Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

The Blind Architect

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
6,962
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Feb 22, 2009

More from Rebecca Watson's bizarro mailbag. Today's creationist argument: there must be a god because of buildings.

(note: there was a bit of audio weirdness, so next time I may opt for using a headset mic. Sorry for the quirks)

More:
www.skepchick.org
www.bostonskeptics.com
www.theskepticsguide.org

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 12 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (209)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • WHY ISN'T THERE TRANSFORMER PORN YET?!

    Oh wait... Dubstep.  Damn it

  • You're Rebecca Watson AGAIN, or you're STILL Rebecca Watson from last time? ;) I'm not aware of architecture porn, but if anyone was to come up with such a thing, it most definitely WOULD be the Japanese, though the Germans are also a strong possibility.

  • i just can't help but think i'd just love to buy you a drink and have the pleasure of speaking with you for even 5 minutes...however, if we aren't opposed on views....and dispite my attraction to you...my low self-esteem kept me from hitting on you...maybe we could have a chat about local weather or the like....maybe about our favorite single malt?

  • @triclops12 a law is something that is provably 'unbreakable' eg speed of light that scientists have proven is the fastest something can move.

  • @triclops12 no. we have not yet observed evolution 'occuring' within scientific fields. there is no law of evolution.

    the theory of evolution defines a mechanism or set of mechanisms, a proposal, for the evolution phenomena, if it exists to occur.

    the hypothesis is evolution, the theory is founded with some supporting evidence eg fossil records, and the law 'would be' established scientifically once undeniable verified evidence is accumulated eg evolution is directly observed.

  • @rmed30 no there was no shift the moths did exist in both colours. there was a shift in prevelance of observation thats all. there was no new colour gene evolved. it was already there.

  • @daenumen A theory cannot be changed into a law. A law is an observation of nature, and theory is an explanation for said observation. There is a law of evolution, which is an observation that the genes of a species will change over time and form new species. Then there is the theory of evolution that explains how this law occurs in nature through natural selection and various other factors. Because of this, the scientific community gives more credence to theories than laws.

  • @daenumen : Please don't email me anymore. I don't even know what you are trying to say. And you seem to be confused yet unaware of it.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more