NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T CREATE. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process, not a creative process. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are possible in nature. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Even if you dont agree with something, it doesnt mean it shouldnt be taught. Im a firm believer in Evolution, however, i still think we should show all different beliefs and arguments, whether it is Islam, Christianity, Athiesm. Its about being fair, and offering free-choice, something these people forget we have.
@Kthxbaiwut That depends on what you're dissagreeing about. If it's the scientific grounds for evolution vs creation, then evolution wins every time. Evolution isn't a beleif in the same way that creationism is a beleif. Do I agree that they should both be taught, yes. However, one should be in the science classroom. And the other should be in the comparative religion class... which is exactly what he said in this video
I agree that children should be thought about history of all major (current and extinct) religions and beliefs associated with them.
But there is no place in science class for unsubstantiated claims ...
The more time teachers waste discussing junk science and superstitions the less details about valid theories they can teach.
Only when the goal is to make students more ignorant about present scientific discoveries, wasting time to talk about junk suddenly becomes "being fair".
I think there are way much more important and interesting stuff out there than ID. American kids are stupid enough already. It's a sin to teach bullshit like this in the classrooms, especially to people who are unable to differentiate reality from make-believe.
I'm certainly not advocating teaching "intelligent design", whatever that is, no one seems to know, but I'm certainly all for teaching people about different religions in theology classes. Religion is a huge part of our collective history and holy books, the bible in particular are part of our literature and language.
I'm all in for teaching the bible with an unbiased view, but is that possible? I think the vast majority of the teachers would teach it with a biased angle. Reading that book with an open mind is one great way to discourage people away from christianity and see it for what it really is.
I totally agree, getting someone to read the bible and to see it for what it really is, is one of the quickest ways to set someone on the path to atheism.
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T CREATE. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process, not a creative process. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are possible in nature. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 7 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 7 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 7 months ago
Creationism belongs in theology class, not science class.
gir908922 1 year ago
love your videos, hate your intro
jazANDbase 1 year ago
this is one wacky world.
i can say no more.
peace, lardo.
lardo444 1 year ago
Even if you dont agree with something, it doesnt mean it shouldnt be taught. Im a firm believer in Evolution, however, i still think we should show all different beliefs and arguments, whether it is Islam, Christianity, Athiesm. Its about being fair, and offering free-choice, something these people forget we have.
Kthxbaiwut 1 year ago
@Kthxbaiwut That depends on what you're dissagreeing about. If it's the scientific grounds for evolution vs creation, then evolution wins every time. Evolution isn't a beleif in the same way that creationism is a beleif. Do I agree that they should both be taught, yes. However, one should be in the science classroom. And the other should be in the comparative religion class... which is exactly what he said in this video
Samuria11 1 year ago
@Kthxbaiwut
I agree that children should be thought about history of all major (current and extinct) religions and beliefs associated with them.
But there is no place in science class for unsubstantiated claims ...
The more time teachers waste discussing junk science and superstitions the less details about valid theories they can teach.
Only when the goal is to make students more ignorant about present scientific discoveries, wasting time to talk about junk suddenly becomes "being fair".
futureorreligion 1 year ago
@Kthxbaiwut
Sure teach all that stuff but don't teach it in a science class, it belongs in theology class and theology classes should be elective.
nakedapedude 1 year ago 4
@nakedapedude
I think there are way much more important and interesting stuff out there than ID. American kids are stupid enough already. It's a sin to teach bullshit like this in the classrooms, especially to people who are unable to differentiate reality from make-believe.
d3st88 1 year ago
@d3st88
I'm certainly not advocating teaching "intelligent design", whatever that is, no one seems to know, but I'm certainly all for teaching people about different religions in theology classes. Religion is a huge part of our collective history and holy books, the bible in particular are part of our literature and language.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude
I'm all in for teaching the bible with an unbiased view, but is that possible? I think the vast majority of the teachers would teach it with a biased angle. Reading that book with an open mind is one great way to discourage people away from christianity and see it for what it really is.
d3st88 1 year ago
@d3st88
I totally agree, getting someone to read the bible and to see it for what it really is, is one of the quickest ways to set someone on the path to atheism.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
Again..Science for the WIN...! Nice video again Loz..man you have been busy. JM
2010Jedimaster 1 year ago