I'm a scientist? No scientist says that. They would say I am an astrophysicist, or I am a biologist or a chemist. This is a person who doesn't even understand enough about science to know that. " God is the impact of two asteroids". That's hysterical
John Swanson. I am a degreed scientist and graduate of a major university and a staunch believer in God and Christ . How would you account for that? And I know many PHD who believe the same.
Badger dog *John Swanson. I am a degreed scientist and graduate of a major university and a staunch believer in God and Christ . How would you account for that? And I know many PhD who believe the same.* Your worldview has little to do do with your science, Badger dog. Your belief in a god figure has no place in the lab, as you well know, so which question are you asking here? Kenneth R. Miller, a well-known and highly respected biology professor from Brown University fought against (and defeated) the concept of Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial of 2004. He is a devout Roman Catholic. Francis Collins, who is the head of the NIH, stated that the DNA evidence alone supports not only evolution, but common ancestry. He is an evangelical Christian. Neither man's belief in Christ has an effect on, nor plays a role in, their work in the field of science. If you are indeed a trained scientist (as I am, though long retired), you would know that within the actual field of science, these two very distinct boundaries never cross. So, I do not understand the chest beating here. We both know there is no such thing as "Christian Science," only scientists who practice Christianity (and Islam, and Hinduism, and Janism, and Judaism, etc.) Also, attaining a PhD, as I am sure you will agree, requires nothing more than time and dedication. Having a PhD does not mean that your IQ is substantially higher than those without, nor does it mean that anything and everything you say is true and accurate (quite the contrary.) As scientists, we are also acutely aware that it is the evidence and the information that speaks; that which can be demonstrable and repeatable. Not "our opinion." By the way, I am an atheist, who was once a Christian. How do you account for that, and should it mean anything? Also, please define what you mean when you say, "many." Thanks.
***** *+Badger dog Yes Badge, but even in conversations with you, I think you are a better scientist than this guy.* How can you tell? Are you a peer? Have you examined the scientific papers of both scientists? Had you, would this not simply be your personal opinion, a subjective rather than universal one? Of what worth and relevance is your opinion, here?
***** *+Michael Dobson Badge knows how to spell and how to speak English correctly. Plus I gotta admit I kinda the Badge even though we disagree.* I must agree that the proper usage of grammar and spelling seems lost on the "Internet" generation (combined with terrible anger management skills.) I, too, have been guilty of calling people on their abysmal writing skills (mostly out of frustration) regardless of whether I get what they are trying to say, or not. There are many in the theistic community with which whom I have come to have much respect due to their learned and mature approach to debate/discussion/engagement. I have little time, nor patience for those on either side who cannot conduct themselves as an adult, or who's argument begins and ends with ad hominem. A pleasure speaking with you, Tatesa Spirit.
Moldred T. Malcontent I generally think Rand is a rationalizing, ignorant, self-aggrandizing load of *!#$&% (look at Patheos’ Daylight Atheism’s knockdown of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead), but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
bfk1970 That is because no matter how ridiculous you try to seem, there is a crazy that is as far out that way or farther. POE's law is a bitch: "Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing" from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
bfk1970 Ah, sorry. Obviously, I believed you were being serious. The problem is, that there are many people on RUclips who make comments THAT stupid, so I just assumed you were one of them. Sorry about that.
the Gusle, chapter one and only: 1:1 - All hail Gus, the Invisible Cosmic Bunnyrabbit; 1:2 - the one true creator of the [original] two asteroids; 1:3 - the collider and collision, who slammeth 'em together and created all! 1:4 - Hop along in his invisible path and be saved!! 1:5 - All other asteroid collisions are untrue, as they only result in smaller bangs?? 1:6 - FACT -> EVIDENCE -> PROOF -> TRUTH -> GUSLE -> FACT 1:7 - Gus, out!!!
The interesting thing here is that in 'science' you have to learn how to write papers. You lose marks for punctuation, spelling, grammar, not to mention incomprehensible sentences. If someone so lacking in literary skills were to somehow be accepted into a university, they would never make it past the first semester of the first year.
I believe this is actually a young kid, due to the the exclamation points and the mix up between your and you're as well as some other points. I sure the kid decided that that he/she could claim to to be a scientist, and thought he was going to convert all the atheists that see this. I heard the two asteroids(big bang) during a news special on Evangelist home school children when a mom was "teaching" her children that is scientists explain the being of the universe.
I'm sorry everyone that was my drunk uncle at Thanksgiving I assure you he is no scientist but claims to be one because 20 years ago he was a substitute teacher for a science class at my middle school and this is what I have had to listen too ever since. My idiot cousin taught him how to use email.
Silverripples The only difference is that if your ancestors were slaves they were forced to be so and wanted freedom, whereas the religious are willing slaves who view freedom as blasphemy.
Mr. Vincini If you study history, people were actually forced into believing. Otherwise there could be severe punishment. Remember any stories about inquisitions or the likes of that?
My apologies I didn't mean to seem snide. You are correct on both points and I was agreeing with you. I merely meant that people today in most modern cultures have a choice and they still choose to believe religious claims blindly, that's all.
+Estragon17 pretty much....unless your 1 of the rare cases like me who has a very loving and supportive family, friends, and so on while some of my family didnt particularly like that i came out as an atheist eventually, they respect my choice of beleif (or lack thereof) and they dont view me as some black sheep of the extended family they may be a bit uncomfortable and some of them may even think im going to hell but they allow me to have my beleifs without causing me trouble and they still respect and welcome me whenever i go to Illinois for holidays to see them but i know alot of atheists are not so lucky in terms of family/friends and its sad when i see someone who just desires to be honest and open with people get so heavily alienated to the point of pure rejection by both family AND friends but we can blame such horrible things on religion...religion is what inspires such blind hatred that is what makes people do those kinds of things
Maybe not much has changed with the IQ or intelligence levels. Could it be we are much more exposed to groups that normally the wider public didn´t hear from in the past ? With the communication age a kind of social Apartheid is lessened.
Someone obviously made this email intentionally stupid. No one living in the first world is this stupid. I mean come on, it's an email so you obviously wrote it on a computer, could you not run it through an auto-correct?
No need, after finding a guy named thunderfoot on youtube and watching his,"why people laugh at creationist" series, I lost hope in christian intelligence.
+Imma Liberal even beyond religion some people are just plain stupid, of course religion isnt helping anything and indoctrinates people at a young and very impressionable age to be stupid for most if not all of the rest of their lives me? i was a practicing christian till i was almost 17...then i began to have doubts and we can thank christianity for that, i saw how terrible people claiming to be "christians" were treating others and my own sense of morality kicked in and said "you know pal, you probably shouldnt support these fuckers by being a member of their religion, their going harassing and harming others while claiming to be the good guys and doing the work of god" so after a good deal of self-reflection to make sure i was ok with the decision...i left my faith behind, and i am infinitely happier today than i was 10 years ago, ive also had the joy of discovering there is no evidence for a god existing :P but i digress - alot of people fall victim to religious views making them stupid and only a very small percentage of them have enough of a spark of skepticism to out-grow such ridiculous things
@drche420 "This adaptation is unique because of our need to communicate complex ideas." No. The voice box is not necessarily FOR speech. We only began to speak long after its development. All animals have varying sound-making abilities. Birds' abilities are far more complex than our own. (Some birds can easily imitate any sound they hear.) We are simply lucky to have a sound-maker that can do enough to allow easy distinction between several different sounds. ...
This letter is most likely written by a troll. I know people can be that stupid, but if they are, I don't think they'd take the time to write into this show.
A line can be a wave, a wave can make a circle, and to go around a square means you when around something which is a circle, still started from a dot to start the line.
@YesYou123333 That's really cute seeing as I love and accepted god up until age 11, where I had my first doubt, never enacted upon it until 12, in which I asked him sincerely to show himself or give me a sign of his existence or something. In which I then experimented with religion and found only 1 that was decent. Buddhism, WHICH LACKS A FUCKING GOD!
@TheViking007 Btw, multi-posting o.O? Are you suggesting I have multiple desktops and i'm typing on multiple ones at the same time, seems rather hard since I have 2 hands and not 8. I do have multiple desktops. but they're all on 1 screen and I can only view one at a time, but I can switch between them. Linux OS's + Compiz ftw. Not going to tell you which OS i'm on right now. Oh well I'll tell you. Debian lenny 5.0.6
Right. My emphasis was on the fusion, not the atheism. The problem being that egalitarianism is just as incompatible with sociobiology as creationism is. Neither theism nor atheism inherently breeds ignorance. The human tendency to narrow labyrinthine philosophical positions into surface-skimming "teams" is the root of ignorance. I used evolution as an example because it makes it so apparent how neither "team" is really in touch with science. Both pick the parts they like/ignore the rest.
I don't believe for one minute the author of the email is a scientist but to be fair, my brother is an engineer (very smart) and his grammar in emails is horrendous.
Evoloution is a gradual change in spiecies or animals, the chicken is believed to be a descendant from an Archaeopteryx or similar, which lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Over said years, there would be plenty of time for evoloution to take place. An Archaeopteryx did not just lay a chicken egg a million years ago, it would slowly change so for example one may have slightly smaller legs, it would then lay eggs that have smaller legs, and so on. You see the pattern there.
Someone once said something along the lines of "An educated man is one who knows the extent of his own ignorance". This chap does not qualify... big style.
Every time a chicken lays an egg, the offspring is something slightly different than the parent, just as you are slightly different from your parents. Should there be a difference that gives the new chicken a survival advantage, it is likely pass on those traits to many offspring, while others don't. Over billions of generations these changes add up. If you go to a tanning booth - you go in white, come out brown. You have no pictures of you 1/2 way there - is brown you not related to white you?
You're talking about the start on time axis, not the space axis. And yes, the ring has a start on time axis. But where would his start be in space? The answer would be always relative I think. Now imagine the continuum of spacetime is bent in such a way that there exists an object that is like a ring on time axis. Kind of like a time loop. Where (or when) would that object's start be?
When you actually attempt to perceive things outside of our human notions. It begins to feel like you're on an acid trip. Where everything in life is just a preconceived dream and that the reality is we do not exist outside of this dream. Amazing what fear of the unknown can truly cause our race to do. When we attempt to run from the madness instead of fight it, we find ourselves falling deeper into the madness, yet if we simply turn to fight, we find the madness no longer exists.
@baby I know the "big bang" wasn't an explosion, it was just a rapid expansion. As for other theories that "don't have evidence", let's look at gravity. The constant in gravity is what the theory tries to explain using the observable evidence but the actual constant is an unprovable assumption. Science can not show that gravity has always been or will always be the same. Another is the special theory of relativity in regards to the speed of light from point A - point B is constant, another unp
I know this video is really old, but this is my first time seeing it. Is there any way you could post this letter - as it is written - in the video description, or at least in a comment? I would really like to read this letter all the way through. Has this person ever contacted the show again?
@a10miletooth Exactly, I couldn't agree more with you that the majority of the people calling in are not people like the person writing the letter. Most are inteligent people for the most part. But if that is true, as you plainly admit, then there is no reason for them to have read that letter because they have other options concisting of inteligent people. The fact that they didn't illustrates my point.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT Exodus 21:2-6 NLT Exodus 21:7-11 NLT Exodus 21:20-21 NAB 1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT (this one's particularly heinous) Luke 12:47-48 NLT Matthew 5:18-19 RSV (Jesus saying the old testament still stands. Matthew 5:17 NAB (same thing) Do you know your own Bible?
Ok, here we go: It is highly probable that having nothing, (No spatial or temporal dimensions, no fields, and no energy) is an absurdly unstable condition for existence to be in. So, in order to reach a more stable state, dimensions, matter and energy form. Although the sum of energy before and after is 0, so no physical laws are violated. This is one very cogent and mathematically airtight (but by no means proven) explanation for the spontaneous generation of a universe.
>>There haven't been any fossils found of animals in a transitional state. >[2008 Oct] Univ. of Chicago: Tiktaalik’s internal anatomy explains evolutionary shift from water to land You have no idea what you're talking about.
My argument is there has to be something before the big bang. Nothing before an expansion of something is illogical. I never said God was just a heart. I was explaining God was the something the big bang occurred.
@drche420 ...cont: Improvisation is a huge factor in evolution. My favorite example is feathers. They were first evolved as insulation... like fur. However, some smaller feathered animals later began using them to glide short distances. It turned out to be a big help in survival, and started those animals on the road to sophisticated flight.
You know what I meant, of course they are not Real, but it is something at the time that seems real. It visually is seen, might not be touchable but it is acknowledgeable.
@TheViking007 And to go one step further upon what I stated, the teaching of children too young to truly understand what they're being taught, and then backing up what you've stated with a threat, in other words hell, is a dogmatic control pattern. How you could honestly sit here and state that you'd support the teaching of theism is beyond ridiculous. Because theism is something you learn when you're too young to oppose it.
@Microtardz Look at it this way. If your father were to have two chemicals. He sets them on his garage bench. He doesn't want you to touch them because he is afraid you might mix them and get burned. Now, no matter how much he loves you, that will not stop the chemicals from exploding if you mix them. The chemicals don't explode because they don't want you to touch them. They explode because that is what happens when you mix them.
@Microtardz or the fact that rain would have to fall at at least 11 feet an hour (for fourty days) to reach the mountain the ark supposedly landed on (forgot the name) not a whole lot of things would last against that. if you are having trouble visualizing that, then the highest rainfall in an hour in recorded history is 1.3 feet. and that 11f/h figure is very conservative.
@samaroo96 Actually, crows (and some other birds) have fairly complex language and use different dialects in different areas. And a parrot taught to speak a human language will sometimes make up its own words and include them in its speech. Apes can use language, but they don't have the right anatomy to be able to actually speak using complex sounds. If their anatomy was different, they would use speech like we do. But complex language is largely unnecessary for survival.
Actually, I am a right-wing/conservative atheist myself, so I'm not at all saying atheist = left-wing. I'm just pointing out that very few people hold honest scientific or religious or political beliefs they've done first-hand research on. Most people just fall in line with "their side" on every issue. I do have diverse ancestry but it would be pretty pathetic of me to ignore scientific fact just because of my personal situation. That's the difference between me and most people I guess.
Well all in all, its like Chinese whispers. 2000 years and more is too far back to understand what originally happened. As an agnostic atheist i dont accept the supernatural claims, but it would be interesting to know how it really started.
A civilization is a population of informed species. We didn't create one, we are one. We had the intelligence to put people on the moon, we didn't create the intelligence to do so. We were just as complex in the beginning as we are now. We have learned a lot as a civilization but that doesn't mean we were simple.
I found his big bang theory with asteroids banging into eachother a more plausible explanation of an effect (big bang) than what I'm hearing from the scientific community, nothing (we know) banged into nothing (we know) and created everything (we know). The only proper way to formulate the big bang theory is to say that always existing energy is the cause of the big bang, always existing energy does not have a beginning, therefore does not have to come into existence from another cause.
@pissed7off The difference between how fundamentalists and atheists proselytize is that the atheists don't threaten you with hell, bribe you with heaven, or appeal to your emotions. I agree that it can be impolite to try and convince people that their world view is completely wrong, but i think its safe to say that in terms of being insulting, fundies lead the pack
He uses very basic physics, physics even I, a student of it for only 3 years, understand. You don't get something from nothing. Energy is conserved in the creation of a universe. We can't get nothing in this universe to disprove this hypothesis, because of the matter in this universe, there are electromagnetic and gravitational fields everywhere. But we've gotten close to nothing, and all the predictions still hold up. So either you haven't seen the talk, or you didn't understand it.
since you brought up fossils, can you then give me a link to a picture of a fossil that was found that preceded the chicken and where most evolutionists (I'm already making it more easy, they should really be in agreement if it's proper science) agree that this was the animal that evolved into the chicken? Or how about just a name for that animal? I can google myself.
What if we are? What if there are gods, and an afterlife? Who says that the gods reward belief? Why is a god that rewards belief more likely than a god that punishes belief, or especially one utterly indifferent? The former is seen in religious texts, but the clear motivation for religious texts to claim this cancels out any increased odds from that, given their general unreliability on testable matters.
I read your comment and I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you sarcastic? Please be more clear when writing next time. I will address your comment as I understand it: -If people worry about their future, how does that prove a god or gods exist? -The big bang theory "rules" because it is the most current scientific explanation for how the universe in its current form came to be.
@giovanone: Useless intellect? You would dismiss the greatest gift your deity would have given you. And the arrogance to assume you're going in the right direction solely because it makes you feel good. Have you heard of the deadly sin of pride?
@meaninter03 and yes The Old testament still stands as Jesus came to fulfill it but he gave us another set of instructions. I believe his last command was "Love one another as I have loved You"
@xESOTERlC I never disagreed with you, I actually agree with you. Was just pointing out that just because he might have the wrong idea on atheism, does not devalue his other perspectives.
"Is there not faith that your wife will be faithful to you?" No...you would 'trust' that your wife will be faithful to you based on evidence. This contrasts with a religious faith that is a belief in god or in the doctrines of a religion, in the absence of evidence.
@Microtardz ha your comment wasn't up when i finished typing. also, do you know what thunderf00t decided to call himself? i believe that it was pearlist. i think he developed that term because of people like vik. @TheViking007 you can also use the term pearlist to describe me, since you seem to be confused by what atheist means.
I think it's incorrect to call the three main monotheisms today to be worshiping this Thoth character. Maybe the Jewish god was inspired by some of the traits of Thoth, but probably was an amalgam of several mythologies too and eventually developed into an original character. But I agree that religion is often used as a tool for people manipulate the masses and climb to positions of power. That's why I feel it's important for my country to remain secular.
I'm a scientist? No scientist says that. They would say I am an astrophysicist, or I am a biologist or a chemist. This is a person who doesn't even understand enough about science to know that.
" God is the impact of two asteroids". That's hysterical
yours sincerely - ken ham
tony sales 😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 perfect! Love it
Taking a science class in middle school does not make you a scientist.
It's the best theists have.
John Swanson. I am a degreed scientist and graduate of a major university and a staunch believer in God and Christ . How would you account for that? And I know many PHD who believe the same.
Badger dog *John Swanson. I am a degreed scientist and graduate of a major university and a staunch believer in God and Christ . How would you account for that? And I know many PhD who believe the same.*
Your worldview has little to do do with your science, Badger dog.
Your belief in a god figure has no place in the lab, as you well know, so which question are you asking here?
Kenneth R. Miller, a well-known and highly respected biology professor from Brown University fought against (and defeated) the concept of Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial of 2004.
He is a devout Roman Catholic.
Francis Collins, who is the head of the NIH, stated that the DNA evidence alone supports not only evolution, but common ancestry.
He is an evangelical Christian.
Neither man's belief in Christ has an effect on, nor plays a role in, their work in the field of science.
If you are indeed a trained scientist (as I am, though long retired), you would know that within the actual field of science, these two very distinct boundaries never cross.
So, I do not understand the chest beating here.
We both know there is no such thing as "Christian Science," only scientists who practice Christianity (and Islam, and Hinduism, and Janism, and Judaism, etc.)
Also, attaining a PhD, as I am sure you will agree, requires nothing more than time and dedication.
Having a PhD does not mean that your IQ is substantially higher than those without, nor does it mean that anything and everything you say is true and accurate (quite the contrary.)
As scientists, we are also acutely aware that it is the evidence and the information that speaks; that which can be demonstrable and repeatable.
Not "our opinion."
By the way, I am an atheist, who was once a Christian.
How do you account for that, and should it mean anything?
Also, please define what you mean when you say, "many."
Thanks.
***** *+Badger dog Yes Badge, but even in conversations with you, I think you are a better scientist than this guy.*
How can you tell? Are you a peer? Have you examined the scientific papers of both scientists? Had you, would this not simply be your personal opinion, a subjective rather than universal one?
Of what worth and relevance is your opinion, here?
***** *+Michael Dobson Badge knows how to spell and how to speak English correctly. Plus I gotta admit I kinda the Badge even though we disagree.*
I must agree that the proper usage of grammar and spelling seems lost on the "Internet" generation (combined with terrible anger management skills.)
I, too, have been guilty of calling people on their abysmal writing skills (mostly out of frustration) regardless of whether I get what they are trying to say, or not.
There are many in the theistic community with which whom I have come to have much respect due to their learned and mature approach to debate/discussion/engagement.
I have little time, nor patience for those on either side who cannot conduct themselves as an adult, or who's argument begins and ends with ad hominem.
A pleasure speaking with you, Tatesa Spirit.
"If Big Bang is correct then God is two asteroids." I want that on a t-shirt...
”You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.” - Ayn Rand
Moldred T. Malcontent I generally think Rand is a rationalizing, ignorant, self-aggrandizing load of *!#$&% (look at Patheos’ Daylight Atheism’s knockdown of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead), but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Dear Christian who wrote this letter,
Your god told you not to lie.
+Estragon17 unless he is Muslim then they can lie...
+Father Joe Why do some people use three periods at the end of a sentence?
Vince Baker
To be continued.........
Father Joe The three periods means to be continued?
Vince Baker
Yes some times or there is more to say about the subject but it is a good stopping point.
Slang kind of.
I think this E-mail is from Bill O'Reilly.
Naww... He didn't mention the moon or the tides.
Or from his mother.
And he didn't call them pinheads or loons.
aha ha ha! Tides come in.... tides go out - I'm a scientist and I can't explain that! :))
gspendlove and he also did not say SHUT UP.
the DNA splattered throughout the universe obviously refers to the second coming of the lord
How? The only thing that's obvious to me is that this 'scientist' was home-schooled by a moron. How does DNA refer to the Biblical messiah?
ok, it seems my attempt at a mocking humourous pun has failed.
bfk1970
That is because no matter how ridiculous you try to seem, there is a crazy that is as far out that way or farther. POE's law is a bitch:
"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing"
from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
lol
bfk1970 Ah, sorry. Obviously, I believed you were being serious. The problem is, that there are many people on RUclips who make comments THAT stupid, so I just assumed you were one of them.
Sorry about that.
I is scienist.
I be one too.
maybe he is a "creationist scientist"? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Writer: "I m siuntis, not uh -inglishmajor- atheiss
the Gusle, chapter one and only:
1:1 - All hail Gus, the Invisible Cosmic Bunnyrabbit;
1:2 - the one true creator of the [original] two asteroids;
1:3 - the collider and collision, who slammeth 'em together and created all!
1:4 - Hop along in his invisible path and be saved!!
1:5 - All other asteroid collisions are untrue, as they only result in smaller bangs?? 1:6 - FACT -> EVIDENCE -> PROOF -> TRUTH -> GUSLE -> FACT
1:7 - Gus, out!!!
"We worry about your children and their future!"
The interesting thing here is that in 'science' you have to learn how to write papers. You lose marks for punctuation, spelling, grammar, not to mention incomprehensible sentences. If someone so lacking in literary skills were to somehow be accepted into a university, they would never make it past the first semester of the first year.
If the writer of that was a scientist, then anyone who's graduated first grade is a scientist.
I believe this is actually a young kid, due to the the exclamation points and the mix up between your and you're as well as some other points. I sure the kid decided that that he/she could claim to to be a scientist, and thought he was going to convert all the atheists that see this. I heard the two asteroids(big bang) during a news special on Evangelist home school children when a mom was "teaching" her children that is scientists explain the being of the universe.
The person that wrote that letter is certainly no scientist.
He clearly got his science credentials from Tijuana University
I think it was one of those fake internet Universities where you send them £50 and they send you a diploma myself.
HAHAHAHA!!!
The writer just got his one way ticket to Crazy Town.
A clear demonstration of what religious Ignorance can do to a person.
Its not fair for them to mock the cosmic bunny rabbit, Gus" when he is not there to defend himself.
Don't be silly, Gus is everywhere
Its probably sunderboot.
Can anyone else imagine Mac from It's Always Sunny writing this?
Was it written in crayon ?
I wish I could see the reaction of this guy as they tore his email apart.
Bible "scientist". Like how Hovind is a Dr.
I have literally watched this video at least 5 times and I do so because it never fails to make me lmao.
This was equal parts entertaining and headache inducing.
LOOOOVE YOUR PROFILE PIC
“Let’s just bask in that visual, folks” I died laughing
I'm sorry everyone that was my drunk uncle at Thanksgiving I assure you he is no scientist but claims to be one because 20 years ago he was a substitute teacher for a science class at my middle school and this is what I have had to listen too ever since. My idiot cousin taught him how to use email.
I hear Slaves would like to enjoy their Freedom, so why not break away from the shackles of Religion!
Silverripples The only difference is that if your ancestors were slaves they were forced to be so and wanted freedom, whereas the religious are willing slaves who view freedom as blasphemy.
Mr. Vincini If you study history, people were actually forced into believing. Otherwise there could be severe punishment. Remember any stories about inquisitions or the likes of that?
My apologies I didn't mean to seem snide. You are correct on both points and I was agreeing with you. I merely meant that people today in most modern cultures have a choice and they still choose to believe religious claims blindly, that's all.
+Mr. Vincini Yes, and their choice is STILL believe or be alienated from your friends, family, and wider social circle.
+Estragon17 pretty much....unless your 1 of the rare cases like me who has a very loving and supportive family, friends, and so on
while some of my family didnt particularly like that i came out as an atheist eventually, they respect my choice of beleif (or lack thereof) and they dont view me as some black sheep of the extended family
they may be a bit uncomfortable and some of them may even think im going to hell but they allow me to have my beleifs without causing me trouble and they still respect and welcome me whenever i go to Illinois for holidays to see them
but i know alot of atheists are not so lucky in terms of family/friends and its sad when i see someone who just desires to be honest and open with people get so heavily alienated to the point of pure rejection by both family AND friends
but we can blame such horrible things on religion...religion is what inspires such blind hatred that is what makes people do those kinds of things
Maybe not much has changed with the IQ or intelligence levels. Could it be we are much more exposed to groups that normally the wider public didn´t hear from in the past ? With the communication age a kind of social Apartheid is lessened.
Precisely. This is often the case.
Someone obviously made this email intentionally stupid. No one living in the first world is this stupid. I mean come on, it's an email so you obviously wrote it on a computer, could you not run it through an auto-correct?
No need, after finding a guy named thunderfoot on youtube and watching his,"why people laugh at creationist" series, I lost hope in christian intelligence.
Imma Liberal Oh you'd be surprised on how retarded people can be.
+Imma Liberal Yes, there are people that stupid.
+Imma Liberal even beyond religion some people are just plain stupid, of course religion isnt helping anything and indoctrinates people at a young and very impressionable age to be stupid for most if not all of the rest of their lives
me? i was a practicing christian till i was almost 17...then i began to have doubts and we can thank christianity for that, i saw how terrible people claiming to be "christians" were treating others and my own sense of morality kicked in and said "you know pal, you probably shouldnt support these fuckers by being a member of their religion, their going harassing and harming others while claiming to be the good guys and doing the work of god"
so after a good deal of self-reflection to make sure i was ok with the decision...i left my faith behind, and i am infinitely happier today than i was 10 years ago, ive also had the joy of discovering there is no evidence for a god existing :P
but i digress - alot of people fall victim to religious views making them stupid and only a very small percentage of them have enough of a spark of skepticism to out-grow such ridiculous things
+Imma Liberal I am a high school teacher. I have gotten papers that are about this caliber in my science classes.
He meant Scientologist...
He is a homeeducated scientist!
Who ever wrote this not too good on English or simply a five year old.
I’ll tell you one thing he’s not that would be an English major or a philosopher.
@drche420 "This adaptation is unique because of our need to communicate complex ideas."
No. The voice box is not necessarily FOR speech. We only began to speak long after its development. All animals have varying sound-making abilities. Birds' abilities are far more complex than our own. (Some birds can easily imitate any sound they hear.) We are simply lucky to have a sound-maker that can do enough to allow easy distinction between several different sounds.
...
This letter is most likely written by a troll. I know people can be that stupid, but if they are, I don't think they'd take the time to write into this show.
I will definitely assume that god doesn't exist because it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
A line can be a wave, a wave can make a circle, and to go around a square means you when around something which is a circle, still started from a dot to start the line.
@YesYou123333 That's really cute seeing as I love and accepted god up until age 11, where I had my first doubt, never enacted upon it until 12, in which I asked him sincerely to show himself or give me a sign of his existence or something. In which I then experimented with religion and found only 1 that was decent.
Buddhism, WHICH LACKS A FUCKING GOD!
This what happens when you mix alcohol with fundamentalist religion.... and then top it off with Jethro Bodine's 6th grade education.
@TheViking007 Btw, multi-posting o.O? Are you suggesting I have multiple desktops and i'm typing on multiple ones at the same time, seems rather hard since I have 2 hands and not 8.
I do have multiple desktops. but they're all on 1 screen and I can only view one at a time, but I can switch between them.
Linux OS's + Compiz ftw.
Not going to tell you which OS i'm on right now.
Oh well I'll tell you. Debian lenny 5.0.6
Ahhh...... The results of christian home schooling .
its hard to say because "scientist" is such a broad term for physicists, chemists, biologists etc
Right. My emphasis was on the fusion, not the atheism. The problem being that egalitarianism is just as incompatible with sociobiology as creationism is.
Neither theism nor atheism inherently breeds ignorance. The human tendency to narrow labyrinthine philosophical positions into surface-skimming "teams" is the root of ignorance. I used evolution as an example because it makes it so apparent how neither "team" is really in touch with science. Both pick the parts they like/ignore the rest.
Is this show still on the air? And if so, where can I watch it?
+Matthew Hughes Thank you. I will look for it.
I don't believe for one minute the author of the email is a scientist but to be fair, my brother is an engineer (very smart) and his grammar in emails is horrendous.
A scientist needs to be able to write scientific papers in order to explain their findings . This man is no scientist .
Evoloution is a gradual change in spiecies or animals, the chicken is believed to be a descendant from an Archaeopteryx or similar, which lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Over said years, there would be plenty of time for evoloution to take place. An Archaeopteryx did not just lay a chicken egg a million years ago, it would slowly change so for example one may have slightly smaller legs, it would then lay eggs that have smaller legs, and so on. You see the pattern there.
Someone once said something along the lines of "An educated man is one who knows the extent of his own ignorance". This chap does not qualify... big style.
Every time a chicken lays an egg, the offspring is something slightly different than the parent, just as you are slightly different from your parents. Should there be a difference that gives the new chicken a survival advantage, it is likely pass on those traits to many offspring, while others don't. Over billions of generations these changes add up. If you go to a tanning booth - you go in white, come out brown. You have no pictures of you 1/2 way there - is brown you not related to white you?
You're talking about the start on time axis, not the space axis. And yes, the ring has a start on time axis. But where would his start be in space? The answer would be always relative I think. Now imagine the continuum of spacetime is bent in such a way that there exists an object that is like a ring on time axis. Kind of like a time loop. Where (or when) would that object's start be?
When you actually attempt to perceive things outside of our human notions. It begins to feel like you're on an acid trip. Where everything in life is just a preconceived dream and that the reality is we do not exist outside of this dream.
Amazing what fear of the unknown can truly cause our race to do.
When we attempt to run from the madness instead of fight it, we find ourselves falling deeper into the madness, yet if we simply turn to fight, we find the madness no longer exists.
Instead of scientist, I think he meant science-less.
@baby
I know the "big bang" wasn't an explosion, it was just a rapid expansion. As for other theories that "don't have evidence", let's look at gravity. The constant in gravity is what the theory tries to explain using the observable evidence but the actual constant is an unprovable assumption. Science can not show that gravity has always been or will always be the same. Another is the special theory of relativity in regards to the speed of light from point A - point B is constant, another unp
I know this video is really old, but this is my first time seeing it. Is there any way you could post this letter - as it is written - in the video description, or at least in a comment? I would really like to read this letter all the way through.
Has this person ever contacted the show again?
Trillionth ^2? Well it could have been 2^Trillion. Now that would be a splatter!
@a10miletooth Exactly, I couldn't agree more with you that the majority of the people calling in are not people like the person writing the letter. Most are inteligent people for the most part. But if that is true, as you plainly admit, then there is no reason for them to have read that letter because they have other options concisting of inteligent people. The fact that they didn't illustrates my point.
That doesn't sound like any history or religion that I've heard of. Where did you get all that from?
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
Exodus 21:7-11 NLT
Exodus 21:20-21 NAB
1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT (this one's particularly heinous)
Luke 12:47-48 NLT
Matthew 5:18-19 RSV (Jesus saying the old testament still stands.
Matthew 5:17 NAB (same thing)
Do you know your own Bible?
Ok, here we go:
It is highly probable that having nothing, (No spatial or temporal dimensions, no fields, and no energy) is an absurdly unstable condition for existence to be in. So, in order to reach a more stable state, dimensions, matter and energy form. Although the sum of energy before and after is 0, so no physical laws are violated. This is one very cogent and mathematically airtight (but by no means proven) explanation for the spontaneous generation of a universe.
He graduated top of his class from 'Sintist Cawlej'.
>>There haven't been any fossils found of animals in a transitional state.
>[2008 Oct] Univ. of Chicago: Tiktaalik’s internal anatomy explains evolutionary shift from water to land
You have no idea what you're talking about.
it's pretty clear to me the writer of the email was a troll. surprised they even gave him the air time.
My argument is there has to be something before the big bang. Nothing before an expansion of something is illogical. I never said God was just a heart. I was explaining God was the something the big bang occurred.
@drche420
...cont:
Improvisation is a huge factor in evolution. My favorite example is feathers. They were first evolved as insulation... like fur. However, some smaller feathered animals later began using them to glide short distances. It turned out to be a big help in survival, and started those animals on the road to sophisticated flight.
You know what I meant, of course they are not Real, but it is something at the time that seems real. It visually is seen, might not be touchable but it is acknowledgeable.
@TheViking007 And to go one step further upon what I stated, the teaching of children too young to truly understand what they're being taught, and then backing up what you've stated with a threat, in other words hell, is a dogmatic control pattern.
How you could honestly sit here and state that you'd support the teaching of theism is beyond ridiculous. Because theism is something you learn when you're too young to oppose it.
@Microtardz Look at it this way. If your father were to have two chemicals. He sets them on his garage bench. He doesn't want you to touch them because he is afraid you might mix them and get burned. Now, no matter how much he loves you, that will not stop the chemicals from exploding if you mix them. The chemicals don't explode because they don't want you to touch them. They explode because that is what happens when you mix them.
@Microtardz or the fact that rain would have to fall at at least 11 feet an hour (for fourty days) to reach the mountain the ark supposedly landed on (forgot the name) not a whole lot of things would last against that. if you are having trouble visualizing that, then the highest rainfall in an hour in recorded history is 1.3 feet. and that 11f/h figure is very conservative.
@samaroo96 Actually, crows (and some other birds) have fairly complex language and use different dialects in different areas.
And a parrot taught to speak a human language will sometimes make up its own words and include them in its speech.
Apes can use language, but they don't have the right anatomy to be able to actually speak using complex sounds. If their anatomy was different, they would use speech like we do.
But complex language is largely unnecessary for survival.
Actually, I am a right-wing/conservative atheist myself, so I'm not at all saying atheist = left-wing.
I'm just pointing out that very few people hold honest scientific or religious or political beliefs they've done first-hand research on. Most people just fall in line with "their side" on every issue.
I do have diverse ancestry but it would be pretty pathetic of me to ignore scientific fact just because of my personal situation. That's the difference between me and most people I guess.
Well all in all, its like Chinese whispers. 2000 years and more is too far back to understand what originally happened. As an agnostic atheist i dont accept the supernatural claims, but it would be interesting to know how it really started.
8:00 The pure beauty in this sentence is just outstanding !
A civilization is a population of informed species. We didn't create one, we are one. We had the intelligence to put people on the moon, we didn't create the intelligence to do so. We were just as complex in the beginning as we are now. We have learned a lot as a civilization but that doesn't mean we were simple.
......oh man.
off topic what was the song opening and closing
this guy is a scientist in science science.
Is it just me, or does anyone else wish they would use London Calling for the show intro instead of the other songs...
I found his big bang theory with asteroids banging into eachother a more plausible explanation of an effect (big bang) than what I'm hearing from the scientific community, nothing (we know) banged into nothing (we know) and created everything (we know). The only proper way to formulate the big bang theory is to say that always existing energy is the cause of the big bang, always existing energy does not have a beginning, therefore does not have to come into existence from another cause.
@pissed7off The difference between how fundamentalists and atheists proselytize is that the atheists don't threaten you with hell, bribe you with heaven, or appeal to your emotions. I agree that it can be impolite to try and convince people that their world view is completely wrong, but i think its safe to say that in terms of being insulting, fundies lead the pack
He uses very basic physics, physics even I, a student of it for only 3 years, understand. You don't get something from nothing. Energy is conserved in the creation of a universe. We can't get nothing in this universe to disprove this hypothesis, because of the matter in this universe, there are electromagnetic and gravitational fields everywhere. But we've gotten close to nothing, and all the predictions still hold up. So either you haven't seen the talk, or you didn't understand it.
@Microtardz there was actually someone who beat red with a magikarp. pretty cool. and whats UT?
since you brought up fossils, can you then give me a link to a picture of a fossil that was found that preceded the chicken and where most evolutionists (I'm already making it more easy, they should really be in agreement if it's proper science) agree that this was the animal that evolved into the chicken?
Or how about just a name for that animal? I can google myself.
I accept that things are non-existent until proven existent.
what's the name of the song at the opening?
love your videos man. keep it up!
Got any evidence for that?
I've done my part to splatter DNA through-out the universe, though I can't really splatter it that FAR.
I'm sure Jesus would have called me a maggot as well! Keep up the good work!
“Let the little maggots come to me”
What if we are? What if there are gods, and an afterlife? Who says that the gods reward belief? Why is a god that rewards belief more likely than a god that punishes belief, or especially one utterly indifferent? The former is seen in religious texts, but the clear motivation for religious texts to claim this cancels out any increased odds from that, given their general unreliability on testable matters.
I read your comment and I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you sarcastic? Please be more clear when writing next time.
I will address your comment as I understand it:
-If people worry about their future, how does that prove a god or gods exist?
-The big bang theory "rules" because it is the most current scientific explanation for how the universe in its current form came to be.
@giovanone: Useless intellect? You would dismiss the greatest gift your deity would have given you. And the arrogance to assume you're going in the right direction solely because it makes you feel good. Have you heard of the deadly sin of pride?
@meaninter03 and yes The Old testament still stands as Jesus came to fulfill it but he gave us another set of instructions. I believe his last command was "Love one another as I have loved You"
@xESOTERlC I never disagreed with you, I actually agree with you. Was just pointing out that just because he might have the wrong idea on atheism, does not devalue his other perspectives.
"Is there not faith that your wife will be faithful to you?" No...you would 'trust' that your wife will be faithful to you based on evidence. This contrasts with a religious faith that is a belief in god or in the doctrines of a religion, in the absence of evidence.
@Microtardz ha your comment wasn't up when i finished typing. also, do you know what thunderf00t decided to call himself? i believe that it was pearlist. i think he developed that term because of people like vik.
@TheViking007 you can also use the term pearlist to describe me, since you seem to be confused by what atheist means.
but proof is knowing, replicable experimentation is knowing, SCIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE
I think it's incorrect to call the three main monotheisms today to be worshiping this Thoth character. Maybe the Jewish god was inspired by some of the traits of Thoth, but probably was an amalgam of several mythologies too and eventually developed into an original character.
But I agree that religion is often used as a tool for people manipulate the masses and climb to positions of power. That's why I feel it's important for my country to remain secular.
I want to read one of this e-mailer's science papers - I might need fresh underwear , afterwards, however :))