If the religious want to have creationism taught in the science class to give "balance" to the information given to students then it should be ok for a Scientist to go to Church on Sunday and teach Evolution in the Sunday School Classes

@Mikkall

9 жыл бұрын

Yogi Brown Oh, well then... you'll be required by law to be in attendance at Sunday School. WAIT... or read about it at home, then pass a test on it. :)

@SabbathDay

8 жыл бұрын

+terrypussypower I like Ken. I understand why you don't, but he gets my respect.

@terrypussypower

8 жыл бұрын

John Shaw Oh, I understand perfectly well why he gets your "respect"!

@VFella

8 жыл бұрын

+John Shaw Well, they do it outside of teh USA, constantly, Evolutionist even lead the most powerful church there is... the Catholics, they even have their own country, beat that if you can ;)

@SabbathDay

8 жыл бұрын

+Enric Martinez Good point. I'm not Catholic, and disagree with 90% of Catholicism, but your point is sadly well noted.

For me, not being an US-citizen, the fact that evolution vs creation is even worth a discussion is surreal. In my country (and most of the world for that matter) no serious person would even as much as consider challenging evolution theory. Creationism is a joke and is treated as such in most modern societies. Even most religious people say that the bible, including the book Genesis, should be considered symbolic. It transmits a message but evidently is not to be taken literally. How on earth are religious extremists (read nutcases) powerful enough in the USA to keep this discussion on the table?! If I am informed correctly there are states where creationism is taught in schools as one of the possibilities or 'the' option. It's ridiculous. No wonder the general opinion of the average American is that they are ignorant. Luckily there are people like Ms. Scott to balance out that image.

@Leiake2604

9 жыл бұрын

Ok, I posted it. Now I'm waiting for the tidal wave of reactions. Luckily there's an ocean between me and these bible-fanatics or I might be burnt at the stakes for being a witch. ;-)

@jimdille6015

9 жыл бұрын

You're not a witch ... just a mystified person from a more enlightened culture. Creationism and other Paleolithic superstitions are BIG business in the US. Religious entities do not pay any taxes, and donations to them are deductible on our income tax. There are massive financial benefits in American religion and there are many who exploit this however they can. Virtually all of the creationist nutjobs here are conservative Republicans, who are generally bigoted idiots. They enjoy forcefully imparting their narrow-minded views on all of us via their money and its ability to purchase political connections. As you are probably aware, science and rational thought often play a distant second to big bucks. Too bad the electorate is too damn stupid to see through it all.

@Leiake2604

9 жыл бұрын

Thank you. That explication sadly makes sense. Especially the last sentence. "The electorate is too damn stupid to see through it all" I guess that's one of the reasons. It's convenient for politicians to convince a blind herd that what they are doing is a good idea. So they gain by keeping the public ignorant and religion is a way to achieve that.

@davidvitrogen4319

9 жыл бұрын

Els Verwilgen Yes. Sadly too many Americans are so indoctrinated they go with the magical spook in the sky dunnit a few thousand years ago hypothesis and totally reject all the hard evidence suggesting otherwise.

@ICT_Midnight

9 жыл бұрын

Els Verwilgen Yet, there is zero evidence that random mutations and natural selection can produce the evolution of functional proteins, therefore you believe it based on blind faith. Lmfao ;)

Science: can and will do. religion: cannot and will never do.

@Itsatz0

8 жыл бұрын

+James Jordan Are you saying religion is do do?

@jamesjordan5214

7 жыл бұрын

***** Religion is no-no, wrapped in do do.

@Itsatz0

7 жыл бұрын

James Jordan It took you a year to think that one up?

@jamesjordan5214

7 жыл бұрын

***** Come on, I don't visit this site every day; besides your comment is not notable even to comment on. Try again, or better yet, don't.

@jasonkeith9317

5 жыл бұрын

Science explains how things work not why things work in the first place.

Lots of respect for Eugenie Scott.

When in an hotel put a sticker on the Gideon "This is just a belief it isn't a fact"

Euginie is a good woman! keep up the great work Mrs Scott

Where do they get the science part of Creation Science?

As many as 47% of all the people in the USA consider themselves to be "Evangelical born again Christians". There is no other country on Earth that has a significant, or even a countable, percentage of the population that subscribes to that worldview philosophy of life. The Evangelical movement began in the 1830's in the Southern United states in the "tent revival meetings" that became popular at that time. In many ways the Evangelical movement was a response to the Trancendentalism movement in the early 1800's that was championed by Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. The movement was revitalized in the 1970's with the advent of the concept of being "born again." The term "born again Christian" did not exist before 1970.

Americans take note: this debate could never take place in Europe. It would be seen as utterly preposterous and silly.

@IIrandhandleII

3 жыл бұрын

We have freedom of speech here, creationists groups are highly funded by right wing conservative donors. You will see the free access to information and the internet stamp out young earth creationism here in the USA.

@ixlnxs

2 ай бұрын

Not true! It is ALREADY taking place in Europe, namely in schools with a high percentage of pupils with a muslim background. In fact, many teachers practice self-censorship and gloss over evolution for fear of "offending" the pupils' "culture" As a 3rd generation atheist of Arab/Persian descent this INFURIATES me.

What Will the Creationists Do Next? - Place an exhibit in the creationist museum showing a wax dummy of Donald Trump and saying it is proof that evolution does not exist.

@DoorknobHead

7 жыл бұрын

You....You....devil! :)

@tabby956

7 жыл бұрын

You....You....doorknob!

@desertrat1126

7 жыл бұрын

Robert lmfao! :)

@jkryanspark

7 жыл бұрын

+Robert A dummy of a dummy.

@loricalass4068

6 жыл бұрын

Creationists like to point out facts. That would include on Trump. Like that in less than a year - with the vicious lying meanstream press, and most of the deep state Congress, coming after him day and night - we now have factories coming back in droves which is part of the reason we now have 2 million new jobs and counting. The astronomical Wall St. highs mean more security for people's retirement and pension plans. Black and Hispanic unemployment are at record lows. Black ownership is at record highs. Unemployment is the lowest in 17 years. We have energy independence like never before, so much that we are actually now exporting oil to others. You will probably get a tax cut, some have gotten bonuses already. Etc. etc. The horrific Obama care program which fined you if you didn't buy it, and which raised insurance rates astronomically, was brilliantly and slickly virtually eliminated last month through ending its Individual Mandate. Now why didn't Obama do that for the American people instead of getting us into the worst debt ever, and the most UNaffordable health care ever, while letting Muslim immigrants and other illegal aliens flow in like crazy to be a drain on our economic system and take our citizens' jobs? And does anyone reeeealy think Clinton would have done any of the things Trump has accomplished? And oh yeal,, find the smallest Post It you can. Then write one bit of legislation Dems have passed this year that has benefitted you in any way. Learn to tell your friends from your enemies. As for more examples of fake news from the "elite".... Let's look at what some scientists, who have worked in the realm of secular science, have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... . "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. . Now I hasten to add, that the next words in this quote from Muller are "Nevertheless it can be inferred...." He then goes on to to say that even though the actual experiments and evidence don't show mutations creating "evolution", still he believes it anyway! This is the totally typical approach in evolutionism. If you data doesn't match the theory - and it never does - you simply ignore it or replace it with a theory, with conjectures, with "inferences." . Ya gotta give a nod to evolution to get ahead in the politically correct, viciously self protective world where Neo Darwinism reigns. . Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing. . As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. . But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species in any genus went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) to become a new Family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past, over and over and over. . Why don't we see any species in any genus transitioning to become a member of a new animal or plant family today? . If there is no evidence that any life form's descendants transitioned to become a different family than its ancestors, then there is no evidence for evolution. It's just that simple. But feel free to cite data revealing any such evidence if you can. . Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. "We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." . "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) . "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) . "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin) . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Znx51M-pZbPgodo.html . As a former atheist and evolution believer, I once had no idea what was outside the box of what I had been told over and over since grade school . Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in those fantastic truths for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.

@moonlightbateman So.. No links to those statestics? Just a copy paste of something you wrote earlier? Im waiting here... :P

@moonlightbateman Could you send me a link to the source for your prison claim? The only stats I could find on the subject are over a decade old and they say that atheists make up only 1% of the prison population in Great Britain. They DID, however, say that ~30% were "non-religious". Did you lump them in with atheists to bloat the number? Or do you have a more recent study? Non-religious doesn't mean atheist. It just means they don't follow any particular religion.

Thank you once again, Eugenie, for combining extended common sense (science) with an obvious love for the world (necessary for civilization to exist and prosper). cheers from snowy Vienna, Scott

@piertinence

2 жыл бұрын

Flabbergasting for Eugenie to explain or she got a brain through unintelligent design. Darwinism is a form of atheistic creationism attributing nature with some miraculous creative power.

@therealzilch

2 жыл бұрын

@@piertinence Evolution is a creative power. Not miraculous; just the power of trying out different things and saving the ones that work, over billions of years and gazillions of organisms. Tell me this: how did God get intelligence, without being intelligently designed?

@piertinence

2 жыл бұрын

​@@therealzilch As a a child I was told that if a planet would develop an environment propitious to life, life would then appear on it in its simplest form, and just as it did on earth, it would follow a never ending evolutionary journey that would culminate with the evolutionary creation of all kinds of new creatures. I used to not question the validity of such a belief system but later on, I came to realize that such a materialistic and naturalistic concept would have less than zero feasibility.

@piertinence

2 жыл бұрын

@@therealzilch Our mortality does that we could not conceive the nature of an eternal and omniscient creator being. You could not answer as to how obviously intelligently designed creatures could have been created through an unintelligently supported process. Atheist Dawkins came with the absurd idea that everything in the creation only came the illusion of design. A while ago, the Darwinist priest even coined the word designoid, which has not made its way to any recognized dictionary because there could be no definition for the wacky concept.

@therealzilch

2 жыл бұрын

@@piertinence In other words, your personal incredulity about the effectiveness of evolution trumps science, and you admit that you simply accept the existence of a god as a given, not subject to investigation. Tell me: how much have you researched the science? Have you ever found a fossil? How many hours have you spent in the classroom, the lab, the field, studying evolution? I'm guessing no and zero.

Thanks, UC Berkeley, for hosting the magnificent and dedicated Genie Scott for your Darwin Day lectures, and for making this video available to the public!

@FinallyTheNight Where was it you studied at?

@moonlightbateman : yes i read that you meant Atheist regimes. But do you have some examples for me (both old and recent). Because i don't really know which regimes you mean by atheist regimes. Some particular countries maybe ? And do you think religious regimes are always so peaceful ?

I think they'll create more imaginary deities to submit to.

Oh come on people creationism is just the musings of the lazy mind. In order for creationism to be even considerable it must first have some basis in some fact and the ONLY 'fact' it has that might be construed a evidence of its reality is the fact that some believe it. So let's can start the process of destroying this myth by simply asking the question of WHO did the creation? The answer is; It depends on who you deem to be YOUR creator. At BEST, the answer is: They did. Now start there and let's work this out to the ultimate of infinitive confusion or as I and a host of others like to call it, the Argument from Ignorance.

@moonlightbateman Okay. I apologize for misquoting/misunderstanding your response. I DO try not to misrepresent other people when possible. Now, can you answer the question?

Wow, what a good channel. Subscribed.

The controversy between science and creationism would not be necessary if everyone could choose their way of seeing the world without indoctrination. But children can't ! So this controversy is being argued for the kids and for people who can't choose freely. It is not a problem of different thoughts only, it is the difference of peoples attitudes. One are seeking the truth, others think they know the truth already.

Honestly, I think next we'll see something far more intricate than ID. With the ID movement, they were so sloppy that they literally just took the definition of Creationism and replaced the word "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design." They got burned for that pretty badly. They even pasted the word "design proponents" into "creationists" resulting in "cdesign proponentsists." Some refer to this as "the missing link between Intelligent Design and Creationism." After all of these failings, I would expect them to distance themselves even more from Creationism and ID as well, so far as to not even claiming a deity even in the name - ID seems to indicate a designer. I see them as being even more ambiguous. Something more relating to some of their terms such as "irreducible complexity"

@AdmiralBison

9 жыл бұрын

I found that their current strategy is to simply critique Science and in particular Evolution which is fine, but will they rely on false analogies, straw mans, dishonesty, false equivocation, reliance on ignorance, appeal to emotions and sometimes target those who can be easily impressed. /watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY I often find when I want a Creation "Science's" explanation on some obvious things like Dinosaurs not being alive today like modern species even though Noah collected them on to the Ark, I get non answers or silence which is evident to how hollow Creation "Science" is. simple things I ask for those who believe in Creationism like why do men have belly buttons and nipples?. I then leave it for them to wonder about it.

@OrionEd

9 жыл бұрын

Here, read what 'peter peterson' is doing: plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=14313776771853578857&emid=CKjo5vryncACFc_yjAodYRsAiw&path=%2F113193177034674718206%2Fposts%2FQueJTjTPLy7&dt=1408402175055&ub=4

@AdmiralBison

9 жыл бұрын

OrionEd can you summarize what Peter Peterson is saying. It's all pretty lengthy you tube comments

@OrionEd

9 жыл бұрын

Duane Locsin I know, right? Bottom line, as I can follow it, is that Evolution doesn't really fully explain how a species can be made from the environment. I think it's intentional misinformation with an agenda, but I'm not sure. The crux is the fur color of some mice. Dark fur on the rock dwellers, light fur on the sand dwellers. He's contending that there would never have been way for the dark fur to survive long enough to start living on the rock. He's denying that he is ID, but he's made a few statements about "chance" and "natural forces" being something that had to know what they were doing.

@AdmiralBison

9 жыл бұрын

OrionEd so in other words he doesn't provide Creationist Science's explanation of species , but just looks for holes instead in Evolution. If Creation Science is to be taken seriously at all, it will need to start proposing testable hypothesis, explanations and models of it's own and of course let it be peer reviewed by qualified relevant experts. instead of using political process, subverting public school Science classes and submitting their thesis on you tube.

@moonlightbateman Sources please. Links to them preferably.

@Agnostatic But surely these models do not take into account things like how proteins fold and their biochemical properties and all that, do they?

I was taught evolution in Catholic school! If only other religions could find a modus vivendi with science as the Catholics have. That's actually rather ironic looking at the long, sordid history of the Catholic Church. These days, however, they look remarkably progressive compared to many others in this regard. I guess the other religions have come out the other end of 1000 years of relentless erosion at the hands of scientific, social, and moral progress. Teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

@ThisLightOfMine

8 жыл бұрын

The Roman Catholic Church have been a curse to society for many centuries... from the Dark Ages, when it was hiding the light of God's Word from the commoners and persecuting Christians, and while being on the wrong side of God's Word when it comes to evolution. It's no wonder, the False Prophet will be the Roman Catholic pope.

@jasonkeith9317

5 жыл бұрын

Catholicism is not the beacon of light u think it is. I hope there r Catholics in heaven I really do but I just don't know I just don't know.

Greatest trick religion ever pulled, was convincing the world its a belief. Crazyalec

@Itchyback What does a "news" channel have to do with anything?

@moonlightbateman : Ok, thanks, that is some concrete information. I will dig into it. But two things: The "If god is not, all is permissable", is that your own conclusion or is it a quote ? It sounds as if people who do not believe in god (as described by a religion) have no limits, values and so on. Is that what you meant to say with it ? Second: how do you see the USA in this picture ? Is that an atheist regime or a religious regime according to you ?

What do you believe, science facts or superstitious nonsense?

@nullw8768

9 жыл бұрын

I believe in the cleansing Glory or the Great Poseidon! All praise be to Poseidon!

@Poseidon6363

9 жыл бұрын

Chris Wirth The great and only true God Poseidon thanks you for watery praise and blesses you with copious amounts of blessed seaweed.. Let all your puddles be small ones.

@thelonecabbage7834

8 жыл бұрын

+Poseidon63 Pfft, these guys. . . I am the great lord Poseidon, and they know nothing of my work.

@Poseidon6363

8 жыл бұрын

Mark Contini Poseidon blesses you with for your watery wisdom and may you recieve the water wings of hope.

@thelonecabbage7834

8 жыл бұрын

Oh, wait, I didn't see your name @ first. You devious damp deity you.

@moonlightbateman Since you seem to agree with Penrose, do you agree also with the twist theory and the fact that in its further development it shows that there is no place for a god in the creation of the universe? (Stephen Hawkings)

You're doing great work Eugenie. You shouldn't get hung up on the 'Rules of Language'. In fact, there are no hard and fast rules. Languages, like biological entities, evolve. 'Impact' is now commonly used as a transitive verb. Go with the flow. We'll understand what you mean.

@moonlightbateman I disagree with the statistical distributions used to do that calculation, since you claim that understand and agree on that, please explain what distributions were made, and if they can be applied to the rest of the physics.

@moonlightbateman : what regimes are you talking about exactly ? And what about the number of murders caused by religious regimes ?

@moonlightbateman ... so you can quote... any meaning of that?

12 years later... creationists have become internet trolls. :-)

@moonlightbateman I really don't see how disproving Evolution could somehow prove Creationism. Please explain.

@moonlightbateman Wait a minute. Are you saying it was "fringe BELIEVERS and monks(also believers)" or are you saying it was atheists? There not quite the same thing.

@moonlightbateman I was talking to someone at work about our conversation and realized that maybe I should have worded the question differently. The question I was trying to ask was this: What about murder makes it immoral. We both agree that it's wrong but I'm wondering what makes it an immoral act in your eyes? Hopefully I rephrased the question correctly this time.

@gupsphoo I really don't see how proving evolution could disprove creationism. Please explain your premise,

@MarciahL Feel free to google search anything I posted, you will find it is all accurate and correct.

Agreed............creationism in the science classroom is a social/political strategy not a pursuit of scientific accuracy.

@1011myname I am a retired G.I.- 20 years in the U.S.. Air Force- Iraq, Kuwait, England (Cold War) did you serve?

@stoicsquirrel I did answer you. You simply did not understand the answer, go back and read it again. Hope that helps...

:D If the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution." and "critical analysis of evolution" are creationism in disguise, what does that say about the theory of evolution?

This is fascinating!! I'm really not sure if this is a wind-up or, if this is serious!?!

@Lisztman88 Which ones?

@moonlightbateman I still don't think you understand the question. I'm not asking where or when or how you became aware that murder is wrong; I'm asking what makes it wrong to you. Other than it being one of the Ten Commandments, what makes murder an immoral act. I really don't know how else to word the question.

@dragonking700: I am REALLY interested to know what you think science is. Do tell.

What "evidence" do the creationist offer? If it's the bible, then they have to also offer the Egyption Book of the Dead and any other theist document or myth, as being as valid as the bible.

@stoicsquirrel It could, depends on the context.

@moonlightbateman So you're saying that murder is wrong because a "lawgiver" gave us a law that says not to murder?

@moonlightbateman Do you think that "no-religion" equals no belief in a god?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Biology, Harvard Medical School, "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr Skell wrote, "It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential."

The vast majority of Origins researchers have come to the conclusion that abiogenesis (the starting point of evolution) could not have come about by "mere chance" anymore. I think they used to teach that "chance" was the primary cause, but since chance is ruled out, and they are looking for an unknown factor to explain non-life to life, will a teacher be arrested for saying that intelligent design might have been a factor due to the extreme complexity required for life to spontaneously arise?

@moonlightbateman Wouldn't go both ways? If someone comes onto a video comment's page and starts bashing them about their lack of belief in a god; calling them amoral and misrepresenting what they believe or don't believe. Wouldn't that be the same thing? Or are you bashing others out of love?

@moonlightbateman I asked why you feel murder is wrong. You said something about a "lawgiver" giving us the laws. Is God NOT the lawgiver you were talking about? I WAS paraphrasing, that is why I didn't use any quotes.

I am not from US, and I was very surprised that creationism is tout in US schools. In our country evolution is tout in biology and creationism in religion lesson. Is this only happening in US?

@MarciahL According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004)

all this trouble because certain people want to keep a fuzzy feeling in their heads...

You know what I believe? I believe that the people who produced this video do not know how to properly set up a microphone! I want to listen to what she has to say. But it sounds like she's talking from the bottom of a deep well, and I just give up.

@moonlightbateman no problem, best of luck with your english language studies. You're obviously a bright lad, if you apply yourself your comprehension will improve in leaps and bounds.

@moonlightbateman By the way. For your information, i'm not an atheist but agnostic Just thought you should know. Don't know what your opinion is about agnostic people ? Like to hear that as well.

@Agnostatic The modeling that they can do of evolutionary processes doesn't describe the emergence of new features of organisms in a realistic way and the genetic algorithms are just an analogy to evolution - they don't describe actual biological evolution. The constant/Higgs field gap is not something that's directly related to high school instruction as far as I know.

@mbevks I guess you've never heard the term "historical science" then?

Thanks for teaching me about the existence of the "immoral women" alternate theory to plate tectonics! I have always really enjoyed it when my teachers in school enlightened us with some historical perspective like that! :D 👍👍

@moonlightbateman So what on Earth do you believe in???

@MarciahL From "The Atheist Blogger" -March 2000 in English and Welsh prisons, 32% of inmates answered “no religion”. A year later in April the national census was answered by 92% of the UK population, and found that only 15.5% of people had “no religion”. The question about religion was optional and was answered by 92.7% of those asked, so if the remaining 7.3% were atheists who simply didn’t put a religion down, we can estimate that the number of atheists in the UK at the time was 15.5%

@moonlightbateman Okay. 32 indicates Asburger syndrome. Your "source" doesn't say that they scored a 32 or higher.

@Agnostatic I'm still not clear on what you're saying. It sounds like what you're saying is that stochastic algorithms that resemble evolutionary processes have been used in areas outside of biology and that's positive evidence for the truth of evolutionary theory. I think that's true, but it's only very weak evidence, because computers are not biological systems. There may be algorithms that model things purely in the abstract that might also provide positive evidence, but it's different.

My observations are that the movement is "Sciencing Up" in an attempt to proffer scientific validation to Biblical assertions. There is also a reframing of creationist/secular divides in terms of "World Views". This embrace of post-modern terminology is particularly interesting. There's a large buy in factor. Believers spend on media and conferences. Elements of the movement are becoming highly commercialized and profitable. YT's censorship of "Religiously Offensive" material is one result.

@Agnostatic The genetic algorithms are more of an analogy to biological evolution. They may help researchers come up with ideas about how evolution works, but it's not same thing as actually explaining how something would evolve, like how the kidneys or the liver would evolve.

Herzlichen Dank Eugenie. Those are the points not to give up.

@moonlightbateman So which one are you talking about? Atheists or non-religious? At first you said atheist. Now you're switching it to include all non-religious. You need to pick one or the other.

The first paper is from a philosopher in a philosophy journal, and basically amounts to the watchmaker argument. The second paper simply states that we don't know how it works, and until we do it will seem amazing. The third paper talks about how RNA wouldn't have been formed first, and that there had to be something before it. It then goes on and talks about how it could have happened. The last paper is just opinion. If you look at the citations, there are many papers attempting to rebut it.

@moonlightbateman PPS: I do not consider "Do as I say or I'll hurt you." a Moral. I consider a Moral what I think is right or wrong, based on how I would like to be treated.

This video would have been better with better / louder sound.

@Helge129 Feel free to check it all out for yourself, start with Voxx Day's "The Irrational Atheist".

Some specific things I'd like you to consider: 1. Many of these myths do not reference a global Flood, but only a flood that filled a village or a valley. 2. Many of these myths do not involve all life being wiped out. The Australian myth, for instance, has many creatures of all species surviving. 3. If all of these myths had a common source, we would expect to see an outward radiation, with the myths becoming more dissimilar as they moved away from the sourcepoint. We don't see that.

@stoicsquirrel I didnt compile the stats I just reported them. My guess is that the statisticians did not see a need to differentiate in the definition of no religion. Nothing dishonest about that...

@moonlightbateman The OCD thing was a joke. That aside, what does believing in something have to do with whether it exists or not?

@mbevks why

The motivation for teaching strenghts and weaknesses may be creationism in disguise, but teaching strengths and weaknesses in and of itself is not creationism.

@Mr88playmaker I happen to know how a CAD program works. Your comparison holds up to this point: complexity. DNA is complex, it does govern a cell, but how does it prove someone designed it? I mean, a rock's composition and shape make it unique, but you won't say the river "designed" the sand it eroded from a mountain. And minerals in a single rock can be astonishingly complex by their arrangement (much more so than DNA, which basically has 4 base acids)

@moonlightbateman You're deflecting. You aren't addressing the question I asked: Where do you get YOUR morals? The Bible?

@moonlightbateman as tangential as it might be, its funny you keep mentioning dentistry, it's actually my dad's profession. I've been fortunate enough to enjoy free dental care throughout my life and as a result my gnashers are in reasonably good nick. Thanks for your concern. Keep on trying with the comprehension thing, when you can define simple words like 'atheist' accurately you'll find there is much less conflict in your life.

@moonlightbateman Credible source. "Theodore Beale is an American computer game designer, technology entrepreneur, and writer." He is by no means qualified to make any statement about this.

"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." - Richard Dawkins Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is irrational, illogical and a scientific impossibility. "When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable"- Michio Kaku

You can't critize the flaws and gaps of evolution, without being taken for a creationist? You're really taking it to a extreme level. 'Direct response to description'

As a matter of fact, yes. In detail. From the time I was a very small child. My parents are cultural anthropologists; I, too, have a degree in cultural anthropology, with a focus on comparative mythology. As I said, I prefer not to speak with authority on topics I don't know well; this is a topic I know quite well.

@moonlightbateman : Ok, so it's the numbers that really count here. Religious regimes with body counts less than 250 million are alright ? Where did you get this 250 million in the first place ? Can you give me a link to a reliable source. And do you also have proof for me that religious regimes have body counts less than 250 million, and if so, does this mean to you that the regime with the lowest body count is the best ?

@alvinromanu actualy Steven hawking proved that it is theoretically possible to have something come out existence spontaneously. Read his final book. But your point is still valid!!!

@PlanetBongoSan Lack of a sense of humor coupled with an inability to laugh at oneself after obviously being bested is a classic symptom of Aspergers Symdrome, thanks for providing a perfect example of why Atheism and Aspergers Symdrome are linked! :)

A higher percentage of English and Welsh inmates claim to have no religion in comparison to the general population. According to the March 2000 report, Religion in Prisons, 31.9% of inmates claimed to have “no religion”, of whom 0.2% who specifically answered that they were “atheists” and 0.1% who answered that they were “agnostic”. The national census, 15.5% of people in the general population answered that they had “no religion” and 7.3% gave no answer in comparison with 31.9% of inmates.

" A lie that is based on facts, and not on faith. " That is rich .

43:47 that is no longer the case. The current address is ncse.com

@moonlightbateman In the context of our conversation.

We Europeans do our best to fight of the creationists. Although it is hard when naive young minds constantly visit American websites for religious inspiration. American creationism movements have a reach that far out exceeds the american borders, and are the primary resource for creationism material here in Europe. You need to put up a fight in America too.

@jennklein1917

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, creationism seems to be popular in USA. We don't hear about it in Australia

Did you watch the whole video ? Have you attempted to understand how evolution works? I don't mean Kent Hovinds expanation. I mean really picking up a book and trying to understand what it's telling you. The concept is not that difficult. If you scroll down a bit, you will see I was even able to fit the basic premise in 500 characters.

What we saw was a fairly familiar sequence: 1. Science challenges the "plain meaning" of the Bible. 2. Inerrantists resist the challenge. 3. The evidence becomes overwhelming. 4. Inerrantists discover a new "plain meaning" of the Bible. So once science discovered that the sky was not a solid firmament--and ONLY then--did inerrantists discover that the word raqiya means "expanse" and not "firmament." I suspect that evolution will follow the same course.

@moonlightbateman Are you claiming that Atheists are more likely to suffer from Neurological disorders? I hardly think you have the grounds to suggest that. Not all Athiests are 'quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities' and the articles you linked to we're hardly persuading when I first read them. So I must disagree.