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
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. :)
+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 ;)
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.
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. ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
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
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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ruclips.net/video/4HErmp5Pzqw/видео.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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
If there are deities lording it over me, then my independent life is a pointless joke. In such a case, I’d rather be an exhibit in a zoo on Tralfamadore.
YOU SAID: "If there are deities lording it over me, then my independent life is a pointless joke." But isn't your life a pointless joke? Isn't this most obvious to you? What could possibly be the point, the objective point, of your life? Is it even distinguishable, ultimately, from the life of wind and the dust that blows in it? Aren't you just a bunch of particles the value of which is the same as the value of the particles that comprise rocks and water and trees? If there are no deities beyond nature, then isn't value just subjective nonsense, an object that is every bit as meaningless and empty as no value at all?
@@richardgregory3684 *YOU SAID: "Nope, if there are no deities, then life has the meaning and value we choose to make of it."* Yes. It is purely subjective, which is to say it is objectively pointless - even a joke to those of us who see people like you scrambling, in futility, to find a genuine point. If there were four of us comprising humanity, three of whom agree that you are unworthy of life, and we successfully act on the decision, you would be worthless. It means that German Jews came perilously close to being actually worthless - literally and truly worthless, and that they could become worthless in the future. I am afraid this meaning of yours is no meaning at all. You are choosing to adore a pile of dirt, while others perceive it as just a pile of dirt.
@@oscarbenigsen4538 _Yes. It is purely subjective, which is to say it is objectively pointless_ What does that even mean? _even a joke to those of us who see people like you scrambling, in futility, to find a genuine point_ So what is th emeaning of your life? Whatever a book of myths claims your imaginary friend says it is?
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.
@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%
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.
"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
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.
StoneFredFlint: Teaching strengths and weaknesses is not in and of itself a rationalization for messing with the concept of "theory". That's a different issue. Certainly one reason why creationists want to teach strengths and weaknesses is to get students to think about other explanations that are supernatural. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to teach weaknesses if the weaknesses are real weaknesses. That's just being honest. They should teach both the strengths and the weaknesses.
The motivation for teaching strenghts and weaknesses may be creationism in disguise, but teaching strengths and weaknesses in and of itself is not creationism.
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.
@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! :)
@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.
Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of evolution influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. Marx wrote, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to Charles Darwin
I wasn't talking about you though, I was talking about the Pope, and the Pope accepts evolution and still believes in Christianity. What you think has no effect on that whatsoever.
@moonlightbateman I have read it. I was raised in a very, very Christian home. The kind where everyone thought that "rock music" was demonic and that smoking weed caused you to be open to demon possession. And yes, I believed ALL of it. But then I grew up.
I'm not criticizing him, he's just not a biologist. He's a philosopher. I'm not questioning his work in those areas, but he can't comment on how abiogenesis is impossible (and in fact he doesn't) from the point of view of biology or chemistry. The requirements for a philosophy doctorate are significantly different from a biology or chemistry doctorate; and if it's a philosopher against a biologist on biology, it seems logical to side with the biologist.
@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?
So, there are people who know that the church imprisoned Galileo and forced him to deny his discoveries. And still they thank the church for its positive influences on science. Wow.
Agnostatic: But there aren't any weaknesses of gravity, electromagneticism, and chemistry and those subjects to the extent that they are taught at the high school level. The only weaknesses that they have involve certain aspects of quantum theory as it relates to sub-atomic particles and light. And teaching those weaknesses will just confuse the students. Evolution, however, has lots of weaknesses that can be easily taught.
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.
The school classroom is not the place to challenge an established theory. Established means there has been much corroborating, and cross checking evidence to support it, and no noteworthy examples of challenges from the people whose field it is. In universities challenging is important, but it must be informed.
@ivanlagrossemoule Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset with atheism."Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way"
Textbook publishers should poll 1,000 scientists from universities around the country and say what % of them agree with evolutionary principal and what % of them agree with whatever cockeyed idea creationists come up with if they manage to get it into textbooks. This will show students that there isn't a controversy over evolution within science even if creationists get a sticker saying it's"only"a theory or whatever. They will see that only 3 or 4 in 1,000 scientists don't agree with evolution
Creation vs Evolution: Creation teaches - Use your mind to look within yourself and be the judge/blame of that particular life-force. Then you will know how we made it this far in time. Evolution teaches - You to look at everything else to judge/blame that life-force doesn't matter its gonna feed the worms. So smother anything that doesn't agree with us and that's how we made it this far in time. Where did Evolutionists come from?
Suppress contradictory evidence? How? You make it sound as if scientists are allied against ideas they don't like, which is insane. It doesn't matter how much you like an idea in science, if you have the evidence, then your idea gets to survive. Yes, I understand that there a problems with figuring out how abiogenesis happened on this particular planet, but experiments have proven that it's possible.
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 👍👍
The question isn't one of intelligence versus lack of intelligence. In general, it's a question of being informed versus not being informed. Most Creationists don't know the evidence for evolution, and don't care to know the evidence for evolution, because they've already decided that it's automatically wrong. In fact, informed Creationists who acknowledge that, despite their beliefs, there's a lot of evidence for evolution, get savagely attacked by their fellows for daring to deviate.
Then either link to the peer reviewed paper stating such, or submit one yourself. I'm a layman, and I have a suspicion that you are as well; therefore, neither of us really have the credentials to refute or defend the science behind abiogenesis. I simply side with the scientific consensus, as that is what is (by definition) most supported by the evidence. Plus, I've come to respect the peer review process. They'll eat you alive if you're wrong.
It says that evolution is the only real show in town. Creationists are unable to present a theory of their own, so they're reduced to (unsuccessful) attempts to undermine the theory of evolution instead. Where's the "scientific theory of Creationism?" What are its "strengths and weaknesses?"
@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)
The proviso here is that the ideas must be competing. They must both be equally valid in the same context. My comment should be read in in the context of "Creationism vs Evolution" for which there is no debate except in the minds of those who reject (or are willing to ignore) evidence as a basis for reasonable inquiry.
Going to a philosopher about biology is like going to a window washer for automotive advice: It doesn't make sense to do so. Nobody is ruling out a "rational agent," there just isn't evidence for it currently. Scientists try to make as few assumptions as possible. Abiogenesis is a fledgling field of study, and someday it may be as proved as evolution, atomic theory, or germ theory of disease. Until then, for laymen to speculate is pointless.
@moonlightbateman It's the first chapter, "The Pride of Atheists", "sub" chapter "The High Church Atheists", seventh paragraph. I have a PDF copy so the page number may differ from yours but it's page 17. Here's the quote: "there were only 122 atheists, two-tenths of one percent of the 65,256 prison population, being held in English and Welsh jails in 2000". Like I said, he tries to lump together "non-religious" with atheists to get his skewed numbers and hopes that nobody notices what he did.
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'
@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.
@stoicsquirrel Thanks for admitting to the world that you suffer from OCD and that you have been clinically diagnosed. That takes alot of courage, if more atheists like you were up front about thier diagnosis it would make dealing with you alot easier. Best of luck on your treatment.
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.
As for polystrate fossils, they were what KILLED flood geology in the first place. They don't pose a problem for deep time geology. However, they pose a HUGE problem for flood geology. Many have been found with their fine rootlet systems intact, meaning that they were NOT uprooted, but grew in situ. Those rootlets extend through many laters of "flood sediment." For flood geology to be correct, that would mean they grew to maturity DURING the flood.
@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.
I'll debate you on "your" territory. I wasn't always atheist you know. I have just finished a bible study where we read the whole book . It took a few months, but we made it through. A lot of it is fresh in my mind still. I also have a good working knowledge on the processes of evolutionary theory. Of course, in order to debate evolution, you have to be willing to accept a fact for what it is and keep faith out of your argument. I will do my best to use all biblical text in context .
@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.
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 LOL- Thanks for confirming my source, enjoy the read, I recommend "The Irrational Atheist" to anyone on this site- a great read that dispells alot of incorrect atheist propaganda. Thanks for pitching it and quoting it, you make my job alot easier...
@stoicsquirrel "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 a scientific impossibility. "When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable"- Michio Kaku
@DandAinTac I am both an atheist and a diehard Republican. If you know anything about the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, then you probably also know that the judge was a conservative Republican that was appointed by Bush. Yet he still ruled in favor of Kitzmiller. I really don't think you have to worry about Republicans forcing religion on you. I'm not too worried about it.
"Have ever noticed how people who believe in evolution actually look and act like apes?" And they say creationists don't look evolved... lol. When you're already human, and always been human, you don't need to evolve, or look evolved.
Did anyone say mockery, threats, coercion and ridicule are part of scientific methodology? I didn't, and I didn't say any of the other things your kicking off about. The only one I agree with is "Your dumb if you don't believe in it". The rest are what you think people like me think, but it's not actually what people like me think.
@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 ?
Roger White is a PhD with a strong background in the sciences. Don't you know that is required to be a Philosopher of Science? To criticize this evolutionist, just because he points out a logical fallacy a peer reviewed journal, is not being objective to say the least. So what do you say - why wouldn't it be a logical fallacy? It is perfectly logical to me? You agree or disagree - be honest. :)
@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...
Let's take Africa, for instance. Creationist sites like to claim that "nearly all cultures" have Flood myths...yet, after extensive searching, they only managed to find 15 or so in Africa--a continent with roughly two thousand cultures. Furthermore, not ONE of those myths can be reliably traced to before contact with Christian missionaries, and there are documented cases where stories gathered from missionaries became mixed in as tribal legends.
@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!!!
@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.
@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.
@stoicsquirrel I would also point out that anti-theist stats are difficult to come by because anti-theists are often in denial, or hiding, They feel that embracing the term anti-theist would make them seem like members of a hate group. Make no mistake, anyone bashing, bullying or persecuting someone for thier belief in God is an anti- theist and a member of a hate group.
@gamesbok Theology actually saved us from the Dark Ages- specifically literate Irish monks that preserved history via the written word:) Feel free to look it up!
No they don't. As the other person mentioned, the second law is very useful when talking about the origin of the universe. But the laws don't contradict evolution at all. The oversimplified analogy that entropy is "disorder" throws off people who don't grasp the subject a bit more in depth. Gravity can even make it behave the opposite way and chemistry also has a local effect.
"Mutations are like typeos. They destroy or impede information." Or create new "information", mutations are not always detrimental, some are neutral, some are beneficial. "A Random Mutations Generator" It does not take into account CUMULATIVE mutations.
![Lil Uzi Vert - We Good [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DrSfBULAsek/mqdefault.jpg)
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
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. :)
+terrypussypower I like Ken. I understand why you don't, but he gets my respect.
John Shaw
Oh, I understand perfectly well why he gets your "respect"!
+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 ;)
+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.
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. ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
+James Jordan Are you saying religion is do do?
***** Religion is no-no, wrapped in do do.
James Jordan It took you a year to think that one up?
***** 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.
Science explains how things work not why things work in the first place.
Americans take note: this debate could never take place in Europe. It would be seen as utterly preposterous and silly.
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.
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.
12 years later... creationists have become internet trolls. :-)
When in an hotel put a sticker on the Gideon
"This is just a belief it isn't a fact"
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
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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
Lots of respect for Eugenie Scott.
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.
Yes, creationism seems to be popular in USA. We don't hear about it in Australia
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.
Euginie is a good woman! keep up the great work Mrs Scott
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.
You....You....devil! :)
You....You....doorknob!
Robert lmfao! :)
+Robert A dummy of a dummy.
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.
ruclips.net/video/4HErmp5Pzqw/видео.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.
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.
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.
Agreed............creationism in the science classroom is a social/political strategy not a pursuit of scientific accuracy.
This is hilarious as evolution becoming mandatory in schools is purely political tactics, especially useful to communism
I think they'll create more imaginary deities to submit to.
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"
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.
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
OrionEd can you summarize what Peter Peterson is saying. It's all pretty lengthy you tube comments
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Where do they get the science part of Creation Science?
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.
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.
Greatest trick religion ever pulled, was convincing the world its a belief. Crazyalec
What do you believe, science facts or superstitious nonsense?
I believe in the cleansing Glory or the Great Poseidon! All praise be to Poseidon!
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.
+Poseidon63 Pfft, these guys. . . I am the great lord Poseidon, and they know nothing of my work.
Mark Contini
Poseidon blesses you with for your watery wisdom and may you recieve the water wings of hope.
Oh, wait, I didn't see your name @ first. You devious damp deity you.
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?
If there are deities lording it over me, then my independent life is a pointless joke. In such a case, I’d rather be an exhibit in a zoo on Tralfamadore.
YOU SAID: "If there are deities lording it over me, then my independent life is a pointless joke."
But isn't your life a pointless joke? Isn't this most obvious to you? What could possibly be the point, the objective point, of your life? Is it even distinguishable, ultimately, from the life of wind and the dust that blows in it? Aren't you just a bunch of particles the value of which is the same as the value of the particles that comprise rocks and water and trees? If there are no deities beyond nature, then isn't value just subjective nonsense, an object that is every bit as meaningless and empty as no value at all?
@@oscarbenigsen4538 Nope, if there are no deities, then life has the meaning and value we choose to make of it.
@@richardgregory3684 *YOU SAID: "Nope, if there are no deities, then life has the meaning and value we choose to make of it."*
Yes. It is purely subjective, which is to say it is objectively pointless - even a joke to those of us who see people like you scrambling, in futility, to find a genuine point. If there were four of us comprising humanity, three of whom agree that you are unworthy of life, and we successfully act on the decision, you would be worthless. It means that German Jews came perilously close to being actually worthless - literally and truly worthless, and that they could become worthless in the future. I am afraid this meaning of yours is no meaning at all. You are choosing to adore a pile of dirt, while others perceive it as just a pile of dirt.
@@oscarbenigsen4538 _Yes. It is purely subjective, which is to say it is objectively pointless_
What does that even mean?
_even a joke to those of us who see people like you scrambling, in futility, to find a genuine point_
So what is th emeaning of your life? Whatever a book of myths claims your imaginary friend says it is?
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.
@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%
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.
"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
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.
StoneFredFlint:
Teaching strengths and weaknesses is not in and of itself a rationalization for messing with the concept of "theory". That's a different issue. Certainly one reason why creationists want to teach strengths and weaknesses is to get students to think about other explanations that are supernatural. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to teach weaknesses if the weaknesses are real weaknesses. That's just being honest. They should teach both the strengths and the weaknesses.
The motivation for teaching strenghts and weaknesses may be creationism in disguise, but teaching strengths and weaknesses in and of itself is not creationism.
Continued You are welcome to have them. We are happy to be rid of that rubbish
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.
@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! :)
@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.
Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of evolution influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. Marx wrote, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to Charles Darwin
I wasn't talking about you though, I was talking about the Pope, and the Pope accepts evolution and still believes in Christianity. What you think has no effect on that whatsoever.
@moonlightbateman I have read it. I was raised in a very, very Christian home. The kind where everyone thought that "rock music" was demonic and that smoking weed caused you to be open to demon possession. And yes, I believed ALL of it. But then I grew up.
I'm not criticizing him, he's just not a biologist. He's a philosopher. I'm not questioning his work in those areas, but he can't comment on how abiogenesis is impossible (and in fact he doesn't) from the point of view of biology or chemistry. The requirements for a philosophy doctorate are significantly different from a biology or chemistry doctorate; and if it's a philosopher against a biologist on biology, it seems logical to side with the biologist.
@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?
So, there are people who know that the church imprisoned Galileo and forced him to deny his discoveries. And still they thank the church for its positive influences on science. Wow.
Agnostatic:
But there aren't any weaknesses of gravity, electromagneticism, and chemistry and those subjects to the extent that they are taught at the high school level. The only weaknesses that they have involve certain aspects of quantum theory as it relates to sub-atomic particles and light. And teaching those weaknesses will just confuse the students. Evolution, however, has lots of weaknesses that can be easily taught.
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.
all this trouble because certain people want to keep a fuzzy feeling in their heads...
The school classroom is not the place to challenge an established theory. Established means there has been much corroborating, and cross checking evidence to support it, and no noteworthy examples of challenges from the people whose field it is. In universities challenging is important, but it must be informed.
@ivanlagrossemoule Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset with atheism."Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way"
Textbook publishers should poll 1,000 scientists from universities around the country and say what % of them agree with evolutionary principal and what % of them agree with whatever cockeyed idea creationists come up with if they manage to get it into textbooks. This will show students that there isn't a controversy over evolution within science even if creationists get a sticker saying it's"only"a theory or whatever. They will see that only 3 or 4 in 1,000 scientists don't agree with evolution
Creation vs Evolution:
Creation teaches - Use your mind to look within yourself and be the judge/blame of that particular life-force. Then you will know how we made it this far in time.
Evolution teaches - You to look at everything else to judge/blame that life-force doesn't matter its gonna feed the worms. So smother anything that doesn't agree with us and that's how we made it this far in time. Where did Evolutionists come from?
Suppress contradictory evidence? How? You make it sound as if scientists are allied against ideas they don't like, which is insane. It doesn't matter how much you like an idea in science, if you have the evidence, then your idea gets to survive.
Yes, I understand that there a problems with figuring out how abiogenesis happened on this particular planet, but experiments have proven that it's possible.
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 👍👍
The question isn't one of intelligence versus lack of intelligence. In general, it's a question of being informed versus not being informed. Most Creationists don't know the evidence for evolution, and don't care to know the evidence for evolution, because they've already decided that it's automatically wrong. In fact, informed Creationists who acknowledge that, despite their beliefs, there's a lot of evidence for evolution, get savagely attacked by their fellows for daring to deviate.
Translation: "I don't have to think for myself. Someone else has done all my thinking for me."
Very sad.
@1011myname I am a retired G.I.- 20 years in the U.S.. Air Force- Iraq, Kuwait, England (Cold War) did you serve?
Then either link to the peer reviewed paper stating such, or submit one yourself. I'm a layman, and I have a suspicion that you are as well; therefore, neither of us really have the credentials to refute or defend the science behind abiogenesis. I simply side with the scientific consensus, as that is what is (by definition) most supported by the evidence. Plus, I've come to respect the peer review process. They'll eat you alive if you're wrong.
I discount literalists from the discussion . Just like I would discount someone from a conversation about x-mas gifts if they believe in santa .
It says that evolution is the only real show in town. Creationists are unable to present a theory of their own, so they're reduced to (unsuccessful) attempts to undermine the theory of evolution instead.
Where's the "scientific theory of Creationism?" What are its "strengths and weaknesses?"
@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)
The proviso here is that the ideas must be competing. They must both be equally valid in the same context.
My comment should be read in in the context of "Creationism vs Evolution" for which there is no debate except in the minds of those who reject (or are willing to ignore) evidence as a basis for reasonable inquiry.
Actually, by that notion, you should start teaching alternative ideas in all the synagogues, churches, mosques, and temples out there.
" A lie that is based on facts, and not on faith. " That is rich .
Going to a philosopher about biology is like going to a window washer for automotive advice: It doesn't make sense to do so. Nobody is ruling out a "rational agent," there just isn't evidence for it currently. Scientists try to make as few assumptions as possible.
Abiogenesis is a fledgling field of study, and someday it may be as proved as evolution, atomic theory, or germ theory of disease. Until then, for laymen to speculate is pointless.
@moonlightbateman It's the first chapter, "The Pride of Atheists", "sub" chapter "The High Church Atheists", seventh paragraph. I have a PDF copy so the page number may differ from yours but it's page 17. Here's the quote: "there were only 122 atheists, two-tenths of one percent of the 65,256 prison population, being held in English and Welsh jails in 2000".
Like I said, he tries to lump together "non-religious" with atheists to get his skewed numbers and hopes that nobody notices what he did.
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'
@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.
@stoicsquirrel Thanks for admitting to the world that you suffer from OCD and that you have been clinically diagnosed. That takes alot of courage, if more atheists like you were up front about thier diagnosis it would make dealing with you alot easier. Best of luck on your treatment.
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.
As for polystrate fossils, they were what KILLED flood geology in the first place. They don't pose a problem for deep time geology. However, they pose a HUGE problem for flood geology. Many have been found with their fine rootlet systems intact, meaning that they were NOT uprooted, but grew in situ. Those rootlets extend through many laters of "flood sediment." For flood geology to be correct, that would mean they grew to maturity DURING the flood.
@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.
I'll debate you on "your" territory. I wasn't always atheist you know. I have just finished a bible study where we read the whole book . It took a few months, but we made it through. A lot of it is fresh in my mind still. I also have a good working knowledge on the processes of evolutionary theory. Of course, in order to debate evolution, you have to be willing to accept a fact for what it is and keep faith out of your argument. I will do my best to use all biblical text in context .
@FinallyTheNight Where was it you studied at?
@dragonking700: I am REALLY interested to know what you think science is. Do tell.
I wish I had a grandma like Eugenie!
@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.
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 LOL- Thanks for confirming my source, enjoy the read, I recommend "The Irrational Atheist" to anyone on this site- a great read that dispells alot of incorrect atheist propaganda. Thanks for pitching it and quoting it, you make my job alot easier...
@stoicsquirrel "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 a scientific impossibility.
"When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable"- Michio Kaku
@DandAinTac I am both an atheist and a diehard Republican. If you know anything about the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, then you probably also know that the judge was a conservative Republican that was appointed by Bush. Yet he still ruled in favor of Kitzmiller. I really don't think you have to worry about Republicans forcing religion on you. I'm not too worried about it.
If creationists fail to understand what is the meaning of a "THEORY" let's just say that creationism is A theory too !
+jam63112 - except that creationism is not a scientific theory; creationism is not even a valid scientific hypothesis.
"Have ever noticed how people who believe in evolution actually look and act like apes?"
And they say creationists don't look evolved... lol. When you're already human, and always been human, you don't need to evolve, or look evolved.
Did anyone say mockery, threats, coercion and ridicule are part of scientific methodology? I didn't, and I didn't say any of the other things your kicking off about. The only one I agree with is "Your dumb if you don't believe in it". The rest are what you think people like me think, but it's not actually what people like me think.
Herzlichen Dank Eugenie. Those are the points not to give up.
@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 ?
Roger White is a PhD with a strong background in the sciences. Don't you know that is required to be a Philosopher of Science? To criticize this evolutionist, just because he points out a logical fallacy a peer reviewed journal, is not being objective to say the least. So what do you say - why wouldn't it be a logical fallacy? It is perfectly logical to me? You agree or disagree - be honest. :)
@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...
Let's take Africa, for instance. Creationist sites like to claim that "nearly all cultures" have Flood myths...yet, after extensive searching, they only managed to find 15 or so in Africa--a continent with roughly two thousand cultures. Furthermore, not ONE of those myths can be reliably traced to before contact with Christian missionaries, and there are documented cases where stories gathered from missionaries became mixed in as tribal legends.
@gupsphoo I really don't see how proving evolution could disprove creationism. Please explain your premise,
@moonlightbateman : what regimes are you talking about exactly ?
And what about the number of murders caused by religious regimes ?
@Helge129 You might want to run that by the "Little Green Men" you believe in...LOL- I told you earlier it would get hilarious, and it did!
@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!!!
@stoicsquirrel I did answer you. You simply did not understand the answer, go back and read it again. Hope that helps...
@moonlightbateman Sources please. Links to them preferably.
@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.
@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.
@stoicsquirrel I would also point out that anti-theist stats are difficult to come by because anti-theists are often in denial, or hiding, They feel that embracing the term anti-theist would make them seem like members of a hate group. Make no mistake, anyone bashing, bullying or persecuting someone for thier belief in God is an anti- theist and a member of a hate group.
@moonlightbateman So.. No links to those statestics? Just a copy paste of something you wrote earlier? Im waiting here... :P
@gamesbok Theology actually saved us from the Dark Ages- specifically literate Irish monks that preserved history via the written word:) Feel free to look it up!
No they don't. As the other person mentioned, the second law is very useful when talking about the origin of the universe. But the laws don't contradict evolution at all. The oversimplified analogy that entropy is "disorder" throws off people who don't grasp the subject a bit more in depth. Gravity can even make it behave the opposite way and chemistry also has a local effect.
"Mutations are like typeos. They destroy or impede information."
Or create new "information", mutations are not always detrimental, some are neutral, some are beneficial.
"A Random Mutations Generator"
It does not take into account CUMULATIVE mutations.