Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse | Big Think
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The last thing we want to do is water down the teaching of biology because some people don’t recognize that evolution happened. Evolution is the basis of modern biology and, in fact, if a lot of people don’t believe it, it only means we have to do a better job teaching it. So once again, I repeat, the purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it. And to overcome a situation where a United States Senator can speak such manifest nonsense with impunity is vitally important to the healthy future of our society."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS:
Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is a Canadian-American theoretical physicist who is a professor of physics, and the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing. He is an advocate of scientific skepticism, science education, and the science of morality. Krauss is one of the few living physicists referred to by Scientific American as a "public intellectual", and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major U.S. physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW BIG THINK:
📰BigThink.com: bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: bigth.ink/face...
🐦Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: bigth.ink/Inst...
📹RUclips: bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Lawrence Krauss: It amazes me that people have pre-existing notions that defy the evidence of reality. But that they hold onto them so dearly. And one of them is the notion of creationism, or, in fact, Senator Marco Rubio, who’s presumably a reasonably intelligent man and maybe even educated, was asked what’s the age of the Earth, and ultimately, either because he actually believed it or he was trying to appeal to some constituency, had to argue that it’s a big mystery, that somehow we should teach kids both ideas, that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that it’s 4.55 billion years old, which is what it is.
If you think about that, somehow saying that, well, anything goes, we shouldn't offend religious beliefs by requiring kids to know - to understand reality; that’s child abuse. And if you think about it, teaching kids - or allowing the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old to be promulgated in schools is like teaching kids that the distance across the United States is 17 feet. That’s how big an error it is.
Now you might say, look, a lot of people believe that, so don’t we owe it to them to allow their views to be present in school? Well, as I’ve often said, the purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it. Fifty percent of the people in the United States, when we probe them each year with the National Science Foundation, think that the sun goes around the Earth, not that the Earth goes around the sun. When we asked the question - we provide the question: The Earth goes around the sun and takes a year to do it; true or false? Almost every year, 50 percent of the people get that wrong.
Now, does that mean in schools we should allow the anti-Galilean and Copernican idea that the sun goes around the Earth to be taught? Absolutely not. If, in fact, the very fact that people don’t know that, and the very fact that enough people are willing to somehow believe that Earth is 6,000 years old, means we have to do a better job of teaching physics and biology, not a worse job.
The last thing we want to do is water down the teaching of biology because some people don’t recognize that evolution happened. Evolution is the basis of modern biology and, in fact, if a lot of people don’t believe it, it only means we have to do a better job teaching it. So once again, I repeat, the purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it. And to overcome a situation where a United States Senator can speak such manifest nonsense with impunity is vitally important to the healthy future of our society.
Technology and biotechnology will be the basis of our economic future. And if we allow nonsense to be promulgated in the schools, we do a disservice to our students, a disservice to our children, and we’re guaranteeing that they will fall behind in a competitive world that depends upon a skilled workforce able to understand and manipulate technology and science.
Directed / Produced by Jonathan Fowler & Elizabeth Rodd
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” -Galileo Galilei
@vlаdimir рutin is аndrеi раnin jfk is jimmy carter lmao flat earther
@vlаdimir рutin is аndrеi раnin jfk is jimmy carter The equal contrary questions I ask for you.
Galileo was a catholic.
@cops and govern ment are gangstalkers What a fucking sad comment.
@@user-pp8ru6uu1s is it the religious belief of the person or his intelligence? so only Catholics believe that there is a God?
Honestly, as an atheist and someone that turns to science for things I don't understand, I feel like the facts over feelings battle will never end because children are ingrained with lies.
Why do atheists tell lies?
“When you believe in things that you don’t understand, you suffer, Superstition ain’t the way!”
"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it!"
@Mendicant Bias ban theology
@@fraz006 no no no, theology is the study of religion, and it's an important part of humanity's evolution. Banning it outright takes away an important piece of knowledge from the minds of children. It'll make them *more* susceptible to religious indoctrination.
@@TylerDehan Woah !! It's a great point indeed !!
@K A It is a question of evidence, not belief. Our shared ancestry and DNA are powerful indicators that we are a branch of the primate evolutionary tree. The only way to not 'believe' this is simply to ignore it.
@K A you poor poor person. It is alright. Let's start with the basics. 1+1 =2
Its ironic how theists demand proof for evolution, deny it and expect us to believe their claims about god.
Klee Why shouldn't we expect extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim - that the RNA life, after abiogenesis then evolved the DNA genetic code, and that at the very dawn of life, started evolving by "copying errors" and the copying errors created all kinds of sophisticated molecular machines and then over geological time, by leaps and bounds, culminated in creating the most complex thing in the known universe - the human brain. So what is the evidence for *macroevolution* -- most evolutionists just extrapolate that microevolution is evidence of macroevolution, but it really isn't. Macroevolution needs confirming and compelling evidence that the evolutionary boundaries we observe - complexity thresholds, genetic barriers, degradation of the genome etc. would not cause a discontinuity in evolution instead of its going on infinitely. What IS the evidence for macroevolution?
Kristen Michelle "Why shouldn't we expect extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim"...
But you don't apply that standard to creationism, do you? This is what we call hypocrisy if you didn't know.
Rhiza _Its ironic how theists demand proof for evolution_
Speciation is part of the creation model. You might want to educate yourself on your opponent's position before you try to criticize it:
creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use
creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-4-argument-natural-selection-leads-to-speciation
Alan Clarke LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Educated yourself? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Kristen Michelle Because you expect zero evidence for the extraordinary claim that god created anything and that god exists.
"Something that is proved real because of a lack of evidence, can also be proven false with a lack of evidence." -Christopher Hitchens
Brilliant
I'm going to go out on a limb and question that 50% of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth. I have never met a single person who ever professed this. It is far more likely that people simply misunderstood the question, or that the survey was given in a specific area that was less educated.
Statistics are the highest form of lying.
To TheBlackSword
I agree! I also doubt that 50% comment about the relationship of the earth and the sun.
If the question was as Lawrence said, that "the earth goes around the sun and it takes a year to do so, true or false", it is a double question and therefore invalid for determining if people think the earth orbits the sun.
This type of question is the problem, not the knowledge or beliefs of the person asked. If you want to know if someone thinks the earth orbits the sun, then the question should be: "The earth orbits the sun, True or False".
I also agree with you about who was asked. If the survey was given to a bunch of four year olds (okay, some of them may know the earth orbits the sun) and even read to them, it would hardly be indicative of 50% of Americans. In fact, saying that 50% of Americans don't know the earth orbits the sun is inaccurate because 100% of the population was not surveyed. That's the problem with statistics and reporting on surveys. It's too easy to over-generalize.
As much as I admire scientific reasoning and methodology, I am amazed when I read studies and see these kinds of blunders. A survey is a scientific instrument, but many are so poorly designed that they either can't reveal anything reliable, or they provide completely false results because of the way they are made. In Social Science, the construction of a really valid survey is a scientific study in itself.
Given what Lawrence said (and I haven't seen the actual survey), I doubt that 50% of Americans don't think the earth orbits the sun.
There is a danger in accepting something labeled "scientific" as being totally accurate and unbiased. There are mechanisms in the scientific community to challenge outrageous conclusions to scientific research, and I think that 50% of Americans claim deserves sucjh a challenge.
I don't doubt it. A lot of people in america are not smart.
So I could definitely see this happing.
@YourArgumentIsInvalid most religious areas are largely devoid of education and intellect such as the bible belt of Texas. There are people who believe the Earth is flat, people who think that the Earth is 6000 years old and people who think dinosaurs lived with man. People who attended science class know these things are ridiculous. So as for whether the statistic is that high I would believe it.
The Earth Goes Around The Sun Because The Sun Is Bigger.
Its interesting that an atheist can be great friends with anyone, marry anyone and have no personal walls between people. Yet you get a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu and a Jew together in the same room... you get tension, distrust, and perhaps even hate before the very first word is ever uttered. Amazing.
exactly!
+Tim Cheng Idk, the guy in this video seems to have some personal walls and tension and distrust between himself and religious folk
+Ricky909 You are incorrect. "The guy" is talking about education. He talks specifically about 2 issues: 1. Age of Universe being 4.5 billion vs 6000 yrs. 2. %50 of the population thinks the sun goes around the Earth. These are facts that he says "we must do a better job of educating." That's it. Theres no "personal walls and distrust" from him at all. Where? Show me.
nice story ya got there ...... good fiction ...
i don't think u've ever lived or been to any nation or country where mixed religions ppl live together ..... celebrate national functions together openly ......
but anyone on the internet can clearly see that how atheists are always bashing , hating talking shit at theists ....
take any youtube/facebook comment section (for similar posts like this )for example : usually the top comment is " look at all the butthurt chirstians trying to proove blah blah " (where in fact if u checka few hundred comments , u'll only see people mocking religion and maybe 5 or 10 christians trying to say something and getting backlashed harshly ) or usually comments which are hurtful to people who believe in religions ... i mean take the current top comment in this video for example ... "Child abuse? PLEASE, that doesn't even touch it. Religion is a VIRUS. Worse than CANCER. Worse than FEVER. Worse than EBOLA. It corrupts minds, seeping out any sense of logical thought....... " wow buddy ... igotta say , u broke the rythm with "fever" in between cancer and ebola .. cause fever is pretty common and its not that bad :P
" you get tension, distrust, and perhaps even hate before the very first word is ever uttered. Amazing" - no ,,,, no , this doesn't happen , tell u what .. visit a country that has a high number of mixed religion ... there are a few in south east asia ..... ppl don't give a uk about their friends religions .. they even attend each others religious festivals ....
"you get tension, distrust, and perhaps even hate before the very first word is ever uttered. Amazing" - yes , yes you do ... because of a few misleading low knowledgable anti-religious people that tries to create misunderstanding between people of the world via their baseless statements to get a few likes and short lived attention .....
btw this Lawrence Krauss is more famous for saying incest is ok .... what does he know about child abuse ?? maybe he does that to his own kid .... and thinks it is normal ..
Good fiction? Tell you what, why don't you spend about 6 hours reading these articles in Wikipedia... maybe that's fiction too.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religionen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violenceen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
Science has questions that may never be answered.
Religion has answers that may never be questioned.
Maybe,but a theoy of everything will bw complete by the end of the century
example of answer religion has please?
Oh really, then why didn't the bible tell us about germs and disease? Face it, religion is for the incompetent.
GLBC Staff I see, washing hands prevents small pox, malaria, etc. etc... See how religion rots your brain?
SpiritWolf2K Stoning disobedient children, burning down libraries, cutting your hair off saps you of your physical prowess etc. etc.
Child abuse is hurting a child in some way. If you are DELIBERATELY teaching your kids religious beliefs and passing those beliefs off as facts, then you are teaching your child false information. It is akin to child abuse, mentally not physically. People dont seem to understand what the term 'child abuse' means. It doesn't just mean beating your kid. Schools should not be allowed to teach something that has no evidence backing of any kind anywhere, because its the same as deliberately teaching lies. Whats the point of school then if not to teach children what is correct, but to teach them what religious people want them to think? Anyone that thinks what Krauss is saying is offensive, is obviously blinded by religious beliefs and cares not for facts and might as well take you child out of school and save yourself some money or never put your child through school.
But you forget that science doesn't even address the possibility of God or the supernatural, or eternal life. What possible authority does Lawrence Krauss have to declare there is no God? He is a cosmologist, and a VERY bad one at that. He last book was so scientifically illiterate that he didn't dare to submit its premises to peer reviewed scientific journals, in order to authenticate it to some degree - but no, he just published it to make money, changing the definition of "nothing" to mean "something" -- matter & energy. He has also declared that in the near future robotic computer intelligent life will become "conscious" and that we should change the definition of "life" to include these imagined robotic friends of his, because they will "be UPSET" if we don't. When asked about the Asimov laws of robotics to protect human life from computer life (from the science fiction books), he said he didn't think we should impose any laws on the robots as he doesn't think it's a bad idea to replace humans with robotic life! He is a cosmologist. How does he know computer intelligence is going to become conscious? www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/its_the_end_of_072841.html
Also here is a scathing review of Krauss' cosmology book, "Universe from Nothing" from Columbia professor David Albert who also authored “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.”
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?pagewanted=all
I accept the Bible as a faith book and as a historical book. I do not think science is infallible and there are many good and honest PhD's who interpret the evidence in a way that definitely does not even contradict the Bible. For science to say that the supernatural doesn't exist, when Scientific Naturalism won't even allow science to consider the possibility, is ridiculous. As Francis Crick said: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved". This shows conclusively that scientists *cannot* consider what they see - Design - because their methodology forbids it. This in no way means that the Intelligent Designer doesn't exist.
Kristen Mayeaux Sorry but you're totally wrong on that first statement. Science doesn't need to address the possibility of God because there is no evidence or reason to do so. Science is about learning about the universe, truth and reality USING evidence. If you do science without using evidence, nobody will even take you seriously.
6NoHope9 What evidence is there for the simple replicating life that over 300 million years turned into DNA life? I can't seem to find any evidence for the proto cell ? Also how did the DNA genetic code evolve? There isn't any evolutionary evidence for its having evolved. Biologists can't find a plausible way. How about the Cambrian explosion? I keep hearing that evolution is a theory and a fact? Well, what is one indisputable "Fact" of evolution?
Kristen Mayeaux this post is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy and does not meet the requirements to prove the things science does have published in journals and backed up by evidence wrong.
thebatmanover9000 Concerning the genetic code, I did not make an agrument from ignorance. Evolutionists themselves don't have a clue how it could have evolved. The peer reviewed literature says this about the evolution of the DNA apparatus and the genetic code -- that it is "*perhaps, the most formidable problem of all evolutionary biology. Indeed, it stands to reason that any scenario of the code origin and evolution will remain vacuous if not combined with understanding of the origin of the coding principle itself and the translation system that embodies it. At the heart of this problem, is a dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system. A variety of hypotheses have been proposed in attempts to break the circle and references therein but so far none of these seems to be sufficiently coherent or enjoys sufficient support to claim the status of a real theory."*
*The Origin and Evolution of the Genetic Code - the Universal Enigma*
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.146/full
Concerning the ridiculous allegation of child abuse for parents' teaching religious beliefs, Krauss should think more about the pedophile friend he adamantly defended who was abusing and molesting young girls and went to jail for it. Now that's child abuse. But Krauss went to bat for his friend saying he KNEW his friend was never with underage girls, because as a scientist he is very observant and could tell "empirically" the girls were ALL age 19-23 years or older! LOLOL Yet 30 young girls (13-14 yr olds) admitted under oath and to their parents that they had been paid for sex by Krauss' good buddy, J. Epstein.
He is absolutely right. It is really hard to raise a child in America without religion somehow poisoning things. In the southern states you cant even send a kid to pre-school cuz it basically consists of religion and playtime
"My misunderstanding of what evolution is conflicts with my misunderstanding of how science works." -- Creationism Redux, an accurate summary of every creationist argument ever made.
YOU ARE WRONG!!!
@@SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals Nah he's pretty spot on actually
This is only if you're lucky. A lot will just point to the bible and give you bible verses as if those are proof enough, and they believe that they are.
Agreed, forcing kids to believe something that is purely based on beholders imaginary, is child abuse. There is more ways than one to harm a child, mentally is one.
He's fucking right! Going to church as a kid (whether Catholic or Evangelic) thinking there was something wrong with me, because I never felt the joy to be on mass. Thinking there was something wrong with me, because I wasn't like the other crazy people screaming "Hallelujah" left and right. That made me feel confused for a little bit of time. Growing up, I learned for myself, that it was all crazy delusional lies... and now, I have no fucking patience for anything religious. Religion teaches nothing. It is not ethical to lie to kid with such demented believes, it is not educational to hide facts about the physics of the universe covering up with fake make believe stories from an ancient book, it is not moral to tell kids to love the invisible man unconditionally, because, you'll be tortured forever otherwise.
+Fuzzo Frizzbeebot Rather be a hateful asshole and have a little bit of understanding about the universe than to have self induced schizophrenia and worship statues.
Your first mistake was attending a pagan catholic church. your second mistake is your militant hatred for God. He is not at odds with the truth, no thats not the issue, The issue is you are at odds with Him. You are in love with your sin and, like a rebelious child, this causes you anger or you wouldnt even be here laying out your confused religious life story. A bad church does not a false religion make.
***** So your qualified to declare all religions false but I cant categorize them as true or false? Dumbest thing you've said so far.
Study, research and knowledge qualifies me. Your literally the simplest kid Ive ever debated. I really mean that. Never have I dealt with such ignorance, immaturity, and low self esteem. Really I just feel sorry for you. Your that loud obnoxious kid that everybody picks on. Poor fella
***** I in fact get much of my science from secular sources. You see I'm usually reading a book or peer reviewed article of some kind while your playing the xbox, pulling your carrot or just generally acting like a pre-teen derelict like you are now. That's not to say that there are hordes of creation scientists that I trust, who have real degrees and work for real universities
Man you're immature.
***** Thats the difference between us. I look what both sides have on an issue. Its only after investigation that I take a position on something. I dont agree with everything on the creationist side.
You, now your a special kind of stupid. Condemnation BEFORE investigation is a fools position on any subject.
There are literally thousands of christian scientists who either believe in YEC or ID.
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
And I realize full well you could care less and nothing I can say matters but I am intellectually honest and this list is necessary to the debate:
Dr Paul Ackerman, PsychologistDr E. Theo Agard, Medical PhysicsDr James Allan, GeneticistDr Steve Austin, GeologistDr S.E. Aw, BiochemistDr Thomas Barnes, PhysicistDr Geoff Barnard, ImmunologistDr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expertDr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonicsDr Jerry Bergman, PsychologistDr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & ImmunologyProf. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & BiologyDr Raymond G. Bohlin, BiologistDr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, MicrobiologyEdward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical ChemistryDr David R. Boylan, Chemical EngineerProf. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of StatisticsDr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhysicsDr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of PhysicsDr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic EngineeringProf. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical EngineeringDr Donald Chittick, Physical ChemistProf. Chung-Il Cho, Biology EducationDr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical EngineeringDr Harold Coffin, PalaeontologistDr Bob Compton, DVMDr Ken Cumming, BiologistDr Jack W. Cuozzo, DentistDr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear PhysicsDr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace EngineeringDr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical ChemistDr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imagingDr Chris Darnbrough, BiochemistDr Nancy M. Darrall, BotanyDr Bryan Dawson, MathematicsDr Douglas Dean, Biological ChemistryProf. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of EducationDr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, NeuroscienceDr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.DivDr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant PhysiologistDr Ted Driggers, Operations researchRobert H. Eckel, Medical ResearchDr André Eggen, GeneticistProf. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of GeophysicsProf. Danny Faulkner, AstronomyProf. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of BiologyProf. Dwain L. Ford, Organic ChemistryProf. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of BiologyDr Alan Galbraith, Watershed ScienceDr Paul Giem, Medical ResearchDr Maciej Giertych, GeneticistDr Tim Gilmour, Electrical EngineerDr Duane Gish, BiochemistDr Werner Gitt, Information ScientistDr D.B. Gower, BiochemistryDr Dianne Grocott, PsychiatristDr Stephen Grocott, Industrial ChemistDr Donald Hamann, Food ScientistDr Barry Harker, PhilosopherDr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, ElectromagneticsDr John Hartnett, Physicist and CosmologistDr Mark Harwood, Satellite CommunicationsDr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, EcophysiologistDr George Hawke, Environmental ScientistDr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, BotanistDr Harold R. Henry, EngineerDr Jonathan Henry, AstronomyDr Joseph Henson, EntomologistDr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval AcademyDr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical ServiceDr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular PharmacologistDr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric ScienceDr Bob Hosken, BiochemistryDr George F. Howe, BotanyDr Neil Huber, Physical AnthropologistDr Russell Humphreys, PhysicistDr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of BiologyEvan Jamieson, HydrometallurgyGeorge T. Javor, BiochemistryDr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular BiologistDr Arthur Jones, BiologyDr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic SurgeonDr Raymond Jones, Agricultural ScientistDr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemiaProf. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular BiologyDr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal LogicsDr Dean Kenyon, BiologistProf. Gi-Tai Kim, BiologyProf. Harriet Kim, BiochemistryProf. Jong-Bai Kim, BiochemistryProf. Jung-Han Kim, BiochemistryProf. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental ScienceProf. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical ChemistryProf. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic EngineeringProf. Young-Gil Kim, Materials ScienceProf. Young In Kim, EngineeringDr John W. Klotz, BiologistDr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell PathologyDr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, NeurobiologyDr John K.G. Kramer, BiochemistryProf. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, PhysicsProf. Myung-Sang Kwon, ImmunologyDr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeologyProf. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, GeneticsDr Jason Lisle, AstrophysicistDr Alan Love, ChemistDr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:Dr John Marcus, Molecular BiologistDr George Marshall, Eye Disease ResearcherDr Ralph Matthews, Radiation ChemistDr John McEwan, ChemistProf. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamicsDr David Menton, AnatomistDr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant PhysiologistDr John Meyer, PhysiologistDr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, EmbryologistColin W. Mitchell, GeographyDr John N. Moore, Science EducatorDr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and DentistDr Henry M. Morris, HydrologistDr John D. Morris, GeologistDr Len Morris, PhysiologistDr Graeme Mortimer, GeologistStanley A. Mumma, Architectural EngineeringProf. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear EngineeringDr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcherDr David Oderberg, PhilosopherProf. John Oller, LinguisticsProf. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of BiologyDr John Osgood, Medical PractitionerDr David Pace, Organic ChemistryDr Charles Pallaghy, BotanistDr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)Dr David Pennington, Plastic SurgeonProf. Richard PorterDr Georgia Purdom, Molecular GeneticsDr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945-2012)Dr John Rankin, CosmologistDr A.S. Reece, M.D.Prof. J. Rendle-Short, PediatricsDr Jung-Goo Roe, BiologyDr David Rosevear, ChemistDr Ariel A. Roth, BiologyDr John Sanford, GeneticistDr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopistDr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:Dr Ian Scott, EducatorDr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicistDr Young-Gi Shim, ChemistryProf. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food ScienceDr Mikhail Shulgin, PhysicsDr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologistDr Roger Simpson, EngineerDr Harold Slusher, GeophysicistDr E. Norbert Smith, ZoologistDr Andrew Snelling, GeologistProf. Man-Suk Song, Computer ScienceDr Timothy G. Standish, BiologyProf. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science EducationProf. Brian Stone, EngineerDr Esther Su, BiochemistryDr Charles Taylor, LinguisticsDr Stephen Taylor, Electrical EngineeringDr Ker C. Thomson, GeophysicsDr Michael Todhunter, Forest GeneticsDr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/BiochemistryDr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric ScienceProf. Walter Veith, ZoologistDr Joachim Vetter, BiologistDr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and GeologistDr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical EngineerDr Keith Wanser, PhysicistDr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas KineticsDr John Whitmore, Geologist/PaleontologistDr Carl Wieland, Medical doctorDr Lara Wieland, Medical doctorDr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923-2012)Dr Kurt Wise, PalaeontologistDr Bryant Wood, Creationist ArchaeologistProf. Seoung-Hoon Yang, PhysicsDr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical EngineerDr Ick-Dong Yoo, GeneticsDr Sung-Hee Yoon, BiologyDr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials ScientistProf. Keun Bae Yu, GeographyDr Henry Zuill, Biology
While Americans were debating whether the Earth is 6000 years old, the Europeans were busy building the Large Hadron Collider.
Dave, what about groups like the occultists/satanists/luciferians? They are into dark & evil deeds like human blood drinking/cannibalism/human sacrifice & they are growing everyday? They hate Christians & want to kill them all but they laugh at atheists?????
When I was a substitute teacher a few years ago, I was forced to teach Creationism in Junior High School science classes. It was a hard pill for me to swallow, but as a substitute I had no authority to challenge the curriculum that the school had decided.
What really bothered me was that the sections on the dinosaurs and the earth were blacked out in the teacher’s manual.
You did have the authority. What they were doing was illegal and you have every right tocall them on it.
Marvin, every time you mention something about creationism, give a knowing wink and chuckle, and say, "isn't that silly".
Free speech, should not censor both sides we must know both sides like how their is dark and light, boy And girls, etc
@@lijajedega those things are on a scale. Non binary people exist, not all darkness is complete, and so on.
@@nikipedia2818 Depends on if it is a public school or not.
Our home is free from religion but that didn't stop religion from coming up, I let my son explore his own faith, he went to church with the neighbors and I supported his wish..... he's 10 and a self proclaimed agnostic. . . . he confessed to me recently he only went to church for their arcade and snacks....I'm proud he was able to overcome social stigmas with being agnostic and decide for himself.
what is the difference between religion, dogma and law?
easy. if you cross religion you get shunned, if you cross dogma you get killed, and if you cross law you get shunned, killed, or sentenced to a lifetime of pb&j sandwiches
@LMW thank you so much
*'lifetime of pb&j'. *
some folks would never leave if they were sentenced to life with PB&J. have you ever been locked up? you really ought to try it sometime. i hear they are always looking for new inmates.
+Tomas C no its just there was a recent petition on change.org to defund prison lunch in favor of school lunch and it contained the phrase "just give them pb&j" amid a lunch rant so i took some inspiration.
also ive seen enough john oliver to know to stay the hell away from any prison regardless of the lunch (especially since my leftovers might end up in someones c section)
Where did the universe come from? "The Big Bang"
So it came from nothing? "Yes"
Thats ridiculous, God created the universe.
"Ok where did God come from?" Nowhere, He's always been there.
ITS THE EXACT SAME ANSWER! Everyone who is willing to tell you about their beliefs is certainly not willing to listen to yours.
Nothing is not nothing. Understand the meaning of nothing first
The Big Bang theory and the FINE TUNING of the PHYSICS CONSTANTS actually argues FOR GOD THE CREATOR.
Due to the Physics we have learned and the ability to measure the gravitational field constants, the Electromagnetic Force, and the nuclear strong and weak force argues FOR a CREATOR GOD.
It's actually a dilemma for atheists but for Christians such as myself it argues FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!! :))
@@salmonkill7 if you gonna do your research to the point that you agree with the Big Bang Theory and you want to fix God at the beginning of that, you just undermimed your own intellect. A God that made it bang?
@@Gbengadewoyinopencourse You may want to understand a little about the topic first before you comment on it. I'm an award winning research Scientist and your an unemployed young person I'm surmising....
Steven Miller - (wins middle school science fair)
Also Steven Miller - “I’m an award winning research scientist”
It makes me sad that when I was a kid this stuff wasn’t an issue. We just learned science, biology, and evolution and no one thought twice about it
It makes me sad that you think you learned the truth. Hitler had a problem with evolution in school, too. He used evolution to destroy the world.
Should be illegal to teach creationism or any other false science in school.
They can go to Sunday school for that nonsense, but when real school starts on Monday reality should be taught.
"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it" - that is a really good quote to use when dealing with religtards
One simply can't successfully refute what Lawrence is saying.
Here I going to try . Why for the life of me is it so wrong for there to be debate in a science like 🤔. What he talking about is indoctrination . We should teach kids to think for them selves . By all party's presenting their case . In doing this how does it harm? How does it give them a disadvantage with technology?
I don't see him saying there should not be debate in science anywhere there. He's saying that anti-scientific nonsense shouldn't be presented as science in the classroom. Science isn't a popularity contest, it's a means of examining evidence and evaluating if hypothesises stand up to the evidence.
+aidanjt yup and that what intelligent design does. True intelligent design states that a being or beings of intelligence started humanity. It's not the book of Genesis. it kind of put a ? on what that intelligence is. My other question is can science really answers these kind of questions. How does one test ones ideas. Unless you have a DeLorean of corse🤔.
michael Sanseverino Intelligent design is an effort to push religious beliefs into science. 'Real intelligent design' is an effort to pretend it isn't a religious belief. They're both still religious beliefs. Intelligent design can't describe the mechanism the supposed creator used, define who the creator is, where he is, or anything of the sort, and it can't produce a single shred of evidence. Which means they don't have anything but speculation. Moreover, what ID describes is abiogensis, which is a completely different topic from evolution by natural selection.
"can science really answers these kind of questions."
Yes. And certainly answer them with far greater accuracy than pulling claims out of a hat.
"How does one test ones ideas."
By collecting evidence and putting the pieces together, like any other puzzle.
Forensic science does the exact same thing that intelligent design does, pointing to the best inference, the best cause, the more plausible position.
When at times there's evidence that is pointing to an intelligent being having something to do with a crime, that intelligent being may not be known at that time, and sometimes may never be known, the evidence still points to that intelligent being. I guess in some cases you will call forensic science 'religious'.
In truth Intelligent design isn't a religious belief but it is a pure scientific position that can have religious implications. There's no religion in the science AT ALL! It's implications do not play a part in determining the science. The inference to intelligence is based on the scientific analysis of the data.
Lastly and most important, intelligence isn't religious and therefore a inference to intelligence isn't religious, unless you want to see yourself as some mighty one.
Remember creationists, he did give you several outs in this short monologue. He repeatedly said, "IF you _think_ about it..."
Continue to not think about it, and you won't be dismayed or threatened.
In the mean time, the rest of us who _are_ thinking about it will be teaching our children to do the same.
Think
What by only teaching them evolution..lol
John Unsworth well, yes. how else should they learn about biology or heredity?
What should we also teach them, or teach them instead of the foundation of all our life sciences?
You are a very stupid person.
John Unsworth
The next time you are planning to travel by air, will you demand that there should be a vote amongst ignorant people to decide how aerodynamics should work? If they got emotional about rejecting the actual science behind aerodynamics, would you think that was reasonable? No? Well, in that case, you _should_ be able to see how ridiculous ignorant opinions about the rest of science are.
Akita538 *applause* thank you
Did anybody notice the difference between the Big Think vs Creation Museum? The Creation Museum videos have disabled comments including the like & dislike button?
Apparently, the Creation Museum just wants you to count you up as a tally on viewership. What's the point of this one sided video if you can't accept criticism?
Then let them be flagged.
If they don't stop the comments they will be overwhelmed by actual scientists and intelligent people posting the truth about their ridiculous ideas. It would discredit their lies, unlike Big Think which has nothing to hide.
@@Jefferyh1231 They Are NOT Lying, They Are Telling The Truth, There Is A GOD And An AfterLife.
Only A Foolish Fuck Would Deny It.
@@SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals you are an American aren't you!
I did the math, and saying the earth is 6000 years old really is the same error margin as saying the us is 14 feet across
"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it"
This is a *great* quote!!
@James Henry Smith Can you explain what you mean "But now the Devil's side is coming out of hiding"?
@James Henry Smith God, Jesus and demons don't exist.
@James Henry Smith Some of what you're smoking please! :) :) :)
You poor, poor Americans.
I did alright
So Hitchens isn't using his spot any longer, so it's time to enter Krauss as the new Horseman, wouldn't everyone agree?
AronRa
Paul J My vote goes to AronRa.
Peter Hadfield (potholer54)
Matt Dillahuty
NEW FRONT RUNNER Dan Barker !
Michael Shermer
David Silverman
Dr Keith Parsons
Aayan Hirsi Ali
Penn Jillette
Christina Rad
Laura Nielson
Ricky Gervais
Billy Connolly
Jimmy Carr
Dara O`Briain
Lewis Black
Jim Jeffries
Sean Lock
Salman Rushdie
David Attenborough
Eddie Izaard
***** I have just found a great ex preacher turned Nail em to the wall atheist .
And his name is Dan Barker. He is very clear!
Or Sean Caroll
Two types of people in this world. A group who wants to understand reality the best we can (including an acceptance there will be gaps in knowledge), and those who just want to create a reality that apparently answers everything and makes you feel good.
@James Henry Smith because the bible can't even agree on a creation account
Krauss- "“there’s no one, whose views are not subject to question”
Thinking that child abuse HAS to be physical is just complete ignorance.
Leaving your child alone for a week is a kind of child abuse.
Yelling at your child for no reason is a kind of child abuse.
Telling your children lies and saying that they're true is also a kind of child abuse.
Using dishonest, control-agenda-ed "science", to LIE to children that there is no Creator God towards which to be grateful for the good things of creation and life itself; no God-given Divine guide for the family of man; no purpose in their existence; that they and others are mere animals (which should be "managed" by "the elite", "for the good of all"); that there is no Higher Power and Authority to which all humans are accountable (as a check against evil/ a reward for righteousness); that failing and hurtful mankind is the only authority over failing and hurtful mankind; and that there is no Divine Justice or sure hope for a better life for the future is THE ULTIMATE IN SPIRITUAL-MENTAL CHILD ABUSE - IT DESTROYS CHILDREN; it is MURDEROUS. But it makes them good little mind-controlled SLAVES to the Satanic godless; until they do the bidding of the brainwashing culture of death being worked by the Satanic godless de-population agendists and jump that bridge; or pick up a weapon and gun down others and then themselves, etc. EVERY TIME THAT (and other evil) HAPPENS, REMEMBER WHO IS TO BLAME: THE LIE-LOVING, LYING, MIND-MESSING, HOPE-STEALING/ TRUTH-TRASHING, HORDE OF THE DEVIL, DEMONIC, ULTRA-UNINTELLIGENT (despite all of the FAKERY [as endless, haughty lies require NO intelligence]) SATAN GODLESS/ GOD-DEFIANT. (Romans 1:18-32) Indeed such persons have been destroying human society for 6000 years; but the Creator is about to end their and their chosen master Satan's reign of evil. (1John 5:19) Armageddon Day, from the Creator - who deems stubbornly reality-denying persons as being INEXCUSABLY, evilly FOOLISH, is SOON. "Just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more." (Psalm 37:10) Then, there will be true peace on earth.
Theresa K. Then explain those kids why that „good“ god puts them in eternal fire if they don’t believe in him. Or explain them why that „good“ god makes biggest parts of humanity suffer under hunger and oppressive governments and in wars. Explain them why that“good“ god punished people who don’t believe in him just because they were raised in a different culture and had no way to change their opinion. Explain why that „good“ god created evil and controls things happening around you and knows what everyone will ever do and created everything that will ever happen and than punishes you in hell for doing what he planned to happen. Explain them why a „good“ god demands belief and doesn’t let you choose the own purpose of your life. Explain them why only your belief is correct and why literally every other belief and any different interpretation to yours is wrong. Explain them why without evidence you have to believe something. And most importantly, explain them why science which is based on logic and experiment is false and a holy book with few historical evidence and magic happening is right.
There Is NO Cost For Teaching Creationism, You Atheists Are Being FUCKING Overdramatic "It's Bad For Our Children" FUCK THAT!! Creationism Teaches Us That We Are Special And Made In The Image Of GOD It Makes Children Happy. Evolution Teaches That Were An Accident And Mean Nothing, It Makes Children Traumatized.
Evolution Is Just As True As Creationism.
@@theresak.7475 🌹Beautiful 💖
I created a religion that says the universe started when I was born. Can that be taught in schools too, please?
Otherwise I will be very offended.
You Are A Fool,
Of Course You Wouldn't Remember Life Before You Were Born But That Still Means That The Universe Existed Before You Were Born, You Just Don't Remember It, But You Probably Did Have Life Before You Were Born.
@@SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals it’s a joke dude, calm down, and also fix your keyboard please
@@riceu_lol3948 Well It's A Very STUPID Joke.
@@SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals, r/woosh, moron.
I grew up only being allowed to learn creationism. I was taught that evolutionary biologist, scientists, and historians main objective was to hide and disprove god. I was mostly homeschooled so my parents could pick and choose my “curriculum.” It was just propaganda. I never really did my school work because I knew those books were full of lies. Now at age 28 I’m trying so hard to learn the truth when it comes to all these subjects. I do have a career which I’m pretty successful in but wasn’t and still not able to go to college due to the propaganda taught to me. I dream of going into science or history but that dream seems so far out of reach especially bc I’m already 28 and still have to much to learn and unlearn. I own a business and man it’s exhausting and stressful. Knowing that I don’t have anything to fall back on is so disheartening. My parents failed me by not allowing me to learn the truth.
Hey man, just want to let you know it's never too late to advance in analytic thought. Many significant scientific discoveries are attributed to individuals who pursued truth and knowledge with little to no formal schooling, just a will to observe, experiment, and learn. And there are ways to pursue such things even now, formal or informal. I encourage you to examine the many free resources and tutorials available on RUclips and elsewhere that can help you begin again or continue where you left off. The Crash Course series, Khan Academy, and numerous other resources are free and available for able and willing learners.
Education and church don't belong in the same environment. “The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it, Lawerence Krauss. ” I think it is important to teach about the history of world religions, However dogma in schools is a different story. I was brought up in various k-12 private fundamental faith institutes and went to them 1-2 times a week, such as Heritage Christian School and Christian Family School, the curriculum used was dogmatic and dishonest, the teachers were just moms that were not qualified as teachers. In America, Christian parents that decide to homeschool their kids can improvise the rules on their academic progression. There is no concern of your academic comprehension or growth,. I had to teach myself the books I was given when I was at home and did not understand anything because I did not have a teacher.. or an honest book. In my opinion this type of private "education" is child abuse, most definitely should not be forced into public schools. The fundamental Christian culture wants kids to be sheltered to obtain a stagnant mindset on the world so they can develop the strongest faith as possible. And the purity culture is very toxic to girls, I remember being forced to attend a fundamental faith group called "keepers at home" as an adolescent you are taught how to be a house wife, I hated it, baking bread and doing laundry is boring and suppressive. I cant speak for everyone, but from my experience in the U.S, faith school organizations are just a political stomping ground and restricts your opportunity to properly learn. Critical thinking skills are crucially needed during development to overcome arrogance, in my experience, without it, you divide yourself from others. Creationism is pseudoscience, it is anything but academic education. Church and state needs a divorce.
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!
They Should Both Be Taught In Schools
Because Both Creation And Evolution Are Correct.
We Can See Evidence Of Creation Through DNA Being More Complicated Then Any Video Game Ever Created, And A Cell Is More Complicated Then A Cell Phone, IT MUST HAVE BEEN INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!!!!!!!!!!
We Can Also See Evidence Of Evolution Through Transitional Fossils, Genetic Mutation And Natural Selection.
Both Are Correct, Teach Both Theories.
@@SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals I don’t have time for religious trolls. I used to think like you but then I realized what sufficient evidence was. RNA makes DNA.. what we don’t know does not prove a deity exists. I reported your childish language. KEEP CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATE, our freedom depends on it
@Falcon Captain you are assuming that everything is made from a invisible being outside of space and time right?. and if you do that is fine. You believe in belief but you don’t have evidence you can show of the supernatural, so your claims are not persuading me at all. You have emotional issues man....U r displaying yourself as a fool by being so quick to assume you are correct by displaying these hateful comments. I never said anything about atheism, and RNA is not the base of what this video or comment is about. It is about quality of academic education. Your comment is not proving your point. Bye troll.
@Falcon Captain THANK YOU FOR THE COMPLIMENT
it doesnt make sense if i was a child and asked a teacher the age of earth and he/her says 6000 years old yet other resources say a different age i can see how big confusion can start
The fact that over a thousand people disliked this....
I mean, with the news about this dude I am surprised it's not more
I always knew atheists have faith. Just not in anything else but faith in evolution and the big bang theory. It must take a lot of faith to believe in that. I could barely imagine the difficulty.
If a scientific breakthrough happened, Athiests would take this new knowledge and apply it to their beliefs. Creationists would find a reason to dismiss it.
I am entitled to my beliefs, no matter how old you say the universe is and I will continue to believe what I believe and teach them to my children. Religion is personal and the minute anyone tries to convince me what they want me to believe they have gone to far. If you claim I live in ignorance fine, but it is ultimately my choice and I am happy just the way I am.
***** At least I know when the Aliens come to become overlords of the planet I will be safe in my bunker unlike everyone else
I beg you to not abuse your children, thank you.
As long as you accept that your belief in no way makes something real or not and that, if they go against what is demonstrated with empirical evidence they are thus false, then yes, you are entitled to your belief.
That is okay. But don't force it upon others.
Have fun with your belief, no really, go ahead, but your children are not really YOUR property, don't teach them stuff which they do not need to learn, let them learn for them self, if you teach them that before they get to learn anything else then you are basically tricking them to follow your belief, in fact don't teach them such nonsense in the first place, life is a confusing and painful thing to go throe an having some sort of "all mighty god" bullying you is not something anyone needs in their life, especially not in their early age
Here is a funny game to play with a friend : one at a time, open the bible at a random page and do what it says. The last one who ends up in jail wins.
@Scientist Flanders FUCK YOU!!
The Bible Will Tell Me To Love My Neighbour And Love My Enemy And Treat Others The Way I Want To Be Treated And It Will Tell Me To Do Twice The Work For Someone. And Save Even My Enemies.
I Will Earn REWARDS!!
The Bible Will Tell Me To Love My Neighbour And Love My Enemy And Treat Others The Way I Want To Be Treated And It Will Tell Me To Do Twice The Work For Someone. And Save Even My Enemies.
I Will Earn REWARDS!!
The Bible Will Tell Me To Love My Neighbour And Love My Enemy And Treat Others The Way I Want To Be Treated And It Will Tell Me To Do Twice The Work For Someone. And Save Even My Enemies.
I Will Earn REWARDS!!
The Bible Will Tell Me To Love My Neighbour And Love My Enemy And Treat Others The Way I Want To Be Treated And It Will Tell Me To Do Twice The Work For Someone. And Save Even My Enemies.
I Will Earn REWARDS!!
If students were taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it would be like saying the United States is 17 feet long.
The Bible does NOT teach that the earth is 6000 years old. The man in the video is exploiting a straw man argument purported by some FALSE-to-God religions, to try to discredit the Creator and His own words on His creation - which is incredibly stupid, insolent, conscienceless, and wrongfully ingrateful for any human to do. However, Jehovah had such persons pegged and prophesied 2000 years ago, EXACTLY, again PROVING Himself and His words to be TRUE. (Romans 1:18-32) The "reason" most people fight God is because they hate His moral laws, or His mandates upholding God-given human rights, etc.
Theresa K. And you hate something that doesn’t even exist?!
@@theresak.7475But Thanos was gonna destroy half universe why did jehova didn't came to protect. It would be awesome.
@@theresak.7475 Agreed
@@theresak.7475 You Are Correct.
I went to church for the age of 5 to the age of 15, one would think that I would be a believer in god. However, my world view was just that, until I was 12, and realized it was all wrong. I loved the people at my many churchs (we move frequently) and they were great people, but almost all of them have no idea how evolution even works. While I get angry with fundamentalists, I can't help but feel bad for them, for their eyes are shut.
How many atheists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
atheist: Before I screw this in, prove to me there's light.
please tell me you aren't serious
onemorecowswag It was a serious joke.
I suppose it's none of my business, carry on
I posted the joke in a public forum. It's everyone's business.
Do you want a new joke?
I like your joke. It shows the stupidity of theists.
The creationist gods could have made good children, yet settled for bad ones, they could have made them happy, yet decided to make them very angry, they could have made them polite and respectful, yet made them rude and hate filled, they could have made them intelligent, yet preferred the unintelligible.
Humans just have a bad disrespectful side no matter who they are, which you have managed to prove quite well
General Strange What respect are you demanding Strange one, respect for the demands to murder your entire family as well as your friends, respect slavery, respect genocide and the murder of the elderly and infants, the stoning of women and children to death? Do you even understand the meaning of "respect"?
Gary Belliferous You obviously never read the bible, or at least with an open mind, because yes there is those bad things mentioned in the bible and people in the bible have said that those things that were the normal back then were right, however as a religion we dont believe in those things anymore and even back then it wasn't the religion, it was the peoples ideas and customs.
Gary Belliferous I don't think you're getting the point, bad things happen in the world and we don't expect the Bible to ignore them. Is the news station barbaric because it tells you good and bad news? No, It's there to tell you the truth. And although some don't think the Bible is truthful because there's no hard evidence, the evidence the faithful ones find are not physical but rather spiritual.
General Strange No, I've read the bible and ghosts, zombies, demons, satyrs, angels, witches, cockatrices, giants and talking animals aren't spiritual, they're fairy tale figures like little pigs and Humpty eggs.
"our theory, which is still a theory, and still unproven, is somehow FACTUAL........because we have no idea what factual actually means." I'm still waiting on real, actual proof, not just more speculative garbage. Evolution is a far more childish belief than religion, if you really think about it. Too many questions from both, really, but the creation theory makes more sense, given your lack of proof for the "big bang" and evolution, as creation theory requires only belief, and your theory requires factual incontrovertible evidence, which you've yet to provide. Why do you think people without religion try so hard to fill that void with similar/parallel belief systems or other stranger beliefs and religions, such as "global warming"? Do you BELIEVE in global warming? Because the body knows the truth our minds can not fathom and craves a spiritual connection with our creator. Without religion or spirituality, that void gets filled with all sorts of depraved human mentality and self-loathing, promulgating theories like "i must have come from a retarded fish frog", or my desire to mate with my own gender is "natural". Maybe science will be science again, someday, but for now, it's just so much outright bullshit and lies. But it's peer reviewed bullshit and lies...
worldwidefreakshow lovely response mate, science still does not know from where the first cell came into being, and how the big bang particle got the time, and space and matter to expand into. Its theory, not fact, and yet i see all these “evolutionists” think they have it all figured out.
TOTALLY AGREE (and so is telling your child they can be any gender they wish and encouraging such delusions of grandeur).
Imagine if all of mankind’s sciences began with an ancient fable, a deep, abiding belief that this fantasy story was literally true, which then manifested as a sustained effort to manipulate the data in order to support the preexisting belief. We'd still be in the dark ages, like when this fable was originally dreamed up.
Our constitution does not endorse any religion. Thus I don't believe creationism should be taught in school. The congress is a harder issue. Maybe just a general IQ test should be required. But in schools no creationism, and if you don't like that home school your kid, because they aren't going to get a better education in your 2+2=fish institution anyways. And by the by, be a good Christian and teach your children about TOLERANCE & FORGIVENESS! I thought they were the cornerstones of that damn religion.
Part of the issue with claim, Mr. Bryers, is the common public failure of placing creationism immediately within a given religion (in this case, based on your other comments, I'm assuming your reference - like most - being 'Christian'). The WHO of creationism gets into a specific religion, the HOW only does if you get into the who.
Creationism, oddly enough, actually matches what we empirically observe without having to alter or explain away inconvenient details like the fossils being all intermixed and the total lack of interspecies links in the record (among many others). Granted, many creationists have dug themselves a bit of hole by claiming that all evolutionary talk is ridiculous, even blasphemous - these fail to recognize the difference between macro-evolution (Darwinistic teachings and such) and micro-evolution (which is what we actually observe). Failing to know about and correctly address these differences has placed many in a rather precarious and almost impossible to defend position from the scientific perspective. But please know, not all of us are ignorant of those details, facts, and differences.
And before I'm poo-poohed too hard, remember that there are hundreds of variants on the macro-evolutionary hypothesis, nothing about it is set in stone other than somehow, for no reason other than it just happened, we got here. Try and find, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" with Ben Stein. Negative reviews aside, he actually does a good job at pointing out many of the issues in the presentation of macro-evolution.
Point being, one can easily show and argue for a design (science) and leave the designer (religion) out of it. I won't even broach the issues with the, 'separation of church and state' claim here.
Mark Ramsey Thank you for being polite. Your right, I did not get into the WHO or the HOW and that I very generally lump all creationists into a single amorphous blob. I understand that the different facets of evolutionary theory are currently quite beyond me. I have only a faint grasp on the general Idea, like different fossils are found in different geologic strata. Thank you for the recommended material. Finally, I was almost certain that in the U.S.A. we technically had a separation of church and state.
Gage Bryers I also appreciate the efforts towards maintaining a civil discussion as opposed to the instantaneous rude commentary and attacks that often get lumped into this type of conversation - being able to discuss a topic instead of being screamed at by the opposition is always a positive thing in my opinion, even if the parties involved leave the discussion without coming to terms.
Note - the following branches off on the bunny trail of the infamous, "separation of church and state", I realize that this was not the original point of discussion, but it has been brought up and I have chosen to address it at this time.
A large issue with the general concept of the, 'separation of church and state' mentality is a failure in the system to accurately and adequately cover the terminology.
As it is commonly taught today, this concept is supposedly meant to keep any specific religion (although in context the religion under scrutiny is usually that of Christianity) from having any effect on governmental decision or any publicly provided service. In recent years in particular, this has been stretched the point of disallowing religious displays on government property during the Christmas season to the removal of prayer and any symbology (or at least an attempt to do so) of the Christian religion from within the schools and many government controlled events.
This is not, however, the original context of the quote in the slightest; rather, this a highly modernized mentality that is more centered on a lack of absolute truth in favor of a personal truth system that allows one to have a much more stylized vision of the truth that effects them without having to be worried slighting any other system of truths.
In it's original context, a Baptist church had heard a rumor that distressed it greatly - they had heard that a specific denomination/religious body was going to be selected as the United States 'official' church. This act is something that many had fled to the young U.S. to specifically avoid. At this time there were still many ruling entities that were either directly controlled by a given religion (such as Catholicism for example) or controlling governmental entities that specified the who's, what's, where's and how's of allowed religious worship.
For the U.S. to jump into this particular bed was explicitly against what many had come here for, that is a Freedom of Religion in which, barring aggression against the basic civil rights of an individual, they would be allowed to worship the spiritual entity they saw fit in a manner that they believed was appropriate. Jefferson responded that the 1st Amendment effectively kept that from happening, stating that it provided a, "...separation of Church and State." - it is important to note here that the wording was NOT, "...separation of Church FROM State" which is more or less the way it is currently represented in modern society.
The first amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What is interesting to note here, and something that the opposition is loathe to admit to the point of outright denial of the fact in favor of protecting their own desires, is that the opening statement of this is that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - In other words, any law that is made against a given religion cannot be upheld, at least not on a federal level.
And yet, we see laws forbidding Christianity from being in the schools, we see people claiming that any religion presented in the schools (although, again, in practice, the publicly documented animosity is almost exclusively aimed at the Christian religion) is against their Rights, etc, etc, etc. The cold hard truth is that this is simply not true.
Now, please don't get me wrong here - I don't want the public schools, or even private schools teaching religion - if it's not been made clear already, I'll state it now that (in my opinion) they can't even get some of the basic truths of science taught correctly, why on earth would I want them tackling faith? And that's the parent's responsibility anyway, not that of the system. But these thoughts are a digression.
The point is that modern comprehension of this term, "separation of church and state" is grossly flawed and biased. The original intent was to keep the state from controlling what religions are or are not allowed and ensuring that one was allowed to freely exercise their religious rights.
With that knowledge, I respectfully ask:
Who is really under attack here? Who is being unjustly and frankly, immorally treated? Those who are vocally causing a stink about the issue? Or those whose 1st Amendment rights are actually under attack by said individuals who are trying to silence those that disagree with them?
Mark Ramsey So you mean that originally it was meant so that one denomination of Christianity could not gain any more clout than another one? That is an interesting perspective I had not considered. Especially considering the disputes between the Protestants and Catholics in the UK.
I think the “war” on Christmas is very interesting. Many people get upset they have to move a nativity scene from across the street from the courthouse to the privately owned church. Which I think is a fair compromise. It would be nice if people could just leave it at that.
It is apparent that there are many ways to prevent certain laws from being passed and that it would be constitutional to do so. Thanks for outlining that. I just have a hard time swallowing that somone elses rights can be grounds for someone to not have their own. So touché, I’ve come full circle and can see why my original anti-creationism in school is in contradiction to this.
Personally, what I mean when I say that I want my politics and religion kept separate are mostly referring to highly polarized social issues we have right now in the United States, like gay rights and women’s reproductive rights. If your belief is that to have an abortion is wrong, do not get one. If you do not want to marry a member of your own sex, don’t.
ETC.
Other large religions in my country practice this very same kind of restraint.
Gage Bryers I don't want to delve too deeply into those particular issues here right now, mostly because they are additional conversations that fall outside the current base topic.
The hyper-condense versions are that I feel that if one openly and honestly considers the legal and scientific definitions of life, to see abortion as anything other than murder is quite impossible.
As to homosexual unions - one major failure in recognition on that one is that if adequate research is done, it will be found that, contrary to many public opinions, the origins of marriage ARE religious; the removal of religion to make it a civil union exclusively is more modern movement at least in part due to the attempts to solidify this whole separation of church and state mentality that was already discussed - specifically the idea of separation of church from state.
I can go into more details on either of these topics if you would like, although most of what I have to say on them is research, research, research. Look up what the facts state instead of the biased groups want to tell you the facts state. Really, the same is true about evolution. Honestly, if people were presented with the unadulterated data instead of a biased perspective, I truly feel there would be much less debate on the issue because the severity of the logical failures in the macro-evolutionary model would be apparent.
If someone is stupid enough to believe the earth is only 6000 years old, they deserve to be offended.
MichiganLuc It's just simply not doing your own research and ignoring truth.
No no no, they deserve to be imprisoned in a reeducation camp
*NEWS FLASH*
SOMEBODY IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE OFFENDED.
Child misdirection might be more applicable a term. "abuse" is sensationalism.
+Mike Lushey Understood, but "abuse" is usually thought of as being more punitive than what I have called misdirection. Now if the misdirection is intentional, then we are indeed abusing. But If there is lack of ill intent, then it is abuse by technicality. Oh, and at 0:06 I think he meant to say preconceived notions, rather than preexisting, "preexisting" sounds incorrect somehow...or does it not? =)
*_OOPS!!! KRAUSS ASSUMES not believing in evolution equals "young earth" creationism!_*
Young Earth creationists fail to understand the meaning of the languages the Bible was written in. In the old testament the word used for "day" is the Hebrew word "yohm" which literally means an indefinite period of time to be defined by context.
English uses the word "day" the same way: "In my grandfather's day he use to...."
So each creative "day" definitely could have lasted hundreds of millions of years.
Christian Prepper Although I've heard that understanding before, I think its just easier for anti-religionists to highlight & pick on the young earth creationist morons. As an atheist I find myself making a distinction between stupid creaturds & reason people like you.
Christian Prepper You can't expect Krauss to study the endless nuances among so-called christian religions. He's obviously addressing the young earth creationists. I'm glad to hear the actual Bible agrees with science.
TRUTH & SURTHRIVEL The actual bible still does not agree with science under that interpretation. Even if each creative "day" lasted a "hundred of millions of years", the bible still places the creation of plants before the existence of the sun.
TheMarsCydonia
*_TRUTH & SCIENCE vs FALSE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE_*
As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first & second chapters of the Bible deserve at least a fair hearing.
*_In understanding the Genesis account it is helpful to keep in mind that it was NOT written to show the “how” of creation, but it approaches matters from the comprehension of ancient people on earth & describing events as they would have been seen from the position of human observers on Earth._*
*WARNING! IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE FUNDAMENTAL PARADIGM of the HUMAN OBSERVER, THEN PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE READING, SEEING AS YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE FOLLOWING.*
After I respond to your misunderstanding of 'plants before sun', you may repeat yet another classic abuse of scripture, so I have covered the ENTIRE creation account as laid out in Genesis chapter 1.
We can understand that the Bible was written from the visual position of a human on Earth's surface from the Bible's treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars.
_Yet we all know that many stars are far greater than our sun, and light reflecting off the moon is insignificant in comparison to the other luminaries. BUT NOT TO AN EARTHLY OBSERVER! As seen from the Earth's surface the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.’-Genesis 1:14-18.
When it comes to appreciating the Bible's message *_we must always remember that the Bible was never meant to be a science text book explaining "how" things happened, but instead simply "why" we are hear & "why" things are happening._*
*_ANOTHER FALSE ASSUMPTION_*
The first part of Genesis indicates that the Earth could have existed for billions of years long before the first creative Genesis “day”, because it describes its condition before God began's active force began to improve it for habitation:
“Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.”-Genesis 1:2.
*_HOW LONG is a GENESIS "Day"?_*
As I've already explained, even though many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”:
“This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in *_the day (all six creative periods)_* that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following:
“A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration...Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”
This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours as young earth creationists like to push.
To the contrary, “Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time-millenniums.
What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis.
*_FIRST “Day”_*
“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.”-Genesis 1:3, 5.
Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. *_That_* false concept is what false religious doctrine would have us believe (Like Young Earth Creationists)
The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.
*_SECOND “Day”_*
“‘Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.”-Genesis 1:6-8.
The King James Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.” This is because the Hebrew word "raqia", translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.
The Genesis account says that God created the atmosphere, but it does not say how. The "how", is the job of science. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though some ‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the Earth. And birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.
*_THIRD “Day”_*
“‘Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place and let the dry land appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas.” (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. The "how", is the left to scientists to reveal. No doubt, tremendous Earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as "catastrophism". But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the Earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s past history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land-many things in general about the creation, *_spanning long periods of time._* Among these things, comparing Earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: "Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone”-Job 38:6.
Interestingly, like “pedestals,” Earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. “The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid,” says Putnam’s Geology.
Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all Earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.
Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is - both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
*_LAND PLANTS "Third “Day”_*
The Bible account adds: “‘'Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the Earth'". And it was so." -Genesis 1:11.
Obviously the diffused light became strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of plant that came on the scene. But science reveals that it was during such a period that microscopic organisms, water plants and others likely came in to existence.
*_FOURTH “Day”_*
“‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”-Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.
Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr′, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In verse 3, (’ohr), light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word maohr in verse 14 means something “affording light.”
So on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an Earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the Earth. But now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.
An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an Earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third & fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen-a requirement for animal life.
Now, had there been an Earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on. And according to scientific findings, this "day" took millions of years, not 24hrs, as false religions would have us believe. -Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.
*_FIFTH “Day”_*
“‘Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”-Genesis 1:20, 21.
It is of interest to note that the non-human creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called “living creatures.” This term would also apply to the “flying creatures that fly over the Earth upon the face of the expanse.” And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
*_SIXTH “Day”_*
“‘Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.”-Genesis 1:24.
Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was to come:
“And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”-Genesis 1:26, 27.
Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans-Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.-Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.
The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many millenniums of time.
*_DID BIRDS EVOLVE FROM WALKING ANIMALS?_*
The is a prevailing & most popular hypothesis that evolutionists admit that they have yet to prove definitively. The fossil record does not currently support such a notion due to missing intermediary stages. We realize the difference between what "most people believe" & what science has already proven & what science is still working on. As an example: Many scientists truly think life can come into existence from non-living material (abiogenesis). Now, although scientists have been successful in creating some of the building blocks of life (EX: amino acids) they have NOT been successful in creating life from non-living material. *_And yet when most adults & school children today mistakenly believe it is a proven fact!_*
So no. There is still no evidence proving birds "evolved" from "walking creatures".
*_HOW DID GENESIS KNOW?_*
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”4
From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.
*_Does this mean Genesis included everything that has ever come in to existence? Of course not!_*
This point is obvious with a topic mentioned earlier - microorganisms. An ancient audience may not have been able to comprehend such a thing without a graduated scientific knowledge & just as we would not give a biological explanation of the distinction between a "spermatozoon" & "spermatium" & their role in forming a "zygote" to a 3 or 4yr old that may ask 'Where do babies come from, so too our Heavenly Father recounted the history of creation in simple terms
Fortunately God does not instantly teach us everything about the universe because scientific discovery is one of the spices to life!
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order.
*_Chances of getting this right on your 1st try are 1 in 3,628,800!_*
So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans from a perspective they would appreciate.
So the question must be asked: *_Has science learned enough about the natural world to be able to draw definitive conclusions? The simple answer is no._*
Science has made tremendous progress, but many scientists recognize that there are still many unknowns and perhaps unknowables. “We will never get to the bottom of things,” said physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg on understanding nature. Professor Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, wrote: “There may be things that humans will never understand.” The truth is that much of nature, from the tiny cell to the vast universe, still remains beyond the grasp of modern science. Note the following examples:
1. Biologists do not fully understand the processes that take place in living cells. How cells consume energy, how they produce proteins, and how they divide are questions science has not yet completely answered.
2. Gravity affects us every second of every day. Yet it is something of a mystery to physicists. They do not know fully how gravity pulls you down to the ground when you jump or how it keeps the moon in orbit around the earth.
3. Cosmologists estimate that about 95 percent of what makes up the universe is invisible and undetectable by scientific instruments. They divide this strange entity into two categories, dark matter and dark energy. The nature of these remains unknown.
There are other unknowns that confound scientists. Why is this important? A popular science writer notes: “Our knowledge is vastly outstripped by our ignorance. For me, a life in science prompts awe and exploration over dogmatism.”
So if you wonder whether science is about to replace the Bible and dispense with belief in God, consider this point: If brilliant scientists with their powerful instruments have been able to gain only limited understanding of the natural world, would it be logical to dismiss out of hand the matters that lie beyond the reaches of science to investigate? Quite to the point, at the end of a lengthy article on the history and development of astronomy, Encyclopedia Britannica concludes: “After almost 4,000 years of astronomy, the universe is no less strange than it must have seemed to the Babylonians.”
*_LESSON LEARNED_*
Anyone with an open mind, an honest approach, that understands how to research & study literature will be a fair judge & agree with the logic & reasonableness of the Genesis account! I endeavor to follow the Biblical guideline: “Let your reasonableness become known to all.” (Philippians 4:5) It is with that spirit that we invite you to examine how science and the Bible harmonize and complement each other.
REFERENCES:
*_Life-How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?_* - Published by Jehovah's Witnesses
*_The Watchtower (June 2015) "Has Science Replaced the Bible?"_*
www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150601/science-in-everyday-life/
www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150601/limitations-of-science/
Christian Prepper Do you understand what interpretations we can get from your comment?
" it approaches matters from the comprehension of ancient people on earth & describing events as they would have been seen from the position of human observers on Earth."
If the how is not important, then the bible does not have to agree with the science. Which it doesn't.
Long Live Lawrence! We need more people like you!
He Will Go To Heaven...
"the purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it"-Lawrence Krauss
I think telling children they are just an animal and that the Bible is wrong and basically trying to sending them through life unarmed is more like child abuse.
rogue comet I'm a Christian myself, and I believe that a guild should be taught their parent's religion, but the religion shouldn't be forced upon them. If your child doesn't want to follow your religion, you need to respect that.
Makes sense, but believing in unicorns, virgin births, zombies, and people living to be a thousand years old..is just so much easier to believe
Reality Thumper..is the podcast that seems to properly address theism
Oh there is..just do a quick Google search and you can pull up the quote
I've been to about 3 or 4 different schools in Kentucky and every single one of my science teachers would never talk about evolution for long periods of time. And when they did they made sure to give some bullshit speech about how you believe what you want. That's how bad this place is.
Because if they don't they have parents who go apeshit and sue the Education system.
Scarey shit
Knowledge of science is important to have. Pope Benedict XVI made the argument that God very well could have used evolution to create life on Earth. Since the evidence indicates life evolved, if you believe in God you should accept evolution. Creationism is detrimental to a child IMHO.
Why, in your honest opinion, evo tales are more entitled to be called "science" than the suppositions in the book of Genesis? No one has ever seen any change in the body structure like, let's say, the respiratory system...
237ierusha I have seen respiratory changes, I gave you a video that confirms this.
Prediction, Prophecy and Eclipses
UppruniTegundanna
237ierusha actually respiratory system and all other systems in the body transformed out from egg cell and sperm cell...
timothy mostad In my opinion, that Tiktaalik creature is ONE SINGLE mutant croc. Do you know the reason why was it predicted to be found there?
potpolima "out from egg cell and sperm cell"
Can you explain the metamorphosis of insects? What caused it? Or how can an egg-cell contain WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENT PROJECT so much information?
Lawrence Krauss knows all about Child Abuse doesn't he
Krauss can theorize that the universe came into being from nothing but he can't get his head around God?
you make a very good point. How come Krauss can theorize about the "nothing", but cannot get his head around a non-existent entitiy? very cleaver irony!
Not only is your post about something ironic but it is in itself ironic. You may have created a new irony out of the two. You may have created irony 3D! A self supporting structure made entirely of irony!
Well, in theory anyway.
Wow that it's in theory just added to the irony.
We've created an ironic 3D irony structure in theory.
We could have the first theorized theory powered 3D irony structure known to man.
I do not believe it works in that way. 3D is ordinary and limited. However, irony to the n power, that would be something! hahaha.
Lou A Irony to the n. Wow. Irony times irony. Do you realize the irony involved here?
Is it really knowable?
Lou A What happens if we add sarcasm to irony to the n?
I Like how non-creationist will more than likely leave comments open to anyone while creationist will have no comment section. Teaching children things that are contrary to common knowledge not only harms them and the way they see the world but harms us all. How can you see the true beauty of the world if you will not let go of unnecessary fiction.
Many religious people don't see a world without absolutes as anything worth anything. If everything is arbitrary and nothing is absolute and beyond humanity, they find reality not worth existing in for them. They don't want a world where humanity is "all there is" among the rest of the tangible world and universe.
They don't want to be exposed as conmen and outright liars. They don't want their fairytale dissolved. Noncreationsts have nothing to fear and nothing to hide.
@Hinozall Awoken you are entitled to your belief.
This is wonderfully well said
Not really lol. He’s calling religion child abuse. That’s a small minded outlook.
The last time I went to church when I was a small child, the priest kept telling us to stand up, kneel down, stand up, kneel down, etc etc. I got so fed up I told my mom "I wish he's make his mind up and just fuck me like he usually does"
As I said, that was the last time I went to church as a small child.
Au contraire; the teaching of evolution, which is based off the single biggest piece of "manifest nonsense," is that which is doing the greatest disservice to our people.
As a european i never had to deal with that terrifying level of lunacy, therefore i strongly hope the US gets their facts straight if they want to successfully continue essential fields of science to further help their populace and infrastructure.
I cant imagine a worse start off when critical thinking and scepticism is beeing blocked from the very start.
Man, i envy you. I live in Brazil. Here we have 96% of the people being religious (83% being christians) and we have a SPECIAL room in politics (senate) for christians. They MIX politics with religion all the time, including the laws of the country.
I'm ruled by some laws i don't believe. It's very tragic.
All these things are happening when an ARELIGIOUS state is SECURED in our very CONSTITUTION. But in practice, it doesn't really happen.
LadyEsarhal I feel for you, bronze age superstitious ignorance has never progressed towards anything helpful. I say let anyone keep their spirituality as long as it doesnt interfere with facts or education, We all need this planet.
I think the idea that it is child abuse is going a bit to far.....
The part where his argument falls most flat is when he compares the earth's rotation, something people have observed, to the beginning, when there where no humans to record anything. All that remains is circumstantial evidence for Darwinism.
What A "BRILLIANT" message, I feel u man !
I'm so glad that I'm born and raised in Europe among sophisticated people who go by common sense - people who have the guts to live upright without any chance of a better afterlife.
How come the secular/socialists/humanists/atheist governments of Europe are letting in so many muslims & voodoo black folk from Africa????? Are these muslims & voodoo blacks converting to secularism & atheism in masse????? Also their birthrate Europe will become "Eurabia" in the next 50-100 years ??????
This is one of the great social functions of science -- to free people from superstition.
-- Steven Weinberg, Freethought Today, April, 2000
Whether a person or people are religious or not has nothing to do with whether or not that person or nation will be skilled in knowledge and science.
+neurogenica Exactly because the greatest discoveries of all have been made by those from the culture of Judeo-Christianity.
Krauss: do you know how I got these scars?
You were taught to pick up your cross and crucify yourself?
by turning the other cheek?
While Larry goes, and tries to tell us how Teaching creation conflicts with a child's choice of what to believe, The schools, and evolution does that very same thing. I call that being a hypocrite. But You have no shame, it means nothing to you. Larry, you and everyone one else who denies God will have a couple surprises coming. One, when you are risen from the dead. the second when you come before this God who you claim does not exist. Once that happens, you will expect the 3rd thing. Your judgment.
+fredandpj Bless you my son. You have not fallen for the devils tricks of evidence, logic and rational thought. Jesus allows these things as a test for the faithful. And you are passing His test with flying colors!
+Pastor Smyd I'm passing too, o great and wise one. I especially like the fact that once the Steady State theory was refuted, and the universe was found to NOT be eternal, atheists had nowhere to hide and had to admit a supernatural Beginning of the universe. And since God created the universe, surely he played a role in the origin of life, since not even the most brilliant atheist scientist can find a solution for life from non-life. In fact, even the genetic code shows all signs of being the product of an Intelligent Being, as it has been described as "irreducible to ANY natural origin" in scientific literature meaning it is too complex for evolution. So there really is a lot of evidence on our side, aren't you joyful about it?! ;)
+Stupid Flanders Evidence all over the place.1) the order of the planet We are in the exact location that can sustain life. And a the food chain could not happen without thought, regardless of what you say. Scientists claim to this planet's ability to sustain life if that there are planets all over the place that can also do so. well, too many scientists do not even know facts about our sun that makes earth very special, and not ordinary like scientists claim. You teach lies, and most people believe them, and then those same people miss out on a better life. Like this If everyone were to obey all of the commandments pertaining on How man treats each other, there would be total peace in he world, which is something that you really do not want. No, Wars make life interesting. besides you need this dictator to follow. Maybe that is why Trump has such a big lead.
+Stupid Flanders Hey!!!Did you watch that video? You decide to ignore me now that can not answer that man's question?? I think so. Well, Simpson's cartoon Character. Do you plan on using this defense on Judgment day? It won't work. Sorry. God will show you what you missed
+fredandpj What causes it?? and the should be proof of that, Those chANGES Were not caused Naturally
My mind just does not concieve how pepole can deny evolution...
"My mind just does not concieve how pepole can deny evolution..."
Because you believe it. You think you have evidence for evolution but you don't. You have atheistic interpretations of evidence.
When you are able to see that evidence doesn't come with interpretations then you will have access to seeing who is giving evidence those interpretations. Until then you believe evidence comes with factual meaning. That's the critical point and why you can't believe people can believe in creation. You think evolution has factual evidence supporting it. Far from it. When you learn to see that evidence isn't even seen until it's interpreted then you will notice there is no evidence for evolution. It's all in the minds of evolutionists.
You don't even have a point, sad. By the way, thanks to you I realized i miss spelled people in my first comment. I apologize for that...
Carramoz No need to apologize. We all do it.
I made a point about seeing. If you don't see it it's because you don't see it but it's still there. When we can't distinguish something if always looks like pointless semantics to us.
I was taught evolution for 4 years...thank God for Dr Kent Hovind
+Stupid Flanders nay...I got educated
You realise this guy is literally Stalin right
He's not Russian, and he's not creating gulags out in Siberia.
+w.s.x.d.r He also thinks it would not be a bad idea to replace human life with robotic life. Not kidding. Lawrence Krauss is crazy. Do you want the link? :)
+w.s.x.d.r Stalin is a slender 120 year-old professor now? I though he dies in 1953.
+Stupid Flanders Here's the link -- it's on youtube - Origins Project, What is Life. Very credible.
www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/its_the_end_of_072841.html
This article gives the link right on the site's page and the exact place where to hear him say this.
+Stupid Flanders Who said anything about evolution? We're talking about the source of Lawrence Krauss' comment that he thinks it would not be a bad idea to replace human life with robotic life.
However, evolution does have something to do with origin of the genetic code. ALL of evolutionary changes occur within the genetic coding system via mutations and natural selection supposedly. But science cannot figure out how such complex changes could have happened, such as the most complex thing in the known universe -- the human brain all by copying errors? So the real explanation could be that there were numerous forms of life seeded here with pre-existing information in their respective genomes. Directed Panspermia is a real hypothesis. Instead of evolution, the real explanation could be Intelligent Design. How do you even refute this? Can you? Because if the foundation of evolutionary theory is based on a huge assumption, and the assumption turns out to be wrong, (genetic code evolved) all of evolution could also be wrong. Therefore it is of utmost importance that science explain how the genetic code could evolve. But so far, all science says is that the genetic coding evolution is a *UNiversal Enigma* and here is a concluding excerpt from the peer reviewed paper:
*"It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: 'why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?,' that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology."*
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.146/full
Therefore, all of evolution _could be wrong_!
It is child abuse!
Applause.
I see the problem more like this: It's not really that people don't believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection, it's that they don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, at all. I don't need to believe in the theory of evolution, it just is. That's nature. Also, "theory" has the highest position in the scientific method. Welcome to reality.
Lawrence Krauss, is attacking the freedom of parents. There are few things more despicable.
indoctrinate: teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
Atheist Richard Dawkins claims religious indoctrination is child abuse, arguing that while teaching children about religion is not abuse, forcing children to believe that religious claims are factual and true is a form of child abuse.
We don't want someone believing something because there parents told them it was 100% true.
zach burke Of course not. That's only common sense.
If I came up to you dressed like a dr in a hospital and said you are going to die without any reason(also I'm not a dr : D) I would be making you believe that your going to die. the only way you would then not know is if you contacted a different dr and got informed otherwise or I was caught and they told you. and if some guy off the street told you your not going to die your not going to believe them because someone you thought knows about the body told you otherwise.
Basically teaching someone fact when ignorant about something is horrible to do.
zach burke I don't come from that angle. I come from the angle of being told directly from God, via the Bible, which is like hearing his voice in it's pages, that the universe is God, and this is how he made it. This doesn't make Creationism scientific, but it's true nonetheless. Science sees material and natural phenomenon, the things of the spirit sees the things that Science cannot. Science may not necessarily validate God's creation of the universe, but the spirit confirms it and whether or not Science agrees is invalid. For one thing, science is seen with mortal eyes. Those without the eyes to see simply won't see it, even if I were wrong and Science COULD confirm Heavenly things.
Marinanor I really want to ask someone who believes in god and believes the bible is his word, how are you sure that it wasn't just some guy who wrote the bible? Just for the fun of it?
How ironic. Coming from a known abuser.
?
@@romeokilo4535 do a google search on his behaviour. He is disgusting.
100% correct! I fear we are devolving.
Charles Darwin Was Racist,
Said That Black People Are Less Evolved...
if you allow creationism to be taught because you support the notion " that we should teach both sides to a scientific argument to appease both sides" then you will reate a dangerous precedent . That is that any eccentric viewpoiny can be taught as long as the proponents of that eccentric view are willing to complain and yell loud enough. Solid evidence is only acceptable.
I'm a strong believer in evolution over creationism, but whether God is real or not is a mystery to me.
Let's see how pseudo science is being used to convince you that you are nothing but a fish update who sprang from some antiscientific primal pond type scenario, and who certainly doesn't have a Heavenly Father Who...loves...you. Then let's look at some real science, a bit outside the box.
.
We have been told that life came from inorganic matter. Now, science must have observable data to be valid and must not ignore the actual data. The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. Theories are fine if they don't defy the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all.
.
The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them? (And kindly don't say that evolution doesn't "do" abiogenesis. Look. It's in evolution writings and documentaries, and all over the net and YT.)
.
We have also been told as gawd's truth scientific fact that a 3 foot high ape type creature, an Australopithecus, Lucy, was your great, great etc. granny. Based on? Some minor similarities, namely "similar homology" namely the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. The fact that she was pretty much like any other ol' Australopithecus was irrelevant to them. Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy.
.
Since evolutionists are always disagreeing with one another on everything, now some of them say, No, it wasn't Lucy but some other such creature. Some creature with no evidence it existed. Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy.
.
Now how do they know Lucy et al even had a single descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that could cross the impossible genus barrier and turn into you? Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy.
.
Guess for how long any "transitions" are missing between you and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Oh, for just 2 to 5 million Darwin years! The rocks say no transitions exist. The evo spin, their Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy, tells you, again as gawd's truth scientific fact, that they are just "missing."
.
We've also been told that we came via a fish, Tiktaalik. The story goes that this...fish...was found in just the right place for a "transition". Problem is, it's 100% nothing but a...fish. See Wiki describing it as "an extinct species of lobe finned fish." Google the fossil of Tiktaalik, which is mostly missing. Do those tiny fin fragments look like they could be said to be turning into legs - without the presuming omniscience logical fallacy? Yet we see all sorts of fanciful art work of Tik with long, muscular "evolving" legs, bending as the fish transits, supposedly, to land. The real evidence?
.
In countless billions of fossils and in living examples, all we ever see are 100% fish and 100% tetrapods/four legged animals. (No, mud skippers and "walking" catfish are not transitions. They are using their 100% fins in an unusual way, similar to a flying fish which is no way turning into a bird.)
.
Evolutionists are constantly picking up fossils like Tiktaalik from the ground and telling you, for up to over a 100 million Darwin years, what happened to their invisible and evidenceless countless billions of "descendants." Never ask them how to tell a missing link from a non existent link. And then they accuse Christians of being into "magical thinking."
.
You are not a fish update. You are infinitely more than that. Here is some actual, observable and documented evidence, to help you see that: Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories?
.
See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. ruclips.net/video/sPHycsIdB1Y/видео.html .
.
See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. ruclips.net/video/Xyko-56NCSw/видео.html The DNA in every cell in her body was changed.
.
See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. ruclips.net/video/c3Zjt8r-hNA/видео.html . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. ruclips.net/video/s-7ZkleLu1w/видео.html Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story.
.
Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. ruclips.net/video/Jh9nYDN76SQ/видео.html Skip to 1:31 to miss the book ad. The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles.
.
On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the ophthalmologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured.
.
Bruce Van Natta was in a horrific accident where he lost about 80% of his small intestine. Someone he didn't even know was told to get on a plane and lay hands on him and pray for him. His small intestines grew back competely and you can see his doctors testifying to that. ruclips.net/video/fYwFqeHBA28/видео.html
.
Here we see many witnesses reporting donated food being miraculously multiplied for people who lived in a dump in Juarez. ruclips.net/video/gwsuYYIJ3Rg/видео.html
.
Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who can create body parts and food out of nothing, needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you.
Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. . ruclips.net/video/XTtDhvk_aw4/видео.html . The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which even reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud.
.
In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals.
.
The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology.
.
About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
.
Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out."
Well he might know the age of the Earth but i think he should double check on child abuse meaning
The hell he is not correct
Siticmon He is very correct, force feeding bullshit to kids is mental abuse. Religion forces nonsense on kids, they might not see it as such but science is a tool that gives us testable real rational explanations of the things we observe in the universe, all religion does is presuppose a magic being created it all and for all intents and purposes is contradictory to the observations that we can all make our selves.
John Stone I guess you believe that also applies to telling your kids that Santa brings them presents. How about teaching them liberal policies are true regarding the correlation between government dependence and social aid? Is that also child abuse?
Please, don't be an idiot.
Philip McCorkle There is a massive difference between Santa and God you moron.
Santa brings you presents and when your old enough you know its your parents, God created the fucking universe all life within it and supposedly gave us some pretty shitty book with some fucked up nasty ass shit in it as "rules" to live your life by, Please don't be an Idiot. OH WAIT........ fucking spanner.
You are born absent of religion, you are bread in to believing the religion of your parents, your parents were bread in to that religion by their parents, or in some cases a person absent of a religious family will feel the "social pressure" of the society they are in to conform to the widely accepted religion. It is that simple.
If you were born in an a country such as Iraq, where their mainstream religion is one of the less forgiving variants of Islam, where Islamic extremists are preaching out of many mosques you would be a Muslim, if you were born to Muslim parents, it is impossible in that region to be anything other than a Muslim as leaving to another or non religion is against the fundamental laws of Islam and in these extreme parts you are stay Muslim or you die.
In America where the one of the more extreme forms of Christianity is the majority held religion, you are most likely to become a Christian as this is the main religion of the region, but unlike Iraq in the US you can freely choose to believe in something or someone else, or nothing at all if you wish, but in most states you would be shunned if you were to open admit being an Atheist and would certainly no be allowed into a position of authority within the government if you were open about what you believe.
So if you want to be really picky, you are only what you are because you are a product of your environment and your upbringing. So you do not choose to be Christian/Muslim for the most part, you are brought up from as young as possible to believe in only the religious teachings of your parents proffered poison and with the amount of "home schooling" being done in the USA i do not understand how half the Christians can even get onto the internet in the first place.
They are taught such malicious nonsense about the very science that every aspect of modern life is based on, from the medicine to treat your illness to the cell phone or computer you are using to read this comment, told evolution is lies when it does a better job of explaining all the constantly changing variety of animals (including us) that exist on this planet than the bible. The Big Bang is the best EVIDENTIAL explanation of how the universe is and none of these scientific theories are in anyway directly linked with Atheism, as Atheism is simply to not believe in any God. Atheists for the most part have the capacity to look beyond what they are told to be true and search for facts that better represent and that are more consistent with the observable reality in which we live, religion does the exact opposite of science, where science moves, changes and adapts as more evidence is presented, religion is stale and still in the same dogmatic place it has been for almost 2000 years, presupposition with nothing EVIDENTIAL to back up the claims of divinity or creation of any religion.
This is not pointed at anyone specifically, if you find yourself offended by anything i have said then maybe you need to re evaluate what you believe.
There would be a lot more atheists if the bible started, "Once upon a time".
One upon a time there was this guy named abram who apparently saw god and gave him a child isacc who he tried to kill but killed a poor ram instead and then thats how judaism started very kid friendlt
This has nothing to do with creationism. Just cos some people believe the earth is 6000 years old doesn't mean "creatism is child abuse". Huge jump there
A snake spoke to me earlier and told me you are all wrong. It also told me why Jehova'a Witnesses don't like Halloween: they hate random people knocking at their door.
Yeah, the Earth is 6,000 years old and 960 year old Capt. Noah was born 5 generations ago. You don't have to be too bright to be a Christian, their shepherds prefer the dumb and dumber.
+Fuzzo Frizzbeebot Fuzzo... if God is everywhere, is it in all the shit of the world? stands to reason
+Gary Belliferous I really want to know who shoveled all of the animal poop. If it was just Noah and his three sons, they would have to take double shifts every day just to clean out the poop. Let alone feeding, watering, and maintaining healthy living for them and the animals.
The Bible doesn't say that the sun evolves around the earth. It doesn't say that earth is flat either. But that 's what science and scholars believed for a long time. They also told us that the earth was too big and that we could never harm it. And that nuclear power would be our salvation. And yet we sit on the edge of destruction.
I totally agree. That's why teaching kids that gays can marry, and that there is no difference between males and females is abuse.
I WOULD PLEAD A CASE BUT... there is no evidence for any religions, not even evolution. Not until there is physicle proof of ANYTHING will i beleive in it. All i know is science is the closest we have come to finding out anything.
I find it hard to believe that every so often God decides to kill off everything and plop down new species. And also there's a lot we don't understand. A scientist named dalton created the basis for atomic structure. Did he know everything, no, but it was a start and it helped other intelligent people grasp the idea of particles they couldn't even see. Evolution is no different.
Tim H Only microevolution is proven, but microevolution is simple adaptation, which is due to diversity already present in our genome. Macroevolution of the sort that adds new features and structures like wings and eyes has never been observed or proven. In fact, not even the beginnings of any macroevolution have been observed anywhere and in the entire fossil record there is no major morphological transition of one organism to another. We don't even observe Gradualism in the fossil record!
John Oliver You said: without evolution, we wouldnt understand how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. look it up.
Simple microevolution due to design. But a bacteria never evolves new structures, organelles, or even an enclosed nucleus! It is designed to evolve under stress but just to a degree - there are boundaries. At least we have never observed any bacteria going past certain boundaries.
'Creationism' belongs in religious studies along with every other religion to teach children how others think of the world, not in science where they're told how they should think of the world.
I really tried to get into this video and understand the though process behind it, but everything that came out of his mouth was pretty irrelevant to his argument. He repeated over and over that Evolution is real and that teaching creationism should somehow be considered a crime, but he didn't give one piece of evidence or resource to conduct further research to prove his theory correct. This is a classic Evolutionist move with a tinge of propaganda. "I cant give you any truly factual evidence so I'll smother you with shame and unrelated, absurd paradoxes. You can't just say "thats the point of the paradox- to prove you wrong with a fact that no one can deny". Krauss relates the idea that Earth is 17 feet wide to the idea of creationism. The flaw in this and every other one of his points is that everyone knows that the Earth is not 17 feet wide because we have solid facts that can be proven through math, science and critical thinking. This however, is not true in the theory of Evolution. Keep in mind, theories are not facts. Maybe we need to remind these "scientists" how to conduct scientific experiments. In order for a theory to be proven fact, it must be able to be repeated in a scientific experiment over and over with the same results each time. Even Krauss would admit that Evolution cannot call itself anything more than a theory. As far as geological findings, all of the Evolutionist's "evidence" is simply heavily fabricated theatrical theories. Yes, maybe we all came from reptilian creatures, but have not nearly enough evidence to even consider it to be factual. I'm not going to try to prove my case towards Creationism because I'm not a scientific expert on Creationism- theres enough solid evidence out there that you can research yourself. I'm not a genius or a scientist, but you don't have to be to see the flaws and gaps in Evolutionary theories. I don't have a problem with Evolution being taught in schools, but it is simply wrong to imply that the teaching of Creationism should be illegal. It is the parent's right to give their kids the education they desire. Krauss is implying that if a person is taught something from childhood, they will live their whole adult lives believing that information to be completely true. This is disgustingly ignorant. Sure, small children are impressionable, but once a young adult reaches a certain maturity level they will most certainly develop their own beliefs, values, and traits according to their own experiences and knowledge. Keep Evolution in public schools, but don't force your counterfeit theories on the rest of us who would like to enjoy the freedom and right to learning, personal growth and access to perspectives other than your own.
science is based on discovery, if the discoveries contradict your faith, it doesn't mean science offends your religion. the scientists only do the experiments, they don't care about the result of whether or not it against any religion.
That's like calling homeschooling child abuse. What ever happened to freedom of faith. These people want to control how we think and what we think and use a radical slander such as child abuse to get grounding against an opposing views.
My step dad (whom is very catholic) found out I meditate before bed because I believe it is good for your soul and it makes me feel relaxed and stress free. It also makes my sad thoughts go away. He was mad about this and said “do you also pray to Jesus too because meditating isn’t gonna get you to heaven. Meditating isn’t gonna forgive all your sins.” I wish he’d stop spreading his religious bigotry. Like yeah I believe in god because that’s what I was always taught and I’m forced to feel guilty for questioning it or not believing it. I don’t pray to Jesus because if he is real then he’d know what goes through my mind. Also I don’t believe In sins or the Bible. There might be a higher energy out there but there’s so many religions how do we know which one is real? Like we are taught in school that the Egyptians religion want real and they used the sun and all those scriptures to explain a natural phenomenon. Maybe the Bible was used to place order in communities and to give purpose. I don’t really believe in the idea of sins either because I think you’re a good or bad person. That’s up to you. SINS is just a cruel word.
Take Me back you used ‘whom’ incorrectly. It should be ‘who’.
Like so many other scientists and philosophers, he mistakes religious/Christian fundamentalism for creationism. Evolution and creationism/intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. And "child abuse"? That sounds as fanatical as the religious fundamentalists he's railing against.
I want to say that I'm a Christian who believes that science is valid, that the earth is way older than 6,000 years. And u agree that science should be upheld in schools. That said, Christianity isn't a religious belief that necessarily contradicts science. I don't believe Genesis days how old the earth is because it doesn't actually start day one until sometime after the universe is created, if you read or very literally. I also don't think the days are actually meant to be consecutive. I do think that us non-ancient Jews probably don't properly understand the intent of the author, and probably misinterpreted it very early on to come to the conclusion that the earth is so young. And people are stubborn, and don't like to be wrong, so there it's a large portion of Christians who cling to their so-called literal translation of Genesis which actually isn't as literal as they believe. People make mistakes, donut like to be told they're wrong, and love hanging around other people who agree with them. That's something I learned about human psychology which is a science, and it applies to all people, not just the religious type. There are plenty of non-religious people who believe the world is flat and try to prove it scientifically, and with irrational arguments that have no basis in science. This is a problem of people, not s problem specifically of religious people. So, quit politicizing science. You don't have to single religion out as if it's the only place you find uneducated people.
I respect you. I’m fine with Christianity as some of the verses actually do help with everyday life and I’m glad that ur not a blink follower of it
@Scientist Flanders if you listen to him, he doesn't make a distinction. He makes lots of claims regarding Christianity in general terms without ever pointing out that he's referring to a specific group. Dawkins does the same thing, in fact Dawkins does it during debates when the Christians he's debating point out the flaws in his understanding of Christianity. Not only does Dawkins not concede the points, but he continues on as though those points were never made. The fact is, if Krauss is talking about that select group, he should say as much, otherwise we are left with no reason to think he is talking about a select group of Christians rather than Christians as a whole. Furthermore, unless you can point to some evidence to suggest that Krauss is talking about a select group of Christians rather than Christians as a whole, what you have stated is merely an opinion which may in fact be wrong.
@@aryanshah4703 thanks, it's rare to have non-Christians show any support for us Christians in the comments here. Usually I get scorn and ridicule. So, in turn, you have my respect for being able to not agree with me where my beliefs are concerned while being able to simultaneously respect my beliefs rather than thinking I'm some brainwashed moron. Anyway, your comment is greatly appreciated.
You Are Very Smart.
He seems to misunderstand people’s response to the question about the earth going around the sun. People are probably disagreeing with the time frame of 1 year and not the notion that the earth goes around the sun. what most people think of as a year isn’t how long the earth takes to go around the sun. Takes 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes and 46 seconds for the earth to go around the sun, which is longer than what is commonly thought of as a year, which is 365 days.
I don’t think creationism should be taught in schools, but I wouldn’t want it classified as child abuse either. Parents should have the right to instruct their children.
Btw… I believe in evolution.
I'm not sure it's "child abuse", but this is the best idea: don't try to make your children do anything. Let them discover the world and choose their own ideas (wrong or not.) If you try to convince a child to follow religion or Atheism (pretty much same thing), then it takes them longer later to think logically about it.
for all those creationists, i have a book suggestion that was made by the the earth itself.... Its called.. wait for it.. THE FOSSIL RECORD. you should read it someday.