Dr. David Berlinski: School vs. Education (Clip 18)

[nolobede]

I've listened to hours and hours of Berlinsky.

And to give him full credit and fair analysis: I've never heard another human being (Wm Craig is close) as capable of eloquently and articulating absolutley nothing relevant to his cause. He is paid by the Discovery Institute to sound viable to the undiscerning or uneducated ear.... This he likely achieves.

But for relevant context and argumentative content?... Berlinsky is articulately vacuos, a black hole of verbage

[irhjma30000]

@nolobede Yet you couldn't even put a sentence together in a way that made complete sense, nor could you spell correctly. And I find it interesting how you say that after listening to hours and hours of Berlinsky, you find he has nothing in the way of relevant context or argumentative content. Ironically, I've done the same with Richard Dawkins and not heard anything at all substantial or argumentative.

[nolobede]

@irhjma30000

Seems we've found the problem then... a bit of a comprehension issue on your part. Thanks for sharing it. Seems though that the other readers are quite able to find clarity in my post. And as for content, yes Berlinksy is an expert at blathering pointlessy as in this and so many other fine examples. Personally I don't care about Dawkins as I assess each statement on its own for contextual & semantic value, ie., this fine example of an articulately vacuos, black hole of verbage

[nolobede]

@irhjma30000 '

And yes, did you notice? I copied the typo just so it would disturb you further....which goes toward the point. In contrast to the fact that Berlinski's blatherings have no relevancy to the topic... missing a vowel in a word, actually still does get a point across.

[irhjma30000]

@nolobede cool.

[arktheball]

OMGOSH I NEARLY FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR!!!! I laughed SO hard at his comment on the standing refutation of Survival of the fittest provided by high school biology teachers.

[Docta305]

That sentence at the end was fucking classic.

[gregrutz]

There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!

It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.

[TruthSeekingOne]

@gregrutz You are an idiot if you think "all" scientists accept evolution. You really have NO clue, keep being indoctrinated by your schools and don't do any of your own research you child.

[gregrutz]

@TruthSeekingOne I took a college class in Geology, have you. I took a college class in Biology, have you? I took a class in Bio-Chemisty, have you?

Don't tell me you have studied fossils or the geology of the earth.

Or looked at the evidence, not the gaps or the canyon, the fossils and the rocks.

[TruthSeekingOne]

@gregrutz Why do you think I care what classes you took at a junior college? For all you know I am world renown in Chemistry and Mathematics and every other area known to man haha, obviously I am not saying I am, but you don't know me so shut up about credentials.

What evidence do you have about ME that I HAVEN'T studied fossils?

You are further proving your idiocy. You can not give me proper evidence of evolution so you turn the subject to something else, great move!

[jkculberson]

@gregrutz Geocentric astronomy survived thousands of years of human scrutiny from the greatest minds in history, and many helpful scientific discoveries were made based upon that theory. It seems as if neo-darwinian evolutionary biologists have invented organic epicycles exponentially more complex than Aristotle's in order to preserve their comfortable oligarchy.

[Ahabite]

@jkculberson Can you give me an example of a "helpful scientifc discover [y]" that is based on geocentrism?

Actually, name as many as you can.

I bet you can't, because you are hoping no one calls you on your moronic claims, or if they do, that you can change the subject.

Oligarchy...really? Like the religious oligarchies which have popped up over the millenia?

Are you just upset because science is hard and you resent your inability to do it?

I bet you CAN do it!! I support you 100% TRY

[spiderpam]

@lordnimr0d I do not think you understand. The evolution model is an interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. Just because is the most propagated interpretation of the evidence does not make it true. Many people Dawkins for one have their lives, fortunes, careers and egos dependant on the evolution model. Therefore, I do not think there will ever be a rush by him to look at the same evidence from a different worldview. Thanks for replying, bye.

[Fuglebolle]

@spiderpam The scientific theory of evolution is consistent with all the evidence we have encountered. ID is not a scientific theory as it can be modified and adjusted to fit any evidence, i.e even though all the evidence point to evolution it can be argued that ID is valid because The Flying Spaghetti created life and made it look like it evolved through natural selection.

The principle of Occam's razor says that the simplest solution without magic deities is most probably the correct one.

[spiderpam]

@Fuglebolle I do not think you understand. The evolution model is an interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. Just because is the most propagated interpretation of the evidence does not make it true. All the facts and evidence are neutral and must be interpreted before it can "point" to any conclusion. FSM is a flying question beggar, and is in no way relevant. Adding the word 'scientific' to the evolution model does not make it so. Laters.

[Fuglebolle]

@spiderpam I'm not saying that the theory of evolution is the evidence, I'm saying that it's consistent with the evidence.

My point about ID is that it's not a scientific theory because there is no way to test it. This makes it as relevant in a scientific context as the theory that Chuck Norris invented a time machine, traveled back, created life and made it seem like he hadn't.

You may of course believe either one of these theories, but they're not science.. they're religion.

[gregrutz]

@spiderpam Evolution is a process the happened, FACT. And there is a theory of evolution to show how it happened.

[spiderpam]

@gregrutz What do you mean by evolution.

/watch?v=mHiJ7q-KRCA

[gregrutz]

@spiderpam Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. You know, the one that proves your religion is wrong.

[spiderpam]

@gregrutz How?

[gregrutz]

@spiderpam There was No adam and eve, no sin, no need for Jesus, no christians.

[spiderpam]

@gregrutz Keep telling yourself that, and have a great day.

[TruthSeekingOne]

@gregrutz ..Continued, A Christian does not tell you they believe in God because of science (although the bible agrees with science that is besides the point) a Christian will admittedly tell you they have faith because God cannot be scientifically proven (by current standards or methods). Are you willing to admit the same about your THEORY which also can not be proven? There is SO MUCH wrong with this evolution theory that it boggles the mind, without huge leaps of faith it cannot exist.

[gregrutz]

@TruthSeekingOne You have faith to believe in your religion, because you have no evidence. Evolution is based on evidence, it has been proven. There is a Theory of Evolution that explains how it happened.

All the evidence fits. The best creationists can do is support Mr. Butinski, the Discover Institue, and tell none scientists, " WE just don't know''

Real scientists DO.

[gregrutz]

@spiderpam Next you will try and tell us, '' we look at the same evidence but have different conclusions'' NO, creationists don't look at the evidence. You watch hovind videos.

[gregrutz]

@spiderpam Have you ever studied a fossil? Studied Geology? NO !

[spiderpam]

@gregrutz So creationist or ID proponets don't study fossils?

[gregrutz]

@spiderpam Correct, creationists study religion. Ever religion has a creation story. ID proponents tried to get creationism taugt in schools and failed.

[spiderpam]

@gregrutz See now you're fibbing, both sides study the same fossils. ID is not Creation.

[gregrutz]

@spiderpam So tell us who the Intelligent Designer is?? And don't say god or that is a creation story.

What fossils did you study?

[spiderpam]

@gregrutz My answer is God via The Genesis account, since when do you set the terms for this exchange?

I do know a few things about fossils:

1. They do not talk

2. They must be interpreted

3. They do not come with tags and dates on them (i.e. “I’m a transitional [fill in the blank] and I’m 100 million years old and today is my birthday”)

4. They are formed in highly special conditions

5. Science says nothing, scientists do.

If I don’t respond... keep waiting…

[gregrutz]

@spiderpam

1. Fossils do tell a story

2. Fossils must be studied

3.Fossils are dated by dating ash layers above and below it.

4.Fossil are formed, proving a long past.

5. Anyone can study fossils, and come away accepting evolution happened.

[TruthSeekingOne]

@gregrutz Why does someone need to tell you who the intelligent designer is? That is open to religious interpretation and of course is all speculation! If YOU want to force YOUR religion of evolution THEORY on others because you think you have it figured out based on faith in an unproven aspect of shaky science, you are the one who needs to give hard facts. If someone believes in a God that created these things, they need not give proof according to the scientific method, it cannot be tested!

[gregrutz]

@TruthSeekingOne God was replace by 'intelligen designer'' in order to get creationism taught in public schools. It fooled no one.

You can believe anything you want but you can't explain the facts like the fossil record. You can't believe we all came off a boat if they already proved there was no flood.

[TruthSeekingOne]

@gregrutz Real scientists? You mean the ones faking data and using bone fragments miles apart and adding them together and pretending its from the same creature? Or do you mean the scientists that date two parts of the same animals and get dates ranging millions of years apart? There is ZERO evidence that cannot be disputed, please look into it, look into the falsified evidence put out by theorists of evolution including but not limited to the embryo depictions which try to show similarity.

[gregrutz]

@TruthSeekingOne No, we all come off a big boat, and there was a flood that didn't leave any evidence or kill all the Chinese.

Look at the real fossils, not the two fakes.

Dispute dinosaurs with feathers. Or Neanderthals, those other kind of humans. Dispute that dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160,000,000 years.

Embryos are similar, dummy. Your DNA is almost the same as a chimps.

[TruthSeekingOne]

@gregrutz Yea actually a scale turned into a feather on a dinosaur, that really makes sense. Do you realize how complex the structure that is a feather, really is? A scale and a feather are completely different, one does not transform into the other. You assume 160,000,000 years because of faulty dating methods, that you obviously have not researched into. Embryos are similar in the same way that humans have 2 eyes and birds have 2 eyes, they have MANY differences though, which people ignore.

[5tonyvvvv]

@gregrutz is a stubborn moron..to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle...like Fred Hoyle says I feel like some one has monkeyed with physics and chemistry..he was a militant atheist..,they are going against a well established law of biogenesis..and the only way this RNA is being made is by copying from living sources.and RNA is useless anyway

[Ahabite]

@5tonyvvvv If gregrutz is a "stubborn moron", what does that make you? You are staggeringly ignorant about science and I would guess most everything else you talk about.

Have you ever looked in a book and learned anything? I would love to see you describe, in science terms, or some way that shows you understand, why self-assembly of amino acids is impossible w/0 our interference.

Guessin it isn't going to happen.

Fred Hoyle, who seems not to have understood the process of evolution-- like you

[5tonyvvvv]

@Ahabite Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever staring!! The soupists seem to think that proteins self-assembled from a mixture of amino acids in the primordial soup. If true, how do you explain the fact that the earliest proteins only formed from L-amino acids? The soupists try to get around this by supposing that there was natural enrichment for L-amino acids over D-amino acids in the soup. Either way Racemic Mixtures NEVER WORK!!!

[gregrutz]

@5tonyvvvv Life had a 50-50 chance of using L or R amino acids, it can't use both. What's the problem?

[spiderpam]

@lordnimr0d What evidence do you have that creationist or ID proponents are not privy to? Do we not have the same earth, universe, stars, fossils, etc? So your interpretation of the evidence (worldview) is what you’re basing your argument on not the evidence itself. Why is your interpretation more valid? Just wondering.

[sherwoodstars]

No good evidence exists to support evolution of species by natural selection, although some conventional biologists still make efforts to cling to that old doctrine. My blog has a link to Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a scientist who is a faithful materialist and atheist, debunking the old doctrines of Darwinism. Minor changes in already-existing living forms do occur by natural selection. Nothing has been established about how the forms originated. Follow the link on my channel profile.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars No good evidence exists to support evolution

>

Funny, there seem to be enough that everyone accepts it happened.

[shilelea]

@gregrutz

lol everyone but this guy then?

[eastjones]

oh my sherwoodstars, "No good evidence exists to support it, and it's ludicrous to take it seriously" that is a truly stupid comment, and since you seem nice and not at all stupid, I assume you just haven't been exposed to the evidence. But don't say stuff like that out loud, it's embarrassing (although when i won the Mevdi Patel Award for my graduate thesis at Oxford explaining the evolution of fruit bats on mescaline in a vacuum, I too said something rather silly.) so don't sweat it.

[sherwoodstars]

The Behe-McWhorter video, which was EXPELLED at Bloggingheads when mobs of Darwinites attacked the website, has been reinstated! Link on my prospective blog Intelligent Force. See my channel for blog address.

[sherwoodstars]

The notion that all life somehow evolved by competitive struggle and slaughter, is the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science. No good evidence exists to support it, and it's ludicrous to take it seriously.

[gregrutz]

99% of all species that ever lived on the earth are extict.

[gregrutz]

Survival of the fittist"

That is part on Natural Selection, that is what Darwin said caused Evolution, Dr. Butinski believes in Evolution. I know he was playing stupid.

[sherwoodstars]

Berlinski is one of those rare academics with a backbround in many subjects. His Ph.D is in philosophy, but with postgraduate study in biology and mathematics: thus he's well-qualified to critique the old, arbitrary dogmas and fantasies that make up much conventional (or Darwinist) evolutionary

theory. He's a well-known secular Jew and agnostic, so the dogmatic Darwinists are unable to claim that he is somehow motivated by "religion." Few people are so stupid as to think he's a creationist.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars Mr.Butinski is paid by creationists, that is worse.

[gregrutz]

And thanks for showing the world how christians act.

[gregrutz]

Evolution is taught in school,

prayer is not allowed.

You lose.

Science has the fossils , we win !

[arsjth]

could you poke your tongue out and put your thumbs in your ears and wave your hands as you say that?

it would be far more effective.

you could also say nananananaana as well.

that would really drive home your scientific and well thought out position.

regards

[gregrutz]

Science rules !

[mankind2112]

Words of wisdom, Dr. B wins another round LOL.

[gregrutz]

"Dr. Butinski wins another round"

LOL, He is talking to a camera, It is the only way he can win.

[macomoto]

1 observation

2 question

1. David B is a creationist, so his views on evolution are wrong. He's a nutjob.

2. who has "critically acclaimed" this crappy movie? Give me a non-creationist person/website that says this movie is good.

[procommenter]

Finding similarities between the bones of the human hand to those contained within a whale's fin proves that Man & whale share similarities in bone-structure when one compares a human's hand to a whale's fin. Therefor: they are the same. Their common ancestor is WHALE BOY.

[pittland44]

I never read the whaleboy paper, is that the one where he fights godzilla for control of tokyo?

[procommenter]

Whale Boy would have been a guardian of Tokyo. Whale Boy's a Buddhist whose fluent in Pali {as is my wife}: the liturgical language of the Temple {akin to Sanskrit}. I dread the return of Gammera {mistakenly written as GAMERA}. Fr. the film "Gammera the Invincible": "Gammera is unleashed from hibernation below the Arctic ice by a nuclear blast. The legendary flying turtle seeks energy for sustenance wreaking havoc across the planet in the process..."

[macomoto]

no actually no. educate yourself about science before you speak.

[procommenter]

Enroll in a literacy class.

[macomoto]

Enroll in a science class. Answer question #2!!!

2. Who has "critically acclaimed" this crappy movie? Give me a non-creationist person/website that says this movie is good.

[procommenter]

I have no religion. David Berlinsky is usually the smartest man at any symposium.

[macomoto]

Who cares about your religion. Answer the question....

2. Who has "critically acclaimed" this crappy movie? Give me a non-creationist person/website that says this movie is good.

[procommenter]

Who cares about you?

[macomoto]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Typical creationist!! Distorting the facts for the sake of your own personal religion. You guys are pathetic. There is no "critically acclaimed" review of this movie!!

Sucks to be you creationist