humanity is the least intelligent species currently breathing. on that basis cats as species greater smarts
bryngOneOn 2 years ago
also you could argue that if a species gains the same type of intelligence as mankind it is doomed to destroy itself via weapons, science and destroyin environment, so if a species elected through natural selection to take an evolutionary path that stopped it gaining that type of intelligence such as a slug then in a way by the individual in the species staying stupid and harmless it would again make the species as a whole more intelligent than mankind
bryngOneOn 2 years ago
what amuses me is that there are people in our society who dont belive in a higher intwelligence spiritually( that is o.k, what ever gets u thru the day), but they also think mankind is the most intelligent species on planet( how we r destroying our habitat, which may one day cause our extinction throws doubt on that), but they also dont believe in aliens or intelligent life out there in the stars, which means some people think theyre the highest intelligence in reality,
bryngOneOn 2 years ago
I like your artificially evolved wolves!
jazzx251 2 years ago
Excellent! Another person who dislikes the word "belief".
Scientific Pantheism is actually kind of cool. Google that phrase with Carl Sagan's name and read the whole page. If there were to be "religion" of any kind that would be most acceptable to the scientific view.
Nice doggy. Watch Carl Sagan every day.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
The next hypothesis, that is accepted, is that humans are going to loose their pinky fingers.
dramaticchord 2 years ago
Smart and sexy, a powerful combo! :D
Rickyballon 2 years ago
these religious people have wires crossed. they can't think critically or objectively. it's futile. exhausting just talking to them.
it sounds like you conversed with a rather isolated, complacent, prideful individual. their story of "homeless people" is a sleight- against you not 'being grateful.' they see atheists as 'ungrateful' in general.
science's greatest psychological implication is that it forces us to face the world clearly, directly-- whether we like it or not.
abyssquick 2 years ago
Have you read Antony Flew's book, "There Is A God: How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind?"
supertenor 2 years ago
08.48 hahahahahaha! unbelievable!!!! it does leave one speechless........
ezmereldagreen 2 years ago
wow.....now I think I may have come from a fish.or is there a different message here...or maybe I am lost...
believe1974 2 years ago
Merchickety, nice vid. Keep up the good work. The sexist thing about you is your brain! Nice body - (can I say that :) - 2.
Anyway I give you 4 stars, cause I'm sure you will get better.
Now creationists are just plain dumb. You may as well try explain evolution to a goldfish... except they may have slightly greater comprehension.
Creationist can only hear arguments that support their belief 'God did it', and are completely deaf to anything else said to them - unless you do the next vid n..
EvolBob1 2 years ago
Evolution is a flawed "theory." It does not EXPLAIN how life began... ("on the backs of crystals" I've heard one Scientist explain... or "perhaps aliens from another planet deposited the seed of life here," another postulated... Yeah... that's so much less crazy than believing in God. LOL)
supertenor 2 years ago
Theory does not mean guess nor does evolution have anything to do with the origins of life. That is plain and simple ignorance.
newcoyote 2 years ago
Until proven, an educated "guess" is exactly what a theory is... and, since, as you just admitted, the Theory of Evolution has "nothing to do with the origins of life," what "theory" would you propose which would prove that "God" did NOT create life?
...aside from that, I guess we'll have to wait until "the end" to see who's truly "ignorant."
supertenor 2 years ago
Look up the scientific terminology. "It's just a theory" in the passive vernacular, is a gross misunderstanding. The scientific method uses the word "Theory" differently.
In science, nothing is undisputably "proven." Theories never graduate to "facts." Facts support theories, and theories are both internally coherent, and utilitarian.
What's going on in the states these days? Nobody knows anything about science anymore. So many are loudly criticizing it without even understanding it closely.
abyssquick 2 years ago
I don't have a problem with Science... or even Darwin's theories... but, I don't understand why people feel they have to choose Science or God. (and, I DO think Science over-steps it's bounds at times... such as these Dr. Frankensteins creating glowing monkeys & puppies & sh*t. Do they have to f*ck things up to learn about them?) Can't I have both? I also have quite a few friends who are Atheists... but, I'm sick of people "preaching" Atheism; trying to "convert" people... Anyway, no disrespect
supertenor 2 years ago
I see lately a large misunderstanding of science in modern culture.
The "glowing puppies" hardly represents the aim of science. It represents the media highlighting entertaining extremes. You see science has terrible everyday coverage. Nobody understands it anymore, likely because it has become so advanced in the past few decades. It's become esoteric.
abyssquick 2 years ago
Comment removed
abyssquick 2 years ago
Imagine someone saying, to quote you:
"I'm sick of people "preaching" Christ; trying to "convert" people... "
Offensive, isn't it? Ask a Native American.
Everyone wants to share their mode of thinking. Existential matters and cosmologies are immense topics. We ought to expect people to be vocal with them.
It would be nice if people of different mind would just shut up. But words and ideas are not always comfortable. Diversity is the rule of nature.
abyssquick 2 years ago
Watch Ben Stein's "EXPELLED" to see why "Evolutionists" are the closed minded ones... and, check out former Athiest Philosopher, Antony Flew's book,"There Is A God: How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind."
supertenor 2 years ago
are those a C or a B??
they are pretty xD...
^__^ i cant wait for the 2nd Dark Ages
Nades129 2 years ago
I'm confused were do you think this stuff up... Were does it come from? Someone must be feeding this type of thinking to you... Because, its not original :)
BHenryC1 3 years ago
well what is original then?
ezmereldagreen 2 years ago
, in the end we are all ignorant, stupid and unaware of the unknown truth, but I also believe that is what makes it so beautiful in a strange way.
EricEqualsMCSquared 3 years ago
I believe creationists seem to have a stubborness about them, that is masked by pride and closemindedness. The fact that there may not be a god scares some people. I believe,fear has alot to do with faith in a strange way. I believe the overall message the bible has for us can be beautiful, however I cannot bring myself to believe it. I believe if god did exist as the bible says, he absolutely would not send a single SOUL to hell
EricEqualsMCSquared 3 years ago
Um. we are still evolving, like we are much more social, some individuals just can't hack it and don't breed. Also there are all the pathogens which have wiped out 1/3 population of europe in the dark ages. The survivors had better immunity etc. It is not like we evolve into glowing golden orbs, it is more like we constantly adapt and have carried the advantageous genes to the next generation.that is all that evolution is, over huge time spans it changes animals into lots of variants/species
marsCubed 3 years ago
Hot girl!!
relworp69 3 years ago
Damn those dogs are cute as hell.
SameFatCrow 3 years ago
God is merely a variable for the unknown. Just as in math, we should try to define the variable rather than leave it as a variable.
dynamicnames619 3 years ago
what happens when you have beleifs with out knowledge?
what happens when you have knowledge with out beleifs.
we'll never no everything, there'll always be doubts, thats been discovered by numourous people in the past and is very old! doesn't make it true but it is becoming popular
tomcatmiles 3 years ago
no offense but we don't no shit right now what makes you think they didn't no shit back then?? i like your oppinion but you know beliefs are important, religion is a way to express our most extreme and most interesting beliefs and since the most extreme beliefs arn't based usually based on knowledge we get some pretty interesting religions. you know theres prob a lot of beleifs that fail, when comes along that becomes pop, bang you get a following.
tomcatmiles 3 years ago
I'd love for you to marry me. Great vids.
RealDre25 3 years ago
evolution is a change in genetic materials in a population of an organism over generations. in that sense, evolution is an ongoing process that happens every generation. it simply happens in such a small increment that it is virtually unnoticable.
yhan4 3 years ago
Ok, so you cringed at the word believe? Why? You are saying that you 'think.' But you do not know. You make a movie about what you 'think,' but not believe in anything. Wow, your video is odd, but if you want to have a real discussion just send me a message through this because who you discussed with about religion seems to be a bit off.
shawnbc85 3 years ago
I'm not going to speak for her, but the reason most people who think about it cringe at the word believe in the context of a scientific theory is that one does not "believe" a theory. One either accepts or rejects its arguement.
Bozeman42 3 years ago
Open Bible = Closed Mind.
A man is accepted into the church for what he believes, and is cast out for what he knows.
Good video, excellent comments.
cactusjack07 3 years ago
Darlin, I like your spunk. Just tell the naysayers the truth, all religion, without exception, was created by man to control other men. Oh yeah, some religions provide help to the needy, just as long as the needy agree with them, or appear to. But god help you, (pardon the pun), if you don't agree. You will be ostracized, or worse yet proselytized to, till you're bleeding from the ears.
Keep up the good work, and refute any godnik who gets in your face about their particular fairy tale.
xxxchaindrive 3 years ago
well , it is clear that you think that this dog was you gr8 gr8 gr8 gr8 granfather don't you ? that's evolution !
What a science !
hewillbeback10 3 years ago
NO thats not how evolution works a Dog is just as evolved as you or me PLEASE research evolution before you comment on it.
we didn't come from a dog or a monkey or any other animal.
Evolution has been PROVEN fact since 2005 when they found the gene #2 and #13 is the same in man and chimps this is from a retro virus that infected our ancestor (that was the same ancestor as the chimp) millions of years ago But hey thats science!
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
It is obvious that you are mentaly disabled. It is obvious, one can see it on your face.
hopeforsalvation 3 years ago
Sorry, not meant to hurt your feelings. Only said what I thought (without any need).
hopeforsalvation 3 years ago
If evolution were true we wood at least see animals that were half the way thru evolving...which we dont see today...all thru history humans have wanted wings....y doesnt anyone in the human race have wings...or at least half formed nubs of wings?
UrbanLeema 3 years ago
Another great book is Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russel. Keep up the good work.
drumminjim22 3 years ago
"(quote from dunbar100150)
Accually i think technology is getting smarter, yet human's are getting dumber."
true
JizzMasterPino 3 years ago
nice rack
falotnek 3 years ago
Who's the hot sexy infantishly playful siren in this video?
LeLimeLine 3 years ago
Was that beer you were drinking? You bad atheist! ;)
jbrisby 3 years ago
I wasn't drinking anything, I was smoking :)
merchickety 3 years ago
Accually i think technology is getting smarter, yet human's are getting dumber.
dunbar100150 3 years ago
true
JizzMasterPino 3 years ago
real evolution will be when humans don't need money anymore
jloch84 3 years ago
"Doesn't make the existence of multiple Gods true, though"
though they did believe in gods, they did not limit their minds by it, instead they though about things as if the gods didn't even existed ... not only did they know about earth being a sphere, there was also some philosopher 300BC who even calculated pretty accurate the distance of the earth to the sun, erastopathes (i think) was his name
Medhiv83 3 years ago
lets face it, as george carlin once said "we have some dumb ass motherfuckers floating around here" many many ... many people are just to stupid to grasp it (!) no need to appologize, as we can't all climb the evolutionary ladder on an equal speed ;-)
Medhiv83 3 years ago
I think you're very rude against Pantheism. Don't missunderstand me, I am an atheist myself, but actually the Gods known in ancient Greece DO make more sense than the Christian God.
Philosophers in Ancient Greece were a lot more educated than any other people before the 16th/17th century. They knew for instance, that the world was a globe. So... they did know sh!t! They could explain much more than Christians in the Middle Age.
Doesn't make the existence of multiple Gods true, though.
GollumNr3 3 years ago
Good luck with that, girly.
Arrogant.
OptimusHide 3 years ago
Haha, yeah, i'm pantheist and when you said that i was like.."Wait..what? Huh?"
kristina040192 3 years ago
Good Point ! God is imaginary and was created by men due of their fear of the unknown and their ignorance ! Extraterrestrial life is logical. It's a great example of our ignorance, our hypocrisy, naivety, arrogance to tell we are alone in this big universe and God created this Earth only for mankind. Bullshit of course ! Mankind lack of humility and modesty. Period ! Keep up the good work ! Peace and Wisdom from France !
olorin007x 3 years ago
Ok... I'm in love again!
Why are there no Atheist girls within 100 miles of my town!!!!
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Pantheism/polytheism is an easy mistake to make if you consider that the Greek "Pantheon" is the "temple for all gods" (polytheistic). The same etymology is used for pantheism (all is God), but with a vastly different meaning. I describe myself as an atheist when talking to theists, and a scientific pantheist when talking to atheists because it best describes the difference between my beliefs and theirs. Most theists have no idea what a pantheist is anyway; I may as well be a pastafarian.
5avan10 3 years ago
Vry good spiritual position,i thought i was one of few but i'm discovering thy are much more around me now. Scientific pantheists,we shall all become it very soon,i hope.But still i'm also theist sometimes (for myself,nothing related to any written religion) cos nobody knows anyway if there's a creator entity or not and i remember the joy i felt when i wasnt questionning myself about it as a kid, and joy is very important. Unfortunattly has been owned by religious morality, but joy is the goal
mandraak84 3 years ago
Our brains are actually evolving still.
baconeater 3 years ago
Nice video, good points. Off topic your dogs are so cute! They'd drive me crazy though.
cyxgun 3 years ago
good point but im still a roman catholic but that wrong to argue with u
crazyredneck99 3 years ago
haha I love people who argue that a belief must be true because it's been around a long time :D By that logic we should all be worshipping the giant dung beetle that buries the sun at the end of every day ^^
megamarsvin 3 years ago
A nice theory that: Humans evolved until the moment they started adapting their environment to fit their needs instead of continuing to adapt to it. But when that started to happen they started to devolve.
And there's enough evidence for (evolution) changes in humans over the last few thousend years, as well as evidence of devolving changes in the last few centuries.
Hmmmmm...perhaps I should post something on that subject to see what kind of reaction I'll get.
Dhurrin2 3 years ago
multiple gods is polytheism
HeathenWarriorPoet 3 years ago
Where do these people get this junk from? It's always the SAME junk so there must be a common source. Who is responsible for the lies? I'd be interested to know where your mom's friend got her ideas from.
farvision 3 years ago
Kent Hovind.
Phibins 3 years ago
Yea, but I suspect it's invaded the brains of priests and other false nobilities that these people bow to. I suspect they get it from their local church or they hear it while standing next to their sacrificial stone or torture instrument.
farvision 3 years ago
i agree, i was trying to be funny... but im bad at that. EL OH EL
Phibins 3 years ago
God is Santa Claus for adults.
ColoradoMikeyS 3 years ago 6
Do the dogs ever hump your leg? If I was your dog I would.
kingmike40 3 years ago 5
good on you for standing up to your 'superior'
rattyboom 3 years ago
How dare you bring logic in a conversation with a christian.
snafo102 3 years ago
Your mother's friend is obviously an idiot.
rockona7xx 3 years ago
It's simple Darwin even said without the support of the fossil record his point of evolution would not work. I've read about Darwin, if Darwin was alive today he would of said there must be a God that designed this. I believe we was seeing the systems that be. It would of only been a matter of time for him.
neosin06 3 years ago
cough quote minin cough
lordbyrne 3 years ago
Quote:
"The body of work (Darwins work) cannot stand the test of any credible scientific analysis"
Author: Charles Darwin, a week before he died.
straightjacket4sale 3 years ago
Except that the general idea of the theory can stand and has withstood many many years of scientific analysis. Many have tried.
gkaiser617 3 years ago
Hey, I like your videos. Cheers :)
Brianswers 3 years ago
News flash, Jesus Christ is an alien. Grin. Is Jesus Christ logical now?
neosin06 3 years ago
careful, without the morals and right and wrong, would you think it is ok should someone rape you and then would you be ok about it? Because after all to hell with morals right? Where did right and wrong come from and would you be ok if someone does not live by your rules?
neosin06 3 years ago
Humans are a social animal. We thought up our morals and ethics ourselves through thousands of years of putting up with each other. Religion evolved to help enforce these rules, but it was still somethig that came from the minds of humans. There are no gods. Sorry.
Brianswers 3 years ago
I'm not sure if you have read the bible, but they knew the world was in space, they knew about germs, they knew a lot more than you know. Because the fact you don't even know your history shows this fact.
neosin06 3 years ago
No, actually, they thought the world was flat, extended in a small circle around the midle east and was covered in a metal dome on which the sun, moon and stars were fixed.
just like the Sumerians and Babylonians who gave them their cosmology.
Isaiah 40:22 states the world is a circle, with the sky suspended like a tent over it. What about our actual sky is tent like exactly?
Brianswers 3 years ago
Have you thought why in the world if it takes millions of years for humans to evolve?, it's only been the last 6000 that we have even understood we are human? So is it in the last 6000 years that we have evolved this far to record history?
However, the bumble bee learned to fly and you don't believe no humans why to fly? Evolution is something that can be turned on and off? How? How did we turn it off?
neosin06 3 years ago
I don't expect you would care that I answer, but I'm gonna do it anyway.
There is natural evolution and there is cultural evolution, which doesn't change genetics. We have come as humans to a cultural evolution much more important than our genetic changes. By the way crows too have cultural evolution, interesting to read on it.
Evolution = become fitter. Man doesn't need to fly to survive; now just imagine a fly with no wings - pathetic. Evolution is off when individuals don't die.
Amadeojd 3 years ago
Great video.
No disrespect to your mother, but from what you describe she sounds like should wants to argue against your point of view but she does not have the knowledge to allow her to successfully present her side of things. Or maybe she knows you are right but cannot bring herself to admit it because of her upbringing and long standing beliefs. It always takes more effort to go against the crowd.
SayNo2ClosedMinds 3 years ago
how i got into this video i will never know, but seriously after reading your comments and all that, i swear you guys are just a bunch of nerds with no life sitting on your asses with no jobs/girlfriends/boyfriends or whatever bitching/arguing like little assholes thinking your smarter then eachother by saying dorkey words that you dont even know the meaning for. Seriously just quit while your ahead and get a life.
Okryyn 3 years ago
Loved the vid :D
cl255 3 years ago
Wow you would just believe anything a person in a white lab coat says...wouln't you?
FaithsFreedom 3 years ago
That person in the white lab coat is alot more credible than you are faithsfreedom.
Infectedwithtruth 3 years ago
owned.
fraaaaczak 3 years ago
1 dud star..booooo boring
shockawenow 3 years ago
Aliens are logical? Good luck w/ that one.
CriticOnly 3 years ago
I can just go on and on at her. What about the starving or freezing people that don't live in america and have the tools to change the enviornment? why haven't they evolved? P.S. most laws of physics still fit in biblical stories. And explain your "unreachable, unseeable parallel universes" bull.
CriticOnly 3 years ago
Poor at best. When abiogenesis is proven (which it won't be since it has been disproven 3 times) I might consider rethinking my beliefs.
Moses995 3 years ago
excuse me? proven? sorry your credentials in science have already been thrown out the window, go educate yourself before you post on youtube
fraaaaczak 3 years ago
When were my credentials thrown out the window?
Moses995 3 years ago
abiogenesis cannot be proven, nor can any scientific theory.
fraaaaczak 3 years ago
Yes they can . Have you not heard of scientific laws? Sounds like your scientific credentials are the ones that are questionable.
Moses995 3 years ago
law =/= theory.
fraaaaczak 3 years ago
Wrong. The law of inversion is proven but the Big Bang Theory is questionable.
Moses995 3 years ago
law =/= theory.
give me a theory that has been "proven."
fraaaaczak 3 years ago
The laws of inertia and Gravity were once Theory until proven and backed by many scientists who retested and improved the theory. Newton -> Scientists improve and revise -> Laws of Inertia and Gravity(Laws of Motion).
Moses995 3 years ago
the laws of inertia and gravity are different because they're based on mathematical framework, which separates them from conventional theory. (i.e evolution, germ theory, atomic theory.)
fraaaaczak 3 years ago
But they are still scientific laws.
Moses995 3 years ago
yup, but they differ from conventional theory; in that they can become proven through mathematics whereas germ theory, atomic theory and evolution cannot. end of discussion.
fraaaaczak 3 years ago
Um no simply due to the fact that science and math are connected and proving a scientific theory via math still remains in the field of science since all scientific theories can be proven using math. Also all mathmatical theories can be proven using science.
Moses995 3 years ago
Dude, have you studied quantum mechanics? I think you'll find its all mathematical.
Its only the biological areas that dont use maths so much. Physics is filled with it.
BreachedWall 3 years ago
Dude, have you studied quantum mechanics? I think you'll find its all mathematical.
Its only the biological areas that dont use maths so much. Physics is filled with it.
BreachedWall 3 years ago
yeah, I already knew that, I don't understand your point...
fraaaaczak 3 years ago
Well you said; 'they can become proven through mathematics whereas germ theory, atomic theory and evolution cannot. end of discussion.'
Actually, atomic theory can be proven through mathematics in a similar way to how gravity was proved by mathematics. As I said, anything related to physics - atomic theory for example, has its foundations rooted in mathematics.
BreachedWall 3 years ago
Gravity is still a theory actually. But that doesn't make it not fact. Theory's are facts according to science. A theory is something that can be tested using the scientific method. If it survives this method, it becomes a theory, but that doesn't make it any less fact by science. Example: Evolution is a 100% fact while still being a theory. To debate that fact is to debate most of the scientific truths we hold today.
Infectedwithtruth 3 years ago
I like evolutionists who post videos against creationists but their arguement is so weak they will not post to defend their own view.
I'd have to admit you have the talent to make videos. But if you cannot stand behind your own camments, the videos you make are worhtless and weak.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Dude are you just rippin' on her or are you disproving creationist? Either's fine because 1. Her mom's friend is an example of a stupid christian and 2. she's not as hot as she thinks she is.
CriticOnly 3 years ago
Personal thoughts replace belief and make new realities? Sounds like to me you are still trying to convince yourself on this issue.
ikester7579 3 years ago
you weren't there neither was I...evolution and creationism are both irrational. Evolution just like creation both have an agenda for "control" over the people. Religion and science are ALWAYS changing. You must understand this.
avoozl07 3 years ago
You need to stop by shockawenow channel. Also just to let you know your video is cutting in and out on the sound..you should upload them at lower than 512 bps
shockawenow 3 years ago
Interesting but lengthy. I do believe you could have made all your points in about half the time.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
Actually, we have evolved since the use of tools. As Jared Diamond has pointed out, populations living in close proximity to farm animals (eg Europeans), developed a reasonable level of immunity to certain germs, whereas populations that did not (eg North American natives) lacked this immunity.
When Europeans arrived here, there came wave upon wave of devastating plagues among the native populations.
We continue to evolve. Men today have far lower sperm counts than their grandfathers.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
Wait. I just remembered something. This perception that "no discernable beneficial mutations have occured by now" is not true.
We have examined the skulls of early humans and found somewhat smaller cranial cavities, indicating smaller brains. Examination of their shapes has shown us that the part of the brain which governed verbal communication was not present. This trait, when it emerged, spread very rapidly through the species, leaving those who lacked it absolutely unable to compete.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
merchickety, please tell us when we're hijacking your video, okay? ;-)
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Indeed.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Meh, whatever, I'm up to like 50 comments now, so it's cool! Discussion is good.
merchickety 3 years ago
Now when someone makes a big deal about no discernable steps in evolution happening "by now," what does that mean? How long is it supposed to take? Human beings have been around for 160,000 years. If I remember correctly, the most widespread complex organism on the planet before us dominated for 500,000 years before being superceded. The same holds true for its predecessor and the one before that. This is the norm.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
"God wishes to protect our free will which we do not have unless we are free to deny His existence. The way we know that He exists is from the fact that He manifested to us centuries ago. This means that He was either able to manifest without infringing on free will at the time, or that he had no compunctions about it then... er... wait..."
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Humans don't evolve much anymore because we have largely circumvented the mechanism of natural selection. If somebody has an otherwise debilitating genetic disorder, society steps in to ensure his survival and enables his procreation.
For effective speciation to occur it is necessary for a group to be seperated and severely decimated to allow minority adaptations to become dominant. They just get lost in the gene pool with large populations.
Put simply: Globalisation counters evolution!
Superphilipp 3 years ago
I do not agree. Globalisation is a change in circumstances to which we are left to adapt. Evolution cannot be countered because change cannot be halted.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
But how are we supposed to change? Evolution does NOT work like Lamarck thought it did. We don't just adapt to our surroundings as a whole; a mechanism of selection has to be in place. If eveyone is fed through, all the mutations - fit or unfit - remain in the gene pool and positive adaptations don't have a chance to dominate a population.
a) There are no populations being isolated anymore
b) Society allows everybody to survive and procreate.
These two factors put evolution to a halt.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
The proper question is how are we supposed to *avoid* change? Genetic variation occurs. No one is suggesting Lamarckism here.
How do you define fit or unfit? An unfit mutation is one which makes someone less able to survive. If society renders a wider percentage of humanity able to survive, doesn't this redraw the parameters of what makes a characteristic beneficial?
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Random genetic variations are too minute and diverse to actually affect a species as a whole without any selective and/or divisive process; they just get lost in the gene pool. In modern human society the competetiveness of nature has been circumvented and "fitness" has lost its relevance.
I can only see humanity evolving socially until one day society will break down and our decendants might have to survive in the wilderness again. Then natural selection will kick in soon enough.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
What? Random genetic variations are no less minute than they ever were. And the larger the gene pool in question, the more diverse will be the variations.
When you talk about "fitness" having lost its relevance, you are talking about its parameters having been redrawn.
How does humanity evolving socially lead to society breaking down?
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Okay, one last time: Random variation alone doesn't lead to evolution. There has to be a mechanism of selection, and modern society has replaced that. Possibly helpful adaptations can't become dominant because EVERYBODY gets to procreate, fit or not. If you want to change a population, you need a process of selective breeding (like the nazis tried), or the helpful mutations won't have a chance to become dominant.
Society breaking down was an example of a once again competetive environment.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Actually, there are plenty of people in the world today who don't get to procreate. But if everyone did get to procreate, that would mean that there are no unfit mutations. After all, an unfit mutation is one which renders renders someone less able to procreate. That is how it is defined and identified. Any mutation which does not have this effect is not unfit.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
That may be, but in modern society any mutation that does not render you sterile is a fit one; the all get passed on. That doesn't help evolution one bit. The only way we can really evolve from that is to grow even less sterile. ;-)
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Well now, once the concepts of fit and unfit mutations are redefined, the same holds true about the the parameters of mutation and natural selection. What if a mutation which detracts from your function in one setting contributes to it in another?
Before I continue, I should explain a couple terms:
Actual strength: the overall amount of weight an organism can lift.
Relative strength: an organisms actual strength relative to its weight.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
So the average human being has more actual strength while the average ant has more relative strength.
Now if you compare human beings to all the other five-digit primates we know of, you find that they each have more relative strength and a higher percentage of their body-mass from muscle than we have, but none of them are able to swim. One of the reasons is that for swimming to be practical, a certain measure of buoyancy is required which is detracted from by too much muscle mass.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Uh ... what's your point?
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Right. I'm sorry. I lost my train of throught. The point I was getting to is that a mutation which leads to inreased relative strength and muscle mass would not necessarily be beneficial.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Right. I'm sorry. I lost my train of throught. The point I was getting to is that a mutation which leads to inreased relative strength and muscle mass would not necessarily be beneficial.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
That's true. Evolution is all about adapting to different ecolocal niches. You will find similar structures of "roles" in similar environments, even if they are far away from each other.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
So what if a mutation which detracts from your function in one setting contributes to it in another? What if the other setting just happens to be one you don't know about yet?
What if a mutation renders a man unable to walk, yet able to achieve fluency in 30 languages in just a few months?
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
If you "don't know about it yet", that isn't enough. Every mutation has to cause an immediate increase in fitness, or natural selection will discard it.
However a shift of focus can occur if the selective process is modified. For example, if a rival species invades your ecological niche, you might be forced to adapt a new specialisation. Another example is climate change: Only the all-rounders will survive it, the specialists are too dependent on the status quo and not flexible enough.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
But my question is, is the change in characteristics beneficial or detrimental? What if, for example, a random mutation produces offspring with more narrow nostrils. These offspring would be less well suited to function in a warm climate, but would function better in the cold. So is this mutation beneficial or detrimental?
And what about the fellow in my previous example?
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
I would say it depends entirely on the surroundings. If a bit of variation happens to be just the thing an organism needs in order to adapt to a changing environment, it will be favoured by natural selection. The mutation has to result in an immediately improved chance of survival, or it will be discarded. So the nostril thing depends on the climate AT THE TIME of the mutation. As does the paraplegic polyglot depend upon the present selective factors (i.e. do chicks dig jocks or smartiepants?).
Superphilipp 3 years ago
What if the fellow with more narrow nostrils lives in a place of relatively greater extremes and so functions worse in the summer but better in the winter?
And what if the paraplegic polyglot is born unable to walk and abandoned before his linguistic skills are given a chance to become apparent.
Immediate improvement? My understanding is that most mutations are neutral, producing changes in ways not exposed to the forces of natural selection.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Yes, exactly. By immediate improvement I meant that the mutation has to be an advantage for THAT individual, not something that may benefit his decendants.
So if we apply that to your examples, the mutations turn out to be detrimental at first, and, thus, are discarded. If the selective circumstances happen to favour these mutations at the time of their occurence however, they might be given a chance to flourish.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Why are we so consistently driven by a desire to keep these people alive? Is this drive not a regular characteristic? How have we come to have it so long unless it is beneficial?
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
If I have understood Dawkins (etc.) properly about this, it is an instinct that has been extant in mammals long before the homo genus arose. We have developed an instinctive desire to help individuals that we percieve as part of our group, which directly leads to a stronger tribe, ensuring greater chances of survival for every member. Many of us today apply this charitable urge to all humans, but society is not short of examples of how quickly our equally well-developed xenophobia can take over.
Superphilipp 3 years ago