Darwin whose house, Downe House is 10 miles from my house, was a very gentle man. He was tormented but he would have been very humble.He is on our £10 note and is one of the greatest Britons ever but he knew he was opening a can of worms. Just shows how brave he was.
Teach the alternative theory? Lets do that after creationists start inviting Buddhists, Muslims, Pastafarians, and Ken Humphreys etc, to talk about their religions or theories regarding the authenticity of the bible story in their chapels and mega churches, and they make all church members study those alternative theories and take a standardized test to see if the understand them. It should be a rule that the people who fail that test are not allowed to talk about evolution ever again, or until they can get a pass mark.
ShadeyBladey I know, to bad these creationist don't understand what a theory is. I don't think they'll ever accept that this alternate theory of theirs isn't a theory.
7:30 "In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of [EDIT: creationist] propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism." Henry Morris, 'The Twilight of [EDIT: creationism]'1963. I read his 'Genesis Flood' and this edited version of his quote is a valid criticism of it; it is creationist propaganda causing discontent in my former church and skepticism in me. Mr Morris I am so grateful.
i love eugenie scott; measured, reasonable, incredibly informative, polite and humorous in every talk and interview i have seen her give. this lady is all class.
XXX Trinity at 32:16? I never would have thought Dr. Miller would have qualified. 0.o ;-) Love your work, NatCen4ScienceEd! Thanks a lot for sharing all this valuable material! :-)
Actually, he would not, but it will be hard to miss he scars on his wrists where the spikes went into them .When he returns, it will be the way that he left earth.
Very good lecture! The whole idea about social darwinism and its' supposed connection to natural selection is for me too absurb to think that anyone can even take seriously
I doubt I've ever sat and watched an entire 45~min YT video, until this one. This woman's presentation is exemplary, and should, if there's any justice in the universe, embarrass or inspire anyone else who's come before, with the possible exception of Neil DeGrasse-Tyson.
The speaker didn't comment on it because it simply isn't true. Evolution means creatures are more able to survive in their environment. I don't know where you're getting your notion of 'upwards-onwards evolution'
"What would Darwin say to today's creationists?" It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. *It is the one that is the most adaptable to change*.
@salaf83 thats a nice little quote mine you got there. You have any idea what the next line says? Or do you just want to misquote Darwin on this one? Be honest.
Your quote does not mean Darwin was atheist. In 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. - I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." Darwin also stated it was absurd to believe one could NOT be a theist and believe in evolution, in his letter to John Fordyce in 1879.
The quote you give and the quote I gave earlier are both very clear: he is not a theist, therefore, by definition, he is an atheist. Some atheists like to identify as agnostics (a word invented by Thomas Huxley), but that doesn't change the facts. I think Huxley did a disservice to the world when he introduced the term for political reasons, because it mixes a debate about believing and a debate about knowing.
@Mogley52 There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution, in the past 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove the theorum. Please post the published (main stream scientific journal), peer reviewed (main stream scientific journal) paper that does.
I wish I could ask them why creationists try so hard to undermine education and proposing their theory. What are their ultimate goals? Why is it so important to them and why can they not accept that they have been disproven so many times even in Dover court and Dr. Miller even showed them that belief in god does neccessarily conflict with evolution. So why do Creationists do that? What are their ultimate goals? Why do they think creationism would be of any benefit when it is proven it is not?
@2010Jedimaster you mean channels right? And the last thing to do is to oppress them tho, the best way to get rid of these particular elements is Ridicule, since they usually do not understand WHY they get ridiculed and just how much people see through their paper thin arguments... they get angry, make more videos... do something illegal and are forced to stop for legal reasons in the end.
@Answerquestions1 Why do you think evolution is invalid nowadays? All the evidence from various fields like genetics, taxonomy, paleontolgy etc seem to confirm the theory of evolution on every turn. If I misunderstood you I apologize.
What we see in everyday life is that organisms do not evolve upwards; instead organisms de-volve. The speaker I saw did not comment on this. The fact that organisms do not experience upwards-onwards evolution is a scientific fact - and in every day life it is actually the opposite where organisms are "de-evolving".
@Answerquestions1 Why do you think that evolution? From what I learned about genetics, fossil records, research on embryos, taxonomy etc. evolution is more valid than it ever was and seems to grow more valid every year. If I misunderstood you I apologize.
I just went to an evolution presentation a few weeks ago and the speaker explicitly stated that no present day animals can count as transitional. Also, 200+ million years in the future nothing would be around due to everything dying out. Every time something reproduces, its children are much more inferior to them - this eventually makes it impossible for organisms to be around for much longer.
You didn't explicitly say but your words implied that my reading comprehension is like what is "common now in the United States". I have no idea why you mentioned the United States in that context. The only reason I can think of is you assume I'm from the United States. Likewise, I think Darwin had a simple reason to mention his deviation from theism. If agnosticism is defined as something other than theism, which it is, than agnosticism is a form of atheim. No reality distortion needed.
So you assume it happened magically? You're telling me that when i have a brain already made 100% of non-living chemicals which functions 100% via non-living chemistry i am to find it more reasonable to think it came about magically?
In 1879 Darwin said that "a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.- I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." a Letter by Darwin to John Fordyce, John of 7 May 1879.
Keep in mind that the claim of the agnostic is: "I don't believe in gods, because it does not amount to knowledge". It's not a claim that you find the claim "God exists" to be equally probable as "God does not exist". In fact, it's not even obvious that an agnostic would agree that those statements are comprehensible.
I don't see how naturalists are this confident in their position - to the point where creationism is synonymous with stupidity. I am a creationist. I find it difficult to grasp how nonliving chemicals could ever form a conscious brain capable of observing - regardless of time and mutations. If you choose to believe this, be my guest. But I can't see why you would have a problem with my inability to accept such a claim.
Silly man. If she were on our side you would drill her full of logical holes. She's a propagandist and her science is either old or mostly false. You can see that! Come on you guys, start reading outside your box. ID people (intelligent ones) have had to. John
John Smith I am struggling to find published any peer reviewed evidence to support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design. Can you help me? You seem to have the inside track.
Gooner, you are not going to find much along the lines I think you are looking. Especially If you are using the phrase "peer reviewed evidence", I think you are begging the question or trying to get me to admit there isn't any. Reviews are not evidence of anything other than the attitudes of the reviewers. First of all peer review reflects the attitude and too often the prior commitment of the journal staff reviewing the submitted articles. Books are more likely to be free of the dominant atheistic 'censuring' surrounding Intelligent Design since money from sales is still a good motivator for committed atheist science. For peer review articles check out the article Steve Meyer supposedly tricked the Smithsonian into publishing. Here I am not using the article itself as an example, but the articles referenced in his paper. They represent the views of evolutionists that question the often self-assured blather of the mainstream evolutionary propagandists. Meyer's conclusions in the paper are based on what peer reviewed evolutionists have written: Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239. John Smithson, Ph.D., M.S., M.H.C.
John Smith you will not impress anyone by citing a creationist who is in the extreme minority among scientists and an embarrassment to the profession! You are simply trying to confirm your bias, while sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'la la la' in order to block out the overwhelming evidence against the idiocy of creationism. No doubt you believe in talking snakes and donkeys, witches, wizards, magic tricks and demons. Who would take you seriously? Only another sad case, indoctrinated from birth. Only Americans and Africans believe this primitive, fundamentalist rubbish, that hasn't been preached in Britain for 300 years and which is holding back progress in science in the US. Do you want your country to continue to be the laughing-stock of the civilised world?
@Destm157 It's difficult. It's something that can't be expressed very easily. I mean that it takes time pondering. I'm serious too. I'm not making this up. If you sit and consider your brain and your consciousness - and really question it, eventually you'll have a brief moment of bewilderment. You'll blink, shake your head, and announce, "There's just no way. This isn't possible." That's the "it" I mean. The "ah hah" to say, There is something more than just naturalism.
Darwin was an honest man, there was a time where Lamarckism seemed more plausible than Darwinism, and Darwin admitted it. And was willing to drop his theory. So if he would have been alive today, we would most likely admit that his theory is no longer valid
No. And I didn't say Huxley invented the concept either. The concept is as old as anything that deviates from theism, a few thousand years, give or take.
What makes you think I'm from the United States? If it's because of something I said, there must be something wrong with my writing skills as well. In that case I apologize in advance, English is only a second language for me. But still, I think that our quotes, letting Darwin speak for himself, were clear enough: Darwin claimed not to be theist. In other words, atheist.
Thomas Paine (One of the main authors of the constitution and known atheist) made sure not to be alone near the end of his life so no one could claim he made a death bed prayer for salvation. Andy Rooney (famous TV commentator) came out publicly to reveal he did not believe in a god long after such news would have ruined his carrier. I think most self proclaimed Christians in the modern world are actually lying to be accepted. Andy R. was a kind gentle person and so was Carl Sagan.
Jeff Dixon Pardon me for generalizing. I wonder If I would call myself a deist if I lived so long ago among so many hostile religious people with power of numbers to impose their wrath upon me or just kill me.
I am sure I have no idea what you might have done back then. But it is also possible that some one might actually be a real Deist. Thomas Paine wrote a book on refuting Christianity and explaining why Deism was true.
Jeff Dixon I am interested in knowing what book. Although time travel is extremely unlikely to ever be possible, I'm quite sure Thomas Pain would be very interested in and pleased with what we have learned. I can't be sure he would continue to consider himself a deist in today's world.
@sk8teh14: On the contrary, I am very much in awe of consciousness. More so, as I do not attribute "magic" as it's cause. It is truly amazing to me that such a complex collection of cells and neurons and neural transmitters could produce consciousness, all via millions of years of natural selection. Amazing!
@TruthfulChristian2 As opposed to having an invisible friend. Sorry that was rude. The only thing i hate about this topic, is that people, Religious and Atheists alike, get argumentative when someone disagrees with them, both sides get childish about it, can't we just accept the fact that people believe in different things?
@sk8teh14 I find it difficult to grasp how water randomly flies into the air and then redistributes itself uniformly over another area many miles away. I don't understand how you people would have a problem with me denying the water cycle. It just seems extremely unlikely that that sort of thing would just happen on its own. I ask that you just sit back and "smell test" your claim. Spend a long time thinking about it. The "Ah ha" moment is there just waiting for you to find it.
This argument has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion of origins on earth, evolution or Darwin. I think you are looking for the cosmology forums, but they might not agree with you either. There is no infinite chain of causality when it comes to the biosphere of Earth.
I didn't say you are from the United States. Darwin said what he said. So, you can continue to insist to the contrary, or you can continue to act like a religious dogmatist or a political fanatic if you like. There is NOTHING that you can say or do that will alter the words Darwin spoke. And I understand him completely. I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist. Just accept the reality. It isn't going away.
@meritocratic1337 It is indeed the case that people who don't believe something might not understand the argument. But it is also the case that people who "understand" the argument, are capable of being like the investment bankers in the 2008 financial crisis. They understood the math, but they didn't have common sense. Similarly, it's good to consider the math and science in biology, but it's also good to step back and "smell test" your claims.
Opposition to Darwinism came immediately from many brilliant scientists. These include physicist James Clerk Maxwell (founder of electromagnetism),7 Louis Pasteur (pioneer of immunization and developer of the fundamental law of biology [Biogenesis]),8 Lord Kelvin (pioneer of thermodynamics and the trans-Atlantic telegraph),9 and Louis Agassiz (founder of modern glacial geology) rejected Darwin. Famous mathematician, astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society Sir John Herschel dismissed it as ‘the law of higgledy-pigglety’.10 Richard Owen, the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum so irked Darwin with his objections to his theory that Darwin eventually admitted he hated him!11William Whewell, renowned philosopher of science (author of ‘The History of Inductive Sciences’), banned Origin from the Cambridge library. And there was a slew of scriptural geologists that also rejected Darwinism and its accompanying ‘millions of years’ of earth history. Many thought Darwinism was very unscientific indeed. Professor Johann H. Blasius, director of the Ducal Natural History Museum of Braunschweig (Brunswick), Germany, in an interview, said, “I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them. … Darwin wants to show that kinds come from other kinds.” creation.com/atheism-needs-evolution
After 160 years, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be the foundational Theory of Biology, so I am guessing that these men, most not even biologists, were wrong about this.
Well, most scientists do not listen to the popular opinion to whatever they are studying. So, he would say nothing. he might have more to say about evolutionists . He would have however had issues with Haeckel's embryos from before 1900, the Miller-Urey experiment, and most of the recent fossil finds. And how they assume that that latest skull would look like is laughable. Who might consider that this ancient being would be clean shaven. But that is what this animal is depicted. had to be the first to start shaving. in the Egyptians ancient days
@sk8teh14: I had that same "ah hah" moment, many moons ago. At the time, I was tripping my balls off on a cocktail of LSD and peyote, but don't let that take away from your supposed realization. I'm quite sure you've stumbled onto something profound...perhaps not to any of us, but anyone in the mental health profession should be positively fascinated.
@meritocratic1337 In fact, the more I talk about it, the more difficult it is to believe my position. This is what I mean. It's very difficult to see what I'm talking about. It takes time of really pondering what observation is and who I really am - I'm me. We take these things for granted in the everday; like a mathematician mindlessly rearranging equations - not really considering what he's doing at each step. It's very difficult to consider my points, and that's the mark of all truths.
@Destm157 I never said it did form via abiogenesis - but rather via naturalism (according to naturalists). I find it extremely unlikely that nonliving chemicals could form into anything that could eventually become a brain - regardless of time and mutations. Again, if you want to believe that, you may. But you disregarding my "awe" at the brain is analagous to a mathematician burying his head in numbers and not taking a step back to "smell test" his claims.
" Every time something reproduces, its children are much more inferior to them" That's the complete opposite of evolution. Your speaker wasn't very well informed.
The problem in this statement is that man is easily deceived into believing lies. God tells us to Trust HIm, not man. Many people have been made fools by their own understandings.
@Tobytrim nah, Darwin would just have to question if he is truly fit to have survived that long ;). Also Falsifiability I am fairly sure is generally a much more modern thing to be understood within science, so I doubt he would use that term =P... unless he just had a conversation with Karl Popper.
A Darwin who was savvy about media for young people might say: "Who are these Creation Scientists; a university based on magic? They used to call me a monkey's uncle, now they call me a MUGGLE!"
+differous01 lol Yes. But then some magical thinkers are benign towards muggles. It's the puritans one needs to watch out for; the "pure bloods" threaten mud-blood and muggle alike.
Dave Morse I don't have any reason to believe Rowling created the term 'muggle' from 'monkey's uncle', but it does fit the world view of magical thinkers; they are a holy nation, we are only 'the world'. They are the body of Christ, we are only the body politic, the heathen, the muggles..
@TruthfulChristian2 the more educated are the ones that agree with evolution as where someone like you has not studied it at all, and even if you did you've already made your decision beforehand, creationists are the most close minded people on the planet. can't accept what right in front of you.
MrTruth111 Why ask questions then block me? I guess you must hate freedom of expression! Pat was likening our knowledge and understanding of life to that of his own personal knowledge and understanding of computers. He may not know everything there is to know about computers, but what he *does* know is computers aren't designed and assembled magically by elves. He knows that computers are produced by humans and function according to the principles of reality. What we do know about organisms is over the course of generations they have the potential to evolve. This is not a guess nor wishful thinking, it is a demonstrable fact. This was not a comparison between how computers and organisms come about.
@ScepticalCynic Because these people can not make a distinction between their doctrine and deity. The Bible is their God in a certain sense. If the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, then nothing can be. Reasonable Christians go beyond that point and get informed by actual facts instead of 2000 year old story books.
@Destm157 The best way I know to do this. Go in front of a mirror, look at you. Look yourself in the eye. And just repeat, "I am me" while looking at yourself. I can't promise you'll see anything. But if you do, chances are you'll freak yourself out. You'll be able to understand that you, just like everyone, takes consciousness for granted - and doesn't really consider it when learning evolution (or doesn't factor it into the "model" - again analogous to the 2008 crisis).
@Celephaith ha ha, very funny. But it's there. It takes pondering and something to happen that "shifts" the way you see life. But we do take consciousness for granted. Your lack of amazement in my "ah hah" moment shows you lack "awe" as you look at consciousness. That doesn't say so much about me as it does you. If you lack this awe, does it mean you've fully and deeply considered consciousness? Or does it mean you've taken it for granted and disregarded it?
Genesis 1:1, 2.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, No one told you when this was when the creators turned up to do creating work on the earth is that not so?
Darwin wasn't an atheist you know. But, this is a political argument. Don't waste your time fighting the science vs. religion battle. It's like two men arguing over what's in a third man's pocket when they can't even see him.
@meritocratic1337 I know that this is what a mathematician does. One gets in trouble when the assumptions used in math do not mirror reality. I have been rather vague, but the assumptions can literally be anything worth considering in the "model". Again, look at the 2008 financial crisis. The guys who developed option-pricing were very advanced mathematicians. The people in finance are very bright and understand the math/science. And yet, they got it wrong.
Why all this talk of Darwin. And what purpose does the question serve. One could only speculate at best, what can be achieved from this. Any honest humble scientist casts aside personal pre- conception, ego, pride, and goes where the evidence leads them like any good detective, rather than politicise the data. That’s the science that interests me. Evolution is not fact. Merely saying that something is a fact over and over and over again, does not make something a fact. Also, this lady mis represents intelligent design, easy to do, when top tier scientists who advocate intelligent design are not present to counter and correct her. Also her belittling condescending, mocking demeanour, betrays her inability to present hard evidence, A, that corroborates eveolution, and B, disproves intelligent design. Micro evolution, or adaptation is not in question, but she is wrong when she says there are observable examples of macro evolution.
Neither Charles Darwin nor Eugenie Scott could explain how the shortest protein may form by selecting from accidents. When Ms Scott can explain how neo-Darwinian processes could account for even that THEN and THEN ONLY listen to her arguments. UNTIL that day dawns treat her with due respect: she talks out of her arse!
Proteins form by amino acids undergoing condensation reactions, in which the amino acids lose one water molecule per reaction in order to attach to one another with a peptide bond.
Krister Andersson Whose Talking about Zeus? I certainly was not! Show me where in my comment were Zeus was mentioned. Your like so many humourless atheists, who try to twist whatever any one says because you are bad losers about Darwin's theory still not having been proven. Why don't you just stick to what people say, if you atheists claim to be so moral. Instead of twisting the meaning of a comment, like the world view scientists as they try to bury or distort the facts to bolster their own professions, just so they don't have their grants cut off for not towing the political mumbo jumbo that much of todays science certainly has become. My comment was a joke! But you have proven the old saying that truer things are said in jest.
+T Green Scientists have INDEED proved his theory. It is the foundation of biology....you can't make sense of biology if you don't know and apply evolution. It is the most firmly established theory in science.
kim weaver Wrong kim, it is the most supported theory of the current political mainstream. It falls apart at the laboratory level unless you redefine what evolution is. It is not variation within a species and it is nothing more than trivial mutational change where it rarely occurs. Most mutational advantages are destructive and not an increase in complexity or functional information. They are like blowing up the entrance of a building you have hidden in to escape a predator. You have benefited but the building is no longer as functional. Let's hear a prominent evolutionist on the lack of legitimate evolutionary pathways, Evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago declared in National Review that "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Shapiro 1996) In Nature Magazine, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne stated, "There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe [irreducible complexity] are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel.... [W]e may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways." (Coyne 1996) These men have not rejected evolution; they just are educated and honest enough to define where the discussion remains. Try something else if you are educated: Here is an interesting interview with a prominent Cornell University geneticist: Genetic Entropy: ruclips.net/video/eY98io7JH-c/видео.html Are Humans Getting Better: www.christiancounselinglibrary.com/articles/AreHumansGettingBetter.pdf John
@Destm157 So just to repeat what I'm trying to say, I understand the textbook answers and all the details suggest that it's possible. I'm asking you to step back and smell test your claim. To really consider yourself and your ability to observe. To step back when you're alone, away from a computer and just look at yourself. The answer is there. The "Ah ha" is there waiting for you to find it, to be in awe to it, if you'll only let it.
@meritocratic1337 So too, how do you factor in consciousness into the evolution model? Do you think we even fully understand the human brain? The answer is we do not. You need to "experiment" (i.e. keep one variable and hold all others constant) in order to have "causality" (and not just a correlation). But you'd need to experiment on human brains to do this - which is extremely unethical and thus hasn't been done.
@sk8teh14 I think people find the creationist belief hard to accept because there is so much that shows us that it is highly unlikely. Life from non living material was reporduced in a lab proving the possiblity of this. Now even with low probability life from non living material is not only possible but probable. Testing for a theistic god is easily done and has been proven false. A deistic god however improbable will always remain as possible. Value and accept your 1 life, it is awesome!
Darwin would say that his great concern about the fossil record turned out to be true. There are not "NUMBERLESS" intermediary fossils Only a handful of questionable finds.
There are plenty of intermediary fossils. Of course not numberless in a literal sense but very many. Are any of the finds questionable? Well, on one level everything is questionable. Question everything. On the other hand, the finds which are truly dubious would amount to only a handful, so, yes, you got that right in a sense.
How many intermediate fossils would it take for you to admit that evolution is proven? Even if there were millions, you'd try to find some way to disprove evolution instead of accepting that Creationism is ignorant and infantile. In any case, there are other more important proofs of evolution such as DNA. Why would you want to look ridiculous? Give it up! 99.9% of scientists will tell you evolution is fact! Do you really think that goat-herders in the Bronze Age knew more than the people who brought us heart transplants and satellites?
Joanna McInnes You at it again? Sorry to hear that. You really are as bad as Dr. Scott, only you don't seem to have much science of your own to talk about. Her science, to my disappointment, is not always up to date, although she is a pleasant lady. I do like her manners but not her deception. When are you going to say something rather than parrot what the parrots are parroting. If all you want are some heart transplants and a few satellites, why don't you stop yapping about Creation Scientists, many of whom have given us just such things. Look up the inventor of the MRI? "Dr Damadian’s invention has earned him several top awards, including the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers. "A Bible-believing Christian, this great inventor is convinced of the scientific truth of Genesis creation and its foundational importance to church and society." Improve your thinking, John Smithson, Ph.D., M.S., M.H.C.
John Smith Why a scientist would publicly admit to being a Creationist is an utter mystery - at the very least it shows a willingness to lose the respect of his colleagues... Only in America!
LondonJo There is no such thing as a scientist who is a creationist. You can't be both at once. It would be like being a mute soprano, a cripple marathon runner or an innumerate mathematician. They are mutually exclusive sets. If you get about believing in that nonsense, you're no scientist.
From "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored": But I had gradually come, by this time (the late 1830's), to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, &c., &c., & from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.
What would Darwin say to creationist today? I think he would say the following: I was fooled to believe that my own data indicated there was no God. I know better now since I died. Please tell the evolutionist that I was wrong and for them to repent and turn back to God before it is too late!
Darwin whose house, Downe House is 10 miles from my house, was a very gentle man. He was tormented but he would have been very humble.He is on our £10 note and is one of the greatest Britons ever but he knew he was opening a can of worms. Just shows how brave he was.
Teach the alternative theory? Lets do that after creationists start inviting Buddhists, Muslims, Pastafarians, and Ken Humphreys etc, to talk about their religions or theories regarding the authenticity of the bible story in their chapels and mega churches, and they make all church members study those alternative theories and take a standardized test to see if the understand them. It should be a rule that the people who fail that test are not allowed to talk about evolution ever again, or until they can get a pass mark.
ShadeyBladey We have one confirmed theory, and a story that offers no evidence, only fallacious statements based on unproven assertions.
ShadeyBladey I know, to bad these creationist don't understand what a theory is. I don't think they'll ever accept that this alternate theory of theirs isn't a theory.
I should no more have to tell someone a monkey aint your cousin
Then tell them cigarettes are a bad choice and so is running red lights 😮
7:30 "In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of [EDIT: creationist] propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism."
Henry Morris, 'The Twilight of [EDIT: creationism]'1963.
I read his 'Genesis Flood' and this edited version of his quote is a valid criticism of it;
it is creationist propaganda causing discontent in my former church and skepticism in me.
Mr Morris I am so grateful.
i love eugenie scott; measured, reasonable, incredibly informative, polite and humorous in every talk and interview i have seen her give. this lady is all class.
I know what he'd say to today's scientists: 240p? We can get hi-def from Mars but you can't record your talks in SD, let alone 1080p?
He'd say, 'Yes I would like fries with that.'
How Dare You !!! Give them more credit than they deserve. They aren't intelligent enough to operate the fryer or work the cash
XXX Trinity at 32:16? I never would have thought Dr. Miller would have qualified. 0.o ;-)
Love your work, NatCen4ScienceEd! Thanks a lot for sharing all this valuable material! :-)
He would say: "Look! I've risen from the dead."
***** lol
Actually, he would not, but it will be hard to miss he scars on his wrists where the spikes went into them .When he returns, it will be the way that he left earth.
Very good lecture! The whole idea about social darwinism and its' supposed connection to natural selection is for me too absurb to think that anyone can even take seriously
If Darwin was still alive he would have suffered a lethal facepalm when the crocoduck was suggested by Kirk Cameron.
Genie Scott is wonderful
What will be wonderful when she gets judged by her Maker then gets her evo ass FRIED. I look forward to it.
I doubt I've ever sat and watched an entire 45~min YT video, until this one. This woman's presentation is exemplary, and should, if there's any justice in the universe, embarrass or inspire anyone else who's come before, with the possible exception of Neil DeGrasse-Tyson.
The speaker didn't comment on it because it simply isn't true. Evolution means creatures are more able to survive in their environment. I don't know where you're getting your notion of 'upwards-onwards evolution'
"What would Darwin say to today's creationists?"
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. *It is the one that is the most adaptable to change*.
@salaf83 thats a nice little quote mine you got there. You have any idea what the next line says? Or do you just want to misquote Darwin on this one? Be honest.
I think I hear her saying, "1815" right around 2:10 into the vid, when she meant the year 1915?
Your quote does not mean Darwin was atheist. In 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. - I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." Darwin also stated it was absurd to believe one could NOT be a theist and believe in evolution, in his letter to John Fordyce in 1879.
The quote you give and the quote I gave earlier are both very clear: he is not a theist, therefore, by definition, he is an atheist. Some atheists like to identify as agnostics (a word invented by Thomas Huxley), but that doesn't change the facts. I think Huxley did a disservice to the world when he introduced the term for political reasons, because it mixes a debate about believing and a debate about knowing.
@Mogley52 There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution, in the past 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove the theorum. Please post the published (main stream scientific journal), peer reviewed (main stream scientific journal) paper that does.
I wish I could ask them why creationists try so hard to undermine education and proposing their theory. What are their ultimate goals? Why is it so important to them and why can they not accept that they have been disproven so many times even in Dover court and Dr. Miller even showed them that belief in god does neccessarily conflict with evolution.
So why do Creationists do that? What are their ultimate goals? Why do they think creationism would be of any benefit when it is proven it is not?
@2010Jedimaster you mean channels right? And the last thing to do is to oppress them tho, the best way to get rid of these particular elements is Ridicule, since they usually do not understand WHY they get ridiculed and just how much people see through their paper thin arguments... they get angry, make more videos... do something illegal and are forced to stop for legal reasons in the end.
@Answerquestions1
Why do you think evolution is invalid nowadays? All the evidence from various fields like genetics, taxonomy, paleontolgy etc seem to confirm the theory of evolution on every turn.
If I misunderstood you I apologize.
What we see in everyday life is that organisms do not evolve upwards; instead organisms de-volve. The speaker I saw did not comment on this. The fact that organisms do not experience upwards-onwards evolution is a scientific fact - and in every day life it is actually the opposite where organisms are "de-evolving".
@Answerquestions1
Why do you think that evolution? From what I learned about genetics, fossil records, research on embryos, taxonomy etc. evolution is more valid than it ever was and seems to grow more valid every year.
If I misunderstood you I apologize.
I just went to an evolution presentation a few weeks ago and the speaker explicitly stated that no present day animals can count as transitional. Also, 200+ million years in the future nothing would be around due to everything dying out. Every time something reproduces, its children are much more inferior to them - this eventually makes it impossible for organisms to be around for much longer.
@ctressle - I caught that too, she must have meant 1915.
11 dislikes.
Wanna play Spot-The-Creationist?
@TheStoasterRisen
HAHAHA! I almost fell off my chair - very well said.
You didn't explicitly say but your words implied that my reading comprehension is like what is "common now in the United States". I have no idea why you mentioned the United States in that context. The only reason I can think of is you assume I'm from the United States. Likewise, I think Darwin had a simple reason to mention his deviation from theism. If agnosticism is defined as something other than theism, which it is, than agnosticism is a form of atheim. No reality distortion needed.
So you assume it happened magically? You're telling me that when i have a brain already made 100% of non-living chemicals which functions 100% via non-living chemistry i am to find it more reasonable to think it came about magically?
In 1879 Darwin said that "a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.- I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." a Letter by Darwin to John Fordyce, John of 7 May 1879.
Keep in mind that the claim of the agnostic is: "I don't believe in gods, because it does not amount to knowledge". It's not a claim that you find the claim "God exists" to be equally probable as "God does not exist". In fact, it's not even obvious that an agnostic would agree that those statements are comprehensible.
I don't see how naturalists are this confident in their position - to the point where creationism is synonymous with stupidity. I am a creationist. I find it difficult to grasp how nonliving chemicals could ever form a conscious brain capable of observing - regardless of time and mutations. If you choose to believe this, be my guest. But I can't see why you would have a problem with my inability to accept such a claim.
You can have an old universe but a recently finished earth. Therefore speed of light and isotope ratios would be irrelevant.
WELL DONE Genie Scott and THANK YOU for exposing so many lies.
Silly man. If she were on our side you would drill her full of logical holes. She's a propagandist and her science is either old or mostly false. You can see that!
Come on you guys, start reading outside your box. ID people (intelligent ones) have had to.
John
John Smith I am struggling to find published any peer reviewed evidence to support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design. Can you help me? You seem to have the inside track.
Gooner, you are not going to find much along the lines I think you are looking. Especially If you are using the phrase "peer reviewed evidence", I think you are begging the question or trying to get me to admit there isn't any. Reviews are not evidence of anything other than the attitudes of the reviewers.
First of all peer review reflects the attitude and too often the prior commitment of the journal staff reviewing the submitted articles. Books are more likely to be free of the dominant atheistic 'censuring' surrounding Intelligent Design since money from sales is still a good motivator for committed atheist science.
For peer review articles check out the article Steve Meyer supposedly tricked the Smithsonian into publishing. Here I am not using the article itself as an example, but the articles referenced in his paper. They represent the views of evolutionists that question the often self-assured blather of the mainstream evolutionary propagandists. Meyer's conclusions in the paper are based on what peer reviewed evolutionists have written:
Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239.
John Smithson, Ph.D., M.S., M.H.C.
John Smith you will not impress anyone by citing a creationist who is in the extreme minority among scientists and an embarrassment to the profession! You are simply trying to confirm your bias, while sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'la la la' in order to block out the overwhelming evidence against the idiocy of creationism. No doubt you believe in talking snakes and donkeys, witches, wizards, magic tricks and demons. Who would take you seriously? Only another sad case, indoctrinated from birth. Only Americans and Africans believe this primitive, fundamentalist rubbish, that hasn't been preached in Britain for 300 years and which is holding back progress in science in the US. Do you want your country to continue to be the laughing-stock of the civilised world?
@Destm157
It's difficult. It's something that can't be expressed very easily. I mean that it takes time pondering. I'm serious too. I'm not making this up. If you sit and consider your brain and your consciousness - and really question it, eventually you'll have a brief moment of bewilderment. You'll blink, shake your head, and announce, "There's just no way. This isn't possible." That's the "it" I mean. The "ah hah" to say, There is something more than just naturalism.
Darwin was an honest man, there was a time where Lamarckism seemed more plausible than Darwinism, and Darwin admitted it. And was willing to drop his theory. So if he would have been alive today, we would most likely admit that his theory is no longer valid
Who is this speaker? Can you please present an name, otherwise you words do not mean very much.
No. And I didn't say Huxley invented the concept either. The concept is as old as anything that deviates from theism, a few thousand years, give or take.
What makes you think I'm from the United States? If it's because of something I said, there must be something wrong with my writing skills as well. In that case I apologize in advance, English is only a second language for me. But still, I think that our quotes, letting Darwin speak for himself, were clear enough: Darwin claimed not to be theist. In other words, atheist.
Thomas Paine (One of the main authors of the constitution and known atheist) made sure not to be alone near the end of his life so no one could claim he made a death bed prayer for salvation. Andy Rooney (famous TV commentator) came out publicly to reveal he did not believe in a god long after such news would have ruined his carrier. I think most self proclaimed Christians in the modern world are actually lying to be accepted. Andy R. was a kind gentle person and so was Carl Sagan.
Thomas Paine was a Deist
Jeff Dixon Pardon me for generalizing. I wonder If I would call myself a deist if I lived so long ago among so many hostile religious people with power of numbers to impose their wrath upon me or just kill me.
I am sure I have no idea what you might have done back then. But it is also possible that some one might actually be a real Deist. Thomas Paine wrote a book on refuting Christianity and explaining why Deism was true.
Jeff Dixon I am interested in knowing what book. Although time travel is extremely unlikely to ever be possible, I'm quite sure Thomas Pain would be very interested in and pleased with what we have learned. I can't be sure he would continue to consider himself a deist in today's world.
It was called "The Age of Reason"
@TheStoasterRisen The Crocoduck is Darwin reincarnated. He exists out there, as a way for us to taunt Kirk Cameron and his superfriend Bananaman.
@sk8teh14: On the contrary, I am very much in awe of consciousness. More so, as I do not attribute "magic" as it's cause. It is truly amazing to me that such a complex collection of cells and neurons and neural transmitters could produce consciousness, all via millions of years of natural selection. Amazing!
The Myth started in 1815? Origin was not yet even published. Perhaps you mean 1915.
happy birthday mr darwin,,,, 202 today.
I agree with Thomas Huxley about what agnosticism is. It isn't a creed. It's a method.
@TruthfulChristian2 As opposed to having an invisible friend. Sorry that was rude. The only thing i hate about this topic, is that people, Religious and Atheists alike, get argumentative when someone disagrees with them, both sides get childish about it, can't we just accept the fact that people believe in different things?
"If you don't know, go to RUclips and do a search for *Ray Comfort + banana*."
Priceless!
@sk8teh14
I find it difficult to grasp how water randomly flies into the air and then redistributes itself uniformly over another area many miles away. I don't understand how you people would have a problem with me denying the water cycle. It just seems extremely unlikely that that sort of thing would just happen on its own. I ask that you just sit back and "smell test" your claim. Spend a long time thinking about it. The "Ah ha" moment is there just waiting for you to find it.
This argument has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion of origins on earth, evolution or Darwin. I think you are looking for the cosmology forums, but they might not agree with you either.
There is no infinite chain of causality when it comes to the biosphere of Earth.
Perhaps I will if I ever find suitable evidence that is the case.
I didn't say you are from the United States. Darwin said what he said. So, you can continue to insist to the contrary, or you can continue to act like a religious dogmatist or a political fanatic if you like. There is NOTHING that you can say or do that will alter the words Darwin spoke.
And I understand him completely. I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist.
Just accept the reality. It isn't going away.
_" I am not an atheist."_
So, you're not NOT THEIST. That's a double negative and makes you a theist.
@meritocratic1337
It is indeed the case that people who don't believe something might not understand the argument. But it is also the case that people who "understand" the argument, are capable of being like the investment bankers in the 2008 financial crisis. They understood the math, but they didn't have common sense. Similarly, it's good to consider the math and science in biology, but it's also good to step back and "smell test" your claims.
Opposition to Darwinism came immediately from many brilliant scientists. These include physicist James Clerk Maxwell (founder of electromagnetism),7 Louis Pasteur (pioneer of immunization and developer of the fundamental law of biology [Biogenesis]),8 Lord Kelvin (pioneer of thermodynamics and the trans-Atlantic telegraph),9 and Louis Agassiz (founder of modern glacial geology) rejected Darwin.
Famous mathematician, astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society Sir John Herschel dismissed it as ‘the law of higgledy-pigglety’.10 Richard Owen, the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum so irked Darwin with his objections to his theory that Darwin eventually admitted he hated him!11William Whewell, renowned philosopher of science (author of ‘The History of Inductive Sciences’), banned Origin from the Cambridge library. And there was a slew of scriptural geologists that also rejected Darwinism and its accompanying ‘millions of years’ of earth history.
Many thought Darwinism was very unscientific indeed. Professor Johann H. Blasius, director of the Ducal Natural History Museum of Braunschweig (Brunswick), Germany, in an interview, said, “I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them. … Darwin wants to show that kinds come from other kinds.”
creation.com/atheism-needs-evolution
Funny, none of those scientists could falsify Darwin's Theory, but Creationists LIE because that's all they have, LIES!!!!
Lots and lots of LIES!!!!
After 160 years, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be the foundational Theory of Biology, so I am guessing that these men, most not even biologists, were wrong about this.
Well, most scientists do not listen to the popular opinion to whatever they are studying. So, he would say nothing. he might have more to say about evolutionists . He would have however had issues with Haeckel's embryos from before 1900, the Miller-Urey experiment, and most of the recent fossil finds. And how they assume that that latest skull would look like is laughable. Who might consider that this ancient being would be clean shaven. But that is what this animal is depicted. had to be the first to start shaving. in the Egyptians ancient days
I doubt if you are aggressive enough to not being bothered be Nuclear bomb about to drop, and explode.
@sk8teh14: I had that same "ah hah" moment, many moons ago. At the time, I was tripping my balls off on a cocktail of LSD and peyote, but don't let that take away from your supposed realization. I'm quite sure you've stumbled onto something profound...perhaps not to any of us, but anyone in the mental health profession should be positively fascinated.
@meritocratic1337
In fact, the more I talk about it, the more difficult it is to believe my position. This is what I mean. It's very difficult to see what I'm talking about. It takes time of really pondering what observation is and who I really am - I'm me. We take these things for granted in the everday; like a mathematician mindlessly rearranging equations - not really considering what he's doing at each step.
It's very difficult to consider my points, and that's the mark of all truths.
@Destm157
I never said it did form via abiogenesis - but rather via naturalism (according to naturalists). I find it extremely unlikely that nonliving chemicals could form into anything that could eventually become a brain - regardless of time and mutations. Again, if you want to believe that, you may. But you disregarding my "awe" at the brain is analagous to a mathematician burying his head in numbers and not taking a step back to "smell test" his claims.
" Every time something reproduces, its children are much more inferior to them"
That's the complete opposite of evolution. Your speaker wasn't very well informed.
The problem in this statement is that man is easily deceived into believing lies. God tells us to Trust HIm, not man. Many people have been made fools by their own understandings.
@TheStoasterRisen However the manpig is well known to science , and can be found drinking in bars in Newcastle upon Tyne , England
@Tobytrim nah, Darwin would just have to question if he is truly fit to have survived that long ;). Also Falsifiability I am fairly sure is generally a much more modern thing to be understood within science, so I doubt he would use that term =P... unless he just had a conversation with Karl Popper.
A Darwin who was savvy about media for young people might say:
"Who are these Creation Scientists; a university based on magic?
They used to call me a monkey's uncle, now they call me a MUGGLE!"
+differous01 lol Yes. But then some magical thinkers are benign towards muggles. It's the puritans one needs to watch out for; the "pure bloods" threaten mud-blood and muggle alike.
Dave Morse I don't have any reason to believe Rowling created the term 'muggle' from 'monkey's uncle', but it does fit the world view of magical thinkers;
they are a holy nation, we are only 'the world'.
They are the body of Christ, we are only the body politic, the heathen, the muggles..
I prefer to let Darwin speak for himself on the issue. I don't have an agenda that requires his support.
@TruthfulChristian2 the more educated are the ones that agree with evolution as where someone like you has not studied it at all, and even if you did you've already made your decision beforehand, creationists are the most close minded people on the planet. can't accept what right in front of you.
Counter the pejorative use of 'Darwinism' by referring to the great Alfred Russell Wallace.
MrTruth111
Why ask questions then block me? I guess you must hate freedom of expression!
Pat was likening our knowledge and understanding of life to that of his own personal knowledge and understanding of computers. He may not know everything there is to know about computers, but what he *does* know is computers aren't designed and assembled magically by elves. He knows that computers are produced by humans and function according to the principles of reality. What we do know about organisms is over the course of generations they have the potential to evolve. This is not a guess nor wishful thinking, it is a demonstrable fact. This was not a comparison between how computers and organisms come about.
Darwin would be enamoured of the pills at the Chemist, "Dude! The blue pills! Really!"
@ScepticalCynic
Because these people can not make a distinction between their doctrine and deity. The Bible is their God in a certain sense. If the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, then nothing can be. Reasonable Christians go beyond that point and get informed by actual facts instead of 2000 year old story books.
@Destm157
The best way I know to do this. Go in front of a mirror, look at you. Look yourself in the eye. And just repeat, "I am me" while looking at yourself. I can't promise you'll see anything. But if you do, chances are you'll freak yourself out. You'll be able to understand that you, just like everyone, takes consciousness for granted - and doesn't really consider it when learning evolution (or doesn't factor it into the "model" - again analogous to the 2008 crisis).
Darwin's quote is clear. And the quote makes it clear that you are wrong. Huxley may have invented the word, but he didn't invent the concept.
@Celephaith ha ha, very funny. But it's there. It takes pondering and something to happen that "shifts" the way you see life. But we do take consciousness for granted. Your lack of amazement in my "ah hah" moment shows you lack "awe" as you look at consciousness. That doesn't say so much about me as it does you. If you lack this awe, does it mean you've fully and deeply considered consciousness? Or does it mean you've taken it for granted and disregarded it?
Genesis 1:1, 2.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,
No one told you when this was when the creators turned up to do creating work on the earth is that not so?
I refer you to the work of Dr Lee Gismer on the langkawi bent toed gecko in north western malaysia
@vegantrexEX2218 This is funny, because when you misspelled "satan", it looked like you misspelled "santa". lol
Darwin wasn't an atheist you know. But, this is a political argument. Don't waste your time fighting the science vs. religion battle. It's like two men arguing over what's in a third man's pocket when they can't even see him.
@meritocratic1337
I know that this is what a mathematician does. One gets in trouble when the assumptions used in math do not mirror reality. I have been rather vague, but the assumptions can literally be anything worth considering in the "model". Again, look at the 2008 financial crisis. The guys who developed option-pricing were very advanced mathematicians. The people in finance are very bright and understand the math/science. And yet, they got it wrong.
What do you believe in, science facts or superstitious nonsense?
I like teacher's like this.
Why all this talk of Darwin. And what purpose does the question serve. One could only speculate at best, what can be achieved from this. Any honest humble scientist casts aside personal pre- conception, ego, pride, and goes where the evidence leads them like any good detective, rather than politicise the data. That’s the science that interests me. Evolution is not fact. Merely saying that something is a fact over and over and over again, does not make something a fact. Also, this lady mis represents intelligent design, easy to do, when top tier scientists who advocate intelligent design are not present to counter and correct her. Also her belittling condescending, mocking demeanour, betrays her inability to present hard evidence, A, that corroborates eveolution, and B, disproves intelligent design. Micro evolution, or adaptation is not in question, but she is wrong when she says there are observable examples of macro evolution.
Neither Charles Darwin nor Eugenie Scott could explain how the shortest protein may form by selecting from accidents. When Ms Scott can explain how neo-Darwinian processes could account for even that THEN and THEN ONLY listen to her arguments. UNTIL that day dawns treat her with due respect: she talks out of her arse!
Proteins form by amino acids undergoing condensation reactions, in which the amino acids lose one water molecule per reaction in order to attach to one another with a peptide bond.
amen brother.
believe they are justified to break the laws that apply to everybody*
if that dude is some evolution expert then he is one that doesn't agree with the majority of biologists.
He would say Good God they still have not proven my theory. What's wrong with modern scientists.
T Green what theory? it is not up to the scientists to prove that your god Zeus exists, it is yours.
Krister Andersson Whose Talking about Zeus? I certainly was not! Show me where in my comment were Zeus was mentioned. Your like so many humourless atheists, who try to twist whatever any one says because you are bad losers about Darwin's theory still not having been proven. Why don't you just stick to what people say, if you atheists claim to be so moral. Instead of twisting the meaning of a comment, like the world view scientists as they try to bury or distort the facts to bolster their own professions, just so they don't have their grants cut off for not towing the political mumbo jumbo that much of todays science certainly has become. My comment was a joke! But you have proven the old saying that truer things are said in jest.
T Green Zeus was just an example, you can change Zeus for any god you care to mention.
+T Green Scientists have INDEED proved his theory. It is the foundation of biology....you can't make sense of biology if you don't know and apply evolution. It is the most firmly established theory in science.
kim weaver Wrong kim, it is the most supported theory of the current political mainstream. It falls apart at the laboratory level unless you redefine what evolution is. It is not variation within a species and it is nothing more than trivial mutational change where it rarely occurs. Most mutational advantages are destructive and not an increase in complexity or functional information. They are like blowing up the entrance of a building you have hidden in to escape a predator. You have benefited but the building is no longer as functional.
Let's hear a prominent evolutionist on the lack of legitimate evolutionary pathways,
Evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago declared in National Review that "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Shapiro 1996)
In Nature Magazine, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne stated, "There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe [irreducible complexity] are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel.... [W]e may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways." (Coyne 1996)
These men have not rejected evolution; they just are educated and honest enough to define where the discussion remains.
Try something else if you are educated:
Here is an interesting interview with a prominent Cornell University geneticist:
Genetic Entropy:
ruclips.net/video/eY98io7JH-c/видео.html
Are Humans Getting Better:
www.christiancounselinglibrary.com/articles/AreHumansGettingBetter.pdf
John
@Destm157
So just to repeat what I'm trying to say, I understand the textbook answers and all the details suggest that it's possible. I'm asking you to step back and smell test your claim. To really consider yourself and your ability to observe. To step back when you're alone, away from a computer and just look at yourself. The answer is there. The "Ah ha" is there waiting for you to find it, to be in awe to it, if you'll only let it.
@meritocratic1337
So too, how do you factor in consciousness into the evolution model? Do you think we even fully understand the human brain? The answer is we do not. You need to "experiment" (i.e. keep one variable and hold all others constant) in order to have "causality" (and not just a correlation). But you'd need to experiment on human brains to do this - which is extremely unethical and thus hasn't been done.
Geocentrism is like cooking the books to get an answer compatible with the bible.
@sk8teh14 I think people find the creationist belief hard to accept because there is so much that shows us that it is highly unlikely. Life from non living material was reporduced in a lab proving the possiblity of this. Now even with low probability life from non living material is not only possible but probable. Testing for a theistic god is easily done and has been proven false. A deistic god however improbable will always remain as possible. Value and accept your 1 life, it is awesome!
People who b'lieve a literal interpretation of the bible can not have read it properly. (Or I suspect @ all)
@PlayfulGibbon He would, of course, conduct this search in Atlantis, before moving on to Japanada.
Darwin would say that his great concern about the fossil record turned out to be true. There are not "NUMBERLESS" intermediary fossils Only a handful of questionable finds.
There are plenty of intermediary fossils. Of course not numberless in a literal sense but very many. Are any of the finds questionable? Well, on one level everything is questionable. Question everything. On the other hand, the finds which are truly dubious would amount to only a handful, so, yes, you got that right in a sense.
How many intermediate fossils would it take for you to admit that evolution is proven? Even if there were millions, you'd try to find some way to disprove evolution instead of accepting that Creationism is ignorant and infantile. In any case, there are other more important proofs of evolution such as DNA. Why would you want to look ridiculous? Give it up! 99.9% of scientists will tell you evolution is fact! Do you really think that goat-herders in the Bronze Age knew more than the people who brought us heart transplants and satellites?
Joanna McInnes You at it again? Sorry to hear that.
You really are as bad as Dr. Scott, only you don't seem to have much science of your own to talk about. Her science, to my disappointment, is not always up to date, although she is a pleasant lady. I do like her manners but not her deception.
When are you going to say something rather than parrot what the parrots are parroting. If all you want are some heart transplants and a few satellites, why don't you stop yapping about Creation Scientists, many of whom have given us just such things. Look up the inventor of the MRI?
"Dr Damadian’s invention has earned him several top awards, including the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers.
"A Bible-believing Christian, this great inventor is convinced of the scientific truth of Genesis creation and its foundational importance to church and society."
Improve your thinking,
John Smithson, Ph.D., M.S., M.H.C.
John Smith Why a scientist would publicly admit to being a Creationist is an utter mystery - at the very least it shows a willingness to lose the respect of his colleagues... Only in America!
LondonJo There is no such thing as a scientist who is a creationist. You can't be both at once. It would be like being a mute soprano, a cripple marathon runner or an innumerate mathematician. They are mutually exclusive sets. If you get about believing in that nonsense, you're no scientist.
@GrifterSixOne
"can't we just accept the fact that people believe in different things?"
But I don't wanna!
@TheStoasterRisen The Crocoduck was awesome.
Creationists don't give a hoot what Darwin would say. We know it would be pseudo science, though, and we like reeeeal science.
From "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored": But I had gradually come, by this time (the late 1830's), to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, &c., &c., & from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.
He would say,"Noooooo... please don't burn me!!!!!!!". And don't sodomize me either :-/
What would Darwin say to creationist today? I think he would say the following: I was fooled to believe that my own data indicated there was no God. I know better now since I died. Please tell the evolutionist that I was wrong and for them to repent and turn back to God before it is too late!
he's think we are de-evolving, most likely.
E.S. + NCSE = !!!AWESOME!!!